HomeMy WebLinkAboutBefore the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Draft Application for License for a Major Water Power Project, 5 MW or Less Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project 1993~
~ 1>
r = 1> -Ul == " W~ 1> 0 == .C>!!!'!!!!!!!!!!! ;0 m== m m= Ul O~ 0 O~ C 0 = ;0 m= () -.J = m <0= Ul <0== ~!!!'!!!!!!!!!!! r
f'0 == .....
CIl
~ ;0
= 1>
;0 == -<
~
CHECK FOR 1.. f}1O\PS
I
IN -=..b.....;:O\..=-c........:..K --+-fJo::.....;:c-.....:..K....::;..e....;...../
April 1993
..
Trlhey &
Assoclat~
Environmenta
December 14, 1993
Ms. Linda Tobiska
Public Review Desk
Anchorage Resuurces Library
222 W. 7th A VeLlUe
Anchorage, AK 99513
Dear Ms. Tobiska:
RE: Draft License Appl icatillO
Leanne Lake' Hydl"llelectrk Project
Kodiak Island, Alaska
4180 Treat Blvd., Suite N
Concord, CA 94518
(510) 68~8822
(510) 68~8874 FAX
Enclosed for yuur review .lIld comment are two cllpies llf the draft license application for the proposed
Leanne Lake Hydruelectric Pruject. The draft Ikense applicatiun has been prepared by Trihey &
Associates, Inc. on behalf uf the project applicant. Kudiak Ekdric Association (KEA). The proposed
project is classitied by the FERC as a majur water power project, 5 MW or less. The draft license
application is comprised of exhibits A, E, F, and G.
Although the draft iicc'nse application was prep.lred in April 1993, it was not distributed to your office
or other resuun.:e agencies lIntil the KEA ~uard lit" Directors completed their review of the project and
approved transmittal uf thi~ Ikense appJic'ltion. We are requesting the resource agencies to review,
and pfllvide written cullll1lc'nts lJll, the draft lic;)n.' .. e applicatiun within the 90-day period allotted by the
FERC. Please direct yuur comments to M itcbe' I Karze!, Project Manager (address and telephone on
letter head), I)r tll Di.me i-\)tlinger, Liaislln Oflicer, at 13626 Main Street, Bellevue, W A 98005;
(206)643-6776. Fur yllllr inturmation, we have anached a complete license application distribution
list. We luok fllrward tll j'lllll' review and L·ul1ll1lents.
Sincerely,
7fr~: P;~TES ~
~ ~itcheJJ Katze! . ~ U Project Manager
Enclosures - 2
010·6.1
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library & Infonnation Setvices
~nch()r(w'e Alaska
cc: Lois D. Cashell, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - 8 copies
Ann Rappoport, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Jay Bellinger, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge
Brad Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service
Heather Dean, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Larry Wright, National Park Service
Larry Reeder, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
David LaMore, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Lance Trasky, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Christopher Estes, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Kim Sunberg, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Pete Probasco, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Roger Smith, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Judith Bittner, Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Rick Thompson, Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Gary Prokosch, Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Tim Rumfelt, Department of Environmental Conservation
Tom Arminiski, Alaska Energy Authority
Janet Meizis, Office of the Governor
Lewis Burton, U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Kodiak Island Borough
City Clerk, City of Port Lions
Jim Carmichael, Afognak Native Corporation
Dave Klein, Audobon Society
Jack Hession, Sierra Club
Doug Miller, National Wildlife Federation
Mary Ellen McCoy, Z.J. Loussac Library - 2 copies
Linda Tobiska, Anchorage Resources Library - 2 copies ~
Barbara Rudio, A. Holmes Johnson Memorial Library - 2 copies
Mike Strzelecki, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -wlo enclosure
Larry Malloy, Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association -wlo enclosure
Calvin Sweeney, Kodiak Audobon Society\-wlo enclosure
Allen Yost, REA -wlo enclosure
Carl Morgan, REA -wlo enclosure
Nural Islam, REA -wlo enclosure
\.
Dave Nease, Kodiak Electric Association - 4 copies
ARLlS ,
AJaskaRt;sources Uhrd\ & lnforrnationServices
Libra!1 iiuik:'ilHl, Suite III
321 i Providence Drive
,\ncrnm\.'!c. AK 995084614
Draft Application for License for Major Water
Power Project, 5 Megawatts or Less
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska
FERC Number 11130-000-A1aska
Kodiak Electric Association
Kodiak, Alaska
April 1993
Prepared For Kodiak Electric Association
Trihey & Associates, Inc.
4180 Treat Boulevard, Suite N
Concord, California 94518
Trihey &
Associates, Inc.
T '/
,~
i'-f;Li
Q A-L,I
Li 3"2-
Iqo~1
Trihey & Associates
E. Woody Trihey, P. E.
Mitchell R. Katzel
N. Diane Pottinger, P. E.
RFB Aquatech, Inc.
Roger Blackett
Greenwood Engineering
Charlie Greenwood, P. E.
Duane Miller & Associates
Duane Miller, P. E.
Bob Dugan
Dick Hensel
Kodiak Area Native Association
Rick Knecht
Jon Issacs & Associates
Jon Issacs
Dryden Instrumentation
James Dryden
Linda Perry Dwight
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Principal-In-Charge
Project Manager, Hydrology
Liaison Officer, Water Quality
Aquatic Resources
Project Design and Engineering
Geology, Geologic Engineering
Geology
Botanical and Wildlife Resources
Archaeology
Socioeconomics, Recreation, Land -Use, Aesthetics
Climatological and Hydrologic Instrumentation
Permits
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INITIAL STATEMENT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
EXIDBIT A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................... A-I
2.0 PURPOSE OF PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4
3.0 PROJECT SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5
3.1 DRAINAGE BASINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8
3.1.1 Leanne Lake Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-lO
3.1.2 No-Name Lake Drainage ........................ A-lO
4.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ................... A-ll
4.1 PROJECT COSTS ................................. A-ll
4.2 MODE OF OPERATION ............................. A-ll
4.3 LEANNE LAKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-15
4.4 NO-NAME LAKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-21
4.5 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-25
4.5.1 Schedule .................................. A-26
4.5.2 Construction Camp/Facilities . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. A-27
EXHIBIT E. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
1.0 PROJECT SETTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION................................ E-1
1.2 LOCATION.................................... E-2
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION .................... E-6
2.0 WATER USE AND WATER QUALITY ...................... E-9
2.1 DRAINAGE BASINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-9
2. 1. 1 Leanne Lake Drainage Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-9
2.1.2 No-Name Lake Drainage Basin .................... E-12
2.2 EXISTING INSTREAM WATER USES .................. E-15
2.3 EXISTING WATER RIGHTS AND OUT-OF-STREAM USES .... E-15
2.4 PROJECT HYDROLOGY ........................... E-15
2.4.1 Precipitation .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-17
2.4.2 Streamflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-20
2.5 WA TER QUALITY ............................. " E-23
2.6 GROUNDWATER IN THE PROJECT VICINITY. . . . . . . . . . .. E-27
2.7 HYDROLOGIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ............. E-28
2.7.1 Construction Impacts ......................... " E-28
2.7.2 Project Operation Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-28
2.8 WATER QUALITY IMPACTS AND MmGATION ........... E-33
2.8.1 Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-33
2.8.2 Project Operation Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-34
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
2.9 AGENCY CONSULTATION ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-34
3.0 GEOLOGIC AND SOIL RESOURCES ....................... E-35
3.1 INTRODUCTION................................ E-35
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGICAL FEATURES ... . . . . . . . . .. E-36
3.3 DESCRIPTION OF SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-39
3.4 GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-40
3.4.1 Bedrock Structure and Stability .................... E-40
3.4.2 Mass Soil Movement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-41
3.4.3 Soil Erosion ................................ E-41
3.4.4 Earthquake Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-42
3.4.5 Volcanism ................................. E-42
3.4.6 Snow Creep and Avalanche. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-43
3.5 IMPACTS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. . . . .. E-43
3.5.1 L.eanne I..ake ................................ E-43
3.5.2 No-Name I..ake .............................. E-46
3.6 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-49
3.6.1 L.eanne I..ake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-49
3.6.2 No-Name I..ake .............................. E-51
4.0 BOTANICAL RESOURCES ...................... . . . . . . .. E-54
4.1 EXISTING CONDmONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-56
4.2 EXISTING INFORMATION AND STUDY MEmODS ........ E-58
4.3 DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION COMMUNITIES .. . . . . . . .. E-59
4.4 IMPACTS TO BOTANICAL RESOURCES ................ E-63
4.5 MmGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-70
4.6 AGENCY CONSULTATION .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-72
5.0 WILDLIFE RESOURCES ............................... E-73
5.1 STUDY METIIODS AND INFORMATION SOURCES. . . . . . . .. E-75
5.2 WILDLIFE SPECIES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-77
5.3 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SENSmVE-SPECIES ... E-94
5.4 PROJECT IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND HABITAT. . . . . . . .. E-95
5.4.1 Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-95
5.4.2 Project Operation Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-99
5.5 MITIGATION MEASURES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-100
5.6 AGENCY CONSULTATION ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-102
6.0 AQUATIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-104
6.1 FISH POPULATION SAMPLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-105
6.2 ESCAPEMENT SURVEYS ......................... E-105
6.3 EAGLE CREEK HABITAT SURVEY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-108
6.4 IMPACTS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES ................. E-ll1
6.4.1 Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-1l1
6.4.2 Project Operation Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-1l6
6.5 MITIGATION MEASURES ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-118
11
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
6.5.1 Mitigation For Construction Impacts ............... .
6.5.2 Mitigation For Operation Impacts ................. .
6.6 AGENCY CONSULTATION ....................... .
SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ........................ .
7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................... .
7.1.1 Introduction .............................. .
7.1.2 Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Project Vicinity ..... .
7.1.3 Subsistence ............................... .
7.1.4 Commercial Fishing and Hunting ................. .
7.2 IMPACTS TO SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES .......... .
7.2.1 Employment and Income Generated by the Project ....... .
7.2.2 Effects on Population Characteristics ............... .
7.2.3 Effects on Housing, Services and Community Infrastructure ..
7.2.4 Effects on the Local Economy ................... .
7.2.5 Effects on Municipal Fiscal Characteristics ........... .
7.2.6 Effects on Subsistence and Commercial Fishing Activities .. .
7.3 MITIGATION MEASURES ........................ .
LAND USE ...................................... .
8.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ....................... .
8.1.1 Introduction .............................. .
8.1.2 Land Ownership and Status ..................... .
8.1.3 Land Use ................................ .
8.1.4 Land Management, Use Regulations, and Planning ...... .
8.2 LAND USE IMPACTS ........................... .
8.2.1 Effects On Land Ownership and Status .............. .
8.2.2 Effects On Land Use ......................... .
8.2.3 Effects On Land Management, Use Regulations, and Planning
8.3 MITIGATION MEASURES ........................ .
8.4 AGENCY CONSULTATION ....................... .
RECREATION RESOURCES ........................... .
9.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ....................... .
9.1.1 Introduction .............................. .
9. 1. 2 Recreation Use Areas ........................ .
9.1.3 Recreational Facilities ........................ .
9.1.4 Recreational Activities ........................ .
9.2 IMPACTS TO RECREATION RESOURCES ............. .
9.2.1 Recreation Use Areas ........................ .
9.2.2 Recreation Facilities ......................... .
9.2.3 Recreation Activities ......................... .
9.3 MmGATION MEASURES ........................ .
AESTHETIC RESOURCES ............................ .
10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................... .
III
E-118
E-119
E-120
E-121
E-121
E-121
E-121
E-128
E-131
E-132
E-133
E-134
E-135
E-136
E-136
E-136
E-138
E-140
E-140
E-140
E-140
E-142
E-142
E-146
E-146
E-148
E-149
E-151
E-151
E-152
E-152
E-152
E-152
E-154
E-155
E-158
E-159
E-160
E-161
E-l64
E-165
E-165
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
10.1.1 Introduction .............................. E-165
10.1.2 Aesthetic Characteristics at the Project Site ........... E-166
10.2 AESTHETIC IMPACTS ........................... E-168
10.2.1 Leanne and No-Name Lakes .................... E-169
10.2.2 Penstock Route ............................ E-169
10.2.3 PowerhouselTransmissionl Access Roads ........... " E-171
10.3 MmGATION MEASURES ........................ E-172
11.0 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . .. E-174
11.1 DESCRIPTION OF DISCOVERY MEASURES. . . . . . . . . . . .. E-174
11.2 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ...... E-174
11.3 DISCOVERY METHODS AND RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION. E-175
11.4 IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ....... " E-176
11.5 MmGA TION ................................. E-176
11.6 AGENCY CONSULTATION ............... . . . . . . . .. E-176
12.0 ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS, DESIGNS, AND ENERGY SOURCES " E-178
12.1 ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS ....................... E-178
12.2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS ......................... E-178
12.3 ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICAL ENERGY SOURCES ........ E-179
12.4 OVERALL IMPACTS OF THE APPLICATION
BEING DENIED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-180
EXHffiIT F. DESIGN DRAWINGS
F-l. Project Vicinity Map
F-2. General Plan
F-3. Intake Facilities
F-4. Penstock Profiles
F-5. Penstock Details
F-6. Powerhouse Sites
F-7. Powerhouse Details
EXHIBIT G. MAPS
G-l. Project Boundaries (Oversize Map)
REFERENCES .............. \I ................. \I .. \I • • • • • .. • .. • .. .. ... R-l
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. AP-l
iv
APPENDIX A.
APPENDIX B.
APPENDIX C.
APPENDIX D.
APPENDIX E.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN ...... AP-A-l
DAILY STAGE AND DISCHARGE DATA,
NO-NAME LAKE ......................... AP-B-l
WATER TEMPERATURE MONITORING DATA ...... AP-C-l
FLORA IN THE KIZHUY AK RIVER DRAINAGE .... AP-D-l
AQUATIC RESOURCES AND FISH STUDIES. . . . . .. AP-E-l
v
LIST OF TABLES
EXHIBIT A.
A2-1. KEA Gross Generation (MWHrs) ........................... A-4
A4-1. Summary of Project Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-13
EXHIBIT E.
E2-1. Precipitation and Streamflow Monitoring Data Summary Statistics
for Water Year 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-16
E2-2. Comparative Monthly Precipitation Averages From Equivalent
Periods of Record (inches) .............................. E-19
E2-3. Water Quality Data for the Leanne Lake Project with Samples Taken
at Proposed Intake and Return Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-26
E4-1. Vegetation Communities of Leanne Lake Project Study Area ......... E-60
E4-2. Vegetation Community Impacts of the Leanne Lake Project .......... E-65
£5-1. Major Vegetation Communities/Groundcover Types Used by
Mountain Goats Ranging Within the Leanne Lake Project
Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-81
£5-2. Brown Bear Habitat Types Within the Leanne Lake Project Study Area . .. E-85
£5-3. Bald Eagle Population in the Leanne Lake Project Study Area. . . . . . . .. E-90
E6-1. Characteristics of Potential Pink Salmon Spawning Areas
in Eagle Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-I1O
E7-1.
E7-2.
E7-3.
E7-4.
Population: Project Vicinity, Kodiak Island Borough, and the State of
Alaska, 1970-1990 ................................. .
Population and Housing Characteristics: 1980 and 1990 .. . . . . . . . . .
Employment Characteristics: Annual Average Employment, 1990,
16 Years and Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Income and Poverty Status in 1989 Dollars: 1990 Census ......... .
E9-1. Public Use of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge for
E-122
E-123
E-124
E-125
Selected Activities: 1987-1990........................... E-154
E9-2. Sport Fishing Catch and Effort on Kodiak Island: 1991 ............ E-157
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
EXHIBIT A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AI-I. Location Map ....................................... A-2
A3-1. Land Ownership ...................................... A-6
A3-2. Location Map of Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project
Facilities Within the Proposed Project Vicinity ................... A-7
A3-3. Drainage Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9
A4-1. Layout of Project Features .............................. A-12
EXHIBIT E. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
E1-1. Project Location Map .................................. E-3
El-2. Land Ownership ...................................... E-4
El-3. Existing Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project
Facilities Within the Proposed Project Vicinity ................... E-5
E2-1. Drainage Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1O
E2-2. Leanne Lake Reservoir Storage -Elevation Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-11
E2-3. No-Name Lake Reservoir Storage -Elevation Curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-11
E2-4. Leanne Lake Outlet/Rolling Rock Creek Longitudinal Profile ......... E-13
E2-5. No-Name Outlet/Eagle Creek Longitudinal Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-14
E2-6. Water Quality, Precipitation, and Thermal Monitoring Stations ........ E-18
E2-7. Annual Hydrograph For No-Name Lake and Leanne Lane Outlets ...... E-22
E2-8. Average Monthly Discharge, No-Name Lake Outlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-24
E2-9. Flow Duration Curve Water Year 1992, No-Name Lake Outlet. . . . . . .. E-25
E3-1. Geologic Strip Map For No-Name Lake Penstock ................ E-37
E3-2. Geologic Strip Map For Leanne Lake Penstock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-38
E3-3. Ground Profiles Along Penstock Routes ....................... E-45
E3-4. Topographic Profile Along Leanne Lake Penstock Alignment ... . . . . .. E-48
E4-1.
E4-1M.
E5-1.
E5-2.
E5-3.
Vegetation Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-55
Vegetation Communities (Oversize Map)
Seasonal Goat Distribution .............................. E-80
Bear Den Site Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-87
Raptor Nesting Sites .................................. E-92
E6-1. No-Name Lake Fish Sampling Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-106
E6-2. Leanne Lake Fish Sampling Locations ...................... E-107
E6-3. Eagle Creek Fish Habitat Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-109
vii
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
E6-4.
E6-5.
E6-6.
E6-7.
Intertidal Section of Eagle Creek at Low Tide, June 19, 1992 ....... .
Intertidal Section of Eagle Creek is Dry on September 24, 1992 ..... .
Dry Streambed of Eagle Creek on September 24, 1992 ........... .
Waterfall Barrier on No-Name Outlet Stream, June 19, 1992 ....... .
EXHIBIT F. DESIGN DRAWINGS
F-l. Project Vicinity Map
F-2. General Plan
F-3. Intake Facilities
F-4. Penstock Profiles
F-5. Penstock Details
F-6. Powerhouse Sites
F-7. Powerhouse Details
EXHIBIT G. MAPS
G-l. Project Boundaries (Oversize Map)
viii
E-112
E-112
E-113
E-113
INITIAL STATEMENT
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION;
APPLICATION FOR LICENSE FOR A MAJOR WATER
POWER PROJECI', 5 MEGA WAITS OR LESS
(1) Kodiak Electric Association applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a new
license for the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project, as described in the attached exhibits. The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has assigned this Project the number 11130-000-
Alaska.
(2) The location of the proposed Project is:
State: Alaska
County: Kodiak Island Borough
Nearby Town:
Body of Water:
Kodiak, 15 miles northeast of the Project
Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake
(3) The exact name, business address, and telephone number of the Applicant is:
Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 787
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
(907) 486-7714
(4) The exact name, business address, and telephone number of the person authorized to act
as agent for the Applicant in this application is:
E. Woody Trihey, P. E.
Principal
Trihey & Associates
P.O. Box 4964
Walnut Creek, California 94596
(510) 689-8822
(5) The Kodiak Electric Association is a domestic corporation and is not claiming preference
under Section 7(a) of the Federal Power Act. Kodiak Electric Association is not seeking
benefits under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.
(6) Relevant permitting and regulatory requirements are listed in Table 1.
Kodiak Electric Association ix Leanne I..akL Hydroelectric Project
I
The Applicant has taken or will initiate steps to obtain all regulatory approvals required
under the Federal Power Act, as amended. In order to expedite Project development,
the Applicant will continue to consult with permitting agencies whose approval is not
required under the Act, and will obtain approval from such agencies if such actions are
helpful to efficient and timely Project development; as set forth below:
Ca\elOlY I
Coul&! M .... &emCDl
Air Quality
WlIICrQuality
Oil SIOraIl'
l..oD:I Uoe
Culnnl "'-rvatiOll
WIIer~
MlIICrial ExIlO<:tiOl1
Dom CoooINI:Iicm
ADadromous r ....
S ........
D.edll' ODd rill,
WetImIs
Table 1.
State of Alaska Statutory or Regulatory Requirements Under
Section 4.41(b)(5)i of the Federal Power Act
Pennll I Apncy/JurlodltIIon a.. ....... lble I Requlre",«11 or Purpooe
Ccrtilic:ale of CoooistcD<y Offlco of ~ Govc.-Actiyjtico ocx:urria& ..,;tbiD ~ ooul&! """" Oft: JeqUind 10 be
ODd CouI&l Projcd DiviaiOl1 of GovcmmcDlal CoonlimUOl1 ClX8islall with oou!al ...... &emCDl __ of ~ SIaIc of Alaska
QucouOUllll.iJ'C ODd 8J'I"I'IICd Ioc:al caul&! diaIricu.
Air Quality CcalroI Penni. 10 IlcpenmcaI of EnviroamcoIaI I!.:qui.-10 ...... ...., air quality .1aDdaJdo for pIOf8I I"'!ic<t
Opetale CCJIlOeMIUOIl ClX8tNCtiOl1iopetatiou.
Air Quality Penni. 10 Opca IlcpenmcaI of F.nviroamouIaI I!.:qui.-10""" .Ia ... air quality .1aDdaJdo for_Ie ~
Bum ComcrvatiOll
Ccrli/ico ... of R<:uooobIc IlcpenmcaI of F.nviroamouIaI ~ 10 ...... ...., ..... Ier quality .1aDdaJdo.
-(Waler Quality ComcrvaUOll
Ccrlific:atlca)
ScdioD 401 CcrtiIic:atiOll U. S. ~ Proooctioo Agcocy ~ for cIia<:barJIc iJlIo ........ n of !be UDiICd SIaIcs.
Plan ~ for ScwaF IlcpenmcaI of EaviJoamcnI&l ~ 10 ...... ...., _ quality .1aDdaJdo for ClX8tNcti011
Sysac:zra, W.lCrlwu~r Cooecrvati<D """'P sewall' """_ ODd ..... ler supply.
T .... _Worb
Solid Wu ... Diopooal Penni. IlcpenmcaI of ~ ~ 10 ...... ...., ooIid _Ie diopooaI .1aDdaJdo.
ComcrvatiOI1
Oil SpiIJ PrevaIIiOI1, IlcpenmcaI of EaviJoamcnI&l ~ for oil """"F fociIjtico 10 baYC opill ~
C-.inmm., ODd ComcrvatiOll CODIaiDmcot. ODd ~ plom.
~PIom
Tcmporuy l.aDd Uoe Penni. IlcpenmcaI of N.1UrIII ~ Tcmporuy _ of ...., IaDdo for __ ODd CIX8tNctiOI1 aclivitico.
Uplmdo l.t:ut IlcpenmcaI of Nanni ~ """""""" ..., of ...., IaDdo for I"'!ic<t fociIjtico.
Rigbls-of-WIY IlcpenmcaI of Nanni ~ Penni. for road ODd """';"iOIl Iiac ~-way 011 ...., 1aDdo.
CoadiIiOl1al Uoe Penni. Kocliak Islm! IIorouBI> ~ for bydIoclcctric pro.jccIs witbiD CoaocrvatiaD Zollo iD
Kocliak Island JIorouch.
Caaat.n.:tiCll acc:cM ad Afocnak NatiYC Corpora.iOIl U"" of Afocnak Uods for CIX8tNctiOI1 ODd pctmaDCOll "'" for I"'!ic<t
Rigbl-<>f-Way or Lcuo fac:ilitico.
DiopooaI of IIorouBI> l..oD:I Kocliak 101m! IIorouBI> Lcuo or pun:baoc of IIDd ~ by Kocliak Island IIorouBI> roqWa
approval of diopooaI of 1m! by IIorouBI> PIaaaiD& Cca.DisoiOll ODd
uscmbIy.
ApprowI from SIa ... Hiaooric: IlcpenmcaI of Nanni _ CoaouIlatiOll with SHPO is JeqUind prior 10 ClX8tNcti011 aclivitico.
PraoctvaUOl1 OffICCr Tbc APPtiCllll, tbraI&b ils prokuioaa.l biIIDricIucbacotcp:al
CXJII8UIWll, bas c:atriod OUI catly CXJll8UlIatiOIl wi!h ~ SHPO ODd
proyjd<d Ibcmwi!hacu1lUr111_ ~ p .... ~ 10
Article B of !be pe~ FERC pcnDit.
TCIIIpOn!)' Wiler Rigblo IlcpenmcaI of Nanni _ T cmporuy ..., of ".'" ..... len for project CIX8tNctiOI1 ODd atiu&.
I'cm>aDeaI Waler Rigblo IlcpenmcaI of Nanni ~ Pe.--'* of...., _ for~ __
MOICrial Extrac:ticn IlcpenmcaI of Nanni _ Pennit for c:xtra<:tiOI1 of CIX8tNctiOI1 ImICriaII <Ill SIa ... Imdo.
CoooInXt or Modify • Dom IlcpenmcaI of Nanni ~ R.:quiJ<:DIODI for oaaotructiOl1 or modific:atioa of a dam iD Alaska.
TItle 16 Amdromous r .... ~ of r .... ODd Gomc ~ for aclivitico iD or affec:tiD& IIIOdn:maIII fiIh .........
S_
ScdioD 404 U. S. II.tmy Corpo of En&iDocn ~ for <>ClIIOItUC:tiO pI.-of rut. or cIrcdciDc iD !be
..... 1Cra of !be UDiICd Swa, iDc:IudiD& -w.IB.
I
Kodiak Electric Association x Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
(7) Brief Project Description
The proposed Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project is located on Kodiak Island, Alaska,
about 15 miles southwest of the city of Kodiak:. The project would consist of two
separate, but nearly identical, powerhouse and penstock facilities supplied by two
adjacent drainage basins known as the Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake watersheds.
Each powerhouse would have an estimated capacity of 1.4 MW, for a total project
capacity of 2.8 MW, generating approximately 8 GWHrs annually. A small, 20-ft high
dam would be constructed on No-Name Lake. The proposed project will be operated in
a reservoir drawn-down mode for an estimated 6-month period annually, between May
and October. During the remainder of the year the project would be non-operational.
(8) Lands of the United States affected:
There are no federally reserved tribal lands within the project site. Afognak: Native lands
are located within the project site, however, these lands were appropriated under the
Native Lands Claim Settlement Act of 1972, and are not federally reserved.
(9) Construction of the project is planned to start within six months, from the date of
issuance of license.
Kodiak Electric Association Xl Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
1.0 INTRODUCTION
EXIllBIT A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project (project) is located on Kodiak Island, Alaska,
about 15 miles southwest of the city of Kodiak (Figure A 1-1). The Proj ect would consist of two
separate, but nearly identical, powerhouse and penstock facilities supplied by two adjacent
drainage basins known as the Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake watersheds. A small dam
between 10 and 20 ft in height, constructed at the outlet of No-Name Lake, would impound up
to 300 acre-ft of water. A dam would not be constructed on Leanne Lake, but a siphon intake
facility would provide drawdown to a depth of 25 ft and access to 620 acre-ft of water. Between
5,560 ft and 5,825 ft of up to 16-inch diameter penstock on Leanne Lake and 6,150 ft of
penstock on No-Name Lake, would divert water to separate powerhouses. Each powerhouse
would have an estimated capacity of 1.4 megawatts (MW), for a total project capacity of
2.8 MW, generating approximately 8 gigawatts (GW) annUally. The proposed project would
be operated in a reservoir drawn-down mode for an estimated 6-month period annually, between
May and October. During the remainder of the year the project would be non-operational.
Certain terms are used in Exhibit A and throughout the other sections of this application to
define the Project's relationship to a variety of geographic areas. These terms are defined
below:
Project or Project Site: The land area within the legal boundaries of the site containing
the project structures, right-of-way, and related facilities. The project site boundaries
are depicted on Exhibit G, Figure G-l (Oversize Map).
Project Vicinity or Study Area: The geographic area surrounding the project site that
represents a sphere of social, economic or ecological influence.
Kodiak Electric Association A-I Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
J
Figure A 1-1. Location Map
Kodiak Electric Association A-2
Leanne Lake
Project Area
SCALE: 1" = 45 MILES
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Basin or Drainage Area: The hydrologic drainage areas of the water courses upon which
the project site is located. There are two separate sub-basin drainage areas which are
encompassed by the Project, designated as the Leanne Lake drainage basin and the
No-Name Lake drainage basin (Figure A3-3).
Kodiak Electric Association A-3 Leanne Loke Hydroelectric Project
2.0 PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The project applicant, Kodiak Electric Association (KEA), is a Rural Electric Cooperative which
operates the existing Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project for the Alaska Energy Authority under
FERC License Number 2743. KEA currently relies on the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project
for most of its electric generation. Operating primarily as a base-load facility, the project is
rated at 20 megawatts (MW). A peak monthly power generation of 20 MW has been achieved,
usually in August or September, of some years. However, the Terror Lake Project has never
produced gross annual generation sufficient to meet all energy demands due to a limited water
supply and reservoir management considerations. Maximum annual energy production reached
112,880 MWHrs in 1990. The total annual power consumption by approximately 5,500 KEA
customers has averaged 122,000 MWHrs over the past 3 years. Approximately 20 percent of
this power consumption has been, and is currently being, met by diesel generation. The gross
energy generation by KEA during the past 3 years is presented in Table A2-1 below.
Table A2-1.
KEA Gross Generation (MWHrs)
I Year I Terror Lake Project I Diesel I Total I
1990 112,880 8,024 121,129
1991 101,080 20,906 121,986
1992 103,120 21,904 125,024
Since the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project was first designed and went on-line in 1986,
residential growth on Kodiak Island has occurred as anticipated. However demands for power,
primarily from the commercial bottom fishing industry has dramatically increased in the region,
by approximately 1 MW per year for the last 5 years. 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 to
contribute to peak load or during low water conditions at Terror Lake.
Kodiak Electric Association A-4 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
3.0 PROJECT SETTING
Kodiak Island is located south of mainland 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 valleys are below sea level and are flooded by
the ocean so that sea inlets extend large distances into the island. Elevations in the project
vicinity range from sea level to 3,600 ft.
The proposed project will be sited on the northern half of the island near the head of Kizhuyak
Bay. The closest communities to the project vicinity are Port Lions, located approximately
10 miles northwest on the west side of Kizhuyak Bay, and the City of Kodiak, approximately
15 miles northeast. The project site would occupy lands under the jurisdiction of the State of
Alaska, Afognak Native Corporation, and the Kodiak Island Borough (Figure A3-1 and
Figure G-l, Oversize Map Packet). No federal lands are located within the project site.
The project vicinity is fairly remote, with no roads from Kodiak or Port Lions. Access to the
project vicinity is via air or water transport. There is a boat and float plane dock near the head
of Kizhuyak Bay and an existing service road from the dock to the Terror Lake dam and
powerhouse.
Although access to the project area is limited, there are several facilities in the project vicinity
developed for the previously licensed Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project (Figure A3-2). These
facilities include a 156-ft-high dam, four small diversion dams and ponds, 3,400 ft of penstock,
26,OOO-ft-long power tunnel, a jetty (dock), 13 miles of gravel service road, 17 miles of
transmission line to the City of Port Lions and to Kodiak, a powerhouse, warehouse, and several
small outbuildings and residences for KEA personnel. There are no permanent existing
structures or other developed facilities within the boundaries of the Leanne Lake project site.
Kodiak Island is within the Maritime climatic zone, exemplified by limited daily and annual
temperature ranges, and abundant precipitation throughout the year. Major low pressure storm
systems track over the island in any month of the year, most commonly in February and
October. July usually has the lowest frequency and least intensity of storms.
Kodiak Electric Association A-5 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
--------...:j
========1
-=-=-=?
------j
------j
====~j ----_.
-= -=-\
--~ .
-------....;, ~ .......
=======~===~~~
=== ======== ::::~::::===\---
~~~It~~~Ih~~~, --------------------------------=,
,.
- - - - - - --:::J--- - - --'1:J =========~==~~~==========~===f -
STATE OF ALASKA
LEANNE
LAKE
~=~=~=~=~=~~i;:;~=~=~~~~=~==q _
---------~---------
--7(/-----)
':~~;===~-).. '. "7+-
1---0>-
'\----"'7)-. -----\
-----[;.;,---.;.------1 '" ....... ,,"" , -; :~~I~:i~~~~~~~~~----~-~----\~"t;"~ ;,= i~-~-----~~-~--
-------Q -.-------,.~.' , • -f!:... il. -f
=-=-=~8 :::-=-=~i' ,,:>00 t =tr..1-~J"': -t -=-::::-~ -=~::::-=-~ -, .. / J.;! =-=1=· 1
---------:----. .,rJ~ /'\Jt.~ _ -~-_ J -- - - --:---! 2.500 -----, ' I' I -~ -:: - -I ----------....:----1 /;/ L -'I)~ -.I --:J ~ ==::::===::::::::=::::==~=-. i___ 1-::: = i-= ----J'<:i ==::::======~~?-~':-___ -L ___________ '-_____ ~ ___ L__ t. __ : _ {-_",-l~~~j
C2J
t=:;:=J
~ m o
AfOGNAK NATIVE CORPORATION
KODIAK NATIONAL. WILDUfE REfUGE
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
STATE or ALASKA
Figure A3-1. Land Ownership
Kodiak Electric Association
-'-'-'-KODIAK NATIONAL. WILDLIfE REfUGE BOUNDARY
----TRANSIolISSION LINE
=== ROAD
A-6 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
o
o
8 SCALE: 'I" t?
, :)
= ,r:3 IotILES APf'ROX'
t "\
o
Figure A3-2. Location Map of Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project Facilities Within the Proposed
Project Vicinity
Kodiak Electric Association A-7 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
The nearest weather station to the proposed project with long term climatological data is the
National Weather Service (NWS) station in Kodiak. The average annual precipitation at this
station for the period of record 1949-1992 is 64 inches, and average snow depth is 77 inches
(1962-1985). Summer temperatures range from 45°P to 60 o P, and winter temperatures from
26°P to 45°P. Average wind speed is 8.7 knots from the northwest, but winds up to 100 knots
have been recorded.
Although no long-term precipitation records exist for the project site, total average annual
precipitation is estimated to be 68.2 inches. Approximately half of this total precipitation falls
as snow above the 2,000-ft elevation between the months of November and March. In years
with heavy snowfall, the snowpack may linger until August at the higher elevations.
Vegetation cover within the project vicinity varies from tundra type communities at higher
elevations to delta grasslands at the head of Kizhuyak Bay. Dense stands of cottonwood, alder,
willow, elderberry, and highbush cranberry are common as is a variety of grasses. The tall,
coarse bluejoint grass is most prevalent at lower elevations. A tundra type vegetative mat at
alpine elevations contains various sedges, mosses, and lichens, as well as mountain cranberry,
lowbush, and prostrate willow. Extensive areas of bare rock and rubble also exist at the higher
elevations in the project area.
3.1 DRAINAGE BASINS
The Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake watersheds drain a combined total of 2.06-sq-miles. The
Leanne Lake drainage area is contained within the larger 28.9-sq-mile Kizhuyak River
watershed. The No-Name Lake drainage area, which is not part of the Kizhuyak River
watershed, is contained within the 3.75-sq-mile Eagle Creek watershed. Pigure A3-3 shows the
locations of the watersheds, lakes, and streams in the project vicinity.
A small stream, identified as the Leanne Lake Outlet stream for the purposes of this application,
drains Leanne Lake and joins Rolling Rock Creek approximately 2,500 ft downstream from the
lake. As part of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, Rolling Rock Creek has been diverted
upstream from its confluence with the Leanne Lake Outlet stream. A second stream, identified
Kodiak Electric Association A-8 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Figure A3-3. Drainage Basins
Kodiak Electric Association A-9
NO-NAJrfE LAKE BASIN ·/./8
BELOW NO-NAME LAKE BASIN ·2.57
TOTAL 3.75
ROLLING ROCK CREEK
LEANNE LAKE
ROLUNC ROCK CREEK
(ABOVE DIVERSION)
ROLLINC ROCK CREEK
(BELOW DIVERSION)
TOTAL·
KIZHUYAK RIVER
····0.88
1.60
0.52
'3.00
(ABOVE WATCHOUT CREEK) 28.90
TOTAL· 28.90
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
or the purposes of this application as the No-Name Lake Outlet stream, drains No-Name Lake
and joins Eagle Creek approximately one-half mile above its mouth at Kizhuyak Bay.
3.1. 1 Leanne Lake Drainage
The Leanne Lake watershed encompasses approximately O. 88-sq-miles, beginning at an elevation
of 3,600 ft and draining to Leanne Lake at an elevation of 1,976 ft. The outlet of Leanne Lake
drops precipitously in a series of cascades and waterfalls, from approximately 1,976 ft elevation
to about 600 ft elevation over a distance of 2,500 ft. It then flows an estimated 3,200 ft in
Rolling Rock Creek before joining the Kizhuyak River.
3.1.2 No-Name Lake Drainage
The No-Name Lake watershed encompasses approximately 1. 18-sq-miles over a similar range
in elevation as the Leanne Lake watershed. 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 6,400 ft before joining Eagle Creek. Eagle Creek then flows 2,200 ft to
Kizhuyak Bay.
Kodiak Electric Association A-lO Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
4.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The following sections describe the mode of project operation and the general design of specific
project features. The cost of developing the proposed project is presented in Section 4.1. The
Leanne Lake component of the proposed project is described in Section 4.2, and the No-Name
Lake component is described in Section 4.3. A summary of significant project features is shown
in Table A4-1 and a map showing the layout of the project features is shown in Figure A4-1.
Feasibility studies conducted by the applicant for the proposed project examined various design
options. Those options which were originally proposed, but have been rejected due to
engineering, economic or environmental considerations, are described in Exhibit E, Section 12.0
(Alternative Locations, Designs, and Energy Sources). Several options for some of the specific
design features have been retained in the project description and are discussed in their respective
sections below. The options may present different economic and environmental advantages or
disadvantages. Selection of the final project design from these options will be based upon
consultation with the reviewing agencies commenting on the draft license application and after
further evaluation of construction and/or maintenance costs.
4.1 PROJECT COSTS
The estimated cost of designing and constructing the Leanne Lake Hydropower Project is
$5.9 million, including labor and materials.
4.2 MODE OF OPERATION
The Project would be operated as a reservoir draw-down development utilizing the power
potential of about 1,900 ft of head at both Leanne and No-Name lakes. Both the Leanne Lake
and No-Name Lake components of the project would be operated independently of each other.
A telemetered lake level transducer will provide information to the operations dispatcher who
will add generating capacity to the system whenever necessary. Manual adjustment of the spear
valves (or change of fixed diameter nozzles) will establish the level of power generation. The
Kodiak Electric Association A-ll Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
\
I .
I .
( , .
I .
I
.
I .
J .
f . , .
)
.... L·
. ,
,.
(f
/:j
f:;
....... ~
..... ,.
,.
~.
."/ ".
Kodiak Electric Association
I . ,
I .
I .
I .
I . t .
I
I .
/ .
1
2,5 00
A-12
, , , , , , , , , , ,
lRANSWlSStON ' ... : -..t' .-EXISTING 14.5KV ~" : ------------~~ ________ -1
... ~" -~"""""""'~'~"'=.'t'!.~ 76)..
~r
.. '
............. ~
JIIIl,lJJII!e
_XIWITE
LOCAtION Of
PROPOSED -~----..
POWER HOUSE
, , , , ,
1 .""..-
.j" -::::::::::::~"-">., ~~
" " , " \ II , " , ,I
, I' , " , II
, II
, ,I
, ,I
, ,I
, II
, II
, II
, II
, ,I , " , " , ,I
, II
, II
, II
... \ ·-tl-··
, II
~ :: \ I: \H
'~
:1-II,
" , ,I \
II ,
I' \ II \
rt" '.
II \ " \ II \
II \ ,I \ n \
II '. " \ " \ " \ " \ II \
" I ,I ,
II ,
II ,
II ,
II ,
~:: : ~ II : ~:: : :i ,I ,
II I'
il1 r
II : ~ii ,..
mil I a:: :
" , II ,
II ,
II ,
II , ,I ,
II '
II '
~ 'r-------_ ;-,.
rr /ru';;~-~~~~-~~E~
1/1),,////// ,,~
" ' )/,
··········/~)/'··
I j., ::l/~
:if
il' t.~~" "i 11'\'': ,_ I ~ \\ ' .. , :, I
:..... \\ ;; :
,.·)1 ,I J I.r"'-I, " I. I? ,-, " ': it .-:f,' :
I.";..~ I :1/ IJ " ... /1 ", I':. if ~/ ", 1/\ ,7 /.~'
// \._JI ", If' -~ ~ I~/,'
\ ·· ..... ~~I <:s I~','
\\\ i I~? . V5 1I SCALE (FT)
1,£1/ ...... ..{JI~ I~ ..... PR~~g~~D 2'f!o~GING AREAS
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
L.£NINE lAKE
HYDROEI..£CTRIC PRnJECT
FERC NO. llllO-000 /IUSMA
KOOW< EL£CTRIC ASSOC.
LAYOUT OF PROJECT FEATURES
FIGURE M-l
Name of Project
Location of Intakes
Diversion Structure
Intake Structures
Penstocks
Powerhouse Locations
Power Plants
Kodiak Electric Association
Table A4-l.
Summary of Proj ect Features
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Leanne Lake: Section 31, TS28S, R22W
No-Name Lake: Section 30, TS28S, R22W
No-Name Lake
Length
Crest Elevation
Normal Water Surface Elevation
Maximum Height
Leanne Lake
No Diversion Used
75 ft
1,976 ft
1,972 ft
20 ft
Siphon Pipes, 12-to 16-inch Diameter, with Perforated Stainless Steel Inlet
Screens; Leanne Lake Outlet Pipe has Invert Elevation of 1970 ft, 6 ft
Below Normal Water Surface Elevation.
All Penstocks 12-inch to 16-inch Diameter
All tailraces designed as buried culvert
with diffuser grate
Leanne Lake Penstock Lengths (including siphon intake)
Option A: South Route 5,560 ft
5,825 ft Option B: North Route
No-Name Penstock Length (including siphon intake)
Leanne Lake
6,150 ft
Option A: South Route
Option B: North Route
No-Name Lake
Number of Units
Type
Total Project Capacity
Rating
Flow (max. design)
Gross Head
Leanne Lake
Option A: South Route
Option B: North Route
No-Name Lake
A-13
Section 1, TS29S, R23W
Section 32, TS28S, R22W
Section 20, TS28S, R22W
1 powerhouse each
No-Name and Leanne lake
Horizontal Pelton
2.8 MW (1.4 MW each)
12 cfs ea unit
1,841 ft
1,920 ft
1,886 ft
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Name of Project
Power Plants
(continued)
Roads
Transmission Lines
Table A4-l. (continued)
Summary of Project Features
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Horsepower
Turbine Centerline
Leanne Lake
Option A: South Route
Option B: North Route
No-Name Lake
Leanne Lake
Option A:
Option B:
No-Name Lake
New Construction Voltage
Leanne Lake
All options
No-Name Lake
2,000
135 ft
55 ft
85 ft
150 ft
No new road
1,500 ft
14.5 KV
No new transmission line
875 ft
Estimated Annual Energy Production: 8.0 million kilowatt hours total corresponding to a plant factor of
34 percent.
* All elevations in feet above mean sea level.
general configuration, size, and location of the principle project structures are shown m
Exhibit F, and described in this section.
The project is expected to operate for a six-month period each year from spring thaw until
winter freeze, approximately late April or May through October. During the remaining winter
months when most precipitation falls as snow and the lakes are frozen, the streamflow needed
for power generation is reduced and the project would be shut down. During this non-
operational period any natural inflow to the lakes will remain impounded. and allowed to
replenish the reservoirs. By allowing the reservoirs to refill, the thickness of winter ice
formation is reduced and spring break-up will occur at an earlier date providing water for power
generation.
Kodiak Electric Association A-14 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Daily operation of the reservoir would probably include periods of time (estimated to be as long
as 24 hours), during which water would not be withdrawn from the lakes and power would not
be generated. This would allow inflow to the reservoirs to continually replenish and maintain
sufficient storage capacity for power generation in a peak mode throughout the operating period.
Based on the current analysis and design of the project, both the Leanne Lake and No-Name
Lake components would be designed to operate at a maximum diversion rate between 8 cfs and
12 cfs. The maximum diversion rate to be identified for project operation will be determined
after evaluation of 1992-1993 site-specific hydrologic data.
4.3 LEANNE LAKE
Water would be withdrawn from Leanne Lake near the northeast corner via a siphon line and
penstock system. There are currently two alternative penstock alignments, designated as the
"northern" and "southern" routes which are between 5,825 ft and 5,560 ft in length,
respectively. Associated with these penstock alignments are two alternative powerhouse
locations. Figure A4-l shows the proposed penstock and powerhouse locations.
Depending upon the penstock alignment which is selected, streamflow would be returned to
either Rolling Rock Creek 900-ft upstream from its confluence with the Kizhuyak River
(southern alignment) or would directly enter the Kizhuyak River (northern alignment).
Approximately 2,200 ft of the Leanne Lake Outlet stream and 2,300 ft of Rolling Rock Creek
would be bypassed if the southern penstock alignment is selected. Approximately 2,200 ft of
Leanne Lake Outlet Stream and 3,200 ft of Rolling Rock Creek would be bypassed if the
northern alignment is selected.
Impoundment/Lake
Leanne Lake is a naturally created impoundment which has a total surface area of 57 acres (at
water surface elevation of 1,976 ft) and a total impounded volume of 1,000 acre-ft. A dam
would not be constructed to increase storage capacity of the lake for hydropower generation.
Kodiak Electric Association A-15 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
The estimated annual average discharge from Leanne Lake is 3.8 cfs, and during the period of
project operation (May-October) average discharge is 5.6 cfs. The maximum diversion
(hydraulic capacity) to the powerhouse would be between 8 cfs and 12 cfs depending upon the
final proj ect design.
Siphon Line/Intake Structure
The northeast corner of Leanne Lake would be tapped by a 12-to 16-inch steel and polyethylene
siphon line using either of two draws on the east side of the lake. Each draw interfaces to an
acceptable penstock alignment. The siphon line will be buried to a depth approximately 5 ft
below the lake elevation in order to insure that the siphon is maintained and to protect it against
freezing. Additionally, the siphon line may be heat-traced using a high resistance self-heating
cable and insulation.
A screened inlet mounted above the lake floor and below ice level would connect to a
self-priming siphon pipe with an invert elevation of 1,970 ft. Polyethylene pipe would be used
where possible freeze up could occur. Control valves, located in a small insulated and heated
vault, would be used to isolate the penstock from the lake and to establish the siphon. A signal
and charging power cable laid along with the penstock would connect the valvehouse to the
powerhouse. The siphon could be expected to draw water from a depth of approximately 20 ft
to 25 ft below the water surface. This would provide an estimated 520 to 620 acre-ft of water
storage capacity.
An underwater sandy ridge, at an approximate depth of 20 ft, currently divides the lake into two
pools. If shown to be necessary during initial project operation, this sandy ridge would be
partially removed using hydraulic techniques to insure that the entire storage capacity of the lake
above the invert elevation of the siphon is available for withdrawal.
Penstock
The total combined length of siphon and penstock pipe which will be required will depend on
the alignment and powerhouse location which is selected. Total pipeline length on the northern
Kodiak Electric Association A-16 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
alignment (powerhouse option "B If) would be 5,825 ft. On the southern alignment, powerhouse
option "A" would use 5,560 ft of pipeline (see Figure A4-1). Both routes would require
excavation through swales on the east side of the lake. The penstock would be constructed from
12-to 16-inch steel pipe.
The penstock route is underlain by competent granitic bedrock between the lake and 1,165-ft
elevation. Below the 1, 165-ft elevation the penstock route is expected to be underlain by a
slate-graywacke 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
rock bolted penstock anchoring. Soil cover over the rock tends to thicken at lower elevations,
allowing the use of soil anchors through an overlying volcanic ash layer into the old topsoil
horizon that was buried in 1912.
Concrete and/or treated wood beams suitably anchored with rock bolts and soil anchors, will act
as an above ground foundation for the penstock except at higher elevations where it will be
directly rock bolted to granite bedrock. The penstock will be buried for short distances and
where soil conditions are favorable or where pipeline damage might occur due to rockfall or
snow avalanche. It is expected that geologic, soil, and slope conditions conducive to burial will
be primarily found between the 5OO-ft and 1,2oo-ft elevation. Penstock sections, which based
on geologic conditions are considered to be suitable for burial, are illustrated in Exhibit F,
Figure F-2. Site-specific locations for burial of the penstock will be determined during the final
design process.
Access to the penstock will be made by constructing a temporary narrow pioneer road, with
material staging areas located along the route as necessary. The pioneer road will be developed
by brushing a 6-ft-wide path, with minimal grading. This construction and maintenance path
is expected to be just sufficient to accommodate appropriately sized equipment commensurate
with the type of construction to be undertaken and will not function as a vehicle access road after
construction is completed. The pioneer road will extend from the powerhouse location to an
elevation of 1,100 ft. The penstock route will be superimposed directly onto the pioneer road.
Materials will be placed in the proposed staging areas (see Figure A4-1) by heavy-lift
helicopters. Construction of the pipeline between the staging areas will be facilitated by the use
Kodiak Electric Association A-17 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
of winch lines tied to anchors and overhead cable lines may be used in some locations. The
maintenance path will be rebrushed as necessary to allow penstock access for emergencies and
routine maintenance. Cabling may be left in place on the steepest sections to facilitate
maintenance and as a safety precaution.
An alternative construction procedure which was considered would use an overhead tram, similar
to a ski lift, both for construction and maintenance of the penstock and for access to the lake
without helicopter support. This alternative was deemed to be economically infeasible since the
cost and complexity of such a scheme is greater than the cost of constructing the penstock itself.
It is expected that at least two flow-sensing isolation valves will be installed in the penstock to
provide for emergency shut-down. One of the valves will be located close to the lake outlet
works, the other part way down the slope. The specific locations and design of these valves will
be determined during later design phases of the project.
Powerhouse
Both penstock routes terminate in suitable powerhouse sites. The powerhouse site on the
northern penstock alignment, designated as powerhouse option "B" is immediately adjacent to
the existing Terror Lake and Port Lions transmission line at the 55-ft elevation (Exhibit F,
Figure F-6). The tailrace would discharge streamflow to the Kizhuyak River.
Powerhouse option "A" associated with the southern penstock alignment would be sited at the
135-ft elevation and would require 150 ft of new road construction. The short tailrace would
return streamflow to a side channel of Rolling Rock Creek near the existing road, 900 ft above
the Kizhuyak River. Powerhouse option "A" would also be adjacent to the existing Port Lions
transmission line and would eliminate the need for a new transmission line extension.
Both proposed powerhouses sites are located over talus and alluvial gravels, with subsurface
boulders of significant size randomly distributed along Rolling Rock Creek. The chosen site will
be graded and excavated as required to allow construction of the spread footings/mat powerhouse
foundation. It is estimated that less than 0.25 acres would be disturbed in order to construct the
Kodiak Electric Association A-18 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
powerhouse at either of the potential locations. Powerhouse option "B" is located approximately
225 ft from the Kizhuyak River within an area known to occasionally flood. Therefore
construction of a powerhouse at this location will include a design which raises the turbine,
generator, and other equipment above the present grade by raising the site to the elevation of
the Terror Lake road. Gabions or other protective measures would be used around the outside
perimeter of the building to additionally safeguard against flood damage.
A steel framed structure with integral overhead crane framework will be used in the 24-ft by 40-
ft (nominal size) building to resist all above grade loads (Exhibit F, Figure F-7). Walls will be
precast concrete tilt ups or formed steel. A small outdoor fenced yard will contain the high
voltage transformers and associated equipment. An overhead crane will be installed to lift and
move equipment during construction and when maintenance is necessary.
Tailrace
Tailrace flows from powerhouse option "A" would be discharged into a side channel of Rolling
Rock Creek, and thence to the Kizhuyak River. Powerhouse option "B" would be discharged
directly into the Kizhuyak River approximately 3,400 ft downstream from its natural confluence
with Rolling Rock Creek (Exhibit F, Figure F-6).
Powerhouse option "A" adjacent to the existing roadway and transmission line, would discharge
through a short buried culvert into a side channel of Rolling Rock Creek. Powerhouse
option liB" on the northern penstock alignment would discharge into the Kizhuyak River through
200 ft of buried culvert.
All tailraces would be constructed as buried culverts, large enough to permit access and
inspection, and would be terminated by submerged bar grates designed to diffuse and control the
exit velocity while preventing entrance or attraction of fish or wildlife. Exit velocities at the
tailrace are expected to be 1 ft per second (ft/sec) or less. The diffuser grate at the tailrace will
be designed to reduce natural attraction by fish.
Kodiak Electric Association A-19 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Transmission Line
Powerhouse options "A" and "B" will be connected directly to the existing overhead 14.5 KV
transmission line currently serving Port Lions. A termination pole and anchors may be
necessary, but additional pole spans will not be required.
Turbine and Generator
A single direct drive turbine/generator unit will be used, with one or two fixed or variable
nozzles. Both horizontal and vertical shaft machines will be evaluated in the final design
process. The head level monitor as well as line and machinery monitoring relays will be able
to locally stop plant operation. It is expected that the plant will be turned on by a command
from the dispatcher in Kodiak City and operate continuously at a fixed power output until the
dispatcher (or the above monitoring relays) stops operation. Lake level (head level) information
will be telemetered to the dispatcher. A 1,450 KW induction or synchronous generator will be
directly coupled to an 900 RPM or 1200 RPM (nominal) 2,OOO-HP impulse turbine. A recent
KEA system study shows that no system wide disturbances would result from connecting or
disconnecting either type of generator (KEA 1989).
Ample room for inspection and maintenance will be provided. No offices or restrooms will be
located in the powerhouse. An overhead crane will be installed to lift and move equipment
during construction and when maintenance is necessary.
Additional Equipment
No additional equipment is anticipated.
Access Road
No roadwork would be required for powerhouse option "B" on the northern penstock route. The
powerhouse will be located adjacent to the existing Terror Lake road. Powerhouse option "A"
on the southern penstock route will require approximately 150 ft of new road. This lO-ft-wide
Kodiak Electric Association A-20 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
service road would be constructed from compacted fill and gravel, similar to the existing road
to the Terror Lake powerhouse.
4.4 NO-NAME LAKE
No-Name Lake would be impounded behind a 10-to 20-ft-high dam, and water would be
withdrawn from behind the dam by a siphon line 20 ft below the dam's base level.
Approximately 6,150 ft of penstock would convey water to a powerhouse located at
approximately the 85-ft elevation. The powerhouse tailrace would discharge water back to the
No-Name Lake Outlet stream or to Eagle Creek. In either case the tailrace discharge would
return flows at a location approximately 750 ft downstream from a waterfall which is a barrier
to fish migration. Approximately 5,540 ft of the No-Name Lake Outlet stream, upstream from
this waterfall, would be bypassed through the penstock to the powerhouse.
Impoundment/Lake
No-Name Lake is a natural impoundment which has a total surface area of 11 acres (at water
surface elevation of 1,956 ft) and a total impounded volume of 95 acre-ft. With the construction
of a 20-ft dam, the total surface area is increased to approximately 22 acres and the total
reservoir storage volume becomes 300 acre-ft.
The estimated annual average discharge from No-Name Lake is 5.1 cfs, and during the period
of project operation (May-October) the average discharge is 7.5 cfs. The maximum diversion
(hydraulic capacity) to the powerhouse would be between 8 cfs to 12 cfs depending upon the
final project design.
A small dam between 10 and 20 ft in height with a crest length of 40 to 75 ft (depending upon
dam height), will be used to raise the lake level. The foundation will be poured in place while
the superstructure will be fabricated off-site using field assembled panels of either steel or
reinforced concrete. Construction of the dam will require improving the existing stream gaging
Kodiak Electric Association A-21 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
weir to function as a coffer-dam, allowing construction activities to proceed in a dry channel.
The natural streamflow at the lake outlet will be maintained using bypass pumps. Sufficient spill
capacity will be included to allow for flood discharge over the dam face. The dam will be
located in the southeast comer at the natural lake outlet and the penstock will interface directly
to the outlet works integrally mounted to the dam. A self-priming siphon will be used to extend
draw-down depth another 20 ft to 25 ft below the base level of the dam, similar to Leanne Lake.
A screened inlet mounted above the lake floor and below the ice level would connect to the
self-priming siphon pipe (invert elevation 1,960 ft). Polyethylene pipe would be used where
possible freeze up could occur. Control valves, located in a small insulated and heated vault in
the outlet works, would be used to isolate the penstock from the lake and to establish the siphon.
A signal and charging power cable laid along with the penstock would connect the valvehouse
to the powerhouse.
Penstock
Water will be conveyed from the intake to the powerhouse through a 12-to 16-inch diameter
steel pipe for a distance of approximately 6,150 ft. The only acceptable route is located on the
south side of the cascading waterfalls at the outlet of No-Name Lake. Several precipitous slopes
will be traversed by the penstock route at higher elevations. The penstock is expected to be
underlain by granitic materials above approximately I,OOO-ft elevation and a slate-graywacke
complex below that elevation. 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 rock bolting that might be needed to anchor the penstock pipe. Soil cover over the rock
tends to thicken at lower elevations. Soil anchors can probably be used in the materials below
the volcanic ash layer and the old topsoil horizon that was buried in 1912. Site-specific locations
for burial of the penstock will be determined during the final design process.
Concrete and/or treated wood beams suitably anchored with rock bolts and soil anchors, will act
as an above ground foundation for the penstock except at higher elevations where it will be
directly rock bolted to granite bedrock. The penstock will be buried for short distances and
where soil conditions are favorable or where damage to the pipeline might occur due to rockfall.
Kodiak Electric Association A-22 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
It is expected that geologic, soil, and slope conditions conducive to burial will be primarily
found between the 5oo-ft and 1,2oo-ft elevations for both the Leanne and No-Name penstock
alignments. Penstock sections, which based on geologic and slope conditions are considered to
be suitable for burial, are illustrated in Exhibit F, Figure F-2.
Access to the penstock will be made during construction via a temporary narrow pioneer road,
with material staging areas located along the route as necessary. The pioneer road will be
developed by brushing only a 6-ft-wide path, and with minimal grading. This construction and
maintenance path is expected to be just sufficient to accommodate appropriately sized equipment
commensurate with the type of construction to be undertaken and will not function as a vehicle
access road after construction is completed. The pioneer road will extend from the powerhouse
location to an elevation of 1,100 ft. The penstock route will be superimposed directly over the
pioneer road. Materials will be transported to the staging areas by heavy lift helicopters and/or
winch lines. Construction of the pipeline between the staging areas will be facilitated by the use
of winch lines tied to anchors. The right-of-way will be rebrushed as necessary to allow
penstock access for emergencies and routine maintenance. Cabling may be left in place on the
steepest sections to facilitate maintenance and as a safety precaution.
An alternative construction procedure which was considered would use an overhead tram, similar
to a ski lift, both for construction and maintenance of the penstock and for access to the lake
without helicopter support. This alternative was deemed to be economically infeasible since the
cost and complexity of such a scheme is greater than the construction costs of the penstock itself.
Powerhouse
A suitable powerhouse site is located at 85-ft elevation at the terminus of the penstock between
the No-Name Lake Outlet stream and the small tributary to the south just upstream from Eagle
Creek. The site is near the Port Lions transmission line and would require 1,500 ft of new road
construction for access (Exhibit F, Figure F-6). The powerhouse site will be graded and
excavated as required to allow construction of the spread footings/mat powerhouse foundation
located over talus and alluvial gravels.
Kodiak Electric Association A-23 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
A steel framed structure with integral overhead crane framework will be used in the 24-ft by 40-
ft (nominal size) building to resist all above grade loads (Exhibit F, Figure F-7). Walls will be
precast concrete tilt ups or formed steel. A small outdoor fenced yard will contain the high
voltage transformers and associated equipment. Ample room for inspection and maintenance
will be provided. Restrooms, but, no offices will be located in the powerhouse. A self-
contained electrically operated incinerating toilet (Inconolet) would be provided. An overhead
crane will be installed to lift and move equipment during construction and when maintenance is
necessary.
Tailrace
Tailrace flows from the powerhouse will be discharged into either the No-Name Lake Outlet
stream or into Eagle Creek adjacent to the powerhouse on the south side (Exhibit F, Figure F-6).
In either case, a buried culvert 500 ft in length or less, will be utilized and will be large enough
to permit human access for inspection. It will be terminated by submerged bar grate designed
to diffuse and control the exit velocity while preventing entrance of fish or wildlife. Exit
velocities at the tailrace are expected to be 1 ftlsec or less.
Transmission Line
The powerhouse will be connected to the existing overhead 14.5 KV transmission line currently
serving Port Lions. Approximately 875 ft of new transmission line will be constructed adjacent
to the new access road.
Turbine and Generator
A single direct drive turbine/generator unit will be used, with one or two fixed or variable
nozzles. Both horizontal and vertical shaft machines will be evaluated in the final design
process. The head level monitor as well as line and machinery monitoring relays will be able
to locally stop plant operation (particularly critical if the siphon is utilized). It is expected that
the plant will be turned on by a command from the dispatcher in Kodiak City and operate
continuously at a fixed power output until the dispatcher (or the above monitoring relays) stops
Kodiak Electric Association A-24 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
operation. Lake level (head level) information will be telemetered to the dispatcher. A
1,450 KW induction or synchronous generator will be directly coupled to a 900 RPM or
1,200 RPM (nominal) 2,OOO-HP impulse turbine. A recent KEA system study shows that no
systemwide disturbances would result from connecting or disconnecting either type of generator.
Additional Equipment
No additional equipment will be required to operate the proposed hydroelectric powerhouse
project.
Service Road
A new service road approximately 1,500 ft in length will be required to access the No-Name
Powerhouse from the existing Terror Lake road (Figure A4-1). This road would be constructed
from fill and gravel-topped, and will cross relatively flat terrain.
4.5 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN
Construction of the intake structures and impoundment facilities at both lakes will be performed
with the aid of a heavy-lift helicopter eliminating the need for new, permanent road
development. The dam at No-Name Lake will be fabricated off-site and installed using the
helicopter support. Installation of the penstocks will utilize a pioneer road developed by brush
clearing and only minimal grading so as to safely support a small modified track vehicle. The
penstock alignment and right-of-way will be superimposed directly over the pioneer road. These
construction procedures will reduce the disturbed area necessary to install the penstocks and will
minimize potential erosion.
A Sediment and Erosion Control Plan for the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project is included in
Appendix A of Exhibit E. The plan provides construction guidelines and specific measures,
in addition to features of the project design, which will reduce the potential for erosion.
Potential impacts and mitigation measures related to project construction and operation are
discussed in Exhibit E under the respective resource sections.
Kodiak Electric Association A-25 Leanne Loke Hydroelectric Project
4.5.1 Schedule
Proper timing of construction activities is an important means of mitigating the potential for
erosion, sedimentation, and slope instability. Additionally, adherence to a strict construction
schedule will have an important influence on the total cost of the project. There is a limited
practical construction season at the project site due to winter snows at the higher elevations and
intense precipitation during the late fall months. Snow must be off the high elevation slopes
before construction of the intake facilities and dam can proceed at either Leanne or No-Name
lake. Clearing and construction activities at the lower elevations will be scheduled between the
spring and summer periods of low seasonal rainfall.
Three periods of construction are proposed in order to meet the general requirements of prudent
scheduling. During the first period, advanced "pre-construction" activities will take place. This
will commence in August of the year before project construction. Approximately 2 weeks will
be required for this phase of the scheduling in order to install the rock bolted anchors along the
penstock routes. With the anchors in place, construction crews during the next year could safely
and efficiently work in the upslope direction following the retreating snow line to the lakes.
The second 7-month period of construction would start in the following year, beginning in
March and ending by September. During this period, all of the major construction activities
would take place. Work crews would initially set-up the construction camp facilities, install the
penstock at the lower elevations, and pour the powerhouse foundations by June. In July and
August, the higher elevation sections of the penstock would be installed, the Leanne Lake intake
works completed, and the No-Name Lake damsite will be prepared. By September, the
powerhouse structure should be completed and work inside the powerhouse can proceed, except
for installation and test of the generating equipment. Clean-up will be completed by the end of
the month. During the winter no work will occur except for follow-up work inside the
powerhouses, including preparation for the installation of the turbines and related equipment.
The third and final period will begin in spring of the following year. Initial operation and
testing of system performance will be the main activities, and minimal construction should be
Kodiak Electric Association A-26 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
required. The construction camp which has been left intact during the winter will be dismantled
and final clean-up will occur after project performance has been tested and completed.
4.5.2 Construction Camp/Facilities
All facilities necessary for housing and supporting workers, as well as construction equipment
and supplies, will be imported to the project site. No existing facilities, except for the jetty and
road, will be utilized for construction of the Leanne Lake Project. The construction camp will
be confined to the open lo8-acre herbaceous-meadow area immediately adjacent to the existing
road close to the jetty (Figure A4-1). This was the former site of a small camp developed for
the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project licensing studies conducted in the early 1980s.
Solid Waste Management
Solid wastes generated during the project construction will vary from domestic refuse to
construction debris and discarded equipment parts. The proper management of solid wastes,
including handling, storage, and disposal is essential to minimize environmental impacts and
health hazards.
Solid wastes will be incinerated on site via a portable incinerator. The incinerator will meet the
burning requirements of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Camp and
kitchen waste materials will be temporarily stored in large capacity covered metal containers
equipped with a positive lid locking or latching device. These containers will be located near
the kitchen area within a fenced compound. The containers will be transported daily to the
incinerator and the contents burned. Combustible construction debris will also be burned daily.
The ash from the incinerator will be removed from the jobsite for disposal at the Terror Lake
Project landfill.
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Wastewater generated at the project jobsite must be contained and treated before release to the
environment. A portable temporary wastewater treatment facility will be brought in and installed
Kodiak Electric Association A-27 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
near the camp area. The facility will be designed to minimize impacts to the receiving waters
and will conform to the appropriate federal (EPA NPDES permit) and state standards
(ADEC/ ADF&G).
Vegetation Clearing and Grubbing
The powerhouses, penstocks, and road will require clearing and grubbing to remove vegetation
and timber. The dam at No-Name Lake and upper elevation sections of the penstock route will
require minimal grubbing and no clearing activities due to the lack of vegetation. The clearing
areas will be limited to only those necessary to construct project features: the penstock
maintenance path will be approximately 6 ft wide, the road to the No-Name Lake powerhouse
would be approximately 10 ft wide, and some minor brush clearing would be required around
the perimeter of the 24 x 40 ft powerhouse buildings. Clearing and grubbing activities will be
scheduled to occur concurrent with the excavation within a particular area. All vegetation that
will not interfere with the construction activities will be left in place.
Disposal of the unusable portions of cleared timber will be accomplished by one or a
combination of the following methods: burning, burial, chipping, and use of the chips for mulch
and soil stabilization, and erosion control measures. A bum permit will be obtained from the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and Alaska Department of Natural
Resources and limited to the time period vegetation has become green in the spring. All other
materials will not be burned on-site. Open burning will only occur on the low elevation areas
near the powerhouse locations. Ash as well as stumps and other natural vegetation that was not
burned, will be placed in the borough area or the Terror Lake landfill.
Spill Prevention Control Countermeasure Plan (SPCC)
Construction equipment and fuels will be stored in an approved Spill Prevention Control
Countermeasure (SPCC) plan storage facility located near the campsite or other designated
location. A jobsite SPCC plan will be prepared by the contractor (40 CPR 112.1) and updated
as necessary. The Contractor will amend the SPCC Plan whenever there is a change in facility
design, construction or maintenance which materially affects the facility's potential for the
Kodiak Electric Association A-28 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
discharge of oil into or upon navigable waters or adjoining shorelines (40 CFR-112.5[aD. The
objective of the plan would be to prevent spills of petroleum products, but if they do occur, to
minimize environmental damage and assure the safety of project workers and the public.
Management and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
A jobsite hazardous waste management plan will be developed in compliance with the Resource
and Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. The objective of the plan would be to track
and regulate the handling of hazardous waste, from the time the waste is generated to the time
of its ultimate disposal. A hazardous waste is classified as a hazardous material or hazardous
substance that is no longer intended to be used. Examples of hazardous wastes include waste
paints, solvents, adhesives, cement leachate, contaminated lubricants and fuels, pesticides and
herbicides.
As part of the plan, a hazardous waste storage facility will be located at the No-Name Lake
powerhouse storage building. During construction, cement will be mixed on site using a batch
plant located in a designated area near the camp facilities. Any cement leachate which may be
generated will be contained by an impermeable barrier erected around the perimeter to prevent
its entry into a watercourse. Any material which is trapped by the barrier will be cleaned and
physically removed from the site. Equipment requirements, handling and storage of the
materials, personnel training, and emergency procedures will all be covered in the plan which
must be approved by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Kodiak Electric Association A-29 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
1.0 PROJECT SETTING
1.1 INTRODUCTION
EXIllBITE
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
The proposed Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project (project) is located on Kodiak Island, Alaska,
about 15 miles southwest of the city of Kodiak. The project would consist of two separate, but
nearly identical, powerhouse and penstock facilities supplied by two adjacent drainage basins
known as the Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake watersheds. A small dam between 10 and 20 ft
in height, constructed at the outlet of No-Name Lake, would impound up to 300 acre-ft of water.
A dam would not be constructed on Leanne Lake, but a siphon intake facility would provide
draw-down to 25 ft deep and access to 620 acre-ft of water. Between 5,560 ft and 5,825 ft of
up to 16-inch diameter penstock on Leanne Lake and 6,150 ft of penstock on No-Name Lake
would divert water to separate powerhouses. Each powerhouse would have an estimated
capacity of 1.4 megawatts (MW), for a total project capacity of 2.8 MW, generating
approximately 8 gigawatts (GW) annually. The proposed project would be operated in a
reservoir drawn-down mode for an estimated 6-month period annually between May and
October. During the remainder of the year the project would be non-operational.
Certain terms are used in this Exhibit E and throughout the other sections of this application to
define the project's relationship to a variety of geographic areas. These terms are defined
below:
Project or Project Site: The land area within the legal boundaries of the site containing
the right-of-way, project structures, and related facilities. The project site boundaries
are depicted in Exhibit G, Figure G-l (Oversize Map).
Project Vicinity or Study Area: The geographic area surrounding the project site or
Basin Area that represents a sphere of social, economic or ecological influence.
Kodiak Electric Association E-l Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Basin or Drainage Area: The hydrologic drainage areas of the water courses upon which
the project site is located. There are two sub-basin drainage areas which are
encompassed by the project, designated as the Leanne Lake drainage basin and the
No-Name Lake drainage basin (Figure E2-1).
1.2 LOCATION
Kodiak Island is located south of mainland Alaska in the northwest portion of the Gulf of
Alaska. The Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project will be sited near the northern coast of the
island off the head of Kizhuyak Bay. The closest communities to the project vicinity are Port
Lions, located approximately 10 miles northwest on the west side of Kizhuyak Bay, and the City
of Kodiak, approximately 15 miles northeast (see Figure El-l).
The project site will occupy lands under the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska, Afognak Native
Corporation, and the Kodiak Island Borough (Figure EI-2). No federal lands are located within
the project site, although the boundary of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is located
approximately one mile to the west.
The project vicinity is fairly remote, with no roads from Kodiak or Port Lions. Access to the
project vicinity is via air or water transport. There is a dock for either boats or float planes near
the head of Kizhuyak Bay and an existing access road from the dock to the Terror Lake
powerhouse and dam.
Although access to the project area is limited, there are several facilities in the project vicinity
developed for the existing AEA Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project (Figure EI-3). These
facilities include the 156-ft-high Terror Lake dam, four small diversion dams and ponds,
3,400 ft of penstock, 26,OOO-ft-long power tunnel, a jetty (dock), 13 miles of gravel service
road, 17 miles of transmission line to the Cities of Port Lions and Kodiak, a powerhouse,
warehouse, and several small outbuildings and residences for KEA personnel. There are no
permanent existing structures or other developed facilities within the boundaries of the Leanne
Lake project site.
Kodiak Electric Association E-2 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
D
• KARLUK
OLD HARBOR~
Figure El-l. Project Location Map
Kodiak Electric Association E-3
GoD Vo a
t -N-
I
o
SCALE: ,. = 22 .. ILES APPROX.
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
---------~-------------~ ~.--------)
CAIoI""9T( JIC $T,t(:;IIiIC Nf£A _ C/',)-
«/r-
1---0>-'r---~)_------\
"
STATE OF ALASKA [
AFOGNAK NATIVE CORPORATION
KODIAK NATIONAL WILOUFE REFUGE
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
STATE OF ALASKA
Figure El-2. Land Ownership
Kodiak Electric Association
_.-._.-KODIAK NATIONAL WILOUFE REFUGE BOUNDARY
TRANSMISSION LINE
'= ROAD
E-4 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
a
· ? 1.3 WILES APPROX
Figure El-3. Existing Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project Facilities Within the Proposed Project
Vicinity
Kodiak Electric Association E-5 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
The mountainous island of Kodiak is a structural continuation of the Kenai-Chugach mountain
system of the Alaska mainland. The island's axis trends northeast-southwest, with a topography
characterized by high rugged mountains and deep glaciated U-shaped Valleys. The lower
portions of most valleys are below sea level and are flooded by the ocean, creating fjords such
as Kizhuyak Bay, which extend deep into the island. Elevations in the project vicinity range
from sea level to 3,600 ft.
Hanging tributary valleys such as the No-Name Lake basin and the Leanne Lake basin, are
found well above the floor of the main Valleys. Streams from the hanging valleys feed the lower
rivers through steep cascades and waterfalls. In the lower reaches of the main valleys,
deposition has created broad alluvial floodplains with low-gradient braided river channels.
Most of the project area is blanketed by volcanic ash from the eruption 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.
Kodiak Island is within the Maritime climatic zone, exemplified by limited daily and annual
temperature ranges, and abundant precipitation throughout the year. Major low pressure storm
systems track over the island in any month of the year, most commonly in February and
October. July usually has the lowest frequency and least intensity of storms.
Local climatic conditions throughout the island can be highly variable, primarily due to
topographic differences related to elevation and aspect. Precipitation on ridges and on the
windward sides of mountain ranges may reach as high as 196 inches in isolated locations
(University of Alaska's Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center [AEIDC] 1979).
Available data show that average annual precipitation can vary widely between different
locations. Inspection of precipitation records from four weather stations located on the northern
half of the island (Kodiak, Uganik, Larsen Bay, Kitoi Bay), indicates that annual average
precipitation can vary by as much as 30 inches between these locations.
Kodiak Electric Association E-6 Leanne Loke Hydroelectric Project
The nearest weather station to the project vicinity with long-term climatological data is the
National Weather Service (NWS) station in Kodiak:. The average annual precipitation for the
period of record 1949-1992 is 64 inches, and average snow depth is 77 inches (1962-1985).
Summer temperatures range from 45°F to 60°F, and winter temperatures from 26°F to 45°F.
Average wind speed is 8.7 knots from the northwest, but winds up to 100 knots have been
recorded. There is little long-term meteorological data collected closer to the project site.
Precipitation and temperature data has been periodically collected by the applicant for the
existing Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project facility since 1986. Monitoring of precipitation data
within the project site was initiated in October 1991 and is currently ongoing. From these data
sources, it is estimated that average annual precipitation in the project area is 58.2 inches.
Vegetation in the project vicinity varies by elevation, substrate type, and aspect. The lower
elevation areas within the Kizhuyak: River and Eagle Creek floodplains contain an open
cottonwood forest interspersed by herbaceous meadows that grade into a delta area predominated
by a dense stand of lyme grass. An alder-shrub stratum occurs along the floodplain edge.
Midslope elevations are generally occupied by dispersed and clumped shrub communities
intermixed with a bluejoint grass-herb association. A mesic sedge-herb tundra characterizes the
higher elevation alpine zone wherever suitable substrate and aspect conditions exist.
There are six mammal species which are native to Kodiak: Island and which may be found in the
project area. They are the Kodiak: brown bear (Ursus arctos middentioTji), ermine (Mustela
erminea), river otter (Lutra canadensis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), tundra vole (Microtus
oeconomus), and little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). There are at least 13 other nonnative
species which have been introduced to Kodiak: Island, of which the following may be found in
the project vicinity; snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), beaver (Castor canadensis), Sitka black-
tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and mountain goat (Oreamnus oreamus americanus).
Approximately 206 species of birds occur throughout the Kodiak: archipelago at various times
of the year. These include numerous species of migrant waterfowl and an estimated 15 raptor
species. The most significant bird of prey species which may be found in the project vicinity
include bald eagle, golden eagle, rough-legged hawk, merlin, and northern goshawk.
Kodiak Electric Association E-7 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
There are three streams in the project vicinity which support anadromous fish; Eagle Creek,
the Kizhuyak River, and Beaver Creek Oocated between Eagle Creek and the Kizhuyak River}.
Streamflow and aquatic habitat in Beaver Creek would not be affected by the proposed project.
The Kizhuyak River supports important runs of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and
chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) , as well as a minor run of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch).
Eagle Creek in its lowest half-mile reach is a second order stream which headwaters in a
watershed adjacent to No-Name Lake and receives water from the No-Name Lake Outlet stream
approximately one-half mile upstream from its mouth at Kizhuyak Bay. Surface water flow in
the most downstream reach has been observed to be intermittent during periods of low rainfall.
Although Eagle Creek could potentially be used by salmon for spawning and rearing it is
probably unused in most years, and does not appear to have a regularly established run.
Spawning and rearing habitat is found in the lowest half-mile stream section with the most
suitable spawning habitat in the intertidal zone (940 ft upstream from mouth). The proposed
project would return water to Eagle Creek upstream of the half-mile reach which provides
spawning and rearing habitat.
The No-Name Lake basin and outlet stream does not contain any fish. Leanne Lake does
support a resident Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus rnalma). Rolling Rock Creek is impassable to
fish approximately 1,000 ft upstream from its confluence with the Kizhuyak River at a culvert
which passes under the Terror Lake powerhouse road.
Kodiak Electric Association E-8 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
2.0 WATER USE AND WATER QUALITY
2.1 DRAINAGE BASINS
The Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake watersheds drain a combined area of 2.06-sq-miles
(Figure E2-1). The Leanne Lake drainage area is contained within the larger 3.0-sq-mile
Rolling Rock Creek basin which joins the 28.9-sq-mile Kizhuyak River watershed. The No-
Name Lake drainage area is contained within the 3.75-sq-mile Eagle Creek watershed which
drains directly into Kizhuyak Bay approximately 1 mile northwest from where the Kizhuyak
River empties into the Bay.
A small stream, identified as the Leanne Lake Outlet stream for the purposes of this application,
drains Leanne Lake and joins Rolling Rock Creek approximately 2,500 ft downstream from the
lake. As part of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, Rolling Rock Creek has been diverted
upstream from its confluence with the Leanne Lake Outlet stream. A second stream, identified
for the purposes of this application as the No-Name Lake Outlet stream, drains No-Name Lake
and joins Eagle Creek approximately 6,400 ft downstream from the lake. Eagle Creek flows
another 2,200 ft from this junction to its mouth at Kizhuyak Bay.
2. 1.1 Leanne Lake Drainage Basin
The Leanne Lake watershed encompasses approximately O. 88-sq-miles, beginning at an elevation
of 3,600 ft and draining to Leanne Lake at an elevation of 2,000 ft. The topography is rugged,
with steep slopes and bedrock outcrops commonly exposed.
Leanne Lake is a natural impoundment which has a total surface area of 57 acres (water surface
elevation 1,976 ft) and a total impounded volume of 1,000 acre-ft (Figure E2-2). From
bathymetry information collected in 1991, the mean and maximum lake depths are approximately
17 ft and 73 ft, respectively. Leanne Lake has a sandy underwater ridge oriented northwest to
southeast approximately 20 ft below the lake's surface. The ridge divides the lake into two
separate pools below a depth of 20 ft and would need to be partially removed in order to make
the entire water storage capacity of the lake above the invert elevation of the siphon available
Kodiak Electric Association E-9 Leanne LaU Hydroelectric Project
Figure E2-1. Drainage Basins
Kodiak Electric Association E-10
'0 o
Q
I 1000
~
. LEGEND:
BASIN
EAGLE CREEK
NO-NAME UK!: BAS.iN
DRAINAGE
~sa. !.II.)
BELO" NO-NAltIE LAKE BASIN·«
TOTAL
I.IB
2.57
3.75
ROLLING ROCK CREEK
LEANNE LAKEO.BB
1I.0LUNC ROCK C!lEEK
(ABOVE WYERS/ON) 1.60
ROLL1NC ROCK C!lEEK
(SEW" DIVERSION) 0.52
TOTAL·« ..... mm3.0Q
KIZHUYAK RIVER
(ABOVE "ATCHOClT C!lEEK) 28.90
TOTAL· ·28.90
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
1990
1980
._._._._ ......... _._._._ ............... _._. __ ............ -._.-.-.-............ _._.-._ ............... _._._._ ............ _._._._._ ............ _._. __ ............... -·-·-·-···· .. r··-·-·-·-·-~·
. __ ._ ........... _._._._, ............ _._._._ ........... _._._._._ ........ _._._ ................. _ .... _._ ....... ..1.._._._._._ ........ _._.~_ .......... _ .. ~ ......... _._~._ ........... .
~.s.e.l = 1,976 ft.
1970 ._._._ .......... ··_·_·_·-1-............. -._. __ ........... )_._._._._ ............ _._._.; ................ _._._._ ........ .t _._._._ ............ _._ • ..;._ .........•....• _._._._ •...... ; •.. __ ._._._._ ............ _._+-._ ............ .
_ 1960
5
c 1950
-.-.-.--.... -..... -.-.-.-~ ....... -...... -.-.-.-........... ~-.-.-.-.-............ -_.; ............... _._ .... _ ......... i .. _ .... _._._ ............ -.-.~-.................. -.-.-....... ~.-.. -.-.-.-·_············_·-t·_·············
._._._._ ......... _._._.-.......... _. __ ._....:_._ .... _._ .......... _._._ .•.......... _._ .... _ .......... _._._._ ............... _ .... ~_ .......... _. __ ._ ...... i ....... _._._._ .......... _._L ........... .
0 :;; as 1940 > Q)
iIi 1930
1920
.-.-.-............ -.... -.-~..... . .... -.-.-.-•.......... ~-.-.-.-.-............ -.-.-.~ ................ -.-.-.-......... ~ .. -.-.-.-.-•........... -.-.~-............... -.-.-.-....... j .... -.-.-.-.-............ -.-~.-............ .
:: 1
._._._._..... _._._L ......... _._._._ ........ L_._._._._ ...... _. __ .L ..... _ .... _._._._ .......... _ .. Reservoir capacity deter~ined from topographic
: : : : mapping based on lake bathymetry and aerial
._.-··········_·_·_·-l············_·_·_·_·········;_·_·_·-·_···········_·_·_·r··········_·_·_·_ .. ····L_._._._._ ......... .photography dated 10-11-1991+-........... .
1910 j ; ; : j ~ ; -·-_··-·_·_{··············_-· .. _·-.. · .. ·· .... i-·-·-·-·-.. -· .. ······_·_·· .. i-.. ········ ···-----·-·········f··-·-·-·-·-... ·.·· .. · .. ---·-+--... ·-··· .......... -.-.-....... ! .... -._.-.-.-............ -.-t--_ ............ .
1900 +-~~~~~~-r~~~+-~~~~~~-r~~~+-~~~~~
o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Storage Volume (acre-feet)
Figure E2-2. Leanne Lake Reservoir Storage -Elevation Curve
2000
1990
._._._ ............ _._._._.-: ........... _._._._ ........ ····_·r·_·_···_·······_·_·_·_····T-·····_·_·_·_······· ..... _._.1'-._ ............ _._._._ ........ : ..... _._._._ .. ··········-·-·-T-··~:~:::::·::='·············,
.... _'" _·····-·-··1·· ····-·-·-·-·-f·····-·····-·-·--·····-····-~· ... ·-·-·· .. ··· .. ···-·-·-·····~···-···-·-·-·-·········· .. -·-·1·-·-··· ......... -.-.-.-.-... ; " .. .0::.:.::::_._ ............ -._._.1._ ........ -... _._.--_ ........... ~
1980 .-.-.-.-......... -.-.-.-... ~ ........... -.-.--........... -·~·-·-·-···· .... ····--·-·--···1-·· .. -·-·-........... -._.i.-.-............ -._._._ .... -.. J_ ... _._.-._ ............ -._._.1.-............ _.-.-.-........... 1
21970 ._.-.-.-.......... _._._._ ... t ... -....... _._._.-............ _.~._. . ......... __ ._._._ ..... 1 .. _._ .. ____ ._._ ............ _._.1._._ ............ _._._._ ........ 1 .. _. ____ . ___ .......... _._. __ ~.-............ _._._.-...... _ ... ~ -c
0 1960 ~ >
._._._ ........... _._._._ .. _..... _._._._ ............ -.1_._._ .......... _._._._ .... _ ...... _._._._ ........ _._.L_ .......... _._ .......... _ .... _._._._ ......... _._._.L_ ........ __ ._._ ........ ...J
.s.e.1. = 1,956 ft.
Q) 1950 iIi
1940
.-_._..... _._._._ ......... _._._.-......... _._._._._... . .. -.-.-.-.......... -._._.-Reserv~ir capacity determined from t~pographic" ...... .
• , i mapping based on lake bathymetry and aerial : ._. · .. ·······_·_ .. _··r·········_·_·_·_··_·····_·r····_············_·_·_·_·····j······ __ ·_·_·_···_······_·_··r·_·photography ~ 10-6-1991······· __ ·_·_·-·_·········:
1930 -.-.-............ -.-.... -... ~ .......... -.-.-.-............ -.~.-.-.-.· .......... -.-.-.-..... l ... -.. -.-.-.-............ -.-~.-.-....... --... -.-.-.-........ + ..... -.-.--............ -.-.-.~.-............ -.-.-.-........... ~
1920
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Storage Volume (acre-feet)
Figure E2-3. No-Name Lake Reservoir Storage -Elevation Curve
Kodiak Electric Association E-ll Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
to the project. Under the proposed project operation, water would be withdrawn from the lake
to a maximum depth of 25 ft, reducing the lake surface area to 33 acres and the residual storage
volume to 480 acre-ft.
The outlet of Leanne Lake drops precipitously in a series of cascades and waterfalls over a
distance of 2,500 ft, from approximately 1,976 ft elevation to about 600 ft elevation. It then
flows an estimated 3,200 ft in Rolling Rock Creek before joining the Kizhuyak River. Stream
gradients are very high, ranging from 66 percent below the lake outlet to 8 percent near the
creek's confluence with the Kizhuyak River (Figure E2-4).
2.1.2 No-Name Lake Drainage Basin
The No-Name Lake watershed encompasses approximately 1.18-sq-miles over a range in
elevation similar to the Leanne Lake watershed (Figure E2-1). The topography is rugged,
with steep slopes and bedrock outcrops commonly exposed. The basin includes three small lakes
(all unnamed), of which the lowest elevation and largest lake has been designated in this
application as No-Name Lake.
No-Name Lake is a natural impoundment which has a surface area of 11 acres and storage
volume of 95 acre-ft at a water surface elevation of 1,956 ft. From bathymetric data collected
in late 1991, mean and maximum lake depths are approximately 9 ft and 33 ft, respectively.
With the construction of a 20-ft dam, the total surface area would be increased to approximately
22 acres and the reservoir storage volume to 300 acre-ft (Figure E2-3).
The outlet of No-Name Lake also drops precipitously in a series of cascades and waterfalls over
a distance of 6,000 ft, from approximately 1,956 ft elevation to 50 ft elevation before joining
Eagle Creek approximately 2,200 ft upstream from its mouth at Kizhuyak Bay. Stream gradients
are very steep ranging from 60 percent below the outlet of No-Name Lake to 4 percent in Eagle
Creek (Figure E2-5).
Kodiak Electric Association E-12 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
2000
1800
1600
1400
g 1200
c
.2 1000 i m 800
600
400
200
o
~
o
Leanne lake
~
~
~
~
~
~ ,/' Rolling Rock Ck. confluence
~
~rror ~e Road
~
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Distance from Leanne Lake (ft)
stream profile taken from USGS 15' topographic map and 1"=200' scale aerial photography.
Figure E2-4. Leanne Lake Outlet/Rolling Rock Creek Longitudinal Profile
~huyak River
-d
6000
Kodiak Electric Association E-13 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
2000
1800
1600
1400
No-Name Lake
I~
~
\ -:s 1200 \
\ c
0 ;:
as > CD
W
1000
800
600
~
~
~ 400
200
~ Eagle Creek confluence Ki7h'N"'''' Bav MLLW
~ -f /
0
o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Distance from No-Name Lake (ft)
Stream profile based on 1' .. 200' aerial photography by Aeromap, Oct 1991.
Figure E2-5. No-Name Outlet/Eagle Creek Longitudinal Profile
Kodiak Electric Association E-14 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
2.2 EXISTING INSTREAM WATER USES
The entire project site is on undeveloped land which is open to hunting and fishing. Present
instream water use is for wildlife with some pink salmon and resident Dolly Varden char found
in the lower half-mile of Eagle Creek (see Section 4.0). Two thousand forty (2,040) ft upstream
of the mouth of Eagle Creek, the N 0-Name Lake Outlet stream is impassable to anadromous fish
due to a waterfall at the loo-ft elevation. There are no fish species present in the No-Name
Lake Outlet stream or in the three lakes comprising the No-Name Lake watershed.
The Leanne Lake Outlet stream and Rolling Rock Creek join the Kizhuyak River which does
support anadromous fish species. However, Rolling Rock Creek itself does not support any fish
species and is impassable to migrating salmon a short distance upstream from its confluence with
the Kizhuyak River. Resident Dolly Varden char are found in Leanne Lake, although there is
no active sportfishing due to the isolated location of the lake and the small size of the fish.
2.3 EXISTING WATER RIGHTS AND OUT-OF-STREAM USES
There are no active water rights at the present time in either the Leanne Lake or No-Name Lake
drainage basins. The nearest water rights registered with the DEC are associated with the
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project.
2.4 PROJECT HYDROLOGY
Due to the lack of site-specific hydrologic information, precipitation and streamflow monitoring
programs were implemented during initial project feasibility studies in 1991 to gather data
appropriate for evaluation of baseline conditions and to allow prediction of environmental
effects. The monitoring programs are currently ongoing, and the data presented in this section
are those available for water year 1992 (October 1991 to October 1992). It can be anticipated
that hydrologic monitoring will continue through the licensing process and possibly until the
initiation of construction work.
Kodiak Electric Association E-15 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Variability in climatic conditions on Kodiak island are related to local differences in elevation,
aspect, and orographic effects. The site-specific data collection program was initiated to
determine precipitation and runoff characteristics affecting the proposed project. Only short-
term precipitation and streamflow records could be developed from this data collection program.
An evaluation of historic precipitation and streamflow data from nearby sources was performed
in order to synthesize long-term streamflow records. Unfortunately, there was only a weak
correlation between the available long-term precipitation data and the available project site
streamflow data. Therefore, long-term streamflow records for the project area were not
synthesized. As data collection continues, more definitive hydrologic information should become
available in 1994.
The following sections describe the precipitation and streamflow monitoring programs, and
provide the results which characterize project site hydrology. Table E2-1 summarizes the
relevant monitoring data for precipitation and streamflow.
Table E2-1.
Precipitation and Streamflow Monitoring Data
Summary Statistics for Water Year 1992
Precipitation Streamflow
(inches) (cfs) (acre-ft)
Project Site
Not adjusted for wind 48.2
Adjusted for wind 56.7
A verage annual 58.2
Kodiak NWS 73.3
Portal Tipping Bucket 34.0
Kizhuyak Valley Tipping Bucket l 30.3
No-Name Outlet (Water Year 1992) 5.0 3,560
Estimated Average Annual 5.1 3,655
Approximate Period of Project Operation 7.5
(May 1991 -October 1992)
Leanne Outlet (Water Year 1992) 3.7 2,650
Estimated Average Annual 3.8 2,740
Approximate Period of Project Operation 5.6
(May 1991 -October 1992)
Gauge is not heated and therefore may be underestimating precipitation.
Kodiak Electric Association E-16 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
2.4.1 Precipitation
Three precipitation stations, each consisting of a snow survey marker and precipitation storage
gauge, were established in both the No-Name Lake and Leanne Lake drainage basins
(Figure E2-6). The precipitation gauges are a 12-inch diameter, cylindrical storage gauge
installed without a wind screen. Snow accumulation, snow water content, and total precipitation
were monitored at each station seasonally. Average snow depth measured prior to spring runoff
(April 28, 1992) was 62 inches, holding a total equivalent of 28.8 inches of water. Total
average precipitation measured by the six gauges for water year 1992 (October 1991 to
October 1992) was 48.2 inches with a standard (sample) deviation of 4. 7. The nearest long-term
climatological data center to the project site, the National Weather Service (NWS) station in
Kodiak, received 73.1 inches of precipitation during this same period of time.
Data for the NWS station indicates that for water year 1992, 73.1 inches of precipitation
represents an "average" year, with 97.5 percent of normal precipitation. An average annual
precipitation of 74.9 inches was derived from rainfall for the period of record 1973-1992. Prior
to 1973, the NWS station in Kodiak used a 4-inch rain gauge to collect precipitation. It appears
that the 8-inch gauge in use since 1973 more accurately reflects actual precipitation, which has
been consistently greater in the years following 1972. This is probably due to the change in
gauge size rather than to truly wetter years.
Records from three other weather stations on the northern half of Kodiak island (Larsen Bay,
Kitoi Bay, Uganik) were also reviewed and their annual precipitation values compared with those
for the NWS in Kodiak. The records generally indicate greater amounts of precipitation in
Kodiak (Table E2-2). Comparison of average monthly precipitation with the Uganik station over
a 14 year period of record (1951-1965), shows Kodiak received 14 percent more precipitation
on an average annual basis. The Uganik station was located 15 miles to the west of the project
site at 2,370-ft elevation, similar to the elevation of project site precipitation gauges. The
records also indicate variability in precipitation so that in some months and during some years,
Uganik did receive greater amounts of precipitation than Kodiak. Only Kitoi Bay, north of
Kodiak, received a slightly greater average annual precipitation over a 20 year period (1954-
1972 and 1986) with 58.4 inches in Kodiak and 60.3 inches in Kitoi Bay. Available records for
Kodiak Electric Association E-17 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
.'. ....... ........
:;1 .... :z ...
o
~
~ z
... ,.,.,
\
1
I ,
I
I
I
~ i
-~ i o.
I ,
2,5 00
.... , ....
NO-NAME
LAKE
/
\
j
= , ; 1 ;/ , ,
j/
N' " d'
" d'
" " " " :l
" " -/'
",
'~ , ....... --
.. kZ_
\ ... ~
~ !
i : \ ; , " · . , " , , · , · ,
\ ~ , " \ ! \ :
\ :: l;
''{
~\
~ \
J \ " , " , " ' · ' , '
II \ " , II ' " ' · ' " ' , ' , \
~!! ! «I' I
§!! f " ' lilt! ' ~o:: ! " ,
Iii ! · , · , · , · , · , ~ I · , · ' , '
f I I ,
IB j , ,
// , '
d /
I' , ' 1/
b. THERMAL MONITOR '/
o
o WATER QUAliTY
STATIONS-'
• PRECIPITATION
STATIONS
3000
;
SCALE (FT)
t -N-
I
Figure E2-6. Water Quality, Precipitation, and Thermal Monitoring Stations
Kodiak Electric Association E-18 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
all other weather stations, including two stations in the southern part of the island (Old Harbor,
Karluk Lakes), show that the Kodiak NWS station consistently receives greater amounts of
precipitation.
Table D-2.
Comparative MoDthly Prec:ipitaliOD Averaaeoo From Equivaleot Periods olltecord fmcheoo)
I Iaa I Feb I Mar I
Kodiak (13 yean) 5.13 3.77 3.52
Ugaailc 4.21 3.33 2.88
Kodiak (17 yean) 5.48 4.43 3.81
LaneaBay 2.15 1.73 1.54
Kodiak (19 yean) 5.59 4.94 4.12
iGlOi Bay 5.61 4.78 4.17
Kodiak (3 yean) 3.53 7.11 4.71
Old Harl>or 1.52 9.02 1.97
Kodiak (18 yean)
Karluk (18 yean)
Period of Recoro:
U gaailc Bay: 195 1-1965 (except 1962)
Lanea Bay: 1951-1968
iGlOi Bay: 1954-1972; 1986
Old Harl>or: 1969-1971
Karluk: 1951-1970 (except 1961)
Apr I May 1
3.01 4.14
3.27 2.72
3.00 3.91
1.14 0.76
3.18 4.02
3.61 4.96
3.73 6.10
1.99 2.85
2.49
1.96
IUD I lui I Aug I Sep I Oct I Nov I Dec Aaaual
3.40 3.23 3.55 5.84 5.10 5.72 4.65 51.05
1.98 2.11 2.64 3.84 6.43 5.75 4.84 43.99
3.20 2.82 4.89 5.59 5.00 5.60 5.23 52.95
1.11 1.11 2.74 2.93 2.81 2.73 1.86 22.61
5.16 3.57 5.32 6.30 5.80 4.94 5.49 58.43
4.10 3.62 5.82 6.30 6.39 5.21 5.76 60.33
6.33 4.04 7.44 7.87 8.43 4.24 8.47 72.01
4.70 3.09 2.35 6.02 4.13 2.05 5.33 45.01
4.44 3.25 4.57 6.02
1.68 1.89 3.49 4.48
Based on the average 48.2 inches of precipitation over the No-Name Lake watershed, runoff
from the basin was predicted to be approximately 3,050 acre-ft assuming little or no
evapotranspiration. An actual runoff of 3,560 acre-ft was determined from streamflow
measurements (see Section 2.4.2). The measured runoff represents at least 18 percent more
precipitation than was actually collected. It was expected that the precipitation measured for the
project site would be underestimated due to the lack of wind screen protection on the gauges.
Depending upon wind speeds, unshielded gauges may underestimate rainfall between 0 to
20 percent, and snowfall by 0 to 70 percent (Linsley et al.). Therefore, it is likely that project
site precipitation in 1992 was 18 percent (8.6 inches) greater than that collected by the
unshielded gauges. Adjusting the average annual precipitation by 18 percent to correct for wind
effects, an estimated 56.7 inches of total precipitation fell on the project site in 1992. The NWS
station in Kodiak recorded 73.1 inches, which is 29 percent more precipitation than found at the
project site (after correction for wind effects) during this same period of time.
Kodiak Electric Association E-19 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
In order to confirm the effects of wind at the project site on the efficiency of precipitation
collection, a comparison of shielded and unshielded gauges will be determined. In June 1992,
the precipitation gauge located at the south end of No-Name Lake was fitted with an Alter type
shield. Also, in October 1992, a second tipping bucket rain-gauge without an Alter shield was
installed next to the existing shielded Portal tipping bucket rain gauge. This investigation will
yield a relationship between the ratio of shielded to unshielded precipitation catch, and will
provide a means to calibrate the unshielded gauges.
Within the project vicinity, there are two tipping bucket rain gauges which were installed by
KEA to collect precipitation and temperature data for the existing Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project. The instrumentation consists of a heated tipping bucket rain gauge located at an
elevation of 1,000 ft (the "Portal") just south of Leanne Lake, and an unheated tipping bucket
gauge at 200-ft elevation (the "Kizhuyak Valley") next to the Terror Lake powerhouse.
Unfortunately, data from these stations have a limited period of record; the Kizhuyak Valley
instrumentation began monitoring in October 1988 and the Portal instrumentation began
monitoring in November 1990. In addition, although the Portal gauge is heated, the Kizhuyak
Valley gauge is not heated and therefore may not be reliable in recording precipitation data
during months when snowfall and freezing conditions occur. Both project vicinity precipitation
gauges indicate between 41 percent and 59 percent of the total precipitation found at the NWS
station in Kodiak during 1991 and 1992. Comparison of monthly precipitation records between
the two Terror Lake tipping bucket stations and Kodiak do not show a consistent correlation.
Due to the variability in local climatic conditions, a longer period of monitoring at the project
site is necessary to determine if climatic conditions at the NWS station in Kodiak would provide
a better correlation, and therefore would be a good predictor of annual precipitation at the
project site.
2.4.2 Streamflow
Discharge to Leanne and No-Name lakes is supplied by surface runoff derived from rainfall and
snowmelt. Annual and seasonal runoff from the lakes is highly variable, with low flow
occurring during the winter when most precipitation is snow and the lakes are frozen. Peak
Kodiak Electric Association E-20 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
flows result from spring snowmelt or mixed snowmelt and rain beginning about May, and during
intense rainfall events that tend to occur from late August into October. High flows resulting
from snowmelt occur annually, with the magnitude and duration of flow depending on the depth
of snow and water content in the basin, and the temperature pattern during the melt period.
No streamflow data existed for either the Leanne Lake or No-Name Lake basins previous to the
studies initiated by the applicant. A stream gauging weir was installed at the outlet of No-Name
Lake in October 1991. Two Omnidata DP212 recorders, each with a pressure transducer and
temperature probe, were installed on October 12, 1991. One data logger is located immediately
downstream of the weir in the No-Name Lake outflow channel, and the other is located on the
lake bottom in approximately 5 ft of water (Figure E2-6). The recorders are collecting daily
average, minimum, and maximum values for stage and water temperature and will remain
installed until the FERC licensing process is complete.
A stage-discharge relationship was developed from periodic water surface elevation and
streamflow measurements in the No-Name Lake outflow channel. This relationship was then
used with the stage data collected by the data logger to estimate daily minimum, maximum, and
average discharge measurements from No-Name Lake (see Appendix B). The outflow of Leanne
Lake passes through a poorly defined stream channel filled with large boulders and bedrock
outcrops before plunging over a I,OOO-ft waterfall, preventing any practical means of stream
gaging. The daily discharge for Leanne Lake was determined by applying the recorded data
from No-Name Lake and adjusting the discharge in direct proportion to the size of the drainage
area. By this method, Leanne Lake Outlet streamflow is approximately 75 percent of the flow
recorded in the No-Name Lake Outlet. This method of flow calculation is a good predictor of
streamflow at the Leanne Lake Outlet because the two drainage basins have similar elevations,
aspect, geology, and vegetation conditions. Additionally, the 1992 precipitation measured in
both basins was nearly identical.
Figure E2-7 shows the annual hydrograph at the outlet of No-Name Lake and Leanne Lake for
water year 1992. The results give an estimated 1992 water year flow of 5.0 cfs at the outlet of
No-Name Lake and 3.7 cfs at the outlet of Leanne Lake. The estimated total discharge is
3,564 acre-ft from No-Name Lake, and 2,655 acre-ft from Leanne Lake. From December until
Kodiak Electric Association E-21 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
tTl ,
N
N
iii ...
~
~
CI ...
IV
-'= u
II)
0
~
CI
IV ...
~ > <C
40.0
38.0
36.0
34.0
32.0
30.0
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
.............. ; i" ..
••.• f
..... en en .....
..:
U
0
, ,
. ..... ! ~. . .....
...... \/.
! 1
.... .\ .
"
\ .......... \
.....
en en .....
,;
0
Z
..... .....
en en en en ..... .....
,; c.i
0 Q)
Z Q
;
. ......... !
1 i .. ,
('oj ('oj ('oj ('oj ('oj ('oj ('oj ('oj
en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en ..... ..... ..... .....
.Q .Q ..: ..: ..: > Q) u c CIS C Q) CIS Q) Q) CIS Q. Q.
Q ..., u. u. ~ ct ct ~ :J ...,
No-Name Outlet Leanne Outlet
Figure E2-7. Annual Hydrograph For No-Name Lake and Leanne Lake Outlets
········.1··' .
('oj ('oj ('oj ('oj ('oj ('oj
en en en en en en en en en en en en ..... ..... ..... .....
Q) ~ ... ... ..: ..: c en en Q. U :J :J :J :J ..., CJ) CJ) Q) 0 ...,
:J :J f/)
ct ct
the end of May, streamflow originating from No-Name Lake was consistently less than 3 cfs.
During the spring snow-melt a maximum average daily discharge of 38 cfs was recorded on June
13, 1992. The average daily discharge during the estimated period of time the project would
operate, from May through October, was 7.5 cfs for No-Name Lake and 5.6 cfs for Leanne
Lake.
The average monthly discharge from No-Name Lake for water year 1992 is illustrated in
Figure E2-8. The greatest average monthly discharge, 14.2 cfs, occurred in June, and the
lowest average monthly discharge, 0.7 cfs occurred in April. A flow duration curve derived
from the 1991-1992 data for the No-Name Lake Outlet stream is presented in Figure E2-9. The
curve indicates that a flow of 3 cfs was equalled or exceeded during 50 percent of the year in
1992.
Assuming that water year 1992 represents 97.5 percent of average precipitation at the project
site based on the rainfall amounts for the NWS station in Kodiak, then average annual discharge
derived from this precipitation would be 5.1 cfs (3,655 acre-ft) from No-Name Lake and 3.8 cfs
(2,740 acre-ft) from Leanne Lake. Due to the short period of streamflow and precipitation
monitoring, and to the lack of project site correlation with the long-term precipitation data at the
NWS station in Kodiak, the variability of annual streamflow cannot be reliably predicted.
Additionally, because of the lack of correlation between precipitation in Kodiak and the project
site, long-term streamflow was not synthetically derived from the long-term Kodiak precipitation
data.
2.5 WATER QUALITY
No water quality data specific to Leanne Lake, No-Name Lake or either outlet stream was
collected prior to studies initiated by the Applicant. During the summer of 1979, water quality
samples were taken in Rolling Rock Creek between 2,500 and 3,000 ft downstream of Leanne
Lake near the confluence to the Kizhuyak River. Water quality sampling for the currently
proposed project was performed in 1992. Periodic observations indicate that water turbidity is
typically low in both lakes and streams.
Kodiak Electric Association E-23 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
16
14
iii -12 2
CI)
CI 10 ... eo .c: u 8 III
is
CI) 6 CI eo ...
CI) 4 > «
2
0
C'I C'I C'I C'I C'I C'I C'I C'I C'I C'I
0) en en en 0) en en 0) en en en en en . . . . .b . . . . . . . . ... > u c ... ... > c "3 0 c. ... u 0 CI) eo CI) eo c. eo ::I ::I CI) U
0 Z 0 ~ u.. ::aE « ::aE ~ ~ « en 0
Month
Figure E2-S. Average Monthly Discharge, No-Name Lake Outlet
Kodiak Electric Association E-24 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
~ 26
2 24
., 22
f' 20
~ 18
~ 16
is 14
12
10
8
6
4
2
o
o
·
·
·
•
\
\
&...
........... .
............
• ~ ........... ....::
•
20 40 60 80
Percent Time Equalled or Exceeded
Note: flow duration based on daily data recorded for water year 1992
Figure E2-9. Flow Duration Curve Water Year 1992, No-Name Lake Outlet
•
100
Kodiak Electric Association E-25 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Both Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake Outlet streams are designated by the DEC as Class lA
(water supply) in accordance with the Alaska Administrative Code 18 AAC 70
(December 1989). All streams in the state are classified as lA unless they have been specifically
designated under 18 AAC 70.050.
Key water quality parameters were sampled on two occasions, one each in Leanne Lake and No-
Name Lake as well as in both outlet streams at the approximate location of the proposed
powerhouse return flows (Figure E2-6). Water quality samples were not taken at the return
location of the tailrace option liB" for Leanne Lake since the water would be discharged directly
into the Kizhuyak River. The results of the water quality monitoring are in Table E2-3.
Location
Leanne Lake
8-14-92
10-7-92
Rolling Rock Creek
8-13-92
10-7-92
No-Name Lake
8-9-92
10-7-92
Eagle Creek:
8-13-92
10-7-92
NO = Not Detectable
Table £1-3.
Water Quality Data for the Leanne Lake Project with Samples Taken
at Proposed Intake and Return Locations
Temperature Conductivity NTU DWolved
OF pH (microhms) Turbidity Oxygen
48 6.5 5 .18 9.7
7.3 13 .10 8.6
.12 9.5
7.2 29 .2 9.9
SO 6.5 9 .18 9.6
14 7.15 13 .1 8.4
.25 9.7
40 7.1 18 .1 9.7
Total
Dissolved Petroleum
Solids Hydrocarbons
14 NO
9 NO
19 NO
18 NO
7 NO
10 NO
14 NO
12 NO
The water quality data from these locations, as well as the 1979 sampling in Rolling Rock
Creek, are consistent with Class lA state standards, and they do not vary with change in season.
Three stream temperature monitoring stations were established at the project site: (l) outlet of
No-Name Lake, (2) within No-Name Lake, and (3) Eagle Creek and at the point where the
discharge from the tailrace will be entering the stream (Figure E2-6). During a study conducted
Kodiak Electric Association E-26 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, it was shown that in the Terror and Kizhuyak rivers
that the intragravel temperature did not differ significantly from the surface water temperature
(Trihey et al. 1992), therefore only the surface water temperature was monitored for this
investigation.
The water temperature during the winter in No-Name Lake is at or near freezing (O°C).
Summer water temperatures at the mouth of the Kizhuyak River, are between 5°C and 8°C
(USGS gage). Similar water temperatures ranges were measured in both the lakes (5°C to
11°C) and Eagle Creek (5°C to 9°C). This range of temperature is considered suitable for the
growth and development of fish. Data from the stream temperature monitoring is presented in
graphic format in Appendix C.
2.6 GROUNDWATER IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
No specific groundwater resource investigations were performed in either the Leanne Lake or
No-Name Lake drainage basins. It is likely that groundwater exists primarily at the lower
elevations of the project site where alluvial and colluvial soils have developed in the Kizhuyak
valley floodplain. A geologic test pit was dug in August 1992 with a backhoe on the Kizhuyak
River floodplain at the proposed location of Leanne Lake powerhouse option "B". The test pit
revealed groundwater at a depth of approximately 2.5 ft.
At the higher elevations, exposed bedrock conditions and poorly developed soils probably limit
groundwater formations. Core drilling performed in 1978 at higher elevations in the Kizhuyak
valley for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project did not encounter groundwater (AEIDC 1979).
Kodiak Electric Association E-27 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
2.7 HYDROLOGIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
2.7.1 Construction Impacts
Streamflow
Project construction impacts on flow regime will be short-term and insignificant in nature. The
duration and extent of any alteration in streamflow will be influenced by the particular
construction activity and time of year it occurs. Construction of the dam and intake facilities
on both No-Name and Leanne lakes would require minimal, if any, interruption or diversion of
streamflow. Streamflow will be routed around the dam construction on No-Name Lake using
pumps and returned to the outlet channel immediately downstream of the construction activity.
The mean natural streamflow will be maintained during the 2-month period (July-August) which
is planned for construction of the intake and impoundment facilities. Potential impacts related
to increased sedimentation and turbidity as a result of construction are discussed under
Section 2.8.1, Water Quality Impacts.
2.7.2 Project Operation Impacts
As a result of project operation, there would be some alteration of the flow regime in Eagle
Creek, Rolling Rock Creek, and the Kizhuyak River. The final maximum diversion capacity
of the project, estimated between 8 and 12 cfs, would in part determine the relative degree of
alteration in flow regime in these streams.
Surcharge of No-Name and Leanne Lakes During Project Start-up
Prior to initial project start-up in the winter months, water will be stored behind the No-Name
Lake dam. It is expected that the reservoir will reach maximum water storage capacity before
spring run-off. During this winter period there will be little or no spill from the reservoir and
the No-Name Lake Outlet stream will be dry. Streamflow accretion from the watershed area
below the lake and the natural flow in Eagle Creek will partially maintain downstream flows.
Kodiak Electric Association E-28 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Leanne Lake will not have an impoundment and therefore would not require surcharge of the
lakes' natural water storage capacity prior to operation. Discharge from the lake to the Outflow
channel will occur under natural conditions.
Flow Regime In Outflow Channel Reach
On a daily basis, up to 12 cfs would be the maximum diversion through the penstocks from both
Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake. Approximately 6,000 ft of channel in the No-Name Lake
Outlet stream and 4,500 to 5,400 ft of channel in the combined Leanne Lake Outlet
stream/Rolling Rock Creek would be bypassed.
It is expected that a diversion rate of 12 cfs would generally capture 100 percent of the
streamflow from both outlet streams. A smaller diversion rate of 8 cfs would take a smaller
percentage of the total flow from these channel reaches and would allow some spill during peak
spring runoff. Based on the 1992 water year data, average annual discharge is estimated to be
5.1 cfs from No-Name Lake and 3.8 cfs from Leanne Lake.
With a maximum diversion rate of 12 cfs, under the typical dam construction and design
scenario planned for No-Name Lake, there is expected to be some water which would seep from
the dam into the outflow channel. There is also some streamflow accretion downstream based
on the contribution from the drainage area and tributary inflow below both lakes. There is
approximately 2.5-sq-miles of watershed area contributing streamflow downstream from No-
Name Lake. The estimated streamflow contribution from this drainage area would be 68 percent
of the total discharge in Eagle Creek based on runoff derived from drainage area alone.
However, the amount of streamflow which is seasonally derived from the watershed area below
the lakes would not be wholly based on a percentage of the total drainage area. This is because
a greater percentage of runoff is derived from the snowpack at the higher elevations above the
lake than from the lower elevations which do not contribute snowmelt.
Tailrace discharge from both the Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake powerhouses will be designed
to limit the potential for streambed/bank scour. A submerged culvert tailrace design will be
used to limit exit velocities to 1 ft/sec or less. Additionally, the natural bed material at the
Kodiak Electric Association E-29 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
tailrace discharge in both locations (Rolling Rock and Eagle Creeks) are large cobble to boulder
in size, reducing the chance of bed or bank scour due to tailrace flows.
Flow Regime Below the Powerhouse Tailrace: Eagle Creek. Rolling Rock Creek. and Kizhuyak
River
Total annual streamflow in Eagle Creek would not be altered by the proposed project. All
diverted streamflow from No-Name Lake would be returned via a submerged culvert tailrace to
either the channel of origin (No-Name Lake Outlet stream) or directly to Eagle Creek.
Water withdrawn from Leanne Lake would be returned either to its channel of origin (Rolling
Rock Creek) or directly to the Kizhuyak River. Under either of the two proposed powerhouse
and tailrace options, total annual streamflow in the Kizhuyak River would not be altered.
Annual streamflow in Rolling Rock Creek immediately below the existing road would not be
altered by powerhouse location "A" (southern penstock alignment) with the tailrace returning
flows to the original stream channel. With powerhouse option "B" (northern alignment),
streamflow would not be returned to Rolling Rock Creek, but would be discharged to the
Kizhuyak River. Under this option, most of the total annual streamflow in Rolling Rock creek,
except for natural accretion, would be diverted through the powerhouse into the Kizhuyak River
downstream of the Terror Lake powerhouse.
When operating during low rainfall conditions, the proposed project would require periods
between 12 and 24 hours in duration when inflow to No-Name Lake and Leanne Lake would
be impounded and no discharge will be made through the powerhouse. During these shut-down
periods only groundwater contributions from the lower watershed area and tributaries will be
available to sustain streamflow in Eagle Creek and Rolling Rock Creek. As a result, both
streams may experience a wider than natural range of daily streamflow fluctuations even though
both streams may have only subsurface flows during dry periods.
As a beneficial impact of project operation, peak streamflow could be moderated on a daily or
weekly basis in Eagle Creek and Rolling Rock Creek by impounding snowmelt or rainfall events
and later releasing the stored water. As a result, the potential for scouring flood flows
Kodiak Electric Association E-30 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
downstream could be reduced. Periods of low flow in Eagle Creek could also be augmented by
the release of stored water. However, the relatively small water storage capacity in No-Name
Lake would probably be insufficient to guarantee extended periods of augmented streamflow.
Presently, natural streamflow in Eagle Creek does undergo a large range of daily and seasonal
streamflow fluctuations. Observations indicate that during low rainfall periods, such as
September 1992, streamflow can be primarily subsurface in Eagle Creek with only isolated pools
remaining in the stream (Blackett, personal communication). Also, during snowmelt periods,
diurnal fluctuations in natural streamflow can be as high as 15 cfs due to night and day
temperature changes.
Periodic shut-down of the project to allow replenishment of water storage in Leanne Lake will
reduce daily streamflow contributions from Rolling Rock Creek to the Kizhuyak River.
However, due to the operation of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, streamflow in the
Kizhuyak River currently averages 254 cfs (Railsback and Trihey 1992). Therefore, any change
in the daily Kizhuyak river flow regime due to the proposed project would be relatively
insignificant.
Lake Level Fluctuation
The water surface elevation in both lakes will fluctuate as water is withdrawn through the
penstocks and when inflow to both lakes is allowed to refill the basins. The maximum rate of
fluctuation in No-Name Lake is estimated to be 1.7 ft per day assuming there was no inflow to
the lake and the diversion rate was a maximum of 12 cfs. However, inspection of the daily
streamflow records from 1992 (Appendix B) show that during the project operation (May to
October) there is always some outflow from the lake and therefore some inflow is occurring.
Leanne Lake would fluctuate by dropping up to a maximum of 1 ft per day assuming the same
diversion rate of 12 cfs and no inflow to the lake. Therefore, the actual rate of fluctuation is
expected to be less, depending on the inflow to the lakes.
The maximum depth of drawdown on No-Name Lake would be 40 ft assuming a 20 ft dam is
built and a siphon line 20 ft. below the dam base is constructed. The maximum depth of
Kodiak Electric Association £-31 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
drawdown on Leanne Lake would be 20 ft. The natural range of annual lake level fluctuation
for both lakes is approximately 2.7 ft.
Water surface elevation fluctuations would tend to increase the suspended sediment load
delivered into the lakes. This would be greater for No-Name Lake because the extent of
drawdown will be greater and the initial raising of the lake surface elevation by the dam will
inundate the existing lakeshore vegetation exposing bare soils. Lakeshore erosion can be
expected to be higher initially, until sediments settle to the lake bottom. However, it is not
expected that impacts to lake water quality or to sediment transport will be significant due to the
relatively fast settling time of the Katmai ash soils. Experience during construction of the stream
gaging weir at No-Name Lake in 1991 showed that the Katmai sediments quickly settle in the
lake. Additionally, some of the shoreline around both lakes is composed of large boulders and
bedrock outcrops which would not be subject to erosion. It is unlikely that sediment loading in
the lakes would increase beyond a short-tenn, seasonal basis.
Sediment Transport and Channel Geomorphology
The reduced streamflow would not significantly impact channel geomorphology or sediment
transport in the outlet channels. Both streams are extremely steep, characterized by cascades
and waterfalls, and are well confined in narrow canyons. Bed material in both outlet streams
consist of large boulder and bedrock outcrops. Both the No-Name and Leanne Lake Outlet
streams are strictly controlled by the gradient and bed material so that an alteration In
streamflow would not be expected to impact channel geomorphology or geometry.
Sediment transport would also not be expected to be impacted. Both lakes and their basins, act
as highly efficient sediment traps as evidenced by the extensive sand flats which can be found
along much of the shoreline area of the lakes. Most of the sediment settles in the lakes before
it can be transported to downstream reaches. Observations of both lakes and outlet streams
indicate that streamflow is usually extremely clear and non-turbid.
Kodiak Electric Association E-32 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
2.8 WATER QUALITY IMPACTS AND MmGATION
2.8.1 Construction Impacts
Project construction impacts will be temporary in nature, the duration and extent being
influenced by the particular construction activity and the time of year it occurs. Water quality
will primarily be impacted by the short-term increase of sediment into the outlet creeks and lakes
during construction. The single largest amount of sediment would originate from preparation
of the dam site on No-Name Lake. Stripping soil and rock cover for dam construction is
expected to only yield 2 to 3 cu yds total of material. Some of this sediment can be washed into
topographic depressions adjacent to the dam site, preventing eventual transport through the No-
Name Outlet stream to Eagle Creek. Sediment traps such as settling basins or other types of
impermeable barriers will be constructed near the powerhouse sites, concrete batch plant, and
other potential sources of construction induced sediment. Water quality will be monitored in
streams adjacent to construction areas which should minimize any potential impacts to fish.
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Appendix A) has been prepared to identify potential
areas of slope instability and to provide mitigation measures to control areas of potential
sediment sources.
Interception and control of oil, gas, and electrical component releases will be achieved by
placement of barriers around all mechanical and electrical equipment. Any spilled material will
be removed and disposed of in accordance with appropriate regulations. An onsite Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan will be developed for the project to ensure the soil,
ground and surface waters will not be contaminated.
Portable toilets will be provided for the construction personnel at the project site. Wastewater
from the construction will either be hauled out via helicopter or barge, or discharged to a septic
field located within the proposed camp facility.
Kodiak Electric Association E-33 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
2.8.2 Project Operation Impacts
Water temperature changes, as a result of project operation, are expected to be less than 2°C
(Plus or minus). This change is well within daily natural temperature fluctuations during the
summer period of operation. This project is not expected to create any water temperature
impacts for salmon and char. While the lakes are recharging, water will be stored in the
penstocks. In the areas where the penstocks are above ground, the temperature of the water in
the penstocks may increase slightly. Upon the project beginning operation again, a short surge
of warm water (estimated to be 15 minutes) will be discharged into the tailrace channel. It is
not expected that this short burst of warm water would be detrimental to fish.
2.9 AGENCY CONSULTATION
In response to the first stage consultation report describing the hydrologic studies to be
performed for the draft license application, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game indicated
that there were no additional recommendations concerning the proposed fisheries, water quality,
and in stream flow data studies (ADF&G 1992, letter and meeting in Anchorage).
Kodiak Electric Association E-34 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
3.0 GEOLOGIC AND SOIL RESOURCES
Two principle rock formations are present in the project area: 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 folded, faulted, and contorted so they are generally tightly compressed and steeply tilted.
The granitic rock is more resistant to erosion and glacial scouring, thus it forms the higher
ridges in the project area.
During the Pleistocene to Recent epochs the project area was covered with glaciers which
created deep U-shaped valleys such as the Kizhuyak River valley. In addition to scouring the
bedrock, the glacial activity deposited much of the unconsolidated materials that now blanket the
bedrock at lowre elevations. The main valleys are underlain by varying thicknesses of alluvial
sediments, while deposits from landslides and surface erosion often cover the valley slopes.
Talus and scree deposits are common on the steep mountainous slopes.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Geologic field reconnaissance of the project area was made in July 1991 and August 1992. The
reconnaissance included the interpretation of color, stereo-paired, aerial photographs at a scale
of 1 inch = 1,500 ft. Project elements such as the prospective penstock alignments, dam sites,
and powerhouse sites were examined and photographed from the ground and from a helicopter.
Ground traverses were made of these sites to field check and photograph their geologic
conditions. Backhoe pits were excavated at two of the proposed powerhouse sites. The test pits
were logged and samples of the soils were obtained and tested in the laboratory. The penstock
alignments were delineated on acetate overlays of the aerial photographs and annotated with
pertinent geologic information.
Kodiak Electric Association E-35 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGICAL FEATURES
The project area is located near the middle of Kodiak Island in a region of high rugged mountain
ridges and steep, recently glaciated Valleys. Elevations range from sea level to approximately
4,000 ft.
The proposed project sites are located near the head of Kizhuyak Bay, a north-trending valley
which was heavily glaciated during the Pleistocene and Recent epochs. The region is underlain
by north-trending Cretaceous meta-sedimentary rocks which were intruded during the Tertiary
period by plutons of crystalline granitic rocks classified as quartz diorite.
Leanne and No-Name lakes occupy a north-trending bench on the intrusive rocks at an elevation
of approximately 2,000 ft. Unconsolidated deposits are generally absent above an elevation of
l,500 ft. Streams draining the lakes cascade steeply down cliffs of crystalline rocks, to lower
angled terrain at mid-slope. The lower slopes consist of meta-sedimentary rocks with a thin
layer of unconsolidated glacial debris, volcanic ash, and organics. The slopes terminate near
sea level on coarse-grained flood plain sediments.
A prominent cliff in the project area, rises from about l,OOO-ft elevation to 2,000-ft elevation
and extends several miles along the east margin of the diorite. Glacial action appears to have
removed the less resistant meta-sedimentary rocks east of the diorite contact. Talus-filled
grooves occur along the lineaments in the lower-angled portions of the cliff.
An annotated strip map of the geology of each penstock alignment is provided in Figures E3-l
and E3-2. A description of the geologic units is presented below.
Intrusive Rocks Og-u)
The intrusive bedrock, quartz diorite, is a light grayish white, medium to coarse grained,
crystalline rock. The principal minerals consist of plagioclase feldspar, quartz, biotite, and
hornblende. It is strong, hard, and fresh to faintly weathered on discontinuity surfaces. It is
Kodiak Electric Association E-36 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
NO-NAME
LAKE
PROPOSED .
DAM
, ,
" \----------~
EXISTING 14,5KV---+', /<?,£)-
TRANSMISSION " --~.7 UU-AjJ>'---==-----==--
LINE TO PORT LIONS " ./ <:t . ,
"" JEnY,/) <1 Y
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF
PROPOSED-~----~
POWER HOUSE
o o o
o
, , , , , , , ,
" /---;::;::;~--=-=-=
\ v-
I ,/~
.,. ... .,.-;.::::::r~~
:::...... I ~~~
\ " \ ~
\ I , ~
, 110
\ : C3 \ ,,0::
\ " \ IIW , f:<:
\ 1:5
I ,
PROPOSED
ROAD AND
TRANS, LINE
EXTENSION
, In::
I 10 I ,n::
I In:: , jW
\ , I-
, I <.J
I I z
\ I ~ ~ ~ X , "w , I
\ :
I I
\ l
\ "
PROPOSED
PENSTOCK
, ,
\ ~ LEGEND:
SCALE (FT)
1400
i
, ~
\ ~
,~
~,
I
I' " , " \ . \
t \ ~ ~ '.
\
\
-rr--!l
" I
!
" • I
"
!im .. ... ...
F7;I LJ
IiillJ
LINEAMENT
VOLCANIC
ASH (Ip)
TALUS
(GI)
GLACIAL
TILL (Gt)
FLUVIAL
DEPOSIT (F)
IGNEOUS
ROCK (l9-u)
METASEDIMENTARY
ROCKS (NI-u)
~ '"rj
<:> ......
O"Q ~ ~
(il
t!1 rn ~ I
tv ps'
i Q LEANNE g. LAKE !. 0
O"Q <:> ......
1:1 (")
CI.l
ff.
"0
~ ~
'"rj g
i
tr1 ~
(l)
I r-w
00 ~
(l)
'"C
(l)
~
til ..... g
~
~ ;:,
~
~ C)C) ~ <:>
\ '
~ ~ s.
("')
~ ~.
!4
PROPOSED NORTH "
ROUTE PENSTOCK
ALIGNMENT
i -N-I
0
LEGEND:
LINEAMENT
E VOLCANIC
ASH (Ip)
~ TALUS
(CI)
r::::1 GLACIAL vv TILL (GI) vv
liill FLUVIAL ... DEPOSIT (F)
rill IGNEOUS
ROCK (Ig-u)
/I METASEDIMENTARY
ROCKS (NI-u)
1500
i
SCALE (n)
tough and difficult to break with hammer blows, indicating compressive strength greater than
20,000 psi.
The rock mass is generally massive and without internal structure. It is transected by various
joint sets and generally produces large cubed-shaped blocks of 0.2 to 3 cubic yards. The
jointing is typically parallel to the lineaments. Prominent joint sets are oriented NW and NE.
Joint spacing typically varies from 0.5 to 6 ft. Joint surfaces are rough, with narrow openings
varying from ° to 0.25 in. Joint lengths vary from 20 ft to over 300 ft.
The diorite cliffs appear to be fairly stable. The cliffs have discharged a minor amount of recent
rockfall in a few localized vertical or overhanging places. These areas are isolated and not
typical of most exposures.
Meta-Sedimentary Bedrock (NI)
The meta-sedimentary bedrock is poorly exposed in the project area, and was not exposed at all
along alignments investigated. In the vicinity, the meta-sedimentary rocks consist of interbedded
argillite, graywacke, and slate. These rocks were typically mantled with 3 to 10 ft glacial drift,
volcanic ash, organics, and heavy vegetation. The vegetation consists of alders, devils club,
salmon berry bushes, cow parsnip, and tall grass.
Transecting the bedrock are several sets of prominent lineaments, which tare probably inactive
ancient faults. The larger lineaments, which extend several miles, are typically occupied by
streams which are narrowly incised into the bedrock. These lineaments transect both the
intrusive and meta-sedimentary rocks and are visible on both sides of the Kizhuyak River flood
plain. The orientation of the most prominent lineaments is NW -SE.
3.3 DESCRIPTION OF SOILS
The following types of unconsolidated deposits were observed in the project area:
Kodiak Electric Association E-39 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Talus (Ct)
A talus apron of angular diorite rubble which has resulted from rock falls, fills the shallow
lineaments and covers the lower angled slopes at the base of the prominent cliff along the
diorite/meta-sedimentary rock contact. These deposits are overgrown with alders.
Glacial Till (Gt)
The glacial till is a heterogeneous deposit laid down by glacial ice and ranging in size from clay
to boulders. The till cover is generally absent on the intrusive rocks but covers the meta-
sedimentary rocks to a thickness of several feet. It is typically overlain by volcanic ash.
Volcanic Ash ffi»
Volcanic ash is a loose, fine, silty sand deposited by the eruption of the Novarupta and Katmai
Volcanoes in 1912. It has been mostly washed off the steeper slopes and tends to be
concentrated in swales and crevices and on the surface of the lower slopes. Depth of the ash
can reach several feet where it has been deposited by erosion from higher slopes. The ash is
usually underlain by an organic topsoil layer.
Fluvial Deposits (F)
Coarse grained sediments have been deposited by running water in alluvial fan and flood plain
deposits at the valley bottom. These deposits are characterized by sand, gravel, cobbles, and
boulders and underlie all of the powerhouse sites being considered.
3.4 GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS
3.4.1 Bedrock Structure and Stability
The geologic discontinuities which subdivide the rock mass are referred to as rock structure.
The most important characteristic of structural features, from a stability perspective, is their
Kodiak Electric Association E-40 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
orientation relative to the slope face and relative to each other. These angular and spatial
relationships determine the kinematic potential for various slope failure modes such as planar,
tipping or wedge failure.
The quartz diorite bedrock is transected by shear zones and joint sets of varying orientations.
Localized structural instability of the rock mass was observed in some areas, as noted on
geologic maps. These zones of instability were typically shallow and would result in small to
moderate sized rock falls. If such a rockfall were to occur, it would have the potential to cause
localized damage to the penstock.
3.4.2 Mass Soil Movement
Downslope mass wasting in the project area occurs where surface soils are heavily loaded by
rainfall or snow melt and sweep down the slope as mud flows. Minor landsliding scars were
observed in the unconsolidated deposits overlying the steepest sections of meta-sedimentary
bedrock above the roadway to the Terror Lake powerhouse. These recent landslide scars
occurred in 1991 at the same time, and under similar hydrologic conditions as occurred at the
town of Kodiak where more than 7 inches of rainfall was reported in 24 hours. The landslide
scars are relatively shallow, 2-to 4-ft deep, and appear to be confined to movement of the ash
and underlying topsoil horizon beneath the ash. None of the proposed penstock alignments
actually pass through existing landslide scars.
3.4.3 Soil Erosion
The surface ash deposits are highly erodible by moving water. Disturbance of the surface
vegetation and its associated root growth will often result in the channeling of surface runoff and
the rapid erosion of exposed ash. A concentration of fast moving, surface waters quickly cuts
down through the volcanic ash layer forming steep sided gullies. These eroded drainages are
typically 1-to 2-ft deep and have a cobb ley bottom that retards further erosion.
Kodiak Electric Association E-41 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
3.4.4 Earthquake Potential
The project area is situated in a region of frequent and sometimes severe seismic activity.
Kodiak Island is part of the Alaskan-Aleutian Arc which is the most seismically active region
in the world. Several thousand earthquakes of Mercalli Intensity V or greater have been
reported within a 300-mile radius in the past 100 years. These earthquakes are frequently
associated with tectonic plate activity created by the subduction of the Pacific plate beneath
Alaska.
The great Alaskan earthquake of Good Friday 1964 (Richter magnitude of 8.4) 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. The intensity of shaking in unconsolidated materials ranged as
high as Mercalli IX, and in older bedrock it ranged from VI to VII. Virtually the entire Kenai
Peninsula and Kodiak Archipelago experienced a tectonic subsidence of 2 to 6 ft. No surface
rupture of bedrock was known to have occurred on Kodiak Island although subsidence of up to
6 ft was reported.
The level of past seismic activity in the project vicinity is reflected in the recent work by
Algermissen and others (USGS 1990), who show an earthquake acceleration of 0.7xgravity
(70 percent g) has a 90 percent probability of not being exceeded in 50 years at the site.
3.4.5 Volcanism
Volcanic hazard in the form of ash fallout from nearby volcanoes can affect the site. Volcanic
ash from the Katmai eruption, approximately 80 miles to the west, covered the project area with
coarse ash in 1912. The depth of the ash in the project area averages about 18 inches except
at the toe of slopes and in gullies where depths can be greater. Similar occurrences can be
expected to happen in the future.
Kodiak Electric Association E-42 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
3.4.6 Snow Creep and Avalanche
The heavy snow accumulation at higher elevations in the project area might move downhill by
snow creep; the slow, plastic deformation of snow in a downward direction. Snow creep will
exert a load on the above ground penstock. The slopes are also steep enough to initiate snow
avalanches if the snow deposits accumulate with weak failure zones. However, no avalanche
scars were observed on vegetated surfaces or during snow depth monitoring in the winter months
of 1992.
3.5 IMPACTS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
3.5.1 Leanne Lake
Intake Structure
The outlet of Leanne Lake occurs at the south end of the lake in a structural lineament in the
bedrock. The intake structure for either of the alternative penstock routes will be located near
the northeastern side of the lake, in the north pool. Leanne Lake is divided into two pools
below the surface by an underwater ridge that rises to within 20 ft of the natural lake level. The
south pool is larger but is more distant from a good location for the penstock alignment is
separated from the proposed location of the intake structure. Wash probes of the underwater
ridge found it to be covered by 4 to 6 ft of ash or sandy sediments. During initial project
operation, approximately 5 ft of these fine-grained sediments may be partially removed from the
ridge by jetting or dredging, so that the reservoir storage pool available to the project reaches
a total depth of 25 ft.
The intake structure would include a self-priming siphon which would remain full of water
throughout the year. Underlying both intake and siphon line alternatives, the thickness of
unconsolidated material overlying the granite on the northeast shoreline of the lake is typically
less than 6 inches and consists of volcanic ash and alpine vegetation. The underlying rock is
broken by numerous joints but the rock is sound and stable. Excavations into the rock will
require drilling and blasting operations in order to bury the siphon line to a depth of
Kodiak Electric Association E-43 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
approximately 5 ft. Removal of any loose blocks on slopes above the outlet works will be
required. Joints in the rock can probably be effectively sealed by grouting.
Penstock
From the lake shore, both of the alternative penstock alignments traverse a relatively flat bench
of stable diorite bedrock with some zones of wet volcanic sand of undetermined depth (likely
less than 10 ft). The alignment then descends a steep slope of diorite bedrock, with localized
pockets of shallow talus, to an elevation of about 1,300 ft. The bedrock in this zone is massive
and appears to be stable. Some localized steep faces with small amounts of loose, fractured rock
are above short sections of both routes.
Below the 1,300 ft elevation, the alignment descends a steep slope of heavily vegetated talus to
an elevation of about 1,150 ft. The base of this slope is covered by several feet of volcanic ash
and heavy vegetation overlying meta-sedimentary bedrock.
Below an elevation of 1,150 ft, the south alignment traverses a broad ridge and then descends
a heavily vegetated slope of volcanic ash and glacial till overlying meta-sedimentary bedrock.
Below the 150-ft elevation, the alignment traverses the coarse sediments of the alluvial fan
formed by Rolling Rock Creek.
The north alignment crosses a poorly drained flat of volcanic ash before traversing the heavily
vegetated ridge and slope terrain similar to the south alignment. The north alignment enters the
alluvial deposits of the Kizhuyak River Valley at about elevation 50 ft. The topographic
gradients along the proposed penstock routes are depicted in Figure E3-3 and in Exhibit F,
Figure F-4. Gradients on the north alignment range from 0 percent to 125 percent and on the
south alignment range from 0 percent to 200 percent.
Construction activities along the lower elevations of either route will disturb the surface
vegetative cover which could result in erosion of the underlying ash deposits. Rock falls in the
upper elevations of the route could damage the penstock. In addition to the structural loadings
Kodiak Electric Association E-44 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
o o
LO
C\I
o o o
C\I
/
r
I
\
./
o o
LO ,...
o o o ,...
(199l) UO!leA913
/
o o
LO
Figure E3-3. Ground Profiles Along Penstock Routes
Kodiak Electric Association E-45
,
o
o o LO LO
o o
LO
~
0
0
LO en
0
0
LO
C\I
0
0
LO ,...
o o
LO
o o
LO
I
(I)
--. > -(I) (I)
~ ..J -(I)
(I) .:.c::
.:.c:: ctI
j ..J
(I)
E
ctI z
6 z -0
(I) ~
OJ -" e
(I) Cl..
E " e c:
::I -(I) e
0 C) c:
~
(J)
CS
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
from gravity and operations, the penstock routes are exposed to loads from snow creep and mud
flows. Avalanche, ash falls, and earthquake shaking are also possible.
Powerhouse
Talus and alluvial gravels as deep as 30 ft were present at the toe of the western Kizhuyak
Valley mountain slopes in borings drilled for the existing Terror Lake powerhouse. Similar or
greater depths of unconsolidated sediments are expected at either of the alternative sites for the
Leanne Lake powerhouse.
Powerhouse option "B" on the northern penstock alignment would be sited on the valley floor
near the toe of the slope. A backhoe test pit dug just east of where the north alignment crosses
the existing road showed sand and gravel to the bottom of the 7-ft pit. The water table was
2.5 ft below ground surface. The backhoe pit dug near where the south alignment crosses the
Terror Lake access road, encountered coarse boulders of the Rolling Rock Creek alluvial fan.
Boulders as large as 4-ft diameter were present to a depth of 4 ft and prevented the backhoe
from digging to a greater depth.
For either location, the proposed powerhouse will be a relatively small building and can
probably be supported on spread footings or a mat foundation bearing on the underlying alluvial
deposits. The building will be sited a sufficient distance away from the steep slope,
approximately 50 to 100 feet, to prevent mud flows or snow slides from reaching the structure.
The density of the alluvial materials beneath the building will. determine the amount of settlement
caused by vibratory loadings from either the power generation equipment or earthquake shaking.
3.5.2 No-Name Lake
Dam and Intake Structure
The outlet of No-Name Lake occurs at the southeast end of the lake in a northwest-trending
structural lineament in the bedrock. The damsite is characterized by steep V -shaped terrain in
massive quartz diorite. The rock is hard and competent with widely-spaced steep joints.
Kodiak Electric Association E-46 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
The thickness of unconsolidated material varies from 0 to 6 ft and consists of rock rubble,
volcanic ash and alpine vegetation. The underlying rock is transected by numerous joints. The
dam site foundation and abutment rock is generally sound and stable. Either a gravity masonry
or structural steel dam appears to be suitable for the site.
Construction of the dam will require removal of unconsolidated materials and excavation of a
a shallow keyway into the stable bedrock. An estimated 2-to 3-cubic yds of material will be
stripped from the dam site. Sedimentation in No-Name Lake and the outlet stream can be
expected as a result of the site preparation. Joints in the underlying rock can probably be
effectively sealed by grouting. The dam will experience lateral and possibly uplift loadings from
the ice sheet on the lake in addition to the usual hydraulic loadings.
Penstock
Below the dam, the penstock traverses a steep face of massive diorite with a cross slope
inclination of 70 0
• The rock is competent and appears sufficiently stable enough to attach the
penstock with rockbolts. The penstock alignment then descends stable low-angled massive
diorite to about the 1,8oo-ft elevation. Below 1,800 ft, the alignment descends steep, massive
diorite to an elevation of about 1,300 ft. The rock is generally stable.
Below 1,300 ft, the alignment descends steep, heavily-vegetated talus to an elevation of about
1,100 ft. Below 1,000 ft the alignment descends low angled slopes covered with an unknown
depth of volcanic ash and glacial till until it reaches the proposed powerhouse site at elevation
of 85 ft. The topographic gradients along the proposed penstock route is depicted in
Figure E3-4. Gradients range from 0 percent to 167 percent.
Powerhouse
The powerhouse will be sited on the flatter ground at the toe of the slope. Cobbley gravel is
exposed beneath the ash deposits in the creek banks near the powerhouse site, and alluvial
deposits will probably be beneath the power house site. Hand dug pits revealed less than a 24-
inch thick layer of volcanic ash and topsoil above granular soils.
Kodiak Electric Association E-47 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
--Q)
Q) :c.
&::
0
.~
> Q)
w
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-500
-,-'./
0
---"'-.---_.
"-
500
"-
\
"-
1000
"-
\
\
"-
\
\
1500
'---' ---...l. ... -:::-__ --..
, \
2000 2500 3000
\
\
"-
3500
Distance from Leanne Lake (feet)
\
" \
, \
4000
----Lake - - - - -North ---- ---- -South
Figure E3-4. Topographic Profile Along Leanne Lake Penstock Alignment
~, "-------
4500
"-'--:----1-
5000 5500 6000
The proposed powerhouse will be a relatively small building and can probably be supported on
spread footings or a mat foundation bearing on the alluvial deposits. The density of the alluvial
materials beneath the building will determine the amount of settlement caused by vibratory
loadings from either the power generation equipment or earthquake shaking.
An access road to the No-Name Lake powerhouse can be constructed as an embankment of sand
and gravel fill bearing on the volcanic ash or underlying alluvial soils. This road will extend
from the existing Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project access road southwest approximately
1,500 ft.
Impacts from construction of the powerhouse and road include an increased potential for erosion
and sedimentation due to clearing of vegetation, excavation, and grading.
3.6 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS
3.6.1 Leanne Lake
Intake Structure
The intake works will be designed for the vertical and lateral earth pressures from the backfill
above the buried portion of the system. The hydraulic removal of the sediments on the
underwater ridge in the lake will cause some turbidity. Based on the limited dispersal of
sediments when the jetting probes were made, the lateral extent of disturbance is expected to
small. The sandy textured sediments will settle quickly, allowing the clarity of the lakes' waters
to return to natural levels once the specific construction activity is completed.
If left full of water, the siphon will have to be buried, insulated and heat traced as needed to
protect the pipe from freezing.
Excavations will be performed in both ash deposits and bedrock to install the intake structure
and siphon line. The bedrock excavations will require blasting which should be performed by
experienced personnel. Erosion and sedimentation of disturbed materials in the intake area can
Kodiak Electric Association E-49 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
be confined to a limited area. Implementation of the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan
(Appendix A) will be adhered to during construction of the intake structures.
Penstock
Both of the proposed alignments have similar effects and hazards. The risk of rock falls
damaging the pipe in the upper cliff areas can be reduced by scaling off loose pieces of rock
above the route before the pipeline is constructed. The scaling operations can be performed
using hand tools.
The aboveground penstock will be supported on timber or concrete footings running crossways
to the alignment. The aboveground configuration removes the need for all but localized
excavations, reduces disturbance to the vegetative mat, and allows water to pass under the pipe
in existing drainage paths. This reduces the concentration of flows and erosion of surface soils.
A cleared right-of-way bordering the aboveground penstock sections must be maintained for
maintenance access. The width cleared for the right-of-way can be minimized to a 6-ft wide
maintenance trail. The pipe can be designed to resist most of the expected loading conditions
by anchoring the sleepers to the ground surface as needed with either soil anchors or rock bolts.
Penstock sections which can be placed below ground will be located only in areas of relatively
gentle gradient and for short lengths to reduce the potential for erosion. The buried penstock
sections can be allowed to completely revegetate, reducing the risk of erosion due to surface
runoff on these disturbed areas.
Mud flows should be expected on the lower steep sections of the alignments. If anchorage of
the penstock were lost in a slide zone, the loadings on the anchorage above the slide zone would
increase. Aligning the penstock close to perpendicular to the contours reduces both the risk and
magnitude of loadings from snow creep, avalanches, rock falls and land slides. Most of the two
routes meet this perpendicular to the contours criteria in the steeper sections. At least 2 flow
sensing isolation valves should also be installed in the penstock line to provide emergency shut-
down protection in case of pipeline rupture. One valve will be located near the lake and the
other further downslope, and their specific locations will be planned during the final design
process. Extreme but rare loading conditions might be more economically handled by repairing
Kodiak Electric Association E-50 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
a damaged section of penstock (should that occur) than by attempting to design the penstock to
withstand the loading.
Powerhouse
The powerhouse foundation soils will be improved as needed to develop adequate bearing
capacity by compacting the alluvial soils. If shallow ground water levels preclude on open
excavation to improve the density of the soil, deeper compaction can be achieved by heavy
tamping with a crane and heavy drop weight. The foundation should be a mat or grid type tied
together both ways to resist lateral spreading and differential movements that could occur during
extreme seismic events.
3.6.2 No-Name Lake
Dam and Intake Structure
The dam can be constructed as a steel structure or a concrete and rock masonry type structure
designed to resist gravity, hydraulic, ice and earthquake loadings. For either type of dam
construction, the joints in the bedrock might need to be grouted to prevent loss of water under
the dam. The bedrock excavations will require blasting which should be performed by
experienced personnel. Removal of surface soils (less than I-ft in depth) and loose rock
fragments at the dam site might require hydraulic washing of the bedrock surface. This will
introduce sediment into the outlet stream, but the total quantity of material lost downstream is
expected to be only a few (2 to 3) cubic yards. Some of the material stripped from the dam site
can be directed into localized topographic depressions, rather than directly into the outlet stream.
This will reduce the total quantity of sediment which may eventually reach Eagle Creek.
However, some sediment and increased turbidity can be expected in the outlet stream and in
Eagle Creek.
If left full of water, the siphon will have to be buried, insulated and heat traced as needed to
protect the pipe from freezing.
Kodiak Electric Association E-51 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Penstock
The No-Name Lake penstock alignments have similar effects and hazards as the Leanne Lake
penstock routes. The risk of rock falls damaging the pipe in the upper cliff areas can be reduced
by scaling off loose pieces of rock above the route before the pipeline is constructed. The
scaling operations can be performed using hand tools.
Just below the dam where the route traverses a cliff face, the pipe can be securely anchored to
the face with rock bolts. When not on cliff faces, the aboveground penstock will be supported
on timber or concrete sleepers running crossways to the alignment. This configuration reduces
the concentration of surface flow and erosion of the near surface soils. The pipe can be
designed to resist most of the expected loading conditions by anchoring the sleepers to the
ground surface as needed with either soil anchors or rock bolts. A cleared 6-ft wide trail
bordering the aboveground penstock sections must be maintained for maintenance access.
Penstock sections which can be placed below ground will be located only in areas of relatively
gentle gradient and for short lengths to reduce the potential for erosion. The buried penstock
sections can be allowed to completely revegetate, reducing the risk of erosion due to surface
runoff on these disturbed areas.
Aligning the penstock close to perpendicular to the contours reduces both the risk and magnitude
of loadings from snow creep, avalanches, rock falls and land slides. Most of the route meets
this criteria in the steeper sections. At least 2 flow sensing isolation valves should also be
installed in the penstock line to provide emergency shut-down protection in case of pipeline
rupture. One valve will be located near the lake and their specific locations will be planned
during the final design process. Extreme but rare loading conditions might be more
economically handled by repairing a damaged section of the penstock than by designing and
constructing it to withstand the loading.
Powerhouse
The powerhouse foundation soils will be improved as needed to develop adequate bearing
capacity by compacting the alluvial soils. If shallow ground water levels preclude an open
Kodiak Electric Association E-52 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
excavation to improve the density of the soil, deeper compaction can be achieved by heavy
tamping with a crane and heavy drop weight. The foundation should be a mat or grid tied
together both ways to resist lateral spreading and differential movements that could occur during
extreme seismic events.
Kodiak Electric Association E-53 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
4.0 BOTANICAL RESOURCES
The size and configuration of the proposed Leanne Lake Project Study Area (project study area),
for which environmental impact assessment studies including vegetation mapping would be
undertaken, were determined in consultation with the ADF&G and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). The project study area was configured to cover approximately 13-sq-miles
(8,300 acres), and encompassed an area between the northeast boundary line of the Kodiak
National Wildlife Refuge, eastward to the edge of the Kizhuyak floodplain, then northwest to
a point one-half mile beyond Eagle Creek outlet to include the delta area, and southeast of the
floodplain to a point one-third mile south of Shotgun Creek to include upper reaches of the
Kizhuyak River. The project study area boundary is depicted in Figure E4-1 and on the oversize
map (Figure E4-1M) contained in the pocket at the end of this document.
Climatic conditions, soil properties, and physiographic features determine type and form of
vegetation in the project study area. Situated in a maritime climatic zone, project study area
temperature variations generally are small, humidity and precipitation high, fog and clouds
frequent, and subfreezing conditions rare. The soils of the Kizhuyak drainage evolved in thick
accumulations of volcanic ash that washed from steep slopes following the 1912 ash fall from
the Mount Katmai eruption. A typical profile at lower elevations consists of alternate layers of
loose, loamy fine sand, fine sand ash, and massive coarse silt loam ash of varied thicknesses.
The uppermost layer generally is an infertile loamy fine sand. A mat comprised of root
networks, straw, and other organic matter covers the surface. Most plant roots cannot penetrate
the ash layer. Instead, they derive nourishment from materials decaying near the soil surface.
Predominant physiographic features consist of a delta and riparian systems; footslopes and steep
hills; high cliffs and abrupt rock outcrops; benches, ridges, knolls, basins, well-drained slopes;
and precipitous mountaintops. Project study area elevations range from sea level to more than
3,500 ft. Vegetation is very scarce at uppermost elevations. A mesic sedge-herb tundra
community characterize alpine reaches and a grass-shrub complex dominates midslope
elevations. An open deciduous forest, with mixed herbaceous meadows that grade into a lyme
grass delta zone, summarizes floral composition of the Kizhuyak: floodplain.
Kodiak Electric Association E-54 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
--------~--------
-1-(/-----L---------=-.!
~;~;~~~~~===::-;,.).. "<Ir
:VJ----~ -~fr---~~--------\
, _________ i'-'-''-L'---L __ U_'''-'-_J--X-/---<U___''-L-J'--'--',_/ __ <-L''-''_.L-''-~_/___'~'_/__''_' _____________________ • ___ L. _____________ _
TIDAL MUDFLATS
COASTAL ELYI.4US (WET)
HERBACEOUS I.4EADOW
ALDER-MEADOW MOSAIC
SEDGE MEADOW (WET)
TALL SHRUB (OPEN)
TALL SHRUB (CLOSED)
LOW SHRUB (OPEN)
Figure E4-1. Vegetation Communities
Kodiak Electric Association E-55
~ I.4ESIC SEDGE-HERB TUNDRA
§§2j DECIDUOUS FOREST (OPEN) o BEDROCK, UNCONSOLIDATED ROCK,
BOULDERS, COBBLES, GRAVEL AND SNOW
_._._.-PROJECT STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
--NATiONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE BOUNDARY
---TRANSMISSION LINE
_. __ •• ROAD
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Wetlands consist of estuarine, riverine, and palustrine units. Palustrine wetlands commonly
occur within the intermediate floodplain segment and adjacent foothills which are dominated by
shrubs and persistent emergents not influenced by ocean-driven salinity. Riverine wetlands are
generally confined to upstream channels with intermittent waterflow although some wetlands are
associated with perennial streams. Estuarine wetlands occur in subtidal and intertidal portions
of the delta that regularly receive low-energy flooding by brackish open water. Elevated areas
irregularly flooded by tidal water also form brackish, marshlike conditions. Surface drainage
in such areas generally peaks following tidal inundation.
4.1 EXISTING CONDmONS
Vegetative conditions in the Kizhuyak drainage system were altered somewhat during
development of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project and its operation beginning in 1986.
Substantial landscape alterations occurred around the powerhouse complex, nearby sites used for
equipment/material storage, and outlying areas used for ancillary purposes, including spoil
deposition.
The recovery of shrubs and invasion of herbage amid vacated sites and storage yards has
markedly advanced during the intervening years. For example, excavated spoil deposited outside
the downstream tunnel portal from the Falls Creek intake structure (1,150 ft in elevation)
presently supports a vigorous stand of alder shrubs. Changes in floodplain vegetation patterns
have resulted from river rechanneling and beaver impoundments. Reduced tree cover can be
attributed to beaver felling and to bank erosion. These ongoing events have led to an expansion
of meadow and wetland vegetative communities, particularly in the intermediate part of the
Kizhuyak valley or above and between the Watchout Creek confluence and upriver to a point
about 1.5 miles north of the Terror Lake powerhouse. Other than these transformations,
vegetative conditions adjacent to existing features remain virtually unchanged since the Terror
Lake Hydroelectric Project facility was completed in 1986.
Floral composition and density varies greatly by elevational range. Therefore, vegetative
communities and habitat associations have been categorized into three major topographic zones.
The vegetation of each zone is described as follows:
Kodiak Electric Association E-56 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
(1) Lowland Zone
A pure stand of lyme grass mixed with a sedge, Carex lyngbyaei, covers the Kizhuyak
delta area. Very few other species occur in the lower delta. An open deciduous forest,
composed almost entirely of cottonwood trees (Populus balsamifera) (averaging 40 ft
tall), occupies much of the floodplain. The understory consists of herb-grass or shrub
communities. A few Kenai birch (Betula keneica) grow near the lower delta area on
hilltops and valley sides. A small cluster of immature Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)
appear along the edge of a cottonwood stand growing along an eastward river channel.
(2) Midslope Zone
Valley sides support a mixture of closed shrub and open herb-tall grass communities with
alder (Alnus crispa sinuata) growing on steeper terrain and along streambeds and draws.
Herb-tall grass communities tend to be more common in relatively level terrain.
Extensive areas of closed alder occur below SOO-ft elevation. Open communities form
at elevations ranging from SOO to 1,SOO feet. Such areas are interspersed with herb-grass
communities. Closed alder understory is generally salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and
ferns (Anhyrium filix-femna or Dryopteria dilatata). Salmonberry is denser below
1,200 ft. Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa pubens) in association with dense alder grows
more profusely along fringes of the alder canopy. The understory above 1,OOO-ft
elevation consists of a herb-grass community largely comprised of bluejoint grass
(Calamagrostis canadensis), false helebore (Veratrum viride Eschscholtzii), and wild
celery (Angelica lucida). Fireweed (Epilobium angustifloium) and cow parsnip
(Herac1eum lanatum) augment understories below 1,OOO-ft elevation.
(3) Alpine Zone
The alpine flora consists of a mesic sedge-herb tundra that begins at about 1,700 ft and
persists upward to 2,700-ft elevation. A carex-forb meadow association flourishes above
and between rocky outcrops and benches beneath higher slopes. Conspicuous species in
Kodiak Electric Association E-S7 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
this association include leutkea (Leutkea pectinata), lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis) and
harebell (Campanula rotundijolia), along with Poa arctica and the sedge, Carex
macrochaeta. Ridgetops and well drained rocky areas contain an ericaceous tundra,
characterized by crowberry (Empetrum nigrum) , Kamchatka rhododendron
(Rhododendron camtschaticum), mountain heath (Phyllodoce aleutica) and Alaska moss
heath (Cassiope Stelleriana). Vegetation at higher levels generally occurs as a mosaic
of leutkea, prostrate willow, and mosses, as well as scattered patches of lupine and
sedges. Above 2,800 ft, extensive areas of bedrock, unconsolidated rock, boulders, and
snow hinder plant life from becoming established.
4.2 EXISTING INFORMATION AND STUDY METHODS
Methods used to delineate and describe vegetation types were based upon a review and synthesis
of extant information, including three site-specific mapping inventories. The AEIDC made
extensive field surveys of the Kizhuyak drainage in conjunction with studies required for
licensing the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project (Hickok and Wilson 1979). They mapped
vegetative communities below 1,600 ft with the aid of high-altitude, color-enhanced, infrared
photography (at a scale of 1:60,000). AEIDC mapped communities above 1,600 ft using false-
color, composite LANDSAT imagery (at a scale of 1 :250,000) and field-checked mapping results
during summer and fall of 1979.
In joint response to the Alaska Altitude Photography Program, the USFWS (1988) produced a
wetland inventory map and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service mapped vegetation cover of the
Kodiak Island area. Federal agencies that participated in this program used color-infrared
photography (at a scale of 1 :60,000) to obtain and analyze information on vegetative
communities. Ancillary data (e.g., soil surveys, topography maps) and data obtained during
field surveys were then used to map vegetation (at a scale of I :363,000) to depict location,
shape, and characteristics of vegetation and wetland types.
Collectively, this mapping and survey information precluded the need to inventory botanical
resources within the Leanne Lake Project study area. A field survey during August 1992 helped
Kodiak Electric Association E-58 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
verify and refine recorded classifications. The survey consisted of aerial (helicopter) and ground
transects covering previously mapped vegetative communities at lowland, mid slope , and alpine
zones. The survey team concentrated on verifying palustrine classifications along midslope areas
that potentially would be affected by project development. They noted, but left unmapped, other
wetland units in the project study area because of their small size (less than 5 acres) and/or
distance from proposed construction sites. The study team matched site-specific observations
with existing map data and aerial photographs to ensure classification integrity. A tape recorder
and 35 mm camera was used to supplement data about vegetation and topographic features.
Although previous mapping results generally proved adequate, some technical adjustments were
necessary to account for scale differences and to provide more detail for remapping vegetation
at l-inch-to-l ,OOO-ft scale.
The August 1992 survey revealed that a few vegetation communities had been erroneously
mapped. Notably, the USFWS classified the area bordering Leanne Lake as a lacustrine unit.
However, onsite observation disclosed that no aquatic vegetation occurred within the lake
shallows, and its ash substrate was devoid of any plant life. Alternatively, small seepage areas
near parts of the lake perimeter could possibly have been recorded as a palustrine unit had this
area been field checked from the ground.
4.3 DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Nine vegetation community types occur within the 8,300 acre Leanne Lake project study area
(Figure E4-1). Table E4-1 shows the acreage and percentage of the project study area
encompassed by each vegetation community. The shrub land community, extending from just
above sea level to alpine elevations, represent the predominant community type (47 percent of
project study area). More than 2,500 acres, 30 percent of the total study area, is unvegetated
because of related elevation and substrate limitations. Appendix D lists the flora, by species,
commonly found in the Kizhuyak River drainage.
Kodiak Electric Association E-59 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Table E4-1.
Vegetation Communities of Leanne Lake Project Study Area
Total Area
Community Types Acres (%)
Coastal Elymus 135 1
Herbaceious Meadow 385 4
Alder-Meadow Mosaic 165 1
Sedge Meadow (wet) 65 -
Tall Shrub (open) 1,325 17
Tall Shrub (closed) 1,115 15
Low Shrub (open) 1,050 15
Mesic Sedge-Herb Tundra 480 5
Deciduous Forest (open) 1,040 12
(Unvegetated Areas) (2,560) (3)
A brief narrative describing each community type follows.
Coastal Elymus. A dense, almost homogenous stand of 1yme grass (Elymus mollis), merging
at the tidal fringe with a tall, coarse sedge (Carex Lyngbyaei), dominates the Kizhuyak Delta.
This community grades into a meadow comprised mostly of bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis
canadensis), where cottonwood trees begin and extend along tidal channels and riverbanks for
short distances to merge with a dense cottonwood stand. A narrow band of lyme grass also
occurs along beaches of gentle relief. Several types of estuarine, and some palustrine, wetland
units form in this community. Estuarine types, including subtidal units (e.g., brackish river
channels, permanently flooded portions of the bay), occur along low energy beaches and flats
as well as in more elevated areas less regularly flooded. Palustrine units in this community form
near the mouth of riverine channels as persistent emergent marshes.
Herbaceous Meadow. This community develops large stands by itself or as understory to
cottonwood/Kenai birch trees and shrub communities. Though blue joint grass predominates,
other conspicuous species in this zone include such forbs as cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum),
fireweed, and fern and, in places of higher relief, salmonberry. Willow and other shrubs
Kodiak Electric Association E-60 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
associated with this community grow in small clumps, consisting of Salix puchra, S. alaxensis
as well as dwarf birch (Betula nana) and highbush cranberry (Viburnun edule). Other
conspicuous species in this vegetation type are horsetail (Equisetum arvense), burnet
(Sanguisorba stipulata), lupine, and Indian paintbrush (Castilleja unalaschensis). The closed
shrub and bluejoint-mixed herb communities form a shrub-meadow mosaic association.
Open Deciduous Forest. An open deciduous forest comprised of tall cottonwood trees occupies
the Kizhuyak floodplain at elevations below 500 ft. These trees provide 30 to 40 percent crown
cover throughout this part of the floodplain. Bluejoint grass intermixed with herbs common to
a herbaceous meadow also occurs as an understory association. An open shrub stratum
consisting of alder and willow extends along floodplain edges. Willow density increases near
the delta. Kenai birch grow in dispersed clumps along hills and on knobs adjacent to the jetty-
end of the existing roadway. Together with small stands of willow, alder and salmonberry, the
birch tree understory common to cottonwood stands also prevails in birch communities. A small
stand of scattered cottonwoods occupies the terminal reaches of Eagle Creek, where understory
is dominated by bluejoint grass and cow parsnip except toward the edge of the stand where alder
and elderberry begin to form discrete shrub communities.
Wetland areas associated with the forest understory consist of seasonally flooded sites common
to a hummock depression and concave substrate formations as well as areas where saturated
meadows or bog-type sites result from periodic inundation or semipermanent impoundment
(beaver activity). Emergents may include such herbaceous species as sedge (Carex spp.),
horsetail, Jacob's ladder (Polemanium venicillata), cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris), and yellow
rattle (Pedicularis venicillata). Willow, birch, and salmonberry occupy edges of less saturated
sites. Individual wetland sites interspersed throughout this community cover less than 2 acres
in size.
Tall Shrubland (Closed). This community is dominated by alder with a crown cover of more
than 70 percent and usually occurs as a relatively narrow band along foothill slopes below
1,000 ft in elevation. The understory consists of salmonberry, elderberry, and devil's club
(Echinopanax horridum). Grass and ferns render the alder thickets almost impenetrable.
Kodiak Electric Association E-61 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Bluejoint, salmonberry, false hellebore, and cow parsnip predominate in small openings and
around edges or breaks in canopy cover. Such openings typically appear between shrub covered
ravines of steep foothill slopes descending abruptly to the Kizhuyak valley edge.
Tall Shrubland (Open). This zone consists of both dispersed and clumped alders. Besides
bluejoint, fireweed, and salmonberry, species common to openings are wild celery (Angelica
Zudica), curled dock (Rumex crispa), wild rose (Rosa nutkana), goldenrod (Salidago Zepida), and
nettle (Unica gracilis).
Alder-Meadow Mosaic. This classification refers to the relatively large open areas containing
small alder clumps interspersed with a blue joint-herb complex. A distinguishing feature of this
community is an abundance of salmonberry and alder along the meadow margin. The most
extensive alder-meadow mosaic occupies a ridged bench situated at the 1,000-to 1,200-ft
elevation level, below and between Leanne and No-Name lakes. Bluejoint density is much
reduced at this elevation compared to lower elevations where it predominates. Other species
common to this community are lupine, burnet, false hellebore, cranesbill (Geranium eriathum),
yarrow (Achiellea borealis), aster (Aster sibiricus), monkshood (Aconitum delphinifolium), and
bedstraw (Galium boreaZe) as well as sedges and mosses. Crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), alpine
blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum), and ligonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea) occur in well-drained
places such as knolls and bench ridgelines.
Wet-Sedge Meadow. This community forms in saturated soil areas at upland and midslope
elevations. Upland sites occur in and around low relief basins and along edges of drainage
areas, particularly where snowmelt or seepage enters or exits small bodies of standing water.
Under such conditions, mosses predominate, interspersed with sedge and dwarf-sized herbs that
commonly include lupine, coltsfoot, Indian paintbrush, cloudberry, yarrow, and aster. Small
basin areas downslope from the No-Name Lake basin represent the most extensive community
in the Kizhuyak uplands. At midslope, this community commonly occurs in open ravines,
depressions watered by snowmelt and around springs as well as along slopes with hillside seeps.
The most extensive wet-sedge meadow begins at the uppermost elevations in a swale merging
as a small tributary that joins the No-Name Lake Outlet stream and forms Eagle Creek. Floral
Kodiak Electric Association E-62 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
composition and density increase at these lower elevations to include a mix of such persistent
emergents as Juncus spp., Carex spp., Equisetum sp., Festuca spp., Rumex sp., Eriophorum
spp., and Runuculus spp. Small shrub clumps often appear along the margin of these
communities, but many such sites have not been mapped because they cover less than an acre.
Low Shrubland (Open). Low-growing alders in association with grassland generally parallel the
tall shrub stratum between 1,200-and 1,800-ft elevation levels. Alder growths at upper levels
tend to be more open than at lower levels. Characteristic species of this association are
bluejoint, fescue, lupine, harebell, cow parsnip, fireweed, cranesbill, and salmonberry. These
species appear more lush at lower levels, particularly around the base of cliffs and rocky
patches. Composition is fairly consistent, but relative abundance varies from area to area.
Mesic Sedge-Herb Tundra. This association occurs unevenly from an elevation of about 2,000 ft
to upward limits composed of barren, rocky places. Floral composition and plant vigor vary in
that the upper elevations possess a shallow soil mantle compared to greater soil depth and
moisture present at lower levels. Communities occurring on ridgetops, above basins or
otherwise well-drained places, and around patches of unconsolidated rock and exposed bedrock
support species common to other associations (sedges, crowberry, lupine, Indian paintbrush);
however, other species typical of fellfield areas consist of alpine azalea (Louiseluria
procumbens), Kamchatka rhododendron, moss heath, and various prostrate willows. A carex-
forb association becomes more prevalent on moist slopes and benches. This association consists
of Carex spp., Poa anica, Leutkea pectinata, lupine, Arnica lessengi, coastal fleabane (Erigeron
peregrinus), Indian paintbrush, and coltsfoot. Occasional components included in this
association are blueberry, crowberry, and prostrate willows.
4.4 IMPACTS TO BOTANICAL RESOURCES
The potential for environmental degradation varies with the location of project features, type of
construction techniques, and timing of disruptions. Adverse effects would accrue directly from
physical changes to the landscape and indirectly by related disturbances. Disturbances would
result principally from large numbers of people, operation of construction machinery, blasting,
Kodiak Electric Association E-63 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
and helicopter activities. Overall, these construction activities would be considerably less in
valley lowlands than in midslope and alpine areas, where physical changes would be more
profound. Physical alteration of lowlands would be limited to two, small, widely separated sites
along the valley's west edge and respective sideslopes.
Disturbances would result from activity associated with base camp/staging operations,
powerhouse and access road construction, and installation of discharge culverts and additional
transmission lines. Midslope and alpine areas would be adversely affected from clearing,
drilling, blasting, excavating, and transporting operations. Development would occur at each
lake basin from which water would be tapped, and two separate penstock alignments that would
intersect several subalpine and midslope vegetation communities.
Because of their small size and scattered locations, wetland units would sustain no appreciable
alteration from project development. Small seeps around No-Name Lake would be inundated
but these are sparsely vegetated due to altitudinal and substrate limitations. Alternative penstock
routes for Leanne Lake would circumvent two small palustrine units recorded as persistent
marshes along the upper part of the Eagle Creek drainage. Powerhouse installations would be
located distant from palustrine and riverine units recorded for the lowland portion of the
Kizhuyak drainage. The tailrace discharge for the Leanne Lake northern route would probably
be routed between two small units--a temporarily flooded river bar and a channel. Depending
on the exact location of either tailrace selection, existing wetland units could be altered. If so,
this would be of little consequence to wildlife. Estuarine and marine units would not be
impacted. Proposed developments and construction activity within and adjacent to the coastal
fringe would be confined to the existing jetty and docking facility.
The expected effect of project development on botanical resources at each project structure is
presented below. Figure E4-1 shows the location of these structures and Table E4-2 shows by
vegetation community the total area of impact. Depending upon the dam height selected for No-
Name Lake, between 4.96 acres and 6.96 acres of vegetation would be disturbed in the No-
Name component of the project. An estimated total of 2.76 acres would be impacted by the
Leanne Lake component of the project.
Kodiak Electric Association E-64 Leanne Lake Hydroelectn"c Project
Table E4-2.
Vegetation Community Impacts of the Leanne Lake Project
Approximate Area Disturbed In Acres
Tall
Open Sbrubland A1der-Low Sedge!
Deciduous (open and meadow Sbrubland Herb
Project Feature Forest dosed) Mosaic (open) Tundra'
Roads and Transmission Line
Leanne Lake Powemouse Option "A" 0.03
No-Name Lake Powemouse 0.49 0.05
Penstock & Siphon
Leanne Lake:
"Southern Route" 0.04 0.35 0.08 0.04
"Northern Route" 0.03 0.40 0.01 0.09 0.Q2
No-Name Lake 0.47 0.08 0.12 0.11
PowerllOuse (including tailrace culverts)
Leanne Lake (all options) 0.30
No-Name Lake 0.36
Lakeshore Inundation and Fluctuation
Leanne Lake 1.20
No-Name Lake:
IO-ft dam 3.00
20-ft dam 5.00
'Category indicates total combined mesic sedge-hero tundra and wet-sedge meadow areas affected.
Access roads to each of the two proposed powerhouses (Leanne Lake powerhouse option "A"
and No-Name Lake powerhouse) would be constructed as branches from the existing Terror
Lake access road. Ifthe Leanne Lake powerhouse option "A" is selected, about 150 ft of added
access road would be permanently used to facilitate construction, operation and maintenance of
the powerhouse. This road would be lO-ft wide and traverse a closed tall-shrub community
dominated by alder and elderberry. Salmonberry and bluejoint grass currently abound between
the existing roadway and edge of the shrub canopy. The road would terminate at an elevation
of 135 ft and eliminate about 0.03 acres of alder and associated vegetation types (tall shrubland).
Should the northern penstock route be used for the Leanne Lake powerhouse, no road would be
Kodiak Electric Association E-65 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
required since this structure would be located at a 50-ft elevation immediately adjacent to the
existing access roadway.
A new access road, approximately 1,500 ft in length by lO-ft wide, would be used to access the
No-Name Lake powerhouse. This road would cross relatively flat terrain that supports tall-shrub
dominated communities. The initial 500 ft branching from the existing roadway would intersect
an area of open alder thickets interspersed with blue joint grass, wild rose, cow parsnip, false
hellebore, angelica, and curled dock. Beyond this point, shrub density increases to form a
closed alder-shrub community in association with bluejoint grass, devil's club, and salmonberry
appearing in small openings or breaks in canopy cover. Vegetation communities that would be
eradicated cover approximately 0.34 acres.
Powerhouses
A 0.25-acre site would be used to construct each of two proposed powerhouses, regardless of
where they might be located. Sites would be graded and excavated to construct each 24-by-40-ft
foundation. The total area of both sites combined would cover no more than a half acre. The
buried culvert tailrace, would, after the project is completed, be expected to support vegetation.
The two alternative locations for the Leanne Lake powerhouse would place powerhouse
option II A II close to the existing roadway in a dense stand of cottonwood trees, with an
understory comprised of bluejoint-mixed herb meadow and an occasional low alder or willow
shrub. Powerhouse option "B" would be nearer the Kizhuyak River in an area of fewer
cottonwood trees but more of the same grass-herb and willow shrub associations. The tailrace
culvert for powerhouse option "A" would be 350 ft in length, impacting 0.05 acres. The tailrace
culvert for powerhouse option liB" would be approximately 200 ft in length and would pass
through an open grass-cottonwood and a sparsely vegetated part of the floodplain consisting
chiefly of stone and gravel, impacting 0.03 acres of vegetation.
The powerhouse site for No-Name Lake would be situated directly north of Eagle Creek's
confluence with the No-Name Lake Outlet channel. Vegetation to be affected by this site
selection mostly consists of a dense alder-shrub community. There are two tailrace alternatives
Kodiak Electric Association E-66 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
as follows: (1) from the powerhouse through 340 ft of tall alder community to the No-Name
Outlet stream, or (2) 5OO-ft culvert through alder-meadow community to Eagle Creek. Culverts
used for the tailrace would be buried in a 4-ft deep trench and would be large enough to permit
access for internal inspection. A bar grate would be installed to control outflow velocity and
prevent fish and animal entrance. Tailrace entrenchments would be backfilled, resurfaced with
soil, and allowed to revegetate.
Penstocks
Alternative penstock routes are proposed for the Leanne Lake component of the project.
Features common to both routes include below-lake-level excavating through bedrock at either
lake intake sites, a 6-ft wide maintenance path on either penstock alignment, and a 12-to 16-inch
pipe installed from the intakes to the powerhouse within the 6-ft wide maintenance path.
Depending upon the presence of favorable grade and substrate conditions, penstocks would be
buried for short distances or secured for surface installation by rock bolting or soil anchoring.
Vegetation would be rebrushed from the right-of-way for future maintenance and emergency
access. During construction, winches would be used to transport work crews and materials via
this right-of-way. After project completion, cabling on the steepest section would remain as a
safety precaution. Each alternative would intersect several vegetation communities.
The southern route extends for approximately 5,560 ft, of which 3,800 ft is estimated to support
vegetation. Beginning at the lake intake the penstock would pass through a sedge-herb
community, primarily consisting of sedge, grass, moss heath, sweet coltsfoot, lupine, and Indian
paintbrush. The next segment, roughly 1,900 ft, is essentially devoid of vegetation due to
exposed rock. The penstock then crosses a low shrub community for a distance of 600 lineal-ft
that consists of low, spaced alder dominated by grass, fireweed, cranesbill, cow parsnip,
harebell, and salmonberry. An alder-shrub community occurs for the next 2,600 lineal-ft.
Major understory species here include elderberry, salmonberry, devil's club, grass, and ferns.
The terminal segment intersects an open cottonwood forest for about 300 lineal-ft. If selected,
the southern route would impact 0.51 acres of vegetation.
Kodiak Electric Association E-67 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
From the lake to the powerhouse the northern route covers a lineal distance of approximately
5,825 ft. The first 1,500 lineal-ft segment is sparsely vegetated because of exposed rock and
escarpments. Grass, sedge, moss, angelica, burnet, lupine, and Indian paintbrush occur in
patches for a distance of about 120 ft. The penstock then crosses a low shrub-grass community
for about 700 lineal-ft. At about the 1 ,200-ft level, the penstock passes through a natural bench
for about 100 lineal-ft. An alder-meadow community forms on this bench which is characterized
by an abundance of salmonberry and alder growing along meadow edges or as small clumps
within meadow areas. Associated herbaceous species generally consist of bluejoint, moss,
sedges, burnet, yarrow, and blueberry. The penstock would then intersect tall shrub
communities for the next 950 lineal-ft before crossing the last 280 lineal-ft. Vegetation
composition for these terminal segments is similar to that described for the southern penstock
route. An estimated 0.55 acres of vegetation would be impacted should this route be selected.
The route proposed for the No-Name Lake development covers approximately 6,150 lineal-ft and
passes through vegetation communities that differ substantially from those occurring near the
Leanne Lake intake area. From the dam outlet, the penstock would pass through about
800 lineal-ft of sedge-herb tundra. Species composition in the upper segment level is similar to
other sedge-herb associations (e.g., sedge, grass and low-growing Indian paintbrush, lupine,
aster). Other species typical of this segment include prostrate willows, alpine azalea, coastal
fleabane, Kamchatka rhododendron, and poa. A carex-forb complex prevails along moist slopes,
benches, and in bowls. About 850 lineal-ft of low shrub would be intersected by the next
segment of the No-Name Lake penstock. Below the 1,500 ft contour interval, the penstock
would course through an alder-dominated community for about 3,000 lineal-ft. Grasses and
fireweed are the most abundant understory species in or between shrub openings. Salmonberry,
lady fern, and cow parsnip also occur in small patches as part of an alder-meadow mosaic. The
penstock crosses such areas that collectively amount to about 600 lineal-ft. The next segment
passes through about 400 lineal-ft of closed alder before terminating at the proposed powerhouse
situated above the No-Name Lake tributary and Eagle Creek confluence. Vegetation around this
area is generally the same as described for the No-Name Lake powerhouse site. An estimated
0.78 acres of vegetation would be disturbed as a result of penstock construction.
Kodiak Electric Association E-68 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
These two penstocks would significantly affect vegetation for a 6-ft wide band almost a mile in
length for the Leanne Lake route and more than a mile in length for the No-Name Lake penstock
developments. Depending on the extent to which temporary pioneer roads were used, the
surface would probably be reoccupied by herbaceous vegetation. Since shrubs would be brushed
for continued access, alder could be expected to reappear at least along the margin for those
segments that would cross existing alder shrub communities.
Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake Intake and Dam
Project development in and around the lake basins would undoubtedly affect alpine plant
communities. A 10-to 20-ft high dam has been proposed for No-Name Lake, which has a
present surface area of 11.2 acres. A lO-ft high dam would increase the surface area to
17.1 acres, inundating 5.9 acres of the lake basin. A 20-ft high dam would inundate 11.3 acres.
Some alpine vegetation would sustain a permanent loss with either scenario. The lake contains
no aquatic vegetation, while basin sideslopes support large sedge-herb patches. Further, seeps
and tributary outlets support units that could technically be classed individually as a palustrine
wetland. A lO-ft high dam would result in a long-term loss of an estimated 3 acres of alpine
vegetation (combined mesic-sedge herb tundra and sedge-meadow communities). If a 20-ft high
dam were constructed, about 5 acres of vegetative cover would be lost.
By contrast, the Leanne Lake development would not expand the surface area. A siphon intake
would draw the lake down from 20 to 30 ft to expose between 23.7 and 31.7 acres of the
existing lake bed. Like No-Name Lake, this lake is devoid of aquatic plant life, however, rock-
free surfaces along parts of the lakeshore edge support a vegetative mat comprised of moss,
sedge, grass, and some low-growing forbs. Patches of vegetation forming in seep areas and
inflow sites could diminish in size with increased drainage and a lower lake level. An estimated
0.12 acres of alpine vegetation could be affected by changes in substrate moisture content.
Kodiak Electric Association E-69 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Transmission Line
The proposed route for the 875-ft transmission line would somewhat parallel the road extension
for accessing the No-Name Lake powerhouse. Beginning at the powerhouse at an elevation of
85 ft, the line would cross Eagle Creek just upstream from its junction with No-Name Lake
Outlet and a tall alder shrub community that is thickest near the stream channel. Common
understory species include bluejoint, cow parsnip, ferns, and elderberry. Shrub cover opens to
a small herbaceous meadow. The effect of clearing shrub cover from the right-of-way would
vary. Where the understory remains undamaged, grasses and forbs would probably regenerate
rapidly, especially if the clearing is maintained for security and access purposes. The shrub
community as a whole would in this case be permanently altered.
4.5 MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts to botanical resources from project construction would be confined to the displacement
of vegetation from sites used for the two small powerhouses and the roads leading to these
installations. Areas where vegetation has been altered or removed by constructing facilities such
as the penstock, transmission line, tailrace culvert or dam would naturally revegetation between
five and fifteen years from the time this project becomes operational. Aside from construction
being confined to relatively small areas, heavy-lift helicopters would facilitate aerial transport
of building materials, thereby avoiding impacts to vegetation communities and other surface
features. The following mitigation procedures would help minimize effects of project
development on botanical resources.
(1) An effort would be made to avoid disturbance or destruction of Category 2 plants
that may occur within this region. A qualified biologist, knowledgeable about the
regional flora and distinguishing features of Category 2 plant species, would
accompany work crews during the initial construction phase to inspect areas
scheduled to be cleared or altered and, as necessary, alert project personnel should
plants be found within the project perimeter.
Kodiak Electric Association E-70 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
(2) After project structures are in place, nearby soil slopes would be scarified where
practical to a minimum depth of six inches along the contour line and if necessary,
ditch linings would be installed in places to counter erosiveness of exposed slopes.
(3) Topsoil or organic materials would be stockpiled in cleared areas, such as along
the buried portion of the penstock. Disturbed areas would be regraded and, using
retained topsoil, these areas would be fertilized and allowed to revegetate
naturally. Artificial seeding would not be undertaken as this proved expensive
and relatively unsuccessful during mitigative revegetation for the Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project (M. Downing, personal communication).
(4) A biodegradable fabric, such as jute netting and "Hold Grow" would be used to
help prevent erosion in steep areas. This would be surfaced applied and tied
down or pegged to limit surface erosion and promote natural growth for slope
stabilization. A standard commercial fertilizer would be used to restore cleared
areas and where structures are to be buried beneath the surface. Stockpiled
topsoil would be used in conjunction with such fertilizer which will be supplied
in moisture proof containers. Each container shall bear the manufacturer's
specifications including the percentage of each ingredient contained therein. All
fertilizers would be checked and approved by a construction manager prior to
application. No cyanamide compounds or hydrated lime will be permitted in
fertilizers and tolerance of chemical ingredients shall be plus or minus 2 percent.
At least one of the following forms will be used: a dry, free-flowing fertilizer
suitable for application by sprayers; or a granular or pellet form suitable for
application by blower equipment.
(5) Crew encampment and material staging sites at upper elevations would be located
in low-yield areas to avoid disturbance to plant communities. Plant recovery and
succession on rock slopes and talus is exceedingly slow, perhaps taking decades.
Such areas having suitable soil mantles would be scarified, mulched, and fertilized
to allow recovery by natural processes. The penstock and other areas where soil
is not removed should revegetate naturally as native seeds disperse and runners
Kodiak Electric Association E-71 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
establish themselves from neighboring undisturbed plants. The penstock right-of-
way would be rebrushed periodically in order to maintain a narrow 6-ft wide
maintenance trail. Work crews would be directed to limit vegetation clearing to
that deemed essential for operational needs.
4.6 AGENCY CONSULTATION
See Section 5.6 under the chapter on Wildlife Resources, for information regarding agency
consultation related to botanical resources.
Kodiak Electric Association E-72 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
5.0 WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Wildlife resource values in the Kizhuyak drainage system are considerably less than in other
drainages of the Kodiak landform. Geomorphic characteristics such as floodplain breadth and
gradient; relief and substrate composition of side slopes; aquatic systems; and aspect, elevation,
steepness, and other physical features of surrounding mountains all contribute to faunal resources
of lesser density. Compared to other drainages, the Kizhuyak drainage habitat structure is
simplistic. Rocky mountains descend abruptly to a relatively narrow, short valley floor that
rapidly grades to sea level. By contrast, the larger, adjacent Terror drainage contains a large
lake basin, rolling foothills, hanging alleys, numerous tributary streams, and expansive alpine
areas that in aggregate account for greater habitat quality, hence, species density. In sum, larger
drainages having lowland lakes with low gradient con tributaries , sea connecting outlets, and
myriad vegetative types provide an array of wildlife habitats which support a greater abundance
of fish and wildlife.
The Kizhuyak drainage supports each of the six terrestrial mammals cited by Clark (1958) as
indigenous to the Kodiak Archipelago as well as four introduced mammals. Those species that
likely inhabited the archipelago prior to Russian occupation in 1786 are the brown bear (Ursus
arctos middendo1ji); river otter (Lutra candensis); ermine (Mustela erminea); red fox (Vulupes
vulpes); tundra vole (Microtus oeconomus); and little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). Successfully
introduced species include the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus); beaver (Castor canadensis);
Sitka black-tailed deer (OdocoiZeus hemionus); and mountain goat (Oreamous americanus)
(Buck et al. 1975). All of the above species at differing levels of abundance occupy the 13-sq-
mile Leanne Lake project study area.
About 206 bird species inhabit the Kodiak Archipelago at various times of the year (Hickok and
Wilson 1979). Migrant waterfowl feed and rest here during spring and fall, while others remain
during summer and winter. Species observed most commonly are mallards (Anas
platyrhynchos), harlequin (Histrianicus histrianicus), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula),
greater scaup (Aythya marila), and red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator). Mergansers and
goldeneyes breed widely and successfully in this region.
Kodiak Electric Association E-73 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Shorebirds abound and are commonly seen in and along the embayment as well as around ponds
and open water courses, often moving between such localities. Most evident in this category
are gulls (Larsus spp.), arctic tern (Sterna parodisaea), yellow legs (tringa sp.), snipe
(Gallinago gallinago), spotted sandpiper (Actitus macularia), and black-legged kittiwake (Rissa
tridocty la) .
Fifty-three passerine species inhabit the archipelago; those commonly observed around the
project area are the hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), sparrow (Passerella spp.), winter wren
(l'roglodytes trogglodytes), and Wilson's warbler (Wilsonia puscila).
The northwestern crow (Corvus caurimus) and black-billed magpie (Pica pica) are particularly
abundant around the coastline. Rock and willow ptarmigan (Lagopus spp.) also inhabit alpine
and midslope reaches of the project study area.
Birds of prey consist of some 15 species, seven classified as residents and the remainder
considered visitors or migrants (Hickok and Wilson 1979). The bald eagle (Haliacetus
leucocephalus) is by far the most ubiquitous resident species. Observations revealed four nesting
platforms within the Leanne Lake project study area, but only one supported a breeding pair
during the summer of 1992. Unused platforms occupied year after year by the same pair usually
signify alternate nest sites within a given territory. Although nesting density around the
embayment is low, significant feeding aggregations routinely develop at the Kizhuyak Delta.
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project personnel counted as many as twenty young and adult birds
on the delta during August 1992.
Other important raptors known to nest at least occasionally within or near the project area are
the golden eagle (Aquila Chrysactos); Peale's peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus peale;); merlin
(Falco columbarius); rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), and northern goshawk (Accipiter
gentilis). Other than bald eagle, the rough-legged hawk and merlin are the most frequently
observed raptor species.
Kodiak Electric Association E-74 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Hickok and Wilson (1979) provided a comprehensive description of important wildlife species,
relevant life histories, and habitat requirements as part of the AEIDC investigations for the
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project. Species status currently remains essentially the same except
for several notable transformations:
(1) Beaver distribution has expanded to include riparian habitats in the upper
Kizhuyak valley--a substantial increase in numbers and range compared to the
1980s, when activity focused upon lower reaches of Watchout Creek.
(2) Sitka black-tailed deer have experienced a widespread reduction during the past
several years due to winter starvation (M. Downing and R. Smith, personal
communications) .
(3) Mountain goats now make more extensive use of the Kizhuyak drainage system,
particularly for kidding purposes (Smith and Van Daele 1987).
(4) Improved fishery production relative to constructing the Terror Lake Project has
probably benefitted the areas' fish-eating birds and mammals.
The key species and habitats which are likely to be affected by the proposed project are further
reviewed under the following sections.
5.1 STUDY METHODS AND INFORMATION SOURCES
The size and configuration of the project study area for wildlife was determined after
consultation with the ADF&G and the USFWS (Figure E4-1). Agency participants during the
first-stage consultation meetings, including ADF&G and DEC personnel, also emphasized the
need to use existing information as part of the present investigation rather than duplicate former
data gathering.
In conjunction with the former Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, activity patterns and habitat
requirements of key mammals and rap tors were relatively well-defined. Pre-construction studies
Kodiak Electric Association E-75 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
were performed by AEIDC, followed by construction and operation monitoring studies by
ADF&G and USFWS.
The 1979-1980 AEIDC study described Kizhuyak's wildlife resources and analyzed
environmental impact potentials, especially to brown bears, mountain goats, and raptors (Hickok
and Wilson 1979; Spencer and Hensel 1980; Wilson et al. 1980). ADF&G provided more
detailed information on brown bears and mountain goats, based on project monitoring studies
made from 1982 through 1986 (Smith and Van Daele 1988, 1987). Using radio devices to track
84 bears, ADF&G study objectives were to: (1) delineate and characterize impacts on brown
bears, (2) monitor changes in specific habitats such as major denning and feeding areas and
travel routes, (3) monitor changes in number and sex and age composition of bears inhabiting
the impact area, (4) monitor changes in movement patterns and activities of bears in response
to construction activities, and (5) delineate movement patterns and seasonal changes of mountain
goats and document any changes which may have been attributed to project-related activities.
The USFWS concurrently conducted studies from 1982 through 1985 to monitor bald eagle
reproductive rates as well as nesting success and feeding ranges of other raptors during
construction of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project.
For the current study, aerial and ground reconnaissance surveys were conducted from August 7-
10, 1992, along predetermined transect routes. Five transects provided full area coverage, with
three transects spaced lengthwise to the valley floor and two along midslope and alpine
elevations. A helicopter, operating at low air speed 100 to 500 ft above the terrain, provided
an ideal observation platform to record birds, animals, trails, nest platforms, and vegetative
types. This survey reconnaissance was intended to: (1) determine the relative extent that large
mammals occur within and near the project area, (2) qualify habitat use by large mammals, and
if discernable, identify specialized uses of such habitats, and (3) subjectively classify
observations/findings into negligible, low, moderate, and high usage categories by species type.
An observer on foot resurveyed important transect segments where construction activities would
occur to verify mammal use by noting the presence of tracks, scat, hair, and other indicative
signs. Alpine areas reportedly used for brown bear denning were closely scrutinized, recording
pertinent observations on the United States Geological Society (USGS) topography maps and a
Kodiak Electric Association E-76 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
tape recorder. Additionally, photographic documentation was made of wildlife,
vegetation/habitat associations, topographic features, and other project-area characteristics. KEA
employees stationed at the Kizhuyak powerhouse also provided information based on their direct
observations and historical knowledge of the area's wildlife.
5.2 WILDLIFE SPECIES
Life cycle characteristics and seasonal habits typical of large mammals and birds of prey in the
region have been previously described by Hickok and Wilson (1979). Therefore, this review
concentrates on those species and associated habitats of important resource value deemed
sensitive to proposed Leanne Lake project developments.
The extent to which mountain goats, brown bears, and deer occupy the 13-sq-mile project study
area depends greatly upon species density, habitat quality, and seasonal use of forage resources.
Deer are more widespread than other large mammals, but numbers have dropped since the 1980s
when mild winters allowed them to flourish and exceed winter-range carrying capacities.
Presently, the Kizhuyak deer population probably stands at several hundred animals. Brown
bear numbers appear relatively stable, with upwards of 200 animals estimated to be associated
with the Kizhuyak drainage from one season to the next (Spencer and Hensel 1980; Smith and
Van Daele 1988). Virtually all of the project study area is used by bears, though density
fluctuates seasonally.
Mountain goat numbers appear somewhat stable, with approximately 150 to 200 goats occupying
Kizhuyak and adjacent drainages (Smith and Van Daele 1987). A small portion of this
subpopulation, perhaps up to 20 animals, occupies habitats within the project study area or
nearby fringes (e.g., Falls and Shotgun creek escarpments). Goat numbers also vary seasonally,
reaching a low during summer.
The two most abundant raptors are the bald eagle and rough-legged hawk. Other raptors
including the golden eagle have occasionally nested in this locality but without regularity,
probably because a limited prey base inhibits consistent use on a consecutive year basis.
Kodiak Electric Association E-77 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
A detailed account of wildlife population and habitat use in the project study area is discussed
by individual species in the following sections. The tenns home range, activity areas, and
movements, are first defined to help place wildlife habitat and potential impacts in perspective.
An activity area is a habitat(s) unit used by an animal to fulfill certain life-support requirements.
Activity areas may be used by animals to feed, rest, interact socially/sexually, protect young,
den, etc. The number of activity areas, the space each activity area comprises, and distances
between each of them vary among individual animals and in response to habitat quality. The
tenn movement is the distances animals traverse between and within activity areas. Home range
represents the sum of each activity area and distances between them combined.
Mountain Goat
Mountain goat numbers have increased over the years, since development of the Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project, to the extent that animals now occupy the western sector of the Kizhuyak
drainage. A history of this extension began with a 1979 observation that animals had been
sighted in an escarpment above the Shotgun Creek-Kizhuyak River confluence (Hickok and
Wilson 1979). Coincidently, the area just to the north, including the Falls Creek tributary,
reportedly offered potentially suitable winter range. A year later, Spencer and Hensel (1980)
noted that, at least for the summer's duration, a small band had moved into the Falls Creek area.
The fact that the distribution of goats originally from the Ugak drainage contracted and expanded
seasonally to penetrate outlying drainages was repeatedly demonstrated during ensuing years
(annual status has been closely monitored by USFWS and ADF&G). Interdrainage movements
to seasonally used areas was common until the winter of 1980, when ADF&G con finned for the
first time that Kizhuyak's westward drainages (Shotgun and Falls Creek) were occupied year-
round (Spencer and Hensel 1980). Mountain goat studies (1982-86) made in conjunction with
the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project by Smith and Van Daele (1987) indicated that Kizhuyak
and Terror/Uganik drainages became increasingly important in post-kidding distributions. Their
August surveys revealed distribution patterns similar to those observed in June. As reported by
Smith and Van Daele (1987), goat numbers increased substantially from 1974 to 1982, probably
from natural population expansion from the time goats had been introduced in 1952 and 1953.
Kodiak Electric Association E-78 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Small bands inhabiting the northwest side of the Kizhuyak drainage use the southern sector of
the project study area, including the Leanne Lake basin, the Rolling Rock Creek escarpment,
and downslope from alpine areas to the access road leading to the powerhouse. Up to 20 goats
have been repeatedly observed in the Rolling Rock Creek area along with newborn kids recorded
each year of the five-year study conducted by Smith and Van Daele (1987).
During the August 1992 reconnaissance survey, no goats were seen in the Falls Creek-Leanne
Lake basin areas. However, animal sign in the form of shed goat hair and pellet groups
suggested moderate to light use of the lake basin area during the past spring. A slightly used
goat trail originating at an upper Falls Creek escarpment negotiated the east side of the Leanne
Lake Outlet stream area until it became obscured in rock formations just north of the basin.
Mr. Michael Downing (personal communication), powerhouse manager for KEA, reported that
a dozen or more goats had occupied the Rolling Rock Creek escarpment during the past several
winters. He also noted that six to eight goats had wintered in 1991-92 at midslope elevations
near the existing Terror Lake penstock, and a nanny had given birth during late spring in a small
ravine directly above the existing access road, about a mile north of the powerhouse.
Though consistent seasonal use of the project study area's southern sector has been evidenced,
the northern sector is apparently unused by goats. Upper elevation areas within and around No-
Name Lake and connecting basins exhibited no such evidence during the recent past. Low-
quality summer range, coupled with sparse security cover and brown bears ranging at alpine
elevations, could explain a lack of activity and/or observations during late spring and early
summer in this part of the project study area. Goats probably do not occupy the northernmost
extension of mountainous terrain along the west Kizhuyak drainage side for these reasons.
Figure ES-I shows goat distribution patterns and seasonal habitat uses within the southern sector
of the project study area. Goats probably favor rugged terrain in the upper Falls and Shotgun
drainages when alpine bear activity intensifies (i.e., late spring and early summer, late fall and
early winter). Goats would be more likely to range in less protected habitats when bears seek
winter denning sites and use foothill and valley bottom habitats during summer and fall periods.
Table ES-l presents projected use of groundcover types found within the southern sector of the
project study area.
Kodiak Electric Association E-79 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
-
...
Figure E5-1. Seasonal Goat Distribution
Kodiak Electric Association E-80 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Table ES-l.
Major Vegetation Communities/Groundcover Types Used by Mountain
Goats Ranging Within the Leanne Lake Project Study Area
Approximate
Groundcover Type Acreage Projected Period of Use
Nonvegetated areas 1,300 Spring through early fall
Mesic sedge-herb tundra 200 Spring
Alder-meadow mosaic 380 Winter
Low shrub 720 Winter through early spring
Tall shrub 1,180 Winter through early spring
The area north of Falls Creek including the Leanne Lake basin primarily serves as a wintering
and kidding area. No specialized habitat uses (e.g., traditional kidding sites, mineral licks) were
discovered during the August 1992 reconnaissance survey.
Brown Bear
The brown bear numbers ranging within and adjacent to the Kizhuyak and Terror drainage can
only be approximated. Hickok and Wilson (1979) noted the difficulty of obtaining accurate bear
counts because of shifting populations in uneven, brush-covered terrain typical of this locality.
AEIDC estimated that approximately 140 different bears ranged in the Terror and 60 in the
Kizhuyak drainages, for a total of about 200 animals. Smith and Van Daele (1988) placed the
Terror-Kizhuyak populations at about 192 bears. Despite biases inherent to contemporary
estimation methods, resource managers consider islandwide population levels to be high and
relatively stable. Bear numbers and habitat use are dynamic, responding to social/reproductive
factors, food availability, and environmental changes.
range/movement and habitat usage information follows.
A brief overview of home
Spencer and Hensel (1980) described general brown bear movements in the Kizhuyak drainage.
More definitive information on home range and activity and movement patterns has been
Kodiak Electric Association E-81 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
provided by Smith and Van Daele (1988) as determined from tracking radio-instrumented bears.
The following briefly summarizes findings related to movements.
The high pass separating Kizhuyak and U gak drainages serves as a major route for bears moving
between these drainages and northern parts of the island. This area includes the Chiniak sector
through Elbow and Watchout Creek drainages; movement to and from the north and northwest
to include Kupreanof Peninsula and Viekoda and Terror bays, facilitated by lowland routes/trails
along the inner Kizhuyak embayment; and Falls and Shotgun drainages, which provide access
to and from the Uganik-Terror drainage systems. Interdrainage travel is by no means restricted
to natural connecting pass-drainage routes nor pennanently established trail networks, as bears
may move linearly despite topographical obstacles. Traditionally used trails, however, appear
to be preferred during summer and fall to reach seasonal feeding sites as opposed to predenning
and postemergentlbreeding periods when movements are more randomized.
The degree that bears move to, from, or across the project study area is difficult to detennine,
but past sightings (AEIDC and ADF&G studies) and recent findings (August 1992) infer that
bears routinely travel through tributary drainage systems (i.e., Shotgun and Falls creeks) and
along a midslope bench below Leanne and No-Name lakes. A slightly used bear trail noted
during August 1992 extends along the upper reaches of Eagle Creek. An established trail noted
along the coastal fringe west of the Kizhuyak delta probably connects with other trails to
Kupreanof Peninsula and southwest portions of other embayments. Smith and Van Daele (1988)
found that the majority of radio-instrumented bears roaming the Kizhuyak drainage routinely
traversed interdrainage distances. They recorded activity areas within this drainage as well as
around Viekoda, Uganik, and Terror bays and their respective drainages.
The Kizhuyak drainage has the spatial capacity to accommodate all home-range needs of
individual bears. Bear observations confirm the presence of established activity areas within the
Leanne Lake project study area (Spencer and Hensel 1980; Smith and Van Daele 1988). Some
bears remain within the Kizhuyak drainage during an annual cycle. A radio-collared female
occupied the lower elevations in the drainage throughout a five-year period, despite a disruptions
during the construction period of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project. Conversely, a radio-
Kodiak Electric Association E-82 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
collared male ranged 41 miles from Kizhuyak to Barling Bay, the greatest movement recorded
by Smith and Van Dae1e (1988).
Habitat Uses
Three elevation ranges demarcate lowland, midslope, and alpine habitat zones used by bears and
other wildlife. The lowland zone, some 3,000 acres, contains a tide flat, coastal fringe,
floodplain, and side slopes of the project study area. The midslope zone extends to from 500 ft
to 1,500 ft and includes most tall shrub communities, some low shrub communities, and shrub-
meadow associations. This zone covers an area of almost 2,000 acres. The alpine zone extends
from 1,500 to over 3,000 ft at the drainage crest. Zonal cover is comprised at the uppermost
elevations of bare ground and rock materials that grade into vegetation cover at the lower level.
The alpine zone contains about 3,000 acres.
Midsummer activities focus on the combined use of lowland and mid slope habitats. Bears forage
on fish at Watchout Creek, Kizhuyak River channels, Eagle Creek, and outside the project study
area at small unnamed streams entering the embayment. Habitat use generally alternates
between fishing (mostly during early morning and late evening periods), eating plant materials,
and resting in alder thickets. Bears rest in natural depressions or shallow pits excavated for this
purpose. In August 1992, observations made by the project study team frequently discovered
such sites between the 500-to 800-ft elevation level east of the bench below Leanne Lake.
The tall-shrub stratum covering this elevation range appears to provide important resting and
feeding habitats well into the time spawning peaks in late July. During early August, elderberry
ripening at mid-slope elevations coincides with the time salmon runs begin to diminish. Bears
consequently spend more time foraging along midslopes or traveling between drainages as fall
advances. Lowland feeding habitats continue to be used with less intensity, but some animals
still forage on salmon or carcasses and different berry types as they become available (e.g.,
highbush cranberries, devil's club, watermelon berries). Bears are dispersed this time of year,
making them difficult to observe. During August 1992, the project study team and KEA
powerhouse personnel reported seeing a female with two cubs near Eagle Creek and a solitary
bear moving across the access road between the jetty and powerhouse. By mid-September, bears
Kodiak Electric Association E-83 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
usually spend less time in lowland habitats and increasingly more time in upper valleys and
mid slopes of the Kizhuyak drainage. Some bears return to explore lowland areas and scavenge
decomposed fish remains well into late fall.
As winter approaches, bears begin searching for alpine den sites. Typically, the denning period
extends from mid-October until early June. Entrance and emergence chronology varies by sex,
age, reproductive status, and by year. Winter denning occurs throughout the project study area's
alpine zone.
Following emergence, bears frequent mid slopes and lower alpine zones. Spring marks the onset
of breeding, and some bears, particularly mature males, travel between drainages either through
high mountain passes or by negotiating the most direct route despite the seemingly impassable
terrain at high altitudes. Other bears remain in the same drainage. Family groups and immature
bears tend to be reclusive, often occupying rugged (protective) brush habitats bordering cliff
bottoms and steep slopes.
Bears draw on fat reserves in early spring due to food shortages. As the season advances, forbs
and grasses emerge along midslope areas, especially in and around seeps. Bears readily
consume the tender shoots. Some bears descend to the lowland zone to scavenge intermittently
along tide flats and feed on sedges and grasses growing along the coastal fringe. Intra-annual
use of project study area habitats as described remains much the same from one year to the next
(Table ES-2).
Spencer and Hensel (1980) located six winter dens in the Kizhuyak sector of the Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project area investigations but none in the present Leanne Lake project study area.
The upper alpine zone was incorrectly deemed unusable for denning purposes because solid rock
dominated the landscape. This determination was based on an invalid assumption that most
bears prepared dens by digging into excavatable ground or used natural caves or rock cavities
as denning places (Lentfer et al., 1972).
Kodiak Electric Association E-84 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Table ES-2.
Brown Bear Habitat Types Within the Leanne Lake Project Study Area
Habitat Zone Components I Acreage I Activity ISeason
Lowland 3,120
Tidal Flats 70 Feeding-summer, fall
Coastal Fringe 150 Feeding-spring, fall
Valley Bottom 1,500 Feeding-summer, fall
Side Slopes 1,400 Feeding, resting-spring summer
Midslope 1,900
Tall Shrubland 1,250 Feeding, resting-spring, summer,
fall
Low Shrubland 420 Feeding, resting-spring, summer,
denning, breeding-fall
Alder-Meadow Community 170 Feeding-summer, fall
Wet Sedge Meadow Community 70 Feeding-spring -summer
Alpine 2,980
Mesic Sedge Community 500 Feeding, breeding-spring, summer
Low Shrubland 1,080 Feeding, breeding, denning-spring,
summer, fall
Bedrock-Nonvegetated 1,400 Denning-winter
More definitive information obtained by Smith and Van Daele (1988) shows a much greater use
of irregular rocky substrate combined with snow as a medium to construct dens at high
elevations. Denning concentrations were discovered in the Kizhuyak sector, east of the
embayment around Pestchani Mountain (north of Watchout Creek drainage), and around the
mountain crest above Leanne Lake. Den sites inspected from the ground at these locations were
formed in snow or surface cavities at the base of rock outcrops and cliffs. Bears denning at
extremely high places without surficial irregularities would be forced to use snow (bear-made
structures) as a denning medium. ADF&G substantiated the extent bears den at higher
elevations that were previously thought unusable.
Kodiak Electric Association E-85 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Of 65 den sites thus far recorded in the Kizhuyak sector, 22 sites occur within the Leanne Lake
project study area, and 43 sites are in other drainage areas. Denning concentrations have
developed along slopes separating Watchout Creek from the main valley, within the Watchout
Creek drainage itself, and the southwest side of the drainage divide between the Terror-Kizhuyak
River valleys (Figure ES-2). Concentrated activity occurs along the east side of this drainage
divide and around the alpine bench north of the No-Name Lake basin.
Smith and Van Daele (1988) documented that during successive denning seasons, the same bear
often reoccupied the same site. Of 107 radio-collared bears, 55 and 35 respectively reused sites
less than 1 and 3 km apart. The exact same sites were reoccupied during two successive
denning periods in eight instances.
Two den sites have been reported by Smith and Van Daele (1988) close to Leanne Lake. Rock
formations within and surrounding project site penstock alignments were surveyed to ascertain
the proximity of den sites to development activity. Any features indicative of denning sites, such
as overhanging outcrops, fissures, cavities, and angular boulders capable of serving as a
receptacle, were noted near potential developments. The survey indicted no structures occurred
around the immediate lake perimeter. Above this elevation, two cavities were seen--one west
and about 200 ft above of the Leanne Lake Outlet and the other about 500 ft above the shore
northwest of the outlet. A large tapering crevasse (about 35 ft in length, 2-to 3-ft wide, and
up to 40-ft deep at the lowest point) was located in a bedrock formation 85 ft southeast of the
lake. Snow of undetermined depth lined the base of this bedrock structure, which embraces the
east side of the lake. Although potential use of these sites is speculative, use of snow dens in
this locality is highly probable.
The survey noted no natural denning places in and around the No-Name Lake vicinity, however,
benchland areas at the 1,000-to 2,000-ft level offer suitable denning places. Soil depth at the
lower reaches of this level suggest bears may burrow into side slopes. Smith and Van Daele
(1988) recorded the location of seven den sites in this area two of which were situated near the
stream draining the lake (one site at 1,000 ft and the other around 650 ft in elevation). The
proposed penstock route would likely intersect the site at the 1 ,ooo-ft level. The area above and
adjacent to the lake basins were found to contain angular boulders, tilted granite slabs and other
Kodiak Electric Association £-86 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
27
Z3
2.
CROWN
WOUNTAIN
J'
Figure E5-2. Bear Den Site Locations
Kodiak Electric Association
....... ~
'"
o
•
...... t9
'"
E-87
...
B.
Il
•
• •
•
.....
•
21
2B
LEGEND:
•
•
I •
"
• •
•
• DEN SITE LOCATION WITHIN AND
ADJACENT TO LEANNE LAKE
PROJECT AREA.
SOURCE: AEIDC 1979
32 ~ ~~~~e~NiJ~~~ igJ~RS
~ '~
PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY
KODIAK WILDLIFE REFUGE
BOUNDARY
+ 4l-
I
SCALE: 1.5" = 1 WILE APPROX.
•
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
surficial irregularities that together with sufficient snow accumulations could offer potential
denning sites. No den sites have been recorded or observed in the No-Name Lake area of
inundation. This does not preclude the possibility that the area to be inundated has not or may
be used by bears reliant upon snow caves as a denning medium.
Rock outcroppings and cliffs in the area below and between Leanne and No-Name lakes afford
suitable sites with at least a dozen locations having been noted during the reconnaissance survey.
Based on findings of Smith and Van Daele (1988), snow and elevation characteristics regulate
den site selection in the upper alpine areas of the project vicinity. Smith and Van Daele (1991)
did not observe any dramatic changes in population parameters or habitat use patterns
attributable to the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project.
Sitka Black-tailed Deer
Deer generally segregate by sex and reproductive status as they disperse from spring feeding
ranges. As summer advances, most deer congregate in vegetation associations at midslope and
alpine elevations, feeding and resting on gentle slopes close to steep, brushy, and/or broken
escape terrain. Mature males favor depressions and drainages (bowls) in alpine areas near
elevationallimits of vegetation growth. They ordinarily forage together in pairs or in proximity
to other deer. Females with fawns feed, rest, and move together along brush side slopes,
ravines, and benchland meadows. Other deer frequent alder-meadow associations, alternating
between feeding and resting activities in upper mid slope and lower alpine habitats. Mature
males become increasingly solitary as the fall season progresses.
Deer generally tend to be uniformly dispersed along upper mid slopes during normal cessation
of seasonal plant growth. The first snows trigger vertical movements between lowland and
mid slope areas. Deepening snow greatly reduces available range, forcing animals farther
downslope unless warm air or rain reduces snow cover. Under light snow conditions, steep
windblown hillsides with southerly exposures provide important feeding sites. Heavy and
persistent snow, on the other hand, forces deer to lower elevations and coastal fringes for use
as winter range. Increased snow depth below the 500-ft contour interval concentrates deer along
Kodiak Electric Association E-88 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
intertidal areas, forcing them to forage on kelp and other seaweeds. Death by starvation ensues
unless prolonged warming periods allow deer to range farther upslope.
As spring arrives, deer begin to disperse along foothill slopes and hillsides, resting and feeding
opportunistically on early emergent forbs around open ravines, seeps, and open streams with
southern exposure. Vertical movements to beach fringe and delta areas take place during early
morning and late evening hours to graze sedges and grasses. As spring advances, deer
increasingly tend to migrate to higher elevations, laterally dispersing along midslopes. Upward
movement coincides with the rate of snow melt and emergence of herbaceous vegetation.
Deer use all project study area habitats during various seasons of the year. Midslope and alpine
habitats are important for resting and foraging throughout summer, while lowland and coastal
fringe areas have greatest importance during late winter and early spring. Deer activity around
lake basins is minimal during winter and early spring periods. Lateral and, to a lesser extent,
vertical movement along mid slope benchlands predominates through summer and early fall. The
bench above and parallel to the upper Eagle Creek drainage provides for such lateral movement,
and a well-used trail extends along its crest. The alder-meadow community also provides
feeding niches and resting places in this locality. The August 1992 reconnaissance survey
sighted 15 deer in midslope and alpine habitats: (1) a yearling male and a single female foraged
in the same alder-meadow community, (2) 3 mature males were seen in an alpine meadow
northeast of No-Name Lake, (3) a female with a fawn was noted in a shrub thicket near the
Rolling Rock Creek tunnel outlet portal, and (4) 8 deer (6 males and 2 females) were seen along
the edge of an alpine plateau above Falls Creek north of Terror Lake.
Considering the large amount of available habitat, infrequent sightings during the August survey
may be attributed to the relatively low abundance and the few deer now resident to the Kizhuyak
drainage during the current year. Numbers have dropped 50 to 80 percent since peak levels
were attained in the 1980s. Early spring counts in 1992 made by powerhouse attendant
Mr. Michael Downing (personal communication) revealed that as many as 135 deer, mostly
males, foraged daily in the delta area. During the previous two years, only 40 deer were
counted in the same place and season. During the past two years, availability and quality of
winter range greatly limit deer populations on Kodiak Island, and at the project site. Project
Kodiak Electric Association E-89 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
development would proceed during the current population recovery period, provided winter
conditions are moderate in the coming years.
Bald Eagles and Other Birds of Prey
Historical records indicate that bald eagle numbers specific to the project study area have
remained relatively stable for many years. One to three pairs have nested in this locale since
AEIDC first surveyed and reported one active and two inactive nest sites during the summer of
1979 (Hickok and Wilson 1979; USFWS 1982; Zwiefelhofer 1983, 1984, 1985). Table ES-3
summarizes eagle reproductive history as determined by AEIDC in 1979-80 and USFWS from
surveys made from 1982 through 1985.
Table ES-3.
Bald Eagle Population in the Leanne Lake Project Study Area
Number of Nesting Platforms
Active Inactive Average Number
Year (used) (unused) of F1edglings/Nest
1979 1 2 1.0
1980 2 3 2.0
1982 2 3 1.5
1983 2 1 2.0
1984 3 1 Unspecified
1985 3 3 Unspecified
A pair of bald eagles repeatedly nested near the mouth of Eagle Creek (200 yards from the main
construction camp and associated construction activities), and successfully fledged eaglets in
1979, 1980 and again in 1982 (1981 status unknown). According to the USFWS, this pair had
been subjected to continual disturbances, including airplane/helicopter arrivals and departures,
heavy earth-moving equipment and a camp/construction crew compliment of more than 100
people concurrent to the 1982 nesting season. Nest site fidelity and successful reproduction was,
in this case, viewed as an abnormality (USFWS 1982). The pair relocated in 1983, constructing
Kodiak Electric Association E-90 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
a new nest one-half mile from the previously used site. Zwiefelhofer (1984) assumed this
displacement resulted from disturbances in the early part of the same nesting period.
Coincidental to this event, two additional pairs nested in the delta area during the same year.
Two trees containing nest platforms were destroyed by river channel changes in 1984, and a new
nest was constructed in the same general area (Zwiefelhofer 1985). Survey results obtained
during the following season, the last year of construction activity, showed nesting pair numbers
remained the same throughout this part of the Kizhuyak sector (Zwiefelhofer 1986).
An aerial survey on August 9, 1992 showed that one of four nesting sites was active, at least
during this late phase of the 1992 nesting season (Figure E5-3). The active nest, containing a
single fledgling, was situated in the upper Kizhuyak River area about a mile northeast of the
existing powerhouse. According to the data record, this observation represents a new location,
as other nest sites occurred in the lower river reaches closer to the bay.
Eagles representing all age classes congregate near the mouth of the river during summer.
Numbers vary in response to salmon availability. Under optimal conditions, 12 to 20 or more
eagles may be present at anyone time. Seasonal use of delta mudflats and lower river reaches
constitute important project study area habitats as feeding, perching, and resting places.
Other than bald eagles, rough-legged hawks are the most commonly observed raptor species in
this area. Favoring insular cliffs and outcrops for nesting purposes, this hawk generally forages
in alpine meadows for tundra voles. Numerous sightings have been made near Falls and Rolling
Rock creeks, but no active nests have ever been reported. In 1982, USFWS observed an
inactive rough-legged hawk nest situated on a cliff above Rolling Rock Creek. A single hawk
was sighted near the nest vicinity. Surveys made by the USFWS from 1983 through 1985
indicated that hawks did not nest within or proximal to the project study area (Zwiefelhofer
1983, 1984, 1985). Two unconfirmed rough-legged hawk observations near Leanne Lake during
August 1992 were made while hawks of similar description were seen in flight near Falls Creek
and over the cliff east of Leanne Lake.
Kodiak Electric Association E-91 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
/
27
;:3
;:6
Figure E5-3. Raptor Nesting Sites
Kodiak Electric Association
.. 30
LEANNE
M~
E-92
5.
8
IS 17
I t
-N-
I
SCALE: 1" = 1 ~ILE
LEGEND:
• ACTIVE BALD EAGLE NEST WITH
ONE FLEDGLING
o INACTIVE BALD EAGLE NEST
SITE FOR~ERLY USED FOR b. NESTING BY ROUGH-LEGGED
HAWKS AND GOLDEN EAGLES
~ ..... ..
PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY
KODIAK WILDLIFE REFUGE
BOUNDARY
r<: AREA OF RAPTOR STUDY
1Iii ... · .. ·.,.
;:7
34
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Cyclic fluctuations in prey abundance and low prey habitat quality probably inhibits nesting
activity within the project study area (sparsely vegetated alpine zones limit tundra vole density).
Reduced nesting success has been correlated to tundra vole scarcity (Zwiefelhofer 1985).
Tundra voles, the only naturally occurring small rodent found on Kodiak Island, provide up to
90 percent of the food intake with small birds (mostly passerines) comprising the remaining
10 percent.
In addition to the rough-legged hawk observations made by the USFWS, golden eagles have also
been noted to occur near the project study Area. A USFWS project monitor observed an
immature golden eagle soaring above the Falls Creek area on July 21, 1983. Construction
workers also reported seeing an immature golden eagle several times in the same vicinity
(USFWS 1983). In 1983, a breeding pair occupied an abandoned rough-legged hawk nest
located near Rolling Rock Creek. A single nestling hatched, but, following a series of
observations made from June 10 through 24, the hatchling had disappeared from the nest.
Inclement weather occurred June 25 through 29, and the parent eagles were not seen near the
nest area again until mid-September (Zwiefelhofer 1984). No nesting attempt was made in 1984,
and only one mature eagle was seen during the summer season. Mr. Michael Downing
(personal communication), who regularly observed avian activity in this area, stated that a severe
wind storm in 1987 obliterated nest structure remnants. The sporadic occurrence of golden
eagles and some other birds of prey probably stems from a limited prey base (i.e., small to
medium-sized terrestrial mammals). When mammalian prey are few or absent, ptarmigan and
other birds opportunistically serve as alternate dietary items.
Sightings of five other raptor species have been reported within and near the Kizhuyak
drainages. During summer of 1979, AEIDC observed two northern goshawks and a short-eared
owl over alpine areas above Terror Lake (Hickok and Wilson 1979). The USFWS reported that
Peale's peregrine falcon, merlins, and goshawks occasionally were sighted by project personnel
throughout summer in 1983 (Zwiefelhofer 1984). Zwiefelhofer (1985) observed an American
kestrel perched on a transmission line tower in 1984. A KEA employee sighted what was
believed to be a family of five merlins perched on a cottonwood limb near the access road in
August 1992. Although no one has reported any evidence of seasonal use by these raptors, this
possibility can be inferred.
Kodiak Electric Association E-93 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
5.3 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES
No known endangered plants exist on Kodiak Island. The only endangered species reported for
all of Alaska is the Aleutian shield fern (Polystichum aleutica), which reportedly occurs only on
Adak Island (Robert Lipkin, personal communication). According to V. Moran (personal
communication) several plants known to be rare in the Kodiak Island Group have been placed
in a Category 2 status. A Category 2 species is one for which there are not enough data to
support listing proposals at this point in time. These species include a sedge (Carex lenticularis
dolia), a grass (Calamagrostis grassiglumis), and a chickweed species (Cerastium aleutuieum).
These plants have not been recorded in the project study area.
Despite reputable observers having made intensive surveys in this locality over the last decade,
no endangered falcons have ever been reported in the Kodiak Island area. Peregrine falcons
reported along Alaska's coast from Kodiak south and west through the Aleutians have been
assigned to a taxonomically separate race (Falco pereginus peali) that is not considered
endangered. This species generally nests near seabird colonies and closely resembles
F. p. anarum, one of several endangered peregrine races that could be a casual visitor to this
locality during migration periods (Hickok and Wilson 1979). Three of five Category 2 avian
species for Alaska occur in or near the project study area. These species include the northern
goshawk, marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus mamoratus) and the harlequin duck (Histrionicus
histrionicus). The latter species may nest in or close to the project study area since harlequins
usually nest along rocky shores adjacent to rapid or turbulent mountain streams.
No endangered, threatened, or sensitive terrestrial mammals inhabit Alaska. Category 2
mammals consist of 2 shrew, 2 vole species, and the lynx (Felis lynx canadensis) none of which
occur in the Kodiak Island Group. The sea lion represents the only marine mammal resident
to the Kodiak Island Group that has officially been declared threatened. Sea lions inhabit certain
beaches in this region and maintain a pupping rookery on Marmot Island, about 50 miles
northeast of Kizhuyak Bay. No haulout sites have been reported in or near the bay. The nearest
such sites are found at Cape Chiniak, Long Island, and Noisy Island in nearby Uganik Bay. A
few sea lions have been seen hauling out here, and some may move through the outer Kizhuyak
Kodiak Electric Association E-94 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
Bay area when they seasonally shift from one haulout site to another. According to Susan
Mellow (personal communication) sea lions that reside in the Gulf of Alaska (to include the
Kodiak Island Group) westward to the Central Aleutians, have declined from 105,000 in the
mid-1950s to 23,000 in 1989. A decrease of nine percent has been reported in 1991-1992. If
this downward trend continues, sea lion populations may soon reach a level in this region that
would require this species to be elevated from threatened to endangered status.
5.4 PROJECT IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND HABITAT
5.4.1 Construction Impacts
Timing of construction events would have direct bearing on the extent to which project
development affects key wildlife species. The principal period of project construction activity
would last for seven months, between March and September. During late spring the
powerhouse, tailrace, road, and penstock structures would be first built at lower elevations.
Penstock construction would proceed toward the higher elevations as the weather improves and
snow retreats. Major construction activities in the alpine regions would involve site preparation
and dam construction at No-Name Lake and Leanne Lake between July and September. Work
crews and materials would be transported by helicopter from staging locations at lower
elevations. Bedrock near the existing No-Name Lake Outlet would be drilled, blasted, and
excavated. Concrete footings would be positioned and the pre-fabricated dam would be installed
by September.
Wildlife disturbance would vary in accordance to species type and the season of most severe
disruption. Applicable studies and related analyses for the nearby Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project provides a credible reference point for evaluating environmental effects of the proposed
project.
Brown Bears and Sitka Black-tailed Deer
During the active seven month construction period, the impact on seasonal use of food sources
by bears and deer would differ. Sedge feeding in spring by deer and bear along the coastal
Kodiak Electric Association E-95 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
fringe would be substantially reduced, particularly near the access road, jetty, and construction
crew encampment near Eagle Creek. Use of alpine feeding habitats by deer and bear would be
altered in early summer, with some animals shifting to natural, less disturbed areas outside the
limits of the project study area. During late summer, helicopter traffic and construction
disturbances would most likely displace some animals from alpine and midslope feeding habitats.
Feeding activity of brown bears during and after salmon runs (July-September) in the lower
Kizhuyak Valley would be altered to avoid construction activities, but not discontinued. Bear
and deer would probably alternate food sources, or their approach to them, by making greater
use of shrubland cover or moving to other areas.
Smith and Van Daele (1988) noted that availability of salmon inevitably attracts bears but also
induces greater tolerance of human activity if security cover is present. Bears were regularly
observed feeding on salmon along the access road during the construction stage of the Terror
Lake Hydroelectric Project. Feeding on salmon in the project study area would diminish, at
least during daylight hours, but would likely increase along the Watchout Creek tributary and
other places outside the project study area. Use of shrubland habitat for feeding and resting by
both species would diminish near the proposed penstock locations during late summer and fall
seasons. Many animals would relocate to shrub lands northeast of the project study area for these
purposes.
Potential construction impacts on daily and seasonal activity, and movement patterns of bears
and deer, can best be understood by accounting for specialized habitat uses (e.g., breeding,
denning, winter feeding), evidence of permanent game trails, and presence of natural
interdrainage routes through passes or corridors as well as chronological occupancy of alpine,
midslope, and lowland habitat zones. Movements to and from bear denning ranges would not
be appreciably affected since construction would not occur during the denning period (October-
May). Although construction-related disturbances would be limited to the lowland zone during
late spring, disturbances from blasting and earth-moving machinery could conceivably force
bears to vacate alpine and midslope den sites earlier than usual. Similarly, deer occupying delta
areas could move upward earlier into subalpine areas and disperse laterally outside the project
study area.
Kodiak Electric Association E-96 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Daily movement and activity patterns of deer and bears at upper elevations would be
substantially altered throughout the summer construction period. Noise and visual disturbances,
particularly around lake basins and upper penstock reaches, would temporarily disrupt
movements at these higher levels. Interdrainage bear movements through the upper Kizhuyak
valley as well as west and north to other drainages could also be altered. Bears might avoid
travel across and within the alpine zone because of insufficient security cover at upper elevations
(Smith and Van Daele 1988).
The low-lying or buried penstock structure would pose no serious impediment to lateral
movement patterns (between Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake) of either bears or deer. Based
on monitoring of radio-collared bears, Smith and Van Daele (1988) found that bears traveled
extensively along lower slopes of Kizhuyak and Viekoda bays, despite construction related
activities. They attributed this to the availability of extremely dense shrublands below the 1,500-
ft elevation level, which provided excellent cover. Helicopter traffic and other activity would
nevertheless deter some movements between Kizhuyak and Terror drainages.
The overall impact of construction noise on bears and other wildlife cannot be predicted with
certainty since individual animals react differently. Smith and Van Daele (1988) noted that
while the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project was under construction, a 16-year-old male,
instrumented with a tracking device, spent the better part of two monitoring years near Kizhuyak
and denned close to Rolling Rock Creek. Blasting and other activities within the immediate
locality had no noticeable effect, and the bear remained in the same general area despite constant
disturbances. Because disturbance during project construction would be seasonally intermittent
and relatively short in duration, noise-induced movements of bear and deer would probably be
negligible.
Spencer and Hensel (1980) anticipated that construction of the Terror Lake Project would disrupt
denning activity; however, Smith and Van Daele (1991) found that denning was less seriously
affected by construction than expected because denning areas were not close to project features.
They did concur with Spencer and Hensel (1980) that some potential den sites nearest active
construction sites could have been avoided. Smith and Van Daele believed such effects were
temporary and confined to the immediate vicinity, probably within 1.26 miles of construction
Kodiak Electric Association E-97 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
sites. Since Leanne Lake Project construction would occur mostly during the non-denning
period, construction effects would be expectedly nil.
The impact of construction activity on denning of brown bears would probably be insignificant.
The schedule for construction at alpine elevations where denning takes place in the winter would
occur only during summer months. A potential or actual den site could be inundated by the No-
Name Lake impoundment, but impacts on winter denning overall would be insignificant. Known
den sites observed near Leanne Lake and along the Falls Creek escarpment would not be directly
affected from lake drawdown.
Breeding activity during late spring and early summer construction periods could be disruptive
as a result of noise and other disturbances. Individual mature animals would probably react
differently, either by moving into upper drainage tributaries and other drainages entirely or
making greater use of shrublands for security.
Other Wildlife Considerations
Mountain goat use is concentrated in the Leanne Lake basin area and lower elevations of this
sector during winter and spring. These animals would be expected to continually use these areas
during project construction, provided that work activities ceased from fall until late spring.
Winter range and incidental kidding activity during late spring should not be adversely affected.
Some bald eagles and other raptors could be disturbed by construction, but overall nesting and
reproductive success would probably compare favorably to past years of Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project construction. During the second construction season they might choose
alternate nest platforms to further distance themselves from disturbances. The nest platform
situated near the Eagle Creek outlet probably would not be used, but one or more other
territorial platforms might be substituted elsewhere in the embayment and Kizhuyak Valley as
construction progressed.
The extent to which the project study area's alpine zone is used for feeding by rough-legged
hawks and other raptors is unknown, but areas between and below lake basins are probably used
Kodiak Electric Association E-98 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
to a minor degree. If so, foraging activities would likely be inhibited or displaced to other
alpine and midslope meadows outside the project study area. Still, overall construction effects
on the alpine zone would probably be slight.
Wildlife Habitat
Lowland habitat alteration would be confined to valley sideslopes specific to development sites
used for access roads, penstocks, powerhouses, and tailrace and transmission line structures.
No habitat would be significantly altered within the floodplain except for minor land disturbance
where the Leanne Lake powerhouse option "B" tailrace discharge enters the Kizhuyak River.
Habitat would be altered wherever vegetation is to be covered with fill or spoil or physically
removed.
Lake drawdown and basin inundation would affect plants bordering new and former lake
margins, but this poses no serious threat to habitat qUality. In clearing the transmission line and
penstock rights-of-way, habitat diversity would be enhanced by creating edge effect, or an
ecotone, which could benefit birds and mammals in the long-term.
Considering the project's relatively small scale and construction techniques to be used (i.e., off-
site dam fabrication and helicopter assisted construction), habitat would be mostly altered rather
than lost. The quality of alpine habitat would change slightly from lake drawdown or
inundation, since forage produced within low-yield basin areas above the existing lake margin
is negligible under existing natural conditions. Wildlife use of the high elevation basin area
habitats would probably remain the same after project construction.
5.4.2 Project Operation Impacts
The Leanne Lake Project operation impacts are fractional in scope, compared to the existing
hydropower development, because the infrastructure necessary to generate and transmit
electricity has already been developed in the area. Existing facilities include two-turbine
powerhouses, a warehouse, access roads, equipment housing, and transmission lines for
servicing the City of Kodiak and the village of Port Lions, and housing accommodations for four
Kodiak Electric Association E-99 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
families. Normally, four workers operate existing facilities, but, due to remoteness, staff
families occupy residences only during summer. Leanne Lake would require no additional
permanent workers.
The continued presence of a small permanent work force at the existing powerhouse would not
increase existing minor disturbances. Some disturbance of wildlife would continue along
existing and newly extended access roads. Few, if any, confrontations between bears and
workers would likely occur since no such problems have been recorded since Kizhuyak facilities
became operational in 1986.
Brush and trees cleared from penstock and transmission line rights-of-way would not deprive
animals and birds of essential vegetation food and cover. Breaks made in alder shrub would not
appreciably affect wildlife or habitat. Clearing vegetation in narrow strips, on the other hand,
could actually enhance rather than degrade habitat usage.
Because most maintenance activity would be concentrated at elevations below or along the edge
of preferred denning habitat, operations would have negligible effects on bear denning and
breeding activities nor interdrainage travel across drainage summits, and alpine ranges used for
grazing by bear and deer.
Leanne Lake powerhouse option "B" would divert water from approximately 100 ft of Rolling
Rock Creek channel below the existing Terror Lake road. A well established corridor of
riparian vegetation, primarily alder, has been maintained in the Rolling Rock Creek channel
since water diversions for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project. The frequency and magnitude
of scouring flood flows on Rolling Rock Creek would be reduced after project operation due to
the water diversion. The alder-dominated community along those portions of the diverted
channel may encroach upon the streambed as a result of project operation.
5.5 MmGATION MEASURES
Most wildlife impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.
However, the following mitigative measures are described in order to minimize environmental
Kodiak Electric Association E-100 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
disturbances. These measures are intended to be commensurate with the relatively small size
of the proposed project and level of environmental disturbance to be incurred.
Wildlife would be disturbed and some species displaced during the two seven-month construction
periods. Resource degradation from project construction and operation would be minimal with
2.5 and 7.0 acres of vegetation lost or altered in the Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake areas,
respectively. Habitat quality would remain essentially intact despite this transformation.
Comprehensive monitoring studies used to evaluate previous effects of the Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project showed no chronic problems to wildlife in the Kizhuyak drainage and delta
area.
Salmon as a brown bear food source would not be affected by project development. Changes
in fish distribution and production would be minor since hydrologic regimes relative to spawning
tributaries would remain essentially intact. Diverting Rolling Rock Creek, a tributary devoid
of fish, would not impact fish-eating birds and mammals. Construction of an additional 1 ,650 ft
of additional roadways to access two proposed powerhouses would probably enhance sport
hunting opportunity. This change unto itself would not likely be an added incentive for
recreationists or subsistence hunters to accelerate use of the Kizhuyak drainage system, however.
Mitigation of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project compensated habitat losses of brown bear
and other wildlife. The settlement negotiated by conservation organizations and government
agencies resulted in: (1) dedicating State and Borough-owned land in the Kiluda and Ugak
drainages as an area to be managed primarily for brown bears, (2) prohibiting livestock grazing
on the Shearwater Peninsula, and (3) establishing and funding the Kodiak Brown Bear Research
and Habitat Maintenance Trust, an entity that will help perpetuate the brown bear resource of
Kodiak Island.
The following measures would be incorporated as part of the project design to mitigate
degradation potential:
(1) Garbage and other combustible material from encampments and worksites would
be transported to a central location for disposal by oil-fired incineration.
Kodiak Electric Association E-101 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
Materials would not be allowed to accumulate for more than three days so as to
dissuade animals from entering and becoming habituated to refuse foraging within
the project study area. Bum pile remains would be hauled once a week to a
small, fenced landfill for adequate burial.
(2) A concerted effort would be made to continue the excellent record of no bear-
related human injuries or bears killed during the 5-year Terror Lake construction
period. Bear preservation and worker safety would get high priority over the
project's duration. A qualified wildlife expert would be hired as an instructor to
train crews in bear behaviorisms and avoidance techniques to meet these priorities.
The major contractor will adopt and enforce a firearm prohibition policy during
the construction phase of the project.
(3) KEA would undertake steps to minimize shock hazards to eagles and other large
birds from additional transmission lines. Installation workers would duplicate
procedures used for existing lines to ensure adherence to raptor protection criteria
set forth by the Raptor Research Foundation. Armless pole construction would
help to avoid electrocution hazard to raptors. Bird guards would be installed on
transformer bushings, and a wooden perch, capable of supporting large birds,
would be mounted and oriented several feet above any energized object.
5.6 AGENCY CONSULTATION
The project study team consulted with five federal and state agencies regarding botanical and
wildlife resources and advised them on the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Proposal. This
collaboration facilitated acquisition of agency information on terrestrial resources and provided
an opportunity to address agency concerns related to potential impacts of project development.
A project representative met with the USFWS staff on March 17, 1992, to review and obtain
vegetation and wetland mapping products. In response to first-stage consultation, project
personnel met with managers of the USFWS Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, on June 3, 1992,
to reiterate project specifications, review informational needs, and discuss mutual concerns
Kodiak Electric Association E-102 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
regarding project effects and mitigative measures for terrestrial resources. A project
representative met with personnel representing the Ecological Services Division on July 6, 1992,
to discuss and ratify the designated boundary line for the Leanne Lake project study area. On
November 18, 1992 the Ecological Services' Listing Coordinator and Botanist provided
additional reference material on Alaska's rare and endangered plants applicable to the Leanne
Lake project study area.
Personnel from the National Marine Fisheries Service (Anchorage and Juneau offices) were
contacted November 18, 1992, to elicit information on the current population status of Stellar
sea lions, a threatened species inhabiting the Kodiak Island Group.
To ensure compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Alaska District, was advised by letter (dated April 24, 1992) and telephone
communications (July 13 and August 10, 1992) of the proposed Leanne Lake Project.
Consultation led to an arrangement to provide the Alaska District office with onsite vegetation
mapping information so the Corps, in tum, may make a jurisdictional determination.
Accordingly, an informational meeting will be scheduled after vegetation communities and
wetland associations have been prepared for distribution.
Consultation with the ADF&G Habitat and Wildlife Conservation divisions consisted of meetings
with division personnel (June 2 and 25, 1992) to review proposal specifications and jointly
designate a preliminary boundary line for the Leanne Lake project study area. Subsequent
communications concerned accessing a geoprocessed data base consisting of point locations of
radio-collared bears previously obtained in conjunction with the Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project bear studies. Arrangements were made with R. Smith, area biologist in Kodiak, by
telephone (July 8, 1992) to review data on file at the Kodiak ADF&G office. On August 6,
1992, a project representative reviewed data files, conferred with the Kodiak area biologist, and
obtained reference materials on brown bears and other wildlife species.
Kodiak Electric Association E-103 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
6.0 AQUATIC RESOURCES
This section describes the results of fish population sampling and habitat surveys conducted in
the lakes and streams affected by the proposed project. A separate report, with detailed
information on the fishery studies including methods and results of the fish population sampling
and habitat surveys, is included in Appendix E.
Since the early 1950s, ADF&G has been collecting escapement data on the Terror and Kizhuyak
river drainage areas. The Kizhuyak River is the closest major river to the proposed project
(Figure E2-1) which supports anadromous runs of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) char and
commercially important runs of pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (Oncorhynchus keta)
salmon. In the late 1970s, a study was undertaken by ADF&G to look at the possibility of
locating a fish hatchery at the mouth of Eagle Creek. A thorough review was made of the
ADF&G escapement studies (1950-1979) for the proposed Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project
which was being studied in 1979 and 1980. Fish surveys were also conducted in the streams
and tributaries in the Terror and Kizhuyak drainage basins between July and September 1979.
This period represented the third largest spawning return to the Kizhuyak River prior to
operation of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project. Between 400 and 600 pink salmon were
identified spawning in the lower 0.5 mile of Eagle Creek. No other salmon species in any of
the streams effected by the Leanne Lake Project were identified by the 1979 survey
(AEIDC 1979).
Pink salmon, which are most abundant in the Terror River and pink and chum salmon in the
Kizhuyak River, are the primary species managed by the ADF&G for commercial fishing.
Small runs of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and transient populations of Dolly Varden
char also occur, but they are of only incidental importance for sport or commercial fishing
(Railsback and Trihey 1992).
Kodiak Electric Association E-I04 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
6.1 FISH POPULATION SAMPLING
The No-Name Lake and Leanne Lake were sampled by variable mesh (0.5-to 2.0-inch) gill nets
and baited minnow traps in August of 1992, to determine the presence or absence of fish as well
as to characterize the distribution of those species that were present.
No-Name Lake
Three gill net sets and 30 trap sets were fished for a combined total of 210 hours in the three
lakes draining the No-Name basin (Figure E6-1). No fish were caught or observed during this
entire period. Extensive foot surveys of the shore areas of the three lakes confirmed the absence
of fish.
Leanne Lake
A single gill net set and 10 trap sets in Leanne Lake were fished for 16 hours. A total of
156 Dolly Varden char were caught in traps set along the shore (Figure E6-2). The gill net, set
about 20 ft offshore, failed to catch any fish. An abundance of small (under 6-inch length) char
in the shallow shore areas of Leanne Lake was confirmed by observations.
6.2 ESCAPEMENT SURVEYS
Eagle Creek
Salmon escapement surveys were conducted in Eagle Creek below the waterfall which forms a
barrier to anadromous migration in the No-Name Lake Outlet stream, on June 19, August 11,
and September 24, 1992. No live salmon or salmon carcasses were observed on these surveys.
Dolly Varden young (age 2-3) and fry were occasionally observed rearing in Eagle Creek during
the August survey. During the September survey, the streambed was dry with only subsurface
flow which provided a few isolated pools of water for the young Dolly Varden char.
Kodiak Electric Association E-105 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
~I E ~~; <3
o
600
.$.
VJ ~ <:)
'Ii'
~
~ I~
C)~ ~~
Figure E6-1. No-Name Lake Fish Sampling Locations
Kodiak Electric Association E-106
·4,500
fn
I--
1--::3 w .....
VIZ
0.--,0
01 ~:::! ~
Z I--Ofn
w o ~I 0 I !]
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
LEANNE
LAKE
0
i
I
400
SCALE (FT)
o TRAPS
GILL NET
~ SAND FLATS
Figure E6-2. Leanne Lake Fish Sampling Locations
Kodiak Electric Association E-107 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Eagle Creek could potentially be used by salmon for spawning and rearing, but is probably
unused in most years. There does not appear to be an established salmon run in this creek.
However, stray salmon might enter Eagle Creek in years of large salmon returns when there is
adequate water flow in the creek, such as occurred in 1979.
Rolling Rock Creek Survey
The lower reach of Rolling Rock Creek, between the existing road and Kizhuyak River, was
surveyed by foot on August 11, 1992. This creek is not passable for fish beyond the road
culvert and no fish were observed on the survey. Rolling Rock Creek was dry during the
September 24 survey, and was therefore inaccessible to fish. Rolling Rock Creek is frequently
dry in the fall during periods of low rainfall, partially due to upstream diversions for the Terror
Lake Project and to a porous streambed.
6.3 EAGLE CREEK HABITAT SURVEY
During the August escapement surveys, a habitat survey was also made in Eagle Creek. The
habitat survey was conducted based on criteria for pink salmon since they are the dominant
species in the Kizhuyak River system. However, chum and coho salmon could potentially utilize
these streams as well.
The survey identified three distinct habitat zones; intertidal, freshwater, and a zone with no
suitable spawning or reanng habitat (Figure E6-3). The intertidal zone begins at the mouth of
Eagle Creek and continues upstream 940 ft. The freshwater zone extends from 940 ft to
1,390 ft where the confluence of Eagle Creek and No-Name Lake Outlet stream occurs. The
survey continued upstream into the No-Name Lake Outlet stream from 1,400 ft to 2,040 ft
where a waterfall acts as a barrier to anadromous fish. There is no suitable spawning or rearing
habitat in the No-Name Outlet stream from its confluence with Eagle Creek upstream to the base
of the waterfall.
The survey further divided the streambed into l00-ft reach sections, with top width, potential
spawning area, and bottom substrate type identified for each reach. Habitat characteristics of
Kodiak Electric Association E-108 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
UGENO;
20,",
1.~.I;Tlil
I-~-~-I
1:::::::::::::1
INDICATES PERCENTAGE or STREAM
WITJ04 SPAWNING HABITAT
NO SPAWNING AREA -SW"'U fALLS.
~~L~~:~~~[ _ R~~t,STEEP GRADIENT
fRESHWAIER CREEK SPAWNING/
RtARlHG ARU
(SECTIONS 9.5 -20.0)
INTERTIDAL S[CnOHS or CREEK/
SPAWNIHCjRUAIHG AREA
(SECTIONS 1.0 - 9 •• )
'" z
:J
III
Z Z
0 0
iii :J
!II Ii ~
!II 0
Z Q. g g
/ SCALE
100' too'
," -37~'
the potential spawning areas in Eagle Creek are given in Table E6-1. Reach sections 1 to 9.4
(intertidal) were identified as having 100 percent usable spawning area. Sections 9 and 10 are
a transitional area in which boulders begin to appear, creek width narrows from 30 ft to 20 ft,
and gradient increases from 0.8 to 8.9 percent. Creek widths continue to narrow in sections 11
through 20.4 from 15 ft to 10 ft, and gradient continues to increase moderately to 17 percent.
The creek also splits in several areas, and boulders and large rocks compose about 25 percent
to 35 percent of the bottom. Continuing upstream, potential spawning area decreases from
50 percent in reach sections 12 and 13 to between 20 percent and 25 percent of the area in reach
sections 16 to 20.4. Above reach 20.4, Eagle Creek does not provide spawning habitat.
Table E6-1.
Characteristics of Potential Pink Salmon Spawning Areas in Eagle Cr~
Potential Width Potential
Range Spawning Area
Reach Section (ft) (sq ft)
1-9.4 24-30 26,110
9.4-13.9 15-24 6,140
13.9-20.4 10-15 2,030
Total 34,280
aBased on Aeromap October 6, 1991 topographic mapping.
bBased on 6-sq-ft per salmon pair.
Primary Salmon
Spawnersb Bottom Substrate
8,704 Gravel, sand,
rubble 1 to 3 inch,
6 inch (10%).
2,046 Gravel, sand,
boulders (10 to
25%) 2 to 6 inch
rock.
676 Gravel, 2 to
6 inch rocks,
boulders (25 to
35%).
11,426
The streambed of Eagle Creek contains approximately 34,280-sq-feet of area that could
potentially be used by salmon for spawning. The majority (76 percent) of this area is in the
intertidal portion of the creek. Assuming 6-sq-ft per female pink salmon, this area could
potentially support about 5,713 females or 11,426 pink salmon at a 1:1 sex ratio.
Kodiak Electric Association E-110 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Eagle Creek lacks the pools and spring areas generally associated with coho salmon rearing and
lacks a lagoon that is present in many productive chum salmon streams. Also, intermittent and
fluctuating surface water flows, and occasional loss of surface water during low rainfall periods,
contribute to the lack of good habitat for salmon rearing. Subsurface flow is common during
late August and September in Eagle Creek below the waterfalls due to a porous streambed along
the alluvial fan. However, Eagle Creek does have limited habitat for rearing of Dolly Varden
char when water flow is adequate. Figures E6-4 through E6-7 are photographs showing the
aquatic habitat and streamflow conditions on Eagle Creek.
6.4 IMPACTS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES
Investigations indicate that there are no fish or suitable fish habitat in No-Name Lake and
Rolling Rock Creek. Therefore, there will be no impacts to fish as a result of project
construction or operation in these areas. However, the proposed project could impact transient
populations of anadromous fish in Eagle Creek and resident populations of small Dolly Varden
char in Leanne Lake.
6.4.1 Construction Impacts
Leanne Lake
Some sedimentation would be associated with construction activities in the Leanne Lake project
area. Erosion control measures (Appendix A) are expected to minimize sedimentation. The
Katamai type ash which is a prevalent component of the soils in the project area, have been
observed to have quick settling times. Therefore, the duration of any increased turbidity or
sedimentation is expected to be short-term, lasting only as long as construction activities take
place along the shoreline. Additionally, since there will be no dam constructed at Leanne Lake,
the shoreline
Kodiak Electric Association E-lll Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Figure E6-4. Intertidal Section of Eagle Creek at Low Tide , June 19, 1992
Figure E6-5. Intertidal Section of Eagle Creek is dry on September 24 , 1992
Kodiak Electric Association E-112 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Figure E6-6. Dry Streambed of Eagle Creek on September 24, 1992 . View Looking Upstream
from Confluence of Eagle Creek and No-Name Outlet Stream.
Figure E6-7. Waterfall Barrier on No-Name Outl e t Stream , June 19, 1992
Kodiak Electric Association E-113 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
area which must be disturbed for development of the intake facilities will be relatively small and
contained.
Construction equipment which utilizes petroleum based fuels, if not properly stored and
maintained, could potentially leak: thereby impacting resident Dolly Varden char in the lake.
Leanne Lake Outlet Stream
There are no fish present in the very steep gradient Leanne Lake Outlet stream. Natural
stream flows will be maintained throughout the construction period. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to the downstream fishery in the Kizhuyak River.
No-Name Lake
Some sedimentation would occur due to construction activities in No-Name Lake, however, there
are no fish residing in the lake. Potential water quality impacts due to accidental fuel spills from
construction activities could have an effect on fish resources downstream in Eagle Creek.
No-Name Lake Outlet Stream
Natural streamflows will be maintained during construction via a bypass pump in No-Name Lake
to the outlet channel immediately downstream of the dam site (see Figure A4-1). There is no
fishery present in the 6,000-ft outlet stream. Some sedimentation can be expected to occur in
the outlet stream near the proposed dam site which may eventually be transported to Eagle
I
Creek. Dam site preparation is expected to be the largest source of erosion due to construction
activities. Approximately 2 to 3 cu-yds of material will be stripped from the site. Much of this
material can be flushed into adjacent topographic depressions with hydraulic washing procedures,
reducing the eventual transport of sediment to the downstream fishery habitat.
Kodiak Electric Association E-114 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Eagle Creek
Eagle Creek could potentially be used by salmon, and in some years, such as when the
escapement counts are high in the Kizhuyak River as in 1979 (third highest escapement count
that occurred prior to the construction of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project), may support
minor salmon escapements. Dolly Varden char young have been observed rearing in Eagle
Creek. Anadromous char, and salmon if present, could potentially be affected by this project.
Short-term construction impacts could occur in Eagle Creek due to an increase in sedimentation,
affecting the quality of spawning and rearing habitat, and water quality. Escapement surveys
performed for the Terror Lake Project indicate that spawning begins in streams of the Kizhuyak
River drainage after mid-August. Therefore, all work immediately adjacent to Eagle Creek,
particularly the tailrace and powerhouse, would be scheduled to take place prior to August 1.
Construction activities will not be occurring in or adjacent to the creek after August 1 to ensure
no impacts to potential salmon spawning.
During dam construction on No-Name Lake, streamflow to Eagle Creek will be maintained at
its natural rate.
Rolling Rock Creek
Habitat surveys indicate that Rolling Rock Creek is not used by fish and lacks usable habitat for
anadromous fish.
Short-term construction impacts associated with sedimentation could also occur in the Kizhuyak
River via Rolling Rock Creek. As with Eagle Creek, excavation and grading activities will not
be occurring in the stream after August I to ensure no impacts to potential salmon spawning.
A Sediment and Erosion Control Plan (Appendix A) will reduce the potential for sedimentation
in the Kizhuyak River.
Kodiak Electric Association E-115 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
6.4.2 Project Operation Impacts
Water temperature changes, as a result of project operation, are expected to be less than +2°C
at the outflow from either of the tailrace options. This change is well within daily natural
temperature fluctuations during the summer period of operation. The Leanne Lake Project is
not expected to create any water temperatures that are not well within tolerable limits for salmon
and char.
Leanne Lake and Rolling Rock Creek
The shallow shore and shoal areas of Leanne Lake appear to be important rearing and feeding
areas for Dolly Varden residing in the lake. Fish were found to be abundant close to shore, but
not in deeper water. The long-term impact of altering lake depth and volume for hydroelectric
power is unknown, but could be detrimental.
The water intake structure in Leanne Lake will be screened to prevent Dolly Varden char from
entering the penstock pipe. Screen mesh size will be sufficient to keep fish as small as 60 mm
in length from entering the intake. Fish sampled from Leanne Lake ranged from 61 mm to
151 mm.
Powerhouse and tailrace options for Leanne Lake will be located where tailrace water will have
minimal impact on fish and aquatic habitat. The Leanne Lake powerhouse option "A", located
by the existing road, will maintain downstream water flow into Rolling Rock Creek and into the
Kizhuyak River. Powerhouse option "B", also adjacent to the existing road, would discharge
into the Kizhuyak River through 200 ft of buried culvert. Rolling Rock Creek is not used by
fish and has minimal potential habitat. Therefore, de-watering sections of Rolling Rock Creek
as a result of project operation under powerhouse option "B" will not impact fish.
Tailrace culverts of both powerhouse options will either be screened or designed as a barrier to
fish entry. Exit velocities at the tailrace are expected to be I ft/sec or less to minimize the
attraction to fish and the potential for streambed or bank erosion.
Kodiak Electric Association E-116 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
The Kizhuyak River in its lower reaches is a wide braided channel with the potential for bank
erosion and channel shifting during high flow events. The tailrace culvert for powerhouse
option "B" would be located in the westernmost active channel of the Kizhuyak River. Gabions
or riprap would be installed around the culvert entrance to reduce the potential for bank erosion
during high flows. Channel shifting upstream of the discharge culvert could cause the
westernmost active channel to have reduced streamflows except for that discharge contributed
by project operation.
No-Name Outlet Channel
The No-Name powerhouse and tailrace will be located in the No-Name Outlet channel, well
upstream of suitable fish habitat on Eagle Creek. The powerhouse and buried culvert tailrace
will be located in a stream reach with large cobble and boulder material, reducing the potential
for streambed or bank erosion. The tailrace will either be screened or designed with a bar grate
to act as a barrier to fish entry. Exit velocities are expected to be 1 ft/sec or less.
Eagle Creek
The No-Name Lake powerhouse may produce a beneficial impact for anadromous fish in Eagle
Creek. The existing water flows in Eagle Creek are occasionally intermittent and the streamflow
becomes subsurface during periods of low precipitation, as in September of 1989 and 1992.
Impoundments and additional water storage in No-Name Lake for project operation could benefit
anadromous fish using this stream by extending periods of adequate water for spawning and
rearing. However, the reservoir storage capacity of No-Name Lake is too small to significantly
augment low-flows in Eagle Creek beyond a period of several weeks.
Project operation may cause occasional stream dewatering below the powerhouse. For periods
up to 24 hours in duration, No-Name Lake may be allowed to gain water storage by closing the
penstock. This would allow KEA the flexibility to generate power during periods of time when
it would be most beneficial to power consumers, and would allow the conservation of stored
water. If salmon are spawning in Eagle Creek during these periods, fish could be stranded and
deposited eggs could be adversely impacted. Fish could also be stranded, if they are present,
Kodiak Electric Association E-ll? Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
in the No-Name Outlet channel near the powerhouse. If sufficient natural streamflow was
available from the drainage area below the dam, and the shut-down period was limited, then
impacts may not be significant. During periods when there is sufficient surface flow, most of
the spawning on Eagle Creek would occur in the intertidal habitat zone. However, the intertidal
zone has also been observed to be naturally dry during low rainfall periods such as in
September 1992.
6.5 MITIGATION MEASURES
6.5.1 Mitigation For Construction Impacts
Leanne Lake
(1) The potential impact to resident Dolly Varden as a result of project construction is
unknown, but may be detrimental. Therefore, a monitoring program should be
developed, using a qualified fisheries biologist, to determine if there are impacts to these
fish. and to determine appropriate mitigation measures, if necessary.
(2) Barriers should be utilized to keep fish out of construction areas. Precautions should be
specified in a Spill Prevention Containment and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan to avoid
accidental pollution (petroleum products, greases) in Leanne Lake during construction.
(3) Periodic monitoring of construction activities by an experienced fishery biologist could
help to assure contractor compliance with water quality and quantity standards.
(4) Sport fishing in Leanne Lake by the construction crew may be restricted or prohibited
to avoid depletion of the resident Dolly Varden population. If sport fishing is to be
allowed, some options that should be considered are the use of flies only with the barb
removed from the hook and the immediate release of all fish caught. Consultation with
ADF&G will help to determine if sport fishing regulations are prudent.
Kodiak Electric Association E-118 Leanne LakL Hydroelectric Project
Rolling Rock Creek and Eagle Creek
(5) To minimize the potential of sedimentation to these streams due to construction of the
powerhouses and tailrace, the measures recommended in the Sediment and Erosion
Control Plan (Appendix A) should be followed. Settling ponds and sedimentation
diversions downstream of construction activities may be warranted as erosion control
measures.
(6) Construction activities which require excavation and grading adjacent to these streams
should be completed prior to August 1 in order to reduce the potential for sedimentation
impacts to spawners.
6.5.2 Mitigation For Operation Impacts
Leanne Lake
(1) An ongoing fish monitoring program for Dolly Varden char should be developed in
consultation with ADF&G to assess any impacts which may occur due to project
operation. The results of this monitoring program can be used to plan mitigation
measures including methods of operation to minimize impacts should they occur in
Leanne Lake.
(2) Water intake structures will be screened to prevent Dolly Varden char form entering the
penstock pipe. The screen mesh should be adequate for fish as small as 61 mm.
(3) If the westernmost Kizhuyak River channel shifts leaving the powerhouse liB" culvert
tailrace stranded and dry, a backhoe would be used to realign the streambed to maintain
streamflow at the culvert.
Kodiak Electric Association E-119 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
No-Name Lake Outlet Channel Below Powerhouse
(3) Existing pools could be deepened below the confluence of No-Name Lake Outlet stream
and Eagle Creek to reduce the probability of any salmon which may reach far enough
upstream from becoming stranded near the powerhouse during periods of project shut-
down. The pools would provide low-flow refuge during periods of project shut-down
and during low-rainfall periods when there would be no natural surface flow in Eagle
Creek.
(4) The tailrace (buried culvert) should be screened with a bar grate to keep exit velocities
below 1 ft/sec and to reduce the potential for entrance by fish or other animals. This
mitigation measure is also applicable to the Leanne Lake powerhouse options.
6.6 AGENCY CONSULTATION
The first stage consultation report, as well as concerns identified by ADF&G during the
preliminary permit, were reviewed by ADF&G staff members on June 2, 1992. Other than
relocating the gill net sampling location in Leanne Lake to a shallower location, no additional
changes were requested to the aquatic resources field work program that was presented in the
first stage consultation report. No additional recommendations regarding the fishery studies,
water quality, and instream flow studies was requested in the ADF&G reply letter dated June 10,
1992. A follow-up phone conversation with Mr. Don McKay of ADF&G (December 15, 1992)
regarded the construction schedule and the proposed mitigation measures to the fisheries.
ADF&G's comments have been addressed in this section.
Kodiak Electric Association E-120 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
7.0 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
7.1 EXISTING CONDmONS
7.1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the socioeconomic environment and potential effects
of the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project. The following presents the population, employment,
housing, infrastructure and fiscal impacts within the project vicinity and Kodiak Island Borough.
Project Vicinity Definition
The closest communities to the project area are Port Lions, located approximately 10 miles north
on the west side of Kizhuyak Bay, and the City of Kodiak, approximately 15 miles to the
northeast. A small workforce resides at the Terror Lake powerhouse site in the vicinity of the
proposed project. The project area is sometimes used for subsistence activities by Port Lions
residents and from other Kodiak Island communities. Commercial fishing for salmon, herring,
and crab occurs in Kizhuyak Bay during the summer months.
7.1. 2 Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Project Vicinity
Population Overview
Port Lions has a population of 222, the City of Kodiak a population of 6,365, and the Kodiak
Island Borough a population of 13,309 (Alaska Department of Labor 1991). The communities
of Port Lions and Kodiak ranked 106th and 7th, respectively, in population compared to other
communities in Alaska.
Port Lions is a small community which has experienced a slow population growth of 3.6 percent
for the last decade. Community development and housing availability in the area has often led
to surges in population growth in Port Lions. These population increases soon decline after
development is completed to a level consistent with a stable growth rate of 3 to 4 percent.
Kodiak Electric Association E-121 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Historically, the population of Port Lions has experienced up and down fluctuations from 1970
to 1990. Between 1981-1991 the population grew 33 percent and remained at a relatively
constant level until 1989 when the population dropped approximately 26 percent illustrating an
overall increase of 3.6 percent in ten years (fable E7-1). Port Lions is comprised of
predominately Native Alaskans (68 percent) and the median age for the community is 25 years
old (Alaska Department of Labor 1991). If trends over the past decade continue, Port Lions will
reach a population of 230 by the year 2000.
Project Vicinity
Port Lions
City of Kodiak
Kodiak Island Borough
State of Alaska
Table E7-1.
Population: Project Vicinity, Kodiak Island Borough,
and the State of Alaska, 1970-1990
1970-1980 1980-1990
Percent Percent
Change Change
1970 1980 (%) 1990 (%)
227 215 5.2 222 3.6
3,798 4,756 25.2 6,365 33.8
9,409 9,939 5.6 13,309 33.8
302,583 401,851 32.8 550,043 36.9
Projected
2000
230
8,516
17,821
753,009
Source: Alaska Department of Labor, 1990.
Kodiak is the largest community in the borough with a population of 6,365 of which only
13 percent are Native Alaskans (fable E7-2). The City of Kodiak population has increased from
4,756 (1980) to 6,365 (1990), a 33.8 percent increase compared to the overall state's increase
of 36.9 percent for the same period during the past 10 years. Kodiak's population in the year
2000 is estimated to be 8,516 if current growth trends continue.
Kodiak Electric Association E-122 Leanlll! Lake Hydroelectric Project
Table E7-1_
Population and Housing Characteristi .... 1980 and 1990
1980 1980 1980 1990 1990 1990
Native Female Native
Population Population Population Population Population Femal .. Population
Project Vicinity
Port LiODS 215 158 92 222 150 98
City of Kodiak 4,756 666 2,188 6,365 811 2,869
Kodiak Island 9,939 1,8&4 4,395 13,309 2,126 3,397
Borough
State of AIas\ca 401,851 64,103 18,8810 550,043 85,698 188,915
1980 1980 1980 1980 1990 1990 1990 1990
Peno ... P ..........
Housing Vacanl Per Housing Vacant Per
Population Unit. Housing Ho ....... old Population Unita HolIIIing Ho ....... oId
Project Vicinity
Port LiODS 215 66 5 3.26 222 103 30 3.04
City of Kodiak 4,756 1,535 103 2.97 6,365 2,177 126 2.92
Kodiak Island 9,939 3,027 417 3.06 13,309 4,885 802 3.03
Borough
State of AIas\ca 401,851 131,463 22,708 2.93 550,04!!2.608 43.693 2.8
Source: AIas\ca Department of Labor 1990.
Employment and Income
Although fishing is not a major employer in Port Lions, the fishing and seafood processing
industry is the primary source of income throughout the Kodiak Islands (DCRA 1981; DCS
1986). The major employers in 1990 for Port Lions were public administration (26 percent),
transportation (21 percent), and educational services (15 percent) (Alaska Department of
Labor 1991). Fishing, manufacturing and services are the leading employers for Kodiak and the
Borough as a whole, accounting for 48 percent of the employment throughout the island.
(Table E7-3).
Kodiak Electric Association E-123 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Table E7-3.
Employment Characteristics: Annual Average Employment, 1990, 16 Years and Older
Port Lions Kodiak Kodiak Island Borough
Percent Percent Percent
Persons Employed Persons Employed Persons Employed
Employed (%) Employed (%) Employed (%)
AG., Forest, Fish., 2 2.3 549 15.7 953 15.4
Mining
Construction 6 7.1 202 5.8 933 6.4
Manufacturing 5 5.9 664 18.4 873 14.1
Transportation, 18 21.2 267 7.6 504 8.2
Utilities
Wholesale 0 0.0 83 2.4 130 2.1
Retail 7 8.2 542 15.8 877 14.2
F.I.R.E. 5 5.9 73 2.1 134 2.2
Services 7 8.2 596 17.0 1,158 18.7
Education 13 15.3 269 7.7 544 8.8
Public Administration 22 25.6 282 8.0 612 9.9
Total 85 100.0 3,507 100.0 6,178 100.0
Source: Alaska Department of Labor 1990.
The median household income for Port Lions and Kodiak during 1989 was $40,938 and $46,050
respectively. Per capita income for the same time period was $14,960 in Port Lions and
$22,951 in Kodiak (Alaska Department of Labor 1991). These figures represent a 44 percent
to 49 percent rise from 1980 (Cultural Dynamics 1986).
Kodiak Electric Association E-124 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Table E7-4.
lDcome and Poverty Status in 1989 Dollan: 1990 Census
MediaD
lDcome Median Persons
Per Capita Per lDcome Median Income in
lDcome Household Per Family Per NOD-Family Poverty
Project Vicinity
Pon Lions $14,960 $40,938 $47,917 $10,833 $206
City of Kodiak $22,951 $46,050 $49,404 $26,554 $6,312
Kodiak Island Borough $19,979 $44,815 $47,600 $28,893 $12,753
Slate of Alaska $17,610 $41,408 $46,581 $28,602 $532,474
Source: U.S. Depanment of Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary of Social, Economic & Housing
Characteristics.
Housing
Families
in
Poverty
$1
$65
$lll
$9,198
Housing development in Port Lions has been sporadic over the years. There are 101 housing
units in Port Lion of these only 70 are being occupied (Alaska Department of Labor 1991). A
majority (49 percent) were built between 1960-1969 and 37 percent of the current stock was built
between 1980-1984. Since 1984 only 8 houses were constructed. More than half of these
homes are three bedroom units. The majority of homes in the community are equipped with
modem water, sewer, electric, and phone facilities. Homes are heated predominately with fuel
oil and kerosene (Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs 1981). Wood heat
is used as a secondary source to heat homes. The 1990 Census indicates that there are three
people per household on the average in Port Lions, which is similar to Kodiak and the borough
as a whole. In city of Kodiak in 1990, there were 2,177 housing units, 2,051 of which were
occupied. Approximately 25 percent of the Kodiak housing was group quarters. Density was
approximately 3 persons per household in both Port Lions and Kodiak.
Community Infrastructure
Port Lions has had a water and sewer system in operation for almost thirty years. The current
system was upgraded in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A community water supply is provided
through a public system or private company. The primary source of water is Branch Creek
reservoir. Water flows from the reservoir to a treatment facility then pumped into storage tanks.
Kodiak Electric Association E-125 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
An auxiliary water supply could be provided from the Port Lions River but is currently not being
used.
The community sewer system is utilized by 97 percent of the homes in the community. Two
25,OOO-gallon tanks collect sewage near Settlers Cove where it is then pumped under Settlers
Cove across to Kizhuyak Bay then transported through a 2,000 ft outfall line into the bay. A
borough landfill is located northeast of Port Lions near the airport. The city offers collection
services for a minimal fee.
Electric generation is provided by the Kodiak Electric Association to both Port Lions and
Kodiak. The Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project provides electricity via a separate 14.5 KV
transmission line from the Terror Lake powerhouse to Port Lions. Development of the Terror
Lake project replaced more expensive diesel fuel as the primary means of generating power;
existing diesel power generation is responsible for approximately 20 percent of the total power
supply, and is available as emergency backup.
Telephone services are provided by the Interior Telephone Company via a microwave
communication system. All housing units are hooked-up to telephone service. Private utilities
provide cable television service for residences of both communities and throughout the borough.
Transportation
There is no access by road from Port Lion or Kodiak to the project site. Road transportation
in Port Lions is limited to 4.2 miles of state roads (Alaska Department of Community and
Regional Affairs 1981). Port Lions is not accessible by road to other communities. Air and
water transportation are the only means to and from Port Lions. A gravel runway is located
northeast of the community for wheeled aircraft, while floatplane access is available just north
of the wood causeway on Settlers Cove.
Kodiak has a large road system which is connected to a few small outlying communities in the
area. The road system provides access to Monashka, Pasagshak, and Anton Larsen bays, the
last of which is used to launch small boats bound for Port Lions and Kizhuyak Bay. The City
Kodiak Electric Association E-126 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
of Kodiak has the largest commercial air transportation network on the island, and is the location
of several small air taxi operations providing regularly scheduled and charter air service to Port
Lions and the Terror Lake powerhouse dock. The largest Coast Guard station in Alaska is also
located in Kodiak, providing both air and water support.
Public docks owned and operated by Kodiak and Port Lions provide slip space for resident and
commercial vessels. The ferry M/V Tustumena provided by the Alaska State Marine Highway
System connects Port Lions with Kodiak and the Kenai Peninsula town of Homer.
Health and Social Services
Health and medical services are available at Port Lions at a city owned clinic which can handle
outpatient care. Staffing for the clinic is through the Indian Health Service. Additional and
more extensive care is available in Kodiak. Other social services include a library, community
hall and schools. The Kodiak Island Borough operates a elementary and high schools in Port
Lions and the City of Kodiak.
There are no local police in Port Lions; the Alaska State Troopers from Kodiak have jurisdiction
over the community. The fire department in Port Lions provides service through a volunteer
effort. The City of Kodiak has local government funding and staff for police and fire protection,
medical facilities as well as other related health and social services.
Fiscal/Revenue Characteristics
Sources of public revenue for Port Lions are primarily from the Kodiak Island Borough (KIB).
The City of Kodiak receives public revenues from the KIB and local city government. State and
federal appropriations are funneled into the borough through agencies that oversee the
development, construction, and maintenance of projects and services. The KIB is responsible
for area-wide functions including education, health and social services, planning and zoning.
Appropriations for Port Lions between 1980 and 1985 totaled $8.3 million for various water,
sewer, health, fire, public dock, and airport improvements and hydropower. During the same
six-year period appropriations for similar projects in Kodiak totaled $77 million and
Kodiak Electric Association E-127 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
$110.3 million for KIB. Kodiak Island Borough receives other revenues through local taxes,
investment earnings, licenses and permits, federal revenue sharing and transfers from other
funds.
Monies spent in Port Lions from government sources are primarily directed towards education
and public works. Expenditures for the city of Kodiak include general government, public
safety, public works, parks and recreation, museum, library and others which totaled 68 percent
of all expenditures in 1986.
7.1.3 Subsistence
Kodiak Island is surrounded by one of the richest marine environments in Alaska. Communities
on Kodiak Island depend on subsistence activities as a primary source of food and livelihood for
their existence. The harvesting of fish, crustaceans, marine mammals, waterfowl and terrestrial
wildlife supports many families in their quest for food and resources. All communities on the
island are located on or near open water, and boat access provides a variety of places to harvest
fish and game.
The contribution of total subsistence harvest by weight is approximately 84 percent from marine
environments and 16 percent from terrestrial areas for Port Lions, Kodiak road-connected area
and other communities (Kodiak Area Native Association 1983). Salmon is by far the largest
portion of all resources harvested, except in Port Lions where halibut nearly equals salmon in
pounds of harvested fish. Crabs, other invertebrates and the Sitka blacktail deer contribute the
second largest portion of total weight in pounds contributed to community harvests.
Port Lions
Port Lions is located on the shores of Settler's Cove which allows water access to many
traditional subsistence use areas. The community has a population of 68 percent native that
traditionally have participated in subsistence activities.
Kodiak Electric Association E-128 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
During a twelve month period the mean household harvest of all salmon species was 61 fish per
household with sockeye (red) an coho (silver) salmon comprising the bulk of fish. Halibut, king
crab and dungeness crab is also an important resource for the community. Port Lions harvest
approximately three deer a year per household (ADF&G 1986). Eighty-two (82) percent of
households harvested salmon for subsistence purposes. Similarly, 65 percent of the households
participated in harvesting crab, 64 percent for deer and 96 percent for any species
(ADF&G 1986).
Seasonal Round: Subsistence activity for people in Port Lions continues throughout the year
with the heaviest activity occurring between May and November. Fishing related activities
comprise the bulk of subsistence activity in Port Lions with salmon and halibut being the
primary resource. Salmon harvesting begins with the early run of sockeye in May and continues
until late November with last runs of coho. Halibut is taken throughout the year with
concentrated efforts occurring from January to May. June through November is a time for Dolly
varden and steelhead fishing, although these species do not draw many people in the community
as a large subsistence resource.
Various crab species and marine mammals are also important to the subsistence way of life.
Crabs are harvested throughout the year and butter clam are taken from February-April and
September-November. Other marine resources harvested include harbor seals between August
and the end of April.
Hunting for deer, rabbits, ptarmigan, and gathering berries occurs throughout most of the year
for the various species. Sitka Blacktail deer is the main resource harvested on the island. The
August to March deer season draws most of the activity after the first snow has fallen, pushing
deer from higher elevations towards the coast, where hunting access is easiest.
Use Areas: Residents of Port Lions travel primarily by water to resource areas and rarely travel
more than a couple of miles off the beach to harvest deer and other resources. In general, Port
Lions residents hunt and fish the coastlines, bays and adjacent land areas along the north and
north east portion of Kodiak Island. The range of subsistence activities extends from Miner's
Kodiak Electric Association E-129 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Point on the southwest shore of U ganik Bay, north to the tip of Shuyak Island and southeast to
East Cape on Spruce Island.
Port Lions residents fish for salmon in Afognak, Kizhuyak, and Marmot bays, and from
Kupreanof Strait to Chernof Point. Some freshwater fish are harvested in Barbara Lake. Other
fish, crabs and marine mammals are harvested throughout the area. The people of Port Lions
hunt upland areas more than other similar communities on the island, primarily on or near the
Kupreanof Peninsula, Sheratin Bay, Raspberry, Uganik and Whale islands (ADF&G 1986).
Kodiak Road-Connected Area
The City of Kodiak is connected to other communities and various environments by road.
Information regarding subsistence activity by residents in Kodiak also include those environs
linked by road to the city. Species harvested by residents in the area are similar to those of Port
Lions. The extent to which people are willing to travel is much greater than those of Port Lions
and other communities of the island, but the amount of harvest is generally less per household
than that of other communities. This may be attributed to a stronger economic base in the area
that provides more monies to purchase resources rather that having to depend on subsistence
activities for food and livelihood.
The mean household harvest of salmon for all persons in the Kodiak area is approximately half
of that for Port Lions (30 salmon) for the same twelve month period (ADF&G 1986). Five
Halibut, 8 Dolly Varden, and 15 crabs are taken on the average from households in the area.
Less than two deer and rabbits are taken for subsistence use by persons in the area
(ADF&G 1986).
Seasonal Round: The seasonal round for subsistence harvesting is similar to that of Port Lions.
It should be noted that the levels of harvesting for any species will vary depending on resource
availability, suitability, weather and government regulations. Personal preference also exhibit
factors towards the willingness or need to participate in subsistence activities.
Kodiak Electric Association £-130 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Use Areas: Those areas accessible by road or small skiffs are those most used by people to
include Chiniak, Kupreanof, Monashka, and Marmot Bays, and Narrow Strait. Due to the large
population in the Kodiak area the number of boats, road vehicle as well as small airplanes are
greater and more accessible than in other places thus extending the limits of travel beyond those
in other communities. Similar to Port Lions residents, Kodiak residents usually travel the
coastline, bays and adjacent land area in search of subsistence resource. They rarely travel by
foot into the mainland from a beach or road to hunt deer and other small game.
Residents from Kodiak do travel to some extent throughout the Kodiak archipelago in search of
subsistence resources. In a survey conducted by the Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA),
some Kodiak residents travel as far as the Alaska and Kenai Peninsulas to harvest resources for
subsistence activities.
7.1.4 Commercial Fishing and Hunting
Commercial fishing is the most significant component of the Kodiak economy. Two major
commercial fisheries occur in the waters of Kizhuyak Bay: salmon and herring. Of the two,
salmon is the most economically important.
In the 1991 commercial salmon fishery from June 9 to October 1, 550 commercial salmon
permit holders participated in Kodiak fisheries, including 17 beach seine, 185 set gill net, and
348 purse seine permits (ADF&G 1992). A total of 23.7 million salmon were harvested, of
which 16.6 were pink salmon and 5.7 million were sockeye salmon. The estimated ex-vessel
value of the fishery was $31.4 million; individual beach seiners averaged $4,500, set gill netters
$46,000, and purse seiners $65,400. The value of the 1991 salmon fishery was below the $51
million for 1990, due to lower average prices and a smaller total harvest. The 1991 Kodiak sac
roe herring fishery harvested 2,432 tons of herring, 70 percent by purse seine gear and
30 percent by gill net gear. The estimated value to fishermen was approximately $2.1 million,
with one of the highest prices per ton in the state ($851 million).
Salmon fishing in Kizhuyak Bay is predominantly for pink and red salmon, with lesser amounts
of coho and chum salmon. This represents two statistical reporting areas; in 1991 for the two
Kodiak Electric Association E-131 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
areas, there were 119 landings from 22 permits fished, with approximately 40,000 salmon
landed. Fish caught were primarily pink (23,000) and red (11,500) salmon. There are some
shore-based fishery sites in the bay, located in the central portion. The head of Kizhuyak Bay
is a closed water sanctuary for commercial fishing, and extends roughly 0.5 miles out from the
river mouth.
A commercial herring fishery occurs in Kizhuyak Bay during the spring. In 1991,
approximately 117 tons were harvested. The primary fishing area is located along the west side
of the bay, from Barbara Lake to the head of the bay by the Terror Lake dock. There is some
small-scale commercial dungeness crab fishing that occurs in Kizhuyak Bay, and some
commercial halibut fishing may occur as well.
The project vicinity is also occasionally used for commercial and guided hunting activity. At
least one commercial operator utilizes the Kizhuyak Bay and drainage area for bear and deer
hunting. A permanent guides' cabin is located on the northeast side of the bay.
7.2 IMPACTS TO SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
The socioeconomic impacts of construction and operation of the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric
Project are primarily a function of the following project characteristics and factors:
(1) Construction and operation employment opportunities afforded to local population.
(2) Residency of employees, and demands on housing and services.
(3) Direct and indirect effects on the local economy through project and employee
expenditures.
(4) Direct and indirect effects on municipal fiscal characteristics through public
revenues and expenditures generated by the project.
Kodiak Electric Association E-132 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
(5) Effects of project construction and operation activities (included non-resident
employees) on subsistence and commercial fishing and hunting activities in the
vicinity of the proposed project.
7.2.1 Employment and Income Generated by the Project
Construction
Construction of the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project will create approximately 36 construction
jobs. These include 5 jobs at the low skill level, 5 to 8 jobs at the medium skill level, and the
remainder at high skill or supervisory level. Much of the low and medium skill level jobs are
likely to be local hire; local hire at the high skill level depends on workforce characteristics in
Kodiak. The period of construction employment will last up to a year and a half. Some site
preparation work could occur in August of the year prior to the main construction effort, which
will take place between April and November of the following year.
Employment income generated by construction of the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project is
estimated to be $1.2 million during the period of construction. It is estimated that one third to
one half of these wages may accrue to residents of the Kodiak Island Borough.
Operation
Project operation will create approximately one new temporary job. A full-time mechanic will
be employed for the first two years of project operation. This person would be based in Kodiak
and flown to the project site as needed. After two years, the position will be eliminated and
operation responsibilities will be carried out by the full-time operator and maintenance
superintendent located at the KEA Terror Lake powerhouse site. Operation is estimated to begin
in 1995.
Employment income generated by operation of the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project is
estimated to be $40,000 during the two year period of initial project start-up. Because this staff
Kodiak Electric Association E-133 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
member would be located with KEA in Kodiak, these wages would accrue to a resident of the
Kodiak Island Borough.
7.2.2 Effects on Population Characteristics
On-Site
Project construction will temporarily increase the population at the project site during the period
of construction. As indicated above, up to ten employees would be temporarily based at the
project site during two months of advanced site preparation work. Up to 36 workers would be
based at the project site during the main construction effort occurring between April and
November of the following year. This would represent a significant, but temporary, increase
in the current population of 3 already in the project vicinity for operation of the Terror Lake
powerhouse. Operation of the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project would not result in anyon-site
population increases.
Off-Site
Project construction has the potential to cause a temporary increase in population in Kodiak
during the period of project construction, depending on the number of non-Kodiak residents
hired and number of dependents such employees might bring to Kodiak. The following
assumptions are made for the purpose of estimating off-site population impact:
(1) Approximately one-half of the 36 construction employees are non-residents.
(2) A maximum of one half of the non-residents would bring dependents.
(3) The multiplier of dependents to employees is 2.0, and
(4) These dependents locate in Kodiak during the main 7 month period of
construction.
Kodiak Electric Association E-134 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Using these assumptions, the 9 non-resident employees bringing dependents would generate a
maximum population increase in Kodiak of 18 people. Given the relatively short duration of
construction and likelihood of bringing in dependents, this number will probably be smaller.
Operation would not result in any off-site population impacts.
7.2.3 Effects on Housing, Services and Community Infrastructure
Construction
On-Site: Housing and services would be provided to the construction workforce on-site. A
construction tent camp would be located near the dock facility, which was the location of the
original Terror Lake construction camp. The camp will have food service and other standard
camp facilities. Power for construction of the powerhouse sites will be provided from the local
KEA power supply, and on-site water supply and waste disposal services will be provided.
Off-Site: Using the assumptions for offsite population increases, housing demand for up to
9 additional families could be generated in Kodiak during the principal period of project
construction. This additional demand represents a minimal increase and would not be
significant. Related demands on services and community infrastructure such as schools would
also not be significant.
Operation
On-Site: No additional on-site demands for housing or services would be generated by project
operation.
Off-Site: Only one limited term employment position would be created by operation of this
project. If this position is not filled by a resident of Kodiak, demand for one additional house
would be created for a period of two years.
Kodiak Electric Association E-135 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
7.2.4 Effects on the Local Economy
Construction: Construction of the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric project will have a beneficial
effect on the local economy through generation of employment and wages, and through the
purchase of supplies and services. Construction employment will generate $1.2 million in wages
over a period of 18 months; up to 50 percent could go to local residents. Approximately
$600,000 will be spent on purchase of supplies and services, including construction materials,
food, and transportation such as air charters.
Operation: The effect of project operation will also have a beneficial effect on the local
economy through generation of employment and wages, although it will not be as significant as
the effect of construction. Operation employment will generate $40,000 in wages over a period
of two years, all of which will be local. Some expenditures will be spent on purchase of
supplies and services, primarily air charter services. The project will also create some revenue
for Afognak Native corporation through lease or purchase of corporation lands.
7.2.5 Effects on Municipal Fiscal Characteristics
Construction: The effects of project construction on municipal fiscal characteristics will
primarily be limited to revenues from sales taxes on project-related purchases made in the City
of Kodiak. In addition, purchase or lease of borough lands for construction and operation of
project facilities will generate revenue for the Kodiak Island Borough.
Operation: Project operation will have no direct effect on municipal fiscal characteristics.
7.2.6 Effects on Subsistence and Commercial Fishing Activities
Subsistence
Construction: Project construction activities may temporarily disrupt any subsistence occurring
in the vicinity of the proposed project. However, subsistence harvest of resources important to
Port Lions residents, such as salmon, deer, and halibut, is unlikely to occur at the project site
Kodiak Electric Association E-136 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
because equal or better quality subsistence resources exist closer to Port Lions. As a result,
potential impacts from project construction will not be significant. In addition, the project
construction schedule which is to be completed by October, would reduce potential interference
with deer hunting. Because the project area does not appear to support significant subsistence
activities by other residents of Kodiak Island, project impacts will not be significant.
Waterfowl are not an important subsistence resource in terms of percent of total harvest.
Waterfowl are hunted as a subsistence resource, even though they are found only in low numbers
at the Kizhuyak River Delta during fall migration. Project construction would not impact
waterfowl subsistence activities. Most Port Lions residents hunt waterfowl in the Raspberry
Strait and Sheratin Bay areas since ducks are more abundant in these locations. The head of
Kizhuyak Bay is further away which together with fewer birds, discourages use by local
residents. Also, the Kizhuyak delta habitat is located at least one mile from the nearest project
construction sites.
Operation: Project operation will not add a significant amount of facilities or activities over
those associated with operation of the existing Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project system. While
there is a potential for creation of new access to upland areas through road and powerline
extensions at lower elevations, and along the penstock routes, access control could mitigate this
potential impact.
Commercial Fishing and Hunting
Construction: Project construction activities, particularly offloading of construction supplies in
the spring, may temporarily disrupt commercial fishing for herring during the spring. This
short-term, high value fishery takes place from the Terror Lake dock area up along the west side
of Kizhuyak Bay to Barbara Lake. Conducted primarily by purse seine boats, it is a very
intense fishery, subject to short fishing period openings. It is highly sensitive to disruption, and
potential impacts could be significant if they occur. Supply operations during project
construction could be scheduled to avoid potential herring fishing periods.
Kodiak Electric Association E-137 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
The Kizhuyak River estuary is closed to commercial salmon fishing from the mouth of the river
to 0.5 mile out. Potential construction impacts due to the small amount of boat traffic is
expected to be negligible during the period of salmon fishing (late June through A).lgust).
Primary concerns would be limited to accidental fuel spills from onshore storage that would
reach the river or marine waters, or from vessels associated with project construction. Potential
impacts to other commercial fisheries such as halibut and dungeness crab would also be
negligible.
Staging and construction activity could interfere with commercial hunting operations during the
spring construction season. Potential impacts are expected to be limited to the immediate area
of construction activity.
Operation: There would be no foreseeable impacts to commercial fisheries.
7.3 MmGATION MEASURES
(1) Maximize local hire. Most of the low and medium skill level jobs are expected
to be local workers. Obtaining high level skill workers from local hire will in
part depend on the workforce characteristics in Kodiak.
(2) Maximize local purchase of materials. An estimated $600,000 will be spent on
purchase of supplies and services, including construction materials, food, and
transportation.
(3) Restrict workforce participation in sport hunting and sport fishing. Up to
36 laborers may be employed for project construction. Existing ADF&G
regulations control hunting and fishing in the area. However, consultation with
ADF&G should be undertaken regarding the need for more stringent controls to
ensure that fish and game resources in the project vicinity are adequately
protected.
Kodiak EJectric Association E-138 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
(4) Schedule barge and float plane traffic to avoid herring fishing during April and
May.
(5) In general, boats, float planes, and project construction workers would be
restricted from accessing the mouth of the Kizhuyak River. This delta area is not
part of any project construction or operation activities, and is generally not used
to access the Kizhuyak River due to tides and muddy beach conditions.
(6) Amend the existing SPCC plan for operation of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project to control accidental fuel spills.
Kodiak Electric Association E-139 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
8.0 LAND USE
8.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
8.1.1 Introduction
Kodiak Island is approximately 3,588-sq-miles in area and is located in the northwest Gulf of
Alaska, south of the mainland of southcentral Alaska. It is similar to other areas of Alaska,
where land ownership and use is characterized by a mix of federal, state, municipal and Native
corporation owned lands. Some of these lands have been designated for specific purposes. Most
of Kodiak and the project area is relatively undeveloped, and land use activities have been
traditionally associated with subsistence, commercial fishing, recreation, and sport hunting and
fishing. Recently, the construction and operation of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project has
had an affect on land use in the area. The government agencies and private entities owning
lands in the project area have adopted a variety of management regulations and plans to control
activities taking place in the Terror Lake Project area.
8.1.2 Land Ownership and Status
Federal Lands
Land ownership in the project area is shown in Figure El-2 (and Figure G-1, oversize map).
Both lakes and their watersheds are located adjacent to and east of Kodiak National Wildlife
Refuge, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. One of the major land owners on
Kodiak Island, the refuge encompasses roughly 1,866,000 acres of land within its boundaries
(this figure includes approximately 272,000 acres of lands conveyed to Native corporations
within refuge boundaries). With the exception of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project facilities
located within the designated Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project Power Withdrawal, the portion
of the refuge adjacent to the proposed Leanne Lake Project within the Terror River drainage,
has been proposed as a Wilderness Area. There are no federally designated lands within the
project site itself.
Kodiak Electric Association E-140 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
State Lands
The Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake watersheds are located on lands owned by the State of
Alaska. A review of previous survey information performed by Ecklund Surveying (1992) for
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands, also indicates that the No-Name Lake dam
would be wholly located within State lands. These lands are general state lands, part of the
state's entitlement from the federal government upon becoming a state. Unlike other parts of
Alaska, these lands have not gone through the process of preparing an Area Management Plan
and have not been subject to specific classification for management.
Municipal Lands
The Kodiak Island Borough, the regional municipal government of Kodiak and Afognak Islands,
owns land in the project area, to the east of Leanne Lake. These lands are part of the Borough's
municipal entitlement from the state. Portions of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project
transmission line and access road are located on Borough land. The lower elevation portions
of the Leanne Lake penstock, powerhouse and transmission line would also be located on
Borough land.
Native Lands
Afognak Native Corporation is a for-profit village Native corporation within the Koniag region
formed as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). It represents residents
of Port Lions and the former village of Afognak. Typically, village Native corporations are
allowed to select surface land from the federal government as part of ANCSA, the amount based
on the number of shareholders in the corporation. Selections are evaluated, and if approved,
title is conveyed to the village corporation. Title to the subsurface estate of village Native
corporation lands is given to the regional Native corporation, in this case Koniag Inc.
A small block of Afognak Corporation lands are located adjacent to No-Name Lake, including
part of its watershed and possibly the lake's inlet. Portions of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Kodiak Electric Association E-141 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Project transmission line and access road are also located on corporation land. The No-Name
Lake penstock, powerhouse, road, and transmission line would be located on corporation land.
8.1.3 Land Use
Primary land uses within the project area are associated with the Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project and recreation and subsistence use of the area. The existing Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project powerhouse, employee housing, maintenance and storage facilities, transmission line and
access road, are located in the proposed project vicinity. These are the only developed uses in
the project area and are relatively contained and limited to day-to-day operation of the project.
Recreation and subsistence activities are associated with the harvest of deer, bear, goat,
waterfowl and fish, boating, wildlife viewing and hiking. These land use activities are seasonal
(spring through fall), and are of a relatively low frequency and use intensity level.
8.1.4 Land Management, Use Regulations, and Planning
Land Management Designations
Federal Lands: The adjacent federal lands in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge fall within
one of two land management designations. The Terror Lake facility and its associated power
tunnel, diversion basins and access road are located within the designated Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project Power Withdrawal. This withdrawal specifically designated certain lands
for power project development, and removed them from other types of use designations or use
classifications. The portion of the refuge adjacent to the proposed Leanne Lake watershed has
been proposed but not formally designated as a Wilderness Area, part of the Uganik-Zachar
Review Unit. The purpose of wilderness designation is to "maintain wilderness resources and
values, preserve the wilderness character of the biological and physical features, and provide
opportunities for research, subsistence, and wildlife oriented recreation" (USFWS 1987). Within
a designated wilderness area, certain types of activities are allowed or prohibited, specifically
those related to motorized activity and disturbance of habitat. At this time, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is managing the area to maintain its wilderness character.
Kodiak Electric Association E-142 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
State Lands: State lands in the project area have not gone through the process of preparing an
Area Management Plan and have not been subject to classification for management. There is
no specific management designation for these lands.
Borough Lands: Borough, private and state lands in the project area have been zoned as
Conservation District under the Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Ordinance. This ordinance is
described in the following subsection.
Native Lands: Afognak Native Corporation lands in the project area have been included in a
corporation shareholder lease program that makes 5-acre parcels available to shareholders at a
nominal rate. Among the potential uses of such parcels are development of residences, small
business, and lodges and other commercial recreation opportunities. Uses proposed for
shareholder lease are reviewed by a committee set up by Afognak Corporation prior to granting
the lease. There are no specific proposals for use of corporation lands in the vicinity of the
project at this time. Due to problems with unauthorized hunting on corporation lands, Afognak
Corporation is considering posting some of their lands in the area "no-trespassing".
Federal. State. and Local Land Use Regulations
Federal: Depending on the nature of the activity, use of refuge lands would require up to two
types of approvals. Short-term uses associated with field exploration and data collection would
require a Special Use Permit from the refuge. Long-term uses, including water use or diversion
for hydroelectric generation and physical facilities such as roads and transmissions lines, would
require a Right-of-Way Agreement under the Refuge Administration Act. Uses related to
hydroelectric power generation within the designated power withdrawal area would still require
one of these approvals. If the land in question was officially designated as wilderness, these
same permits and agreements could be applied for, but review procedure and criteria would
change.
State: Use of state lands in the project area would require a General Use Permit from the
Department of Natural Resources. A permanent facility of any size might require a disposal of
state interest in the land, and be subject to a Best Interest Finding (determining whether disposal
Kodiak Electric Association E-143 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
is in the best interest of the state). Both a General Use Permit and a Best Interest Finding would
be subject to a coastal consistency review.
Local: The Kodiak Island Borough administers three forms of major land use regulations that
apply to activities in the project area: the Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Ordinance (Title 17),
Subdivision Regulations, and the Coastal Management Plan.
The Zoning Ordinance applies to land uses on private, Borough, and State lands, and the
project area is located within the Conservation District zone. The proposed project
would currently be a prohibited use in this zone and would require rezoning by the
Planning Commission, subject to a public hearing. Under pending regulation changes
the proposed activity would be a Conditional Use, subject to approval by the Planning
Commission after a public hearing before the Commission. Specific conditions may be
attached to approval of the Conditional Use.
The Subdivision Ordinance applies whenever the lot lines of land parcels are changed,
or rights-of-way or easements are dedicated. Depending on the number of parcels
involved and the nature of the change, approval would be granted administratively or by
the Planning Commission.
Certain types of local, state and federal approvals are required to be consistent with the
Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Plan. Activities associated with a proposed
project are evaluated using the enforceable policies, and are found to be consistent,
consistent with conditions, or not consistent with the coastal management program. Any
conditions of approval are attached to the appropriate local, state and federal permits.
In addition to these controls, use of Borough owned land for the project would also require
approval, the form of which would depend on the nature of the activity. A relatively permanent
use, such as for a powerhouse site, would require formal disposal of the land from the Borough
(purchase by the applicant). Disposal would require the approval of both the Planning
Commission and the Borough Assembly. Transmission lines and access roads on these lands
would likely require dedication of easements and replating through the Subdivision Ordinance.
Kodiak Electric Association E-144 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
Federal. State. and Local Land Use Planning
Federal: The USFWS has prepared a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Kodiak
National Wildlife Refuge. The CCP designates areas within the refuge according to their
resources and values, and specifies uses within each area that may be compatible with the major
purposes of the refuge. In addition, the plan discusses opportunities that will be made available
for fish and wildlife oriented recreation, ecological research, environmental education and
interpretation, and economic use of refuge lands. Four major purposes of the refuge have been
established:
(1) To conserve fish and wildlife populations and their habitats in their natural
diversity, including but not limited the Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters
sea lions, and other marine animals and migratory birds.
(2) To fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to
fish and wildlife and their habitats.
(3) To provide in a manner consistent with (1) and (2) above, the opportunity for
continued subsistence uses by local residents.
(4) To ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with
(1) above, water quality and necessary water quality within the refuge.
State: In order to provide appropriate management for state lands, the State of Alaska uses an
Area Plan process, which results in the development of guidelines regarding use of state lands
and specific classifications for use and management. At this point in time, the State of Alaska
has not initiated an Area Plan process for the Kodiak area, nor has it classified any state lands
on Kodiak, including those in the project area.
Local: The Kodiak Island Borough has two plans that apply to activities in the project area: the
Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Plan and the Kodiak Island Borough
Comprehensive Plan. The coastal management plan is a local district level plan prepared under
Kodiak Electric Association E-145 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
the requirements of the Alaska Coastal Management Program and is used in a coordinated permit
review and consistency process. It contains enforceable policies which are used to determine
consistency of certain types of land and water uses with the local and state coastal management
programs. There are specific policies that apply to hydroelectric and other energy facilities.
Activities associated with a proposed project are evaluated using the enforceable policies, and
are found to be consistent, consistent with conditions, or not consistent with the coastal
management program. The proposed project is within the boundaries of the coastal management
plan.
The Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan is a general planning document to guide the
growth of the Kodiak Island Borough. The plan was prepared in 1968, and its primary emphasis
is on the area around the City of Kodiak. It provides little guidance for the project area.
8.2 LAND USE IMPACTS
The land use and land resource impacts of construction and operation of the Leanne Lake
Hydroelectric Project are primarily a function of the following project characteristics and factors:
(1) Changes in land ownership or status through land purchase or use designations for
project facilities and rights-of-way for penstocks, power lines, and roads.
(2) Incremental changes in land use, similar to existing uses in the project area.
8.2.1 Effects On Land Ownership and Status
Construction
Prior to construction, Kodiak Electric Association (KEA) will have to purchase or otherwise
obtain permission to use lands owned by the State of Alaska, Kodiak Island Borough, and
Afognak Native Corporation. Construction activities will require temporary access through or
on these lands, including location of a construction camp. This will result in a temporary
Kodiak Electric Association E-146 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
change in land status, such as a lease or a temporary right-of-way. These should expire at the
completion of construction and no changes in ownership will result.
There are several facilities that will be in operation for the life of the project, such as the
powerhouses, water intakes, penstocks/power tunnels, transmission lines and access roads.
Some of these, such as the powerhouses, may require purchase of the site, resulting in a change
in ownership from Kodiak Island Borough to KEA. Others can be addressed through a long-
term lease for powerline or road rights-of-way, or a long-term use permit. In this latter case,
the following lands would be affected, but no changes in ownership will result:
State of Alaska: The water intake facilities for both lakes are on state lands and would
require a general use permit for construction access to State lands, along with right-of-
way agreements for project facilities, from the Department of Natural Resources, State
of Alaska.
Afognak Native Corporation: Project facilities located on Afognak Native Corporation
lands will require execution of lease or right-of-way agreements between KEA and the
Corporation; permission for construction access may also be required.
Kodiak Island Borough: Construction of the proposed project on Borough lands will
affect land ownership by requiring a disposal of Borough interest (through easement or
purchase) in its lands that would be occupied by access roads, transmission lines and
facilities such as the Leanne Lake powerhouse. Both types of land disposals will require
approval by both the Borough Planning Commission and Assembly.
Because the watershed of the proposed project is adjacent to but does not involve any lands of
the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, there would be no changes in federal land ownership or
status during project construction.
Kodiak Electric Association E-147 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Operation
All of the changes in land ownership and status would have to be resolved prior to project
operation. As mentioned above, these include purchase or long-term leases and use permits.
Because the watershed of the proposed project is adjacent to but does not involve any lands of
the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, there would be no changes in federal land ownership or
status during project operation.
8.2.2 Effects On Land Use
Construction
Project construction will result in three types of effects on land use in the vicinity of the
proposed project:
(1) Introduction of new land uses.
(2) Changes in or effects on existing land uses.
(3) Displacement or relocation of existing land uses.
Project construction and the associated construction camp will represent new but temporary
(18 month) land uses introduced into the project area. It should be noted that the project area
supported similar uses during construction of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, including
the former site of the camp facilities. Construction related uses will entail increased levels of
noise and human activities, although these are not incompatible with existing Terror Lake power
generation facility operational land uses along the access road, powerhouse, and transmission
lines.
Only a few construction-related changes in land use will occur at Leanne and No-Name lakes,
where human use can be described as infrequent, remote recreation and subsistence. Some
recreation and subsistence use of these and lower elevations areas may be displaced and/or
Kodiak Electric Association E-148 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
relocated until construction is completed. Due to the low level of visitor and subsistence use,
and the availability of a large number of quality alternative areas, these impacts will not be
significant. Because they may be noticeable from Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge lands
adjacent to the project watershed, these lands could be affected to a limited degree, although
topographic characteristics would limit the areas affected. Upon completion of the I8-month
period of construction, construction facilities and equipment will be demobilized and related
activities will cease.
Operation
Operation of the proposed project will primarily result in an expansion of existing Terror Lake
power generation facility operational land uses. The project facilities, including the lake
impoundments, penstocks, power house, transmission lines and access roads will add to similar
facilities in the project area. The incremental increase in land area dedicated to such uses would
be approximately 9 acres (including area of lakeshore fluctuation). Remote recreation uses in
the project area will most likely resume during project operation and access may be increased
along certain project facilities. Because the watershed of the proposed project is adjacent to but
does not involve any lands of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, there would be no changes
in federal land ownership or status during project operation.
8.2.3 Effects On Land Management, Use Regulations, and Planning
Construction
Federal Lands: Federal lands would not be directly affected by construction of the proposed
project. While some construction activities may be noticeable from refuge lands directly
adjacent to the project watershed, there would be no affects on refuge land management
designation.
State Lands: Because State lands associated with the proposed project have not yet been
classified through the State Area Planning Process, construction of the project would not have
to meet any specific management guidelines beyond standard stipulation attached to permits from
Kodiak Electric Association E-149 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. The water intake facilities for both lakes are on
state lands and would require a general use permit for construction access to State lands, along
with right-of-way agreements for project facilities, from the Department of Natural Resources,
State of Alaska. Approval of these permits would require a determination of consistency with
the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management
Plan, both of which permit hydroelectric generation uses. It is likely that the proposed project
would be found consistent, subject to meeting specific stipulations or conditions.
Borough Lands: State, Borough, and Afognak Native Corporation lands in the project area are
currently zoned as Conservation District, requiring either a rezoning or Conditional Use permit
prior to initiating construction activities. A disposal of Borough interest (through easement or
purchase) would be required for its lands that would be occupied by access roads, transmission
lines and facilities such as the Leanne Lake powerhouse. Both types of land disposals will
require approval by both the Borough Planning Commission and Assembly. Approval of these
disposals would require a determination of consistency with the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal
Management Plan. It is likely that the proposed project would be found consistent, subject to
meeting specific stipulations or conditions.
Private Lands: The Afognak Corporation may place specific conditions on use of its lands for
construction or construction access. After obtaining approval for project related use through
lease or right-of-way agreements, project related lands owned by Afognak Native Corporation
would be most likely withdrawn from the corporation shareholder lease program that makes 5-
acre parcels available to shareholders at a nominal rate.
Operation
Federal lands would not be affected by operation of the proposed project. The primary effect
of project operation on management of State lands would be incorporation of the project as an
existing allowed activity should state lands be classified in the future through an Area Planning
Process. Management considerations for Borough and Native Corporation Lands would be
resolved prior to construction activities. Project operation may have to meet specific conditions
placed on use of State, borough, and private lands.
Kodiak Electric Association E-150 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
8.3 MITIGATION MEASURES
(1) Work with landowners to incorporate appropriate conditions and restrictions
regarding access and use of lands in the project vicinity.
(2) Consult with Afognak Native Corporation regarding restriction of worker access
to their lands.
(3) Use, as much as possible, existing disturbed areas for stockpiling and material
yards.
8.4 AGENCY CONSULTATION
Project study team members consulted with landowners in the project area, and informed them
of the proposed Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project. This provided an opportunity to acquire
information on land use, and to assess landowner concerns regarding potential impacts of project
development.
A representative of the planning team met in August 1992 with the Kodiak Island Borough
Director of Community Development and the Borough Lands Manager to obtain land use
planning data and to discuss permitting. A project site visit was organized in October 1992 for
the Borough Lands Manager.
A representative of the planning team met in August 1992 with the Afognak Native Corporation
Lands Management officers and discussed land use policy with the Corporations General
Manager. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Manager, was
contacted in August 1992 to obtain land use planning and policy information.
Kodiak Electric Association E-151 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
9.0 RECREATION RESOURCES
9.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
9.1.1 Introduction
The Leanne Lake Hydroelectric project is located off of Kizhuyak Bay in the northern part of
Kodiak Island. Kodiak Island and Afognak Island to the north is an area rich in recreation
resources and opportunities for residents of the island, other Alaskan residents and visitors from
out of state. It is well known for sport hunting, particularly for the Kodiak brown bear,
mountain goat and the Sitka blacktail deer. Saltwater and freshwater fishing is also popular, for
the five species of salmon, trout, and halibut and rockfish. The marine waters of Kodiak Island
are used for "remote experience" recreational boating, including motor vessels, and occasional
sailboats and kayaks. The island and its wildlife resources are very scenic, and in certain areas,
hiking and wildlife viewing occurs, often in association with other recreation activities.
Much of Kodiak Island lies within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, which is managed
primarily for protecting the Kodiak brown bear and its habitat, but includes recreation as a major
activity, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service operates recreational cabins at specific
locations. Some of the marine waters, coastline, and small islands are within the Alaska
Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Several state parks are located on Kodiak and Afognak
Islands, and recreation activities may occur on some Native corporation lands with the
permission of the landowner.
9.1.2 Recreation Use Areas
The proposed Leanne Lake Hydroelectric project lies primarily within state of Alaska lands,
although some private (Afognak Native Corporation) and Kodiak Island Borough lands are also
affected. None of these lands are managed specifically for recreation activities, although such
activities are allowed under certain conditions. The project is in close proximity to portions of
the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Recreation uses are specifically considered in management
of the refuge; where a goal of the public use program is " to provide high quality fish and
Kodiak Electric Association E-152 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
wildlife oriented recreation, interpretive, and educational opportunities consistent with the
refuges resource oriented purposes" (USFWS 1990). Public use objectives include:
(1) Minimize potential conflicts between subsistence, recreational, and commercial
users.
(2) Provide opportunities for fish and wildlife oriented recreation, emphasizing short-
term, low-density use.
(3) Maintain access to and existing uses of the refuge for recreational users.
(4) Develop and maintain facilities for recreational users which are consistent with
refuge management purposes, with emphasis on providing fish and wildlife
oriented recreation opportunities requiring minimal facility development and
habitat alteration.
Public use on the refuge, including both the refuge lands and visits to the interpretive center in
Kodiak totaled 21,300 in 1990 and 22,400 in 1989. Table E9-1 shows public use of the refuge
for selected activities during the period of 1987-1990. While the interpretive center accounted
for the most number of visits, deer hunting and sport fishing by far accounted for the majority
of activity hours.
There are no state or borough lands in the project area that are specifically identified or managed
for recreation activities. Recreation uses associated with sport hunting may occur on these
lands. Use of Afognak Native Corporation lands in the project area are subject to approval by
the Native corporation. These lands are also included in a corporation shareholder lease
program that makes 5-acre parcels available to shareholders at a nominal rate. Among the
potential uses of such parcels are development of lodges and other commercial recreation
opportunities. There are no specific proposals for recreation use of corporation lands in the
vicinity of the project at this time.
Kodiak Electric Association E-153 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Table E9-1.
Public Use of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge for Selected Activities: 1987-1990
Category I 1987 I 1988 I 1989 I 1990
Interpretive Center
Visits 9,784 8,681 8,989 8,229
Activity Hours 4,851 4,342 4,495 4,255
Environmental Education
Visits 591 725 902 652
Activity Hours 517 804 1,397 462
Deer Hunting
Visits 1,523 1,661 1,493 1,246
Activity Hours 73,645 77,121 69,404 59,136
Sport Fishing
Visits 2,740 1,970 2,045 2,500
Activity Hours 34,480 32,920 44,920 54,300
Total Visits 14,638 13,037 13,429 12,627
Total Hours 113,493 115,187 120,216 118,153
9.1.3 Recreational Facilities
Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge
There are eight public use cabins in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. The closest cabin to
the project area is located to the northwest on Viekoda Bay, approximately 20 miles away. A
road from the Terror Lake powerhouse and dock crosses Refuge lands on its way to the Terror
Lake dam. As a condition of the Terror Lake Project, no vehicle access is permitted by the
public and is limited to KEA and U. S. Fish and Wildlife personnel. The road is blocked by
a locked gate above the existing powerhouse. Public access is allowed by foot along the road,
although it is not likely that much use occurs.
Kodiak Electric Association E-154 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
State Lands
The Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project dock is a publicly funded facility, and is open to public
use. The dock (from floatplanes and boats) and road to the powerhouse receives some public
recreation use, associated primarily with sport hunting for deer and mountain goats.
9.1.4 Recreational Activities
Sport Hunting
Sport hunting occurs in the Leanne Lake Project area for brown bear, Sitka black-tailed deer,
mountain goat, and waterfowl. With the exception of mountain goats, most hunting is likely to
take place near the shoreline or off the limited road system. The project site lies on the
boundary of Subunits 2 and 5 of Game Management Unit (GMU) 8. Access to the project area
for sport hunting purposes is limited to boat and floatplane; sport hunters are likely to arrive
from Kodiak or nearby Port Lions. Once onshore in the vicinity of the project, the dock built
to service the Terror Lake Project and road system provides a certain amount of access for sport
hunting, even though there are hunting use restrictions. Construction of the Terror Lake dock
and access road has had a noticeable impact on increasing access and hunting activity (R. Smith,
ADF&G, personal communication 1992).
For brown bear, Subunit 5 typically records the second highest harvest levels of the 5 Subunits,
ranging up to 26 percent of total GMU 8 harvests during the period of 1972-82. Subunit 2 was
average, ranging up to 19 percent of the GMU harvest over the same period. Hunting occurs
in the project area during two periods: April 1 to May 15, and October 25 to November 30.
The sport hunting bag limit is one bear every four regulatory years.
Sitka black-tailed deer are hunted in the project area, both by Kodiak residents and non-residents
alike. Because of a State ferry stop at Port Lions, and the ability to access Kizhuyak Bay by
boat from Kodiak using Anton Larson Bay, use of the Terror Lake powerhouse dock and access
road facilities for deer hunting does occur. Hunting occurs in the project area during the period
of August 1 to December 31; the sport hunting bag limit is 4 deer.
Kodiak Electric Association E-155 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Mountain goat hunting occurs in the project area as a Drawing Permit Hunt. Part of the project
vicinity is included in Hunt Area 0873, Hidden Basin-Terror Lake. A total of 111 permits will
be issued for GMU 8 for 1992. Hunting occurs in the project area during the period of
August 1 to December 31; the sport hunting bag limit is 1 goat. Goat hunting is not a high
volume activity; in 1990, approximately 35 goat hunters used the entire Kodiak National Wildlife
Refuge.
Some waterfowl hunting occurs at the head of Kizhuyak Bay and within the river delta during
the fall hunting season. This area is known as a fair hunting site and hunters are most likely to
be residents of Port Lions. Hunting occurs in the project area during the period of October 8
to January 22; the sport hunting bag limit differs by species, ranging up to 15 a day for
harlequins, sea ducks and mergansers.
Sport Fishing
In annual studies of sport fishing by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Kodiak has
accounted from 3 to 5 percent of sport fishing effort in terms of angler days of fishing
(ADF&G 1992). In 1991, Kodiak experienced approximately 96,500 angler days of fishing,
which was 3.9 percent of 2.5 million angler days statewide. The distribution of effort is
roughly equal between freshwater (salmon, trout) and saltwater (salmon, halibut, rockfish)
fisheries. Most of the sportfishing effort in the Kodiak Island area is concentrated in the
northeast portion of the island around the town of Kodiak, the road system and adjacent salt
water areas. Table E9-2 shows the 1991 Kodiak area sport fishing catch and effort by species
and fisheries. Study area fishing effort is included under the categories of Boat -other,
Shoreline -other, and Other Streams. As can be seen in the table, silver salmon is the pre-
dominant freshwater sport fish, followed closely by arctic char. Halibut is the predominant
saltwater sport fish, followed by rockfish.
Access to the project area for sport fishing purposes is limited to boat and floatplane; sport
fishermen are likely to arrive from Kodiak or nearby Port Lions. Because there are areas of
equivalent resources closer to both Port Lions and Kodiak, it is not likely that the project area
receives a significant amount of sport fishing effort. Sport fishing that does take place is likely
Kodiak Electric Association E-156 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
i s· .... o·
CI Location
~
Boot-Chiniak BlY
Boot·Mol"'k
"lands
Boot·B'11m "lands
Boot·Other
Toial
F_b W,ler
BUlk»> Ri""r
P ... "bak Ri""r
Karluk Riyor
American River
Oldo Ri""r
Red Ri""r
Other Ri"""
laD
Toial
Angl ...
4,133
1,865
1,519
1,363
8,940
5,22.5
2,940
1,344
2,083
2,688
638
2,412
1,219
18,669
Fishing Effort
.. 1oIa1 "1oIa1
Angl." Tripi Trip.
46.2 9,626 56.2
20.9 3,142 18.3
11.1 1,378 8.0
15.2 2,992 11.5
11,138
28.0 19,210 46.3
15.1 5,309 12.8
1.2 1,646 4.0
11.2 2,906 1.0
14.4 4,402 10.6
3.4 190 1.9
13.2 5,496 13.2
6.9 1,815 4.4
41,634
Table E9-2.
Sport Fishing Catch and Effort on Kodiak Island: 1991
.. Day •
Dayo Dayo l1,hl KinK 811_ Rod
l1.hod l1.hod Angl." Salmon Salmon Salmon
13,015 52.2 3.1 109 1,056 212
4,115 18.9 2.5 0 2,195 123
1,519 6.3 1.0 0 0 0
5,635 n.6 4.1 0 150 0
24,944 109 3,401 335
21,991 43.1 4.2 0 4,121 1,515
5,816 11.1 2.0 0 1,296 815
4,541 9.0 3.4 1,234 861 894
429 0.9 0.2 0 7n 0
5,583 11.1 2.1 0 1,178 0
1,780 3.5 2.8 543 0 119
1,664 15.2 3.1 20 1,124 436
2,434 4.8 1.9 128 399 190
50,304 1,92.5 10,901 4,089
Fishing Catch
PInk Chum Dolly
Salmon Salmon Varden Halibut Rockn.h ToW
1,211 2llO 331 5,521 5,793 14,519
139 41 159 1,611 1,031 5,311
9 0 0 2,001 223 2,233
244 1 115 1,121 142 2,919
1,603 328 605 10,866 1,195 2.5,042
1,942 109 4,431 12,184
601 48 1,124 3,884
305 82 548 3,884
1,412 348 315 2,911
1,246 212 288 3,524
52 15 432 138
1,281 226 1,410 5,143
69 0 1,512 2,110
6,914 1,100 10,186 33,250
to occur during August and September for silver salmon in the Kizhuyak River. Saltwater
fishing for halibut and rockfish could occur anytime during the year but is practically limited by
weather to spring through fall.
Recreational Boating
Some level of recreational boating occurs in Kizhuyak Bay, although the exact numbers are not
known. Most users are likely to come from nearby Port Lions, or from Kodiak, using access
from Anton Larsen Bay. Use levels are not probably as high as near Kodiak and its road
system, or in portions of Afognak and Shuyak Islands that are known for the wilderness
kayaking experience qualities. The presence of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project dock
facility is a minor draw to recreational boaters, as it provides the ability to tie up and gain some
onshore access through the road system.
Hiking and Wildlife Viewing
While the predominant recreation activities occurring in the project area are sport hunting and
fishing, some hiking and wildlife viewing occurs. Access is provided by the Terror Lake
powerhouse dock and road.
9.2 IMPACTS TO RECREATION RESOURCES
The impacts of construction and operation of the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project on
recreation are primarily a function of the following project characteristics and factors:
(1) Construction activities that generate noise, traffic, and effect the quality of the
recreation experience.
(2) Changes in access to recreation use areas, either through restrictions during
construction or increased access created by the new facilities.
Kodiak Electric Association E-158 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
(3) Potential competition for recreation resources and activities by a construction
workforce stationed in the project area.
9.2.1 Recreation Use Areas
Construction
Federal Lands: Construction of the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project will not directly affect
the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, but could indirectly affect recreation use on federal lands
adjacent to the project watershed. Project construction will create additional noise, other effects
such as dust, and a human presence over existing levels. This could lead to a temporary
reduction in the quality of recreational experience in the project area during the total 18 month
period of construction. Impacts would be greatest during the peak spring-fall period of
construction.
In addition, the project construction work force represents a potential increase in area recreation
users, which could compete for resources and result in a degradation in the recreation
experience. During peak construction, 36 employees would be in the area, which is a significant
increase over the existing two Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project employees. It is likely that
work shifts would be staggered, and they would not all be pursuing recreation activities at the
same time. Again, impacts would be short-term and greatest during the peak spring-fall period
of construction.
Under some conditions, both of these impacts might be noticeable to recreation users in the
adjacent area of the refuge. However, this portion of the refuge is relatively remote (primarily
using access from the project area), and receives little visitation. The duration of potential
impacts to recreation on federal lands would be limited to the 18 month construction period, and
would not be significant.
State Lands and Waters: While there is no formal recreation land use designation of state lands
and waters in the vicinity of the proposed project, recreation use does occur. As with federal
lands, project construction will create additional noise and a human presence over existing
Kodiak Electric Association E-159 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
levels, which could degrade the quality of recreational experience in the area. The project
construction work force represents a potential increase in area recreation users, which could
compete for resources and result in a degradation in the recreation experience. In addition,
project construction activities could restrict customary recreation user access at the Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project dock and along the existing road system. Because most recreation use
occurs during the summer and fall, the duration of impact would be limited to this period in the
peak construction season (1994).
Operation
The primary effect of project operation would be increased access to recreation use areas at
higher elevations, through the extended low elevation road to the No-Name powerhouse site and
the penstock rights-of-way. However, the potential for increased access would not be a
significant impact. The project would continue to be located in a remote and isolated area with
minimal visitorship. Access restrictions could be readily implemented, and are discussed in
Section 9.3, Mitigation For Recreation Resources.
9.2.2 Recreation Facilities
Construction
No formal recreation facilities such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cabin at Viekoda Bay
will be affected by the proposed project. Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project facilities that are
currently used for recreation access, such as the dock and access road will be affected by the
proposed project. During the 18-month period of construction, the Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project dock will occasionally be used for transfer of supplies and materials on and off site,
rendering it unavailable to recreation users. Potential conflicts are most likely to occur between
spring and fall of the peak construction year. Similarly, construction related traffic will be using
the lower portions of the Terror Lake access road between the dock and the powerhouse
facilities for construction related activities. As with the dock, potential conflicts are most likely
to occur between spring and fall of the peak construction year. Because much of the hunting
occurs in the fall, restrictions on access are not likely to be significant.
Kodiak Electric Association E-160 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Operation
Project operation will have no impact on formal recreation facilities, and will have minimal
affect on the informal facilities such as the existing Terror Lake dock and access road. These
facilities would not be improved in any manner, and Leanne Lake related use will be relatively
infrequent. Depending on how they are managed, the additional roads, transmission lines and
penstock rights-of-way constructed as part of the project could constitute new, informal
recreation access.
9.2.3 Recreation Activities
Sport Hunting
Construction: Sport hunting for deer, bear, and goats will potentially be affected by three
factors:
(1) Construction activities that generate noise and traffic may be noticeable and effect
the quality of the sport hunting experience. Construction activities may also
decrease the availability of wildlife being hunted if these resources avoid the area.
(2) There may be changes in access to recreation use areas (dock and roads), through
public use restrictions of these facilities during construction. Certain areas may
be placed off-limits for safety reasons or due to increased construction related
traffic.
(3) Depending on camp rules related to firearms and sport hunting, potential
competition for same could be increased by the construction workforce stationed
in the project area.
Potential conflicts are most likely to occur in late summer-fall of the peak construction year,
which would affect deer in particular. Similar but lesser impacts could occur from
preconstruction activities that take place during the previous year. Hunting efforts may be
Kodiak Electric Association E-161 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Projea
temporarily displaced to other areas during the period of construction. Spring bear hunting
would not be significantly affected.
Operation: The primary impact from project operation on sport hunting will be a limited
increase in access created by the new road to the No-Name powerhouse. Other facilities such
as the transmission lines and penstock right-of-way would have a lesser effect on improving
access.
Sport Fishing
Construction: Project construction will have three potential effects on sport fishing:
(1) Construction activities that generate noise and traffic may be noticeable and effect
the quality of the sport fishing experience.
(2) There may be changes in access to recreation use areas (dock and roads), through
restrictions during construction. Certain areas may be temporarily closed to
public access during construction activities for safety reasons.
(3) Depending on camp rules related to fishing, potential sport fishing competition
could be created by the construction workforce stationed in the project area.
Potential conflicts are most likely to occur between spring and fall of the peak: construction year.
However, sport fishing use of the area is primarily incidental to other activities and not likely
to be significant.
Operation: Project operation will not impact sport fishing in the project area. Although there
is the possibility of increased access to Eagle Creek created by the new road and powerhouse,
the mouth of Eagle Creek is already accessible along the beach from the existing dock. Fishing
currently occurs at the dock in the Kizhuyak River. No features of the proposed project would
improve access to these sport fishing locations.
Kodiak Electric Association E-162 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Recreational Boating
Construction: Project construction will have two potential impacts on recreation boating in the
project area. The first category of impact is interference with boating through shipping
associated with bringing materials into and out of the project. In addition to the traffic created,
the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project dock may be unavailable for non-project related use
during certain periods. These periods wi11likely be extremely limited in number and duration,
and are most likely to occur between spring and fall of the peak construction year.
As with other recreation activities, the second category is a potential decrease in the quality of
recreation boating experience from noise, traffic and visual evidence of construction. Exposure
to these impacts will be limited to the head of Kizhuyak Bay in the vicinity of the proposed
project. Potential conflicts are most likely to occur between spring and fall of the peak
construction year.
Operation: Project operation will have minimal impact on recreational boating. The most likely
effect will be the visibility of the areas disturbed by the No-Name Lake penstock to boaters at
the head of Kizhuyak Bay (see Aesthetic Impacts, Section 10.2).
Hiking and Wildlife Viewing
Construction: Project construction will have three potential effects on hiking and wildlife
viewing:
(1) Construction activities that generate noise and traffic may be noticeable and effect
the quality of the recreation experience. They may also the decrease availability
of wildlife in the area if these resources avoid the area or deviate from their
normal movements.
(2) There may be changes in access to recreation use areas (dock and roads), through
restrictions during construction. Certain areas may be placed off-limits for safety
reasons or due to increased construction related traffic.
Kodiak Electric Association E-163 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
(3) There may be increased use of the project area for hiking and other non-
consumptive recreation uses by the project workforce. This could also effect the
quality of the recreation experience.
Potential conflicts are most likely to occur between spring and fall of the peak construction year.
Operation: The primary effect from project operation would be increased access created by the
new road to the No-Name Lake powerhouse and the penstock right-of-way.
9.3 MITIGATION MEASURES
(1) Prohibit or regulate workforce sport hunting and sport fishing. Consultation with
ADF&G should determine if more stringent hunting and fishing regulations are
necessary to protect these resources.
(2) Consider use of a locked gate system on the road to the No-Name Lake
powerhouse to reduce access to Eagle Creek. Also consider posting of "No
Trespass" signs through project owned lands. The need for restrictions on access
should be determined based on consultation with landowners in the project vicinity
and with state agencies such as ADF&G.
(3) Minimize aesthetic impacts which may detract from the recreation experience.
The construction contractor should minimize the clearing of vegetation and land
disturbing activities associated with construction of the project. Natural
revegetation will be allowed to occur in those disturbed areas which do not need
to be maintained for project operation.
Kodiak Electric Association E-I64 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
10.0 AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section reviews the aesthetic characteristics of the Leanne Lake project site, the possible
effects of construction and operation, and suggested methods to eliminate or mitigate such
effects.
10.1.1 Introduction
Kodiak: island is a rugged mountainous island located in the northwestern Gulf of Alaska, south
of the mainland of Southcentral Alaska. Its landscape is characterized by deep, relatively narrow
fiord-like bays, rocky shorelines, and mountainous terrain rising abruptly from the water to
elevations of up to 3,500 ft. Vegetation on Afognak: Island and the northern portion of Kodiak:
Island is dominated by Sitka spruce forests at the lower elevation. Treeline is roughly at
1,000 ft (depending on which way the slope faces), where there is a transition from alder-willow
shrubs to lichen and other low plants typical of alpine tundra. In the southern two-thirds of the
island archipelago, Sitka spruce becomes less common, giving way to stands of cottonwood
(particularly in the river valleys) and alder-willow shrub at lower elevations. On a clear day,
the views and landscapes are dramatic; however, low clouds and fog associated with storm
systems are not uncommon during much of the year and can obscure views.
Most of Kodiak: Island is considered remote and isolated from easy access, and much of the
island is in the Kodiak: National Wildlife Refuge, proposed for wilderness status. Development
and indications of human presence are generally limited to the City of Kodiak: and its road
system, and the six smaller communities on the island. Outside of these areas, the primary
activities that are noticeable are fishing boats and occasional small plane traffic. Exceptions to
this remote aesthetic environment are logging activities on Afognak: Island, and the Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project and its associated facilities, in the vicinity of the proposed Leanne Lake
Hydroelectric project. The dam, access road, transmission line, dock and facilities around the
powerhouse are noticeable from the air. From the water at the head of Kizhuyak: Bay, only the
Kodiak Electric Association E-165 Leanne Lo/ce Hydroelectric Project
dock and a portion of the existing access road are visible. These developed features are not
overly obtrusive in scale compared to the scale of the landscape.
10.1.2 Aesthetic Characteristics at the Project Site
Leanne Lake
The Leanne Lake watershed covers approximately O.88-sq-miles at a 2,000-ft elevation. The
outlet of Leanne Lake drops over a rocky escarpment in a series of cascades and waterfalls from
an elevation of 1,976 ft to 600 ft, before joining Rolling Rock creek, a tributary of the Kizhuyak
River. The lake is above timberline, and is a shallow, pristine alpine lake, with clear water and
pockets of sandy shore visible in the summertime. Rocky terrain rises to the ridgetops to the
west, (more gradually to the north and south), providing a rugged but foreshortened view. No
indication of human activities can be seen in any of these directions. The view from the outlet
of the lake to the east is sweeping and dramatic, overlooking Kizhuyak Bay, the Kizhuyak River
delta, and the mountains across the bay. The existing Terror Lake road, transmission line and
powerhouse facilities are visible below, but again due to their relatively small scale, do not have
an overwhelming impact on the landscape and visual characteristics. Access to the lake is
limited to helicopter or a vigorous off-trail climb through brush and steep rocky terrain from the
road below. Visitors are likely to be goat hunters or workers from the Terror Lake facility on
their off hours, during the summer and fall seasons.
The near-vertical granite escarpment below the outlet of the lake is also a dramatic part of the
landscape, particularly as viewed from the air, and from the portions of the Terror Lake access
road below. This vicinity is proposed as the route for the penstock facilities. It is characterized
by tall growing shrubs at lower elevations, gradually becoming low growing shrubs and tundra
type vegetation at the mid-to alpine elevations. Dramatic sheer rock cliffs are exposed in
isolated locations at the higher elevations. The rock escarpment is a relatively isolated and
unique feature in the immediate vicinity of the project, although similar cliffs are found to the
south of Leanne Lake, above the Terror Lake access road. Access is limited to helicopter or
a vigorous climb through brush and steep rocky terrain from the road below. To the northwest
Kodiak Electric Association E-166 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
toward No-Name Lake, the escarpment gives way to a slope that is slightly less steep and is
vegetated with dense alder-willow shrub.
The outlet of Leanne Lake drops precipitously as a waterfall for several hundred feet. The
waterfall can only be seen from the ground in the area adjacent to the Terror Lake powerhouse.
No-Name Lake
The view characteristics from No-Name Lake are similar to Leanne Lake. The lake is above
timberline, and rocky terrain rises to the ridgetops to the west, north, and south, shortening the
foreground view. No human presence is visible at the lake, although the dock on Kizhuyak Bay
and the road can be seen looking northeast from the proposed dam site. The slope below the
lake is not as steep or dramatic as below Leanne Lake, and is vegetated with dense alder-willow
shrub.
The outlet of No-Name Lake drops precipitously as a cascading waterfall which is visible in two
distinct sections from both the air and water, and from the dock. The first section is visible
immediately below the lake at approximately 1,800 fi, and the second section is visible at
approximately 200 ft, immediately above the location of the proposed powerhouse. The
waterfalls contribute to the scenic values of the landscape below the lake.
Transmission Line and Access Road
Along the existing road and transmission line, the vegetation is primarily cottonwood forest, with
dense alder-willow thickets. Views are extremely foreshortened near the powerhouse by the
vegetation, except down sections of road or transmission lines, and much of the time the
escarpment above cannot be seen through the vegetation. Occasionally, the Kizhuyak River is
visible through the trees or along short side access roads. Heading north towards the dock
facility, taller trees are scarce and the road and transmission line are much more noticeable
linear features. Areas around the powerhouse and some of the associated buildings have been
cleared of vegetation and have a more significant visual impact, dominating the landscape up
close. As mentioned above, the access road, transmission line, dock and facilities around the
Kodiak Electric Association E-167 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
powerhouse are noticeable from the air, but are not overly obtrusive in scale compared to the
nature of the landscape, and a rural feeling is maintained. The access road is a narrow gravel
road; the transmission line is moderate in size and uses wooden poles to blend in with the
landscape.
The project site is relatively isolated, which lowers the number of people exposed to the views
and landscapes. People are likely to be exposed to the project area passing through by airplane
or boat, specifically using the area for fish and wildlife related recreation or subsistence
activities, or when conducting work associated with the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project.
Most of this exposure is more likely to occur during the spring to fall season.
10.2 AESTHETIC IMPACTS
Construction and operation of the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Facility will have potential
temporary and permanent impacts on the aesthetic environment. The general project related
effects are described below:
(1) Temporary visual effects from the presence of construction equipment,
stockpiled construction material, and workforce, including dust, and emissions
from machinery.
(2) Temporary vegetative clearing and site grading associated with construction.
(3) Permanent vegetation removal and terrain alteration.
(4) Permanent new facilities such as penstocks, powerhouses, transmission lines and
access roads.
Because the project site contains three distinct visual environments Oakes, penstock routes and
powerhouse/transmission/access roads), construction and operation impacts are described for
each environment.
Kodiak Electric Association E-168 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
10.2.1 Leanne and No-Name Lakes
Construction
Construction of the lake intake facilities will result in temporary visual effects from the presence
of construction equipment, stockpiled construction material, and workforce, including dust,
noise, and emissions from machinery. Because of steep terrain, visibility of these impacts will
be limited to the area of the lakes themselves and from passing airplanes, but should not visible
from lower elevations. The relatively low level of visitation to these sites further limits the
potential for impact. Construction impacts will be limited to the 18 month construction period,
primarily between spring and fall.
Operation
Upon completion, visual impacts at the lake sites will be limited to a dam at No-Name Lake and
intake structure at Leanne Lake, and fluctuating water levels along the shoreline associated with
drawdown for power generation. Primarily due to the fluctuating water levels, the aesthetic
characteristics of the currently undisturbed lakes will be moderately impacted. Because of steep
terrain, visibility of these impacts will be limited to the area of the lakes themselves and from
passing airplanes, but is not visible from lower elevations. Visitation to these lakes is relatively
infrequent, and aesthetic, and visual impacts would be visible between spring to fall, when the
area is free of snow and power is being generated.
10.2.2 Penstock Route
Construction
Construction of the penstock facilities will occur in the most visible part of the project area.
Construction will result in the following activities:
Kodiak Electric Association E-169 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
(1) Temporary visual effects from the presence of construction equipment,
stockpiled construction material, and workforce, including dust, and emissions
from machinery.
(2) Clearing of vegetation along the penstock route and construction access areas,
creating linear line of disturbance perpendicular to the slope; the area below
Leanne Lake is particularly scenic.
(3) Excavation, blasting and other terrain alterations.
These activities will be visible from the air; to a more limited extent they will be visible from
vessels at the head of Kizhuyak Bay, primarily the No-Name Lake penstock construction.
Construction of the penstock will also be visible from certain locations along the Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project access road where terrain and vegetation permit views. Construction will
provide some distraction from the landscape elements that contribute to the area's scenic
qualities, such as the steep escarpment and waterfalls. The visual presence of construction will
occur during peak construction periods between spring and fall of the tota118 month construction
period. The level of visual impact is somewhat offset by the relatively low number of visitors
including boat and air traffic in the area.
Visual impacts from vegetation clearing, excavation, blasting and other terrain alterations will
exist for some period of time after construction.
Operation
Visual impacts to the slopes along the penstock routes will most likely exist after construction,
primarily as linear lines bisecting the slopes where the penstocks lie above or below ground.
These lines will provide some distraction from the landscape elements that contribute to the
area's scenic qualities, such as the steep escarpment and waterfalls. The area has similar
existing visual impacts resulting from construction of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project
penstock. In addition, diversion of water at No-Name Lake and Leanne Lake for power
generation will significantly reduce the amount of water in the falls. The aesthetic impact will
Kodiak Electric Association E-170 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
be greater at No-Name Lake, where falls are more visible than at Leanne Lake. The level of
visual impact is somewhat offset by the relatively low number of visitors and levels of boat and
air traffic in the area.
Diversion of water from No-Name and Leanne Lakes will significantly reduce the amount of
water which is present in the falls, particularly during the summer and fall seasons. The
aesthetic impact will be greater at the waterfalls originating from No-Name Lake due to the
readily accessible viewpoints from the dock and Kizhuyak Bay. The level of impact is somewhat
offset by the relatively low number of visitors to the area.
10.2.3 Powerhouse/Transmission/ Access Roads
Construction
Construction impacts on aesthetic resources in the lower project area will include similar
elements as described for the penstock:
(1) Temporary visual effects from the presence of construction equipment,
stockpiled construction material, and workforce, including dust, and emissions
from machinery.
(2) Clearing of vegetation, excavation, grading, and other terrain alterations ..
The short extensions to access roads and transmission lines will result in creating short linear
lines as vegetation is cleared. The material stockpile yards, construction camp and gravel pits
will primarily use existing cleared areas for some of these purposes to reduce the visual impact.
The construction camp and borrow area, as well as the equipment and materials stockpile yards
may, depending upon their site-specific locations, be partially visible from Kizhuyak Bay. Views
of the No-Name powerhouse site from the Terror Lake access road and dock should be screened
by existing alder and brush vegetation. The Leanne Lake powerhouse (all options) will be
visible from the existing road areas at vantage points close to the proposed sites.
Kodiak Electric Association E-171 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Project construction impacts will be visible from the air, but given vegetation and terrain
characteristics will be visible from shorter distances. Again due to vegetation and terrain,
visibility from the ground will be limited to short line-of-site distances, and should not be visible
from Kizhuyak Bay (with the possible exception of the construction camp facility and borrow
area). The access road to the No-Name Lake powerhouse will connect to the existing road near
a topographic depression close to the proposed construction camp. Most of the length of the
road, as it approaches the powerhouse, will be screened from view at the dock by existing alder
vegetation. As with the penstock, the visual presence of construction will occur during peak
construction periods between spring and fall of the 18 month construction period. The level of
visual impact is somewhat offset by the relatively low number of visitors and levels of boat and
air traffic in the area.
Operation
After completion of construction, additional permanent areas of cleared vegetation will exist
where new access roads, transmission lines, and powerhouse facilities have been constructed.
These new cleared areas and facilities will increase the existing level of visual impacts, although
as discussed above, both the visibility at the lower elevations and number of visitors to the area
is limited. The area has similar existing visual impacts resulting from construction of the Terror
Lake Hydroelectric Project.
10.3 MITIGATION OF AESTHETIC RESOURCES
(1) Revegetate areas cleared for construction of project features, such as the
penstock right-of-way. Experience with active revegetation practices for the
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project showed that natural revegetation was more
successful and less costly than active revegetation programs (see Mitigation
Measures for Botanical Resources, Section 4.5). Natural revegetation may be
assisted with the use of fertilizers and mulches.
The penstock right-of-way may be allowed to revegetate so that a minimal6-ft
wide maintenance trail is maintained. Sections of the penstock which are buried
Kodiak Electric Association E-172 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
may be allowed to completely revegetate. This will help to break-up the long
linear lines created by the cleared vegetation along the penstock right-of-way
and will reduce visual impacts. In addition, a mix of vegetation and natural rock
can be used to feather the edge of the cleared penstock line.
(2) Regrade areas disturbed for construction to their former contours. Material
stockpiles and borrow areas should also be regraded when necessary.
(3) Vegetative screening of powerhouses. The No-Name powerhouse will be
screened from views by existing alder and tall shrub vegetation so that it will
not be visible from the dock or existing Terror Lake road. The Leanne Lake
powerhouse options will be closer to the existing road and will be visible.
Alder and shrub vegetation should be retained near the road, where possible,
to partially screen the powerhouse.
(4) A void linear lines for permanent access roads.
(5) Wood or rust colored power poles. The power poles used for the Terror Lake
Project are constructed of wood materials which tend to blend with the natural
vegetation.
(6) Use existing disturbed areas, as much as possible, for stockpiling and material
yards. The area on and adjacent to the dock, and several cleared areas adjacent
to the road, have been previously used for storage of Terror Lake Project
materials. Use of these areas to temporarily warehouse equipment and supplies
during project construction would minimize the disturbance to new areas. The
former abandoned Terror Lake Project campsite next to the road near the head
of Kizhuyak Bay is the proposed camp/facility area for the proposed project.
Kodiak Electric Association E-173 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
11.0 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOWGICAL RESOURCES
11.1 DESCRIPTION OF DISCOVERY MEASURES
A cultural resources management plan was submitted and approved on July 18, 1992 by the State
Historical Preservation Officer and other Federal Agencies. The plan for identifying potential
cultural resources in the project site consisted principally of two parts: a background literature
search and a field reconnaissance of the project site.
11.2 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
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).
The late prehistoric culture of Kodiak Island is known as the Koniag phase, which began about
800 A.D., and were the immediate ancestors of today's natives. 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.
Within the project vicinity, there is a moderate potential for the presence of undiscovered
cultural resources. In the higher elevations, there existing 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 lower alpine tundra vegetation by surface reconnaissance.
Other cultural resources which may occur in elevations higher than 500 ft above sea level
include burial caves, boulder arrangements, and other types of pre-historic 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.
Kodiak Electric Association E-174 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Projea
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 mm 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
using this predictive model, prehistoric occupations have been found as much as 2 miles inland
from the modem shoreline.
The low topography south of Kizhuyak Bay strongly suggest that this is a former bay bottom,
drained by the gradual uplift. Sedimentation and ash falls 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.
11.3 DISCOVERY METHODS AND RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
A literature search of the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey files indicate 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-138 and KOD-190, are
located approximately 0.5 mile east of the existing road and transmission line, and proposed
project site. These sites are not in any danger of adverse impacts from construction or operation
of the proposed project (Alaska Department of Natural Resources, SHPO, 1991).
All field work was conducted in August 1991, prior to the geotechnical investigations that
include hard, dry test pits. Shovel tests were performed at 30-ft intervals, along the project site
areas below the 100-ft elevation that would be constructed for powerhouse, road, and penstock
facilities. An early marine terrace at the head of Kizhuyak Bay, which overlooks the modem
Kizhuyak River streambed, is located at least one mile away from the project site and was not
inspected by shovel test. A shovel test is about 1 x I ft in size and was excavated until
Pleistocene till, or similar sterile levels have been reached. Sides of the shovel test were
Kodiak Electric Association E-175 Leanne lAke Hydroelectric Project
trowelled for charcoal, red ocher, or other evidence of human occupation. A soil profile and
description was recorded for every shovel test site.
The survey and shovel test found no prehistoric cultural resources at the lower project site
elevations (below 100 ft). Soil profiles indicate that it was seasonally flooded, and a very
unlikely location for prehistoric occupation. It is believed that this part of the project site has
a very low potential for yielding prehistoric cultural resources.
A surface reconnaissance was performed around the perimeter of Leanne Lake, No-Name Lake,
the proposed dam site and penstock routes. The survey determined that there are no cultural
resources located within the higher elevations of the project area.
No cultural remains from the historic period appear to exist in the project site.
11.4 IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
Construction and operation of the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project appear unlikely to affect
any cultural resources that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
11.5 MITIGATION
In the absence of any know cultural resources, no mitigative measures are necessary. If any
artifacts are found in the course of construction, work will stop and the State Historical
Preservation Officer will be immediately notified.
11.6 AGENCY CONSULTATION
Conversation with Alaska Department of Natural Resources SHPO Tim Smith on July 18, 1992
approving the Cultural Resources Management Plan for the proposed project.
Kodiak Electric Association E-176 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Letter from ADNR SHPO Judith Bittner on August 6, 1991. Response to Notice of Application
indicating that KOD-138 and KOD-190 do not appear to be in danger of adverse impact from
project.
Kodiak Electric Association E-177 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
12.0 ALTERNATIVE WCATIONS, DESIGNS, AND ENERGY SOURCES
12.1 ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS
Two advantageous conditions, which do not exist together at most other locations on Kodiak
Island, were paramount in the consideration and selection of the proposed project site. The first
condition is an adequate supply of water and sufficient head differential to generate power
economically. The second condition is close proximity to the existing Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project facilities including, the jetty, road, transmission line, and operations personnel. This
close proximity reduces the need for new roads, transmission lines and other facilities needed
to operate a hydroelectric project, thereby reducing the degree of environmental disturbances
associated with project development.
12.2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS
Feasibility studies for the proposed project examined various design options. The project design
described in this license application would develop the power potential of Leanne Lake and No-
Name Lake in the most effective manner. Several penstock alignment and powerhouse location
options for the Leanne Lake component of this project were originally considered and two
alternative penstock routes have been proposed in this application (Exhibit A, Section 4.3). The
specific dam height and tailrace outlet location for the No-Name Lake component is also
presented as optional designs (Exhibit A, Section 4.4). Selection of the final project design from
these options will be based upon consultation with the reviewing agencies commenting on the
draft license application and after further review of environmental and economic considerations.
Alternative designs which were considered but were not found to be feasible are briefly
discussed below.
Leanne Lake
A dam at the Leanne Lake Outlet and a lake tap were both considered because of their potential
to increase water storage/use. Both design options were rejected as cost ineffective since
analysis showed storage gain did not significantly increase total annual energy production.
Kodiak Electric Association E-178 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Numerous penstock alignments and powerhouse sites were considered. Field investigations
revealed two buildable penstock and two powerhouse alternatives which are presented in this
license application.
No-Name Lake
At least two penstock routes were considered, however only one route did not involve significant
amounts of material removal and replacement.
Alternatives to the proposed No-Name Lake powerhouse location were not considered, since no
other options could be sited so as to return streamflow immediately below the natural waterfall
barrier to anadromous fish migration and yet upstream of suitable spawning habitat.
Burial of both the Leanne Lake and No-Name Lake penstocks was investigated. However,
trenching in the steep terrain and shallow soils in much of the project area to bury the penstock
is believed to increase the potential for erosion and slope failure. Therefore, an alternative
design of raising the penstock above grade on "sleepers" and rock-bolting or soil anchoring
where appropriate, is proposed for most locations. Only those penstock areas deemed to be
sufficiently stable to reduce the risk of erosion will be buried (Exhibit F, Figure F-2).
Alternative construction procedures were also considered for both Leanne and No-Name lake
penstocks. One construction method which was investigated used an overhead tram, similar to
a ski lift, both for construction and maintenance of the penstock and for access to the lakes,
without needing helicopter support. This construction method was deemed to be economically
infeasible since the cost and complexity was greater than the construction of the penstock itself.
12.3 ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICAL ENERGY SOURCES
The project applicant, Kodiak Electric Association (KEA), is a Rural Electric Cooperative which
operates the existing Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project for the Alaska Energy Authority under
FERC License Number 2743. KEA currently relies on the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project
for most of its electric generation. Operating primarily as a base-load facility, the project is
Kodiak Electric Association E-179 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
rated at 20 megawatts (MW). A peak monthly power generation of20 MW has been achieved,
usually in August or September, of some years. However, the Terror Lake Project has never
produced a gross annual energy generation sufficient to meet all energy demands due to limiting
water supply and reservoir management considerations. A maximum annual energy production
of 112,880 MWHrs was achieved in 1990. The total annual power consumption by
approximately 5,500 KEA customers has averaged 122,000 MWHrs over the past 3 years.
Approximately 20 percent of this power consumption has been, and is currently being, met by
diesel generation.
Since the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project was first designed and went on-line in 1986,
residential growth on Kodiak Island has occurred as anticipated. However demands for power,
primarily from the commercial bottom fishing industry has dramatically increased in the region,
by approximately 1 MW per year for the last 5 years. 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 to
contribute to peak load or during low water conditions at Terror Lake.
Currently, the most cost effective means to meet the rising power demands would be to utilize
hydroelectric or diesel generation sources. The unit cost of energy from diesel generation
remains competitive with hydroelectric only at the current rate of $0.65 per KWHr. Any rise
in the cost of diesel fuel would make hydroelectric power more cost effective. Increasing diesel
generation would continue to foster a dependency on imported fuels and potentially higher costs
to the ratepayer. No additional power is available from the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project
unless modifications are made to increase water availability through transbasin diversions. This
would require major, and expensive modifications to the existing system.
12.4 OVERALL IMPACTS OF THE APPLICATION BEING DENIED
Denial of the license application for the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project would prevent
construction of the project. The site would remain in its present undeveloped condition. The
8 GWHr expected to be produced annually from the proposed project would need to be provided
to residents and commercial interests on Kodiak Island by increasing diesel generation.
Kodiak Electric Association E-180 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Kodiak Electric Association F-l
EXIDBITF
DESIGN DRAWINGS
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
J
-1-I
SCALE r' = 18 MILES
o
Leanne Lake
Project Area
LEANNE LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT KODIAK ELECTRIC ASSOC.
FERC NO. 11130-000 ALASKA
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
f'lGURE F-1
RVAL = 50 FE~ 5 FEET
LAND CONTOU2ol~J6uR INTE~~~~SIN-LEANNE LAKE BATHYMETRIC LAKE AND 10
IN NO NAME EET INTERVALS
TICK CENTERLINES A T 500 F
1000
i
500 0 ----ALE IN FEET SC
2000 500_~10~0_0_~~i
3 MILES LAKE IS 1. NOTE: NO NA~FE LEANNE LAKE DUE NORTH
RH OUSE SITE POWE
NOTE: ONE ROUT ELECTED FOR E TO BE S LEANNE LAKE
No Name
G TRANSMISSI EXISTIN
INTAKE WORKS
ON LINE
Kizh uyak Bay
. I Association Kodiak Electnca e Lake Leann . Project Hydroelectn~ 1130
FERC No. AN
GENERAL PL F-2
EXH~IB~IT ___ _
Leanne
Lake
HIGHER DAM OPTION WILL REQUIRE WING WALLS OVERWIDE FOOTINGS
SIDES STRIPPED BACK TO COMPETENT GRANITE
MINIMUM CREST ELEVATION: 1974 \
ELEV. AT TOP WING WALL: 1977 \ \ D ..... 1--,
~ \ -+------
PENSTOCK ROCK BOLTED TO
2000
~
~
EXISTING WOOD DAM
DIVERTS FLOW AROUND '=II!:t:=!Il~
CONSTRUCTION SITE No Nam~
Lake t
View C-C, No Name Lake Dam Site
o 10 20 30 40 50 ---------
SCALE rn FEET
44 FEET WIDE (MIN.) CREST PROVIDES >400 CFS WITH 2' WING WALLS
HEAVY POLY FACE OVER STEEL PLATE
ROCK CAREFULLY STRIPPED TO
EXPOSE COMPETENT BED ROCK
OFF-SITE FABRICATED PLATE AND H-BEAM SECTIONS
ON-SITE ASSEMBLY AND FABRICATION REQUIRED
PREFAB'D BULKHEAD AND VALVE WORKS
+
o 100 200 300 400 500 ---------
SCALE rn FEET
CONTOUR MAP SCALE; 10' CONTOUR INTERVALS
MINIMAL FOOTINGS REQUIRED;
SUPPORT BEAMS BEAR UPON ANCHORED FOOTINGS (TYP)
PRESSURE GROUTING 7/;7,?7I:--(j:2T~"-'--~~7""-..-r~~_
MAY BE REQ'D.
DAM STRUCTURE ROCK BOLTED TO COMPETENT
GRANITE BEDROCK (OVER FOUNDATION POUR)
No Name Lake Dam Section D-D
12' NOMINAL WIDTH BY 10' PRELIMINARY CUT
10' ADDITIONAL DEPTH WITH NARROW TRENCH
COMPETENT GRANITE BEDROCK
SLOPE ON TOP STRIP CUT
NOTE: THESE EXCAVATIONS ARE SIMILAR
FOR BOTH LEANNE ROUTES; REFER TO
TO PROFILES SHOWN ON F-3
SMAlL TRACK-HOE TO BE AIR UFTED
TO SITE AlONG WITH DRILUNG, BLASTING,
ROCK REMOVAL EQUIPMENT
PENSTOCK TERMINATES INTO INLET GATE VALVE;
CONCRETE PLUG CAST IN PLACE PRIOR
TO EXTENDING TRENCH AND PIPE INTO LAKE
Sections A-A, B-B, Leanne Lake
Outlet Excavation Detail
Leanne Lake
Hydroelectric Project
FERC No. 11130
Kodiak Electrical Association
INTAKE FACILITIES -.. -EXHIBIT F-3
2000
0;
~
c .
In
c
~ ::>
~ > c ..,
-<
~
~ w
G 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200' 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000
, 2200
I !jEANNE LAKE SOUTH ALTERNATE ROUTE \
I
,
,
,
:
i
:
,
I
i ,
i i
: i
,
i
i I
NORTH
2000
1990
1980
1970
1960
1950
\ 2000
-' r-..
1800
........ ~ ""'-~ ,
NO NAME LAKE ROUTE -
...........
~ "-----~ ! LEANNE SOUTH ALTERNATE ROUTE; AVOIDS UNSTABLE SLOPE I'... ~
1600 lA '" ~" b-.
LD..NNEt LA~E NbRT~ ALhRNATE ROUTE ~ ""'-........ b.. \ -.......... ~ ,r-r-ALTERNATE ROUTE REQUIRES 160' ABOVE GRADE SECTIO~ r-.....
1400 ~ f"-.......,
f'" \ t--.
"" "\ 1'..\~ ~ ;' rt--SOUTH ALTERNATE ROUTE REQUIRES 180' ADDITIONAL LENGTH
J
1200
............ ...... ~ r-. ~ f-.-..I
,
I , l'----
"-I'--I I I I I I I
.......... -i'-... ;-SIX 40' BRIDGES REQUIRED IN THIS SECTION
1000 I\. ~ ...... '" ........ I'--~ V-~EANNE I LAKE NORTH ALTERNATE ROUTE
800
........ t--!-. I ~ ~ V -t--'~ 1"<., t-...
600 f-.. r-. .......... r----..........
b-, r-:-NO NAME LAKE ROUTE r--.
0;
~
400 ~
In
~ ::>
200 ~ ]
-<
r-. ~ i
f ........ / /
1-/ ""'-"'--t-'-b--N6NAM'E pbWE~HOUSE SITE POSSI8LE 8URIAL ZONE -l"--. 1', I ,
"I'>.. '~ .... ~ i
t--...
ROUTE ~ .......... I'--r--.... I
LEANNE LAKE SOUTH ALTERNATE 1--r-..... t---..
'-t-J'-... ......... r-.... I
LEANNE POWERHOUSE SITES J..-:" t-..
7.GQ 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
o
2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000
ROUTE GROUND PROFILE \ SOUT R TE H OU R F GROUND P 0 ILE I
./
./'
\ /
~k / ....-----.......,
/./ ............ \
P' ----\
Nominal Lake Level "-'\
~ ~
// .:--., -'" / \ I
/ "-TRENCH PROFILE \ ...........
I I
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Comparison of North and South Routes
Leanne Lake Diversion Trenches
NOTE: This View has 2X horizontal and lOX vertical Exaggeration
PENSTOCK PROFILES
NOTE: NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
o 500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
....
Leanne Lake
Hydroelectric Project
FERC No. 1 1130
Kodiak Electrical Association
PENSTOCK PROFILES
EXHIBIT F-4
ELEVATED SCREENED INLET
o 5 10 20 30
-----~ ---------
SCALE IN FEET
FIXED TO PIPE TO PROVIDE BEARING SUPPORT ONLY
ROCK BOLTED ANCHORS
, r:r X , r:r PRECAST R. C. SLEEPER
NOTE: 1/2 LENGTH SELECTED USED
RAILROD TIES MAY BE USED
FOR BEARING SUPPORTS
Detail -Pipe Support Anchoring
EXISTING GROUNDUNE
ROCK BOLTS
.... .. ,-
VARIES
SELECTED BACKFILL
"-0" MIN. COVERAGE
trJs~· PIPE BEDDING
DETAIL -BURIAL METHODS
NO SCALE
Detail -Thrust Block
PREFABRICATED CAST-IN-PLACE FORMS
ROCK BOLTS
Leanne Lake
Hydroelectric Project
FERC No. 11130
Kodiak Electrical Association
PENSTOCK DETAILS
....... so-. EXHIBIT F-5
EXISTING ACCESS 1500' ROAD EXTENSION I 220' BURIED TAIL RACE CULVERT
"
\ 875' LINE EXTENSION TO PORT LYONS TRANSMISSION LINE I I
PENSTOCK BURIED IN I
/
THIS AREA-/"
;'
/
,r SUBMERGED DIFFUSER GRATE
---~+-_/ 340'
BURIED DIFFUSER GRATE 7
BURIED TAIL RACE CULVERT---,\ I
I
I
APPROX. 50' CONTOUR 1/1 /1
INTERVALS THIS VIt:N /
---r
'-L--150' LINE EXTENSION
'-::::]
/ ~ WEST BANK, KIZHUYAK RIVER
\.-/~ ---COMPACTED FILL RIMMED BY GABIONS
/ APPROX. 7'" ELEV. \ PORT LYONS TRANSMISSION UNE
Powerhouse Site PENSTOCK BURIED NEAR POWERHOUSE
Leanne Lake North Penstock Route
PENSTOCK BURIED IN THIS AREA
60' LINE EXTENSION --++-,\--f-t.../
5' CONTOUR INTERVALS
THIS VIEW ONLY
+
__ ---EXISTING ACCESS ROAD
LINE
10' CONTOUR INTERVALS
THIS VIEW ONLY
190' BURIED TAIL RACE CULVERT
-SIDE CHANNEL OF ROLLING ROCK CREEK
BURIED DIFFUSER GRATE
o 100 200 300 400
~ II \ '
500
t>-' x
Powerhouse Site
No Name Lake Penstock Route
Leanne Lake
Hydroelectric Project
FERC No. 11130
Kodiak Electrical Association
---------
SCALE IN FEET POWERHOUSE SITES
_ .. -EXHIBIT F-6
Powerhouse Site
Leanne Lake South Penstock Route
A t
Powerhouse Plan View
TURBINE ASSEMBLY
14" STEEL PENSTOCK C::::~L.~~~~:{4:[:J
OVERPRESSURE RELIEF VALVE
AND DISSIPATOR ASSEMBLY B~ MAT FOUNDATION OV1ER COMPACTED FILL
EXCAVATE TO SOUND MATERIAL PRIOR TO
POWERHOUSE CONSTRUCTION ACTMTIES
Sectional View A-A
o
~ A
STATION SERV1CE TRANSFORMER
5 10 20
--=========~
HEATING AND
VENTILATION
EQUIPMENT
BATIERIES
Floor Plan
Sectional View B-B
30 ------------~
SCALE IN FEET
AC SWITCHGEAR
STORAGE AREA
===--
Leanne Lake
Hydroelectric Project
F1ERC No. 11130
PARKING AREA
Kodiok Electrical Association
POWERHOUSE DETAILS _ .. -EXHIBIT F-7
Kodiak Electric Association G-I
EXIDBITG
MAPS
Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
-----\
---------.'
---------.'
:=====l
------, ------;
- -'. ---, --
-----\ --
--~
--------~'.
-------------~,
---------------~'.
-----------------.\
--------_.
---- - --~ -\ ---------'. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-J
, 3
.~ ....
;.
·i
13
c=J
~
t:::::::J
~ ~
AFOGNA K NATIVE CORPORA TI ON
KODIA K NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
C1 STATE OF ALASKA
i ;,
STAT E OF AL AS KA
LEANNE
LA KE
30
31
i ! ........ :
16
M '. i
""-'
~ . . PROPOS £D S91JTM '['.-R6UI[ P£H.STOCK _. - --- ---~ -'--".-
--------------------
~\-'UCt'U[tfT .. ---:-.. , \ . L c '
KOD IAK NATIONAL WILD LI FE REFU GE BOUNDAR Y
TRANSMISSION LINE
ROAD
l[).NN( l.N«(
HYORO[L[ctRIC PROJECT
r(RC NO . 11 1JO-000 ~KA
~
SCAL[ (n)
KOOIA!( HECtRIC ASSOC .
PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIE S
fiGURE G-I
REFERENCES
EXBlBIT A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Purpose of Project
3.0 Project Setting
4.0 Project Design and Construction
Kodiak Electric Association. 1989. Frequency Stability Study. Power Technologies, Inc.,
Roseville, California. TTl Report R87 -89.
EXBlBIT E. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
1.0 Project Setting
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1979. An Assessment of
Environmental Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Facility, Kodiak, Alaska. University of Alaska. 305 pp.
2.0 Water Use and Water Quality
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1992. Letter and meeting in Anchorage.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1979. An Assessment of
Environmental Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Facility, Kodiak, Alaska. University of Alaska. 305 pp.
Blackett, R. . Personal communication.
Keaton, D., NWS. . Personal communication.
Linsley, R. K. 1982. Hydrology For Engineers. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 508 pp.
Railsback, S. and E. Trihey. 1992. Effects of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project on the
Temperature and Streamflow of the Terror and Kizhuyak Rivers, Kodiak Island, Alaska.
Report to Kodiak Electric Association and Alaska Energy Authority.
Kodiak Electric Association R-l Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
3.0 Geologic and Soil Resources
U.S. Geological Survey. 1990. Probabilistic Earthquake Acceleration and Velocity Maps for
the United States and Puerto Rico. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2120.
4.0 Botanical Resources
Downing, M. . Personal communication. ---
Hickok, D. M. and W. J. Wilson. 1979. An Assessment of Envirorunental Effects of
Construction of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Arctic
Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska.
Report for Kodiak Electric Association.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. National Wetland Inventory. Notes to user for the
Kodiak Archipelago 1:63,360-scale maps. National Wetland Inventory. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK. Unpublished. 21 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988.
5.0 Wildlife Resources
Clark, W. K. 1958. The Land Mammals of the Kodiak Islands. Journal of Mammalogy
39(4):514-577.
Downing, M. Personal communication.
Hickok, D. M. and W. J. Wilson. 1979. An Assessment of Environmental Effects of
Construction of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Arctic
Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska.
Report for Kodiak Electric Association.
Lentfer, J. W., et al. 1971. Remarks on the Denning Habits of Alaska Brown Bears. Bears--
their biology and management. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Bear Research and Management, University of Calgary. IUCN new series 23. S.
Herrero, ed' pp. 125-133.
Lentfer, J. W., et aI. 1972.
Lipkin, R. Personal communication.
Mellow, S. __ . Personal communication.
Moran, V. . Personal communication.
Kodiak EJectric Association R-2 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Projea
Smith, R. ADF&G. 1992. Personal communication.
Smith, R. B. and L. J. Van Daele. 1987. Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Report of
Mountain Goat Studies. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 211 Mission Road,
Kodiak, Alaska. Report for the Alaska Power Authority.
Smith, R. B. and L. J. Van Daele. 1988. Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project Kodiak Island,
Alaska. Final Report on Brown Bear Studies (1982-1976). Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, 211 Mission Road, Kodiak, Alaska. Report for the Alaska Power
Authority.
Smith, R. B. and L. I. Van Daele. 1991.
Spencer, D. L. and R. I. Hensel. 1980. An Assessment of Environmental Effects of
Construction and Operation of the Proposed Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility, Kodiak,
Alaska. Brown bear studies and mountain goat studies. Arctic Environmental
Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage. Report for Kodiak
Electric Association.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Raptor Observation Associated with Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project. Annual Progress Report.
Wilson, W. I., et al. 1980. An Assessment of Environmental Effects of Construction and
Operation of the Proposed Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility, Kodiak Island, Alaska.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage.
Report of the Kodiak Electric Association.
Zwiefelhofer, D. 1983.
Zwiefelhofer, D. 1984. Raptor Observations Associated With Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project. 1983 Progress Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kodiak National
Wildlife Refuge, Kodiak, Alaska.
Zwiefelhofer, D. 1985. Raptor Observations Associated With Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project. 1984 Annual Progress Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kodiak
National Wildlife Refuge, Kodiak, Alaska.
Zwiefelhofer, D. 1986. Raptor Observations Associated With Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project. 1985 Annual Progress Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kodiak
National Wildlife Refuge, Kodiak, Alaska.
6.0 Aquatic Resources
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1992. Letter and meeting in Anchorage.
Kodiak Electric Association R-3 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
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.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1979. An Assessment of
Environmental Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Facility, Kodiak, Alaska. University of Alaska. 305 pp.
McKay, D. 1992. Phone Conversation?
7.0 Socioeconomic Resources
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1991. [need citation of telephone discussion on
existing historic sites]
Cultural Dynamics. 1986. A Description of the Economic and Social Systems of the Kodiak
Shumagin Region. Technical Report 122. Prepared for the MMS Alaska Outer
Continental Shelf Region, Socioeconomic Studies Program, Anchorage, Alaska. p 514.
State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. 1981
Kodiak Area Native Association. 1983. Kodiak Island Subsistence Use of Resources. Kodiak,
Alaska. p. 85.
State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game. 1985. Alaska Habitat Management Guide
Southwest Region: Vol. 2, Human Use of Fish and Wildlife. Division of Habitat.
Juneau, Alaska. 590 pp.
State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game. 1992. Preliminary Forecasts of Catch and
Stock Abundance for 1992 Alaska Herring Fisheries. Regional Information Repon
No. 5J92-04. Juneau, Alaska. 189 pp.
State of Alaska, Department of Labor. 1991. Alaska Population Overview: 1990 Census and
Estimates. Juneau, Alaska. pp. 143
8.0 Land Use
Cultural Dynamics. 1986. A Description of the Economic and Social Systems of the Kodiak
Shumagin Region. Technical Report 122. Prepared for the MMS Alaska Outer
Continental Shelf Region, Socioeconomic Studies Program, Anchorage, Alaska. p 514.
Ecklund Surveying. 1992.
Jon Isaacs and Associates. 1985. Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Sensitivity Study. Prepared
for the Kodiak Island Borough, Anchorage, Alaska. p. 108.
Kodiak Electric Association R-4 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Kodiak Island Borough Chamber of Commerce. 1984. Kodiak Island Borough Coastal
Management Program. Kodiak, Alaska. 340 pp.
Kodiak Island Borough Chamber of Commerce. 1992. City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island
Borough Community Profile. Kodiak, Alaska. 6 pp.
State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Affairs. 1981. Port Lions Community
Profile. Anchorage, Alaska. pp. 8.
U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Kodiak National
Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Anchorage, Alaska. pp. 246.
U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Annual Wildlife
Report, Calendar Year 1991. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. pp. 133.
U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Annual Wildlife
Report, Calendar Year 1991. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. pp. 112.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. National Wetland Inventory. Notes to user for the
Kodiak Archipelago 1:63,360-scale maps. National Wetland Inventory. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK. Unpublished. 21 pp.
9.0 Recreation Resources
Smith, R. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1992. Personal communication.
State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game. 1985. Alaska Habitat Management Guide
Southwest Region: Vol. 2, Human Use of Fish and Wildlife. Division of Habitat.
Juneau, Alaska. 590 pp.
State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game. 1992. Alaska Sport Fishing Regulations
Summary. Juneau, Alaska. 95 pp.
State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game. 1992. Alaska State Hunting RegUlations.
No. 33: Governing Recreational, Subsistence and Commercial Uses of Alaska Wildlife.
Juneau, Alaska. 95 pp.
State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game. 1992. Harvest, Catch, and Participation in
Alaska Sport Fisheries During 1991. Division of Sport Fishing. Fishery Data Series
No. 92-40. Anchorage, Alaska. pp 189.
State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. 1981. Coastal Areas of Particular Concern:
Recreation, Scenic and Heritage Resources, Kodiak Archipelago, Anchorage, Alaska.
pp 155.
Kodiak Electric Association R-5 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Annual Wildlife
Repon, Calendar Year 1991. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. pp. 133.
U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Annual Wildlife
Repon, Calendar Year 1991. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. pp. 112.
U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Kodiak National
Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Anchorage, Alaska. pp. 246.
10.0 Aesthetic Resources
11.0 Historical and Archaeological Resources
Bittner, J. 1991. Letter from ADNR SHPO Judith Bittner on August 6, 1991. Response to
Notice of Application
Buck, E. H., et al. 1975. Kadyak a Backgroundfor Living. Arctic Environmental Information
and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage. Sea Grant publication 75-9.
Kodiak Area Native Association. 1983. Kodiak Island Subsistence Use of Resources. Kodiak,
Alaska. p. 85.
Righter, E. and R. Jordan. 1980. Repon 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.
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.
Smith, T. 1992. Conversation with Alaska Department of Natural Resources SHPO Tim Smith
on July 18, 1992 approving the Cultural Resources Management Plan.
12.0 Alternative Locations, Designs, and Energy Sources
EXIITBIT F. DESIGN DRAWINGS
EXIITBIT G. MAPS
Kodiak Electric Association R-6 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
APPENDICES
Kodiak Electric Association AP-l Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
APPENDIX A
SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
This plan assesses the erosion and sedimentation risks associated with construction of the Leanne
Lake Hydroelectric Project and identifies methods and procedures to control and minimize
potential impacts.
A1.0 INTRODUCTION
AI.I Geomorphology
The topography of the project area is extremely rugged with steep slopes, glaciated valleys, and
mountainous peaks reaching elevations near 4,000 ft. Glaciation has produced the deep, steep-
sided, U-shaped Kizhuyak River valley. The mouth of the valley has been drowned by
Kizhuyak Bay creating the typical fjords found on Kodiak Island. The numerous deep straight
valleys and fjords which dissect the mountains of Kodiak Island often combine with other erosion
factors to form prominent topographic lineaments whose location and orientation are controlled
by the faulting, foliation, and jointing of the bedrock. The proposed diversions on Leanne and
No-Name Lakes are located in relatively flat-floored, hanging tributary valleys to the Kizhuyak
Valley. The powerhouse locations for both the Leanne and No-Name Lake components of the
project are located on alluvial fans formed by Rolling Rock Creek and Eagle Creek,
respectively. There are no known active faults in the project vicinity.
A1.2 Geology
The Kizhuyak River Valley is underlain by a series of Cretaceous meta-sedimentary rocks
comprised of slate, argillite, and graywacke. The higher elevations largely consist of Cretaceous
quartz diorite that intruded the metasediments. The metasediments have been folded, faulted,
and tightly compressed. The quartz diorite is massive and essentially structureless.
Kodiak Electric Association AP-A-I Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Unconsolidated materials in the project area include alluvium, colluvium, and volcanic ash.
Alluvial deposits of sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders are found in the Kizhuyak River Valley.
The colluvium that covers much of the mountain slopes in the area includes talus and sheets of
debris moved from weathered bedrock by soil creep and frost action.
The eruption of Katmai Volcano in 1912 covered much of Kodiak Island with a volcanic ash
layer. The Katmai ash is white, and consists of loose, rounded, fine, silty sand-sized particles.
The ash has been transported from the higher elevations of the project area, deposited in the
lakes, and concentrated in the lower valleys where it is mixed with coarser sands and gravels
of alluvium. A layer of ash up to l-ft thick can now be found on the more gentle slopes where
it is covered by a thin soil horizon and often vegetated.
A1.3 Sediment Sources
Slopes in the project area have been oversteepened by glacial activity and surface runoff, and
are often steeper than the stable angle for soils and other unconsolidated materials. Although
there is little evidence that the bedrock is susceptible to large scale landslides, shallow slides,
rock falls, soil creep, and other mass movement does occur throughout the project area. This
usually occurs in association with intense rainfall, such as the storm event of October 1991.
Soil movement such as creep, mud-flow, and rockfall, are often initiated by seasonal freezing
and thawing, particularly at the higher elevations. Project area soils are generally well protected
by vegetation and its supportive root systems, particularly below 2,000 ft. Alder and shrub
dominated communities provide good canopy cover and a well developed root structure
maintains soil stability. Above 2,000 ft, low growing tundra type vegetation and extensive areas
of exposed bedrock dominate the landscape. Erosion due to rainfall and surface runoff tends to
occur on steeper slopes, particularly if soils are disturbed and the vegetative cover is removed.
Areas disturbed during construction of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, particularly the
steeper road sections which provide access to the dam site, are also susceptible to erosion.
Much of the natural sedimentation eroded from the higher elevation areas above Leanne and No-
Name Lakes has not been transported to lower elevations. The lakes function as very efficient
sediment traps, as evidenced by the extensive shallow sandy areas found along their shorelines.
Kodiak Electric Association AP-A-2 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Observations indicate that the Leanne and No-Name Lake Outlet streams are usually very clear
and non-turbid.
A2.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL :MEASURES
The potential for sediment entry into any of the streams located within the project vicinity varies
with the type of construction activities, proximity to drainage courses, soil type, and weather
conditions during construction. Specific measures to control and mitigate erosion and
sedimentation are identified in the following sections of this report.
A2.1 DESIGN, ENGINEERING, AND CONSTRUCTION
The appropriate design, engineering, and construction of the Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
is one of the most important and effective efforts in reducing erosion. Three specific elements
of the project engineering and construction plans are intended to reduce the risk of erosion and
sedimentation.
Heavy-Lift Helicopter Construction
A heavy-lift helicopter will be used to transport materials and equipment,and assist in the
construction of the No-Name Lake dam and intake structures on both lakes. This will reduce
the need for vehicular traffic or roads on steep slopes, which would disturb soils and introduce
a major source of erosion.
Only a single narrow pioneer road will be constructed along the penstock route from each lake
to its powerhouse. The pioneer road will require only minimal grading so as to allow a specially
modified track and winch vehicle to assist in constructing the penstock. The penstock alignment
will be superimposed along the pioneer road. After construction, the cleared penstock right-of-
way will be revegetated so that only a minimal width maintenance trail for foot traffic remains.
Kodiak Electric Association AP-A-3 Leanne Loke Hydroelectric Project
Aboveground Penstock
The penstock will be constructed aboveground, attached to concrete or wood .. sleepers" . Soil
anchors and rock bolting will be used to secure the sleepers to the hillside. This above ground
design will reduce the need to disturb the thin vegetative cover overlying the erodible Katmai
ash on steep slopes. Opening trenches and backfilling for penstock burial on steep slopes would
likely increase the risk of erosion both during construction and project operation. Only short
sections of the penstock will be buried where the gradient is mild and soil layer is much deeper
than most of the project area.
Construction Schedule
Appropriate scheduling of clearing and construction activities is an effective means of
minimizing the risk of erosion and sedimentation. Construction activities will be scheduled, as
much as possible, during seasonal periods of low rainfall. The lowest rainfall period on Kodiak
generally occurs between July and September.
Project construction will take place, intermittently, over an IS-month period. During the flrst
"pre-construction" period, rock bolts and soil anchors will be placed along the penstock route
in August. This will be the only work performed in the flrst construction period, and no earth-
moving work will occur at this time.
The second construction period will begin the following March and will last until November.
This will be the main construction effort during which all of the project features will be built.
Work which is required for constructing the dam and intake structures on the lakes cannot begin
in this period until the snow has receded. At the 2,OOO-ft elevation, snow may linger until June,
so that dam construction will probably not begin until July and will be flnished by September.
Construction of the lower elevation structures, such as the powerhouse and road, will commence
in May. All earth-moving and soil disturbing work at the lower elevations will be completed
by August I to minimize any potential siltation during salmon spawning.
Kodiak Electric Association AP-A-4 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
The third and final period of construction will take place the following May(or spring break-up).
During the winter months work inside the powerhouse, such as electrical wiring, may proceed.
In May, the project operation will be tested and unfinished work completed.
A2.2 BASIC MITIGATION AND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES
The design engineer and contractor will adhere to the following basic principles when designing
and constructing erosion and sediment control measures:
(1) Except for the lower elevation work, schedule major earth moving or land
disturbance activities during the low rainfall period (July and September).
(2) Minimize the extent and duration of the construction disturbance.
(3) Use only equipment commensurate with the size of the job.
(4) Protect bare soil from rainfall and overland runoff.
(5) Reduce the velocity of runoff within construction areas by employing flow
control measures. Minimize the volume of construction runoff flowing over
disturbed areas by constructing small diversions.
(6) Provide temporary or permanent drainage facilities to control the runoff from
construction areas.
(7) Trap or filter sediment before it is transported from a construction area.
(8) Intercept water drainages and divert surface runoff away from construction
areas when possible. In areas with steep terrain where the natural ground cover
has been cleared and surface water may concentrate, diversions should be
installed to minimize flow. The diversions may be constructed of natural
materials that are available at the location of the work. Such materials as
Kodiak Electric Association AP-A-5 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
willow bundles, logs, rocks, and soil can be used to divert overland flow into
natural drainage courses outside the construction zone. Soil barriers should be
carefully compacted. Willow bundles or logs should be embedded in the natural
soils at least six inches deep so that they will not be undermined by seepage,
and should be high enough to effectively divert drainage off the bare soil.
(9) Clear only those areas which will be graded and stabilized in the same season.
A2.3 SITE-SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL MEASURES
Leanne Lake
Intake Structure and Siphon. The siphon line and intake to the penstock would be built 5 ft
below lake surface elevation into bedrock. A cofferdam would be constructed to isolate the
intake structure from the lake and thereby reduce turbidity. Excavated spoils would be used to
backfill the siphon line trench and/or stockpiled on the northeast shore of the lake below the
water level. A sandy underwater ridge at approximately 20 ft depth will also be partially
removed. This will prevent the northeastern pool of the lake, and therefore the intake, from
becoming isolated from the remainder of the lake at low lake levels.
There is very little chance of silt entering the Leanne Lake Outlet stream as a result of these
construction activities due to the great distance from the outlet to the intake location. In
addition, initial probes of the sandy underwater ridge indicate that this material should quicldy
settle into deeper portions of the lake before it would reach the outlet. Turbidity will
temporarily increase in the lake until construction activities are completed.
Penstock. Either of the penstock alignments will require excavation through the swales along
the east side of the lake. The spoils are expected to consist primarily of bedrock fragments
along with some fines but the exact composition of the spoils is unknown. The spoil would be
deposited in a nearby staging area and would be covered to protect it from direct rainfall or
runoff. A temporary settling pond should also be placed below the spoil area to trap any
leached fines.
Kodiak Electric Association AP-A-6 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Along the steeper slopes where the penstock will be constructed above the ground surface, the
potential erosion problem is expected to be minimal. Along the more gradual slopes the
penstock may be buried with the backfill compacted in the trench to retard erosion. After
construction, the cleared penstock right-of-way will be revegetated so that only a minimal width
maintenance trail for traffic remains.
Powerhouse. The Leanne Lake powerhouse would be constructed on talus and alluvial gravels,
regardless of the location option selected. The powerhouse would be constructed with a
sediment trap between it and adjacent streams (Kizhuyak River and Rolling Rock Creek).
Tailrace. Some siltation into the Kizhuyak River could potentially occur during excavation of
the tailrace for either powerhouse option. The amount of siltation is expected to be minimal
since only a single buried culvert trench is to be constructed. A sandbag dike will be used to
isolate the area of construction from streamflow in the Kizhuyak River. This will allow
construction in a relatively dry channel section and will reduce the potential for sedimentation
downstream. Downstream flow will be maintained around the dike during construction. All
earth disturbing work for the tailrace and powerhouse will be timed to take place before salmon
spawning season (prior to August 1).
No-Name Lake
Dam. The single largest source of erosion due to project construction is expected to be the
preparation of the No-Name Lake dam site. Construction of the dam will require stripping
approximately 2 to 3 cubic yards of overburden down to bedrock. Some of this stripped
material can be directed into local topographic depressions to reduce the quantity of sediment
which reaches the outlet stream.
A cofferdam will be developed by improving the existing stream gaging weir and piping water
around the construction area. Using the existing weir to act as a cofferdam will minimize any
disturbance of water quality in the lake or outlet stream. Because work will be performed in
a relatively dry channel, cement leachate from preparation of the dam foundation will not come
in contact with lake water. Pumps will be used to take water from the lake and bypass the
Kodiak Electric Association AP-A-7 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
construction area, thereby maintaining natural streamflow in the outlet channel. Sedimentation
and turbidity which may temporarily occur due to construction work would not have any impact
on fish in either the lake or outlet stream since there are no species present in either location.
There is some chance of sediment reaching Eagle Creek as a result of these construction
activities. However, most of the sediment that may enter the stream must frrst be transported
through 6,000 ft of the No-Name Lake Outlet channel. A significant portion of any sediment
reaching the outlet channel will settle in small plunge-pools and in short, low-gradient reaches
until it is transported downstream to Eagle Creek. This increase in sediment will be temporary
and short-term, lasting until the dam site preparation is completed. The effect of short-term
sedimentation are not expected to be harmful to fish or their habitats near the mouth of Eagle
Creek.
Intake Structure. Construction of the intake may temporarily increase lake turbidity, but due
to the lack of fish in the lake, there will be no significant impacts.
Penstock. Along the steeper slopes where the penstock will be constructed above the ground
surface, the potential erosion problem is expected to be minimal. Along the more gradual slopes
the penstock may be buried with the backfill compacted in the trench to retard erosion. After
construction, the cleared penstock right-of-way will be revegetated so that only a minimal width
maintenance trail for traffic remains.
Powerhouse. The No-Name Lake powerhouse would be constructed on talus and alluvial
gravels. The powerhouse would be constructed with a sediment trap between the powerhouse
and the No-Name Lake Outlet channel to prevent any sediment from entering the stream. All
earth-moving and disturbing activities will be completed by August 1 to insure protection of
spawning fish should they be present downstream in Eagle Creek.
Tailrace. Some siltation into Eagle Creek could potentially occur during excavation of the
buried culvert tailrace in the No-Name Lake Outlet stream. A sandbag dike will be used to
isolate the area of construction from streamflow. This will allow construction in a dry channel
section and will reduce the potential for sedimentation downstream. Downstream flow will be
Kodiak Electric Association AP-A-8 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
maintained around the dike during construction. The amount of siltation is expected to be
minimal during construction, which will be completed by August 1, prior to salmon spawning
season.
Access Road and Transmission Line. A new 1,500-ft gravel roadway and transmission line is
required from the existing Terror Lake access road to the powerhouse. A large arch culvert or
bridge will be installed to cross Eagle Creek. This culvert will be oversized to pass debris
during storm events thereby minimizing the possibility of the culvert plugging and being washed
out. The excavation, moving, and emplacement of borrow materials from the valley alluvium
for the road would present some possibility for siltation into Eagle Creek where the road is in
close proximity to the stream. Sedimentation traps would be located, as necessary, along the
stream channel in these areas.
StockPiling. It is anticipated that most of the borrow material for the Leanne Lake Project is
available at the former Terror Lake Project borrow site directly south of the jetty (see
Figure~. This material will be stockpiled adjacent to the borrow area. Any of the bedrock
material that is acceptable and available near the No-Name dam site will be utilized. This
material will be placed in the staging area located near the northern side of the lake. If
additional borrow material is required, it will be barged in and stockpiled at the proposed
borrow site.
A2.4 REVEGETATION
As discussed under the site-specific erosion control measures in Section 2.3 above, the buried
sections of the penstock will be allowed to revegetate. The right-of-way along the penstock
constructed above ground will be revegetated, but a narrow foot trail will be maintained.
Natural revegetation will be encouraged in other areas which have been cleared of vegetation
or otherwise disturbed for construction.
Active re-seeding or re-planting is not expected to be used as a mitigation procedure.
Experience with the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project showed that active re-seeding programs
were not effective and proved to be costly (see Exhibit E, Section 4.5, Botanical Resources).
Kodiak Electric Association AP-A-9 Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
However, observations of formerly disturbed areas do show that natural re-vegetation by species
such as alder has been vigorous and successful.
Natural revegetation can be encouraged by artificially fertilizing disturbed areas and by providing
natural seed sources and stabilizing disturbed soils. A dry, free-flowing fertilizer suitable for
application by a common fertilizer spreader should be used to uniformly broadcast at the
specified application rate of 90 lbs. nitrogen, 90 lbs. phosphorous, and 45 lbs. potassium per
acre. Topsoil or organic materials should be retained in cleared areas, such as along the buried
sections of the penstock, and allowed to recover. Disturbed areas would be regraded and, using
the retained material, artificially fertilized to accelerate recovery. A biodegradable netting would
help to stabilize disturbed soils and encourage vegetative growth.
A2.5 MONITORING
A water quality monitoring program for stream siltation and turbidity should be developed prior
to construction. Site-specific mitigation measures, including cessation of work and stabilization
of disturbed areas, should be employed whenever siltation or turbidity reach unacceptable levels.
Criteria for acceptable sediment and turbidity levels should be determined in consultation with
ADF&G and ADEC. The contractor would be required to provide construction plans to these
agencies for approval. It is expected that the contractor will schedule his work so as to
coordinate with the clearing, grading, and excavation work activities.
Kodiak Electric Association AP-A-IO Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
APPENDIXB
DAILY STAGE AND DISCHARGE DATA, NO-NAME LAKE
Kodiak Electric Association AP-B-l Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
---STAGE AND DISCHARGE DATA
NO-NAME LAKE DATAPOD
Stage Discharge Stage Discharge Stage Discharge
Avg. Avg Max. Max. Min Min.
DATE (cm) (cfs) (em) (ets) (cm) (cfs)
10/12/91 58.0 3.2 61.0 3.7 57.0 3.1
10/13/91 56.0 3.0 57.0 3.1 56.0 3.0
10/14/91 58.0 3.2 60.0 3.5 56.0 3.0
10/15/91 58.0 3.2 60.0 3.5 56.0 3.0
10/16/91 57.0 3.1 59.0 3.4 57.0 3.1
10/17/91 57.0 3.1 61.0 3.7 57.0 3.1
10/18/91 70.0 5.2 80.0 7.2 60.0 3.5
10/19/91 80.0 7.2 82.0 7.7 78.0 6.8
10/20/91 76.0 6.3 79.0 7.0 73.0 5.7
10/21/91 70.0 5.2 74.0 5.9 67.0 4.6
10/22/91 65.0 4.3 68.0 4.8 64.0 4.1
10/23/91 63.0 4.0 65.0 4.3 63.0 4.0
10/24/91 61.0 3.7 62.0 3.8 61.0 3.7
10/25/91 60.0 3.5 61.0 3.7 60.0 3.5
10/26/91 59.0 3.4 60.0 3.5 59.0 3.4
10/27/91 58.0 3.2 59.0 3.4 58.0 3.2
10/28/91 59.0 3.4 60.0 3.5 59.0 3.4
10/29/91 58.0 3.2 60.0 3.5 58.0 3.2
10/30/91 59.0 3.4 59.0 3.4 59.0 3.4
10/31/91 59.0 3.4 60.0 3.5 59.0 3.4
11/1/91 76.0 6.3 113.0 17.0 60.0 3.5
11/2/91 129.0 23.6 139.0 28.3 113.0 17.0
11/3/91 115.0 17.7 131.0 24.5 103.0 13.5
11/4/91 103.0 13.5 113.0 17.0 100.0 12.5
11/5/91 116.0 18.1 137.0 27.3 110.0 15.9
11/6/91 147.0 32.6 156.0 37.7 137.0 27.3
11/7/91 116.0 18.1 136.0 26.8 105.0 14.1
11/8/91 96.0 11.3 105.0 14.1 89.0 9.4
11/9/91 85.0 8.4 89.0 9.4 83.0 7.9
11/10/91 81.0 7.4 83.0 7.9 78.0 6.8
11/11/91 74.0 5.9 78.0 6.8 73.0 5.7
11/12/91 70.0 5.2 73.0 5.7 69.0 5.0
11/13/91 66.0 4.5 69.0 5.0 65.0 4.3
11/14/91 63.0 4.0 65.0 . 4.3 63.0 4.0
11/15/91 63.0 4.0 65.0 4.3 62.0 3.8
11/16/91 61.0 3.7 63.0 4.0 61.0 3.7
11/17/91 60.0 3.5 61.0 3.7 60.0 3.5
11/18/91 59.0 3.4 61.0 3.7 59.0 3.4
11/19/91 58.0 3.2 59.0 3.4 58.0 3.2
11/20/91 59.0 3.4 61.0 3.7 58.0 3.2
11/21/91 59.0 3.4 61.0 3.7 59.0 3.4
11/22/91 57.0 3.1 60.0 3.5 57.0 3.1
11/23/91 56.0 3.0 57.0 3.1 56.0 3.0
11/24/91 56.0 3.0 58.0 3.2 56.0 3.0
11/25/91 57.0 3.1 58.0 3.2 57.0 3.1
Stage Discharge stage Discharge stage Discharge
Avg. Avg Max. Max. Min Min.
DATE ~cm) ~cfs) (cml ~cfs) lcm) (cfs!
11/26/91 57.0 3.1 58.0 3.2 56.0 3.0
11/27/91 55.0 2.8 56.0 3.0 55.0 2.8
11/28/91 54.0 2.7 56.0 3.0 54.0 2.7
11/29/91 54.0 2.7 56.0 3.0 53.0 2.6
11/30/91 57.0 3.1 58.0 3.2 56.0 3.0
12/1/91 59.0 3.4 64.0 4.1 58.0 3.2
12/2/91 59.0 3.4 62.0 3.8 59.0 3.4
12/3/91 58.0 3.2 59.0 3.4 57.0 3.1
12/4/91 57.0 3.1 58.0 3.2 57.0 3.1
12/5/91 57.0 3.1 58.0 3.2 56.0 3.0
12/6/91 58.0 3.2 61.0 3.7 57.0 3.1
12/7/91 59.0 3.4 61.0 3.7 58.0 3.2
12/8/91 57.0 3.1 58.0 3.2 56.0 3.0
12/9/91 55.0 2.8 57.0 3.1 54.0 2.7
12/10/91 54.0 2.7 55.0 2.8 53.0 2.6
12/11/91 53.0 2.6 55.0 2.8 53.0 2.6
12/12/91 52.0 2.5 54.0 2.7 51.0 2.4
12/13/91 52.0 2.5 54.0 2.7 51.0 2.4
12/14/91 51.0 2.4 52.0 2.5 50.0 2.2
12/15/91 50.0 2.2 51.0 2.4 50.0 2.2
12/16/91 51.0 2.4 52.0 2.5 51.0 2.4
12/17/91 51.0 2.4 52.0 2.5 50.0 2.2
12/18/91 50.0 2.2 51.0 2.4 50.0 2.2
12/19/91 50.0 2.2 52.0 2.5 49.0 2.1
12/20/91 50.0 2.2 50.0 2.2 50.0 2.2
12/21/91 50.0 2.2 50.0 2.2 50.0 2.2
12/22/91 50.0 2.2 51.0 2.4 49.0 2.1
12/23/91 50.0 2.2 51.0 2.4 50.0 2.2
12/24/91 50.0 2.2 51.0 2.4 50.0 2.2
12/25/91 51.0 2.4 51.0 2.4 51.0 2.4
12/26/91 50.0 2.2 52.0 2.5 50.0 2.2
12/27/91 50.0 2.2 51.0 2.4 49.0 2.1
12/28/91 49.0 2.1 51.0 2.4 48.0 2.0
12/29/91 49.0 2.1 51.0 2.4 48.0 2.0
12/30/91 49.0 2.1 51.0 2.4 49.0 2.1
12/31/91 51.0 2.4 51.0 2.4 51.0 2.4
1/1/92 50.0 2.2 51.0 2.4 50.0 2.2
1/2/92 50.0 2.2 51.0 2.4 50.0 2.2
1/3/92 49.0 2.1 50.0 2.2 49.0 2.1
1/4/92 48.0 2.0 49.0 2.1 47.0 1.9
1/5/92 47.0 1.9 48.0 2.0 46.0 1.8
1/6/92 47.0 1.9 48.0 2.0 46.0 1.8
1/7/92 47.0 1.9 48.0 2.0 47.0 1.9
1/8/92 48.0 2.0 48.0 2.0 48.0 2.0
1/9/92 48.0 2.0 51.0 2.4 48.0 2.0
1/10/92 52.0 2.5 53.0 2.6 51.0 2.4
1/11/92 52.0 2.5 53.0 2.6 51.0 2.4
1/12/92 50.0 2.2 52.0 2.5 50.0 2.2
1/13/92 51.0 2.4 53.0 2.6 50.0 2.2
1/14/92 52.0 2.5 53.0 2.6 52.0 2.5
1/15/92 51.0 2.4 52.0 2.5 51.0 2.4
1/16/92 52.0 2.5 53.0 2.6 51.0 2.4
1/17/92 52.0 2.5 55.0 2.8 52.0 2.5
Stage Discharge stage Discharge Stage Discharge
Avg. Avg Max. Max. Min Min.
DATE (cm) (cfs) (cm) (cfs) (cm) (cfs)
1/18/92 54.0 2.7 56.0 3.0 54.0 2.7
1/19/92 53.0 2.6 55.0 2.8 53.0 2.6
1/20/92 51.0 2.4 53.0 2.6 51.0 2.4
1/21/92 50.0 2.2 51.0 2.4 50.0 2.2
1/22/92 49.0 2.1 50.0 2.2 48.0 2.0
1/23/92 48.0 2.0 49.0 2.1 48.0 2.0
1/24/92 47.0 1.9 48.0 2.0 47.0 1.9
1/25/92 46.0 1.8 47.0 1.9 46.0 1.8
1/26/92 46.0 1.8 47.0 1.9 46.0 1.8
1/27/92 45.0 1.7 46.0 1.8 45.0 1.7
1/28/92 44.0 1.6 45.0 1.7 44.0 1.6
1/29/92 43.0 1.5 44.0 1.6 43.0 1.5
1/30/92 43.0 1.5 44.0 1.6 43.0 1.5
1/31/92 42.0 1.5 43.0 1.5 42.0 1.5
2/1/92 41.0 1.4 42.0 1.5 41.0 1.4
2/2/92 40.0 1.3 41.0 1.4 40.0 1.3
2/3/92 40.0 1.3 41.0 1.4 40.0 1.3
2/4/92 39.0 1.2 40.0 1.3 39.0 1.2
2/5/92 39.0 1.2 39.0 1.2 39.0 1.2
2/6/92 38.0 1.1 39.0 1.2 38.0 1.1
2/7/92 38.0 1.1 38.0 1.1 38.0 1.1
2/8/92 37.0 1.1 38.0 1.1 37.0 1.1
2/9/92 37.0 1.1 37.0 1.1 37.0 1.1
2/10/92 36.0 1.0 37.0 1.1 36.0 1.0
2/11/92 36.0 1.0 37.0 1.1 36.0 1.0
2/12/92 35.0 0.9 36.0 1.0 35.0 0.9
2/13/92 35.0 0.9 36.0 1.0 35.0 0.9
2/14/92 34.0 0.9 35.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
2/15/92 34.0 0.9 35.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
2/16/92 34.0 0.9 34.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
2/17/92 33.0 0.8 34.0 0.9 33.0 0.8
2/18/92 33.0 0.8 33.0 0.8 33.0 0.8
2/19/92 32.0 0.7 33.0 0.8 32.0 0.7
2/20/92 32.0 0.7 33.0 0.8 32.0 0.7
2/21/92 32.0 0.7 33.0 0.8 32.0 0.7
2/22/92 32.0 0.7 33.0 0.8 32.0 0.7
2/23/92 32.0 0.7 33.0 0.8 32.0 0.7
2/24/92 34.0 0.9 38.0 1.1 32.0 0.7
2/25/92 38.0 1.1 39.0 1.2 38.0 1.1
2/26/92 39.0 1.2 39.0 1.2 39.0 1.2
2/27/92 38.0 1.1 39.0 1.2 38.0 1.1
2/28/92 38.0 1.1 39.0 1.2 38.0 1.1
2/29/92 37.0 1.1 38.0 1.1 37.0 1.1
3/1/92 36.0 1.0 37.0 1.1 36.0 1.0
3/2/92 36.0 1.0 37.0 1.1 35.0 0.9
3/3/92 34.0 0.9 35.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
3/4/92 34.0 0.9 35.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
3/5/92 33.0 0.8 34.0 0.9 33.0 0.8
3/6/92 33.0 0.8 34.0 0.9 33.0 0.8
3/7 /92 33.0 0.8 33.0 0.8 33.0 0.8
3/8/92 33.0 0.8 34.0 0.9 33.0 0.8
3/9/92 33.0 0.8 34.0 0.9 33.0 0.8
3/10/92 34.0 0.9 34.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
Stage Discharge Stage Discharge Stage Discharge
Avg. Avg Max. Max. Min Min.
DATE (cm) (cfs) (cm) (cfs) (cm) (efs)
3/11/92 34.0 0.9 34.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
3/12/92 34.0 0.9 34.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
3/13/92 33.0 0.8 34.0 0.9 33.0 0.8
3/14/92 33.0 0.8 33.0 0.8 33.0 0.8
3/15/92 32.0 0.7 33.0 0.8 32.0 0.7
3/16/92 32.0 0.7 32.0 0.7 32.0 0.7
3/17/92 31.0 0.7 32.0 0.7 31.0 0.7
3/18/92 31.0 0.7 32.0 0.7 31.0 0.7
3/19/92 32.0 0.7 35.0 0.9 31.0 0.7
3/20/92 34.0 0.9 35.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
3/21/92 35.0 0.9 36.0 1.0 35.0 0.9
3/22/92 34.0 0.9 35.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
3/23/92 34.0 0.9 36.0 1.0 34.0 0.9
3/24/92 37.0 1.1 39.0 1.2 35.0 0.9
3/25/92 39.0 1.2 39.0 1.2 39.0 1.2
3/26/92 38.0 1.1 39.0 1.2 38.0 1.1
3/27/92 37.0 1.1 39.0 1.2 36.0 1.0
3/28/92 36.0 1.0 37.0 1.1 35.0 0.9
3/29/92 35.0 0.9 36.0 1.0 35.0 0.9
3/30/92 34.0 0.9 35.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
3/31/92 34.0 0.9 35.0 0.9 33.0 0.8
4/1/92 35.0 0.9 35.0 0.9 35.0 0.9
4/2/92 34.0 0.9 35.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
4/3/92 34.0 0.9 35.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
4/4/92 33.0 0.8 34.0 0.9 33.0 0.8
4/5/92 33.0 0.8 34.0 0.9 33.0 0.8
4/6/92 32.0 0.7 33.0 0.8 32.0 0.7
4/7/92 31.0 0.7 32.0 0.7 31.0 0.7
4/8/92 31.0 0.7 31.0 0.7 31.0 0.7
4/9/92 30.0 0.6 31.0 0.7 30.0 0.6
4/10/92 30.0 0.6 30.0 0.6 30.0 0.6
4/11/92 29.0 0.6 30.0 0.6 29.0 0.6
4/12/92 29.0 0.6 30.0 0.6 29.0 0.6
4/13/92 29.0 0.6 29.0 0.6 29.0 0.6
4/14/92 28.0 0.5 29.0 0.6 28.0 0.5
4/15/92 29.0 0.6 31.0 0.7 29.0 0.6
4/16/92 31.0 0.7 31.0 0.7 31.0 0.7
4/17/92 31.0 0.7 31.0 0.7 31.0 0.7
4/18/92 30.0 0.6 31.0 0.7 30.0 0.6
4/19/92 30.0 0.6 31.0 0.7 30.0 0.6
4/20/92 31.0 0.7 32.0 0.7 30.0 0.6
4/21/92 32.0 0.7 33.0 0.8 32.0 0.7
4/22/92 32.0 0.7 33.0 0.8 32.0 0.7
4/23/92 32.0 0.7 32.0 0.7 32.0 0.7
4/24/92 32.0 0.7 32.0 0.7 32.0 0.7
4/25/92 32.0 0.7 32.0 0.7 32.0 0.7
4/26/92 32.0 0.7 32.0 0.7 32.0 0.7
4/27/92 32.0 0.7 33.0 0.8 32.0 0.7
4/28/92 32.0 0.7 33.0 0.8 32.0 0.7
4/29/92 34.0 0.9 35.0 0.9 34.0 0.9
4/30/92 35.0 0.9 36.0 1.0 35.0 0.9
5/1/92 35.0 0.9 36.0 1.0 35.0 0.9
5/2/92 36.0 1.0 37.0 1.1 36.0 1.0
stage Discharge stage Discharge stage Discharge
Avg. Avg Max. Max. Min Min.
DATE (cm) (cfs) (cm) (cfs) (cm) (cfs)
5/3/92 36.0 1.0 36.0 1.0 36.0 1.0
5/4/92 36.0 1.0 36.0 1.0 36.0 1.0
5/5/92 36.0 1.0 36.0 1.0 36.0 1.0
5/6/92 36.0 1.0 36.0 1.0 36.0 1.0
5/7 /92 36.0 1.0 37.0 1.1 35.0 0.9
5/8/92 37.0 1.1 37.0 1.1 37.0 1.1
5/9/92 37.0 1.1 37.0 1.1 37.0 1.1
5/10/92 37.0 1.1 37.0 1.1 37.0 1.1
5/11/92 36.0 1.0 37.0 1.1 36.0 1.0
5/12/92 36.0 1.0 36.0 1.0 36.0 1.0
5/13/92 36.0 1.0 38.0 1.1 36.0 1.0
5/14/92 40.0 1.3 44.0 1.6 37.0 1.1
5/15/92 47.0 1.9 50.0 2.2 44.0 1.6
5/16/92 51.0 2.4 52.0 2.5 49.0 2.1
5/17/92 51.0 2.4 52.0 2.5 51.0 2.4
5/18/92 51.0 2.4 52.0 2.5 51.0 2.4
5/19/92 52.0 2.5 53.0 2.6 51.0 2.4
5/20/92 54.0 2.7 56.0 3.0 53.0 2.6
5/21/92 57.0 3.1 59.0 3.4 56.0 3.0
5/22/92 60.0 3.5 62.0 3.8 59.0 3.4
5/23/92 62.0 3.8 64.0 4.1 62.0 3.8
5/24/92 64.0 4.1 66.0 4.5 64.0 4.1
5/25/92 67.0 4.6 72.0 5.5 66.0 4.5
5/26/92 88.0 9.1 102.0 13.2 72.0 5.5
5/27/92 107.0 14.8 113.0 17.0 102.0 13.2
5/28/92 114.0 17.3 118.0 18.9 112.0 16.6
5/29/92 111.0 16.2 119.0 19.3 104.0 13.8
5/30/92 101.0 12.8 104.0 13.8 100.0 12.5
5/31/92 98.0 11.9 101.0 12.8 96.0 11.3
6/1/92 93.0 10.5 96.0 11.3 91.0 9.9
6/2/92 93.0 10.5 96.0 11.3 91.0 9.9
6/3/92 92.0 10.2 96.0 11.3 87.0 8.9
6/4/92 95.0 11.0 102.0 13.2 87.0 8.9
6/5/92 95.0 11.0 101.0 12.8 89.0 9.4
6/6/92 87.0 8.9 91.0 9.9 85.0 8.4
6/7/92 89.0 9.4 91.0 9.9 88.0 9.1
6/8/92 85.0 8.4 88.0 9.1 83.0 7.9
6/9/92 82.0 7.7 85.0 8.4 81.0 7.4
6/10/92 77.0 6.6 81.0 7.4 74.0 5.9
6/11/92 71.0 5.4 74.0 5.9 70.0 5.2
6/12/92 104.0 13.8 151.0 34.8 69.0 5.0
6/13/92 157.0 38.3 161.0 40.8 151.0 34.8
6/14/92 148.0 33.1 162.0 41.4 134.0 25.9
6/15/92 117.0 18.5 134.0 25.9 104.0 13.8
6/16/92 99.0 12.2 104.0 13.8 97.0 11.6
6/17/92 98.0 11.9 100.0 12.5 97.0 11.6
6/18/92 106.0 14.5 119.0 19.3 99.0 12.2
6/19/92 122.0 20.5 128.0 23.1 115.0 17.7
6/20/92 100.0 12.5 0.0 0.0
6/21/92 93.0 10.5 97 11.6 90 9.6
6/22/92 88.0 9.1 92 10.2 86 8.6
6/23/92 92.0 10.2 95 11.0 89 9.4
6/24/92 91.0 9.9 100 12.5 88 9.1
Stage Discharge Stage Discharge Stage Discharge
Avg. Avg Max. Max. Min Min.
DATE (cm) (cts) (cm) (ctS) (cm) (ctS)
6/25/92 96.0 11.3 101 12.8 93 10.5
6/26/92 92.0 10.2 94 10.7 91 9.9
6/27/92 102.0 13.2 114 17.3 92 10.2
6/28/92 136.0 26.8 161 40.8 114 17.3
6/29/92 142.0 29.9 158 38.9 129 23.6
6/30/92 119.0 19.3 129 23.6 111 16.2
7/1/92 102.0 13.2 111 16.2 98 11.9
7/2/92 100.0 12.5 104 13.8 99 12.2
7/3/92 99.0 12.2 105 14.1 96 11.3
7/4/92 97.0 11.6 100 12.5 96 11.3
7/5/92 100.0 12.5 106 14.5 99 12.2
7/6/92 101.0 12.8 107 14.8 95 11.0
7/7/92 90.0 9.6 95 11.0 86 8.6
7/8/92 83.0 7.9 86 8.6 81 7.4
7/9/92 100.0 12.5 112 16.6 82 7.7
7/10/92 100.0 12.5 110 15.9 96 11.3
7/11/92 103.0 13.5 107 14.8 98 11.9
7/12/92 101.0 12.8 107 14.8 98 11.9
7/13/92 93.0 10.5 99 12.2 90 9.6
7/14/92 87.0 8.9 91 9.9 83 7.9
7/15/92 83.0 7.9 83 7.9 83 7.9
7/16/92 82.0 7.7 83 7.9 81 7.4
7/17/92 82.0 7.7 83 7.9 82 7.7
7/18/92 80.0 7.2 82 7.7 79 7.0
7/19/92 78.0 6.8 79 7.0 77 6.6
7/20/92 80.0 7.2 84 8.1 78 6.8
7/21/92 82.0 7.7 84 8.1 79 7.0
7/22/92 81.0 7.4 86 8.6 79 7.0
7/23/92 88.0 9.1 91 9.9 86 8.6
7/24/92 91.0 9.9 92 10.2 90 9.6
7/25/92 105.0 14.1 116 18.1 92 10.2
7/26/92 100.0 12.5 112 16.6 92 10.2
7/27/92 90.0 9.6 92 10.2 89 9.4
7/28/92 84.0 8.1 88 9.1 82 7.7
7/29/92 85.0 8.4 96 11.3 82 7.7
7/30/92 93.0 10.5 97 11.6 87 8.9
7/31/92 82.0 7.7 87 8.9 78 6.8
8/1/92 76.0 6.3 79 7.0 74 5.9
8/2/92 74.0 5.9 76 6.3 73 5.7
8/3/92 75.0 6.1 77 6.6 74 5.9
8/4/92 82.0 7.7 86 8.6 77 6.6
8/5/92 86.0 8.6 91 9.9 85 8.4
8/6/92 91.0 9.9 94 10.7 89 9.4
8/7/92 112.0 16.6 127 22.7 90 9.6
8/8/92 101.0 12.8 117 18.5 92 10.2
8/9/92 85.0 8.4 92 10.2 81 7.4
8/10/92 80.0 7.2 87 8.9 76 6.3
8/11/92 89.0 9.4 96 11.3 77 6.6
8/12/92 71.0 5.4 77 6.6 67 4.6
8/13/92 89.0 9.4 106 14.5 77 6.6
8/14/92 118.0 18.9 133 25.4 106 14.5
8/15/92 94.0 10.7 106 14.5 86 8.6
8/16/92 88.0 9.1 98 11.9 86 8.6
Stage Discharge Stage Discharge stage Discharge
Avg. Avg Max. Max. Min Min.
DATE (cm) (cts) (cm) (ctS) (cm) (cts)
8/17/92 103.0 13.5 107 14.8 98 11.9
8/18/92 97.0 11.6 105 14.1 89 9.4
8/19/92 84.0 8.1 90 9.6 80 7.2
8/20/92 76.0 6.3 79 7.0 75 6.1
8/21/92 89.0 9.4 102 13.2 75 6.1
8/22/92 93.0 10.5 101 12.8 86 8.6
8/23/92 81.0 7.4 86 8.6 80 7.2
8/24/92 92.0 10.2 101 12.8 80 7.2
8/25/92 92.0 10.2 100 12.5 86 8.6
8/26/92 81.0 7.4 86 8.6 78 6.8
8/27/92 75.0 6.1 79 7.0 73 5.7
8/28/92 71.0 5.4 73 5.7 70 5.2
8/29/92 69.0 5.0 71 5.4 69 5.0
8/30/92 68.0 4.8 69 5.0 68 4.8
8/31/92 67.0 4.6 68 4.8 66 4.5
9/1/92 66.0 4.5 68 4.8 65 4.3
9/2/92 65.0 4.3 67 4.6 64 4.1
9/3/92 64.0 4.1 66 4.5 63 4.0
9/4/92 62.0 3.8 63 4.0 62 3.8
9/5/92 62.0 3.8 62 3.8 62 3.8
9/6/92 62.0 3.8 63 4.0 61 3.7
9/7 /92 61.0 3.7 62 3.8 60 3.5
9/8/92 60.0 3.5 62 3.8 60 3.5
9/9/92 59.0 3.4 60 3.5 59 3.4
9/10/92 59.0 3.4 61 3.7 59 3.4
9/11/92 58.0 3.2 60 3.5 58 3.2
9/12/92 58.0 3.2 60 3.5 57 3.1
9/13/92 57.0 3.1 59 3.4 57 3.1
9/14/92 57.0 3.1 58 3.2 57 3.1
9/15/92 56.0 3.0 59 3.4 56 3.0
9/16/92 56.0 3.0 58 3.2 55 2.8
9/17/92 55.0 2.8 55 2.8 55 2.8
9/18/92 56.0 3.0 57 3.1 55 2.8
9/19/92 57.0 3.1 60 3.5 56 3.0
9/20/92 57.0 3.1 58 3.2 56 3.0
9/21/92 56.0 3.0 57 3.1 56 3.0
9/22/92 56.0 3.0 56 3.0 56 3.0
9/23/92 55.0 2.8 55 2.8 55 2.8
9/24/92 54.0 2.7 55 2.8 54 2.7
9/25/92 54.0 2.7 55 2.8 54 2.7
9/26/92 53.0 2.6 54 2.7 53 2.6
9/27/92 53.0 2.6 53 2.6 53 2.6
9/28/92 56.0 3.0 63 4.0 53 2.6
9/29/92 66.0 4.5 69 5.0 63 4.0
9/30/92 65.0 4.3 69 5.0 64 4.1
10/1/92 63.0 4.0 64 4.1 63 4.0
10/2/92 62.0 3.8 63 4.0 61 3.7
10/3/92 61.0 3.7 62 3.8 61 3.7
10/4/92 61.0 3.7 62 3.8 61 3.7
10/5/92 60.0 3.5 61 3.7 60 3.5
10/6/92 61.0 3.7 65 4.3 60 3.5
10/7/92 76.0 6.3 85 8.4 65 4.3
APPENDIXC
WATER TEMPERATURE MONITORING DATA
Kodiak Electric Association AP-C-l Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
Eagle Creek Temperature Data
Temperature, C
12-.---------------------------------------------------------,
10 -
8-
6-
4-
2-
O-r--------------------------------------------------------~
10/1 11/1 12/2 1/2 2/2 3/4 4/4 5/5 6/5 7/6 8/6 9/6 10/7
91 I 92
Date
No-Name Lake and Outlet Stream
Temperature Data
Temperature, C
12-.--------------------r------------------------------------,
-Lake --Stream 10 -}-__________________ ---J
8
6
4
2
10/1 11/1 12/2 1/2 2/2 3/4 4/4 5/5 6/5 7/6 8/6 9/6 10/7
91 I 92
Date
APPENDIXD
FLORA IN THE KIZHUYAK RIVER DRAINAGE
Kodiak Electric Association AP-D-l Leanne Lak£ Hydroelectric Project
Equisetum arvense
F10ra common to the Kizhuyak Drainage
Horsetail
Botrychium IanceoIatum
Athyrium fili.x1emina cyclosorum
Cystopteris jragilis jragiIis
Dryopteris dUatata americana
Gymnocarpium dryopteris
Picea sitchensis
Zostera mariJuz
Phleum commutatum americanutn
CaIamagrostis canadensis Langsdo1jJi
CaIamagrostis inexpansa
Trisetum spicatum alaskanum
Poa arctica WzlJiamsii
Festuca aitaica
Elymus arenarius mollis
Eriphorum Scheuchzeri var. tenuifolium
Eriphorum TUSSoleum
Carex scirpoidea
Carex leptalea
Carex circinnata
Carex macloviana pachystachya
Carex Kelloggii
Adder's tongue
Lady fern
Fragile fern
Shield fern
Sitka spruce
Eelgrass
Mountain timothy
Bluejoint
Fescue grass
Lyme grass
Cottongrass
Cottongrass
Sedge
Coiled Carex
1
earex aquatiIis aquatilis
Carex Lyngbyaei
Carex macrochaeta
Carex podocarpa
Phyllodoce aleutica aleutica
Cassiope Stelleriana
Cassiope Lycopodioides
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
Vaccinium ovalifolium
Vacciniwn uliginosum alpinum
Vacciniwn uliginosum microphyllum
Prirnukz cunei/olia saxifragifolia
Gentiana platypetala
Gentiana glauca
Polemoniwn acutijlorum
Polemonium pulcherrimum
Galeopsis bifida
Castilleja unalaschcensis
Rhinanthus minor borealis
Pedicularis verticiHata
Pedicularis Kand
Fritillaria Kamchatcensis
Boschniaka rossica
Galium boreale
~-~. ' ..
Mountain heather
Alaska moss heath
Highbush blueberry
Alpine blueberry
Alpine blueberry
Primrose
Gentian
Glaucous Gentian .
Jacob's ladder
Jacob's ladder
Hemp nettle
Indian paintbrush
Yellow rattle
Lousewort
Kamchatka Uly
Broom grape
Bedstraw
' .. -,.;' ....
Sambucus racemosa pubens
Viburnum edule
Linnaea borealis
Companula rotundifolia
Solidago lepida
Erigeron peregrinus
Achillea borealis
Anemisia Tilesii unalaschcensis
Sedum rasea integrifolium
Saxifraga oppositifolia oppositifo/iQ
Saxifraga bronchiaIis
Saxifraga Lyalli Hultenii
Heuchera glabra
Tellima grandiflora
Spiraea Beauverdiana
Leutkeq pectinata
A.Iuncus sylvester
Rubus speclabilis
Gewn calthifolium
Sanguisorba stipulata
Rosa nutlaJna
Lupinus nootkatensis .
LathyTUS maritimus
Geranium erianthum
Elderbeny, Pacific red elder
Highbush cranberry
American twinflower
Harebell
Goldenrod
Coastal fleabane
Yarrow
Wormwood
Roseroot
Purple mountain saxifrage
Spotted saxifrage
Red-stemmed saxifrage
Alpine heuchera
Fringe cups .
Alaska spiraea
Goatsbeard
Salmonbeny
Burnet
Wild rose
Lupine
Beach pea
Cranesbill
" "",--
3 .
EpiJobium angustifolium macrophyllum
Epilobium II1tifolium
Echinopanax horridum
Conioselinum chinense
Angelica lucida
Angelica genujlexa
Heracleum II1natum
Pyroll1 asarifolia var. purpurea
Empetrum nigrum nigrum
Rhododendron camtschaticum
camtschaticum
Loiseleuria procumbens
Juncus Drummondii
Juncus Mertensianus
Juncus castaneus castaneus
Juncus triglumis
Luzu1a WahJenbeTgU Piperi
Veratrum viride Eschscholtzii
Strepwpus amplexifolius
Spiranthes Romanzo/fiana
Populus balsamifera
Salix: reticu1tzta orbicu1aris
Salix: arctica
Salix: Barclay;
Fireweed
Dwarf fireweed
Devil's club
Hemlock parsley
WiJd celery
Cow parsnip
Wintergreen
Crowberry
Kamchata rhododendron
Alpine azalea
Rush
Wood rush
False hellebore
Twisted stalk
Ladies' tresses
Cottonwood
Netleaf wi110w
Arctic willow
-~. -'---'~~,'""~';'~';.:.;--.
Barclay willow
4
Kodiak Electric Association
APPENDIXE
AQUATIC RESOURCES AND FISH STUDIES
AP-E-l Leanne Lake Hydroelectric Project
LEANE AND NO-NAME LAKES
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Aquatic Resources
and
Fish Studies
1992
October, 1992
Prepared For
Trihey & Associates
by
Roger F. Blackett
RFB Aquatech Inc.
Kodiak, Alaska
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~
Introduction -------------------------------------------1
study Sites --------------------------------------------1
Methods ------------------------------------------------3
Results ------------------------------------------------4
No-Name Lakes -------------------------------------4
Leane Lake ----------------------------------------4
Eagle Creek Survey --------------------------------7
Rolling Rock Creek Survey -------------------------9
Conclusions And Recommendations ------------------------10
Literature cited ---------------------------------------11
Leane and No-Name Lakes Hydroelectric Project
Aquatic Resources
Fish Studies
1992
INTRODUCTION
The Leane and No-Name Lake watersheds, situated in the
Kizhuyak River Basin, Kodiak Island, Alaska, have been
proposed for hydroelectric development. The purpose of these
studies is to asses aquatic resources that might be impacted
by the hydroelectric projects and to recommend measures to
mimimize impacts on fish and aquatic habitat. This report
presents work accomplished in 1992.
STUDY SITES
No-Name Lakes consist of three small interconnected
lakes (Figure 1) draining an area of about 0.90 square
miles. Lake depth of the lower lake is 32 feet. Depth of the
upper two lakes is undetermined, but the middle lake appears
to be the shallowest with a sand flat (1-2 foot depth)
extending from shore to mid-lake. The three lakes combined
have a surface area of about 28 acres and an estimated
volume of less than 250 acre-feet. These lakes are located
in a mountainous alpine area at approximately 2,000 to 2,500
foot elevation.
Lake shorelines are primarily granite boulders and rock
and a fine sand (formed by volcanic ash from the 1912 Katmai
Mt. eruption). Shore areas are relatively steep; dropping to
about 10-foot depth less than 20 feet from shore. The outlet
and inlet ends of the lower lake are shallow sand flats.
Lake water has a high clarity. The bottom is easily visible
at 20-foot depth.
The outlet of the lower No-Name Lake drops
precipitously in a series of cascades and waterfalls from
about 1,956 foot elevation to about 50 foot elevation in
about 6,000 feet. A tributary stream joins the outlet at
this pointi about 1,300 feet upstream from Kizhuyak Bay. The
tributary stream has intermittent flow, usually being dry
during the summer. Most of the streamflow in the combined
creeks (known as Eagle Creek) is provided by the No-Name
-1-
<Il
'" N ....
14
23
26
00 ~.5 ~ -=-~ 0
13 18 -76-
24 19 -~ J' "'?+--(f' q, <9-'.;£> f;.. '6'0 NO-NAME 0
LAKE
6 5
2.500 +
';.-; ---...
po Q"
Figure 1. Location of the proposed hydroelectric projects
showing the watersheds (shaded) of No-Name and
Leane Lakes.
-:2-
outlet stream. During dry periods, low flows (1-3 cfs) from
No-Name Lake are insufficient to maintain surface flow in
Eagle Creek. In September, 1992, Eagle Creek was dry 500
feet downstream of the falls. The dry streambed had only
occasional small isolated pools of water.
Leane Lake (Figure 1) is located about 1.4 miles south
of the No-Name Lakes at about the same elevation. The lake
is the largest of the four lakes with a depth of 75 feet,
surface area of 57 acres, and volume of 1,000 acre-feet.
Leane Lake has a more irregular shoreline than the No-Name
Lakes with small bays, rock out-croppings jutting into the
lake, and several small rocky islands. Leane Lake tends to
have more areas of sloping shoreline than No-Name Lakes,
however, the shoreline rock and alpine vegetation are
similar. The shorelines and the west-end of the lake are
fine sand bottom (formed from Katmai ash deposits), but
there are more exposed boulders and rocks along the shore
than in No-Name Lakes. The east-end of the lake terminates
in a narrow rocky bay and outlet stream. Lake water is
extremely clear, like the No-Name Lakes.
The outlet of Leane Lake also drops steeply in cascades
and waterfalls from approximately 1,976 to 600 foot
elevation in 2,000 feet where it joins Rolling Rock Creek,
and then flows about 3,500 feet in cascades and small
waterfalls to the Kizhuyak River.
Frequently, during dry periods, as in September, 1992,
water flow from Leane Lake and upper Rolling Rock Creek is
insufficient to maintain surface flow in this creek. The
creek streambed goes dry upstream of the road culverts.
METHODS
A variable monofilament mesh gill net with 5, 20-foot
panels of 0.50-, 0.75-, 1.00-, 1.50-, and 2.00-inch mesh
sizes, and 6-foot depth was fished in each lake within 20
feet of shore. Ten minnow traps baited with disinfected
(betadyne) salmon eggs, wrapped in cheesecloth sacs, were
fished along the shoreline of each lake. The throats of the
minnow traps were slightly enlarged to enable larger fish to
be caught.
Location of traps and net were mapped and the number of
fish caught, recorded by trap or net location. A record was
also kept of the hours the gear was fished in each lake.
Extensive foot-surveys were conducted of the lake shore
and inlet tributaries in conjunction with setting and
checking fishing gear. Aquatic habitat for fish was observed
as well as presence or absence of fish, and fish
distribution within the lake.
Fish samples collected from the gear were examined
within 24 hours of capture. Specimens were measured (fork-
-3-
length in rom.) and weighed to the nearest gram with an Ohaus
Lume-O-Gram didgital scale. Sex and maturity was recorded
and otoliths were taken for age determination. Cursory
examination was made of fish stomach contents and parasitic
infestation.
Foot-surveys were conducted of Eagle and Rolling-Rock
Creek to determine if fish were present, fish use (rearing
or spawning) of the creek, and potential rearing and
spawning habitat. Potential salmon spawning area in Eagle
Creek was mapped by stream section. The quality of stream
bottom suitable for spawning was judged and expressed as a
percentage of the area.
RESULTS
No-Name Lakes
The gill net and ten minnow traps were set in the lower
No-Name Lake on August 9 and removed on August 10. After a
total of 25 hours of fishing time, no fish were caught. A
gill net and ten traps also set on August 9 in the middle
No-Name Lake and removed on August 13, after 90 hours of
fishing time, also failed to catch any fish. The net and ten
traps were set in the upper No-Name Lake on August 10. This
gear was checked and removed on August 13. No fish were
caught in this lake after 95 hours of fishing. Trapping and
net locations for each of the No-Name Lakes is shown in
Figure 2.
No-Name Lakes were sampled by gill-net and minnow traps
for a combined total of 210 hours without any fish being
caught. Also, extensive foot-surveys and observations from
shore failed to detect the presence of any fish in the No-
Name Lakes. Fish have never been seen or reported in these
lakes. The sampling and surveys confirm the absence of fish
in the No-Name Lakes.
Additionally, the aquatic habitat in the No-Name Lakes
does not appear desirable for supporting fish. The bottom is
fine sand sediment (volcanic ash origin) that covers rocks
along the shore. Rocks that were exposed from the sand were
clean, lacking insect larvae and other bottom organisms
normally associated with fish production.
Leane Lake
Leane Lake, unlike the No-Name Lakes, has a history of
fish being reported. Ten minnow traps and the gill net were
set in this lake on August 13 at locations shown in Figure
3. The gear was checked and removed from the lake on August
14 after a fishing period of 16 hours. Each of the traps
contained from 10 to 22 resident Dolly Varden char,
Salvelinus malma for a total catch of 156 char. No fish were
-4-
LOWER • •
UPPER
LA K E
LAKE ,-\
M I DO L E
LA KE "
• TRAP
.
GILL NET
Figure 2. Sketch map (not to scale) showing trap and gill net
locations in the lower, middle, and" upper No-Name Lakes.
-5-
•
•
•
LEA N E
LAKE
GILL NET
• TR AP
Figure 3. Sketch map (not to scale) showing trap and gill net
locations in Leane.Lake.
-6-
caught in the gill net that was fished in 10 to 12 feet of
water, 20 feet offshore.
Dolly Varden were observed along the entire shore of
Leane Lake. These small fish (less than 160 mm length) had a
preference for the shallow shoreline. They were observed in
both rocky and sandy flat areas, but usually not more than
25 feet off-shore. The shallow shoal areas apparently
provide important habitat for these fish in the summer.
A total of 100 Dolly Varden was collected from the
traps. The remaining 56 fish were released back into the
lake. The fish sample was refrigerated overnight and
examined the following day. Average measurements and ranges,
sex ratio, maturity, and age are given in Table 1. Maturity
is based upon gonad size and development. Age is based upon
annuli counted on otoliths that were examined
microscopically.
Immature fish averaged 84.7 mm in length and 7.0 g in
weight; sexually mature fish averaged 123.6 mm in length and
19.2 g in weight. The age of immature fish ranged from age 2
to age 5; mature fish ranged from age 3 to age 6. There was
overlap in the size ranges and ages of immature and mature
fish. This overlap is because these fish do not spawn every
year. Dolly Varden frequently are non-consecutive spawners
that have spawned the previous year, but with undeveloped
gonads the following year. Maturity of these char was
attained at age 3. The majority (67%) of the fish were age 3
and 4.
Cursory examination of stomach contents indicated
insects and an unidentified black beetle were the major food
items in August. Many of the fish had moderate infestations
of nematodes. A few fish had severe nematode infestations
filling the body cavity.
The resident char in Leane Lake appear typical of other
resident char populations (Blackett, 1973) in which females
have low fecundity (40 to 100 relatively large eggs), early
maturity (age 3), and a small size. These adaptations
benefit survival in restricted freshwater environments such
as Leane Lake.
The origin of Dolly Varden char in Leane Lake is
unknown. However, the typical resident char characteristics
of this population suggest ~hat it has been established in
the lake for many years.
Eagle Creek Survey
The potential spawning area available for salmon in
Eagle Creek was surveyed on August 11 from the beach at
Kizhuyak Bay upstream 1,300 feet. There was no suitable
spawning area beyond this point. Total spawning area in the
13, 100-foot sections of creek was 17,900 square feet.
Assuming 6.0 square feet per female salmon, this area could
potentially support about 3,000 females or 6,000 salmon at a
1:1 sex ratio. The majority (78%) of this area is in the
lower intertidal creek sections. Creek widths in intertidal
-7-
Table 1. Average measurements and ranges of 100 resident
Dolly Varden char sampled from Leane Lake on August
14, 1992.
Fork Body Sex Maturity
Length Weight Ratio Ratio Age
(mm) (g) (F :M%) (Mat:lmm) Range
104.2 13.1 46:54 48:50a 2-6
(61-151) (2.0-29.0)
aBased upon degree of gonad development. Maturity
questionable on two fish.
-8-
sections 1-5 ranged from 24 to 30 feet and judged to be 100%
potential spawning area. Section 6 is a transitional area in
which boulders begin to appear, creek width narrows (20
feet), and gradient increases noticeably. Creek widths in
sections 7-13 continue to narrow from 15-to 10-feet,
gradient continues to increase moderately, the creek splits
in several areas, and boulders and large rocks compose about
25-35% of the bottom. Potential spawning area decreases from
50% of the area in section 7 to 20-25% of the area in
sections 10-13.
Eagle Creek was surveyed on June 19, August 11, and
September 24 in 1992 to document use of the creek by salmon
and other fish. The main purpose of the June survey was to
determine if young coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch were
rearing in the creek. The creek was surveyed to the No-Name
falls. All likely pools that might contain rearing fish were
closely scrutinized. No coho salmon or fish of any kind were
observed rearing in the creek on the June survey. The August
survey, in conjunction with mapping potential spawning area,
was primarily to observe if the creek was used by pink
salmon, O. gorbuscha or chum salmon, O. keta for spawning.
No salmon were present in the creek or in the bay off the
creek mouth during this survey_ Dolly Varden fry and young
fish (2-3 years old) were occasionally observed rearing in
the creek in August. The primary purpose of the September
survey was to determine if adult coho salmon used the creek
for spawning. The creek was dry on the September survey with
no surface water flow. No live salmon or salmon carcasses
were observed. There were a few isolated pools of water in
the streambed containing young rearing Dolly Varden.
Rolling Rock Creek Survey
Rolling Rock Creek was surveyed on August 11 in 1992 to
observe fish use, if any, or potential habitat for fish
rearing or spawning. This creek is only passable for fish
between the Kizhuyak River and road culverts, an estimated
distance of 500 feet. The creek has rapidly rising gradient
with small falls and cascades in this section. The streambed
is composed of granite rocks and large boulders (6-inch and
greater diameter). There is almost no (less than 5%)
spawning area available above the confluence with the
Kizhuyak River. Dry boulder strewn streambed channels, clean
rocks, and a lack of bottom organisms indicate extremely
high flows and scouring occurs periodically.
Although there were a few pools and riffle areas (5-
10%) that might provide limited rearing habitat for Dolly
Varden and young coho salmon, this creek is considered to
have little, if any, value for fish spawning and rearing. No
fish were observed in this creek during the survey. The
creek streambed was dry in September of 1992.
-9-
-- - --\
--- -'.
-----. - - ---• ---_-_-_-1
" -----, ----"
---, ---
-- --
---
---
"
...... 13
. .. . ;,.
------, 24
--_.
---,
---"
---, - -
---
" - --I •
---\
---.
--~"
- ----'.
-- --- --'.
- -- - ---, • ---------------_'\
•
------------------\ ....
--------_.
----------~~ = --:-~=-::-) •
-------------------'
• ------------------_\
- - -- - --- -.~~ -----------,
-----------------------.:,
•
-- -- -- -- - - -- -'.~.,
---------------~--------------~,
---- ---- --'-- -----~,
- - - - - - - - - -'--0-- - --\. - - - - - - - - - -~ -0-- - - --\ -------------------.-:' ,--/::) -----------~l
- - - - - --. -.... -.. '-.-r....... - - - - - --.
-------------:-"'------~-'7'1-------------1 -- - - --.' "-' - - - -f4 -- - - - --.
-~-" J -----~ ~ -~H--ff!~ ~ ~----H~i
- - - -~~ -.. --~~, ~ - - -'---- - -j -----------------' Q ~--' '-<--' -----~---I
----------------I.-) -.-----_-_-_~ (D-_-,"
--------~-----.-_Q,
- - - - - - - -~ - - - ---_0_" -- - - - - ---- - - - - - -~l
•
----------' ----~ ----.--------' ---;-----,
-- -- ----'. -~ , --' --- --. --.
-------------~ ----~---------, ~---,
- - - - - -~Q ~-- --<r ~ - --~.
-_ -_ -_ -~_ -;:;.~~ ~ ~ ~ -:-_ -_. (.JJ--_ -_ -_ -_ -
----------.------
----------~ -------j-----------J"
- - - -, ~ -... = . -H H=' :-. -. - -.. -ce. -, .
---------------.
--------'--/
--------~ ----------------9·
-- - -- - -- - --",.
---~ -- ----~. - - - -S - - - - -.""..,. ------[::) --------r·~ - - -a --- -_. --::< _~;--~f
----------:'----_-I
-----------' -'-----i
------_. ------------'-.----J
-----_._-•
------_. -----J .. .3
., .... ,,,.
fS:S:Sl E2d AFOGNAK NATIVE CORPORATION
----
' .
NO-NAME
LAKE
I'· ..... .... ....'1< <..... .. .... \'(
; ,\. '~'. '.:: ':":::: ," .... .: .. ::v:::' . .. " . I·.·· '" . ..... "V' • " .. ',: . . . . . .. ,. . . ..... ... :. '", .:-..",. -.. ... . , ... . . .". ,.. . .. '.' .. ... . . . . .'. .. \ ... ",--'-----------I ...... . ... ... ....... . .... '" .... ' .'.' '. . . ....... ~« .. .... .....,;;,.. ~ ... '. . :: :'. (:) . ::::. ::::'. :: ... ::: ',:.'. \ r'------
A ., . , /'-1 ..... ........ . .....• EXISTING 14.5KV .. :·'''i '<'2
.. . ... ." '. TRANSMISSION .:... .: ..... \' 1 . .. . .. .. . . ...•. . ',LINE TO PORT LIONS >\; ~
T':" ': ':'::;<""<":"' • .","" •. "':':'.':::"':':: :.:':.:, .• :.,' .... :'~',\>;-\,--~-~~-~-~~~E~N1E~~~~IN'tKiR::OJECT (/
I·.·. .. ':'''',' ...... ':... . ...... ' .' .... .... .:'.. . '~,:----,.. ____..--f--_ " f.
I .... ··· .. ····•······ ...... '\ .. < .•.•.•.•.. < •...... : ..••........•• '\~., ........ ~~==-~r .. ,;;;-... , ." " . .... . . ". .. .... . . .. . . .. ... , . . .. ::',.' >:.JO.~.'"". '.. . ... '. ..... I ...... ... ... :: ,. . v. . ..: . ';\..',
I.• < .. < .... 0. 0'" . ~~~~6XIMATE' ........ \ ..• ..... . ~
.. LOCAtiON OF :" :-:;'::.. . . .. .. . .'1.)" .. ~~~~:' .. ':"'.
I,', .':. . ... . ..... ~~~~~s~gUSE: ..•..•• .. .~""~;j~ .. ~ .. ~1 t".' ..... ' ............................. .1-------~~
... .. . ";/.:.iP"'~ . -,.,..... .. r..oll .' ".::", .-.. .... . . ..... ,.... I·· .. :\1 ...
-• • , • I • .l .' . .)\". .
I . r ". l' ... ":11 . ___________ _ I'· , ,. v/~·· .. <'v ........ <· .r·1 ... -
':. . .,........ . I" .. ': .. It:.'. :
'.:: ... :::........ 1/ ..... · .... 1: .. I' '.
. • . .., . . .. ... t· .. II I ", \.' . I~··· ...... .
. . . "'. • II ... .. ; . " '" \.. tI • I'." ......... :. : .. t .... ·il· ........ ..
. \ .... 'j\':.... J=========---------::=================-/ .; . .. '11: .. ... .. ":1 :... .. .. : .. '.::-::. ":.·::<·t>: . r·: ''':'.: ::.' .
.·J,,,,,,,,H ...... .. :. c. :. :. cJ:.. ."::... ...... ..... ..
I.' , .. ...
.L....i~
. :.
......
' ..
-:~.,
a a
a
". :."\ .. ' li"" ... :: ..
~ t:" .. \ . ~ .'
• \. ·11
... \ ... 11 .... . .... , .. '11"', ..... ,
AFOGtTAK'· , ~ ~ . .. . ..• ..... \ 'i . . . ..... ::A'·· ... ",:",:, ..... : ............... NAT T::VE ........... .
ICORPOR~TIO
II \
, . '''11'' \ .... I.· ... ·.· ·11": ., .. '. .
:\1. \ . . .
... ... :,;" ... \ ...
I,:·:: .... : '::'.:. :.":-::::-: -:::'. :::'" ~u····>:: :-:.\ ::-:: .. :-: ::., .:.' .. '. <;;.
...... n \ ......... 0· I·:·.· ... ' .. ::: ', .. -:::. <.::>}: ':'::: :'::. \" :':.: . :<: '::.:' ~ '.::' >. STATE OF ALASKA
2
'.: ! ..
..
. .
".
....
LEANNE
LAKE
....
....
' .. : : ~.. .. i ." : . f::! . .. . .. . .. ........ ... .... I·' . . .. .. . .' , . ~ ~ .. '. .... . \.. ..•. .'. '" . . . ,
I", ..... ·?i\<> >\tQ ...: ....... ""-~
t '.' . . .• ···1[,/ ••••••••.•••• · ••• · •• · •••••• ' •. .. .. . ........
1 .... -"M" ... ,.
1···,1:, .••. · ..... · ..••.•• ·.; •..• ..... .... ·::.ll
30
..... ~u ><>: .... ' .. .... . 'J. ~ 11' • .'., •• .' ••
i .. .. .. ", .. ·l·j····
.. ~ .~ •. ~. '-' ~ .~. II ......... ~. ~ ....... .. , +-i-31
....
200'
RIGHT -OF-wAY PROPOSED ,·NORTH
ROUTE PENSTOCK
II. _,
, L-.' II I
11' -I
, t-:
II -+
II I 'i1-.,
, II I
II .-
.JL .1 1 II I » -I-, I
,,' -.I II 1-
" I -II-,
" I -II . -,.--,;
ALlGN~ENT .....JL-..... ....,;;::-II I ;-' , )
APPROXIMATE
LOCATIONS
or: PROPOSED
POWER HOUSE,
, I
-I j
/ I ( T
-.-I
" I J/
I
B
H-~ " / -n /
J'I ./"
J' I. '" J !-,-./
P~OpdSEDSOutH r-' -,"1IlI'oL ~-.;.:' :;.;;' .1i!!t~H ~/-._--
ROUT!': PENstOCK L-... '.. /
~ ALIGNMENT. -'A
. "t:;", L -.... --,," /
--11 ~/ I r-, I
~ -~I
o''"'UT.:::ze"''T---l\r'>~ ii 1-
~ 11 ~"'J II
_" ." 1 \\ II I . -t -r) ~ '.)1 ,'-l · -/'J-!-/
. Jj - _ fL.
If I , .
lr!/ -"-1/ -f!~ ! Ii-
# I \.......-dI ,-IT'
/j _ ~ u/ , ~ ~ l . 10'-tr
I; L -<::) Ii
I; ,1----
1/ j'
# . L: -¥' J. f/ -, /~ , PENSTOCK ,1. _ . . r J: [TERROR LAKE-q POWERHOUSE .
.. '!' 1.t
-,
1
--l
-I
~ -,
, -, ~
-<,)
-I
'-1
=I 6
-!/;
-.~
'-f
f$ -!;j .
.' ----
. ,
-
..
WATCHOUT .
'CREE
--
o 1000
I
SCALE (FT)
\
---------
5
16
'21
u
---:
_.-._.-KODIAK NATIONAL WI LDLIFE REFUGE BOUNDARY LEANNE LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
KODIAK ELECTRIC ASSOC.
FERC NO. 11130-000 ALASKA D---
--------KODIAK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE TRANSMISSION LINE [SIj---,,_. --.-_. _ .. -KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
EITIEJ STATE OF ALASKA
ROAD PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIES
FIGURE G-1
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Ubrary & Information Services
Anchorage Alaska
Tk
Iq'l.'t
,M
LY,2.
1~1lcl
<1
Ll .1
.. . ...
.1
Ll
"<1 Ll
/' .1 .1 •
<1 . ~ .'
<1 • ~ • <1
~ •
<1(.1 .1 Ll •
•
\ '<1
•
. .... ...... ........ .. . ..... \ .... :.; .......... , ......................... ":!. ............... , ........... : ... ; ..... "....... ................. .. ..... 4J
Ul
CD
N
I-
•
\ . •
26
35
§
~
~
.................. ..... ............. .
~
~ § /'
•
/'
,.
"",. ,.
~
/ .1 <1
Ul •
g: I
I-•
\
•
. \<1
• . ,
•
· '"
". <1 . ,
•
25 ,
•
•
36 J
•
I • I •
!l ,
• ,
• <1 ,
•
I .. .1 I
•
I • I <1
• I -,.
•
<1
<1
.1.
NO-NAME
LAKE
L <1
.1: <I L
. . . ! ' . . . .
.1 <1
<I .~;.L
LEANNE
LAKE
... ~
.1.
.. .... ........................ 1-:/ ..... / .................. :/ ....... ;
. <1
: '
.1 <1
<1
<]. .1 .1 Ll <1
<1
~ ~6 16
-~ 21
~" r
~ -~
~r _ ....
----------~
· -, -#-:7-- - - - - - - -
._. -... _.--_. -_.--._ .. -.. -- -_ .. _.--_. -- --.
. .
. ..
· . . . .. .. , . . . . .. .. .. .. , . · .,. .. . .. . . · ....... . .. . · .. . . . . . · .. ... . , , . .. .. . .
.. . .. . .. ,,,.. ., ., .. · . , , .. · . .. ,. . · ~. . . ..
.. .
, " ,. . .. ,. . . . . .
.. .. . ., .. .. . .. .
, ,'. .' . ., ,.,. . . . . ..
:::':'·:<'1 :': ":::.' · ..,. . . . · .. · . . . " ..
· . · ,. . . . ... . .. . . . · ... . .. '" . · . , . , . . . .. · .. · .. . · . . · . .. '" ... .. ... . ... ". . .. . . .. · . . . , .. . . . .. , .. .. ... . . .
,::; : :: ':: :. ;' ,: : : : ::: :;' :: :: " : '; :: . · .
., . . " .. .. . . ,...,., · . . . . ". ..,. ..' -· .. · . . . . . .. ... · . .:' ' . --
. ',_ .. -, . .. . .-. -.-. . ' .' : . .. .. ,. : - -.': ';-_ .. -
. . . . , . , " .. . .". .. . . . .
.. _., _ .. _ .. . _. _. -. . _.
-. -.
. ,. . . . . .' . .' . . ,. .. . " ,. . . . .
· . ., .
. .. . .., ................. · ................ . ............... .. . . .. .. ..... ..... . ..... " .. " .. " .. .. ..... . ...... ... . ...... ... .. .. , ". .. . .. .. ...... " ............ " .. . ...... ........ .,,, ... ... ........ .. .
6
· . · . . . .,. . . · , .. .
. . · . . .". · . , . . . . , ,. . · .. , , . .. . ., .. . .. . .
· . " . . . . . . . ." . . ". .. ,.. . ,. ... .. . ,. . . .. .. ..
5 ... · .. ·lJtl .... <1 ........ • ........ ..... ~ ............ .
.1 " .1
A • • <1
f~2]?ir,,:··J'U/············ ...... · .... ··· ...... ;;.... ... ........ . ... ... .. . .. .
a
........................ ... . ................................................ .
.. , "
[Id ... ',
, . '<. ..
Q---------------
[2] .. _ .. -.-_ .. _.--._ .. -_. _. -
~
L..I '.
. <1
........ A '."-1 ........
<1 .....
· . ""
<1
.1.
TIDAL MUDFLATS
COASTAL ELYMUS (WET)
HERBACEOUS MEADOW
ALDER-MEADOW MOSAIC
SEDGE MEADOW (WET)
TALL SHRUB (OPEN)
TALL SHRUB (CLOSED)
LOW SHRUB (OPEN)
.1<1
~
rill]
ill2illITill] ............ .. , .... " ..... , ... . ... ... .. .......... . .... ...... ........... ... ...... . .. ..
D
-------
--------------------
MESIC SEDGE-HERB TUNDRA
DECIDUOUS FOREST (OPEN)
BEDROCK, UNCONSOLIDATED ROCK,
BOULDERS, COBBLES, GRAVEL AND SNOW
PROJECT STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE BOUNDARY
TRANSMISSION LINE
ROAD
o 1000
I ' SCALE (FT)
.......................................................... ... .... .
LEANNE LAKE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC NO. 1 1 130-000 ALASKA
KODIAK ELECTRIC ASSOC.
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
LEANNE LAKE PROJECT AREA
FIGURE E4-1M
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library & Information Services
Anchorage Alaska
Tk
I LJ V(
,A4
L Yl2.
l'1j;ci