HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnalaska Alaska Final Small Hydropower Interim Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement 1984P L-P ccf\{
Unalaska, Alaska
Final Small Hydropower Interim
Feasibility Report and Environmental
Impact Statement
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Alaska Distnct
JUNE 1984
UNALASKA, ALASKA
FINAL SMALL HYDROPOWER INTERIM FEASIBILITY STUDY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ALASKA DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
June 1984
Summary
Unalaska, a community in the Aleutian Island region of southwestern Alaska,
has been subjected to large increases in electrical generation costs.
Diesel fired electrical generation costs have more than doubled, from 13
cents/kWh in 1979 to 34 cents/kWh in 1983. With the future cost of diesel
fuel expected to increase as world supplies are depleted, electrical
generation costs will increase.
The selected plan, which would supplement the existing generating system,
consists of two small hydropower generators totaling 700 kilowatts (kW) in
capacity for a run-of-river hydropower facility on the Shaishnikof River
and a 260-kW pressure reducing turbine in the existing water supply
penstock on Pyramid Creek. In addition, an enhancement program is
proposed, which would increase the average annual equivalent harvest of
salmon from the Shaishnikof River by 29,000 fish per year. Fisheries
enhancement measures on the Shaishnikof River would cost $33,800. The
estimated first cost in October 1983 price levels for the Shaishnikof River
hydropower project only is $5,571,000. The Pyramid Creek installation
would cost $813,000. Total project first costs would be shared in
accordance with cost sharing and financing arrangements satisfactory to the
President and the Congress. The two hydropower projects would produce an
estimated 5,288,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy annually.
PERTINENT DATA SHEET
UNALASKA
GENERAL DATA Shaishnikof River
(Hydro Only)
Project Installed Capacity 700 kW (1-300)
(1-400)
Number of Units
Type of Turbine
Average Annual Energy
Estimated Usable Energy
Dependable Capacity
Penstock Diameter
Penstock Length
Gross Head
Design Net Head
ECONOMIC DATA
First Cost
Investment Cost
Project Annual Cost
Project Annual Benefit
Net Annual Benefit
Benefit-Cost Ratio
2
Francis
3, 114,000 kWh
3,114,000 kWh (1993) o
42 inches
920 feet
135 feet
130 feet
$5,571,000
6,028,000
530,000
547,000
17,000
1.03
FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT
(Shaishnikof River)
GENERAL DATA
Increase in Salmon Harvest
Number of Barriers Removed
ECONOMIC DATA
First Cost
Investment Cost
Project Annual Cost
Project Annual Benefit
Net Annual Benefit
Benefit-Cost Ratio
(Enhancement Only)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
(including Enhancement and
Shaishnikof and Pyramid
Hydro)
i i
Pyramid Creek
260 kW
1
Francis
2,174,000 kWh
2,174,000 kWh (1993) o
24 inches
12,000 feet
460 feet
170 feet
$ 816,000
848,000
90,000
403,000
313,000
4.5
29,000 annually
2
$33,800
34,000
4,800
13,000
8,200
2.7
1.5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I NTRODUCTI ON
1.1 Authority 1
1.2 Scope of Study 1
1.3 Study Participants 1
1.4 Studies by Others 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS 4
2.1 Community Profile 4
2.2 Electricity Use 7
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND NATURAL RESOURCES 11
3.1 Area Description 11
PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 12
4.1 Planning Objectives 12
PLAN FORMULATION 20
5.1 Evaluation of Alternatives 20
5.2 Comparison of Alternatives and Designation of NED Plan 31
5.3 Selected Plan 32
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION 40
CONCLUSIONS 42
RECOMMENDATIONS 43
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EIS-l
APPENDIX A -TECHNIOAL ANALYSIS SHAISHNIKOF KIVER A-l
APPENDIX B -TECHNICAL ANALYSIS PYRAMID CREEK B-1
APPENDIX C -404(b)(1) EVALUATION C-l
APPENDIX 0 -U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION REPORT 0-1
APPE~DIX E ~ REPORT RECIPIENTS AND PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE E-l
APPENDIX F -CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY F-l
iii
UNALASKA
SMALL HYDROPOWER INTERIM FEASIBILITY STUDY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
INTRODUCTION
1.1 AUTHORITY
The evaluation of small hydroelectric systems was authorized by a
1 Octobpr 1976 United States Senate Resolution, which directed the U.S. ;
Army Corps of Engineers to determine the feasibility of installing smal~
prepackaged hydroelectric units in isolated Alaskan communities. This .
report is in partial response to the study resolution which reads as
follow~:
RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE,
That the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors be, and is hereby
requested to review the reports of the Chief of Engineers on Rivers and
Harbors in Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 414, 83rd Congress,
2nd Session; Southeastern Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 501,
83rd Congress, 2nd Session; Cook Inlet and Tributaries, Alaska, published
as House Document Numbered 34, 85th Congress, 1st Session; Copper River and
Gulf Coast, Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 182, 83rd
Congress, 1st Session, Tanana River Basin, Alaska, published as House
uocument Numbered 137, 84th Congress, 1st Session; Southwestern Alaska,
published as House Document Numbered 390, 84th Congress, 2nd Session;
Northwestern Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 99, 86th
Congress, 1st Session, Yukon and Kuskokwim River Basins, Alaska, published
as House Document Numbered 218, 88th Congress, 2nd Session; and other
pertinent reports, with a view to determining the advisability of modifying
the existing plans with particular reference to the feasibility of
installing 5 MW or less prepackaged hydroelectric plants to service
isolatea communities.
1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
As a result of a preliminary study presented in the Corps of Engineers
report Ke ional Inventor and Reconnaissance Stud for Small H dro ower
Pro'ects Aleutian Is ands A aska Penlsnu a Kodiak Island Alaska. see
Section .4 or a summary 0 this report , the orps conducte t e
following interim study to determine the existence of economically and
environ~entally feasible alternatives to meet or supplement. the future
electrical needs of Unalaska, Alaska. The study area considered in this
report is the immediate vicinity of the city of Unalaska.
1.3 STUDY PARTICIPANTS
The Alaska District, Corps of Engineers was assisted by the following
agencies in the preparation of this report.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Federal)
U.S. Public Health Service lFederal)
u.s. Bureau of Indian Affairs (Federal)
Alaska Power Authority (State)
Division of Energy and Power Development (State)
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (State)
National Marine Fisheries Service (Federal)
Bureau of Land Management (Federal)
.t Alaska Power 'Administration (Federal)
The cooperation of the residents of Unalaska is also gratefully
acknowledged.
1.4 STUDIES BY OTHERS
R.W. Retherford Associates, Consulting Engineers, prepared the
September 1979 report: City of Unalaska Electrification Study. This study
projected the future energy demands for Unalaska based on the population
and power-use growth trends of the community. Projections based on the
data obtained and on assumptions made predicted an overall future increase
in energy use to be approximately 10 percent per year through 1985, with a
growth rate leading to a peak demand of 21 megawatts (MW) by 1995. Several
possible options for providing power to Unalaska were examined and then
narrowed down to four options. Of these four, it was recommended that
hydroelectric sites be considered for development in Unalaska.
In 1980, EBASCO Services Incorporated, under a Corps contract,
investigated possible small hydropower project sites in the Aleutian
Islands, Alaska Peninsula, and Kodiak Island. Their findings, published in
the Uctober 1980 Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small
Hydropower Projects Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island,
Alaska, concluded that there were two potential hydropower sites in
Unalaska.
In May 1981, Alaska Consultants Inc. prepared a report for the Bureau
of Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office, titled St.
George Basin Petroleum Development Scenario, Local Socioeconomic s~ems
Analysis Technical Report Number 59. This report includes detaile
community baseline data about Unalaska, Cold Bay, and St. Paul. It also
projects and analyzes how the infrastructure of these towns could be
affected by future growth with/without the proposed St. George Basin OCS
Lease Sale No. 70. '
Beyer Engineering prepared a November 1981 report entitled Water System
Master Plan, City of Unalaska, Alaska. This plan is a guide for the design
and construction of the water supply and distribution system serving the
industrial and residential needs of Unalaska. Two streams, Pyramid and
2
(
Unalaska Creeks, which have been considered by the Corps as possible
hyaropower sites, currently serve as the community's water supply system.
Therefore, the Corps has relied on the Beyer document in their planning of
potential hydroelectric sites at Unalaska.
In 1981, Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., in a report submitted to the
Alaska Division of Energy and Power Ueve10pment, reviewed the geothermal
possibilities for the Unalaska area. Their conclusions, published in
Geothermal Potential in the Aleutians: Unalaska, state that there is a
promising potential for geothermal development based on an assessment of
the available data on the geothermal resources at Summer Bay and Makushin
Volcano on Unalaska Island., However, they also conclude that further
geologic, hydrologic, and geophysical assessments need to be performed to
develop reliable estimates of the resource potentials in these areas and to
confirm the existence of more extensive resources.
In April 1983, Republic Geothermal, Inc., concluded in their report
"Unalaska Geothermal Project, Phase 16 Final Report," for the Alaska Power
Authority, that geothermal development is technically feasible at Unalaska.
L
3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 COMMUNITY PROFILE
2.1.1 Location
The community of Unalaska is located on Unalaska Island, one of the Fox
Islands in the eastern Aleutian Island Chain, approximately 800 air miles
southwest of Anchorage (Figure 1). The community's industrial center,
Dutch Harbor, is located across the bay on Amaknak Island. In 1980, a
bridge across Iliuliuk Bay was construc~d, providing a vital link between
, the two islands and unifying both centers into one cohesive community.
2.1.2 Population
Unalaska has undergone rapid growth in recent years because of Dutch
Harbor's importance as a seafood processing center. Census figures for
1980 indicated that approximately 1322 ~eople were in the Unalaska-Dutch
Harbor area. A mi d-1983 estim'ate by the State Department of Community and
Regional Affairs indicates a population of 1,922. During the peak of the
seafood processing season, from September through November, the base
resident population of 1,922 is increased to a total of 4,422 by the influx
of 2,500 transient ~nd seasonal workers~
Because of the continued growth of the fishing industry and future oil
development related industries in this area, increased population trends
are expected. Population projections approximate 13,000 people to be in
the area by the year 2000.
2.1.3 Government and Services
Unalaska lS within an unorganized borough and is a first-class city,
which was incorporated in 1947, with a council-manager type of government.
The police department has two officers. The fire department is composed of
13 volunteers.
Community facilities include a community health clinic, which was
opened in 1975, with a physician in residence. Public Health Service (PHS)
medical staff visit Unalaska on a regular basis, but do not live in the
community.
Unalaska also has an elementary school and a junior and senior high
school. The public library facilities are housed in the high school.
At present, housing is a critical problem in Unalaska. Because 99
percent of the surrounding land is owned by the local native corporation,
Ounalashka, and because of the high costs of construction, the conmunity is
faced with a severe housing shortage. Therefore, few fishermen and
processors actually live in Unalaska, which accounts, in part, for the
dramatic increase in population during the fishing season. A community
development plan has recommended that the native corporation put up 200
acres of land for bid for development. If this land opens up, the housing
shortage would be reduced.
4
I
BE RING SEA
• • ..
81R'NG IIA
.4lEUTIAN
PACIFIC OCEAN
Un., ..... AI •• ke WER
SMALL H~r::~r8TY STUDY
INTERIM FE & VICINITY LOCATIO:
AP
A' •• Il. Dr.trrct. Co,,. of In,'nee,.
fiGURE'
2.1.4 Transportation
The location of Unalaska makes it a vital transportation center as an
air stop-over point and as a major port for shipping routes between the
west coast of the United States and the western Alaska mainland and North
Slope region. This transportation link provides the other significant
economic base for Unalaska's residents.
The port at Unalaska-Dutch Harbor is the only port in the Aleutians
where container ships can dock, as the port is the only deep-water port in
the Aleutian Chain.~ The port itself is located on Amaknak Island, which
has three major docking facilities.
Unalaska-Dutch Harbor was the third largest fishing port in the United
States in terms of dollar value of catch. Because of the growing fishing
activities in the Bering Sea area, Unalaska will undoubtedly continue to
thrive as an ocean freight trans-shipment point, fish processing center,
and marine vessel service center.
Reeve Aleutian Airways, Inc. and small air taxi operations provide air
service to Unalaska. At present, service is restricted because the
existing runway is too short to accommodate large cargo planes and jets.
No overland transportation is available to Unalaska as it is remote
from other population centers in Alaska and is accessible only by air or
sea. Within the immediate area, gravel roads exist for local
transportation and the new bridge over I1iu1iuk Bay connects the two
islands.
2.1.5 Economy
Unalaska is noted for being one of the largest fish harvesting and
processing centers in the country (in terms of catch value), concentrating
on both king and tanner crab species. It was ranked number one nationally
in 1980 and number five in 1981. Twelve seafood processing facilities
operate in the city, with 11 situated on the adjacent Amaknak Island near
the airport. During the 1980 season, these plants processed 121 million
pounds of crab and nearly 12 million pounds of salmon. During peak
processing periods these plants employ approximately 2,500 persons,
accounting for 75 to 80 percent of all nonagricultural wage and salary
workers in the community. The balance of 25 to. 20 percent of employment is
generated from secondary industries such as trade, transportation,
Government and others. From 1,000 to 1,500 other persons are involved in
actual harvesting operations.
Between 200 to 300 vessels operate from Unalaska during peak periods.
These boats typically range in size from 80 to 120 feet. The peak·king
crab effort is in October, and lasts for only a few weeks. The tanner crab
season generally extends from January through June, with the major
harvesting effort in April and May. The table below indicates total
shellfish harvests and valuations for the Dutch Harbor, Bering Sea, and
Western Aleutians -Adak fishery management areas from 1975 to 1983.
6
TABLE 1
Tota 1 She 11 fi sh Harvest (pounds) and Values (OOO·s)
"~Unalaska Area
Year King Tanner-Other Total Value
1975 67,525 7,109 898 75,532 $ 26,097
1976 82,263 22,938 3,670 108,871 56,447
1977 82,001 53,178 4,599 139,778 100,095
1978 104,396 70,693 6,680 181,769 156,617
1979 128,188 75,160 3,541 206,889 158,938
1980 147,144 77, 130 2,564 226,838 16Q,000
1981p 58,378 80,924 4,640 143,942 12(},000
1982p 24,839 40,982 1,752 67,573 NIA
1983p II 6,353 30,781 803 37,937 NIA
p -Pre 1 imi nary
11 First 8"months of 1983 only.
Source: ADFG
The other shellfish species taken include dungeness crab, horsehair
crab, and shrimp. It should be noted that a portion of the total harvest
taken in these areas is processed in other communities, but the majority
goes to Unalaska. The decline in the 1981 catch level is attributed to a
variety of causes, including over harvesting, high handling mortality rate,
warming of ocean waters, and other biological reasons.
2.2 ELECTRICITY USE
\. 2.2.1 Historic Use
Records of energy generation prior to 1981 are nonexistent for the
city of Unalaska. A"monthly distribution of energy use during 1982 and
1983 respectively for the city of Unalaska system only, is shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2
City System Only
Month Peak{kW~ Energ~ {kWhl Percent of Total
January 512 271,900 9.4
February 542 252,400 8.7
March 522 276,010 9.5
Apri 1 481 258,280 8.9
May 445 249,260 8.6
June 400 199,520 6.9
July 369 203,460 7.0
August 380 198,200 ' 6.8
September 460 224,208 7.7
October 471 250,696 8.7
November 481 247,803 8.6
December 488 262,854 9.2
Total 2,894,591
7
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Peak(kW)
767
741
710
625
532
454
427
419
548
646
753
702
Energy lkWh)
285.288
260,\48
26'3;184
232,368
228,216
195,696
194,040
·196,272
217,080
250,344
266,520
287,424
2,876,880
Percent of Total
9.9
9. 1
9.2
8. 1
7.9
6.8
6.7
6.8
7.6
8.7
9.3
9.9
An estimate of 1983 base energy and peak demand for users not currently
on the city system is summarized in Table 3.
User
Standard Oil Comapny
Standard Oil Hill
American President Lines
Strawberry Hill
Whitney Fidalgo Seafoods
East Point Seafoods
Universal Seafoods
Panama Marine
Pan Alaska Seafoods
Pacific Pearl Seafoods
Sea Alaska
City Airport
City Dock
City Boat Harbor
Total
2.2.2 Generating Facilities
TABLE 3
Peak (kW)
105
200
120
Not Known
860
950
Not Known
1,750
570
1,750
75
200
250
No Data
Energy (kWh)
438,000
876,000
525,600
144,000
840,960
4,818,000
3,000,000
3,942,000
1,314,000
3,942,000
328,500
175,200
219,000
20,563,260
The diesel generating capabilities of the municipal utility at Unalaska
are summarized below. Besides those shown, a 2,850-kW diesel generator is
scheduled for installation during 1984.
-300 kW, continuous, 60 cycle prime, 460 volt.
3 -600 kW, continuous, 60 cycle prime, 470 volt, operati'ng at·480 volt.
In addition to the utility's generators, the individual large
industrial users each possess their own power generation facilities. The
sum of these facilities results in an installed generation capacity of
approximately 14 MW. Individual units vary in size from 220 kW to 850 kW.
8
•
(
Two additional generation installations are located on Amaknak Island.
One supplies power to the Standard Oil docks, Standard Oil personnel
housing, and airport; the second supplies power to the native corporation
• housing. Each installation consists of two 100-kW generation units.
2.2.3 Generation and Transmission Efficiency
In 1983, the municipal utility's gross generation of 2,876,880 kWh
resulted in a conversion efficiency of 12.265 kWh per gallon of diesel
fuel. With major reconstruction of the city's distribution system taking
place in 1982, a substantial reduction in line losses ha~ been
accomplished. In 1983, line losses were approximately 18 percent.
2.2.4 Users
Based on information supplied by the municipal utility, a distribution
of energy by consumer categories is shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Large
Category Kesidential Commercial Public Non-Commercial Industrial Total
Percent 7.1% 1.9% 1.J5% .25% 89.6% 100%
2.2.5 Kate Structures
The information shown in Table 5 outlines the increase in electrical
energy cost which has occurred from 1979 to the present. Prior to 1979,
data concerning rate structures for electricity does not exist.
TABLE 5
DATE CHARGE PER kWh
1979 .13 1st 300 kWh
.11 next 400 kWh
.09 all remaining kWh
$5.00 minimum charge (monthly)
June 1980 • 15 1st 500 kWh
• 13 next 500 kWh
.10 next remaining 10,000 kWh
.09 all remaining kWh
$7.50 minimum charge (monthly)
January 1981 • 17 1st 500 kWh
• 15 all remaining kWh
$7.50 minimum charge (monthly)
November 1981 .34 metered rate for electrical
energy
$7.50 minimum charge (monthly)
9
L
DATE
July 1982
June 1983
TABLE 5 (Cont)
CHARGE PER kWh
.34
$10.00
.34
$10.00
metered rate for electrical
energy
minimum charge (monthly)
metered rate for electrical
energy
minimum charge (monthly) ,
Over the period of available cost data, the residents of Unalaska have
experienced a 227 percent increase. The sudden increase from January 1981
to November 1981 can be attributed to two factors: (1) a system metering
program of electrical energy consumption and (2) upgrading of both the
generating and distribution facilities. In order to "break even" on the
present reconstruction program, the municipal utility charges a capital
improvement rate of 8t/kWh to consumers.
2.2.6 Fuel Cost
Records on the cost of diesel fuel purchased by the municipal utility
are scarce. Table 6 sunmarizes the available cost data for diesel fuel
delivered to Unalaska.
DATE
Jul~ 80
Dec'. 80
Feb. 81
Dec. 81
Feb. 82
Feb. 83
TABLE 6
COST ($/gal.)
1.202
1 • 131
1.246
1.278
1.283
1.210
Except for a brief period in 1980, the cost of diesel fuel has increased
between 1980 and 1982. In early 1983, however, diesel fuel decreased in cost
which reflected the current world price trend.
10
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND NATURAL RESOURCES
3. 1 AREA DESCRIPTION
3. 1 • 1 C 1 i rna te
Unalaska lies in a maritime climatic zone, characterized by small
temperature variations, high humidity, heavy precipitation, and high cloud
and fog frequencies. The high frequency of cyclonic storms crossing the
North Pacific and the Bering Sea are dominant factors in the weather at
Unalaska. These storms account for the persistent high winds and the
frequent occurrences of low ceilings and low visibility.-The area
experiences cool summers and mild winters.
3.1.2 Geology
Unalaska is located on Unalaska Island which is a subaerial part of the
wave-beveled platform of the Aleutian Ridge, with incised slopes extending
south. Most of the Makushin volcanics and soil of the glaciation of the
island past date the marine beveling of the platform. The oldest rocks on
the island, the Unalaska formation, consist of altered andesitic intrusive
and extrusive rocks, and sedimentary rocks derived from similiar igneous
rocks.
3.1.3 Biology
Unalaska/Dutch Harbor is one of the most important fisheries ports in
the United States. Thousands of metric tons of king and tanner crab,
\ salmon and demersal fish are handled at the processing and port facilities.
Five species of Pacific salmon are indigenous to the Unalaska area with
pink chum and coho salmon found in the Shaishnikof River drainage. A
commercial fishery in Captains Bay for pink salmon from the Shaishnikof
River produces an annual average income of $30,000 to the fisherman.
No large mammals occur in the Unalaska area. The most evident mammals
on Unalaska Island are the red fox and the arctic ground squirrel, which
were introduced by Russian settlers. Bird activity is fairly high on the
island with passerines being the dominant group. There is also a number of
raptors using the project area.
The vegetation of Unalaska Island is basically of the upland tundra
category, dominated by grasses, willow, alder, and crowberry. There are no
trees native to the island.
3.1.4 Anthropology and Archeology
There is evidence of historic and prehistoric native use in the area,
including the ruins of several barabaras. Further studies during
preparation of construction documents would need to be done to determine
the extent and nature of these cultural resources.
11
PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
Based upon Unalaska's initial study request and subsequent information
gathered during two site visits, it became apparent that a plan was needed
that would reduce the cost of power to the local residents and the actual
cost of generation. With the establishment of the Power Cost Program by
the State of Alaska, the basic objective of reducing cost to the consumer
was met at least for the short term. This program is only a subsidy, doing
nothing to reduce the real cost of power generation.
4. 1 PLANNING OBJECTIVES
Planning Objectives are operational statements identifying the primary
water resource needs of the study area that prescribe possible courses of
action, and set the parameters of water and related land resource
management practices, which could be used to enhance National Economic
Development and Environmental Quality. For this study these objectives are:
a. Reduce the real cost of energy generation.
b. Reduce the city of Unalaska's dependence on diesel fuel for
electrical generation.
c. Maintain the supply of fresh water to the city of Unalaska,
adequate in quality for consumption.
d. Preserve or enhance the commercial resource for pink and coho
salmon in the Unalaska area.
e. Preserve the terrestrial environment of the region.
f. Preserve the archeological significance of sites within the
Unalaska project area.
4.1.2 National Ubjective
Congressional acts of the last decade directed Federal land and water
resource development studies to incorporate a mu1tiobjective planning
process. Those local problems and needs that address national objectives
and goals, such as the goal of promoting the quality of life, become the
planning objectives. These objectives are used to evaluate the
alternatives on the basis of equally weighted economic, social, and
environmental criteria.
The Federal objective of water and related land resources planning is
to contribute to national economic development consistent with protecting
the Nat ion's envi ronment pursuant to nati ona 1 envi ronmenta 1 sta'tutes,
applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements.
12
4.1.3 Long Term Outlook
Looking beyond the 1980's, Unalaska has potential for various growth
possibilities. Probably the largest factors contributing to the future
outlook of Unalaska and other communities in the Aleutian Islands are the
development of the bottomfish resource and future development of oil and
gas reserves.
Any expansion in the Unalaska economy besides government positions will
probably be in the fish processing, and oil and gas exploration
industries. Expansion of Una1aska's transshipment role would also
stimulate future economic growth.
In an employment projection for the Aleutian Region, Earl R. Combs
projected that the shore-based employment in the bottomfish industry would
increase to 4,100 of the projected employment by the year 2000. This
represents a net increase of 64 percent or 1,600 people. The City Planning
Department, on the basis of Combs' report, has estimated that would be
accommodated within Unalaska.
Four of the nine sCheduled Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and
gas exploration lease sales are expected to impact the Unalaska economy.
Economic impacts from the OCS sales would be exerted through the city's
expected role as the staging area for drilling personnel and the source of
fresh water, fuel, and other supplies.
The seasonal nature of the crab fishery in the Unalaska vicinity is the
controlling factor in the level of energy demands by area processing
facilities. The high commercially valued king and tanner crabs are the
primary species taken by area fishermen for processing in Unalaska. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game statistics show that the peak king crab effort
in this region is typically in the months of October and November, when
roughly more than three-fourths of the total harvest is taken. The major
effort for tanner crab is in the April/May or May/June months. Processing
facilities at Unalaska typically operate near capacity during these intense
harvesting periods. City records show that the peak load of these
industrial users is roughly 12 MW. The average monthly energy use during
these peak processing months is about 3,900 MWh. This compares with an
average energy use of approximately 700 MWh during the off-season, and a
combined average use of 2,300 MWh.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) estimates that U.S.
participation in this fishery will continue to increase over time, with
full domestic resource utilization anticpated by 2000. Harvesting and
processing efforts are 'expected to occur during the 8-to 10-month
off-season of shellfish. It is during this off-season that both processors
and fishermen experience considerable idle time due to closed fishing
seasons of traditional target species. NMFS estimates that about 500,000
metric tons of bottomfish will be taken by Unalaska based fishermen at full
resource development, with processing conducted by both floating and
onshore facilities. Although U.S. processing efforts at sea have been
steadily growing in the past few years, onshore processing is still in
experimental stages in Unalaska.
13
4.1.4 Load Forecast
Energy demand projections for Unalaska are as varied as population
demands. A mid-19B3 estimate by the Alaska Department of Community and
Regional Affairs indicated that about 1,922 persons reside in Unalaska.
With development of the bottomfish resource in the vicinity, which can be
harvested year-round, it is expected that there would be a fairly large net
increase in the resident population of the community. There would also be
a reduction in the fluctuation in population levels in the area, since
processing employment would be somewhat more stable throughout the year.
In 1979, R. W. Retherford conducted an electrification study for the
city of Unalaska. A peak demand of 21 MW was projected in 1995, and a
total energy demand of 105,000 MWH for residential, small commercial, and
industrial users was estimated. These projections were based on an
expected energy growth rate of 15 percent per year through 1985 and 7
percent per year afterwards. Residential, small commercial, and large
commercial energy demands were taken into account.
In May 1981, Alaska Consultants Inc., completed a report for the Bureau
of Land Management in which it was determined that a central power plant
serving all consumers in the community wou"ld be a far more economical and
reliable approach to supplying local power needs. Current plans by the
city utility call for the incorporation of the existing seafood processors
into the city system within the next 3 years. This report accounted for
growth in the electrical demand as a result of the processing, freezing,
and cold storage operations related to the bottomfish industry, and an
increase due to future residentia"1 power demand. It was estimated that
total power capacity requirements would increase from 15 MW in 1983, to 25
MW in 1990, and double to 50 MW in the year 2000.
In February 1982, Dames and Moore completed the report uEconomic
Rationale, Aleutian Airport" for the city of Unalaska. The annual growth
rate for population was estimated to be 13.3 percent for residential and
6.0 percent for nonresidential. Both rates were forecasted to occur until
the year 2000. This forecast accounts for a continual increase in
bottomfishing and bottomfish processing capacity at Unalaska.
On May 25; 1983, the Loan Advisory Committee for the city of Unalaska
passed a resolution approving a loan application from the city to the
Alaska Public Utilities Commission. This would provide the funds required
to construct an electric utility system to meet the needs of 95 percent of
the community (Unalaska and Dutch Harbor) when completed and full
generation capacity is installed.
With the development of bottomfishing in the area and the prospect that
Unalaska would be the processing center within a 200 mile radius, it can be
expected that the energy demands of the area would grow. The Corps of
Engineers estimates that the total peak demand for the city of Unalaska
would increase from the present 15 MW to 20 MW in year 2000 (see
Figure 2). This corresponds to an increase in average energy from
24,000 MWh in 1983 to approximately 64,000 MWh in year 2000 (see Figure
3). The above estimates were derived by assuming the cit~ of Unalaska
continues with its present plans to incorporate the industrial sector into
their distribution system.
14
Based on discussions with the city of Unalaska's Planning Department
and the February 1982 report by Dames and Moore, it is expected that
Unalaska's population would increase by 13 percent annually.during the
period of bottomfish development which is estimated to become fully
developed in year 2000. Assuming energy use is directly proportional to
population growth, an energy growth rate (residential, small commercial,
and Government) of 13 percent annually would occur until year 2000. This
represents an increase from 2,890 MWh in 1983, to 23,000 MWh in year 2000,
for this particular category (see Figure 4). Once the bottomfish potential
of Unalaska has reached full development, energy use for residential, small
commercial and Government would stabilize.
Overall industrial demands for electrical energy are expected to grow
with the gradual development of the bottomfish resource in the study area.
Actual expansion of onshore processing would be expected to be a gradual
process, which would develop at a similar pace to harvesting capabilities.
Assuming actual energy use for bottomfish processing is similar to that of
crab processing, total energy needs by industrial users would increase from
the current 21,000 MWh in 1983, to approximately 41,000 MWh in year 2000
(based on a 10 month operating year). See Figure 4.
Since bottomfish processing would occur during the off-season of crab
processing (and not in addition to crab), no increase in industrial peak
loads are expected in Unalaska. With full resource development, however,
onshore processing facilities are expected to operate throughout much of
the year, with little fluctuation in energy demands. Fluctuations on a
monthly basis for residential, small commercial and Government energy
demand would be expected to remain the same as the present. Figure 5 shows l the expected growth in energy needs at Unalaska.
15
1-'1
0'\,
J>
0 en
~ -0
0 ::0
0 ~:I: en "TI en -m-"..~ C
~ oCJ) J>J> z
0 enr J> --i-i iijr r..,.. .. mO J>-
rX (J)G)
0 0::0 --< ;lltC
0 -to J>:O
~
0
0 • m
'g -<:;u J>
en »» 0 ~N
0
en "0 --or -to (J)
» c~ ;lit
IT!
J>
~ ogl ~"..
ID -:;u
~ -i • ~ • ~ en
, )
60
50
M 40 E
G
A
W
A
T
T 30 S
20
10
r----------------------------------60
50
ALASKA CONSULTANTS
INC., MAY 'S/ '
40 ~
G
~
A
T
T
30 S
i-R.W. RETHERFORD _-ASSOC., 1979 -----
". ---_....... .. ----.. --:--.~
_-----.--_---_--------------20
L-----------.:-...-::: ~-.:= -----------------L ~~~~E ~~S
PROJECTION ~~----------------~~~--------------------~------------------------~~J:U:N:E~I:9:S:3-'-----L
IE 1985 10 1990 YEAR 1995 200'0 1980
l>
Q
Ut
~ '"'0 Q
S? :0 ,,(1) O::I: Ut c..-",3: e: .... ... fTlen l>l> z (l)r JIo n o-t iD r r...,.. .... .. -to JIo_ r:I: enG)
fTI:O :;lite:
0 0---< JIo::O
0 -10 ... 1"1'1 ., 0 -<;::0 JIo "0 fTll> 0 rOo! fit
0 zr ~~ 1: -fTI :;lit c:=e JIo ", :Og, ~", ::I .a G') ;::0
::I -< .. .. .,
fit
SX~------------------------------------------------------------~500
~ 4"",......-HISTORICAL ~ PROJECTED-+
S '
A
N o
S o 300
F
M
E
G
A 2
W
A
T
T
H o 1
U
R
S
ALASKA CONSULTANTS.
INC., MAY 1981
R.W. RETHERFORD
--_ ..
[.:~:~:.I~~~._.
--_ .. _ .. --..... .,...",-----------------~------~.:.::-::::----------------\.:"OORPS OF ENGI NEERS
T
H o 400U
S
A
N
D
S
300 0
F
~
G
200 A W
A
T
T
~ 100 U
R
S
1--____ ..-....-PROJECTION. JUNE 1983
Ol~-,-----------------~------------~-------------~--------------~
1980 1985 1990
YEAR
1995 2000
L
~
Z
L&J
~
Z a:::
L&J
~
(!:)
C
Z
<%:
...J
<%:
U a:::
L&J
~
:t
8
...J
...J
<%:
~
CJ) .
...J
o 0')
C
Z
<%:
<%: CJ) ~
~~UJ za:::C
UJUJ...J cz<x: -z ~<%:S a:::UF-
~II
~
~
~
(SCN'1SnOH1) HMW o to ~ o
~Wm'fiW!@':!;@_ :::.:.:.:.: ............... . §
(\J
o
LO
[22,2,%2,%%%7.
i~Il~I~~~IIII~~IIIII~ff~ImmmmmIII mmmm rt)
0')
(J)
o
rt)
--
o
rt)
~ CD
(J)
a::: «
IJJ >-
(SONtfSnOH1) HM~ FIGURE 4
UNALASKA, ALASKA
18
SMALL HYDROPOWER
FEASIBI LlTY STUDY
.~~
..-,
. ..-...
AVERAGE ENERGY DEMAND
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
2:~ .~ ~ 8 0 8 ~ 8 0 0 ~ ~ Q 0 10 I I I , ! , , I a.. , LLI , Cf) , , , Lg , , <r ..J ::::> ~
z ::::>
I ~
I ,
I , ~ I r2: I
I
I
I a::: I
I a.. (J) , , <r ::I: I
I ~ , , a::: Z I <r 0 • 2: ,
~ • · • • CD , LLI ,
\ ,
I LL
I
I
Ort) I I r~ 0(1)
Ocn N_
00 • ~ l-~ Zz ,
<t<t ,
• 2:2: ,
LLJLLJ I ,
00 \ ~ I > 0
Z
~ g , i i ,
0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 o. 0 0 0 o· ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ,.. U) ~ rt)
2:~'
FIGURE 5
UNALASKA, ALASKA
SMALL HYDROPOWER
FEASIBI LITY STUDY
19 ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY \ '-.
ENERGY DEMAND
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
PLAN FORMULATION
5.1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES.
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the various alternatives
that could be utilized to meet the needs of the study area. Although each
of these alternatives is discussed separately, it appears that the best
overall plan may combine one or more of the alternatives.
5.1.1 Conservation: The Nonstructural Alternative
Description
Conservation involves the more efficient use of electricity. This
means (a) insuring that new houses and commercial and industrial facilities
are more energy efficient; (b) installing more efficient water heaters and
appliances; and (c) finding more efficient ways to manufacture products, or
to perform industrial processes.
Conservation also involves steps to make existing houses and buildings
more energy-efficient by adding insulation in walls and ceilings,
installing water heater blankets, and adding other cost effective
conservation measures.
Conservation measures also reduce the need for additional transmission
lines and other distribution facilities. When a conservation action
reduces the need for these facilities, it reduces the associated facilities
costs by approximately 2.5 percent.
Conservation avoids the "line losses" that occur when electricity is
transmitted over long distances. About 7.5 percent of the electricity
generated at a powerplant is "lost" in transmission to its ultimate point
of use.
To assess accurately the amount of cost effective conservation
available, the administrative cost of programs needed to secure
conservation must be included. Typically, conservation program
administrative costs are in the range of 15 to 25 percent of the direct
cost of measures for full operational programs.
The amount of technically and economically achievable conservation is
directly related to the amount of energy used. Changes in consumer
behavior and consumer resistance, quality control, and unforeseen technical
problems could prevent an area from developing 100 percent of this
potential.
Impact Assessment
The environmental benefits of conservation are substantial. Reduction
of electric demand due to conservation measures can help avoid the
construction of new conventional energy resources with their accompanying
environmental impacts. Conservation "generates" electricity without
transmission lines, significant air or water pollution, noise, solid waste,
or land use impacts.
20
However, there exists the potential for degradation of indoor air
quality due to weatherization unless mitigation measures are employed.
Residential weatherization could reduce ventilation and cause harmful
concentration~ of various pollutants from space heating equipment,
insulation: ahd building materials. These pollutants include formaldehyde
from particle board and some insulation, and radioactive emissions from
masonry and concrete buildings. Heat exchangers could adequately mitigate
these air quality impacts in that they provide adequate ventilation without
sacrificing much heat.
Evaluation
The two largest residential users of electricity are space heat and
water heating. Space heat consumption is approximately 31 percent of the
residential use, water heating represents 26 percent, and the remaining 43
percent is consumed by lights and other appliances. Approximately, a 33
percent reduction in energy used for space heating could be achieved
through irrlproving the insulation levels, adding storm windows, and reducing
the air leakage in existing houses. Water heating represents the second
largest single residential use. Savings would be achieved through better
insulated water heaters, pipe wraps and lower water temperatures. Nearly
one-half of residential electricity is consumed by an assortment of
appliances. Refrigerators~nd freezers, cooking and lighting make up
approximately one-half of the electricity used by these appliances. The
conservation potential from more efficient appliances is 10 percent of the
total electricity used by appliances.
Space heating use in existing houses could be 1/3 more efficient than
of present. New houses could use nearly 60 percent less for space heating
than houses built to current standards. Water heating demands could be
reduced by over 21 percent. Refrigerators, freezers, and other appliances
could consume 7 percent less than projected at current efficiencies.
Together, these savings are projected to bring about a 21 percent reduction
in residential electric needs.
The commercial sector is composed of diverse customers. Studies of the
conservation potential in commercial buildings indicates that a 30 to 40
percent reduction in electric energy use could be achieved. Assessing the
technical and economic potential for industrial conservation presents a
more difficult problem. Not only are industrial uses more diverse, but the
conservation potential is also more site specific. Past attempts to assess
the industrial sector's conservation potential have not been particularly
successful.
Efficiency improvements to existing generating 'units as well as the
area's distribution system represent a source of conservation savings. The
municipal utility has undergone a modernization of the distribution
system. Losses within the sy~tem have been reduced from 40 percent to 18.
This loss should decrease as upgrading of the system is continued.
21
Imp1ementaion
The basic responsibiTtty for implementing this alternative lies with
the local residents. T~ ~id in this responsibility and to lessen the
burden, various State and Federal programs are available. The State offers
energy auditing services, conservation grants, and low interest loans, and
the Federal Government offers income tax credits. These opportunities
should be pursued to the maximum extent possible by the community.
5.1.2 Diesel Generation
This alternative is effectively the existing condition. U~er this
scenario, diesel generation would continue to be used to meet all
electrical requirements at Unalaska. With the addition of the new 2.85-MW
generator scheduled for 1984, sufficient capacity would exist until the
early 1990's under the current energy generation scenario at Unalaska.
Impact Assessment
The primary impact associated with this alternative is economic. The
cost of diesel fuel will eventually rise again as shortages occur and
demand exceeds supply. By continuing to use diesel, the city could face
possible shortages in the future if supplies are interrupted due to
physical or economic constraints.
Evaluation
Since diesel has been established as the base case by which other
alternatives are to be evaluated, it is necessary to estimate the actual
generation cost at Unalaska for comparison. The system wide kWh cost
includes not only fuel and operation and maintenance, but also taxes,
insurance, interest, depreciation, administration, and capital
improvement. Of this cost, not all can be considered as a saving or a
benefit if an alternative is implemented. Capacity benefits can be claimed
if the proposed hydro system displaces present diesel units or reduces the
future need for enlarging the existing plant. By using current Water
Resource Council (WRC) directives, it was determined that capacity benefits
at Unalaska were negligible since the peak energy use months, December and
January, are also the most critical water flow months.
The two parts of the energy benefit, fuel, and operation and
maintenance, were determined from information provided by the city of
Unalaska. Unalaska's 1983 diesel cost of $1.21/ga11on, coupled with a
generating efficiency, which is 12 kWh/gallon, provides a fuel 'cost of
$0.1008/kWh. This coupled with an operation and maintenance cost of
$0.0201/kWh, renders a cost of diesel generation that can be prevented of
$0.1209/kWh. When comparing this cost to another alternative, consideration
must be given to how the fuel cost portion may change in the future.
Various fuel cost escalation rates over varying periods of time have
been used in the past to estimate future fuel costs. Most of those
proposed in the past have fallen short of what the actual escalation rate
turned out to be. According to the Bureau of Labor's statistics for
22
\
Anchorage (none are available for Unalaska), the inflationary increase from
1974 to 1980 was 67 percent compared to fuel cost increases of 156 percent.
Based on this data, the annual fuel cost escalation rate (above inflation) was
over 8 percent.
For the purpose of this study, the national fuel cost escalation rate
developed by Data Resources Incorporated (DRI) for 1983 (linear regression of
four Quarterly forecasts ending Autumn 83) has been adopted. DRI projections
were selected because they (1) cover projections of fuel prices representing a
more complete coverage of oil producing regions of the world and (2) are cal-
culated Quarterly and not yearly. The expected escalation rate is show~ below:
YEAR
1982-1985
1986-1990
1991-1995
1996-2000
2001-
ANNUAL
ESCALATION RATE
1.6 percent
1.6 percent
3.6 percent
3.4 percent
1.6 percent
These changes would result in the following future fuel costs at Unalaska:
1985
1990
1995
2000
2013
5.1.3 .Waste Heat Recovery
Description
$1.25/ga110n
1.35/ga110n
1.62/ga110n
1.91/ga110n
2.34/ga110n
Two forms of potential energy recovery from existing diesel generators are
possible. The first is direct waste heat recovery for heating purposes. This
is accomplished with the use of heat exchangers which transfer waste heat from
the waterjacket and exhaust of the diesel generators to another fluid that can
be used for hot water or building heating. Direct waste heat recovery requires
that the generators be close to the building or water supply being heated,
otherwise heat is lost to the atmosphere. The second form is by use of the
Rankine Cycle. This system vaporizes a fluid such as freon with the waste heat
from the diesels. The freon, which is under high ~ressure,. is then used to
drive a turbine which produces shaft horsepower to 'turn the generator for
additional electrical power.
Impact Assessment
This alternative has virtually no adverse environmental impacts while
having very positive economic and social impacts.
Evaluation
The present location of the city's power plant is suitable for direct
waste heat recovery. Waste heat could be uti1i1ized for heating the municipal
building located next to the uti1ity's power plant.
23
Implementation
The municipal utility has implemented a waste heat recovery system at
the existing power plant. The heat recovered is used for heating in the
municipal office building. The city has indicated that as the system
expands, increased development of waste heat recovery would occur.
5.1.4 Geothermal Resources
Description
To accommodate permitting and leasing procedures, Alaska State Law
defines geothermal 'resources as lithe earth's natural heat having a
temperature in excess of 120°C; measured at the point where the highest
temperature resources encounter, enter or contact a well or other resource
extraction device." Three forms of geothermal resource systems exist that
can be either hot water dominated or steam dominated, depending on
temperature and pressure conditions. The first two are hot dry rock and
geopressured resources, which are still in the research/development stage.
The third is known as hydrothermal and the technology is available to build
a system to extract the heated ground water. Minimum requirements for
economical power production are: l)sufficient groundwater 2) the heat
source be close to the ground surface, 3) the ground be of porous material,
and 4) natural fractures to transport heated water to shallow depths
(Morrison-Knudsen, 1981).
Two areas with significant geothermal potential that have been
discovered on Unalaska are Summer Bay and Makushin Volcano region.
According to a study on the Geothermal Potential in the Aleutians conducted
by Morrison-Knudsen Co. l1981), there appears to be "an excellent
colocation between geothermal resource potential and energy demands in
Unalaska." The Al~ska Legislature in 1981 appropriated $5 million to be
administered by the Alaska Power Authority for geothermal drilling and
exploration at Makushin Volcano. The appropriation was preceded by a
number of geologic investigations and a preliminary economic analysis whiCh
indicated potential for a geothermal power facility at Makushin Volcano.
Development of geothermal energy in Unalaska would involve ,production
centers at the developed field. Electricity would be generated at or near
the field or fields and transmission lines would carry power to the city of
Unalaska.
Impact Assessment
The exact type of powerplant and related facilities have not yet been
determined. For impact analysis purposes, the powerplants can 'be broken
down into two types: (1) where the effluent from the powerplant is injected
back into the ground; and (2) where the effluent is placed in a cooling
system and released in selected drainages where it eventually enters the
sea. Environmental impacts associated with type 1 are: access to the site
transmission corridor, cooling water sources, and production centers. Type
2 would have similar impacts in addition to the thermal and water pollution
from the discharge of the effluent. Both types of facilities would be
subject to earthquake and volcano eruption hazards.
24
Extensive geologic and geophysical exploration has been conducted on
Makushin Volcano and more is scheduled for the summer of 1984. Studies to
be completed by mid 1984, will identify the optimum plant size and
development plan at Unalaska and provide an economic analysis for that
plan. It is anticipated, assuming the geothermal option proves feasible
and the required studies proceed in a timely manner, that a geothermal
powerp1ant could be online at Unalaska as soon as 1988.
Implementation
The current exploration program is being conducted on Federal land
controlled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The land has been
selected by the Aleut Corporation but· not yet conveyed. There is a wide
range of possible scenarios for financing and development, but none has
been chosen.
5.1.5 Wind Generation
Description
A wind energy conversion system (WECS) transforms the force of wind
moving past a tower mounted generator into either alternating (AC) or
direct (DC) current electricity. DC power may be used directly for
lighting, resistance space heating, and water heating or, it may be used to
charge batteries for later use during peak demand periods or when wind
velocity is insufficient to drive the generator. The operating range of a
wind generator varies with its design. To illustrate the probable range of
operation for many of the WECS currently available the operating
characteristics of a 40 kW rated WECS (Kaman Co.) are shown in Table 7.
Wind Velocity
(mph)
o to 8
8
10
10 to 20
20 to 60
Above 60
TABLE 7
Remarks
No rotation
Rotation begins; no power output
Power delivery begins (about 4 kW)
Power ranges from 4 to 40 kW
Power constant at 40 kW
No output (and rotor stopped, or at
least turned out of the wind and rotating
slowly)
Source: Alaskan Wind Power: An Introductory User's Manual, Tunis
Westinke, Jr., June 1980.
Wind resource studies of the continental United States, including
Alaska have identified the Aleutian Islands as having the required wind
conditions for generation of electrical power. The average annual wind
speed at Dutch Harbor measured at heights above ground level of 10 meters,
30 meters and 50 meters is 11 mph, 13.7 mph and 15.2 mph, respectively.
25
These averages, however, are probably conservative because there is severe
shielding of the anemometer site. Wind velocities of 2 hours duration
exceed 40 mph nearly 50 percent of the time and exceed 55 mph about 1
percent of the time.
Peak wind gusts exceed 60 mph around 40 percent of the time and 110 mph
about 1 percent of the time. A maximum wind speed frequency curve for
Trail Lake located 10 miles from Unalaska is shown in Figure A-5 of
Appendix A.
Evaluation
An inherent problem with Alaskan WECS development is that those who
could most profit from their potential are the individuals and small remote
communities least able to afford the high cost of installation, operation
and maintenance. Installation and typical add-on equipment for improved
operation and the reduction of television and radio interference
substantially increase costs. Relatively complicated maintenance
requirements require extensive operator training and operation. At
Unalaska, winter weather conditions with extensive fog and below freezing
temperatures may create disruptions due to blade iCing, lubrication
freezeup and tower damage from strong gusts.
In the January 1982 "white paper" published by the Alaska Power
Authority, it was determined that:
a. Wind energy conversion systems are not yet commercially proven to
the degree necessary to meet a significant portion of the near term
electrical needs of Alaskan communities.
b. Where two alternatives appear over the analysis period, and where
environmental and cultural factors are comparable, the more reliable
alternative should be the one recommended for the followup.
The above problems affecting implementation and operation of WECS in
Unalaska suggest that development of this resource on a sufficent scale to
meet the energy needs of the community is highly unlikely. However,
limited development, initially on an experimental basis, may be a cost
effective addition to existing power generation resources. Further study
of this resource by State or local interests is encouraged.
Impacts
Impacts associated with this alternative would be minimal. The primary
impact would be the ability of the residents of Unalaska to accept the
visual aspects of wind power.
Implementation
The implementation of this alternative would be the responsibility of
the city or individual residents, aided by the State of Alaska or the
Department of Energy. Various income tax credits, investment allowances,
and grant programs can assist a local WECS program. The responsibility for
the installation of recording instrumentation appears beyond the financial
capability of the city.
26
5.1.6 Hydropower-Storage-Regulation Project of Trail Lake, Shaishnikof
River
Description
Trail Lake is located approximately 3.5 miles upstream from the
confluence of the Shaishnikof River with Captain's Bay. This alternative
would consist of construction of a dam, a lake tap, and approximately 1500
feet of power tunnel. In addition, approximately 4 miles of access road
and 8 miles of transmission line would be constructed. Energy production
would be the result of regulating the Shaishnikof River's flow to provide
storage for regulated releases during periods of low streamflow.
Impact Assessment
Environmental impacts associated with this hydroelectric alternative
would be significant in nature. Construction of a regulated storage
project at Trail Lake would result in major adverse environmental impacts.
Inundation resulting from raising of the lake's surface elevation would
cause destruction of bird nesting habitat. In addition, spawning habitat
currently utilized by the resident Dolly Varden in Trail Lake would be
destroyed.
In 1981, of the total 143,000 pink salmon that originated from the
Shaishnikof River system, 85,000 were caught by commercial fisherman and
the remaining 58,000 fish returned to the river system to spawn. A
substantial number of coho salmon and anadromous Dolly Varden spawn in the
Shaishnikof River. The introduction of higher flows and warmer water
during the winter months could cause advanced egg incubation and the early
emergence of salmon fry.
Evaluation
Two regulated storage scenarios were analyzed for economic
feasibility. The project first cost includes a 25 percent allowance for
contingencies. Pertinent data for the two scenarios are shown in Table 8.
Project costs at October 1983 price levels (without interest during
construction (IDC)) were amortized over 50 years at 8-1/8 percent.
Dam Height (ft.)
Dependable Capacity (kW)
Annual Energy (MWh)
First Cost ($1,000)
Annual Cost
Annual Benefits
Net Annual Benefits
8/C Ratio
TABLE 8
#1 #2
50 35
143 68
2,350 1,237
$8,000 $7,000
$695,000 $597,000
$415,000 $228,000
-$280,000 -$369,000
0.6 0.4
The above economic data indicate that neither scenario would result in a
project with positive net benefits. Therefore, the regulated storage at
Trail Lake has been eliminated from further consideration.
27
5.1.7 Hydropower-Pressure Reducing Turbine-Pyramid Creek
Description
Currently, the city of Unalaska is replacing the existing 16-inch wood
stave pipe, which serves as a water supply penstock from Pyramid Creek,
with a 24-inch 1.0. steel pipe. This alternative would consist of one
260-kW Francis turbine installed in series with the 24-inch line. The
powerhouse containing the turbine would be located at the junction of
Pyramid Creek Road with Captain's Bay Road. As a result of the requirement
to maintain a water pressure of 80 psi below the powerhouse, this system
would operate at a~esign flow equal to 22.3 cfs and a net operating head
of 170 feet. Diversion of the water through the turbine would generate
approximately 2,174,000 kWh of energy per year. A detailed discussion of
the Pyramid Creek system is discussed in the section TECHNICAL APPENDIX,
PYRAMID CREEK.
Impact Assessment
The proposed site for the pressure reducing turbine is located at the
intersection of Pyramid Creek Road and Captain's Bay Road. The impacts
associated with this alternative would be minor with minimal construction
occurring in non-disturbed areas. Increases in dust, noise, and air
pollution would occur, but these would be short lived and end with the
construction phase.
Evaluation
Besides being inexpensive, the PRT has the
brought on-line in a relatively short period.
and benefits, based on October 1983 prices and
Shown in Table 9.
advantage that it can be
The estimated annual costs
8-1/8 percent interest, are
TABLE 9
First Cost $816,000
IDC (9 mo.) 32,000
Investment Cost $848,000
Annual Costs
Interest and Amortization $ 70,000
Operation and Maintenance .20,000
Total Annual Cost 90,000
Annual Benefits
Diesel Displacement Benefit $219,000
Fuel Escalation Benefit 132,000
O&M Saved 44,000
Extended Life of Diesel 8,000
Total Annual Benefits 403,000
Net Annual Benefits $313,000
Benefit -Cost Ratio 4.5 to 1
28
....... '
\
Implementation
Various options are possible for the implementation of this alternative.
Under all scenarios it is anticipated that the local utility would be
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the plant. The options
available are listed below:
a. Construction by the Corps of Engineers with Federal funding.
b. Construction by the Corps of Engineers with State or local funding.
c. Construction by a private firm with State or local funding.
5.1.8 Hydropower-Run-of-River Project, Shaishnikof River
Description
This alternative consists of a 22-foot hi~h timber buttress dam, 920
lineal feet of 42-inch steel penstock, and a 40-by 25-foot powerhouse
containing one 300-kW Francis turbine and one 400-kW turbine. In addition, a
rock cut spillway and 3.3 miles of unimproved road would be constructed.
Based on available streamflow data, the estimated annual energy output from
the'system is approximately 3,114,000 kWh of which 100 percent is estimated to
be usable in 1993, the first year of operation. Diesel generation would still
be required because the energy demands of Unalaska greatly exceed the amount
of energy provided by hydropower alone. A detailed discussion of the plant
sizing is included in the TECHNICAL APPENDIX, SHAISHNIKOF RIVER.
Impact Assessment
Adverse environmental impacts associated with this project are minor in
nature. ~o fish utilize the section of stream which would be dewatered
between the powerhouse and the damsite. Minor disruption of wildlife would
occur during construction, but construction would be scheduled to minimize
these effects. The waterfalls that exist between the damsite and powerhouse
site would be dewatered during normal flow periods but no fish would be
affected. The existing lake level would be raised approximately 3 feet.
Approximately 15 acres would be inundated.
Evaluation
.A summary of the associated costs and benefits for the run-of-river
hydroelectric system are shown in Table 10. The analysis is based on October
1983 price levels, an interest rate of 8-1/8 percent and a 50-year project
life. The benefits are based on the direct displacement of energy that would
have to be produced by diesel fuel to meet estimated demands.
The benefits, which could be provided by hydropower development at
Unalaska, were determined strictly by the displacement of diesel fuel and
diesel fuel escalation. The savings in diesel fuel was computed from a 1983
cost of $1.2l/gallon that was escalated until 2013, according to DRIls
estimate.
29
TABLE 10
Shaishnikof Kiver
Project Costs and Benefits
First Cost
IDC (18 mo)
Investment Cost
Annual Costs
Interest and Amortization (8-1/8% @ 50 yrs)
Operation and Maintenance
Total Annual Cost
Annual Benefits
Diesel Displacement Benefit
Fuel Escalation Benefit
081-1 Saved
Extended Life of Diesel
Total Annual Benefits
Net Annual Benefits
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Implementation
$5,571,000
457,000
$6,028,000
$500,000
$30,000
$530,000
$298,000
$179,000
$ 59,000
$ 11 ,000
$547,000
$17,000
1.03
Various options are possible for the implementation of this alternative.
Under all scenarios, it is anticipated that the local utility would be
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the plant. The options
available are listed below:
a. Construction by the Corps of Engineers with Federal funding.
b. Construction by the Corps of Engineers with State or local
funding.
c. Construction by a private firm with State or local funding.
5.1.9 Fisheries Enhancement-Shaishnikof River
Description
The opportunity to improve the fisheries resources of the Shaishn'ikof
Kiver appears td be good. Although the proposed enhancement plan is not
directly related to the development of the Shaishnikof River hydropower
project, it appears that implementation of this plan in conjunction with the
power project objectives would be inexpensive and cost effective. At present,
approximately 6 km of the river between its mouth and the falls, which are
immediately upstream of the proposed powerhouse location, are usable by coho
salmon and anadromous Uolly Varden. However, minor falls in the river canyon
located at approximately river km 3 (see Plate 6) are present during lower
streamflows which occur when the pink salmon are spawning. These falls block
the passage of pink salmon to the portion of the river above the canyon which
could, otherwise, be used for spawning habitat. Approximately 2 acres of
30
excellent spawning and incubation habitat exist above the canyon (refer to the
USFWS Coordination Act Report, pages 37-40). Construction would involve the
removal of rock obstructions in the canyon area through blasting. The
enhancement would result in a maximum of 37,000 salmon per year for harvest.
Refer to pages 21-25, USFWS Coordination Act Report for the procedure used in
determining the maximum yield from the enhancement plan. Due to the cyclical
nature of pink salmon, an annual equivalent equal to 29,000 fish per year was
used in the benefit computations. See also Appendix A for further discussion.
Impact Assessment
Negative impacts associated with this alternative are' nonexistent.
Removal of the rock obstructions would be scheduled from April to June which
is a noncritical time for fish.
Evaluation
The estimated annual costs and benefits, based on October 1983 prices and
8 1/8 percent interest are shown in Table 11.
,
First Cost
IDC
Investment Cost
Interest and Amortization
Operation and Maintenance
Total Annual Cost
Annual Benefits
Net Annual Benefits
Benefit-~ost Ratio
Implementation
TABLE 11
$33,800
200
34,000
2,800
2,000
4,800
13,000
8,200
2.7
Construction of this alternative would be by the Corps of Engineers with
Federal funding. No annual maintenance is expected, but an annual monitoring
program would be the responsibility of a Federal fish and wildlife agency.
5.2 COMPAKISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGNATION OF THE NED PLAN
As discussed in the previous sections various alternatives were
considered to determine which plan or combination of plans would best satisfy
local and national planning objectives. National Economic Development (NED)
objectives are aChieved by increasing the value of the Nation's output of
goods and services and by improving national economic efficiency. The
alternative plan that maximizes net national economic benefits consistent with
protecting the environment is defined as the NED plan. .
Alternatives considered to meet the needs of the Unalaska study area
included: conservation measures; diesel generation; waste heat recovery;
geothermal power development; wind generation; a hydropower storage project at
Trail Lake; installing a turbine on the city's water supply line from Pyramid
Creek; hydropower run-of-river project on Shaishnikof River; and fisheries
enhancement on Shaishnikof River. Opportunities for reducing future costs of
31
L
energy via diesel and wind generation and waste heat recovery appear limited.
Accordingly, they were not studied in detail. Implementation of conservation
measures would probably not reduce area energy demands drastically; however,
measures such as increased insulation of electric water heaters and electri-
cally heated buildings are cost effective and should be considered further by
the State and local interests. Also, development of geothermal resources,
being investigated by the Alaska Power Authority, may be viable and should be
pursued depending upon the results of the State's study. Because construction
of a dam and storage project at Trail Lake would not result in net positive
economic benefits, this alternative was dropped from further consideration. A
comparison of the remaining alternatives showed that installation of a pressure
reducing turbine at Pyramid Creek and development of a run-of-river hydropower
project, including anadromous salmon enhancement facilities, on theShaishnikof
River would result in maximum net national economic benefits and address the
planning objectives. Accordingly, the combination of these alternatives has
been designated as the NED plan. As can be seen in table 12, the average net
annual NED benefit over the life of these projects is collectively estimated
at $358,000.
5.3 THE SELECTED PlAN
Description
Based on the foregoing comparlSlon of alt~rnatives, hydropower
development and fisheries enhancement on the Shaishnikof River and installing
a turbine in the water supply line from Pyramid Creek have the best potential
for satisfying ~ED and local study objectives and become the selected plan.
Specific features of the selected plan are briefly summarized below.
Appendixes A and ti provide detailed information on the selected plan.
5.3.1 Shaishnikof Hydropower Development and Fisheries Enhancement
The hydropower projedt would consist of an A-frame, 22-foot-high timber
dam constructed about 600 feet downstream from the outlet of Trail Lake (see
plates following Appendix A). An ungated spillway, capable of accommodating a
100-year flood event (1,000 cfs), would be excavated in a natural depression
located in the abutment 110 feet to the left of the dam. A 42-inch steel
penstock would convey river flows 920 feet from the dam to the powerhouse
downstream. The penstock would generally be above ground and the route would
follow the right bank of the river. The invert of the penstock at the intake
would be 550 feet mean sea level (MSL) or 15 feet below the maximum expected
lake level. The centerline of the penstock at the powerhouse would be at
elevation 430 feet MSL, resulting in a gross power head at 135 feet. The
powerhouse itself would be a conventional indoor plant conSisting of two units
rated at 400 kW and 300 kW. Flows to the powerhouse could be controlled via
two hydraulically operated butterfly valves located immediately upstream, two
manual sluice gates and an intake gate at the dam.
Access to the project facilities, powerhouse and damsite for construction
would be accomplished by construction of an unimproved 10-foot wide dirt road.
Approximately 8 miles of 34.5 kV buried transmission line would run from the
powerhouse to the edge of town. The proposed corridor is shown on Plate 1.
Construction of the Shaishnikof River project would take about 18 months.
Approximately 55 acres for project easements which is presently owned by the
Ounalashka Native Corporation, would be required. The opportunity to improve
32
TABLE 12 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVES
HYDROPOWER HYDROPOWER DIESEL
PYRAMID CREEK SHAISHNIKOF RIVER EX I STI NG GEOTHERMAL
ACCOUNTS SELECTED PLAN SELECTED PLAN SYSTEM 10 MW
I. Economic Impacts
A. Hydropower 1/ 2/
1. Project Investment Cost $848,000 $6,028,000 (6,062,000)
2. Project Annual Benefit $403,000 $ 547,000 (560,000)
3. Project Annual Cost $ 90,000 $ 530,000 (534,800)
4. Benefit/Cost Ratio 4.48 to 1 1.03 (1.05)
II. Environmental Impacts
A. Aquatic Impact
Unknown
w 1. Habitat No Change Loss would occur N/A w 2. Population No Change Unknown N/A
B. Terrestrial Impact
Unknown
1. Habitat No Change 27 Acres lost
2. Population No Change No Change N/A
C. Water Quality No Change No Change No Effect Impact
Unknown
D. Water Quantity No Permanent Change No Permanent Change No Effect Impact
Unknown
Eo Air Po llut ion N/A N/A Slight Effect Impact
Unknown
1/ Hydropower only
y Hydropower and Enhancement > •
TABLE 12 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES (continued)
ALTERNATIVES
HYDROPOWER HYDROPOWER DIESEL
PYRAMID CREEK SHAISHNIKOF RIVER EXISTING GEOTHERMAL
ACCOUNTS SELECTED PLAN SELECTED PLAN SYSTEM 10 MW
F. Foss i1 Fuel Would reduce Would reduce Unalaska would Reduce
quantity of fuel quantity of fuel continue to quantity
purchased purchased rely on fossil of fuel
fuel for e1ec-purchased
trica 1 gener-
ation. Cost
to generate
would rise as
fuel cost rose.
II I. Soc i a 1 Impact s
A. Archeological No Impact No Impact N/A Impact
w Unknown
.f:>o
B. Region Growth No Change No Change No Change Impact
Unknown
C. Employment Sl i ght increase Slight increase No Change Impact
duri ng construction during construction Unknown
D. Noise Sl i ght increase Sl ight increase No Change Impact
duri ng construction during construction Unknown
E. Esthetics No Impact No Impact No Change Impact
Unknown
F. Water Supply No Impact No Impact No Impact Impact
Unknown
) )
· TABLE 12 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES (continued)
AL TERNA TI VES
HYDROPOWER HYDROPOWER 01 ESEL
PYRAMID CREEK SHAISHNIKOF RIVER EXISTING GEOTHERMAL
ACCOUNTS SELECTED PLAN SELECTED PLAN SYSTEM 10 MW
G. Community Growth and No Impact No Impact No Impact Impact
Cohesion Unknown
I V. Planning Objectives
A. Reduce the real cost of Yes Yes No Unknown
generation
B. Reduce Unalaska's dependence Met Met Dependence Yes
on diesel for electrical would continue
generation.
C. Maintain supply of quality No Impact Met No Impact Yes
w water to city. U1
D. Preserve or enhance Met Met No Impact Unknown
commercial salmon resource.
E. Preserve regional terrestrial Met Met No Impact Unknown
environment.
F. Preserve the archeological Met Met No Impact Unknown
significance of sites in
project area.
the fisheries resources of the Shaishnikof River appears to be good through
the removal of rock obstructions in the canyon area (see Plate 6). The
enchancement would result in an increase of 29,000 annual equivalent fish.
5.3.2 Pyramid Creek
This system would consist of a 260 kW Francis turbine which would utilize
the existing water supply line on Pyramid Creek. A prefabricated 20-by
20-foot weather tight steel structure would be located at the junction of
Pyramid Valley Road and Captain's Bay Road lsee Figure B-1). The unit would
operate at a net head of 170 feet while maintaining 80 psi of pressure in the
water supply line. To assure that the water supply system would be maintained
in the event of a turbine shutdown, bypass piping would be provided.
Construction would be accomplished within a 9 month period.
5.3.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Adverse impacts associated with the Shaishnikof River hydropower project
are minor. No fish utilize the section of the stream, between the damsite and
powerhouse lsee Plate 6) which would be dewatered during periods of below
normal flows. No mitigation requirements would be associated with this
project.
Construction of the fisheries enchancement plan on the Shaishnikof River
would involve the removal of rock obstructions in the canyon area through
blasting (see Plate 6). Work would be scheduled from April to June which is a
noncritical time for fish. No adverse impacts or mitigation requirements
would be associated with this plan.
The impacts associated with the Pyramid Creek plan would be minor with
minimal construction occurring in nondisturbed areas. Increases in dust,
noise, and air pollution would occur, but these would be ~hort-lived and end
with the construction phase. No mitigation would be required.
5.3.4 Project Operation
The local utility would be responsible for the operation and maintenance
of the plant.
As a result of the energy demand exceeding the hydropower output, (see
Figure 6) the Shaishnikof River and Pyramid Creek system would operate in a
base mode while the existing diesel system would be utilized to generate the
remaining amount of energy.
The Shaishnikof River project would operate as a run-of-river project with
minor pondage available to offset daily fluctuations in streamflows. Based on
average monthly streamflows and the available daily streamflow data, the
system would operate throughout the year. Only one of the two turbines would
operate during low winter flows which normally occur during the months of
January, February and March. ~ased on the series of simulated streamflow the
reach of river between the powerhouse and the damsite would be void of water
during the month of Uecember through March.
36
The Pyramid Creek system would operate as a pressure reducing turbine.
Analysis has shown that the system would operate at 100 percent of its
installed capacity for 7 months of the year. The remaining 5 months of the
year, operation of the system would vary from 85 percent to 64 percent of the
installed capacity. Operation of the system would not depend upon the daily
water demand of the city on the Pyramid CreeK system. As the daily demand
fluctuates, a pressure regulated bypass system located below the powerhouse
would maintain the 80 psi requirements. Thus, when streamflow is adequate,
the system would operate at full capacity and any surplus water not needed for
the city's water supply would be piped directly to the sea.
5.3.5 Economic Analysis
The estimated annual costs and benefits based on October 1983 prices and
8 1/8 percent interest, are shown in Table 13.
First Cost
Project Annual Cost
Project Annual Benefits
Net Annual Benefits
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Shaishnikof
River
$5,571,000
530,000
547,000
17,000
1.03
5.3.6 Marketability Analysis
TABLE 13
Enhancement
Only
$33,800
4,800
13,000
8,200
2.7
Pyramid
Creek
$816,000
90,000
403,000
313,000
4.48
The Unalaska hydropower project on the Shaishnikof River has an investment
cost of $6,028,000, an annual cost of $530,000, a marketable output of
2,958,300 kWh, and a payback rate of $0.18 per kWh. By crediting the project
with estimated future fuel price increases, it can be demonstrated that hydro-
power is marketable over a 50 year project life with a 1993 POL date. Table 14
shows the cost per kWh required to recover project costs by the management
rules of other agencies.
Agency Terms
APA (Federal)
(10.75%, 50 yrs)
APA (State)
t 10.5%, 30 yrs)
REA (Federal)
(5%, 50 yrs)
State Grant
TABLE 14
Marketability Comparison
Annual Costs
$652,000
$666,000
$360,000
$ per KWh
0.22
0.23
0.12
(20% loan, 80% grant, $473,000
8.5%, 30 yrs)
O. 16
37
The best opportunity for marketing Unalaska power would occur if the project
would be financed through REA funding_ In a letter dated 31 May 1984, the
Alaska Power Authority has expressed their support for hydropower development
at Unalaska (See Appendix E).
38
J>
c en
7C' c
0
en -~
0 -
()
0
~
"0 en
0 -m
::I
cD
::I
CD
CD
~
CIt
W
1.0
I'Tl en
-I -3:
O»I'Tl~ CZZI'Tl
-I 0 l'Tle
"lJ :;0
C::J: G>i> -I~~< 0 2J:;oOI'Tl :;oOI'Tl:;O ~3:» -~»~ to Z
OOI'TlO3:
00:;0 0
Z
-I ::J:
~
,..(1)
m5: J>J> (l)r
air
r:::I: --< -to -<:xJ
0 w"'U -to
c~
~~
c z
J>
r"TI J>-
Cl)G)
:ltC
J>;:q
~ ITI
~C1t
J>
CI)
:It
J>
6000~--------------T-0-T-A-L-D-E-M-A-N-D--19-9~'3--PO-L--~------~~----------~~
-----TOTAL HYDRO SHAISH NI KOF RIVER + PYRAMID CREEK
5000 5000
4000 4000
~ 3000
H
3OOOt4
H
2000 2000
1000 1000
.---.... -
------------------------------",-----------------------------------
O~ __ ----__ --~----__ --~----~--_r----~--_r----r_--__ ----~-LO
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
MONTHS
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION
Three field trips were made to Unalaska, the first in May 1981, the
second in June 1982, and the third in June 1983. During the various trips,
informal meetings were held with city officials. City officials support
hydropower development because of their desire to decrease dependence on
diesel fuel.
Input from Federal, State, and local officials was obtained by direct
contact and correspo~ence. See Appendix E.
A public meeting was held in Unalaska on 10 January 1984 to obtain
public comments on the Unalaska Small Hydropower Draft Feasibility Report
and Environmental Impact Statement. About 42 people attended the meeting.
The majority of the people supported installation of the pressure reducing
turbine in the water supply pipeline on Pyramid Creek and felt it should be
installed as soon as possible. In the case of the Shaishnikof project, the
public would prefer to wait for the results of the Alaska Power Authority's
study on the feasibility of Unalaska's geothermal potential. If geothermal
is found to be infeasible, they would be more in favor of the hydropower
project on the Shaishnikof.
L
RESPONSES TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE'S CA REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Project Design
a. The tailrace be alined as closely as possible to parallel the
natural river channel in order to reduce opposite bank scouring and
downstream erosion. Reduction of tailrace water velocities through the
installation of a permanent plunge pool (e.g., reinforced concrete) in the
tailrace channel is recommended to further minimize erosion and protect
downstream fishery resources.
Response: The tailrace has been designed to be closely alined to the
natural river channel to prevent scour on the opposite bank. The maximum
flow velocity in the tailrace would be 2.7 feet per second. Refer to Plate
5 of Technical Appendix, Shaishnikof River for design of powerhouse and
tailrace.
b. The transmission line be raptor-proofed to minimize the possibility
of accidental electrocution. Design suggestions for minimizing this
potential impact can be obtained from the Edison Electric Institute Raptor .
Research Foundation publication, Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection
on Powerlines, the State of the Art in 1981, Raptor Research Report #4,
University of Minnesota.
Response: Concur.
c. All tributary crossings be adequately culverted and designed to
pass high water flows.
40
Response: Concur.
d. Further field studies to determine the value of the habitat
impacted by the inundation and fluctuation of Trail Lake are recommended to
assess the magnitude of impacts and determine if additional mitigation
measures are warranted. .
(1) Survey of Trail Lake to determine Dolly Varden standing stock
and microtine populations impacted by reservoir impoundment.
(2) Confirmation of raptor nesting in the cliffs above Trail Lake.
Response: Additional environmental studies will be conducted during
Continued Planning and Engineering (CP&E) phase of the project. The exact
type of studies required to refine the impact assessment and mitigation
measures will be determined during the scoping process.
II. Project Construction
a. A minimum flow of 25 cfs (60% of average annual flow) at the outlet
of Trail Lake be reserved for downstream fishery resources during dam
construction and reservoir impoundment. Reservoir impoundment should occur
during a period from mid-June to the first of August.
Response: The construction of the project features would not impede
the natural amount of flow. The raiSing of the lake1s water surface
elevation by 3 feet would be accomplished in a manner as not to disturb any
stage of the life cycle of either resident or anadromous fish of the
Shaishnikof River. The Alaska District cannot concur with raising the lake
only from mid-June to the first of August, but would accomplish the task
without harm to the fishery.
b. A si1tscreen, designed and maintained to retain sediments entering
the Shaishnikof River, be installed at the dam/powerhouse site during
construction to minimize downstream siltation. Sediments should be
periodically removed and disposed of in a contained upland site.
Response: The project would be constructed in a manner to minimize
downstream siltation whether the use of a silt screen or some other device
is necessary.
c. Overburden disposal take place no closer than 200 feet from the
Shaishnikof River or its tributaries. Spoil mounds should be contoured and
seeded to prevent erosion.
Response: Concur.
d. If the bald eagle nest at river mile 1.5 is found to be active the
year project construction would commence, no blasting or heavy equipment
use between April 1 and August 15 within a one-half mile radius of the nest
be permitted and no construction be allowed within a 300 feet radius of the
nest.
41
Response: Concur.
e. The CE fund periodic on-site monitoring by FWS and CE biologists to
assess the effectiveness of best management practices and mitigative
measures during project construction.
Response: During the Plans and Specification stage of the project, all
mutually agreed upon recommendations w"ill be included as stipulations to
the contractor. The Alaska District will have inspectors present during
the entire construction phase to assure all specifications and stipulations
:are met.
III. Enhancement
a. Measures to eliminate impasses to pink salmon upstream migration in
order to increase pink salmon production in the Shaishnikof River be
incorporated as project features and a sponsor identified. The use of
blasting to form step-spools and the installation of gabions where
necessary appear to be the most cost-effective and maintenance-free means
of accomplishing enhancement. This enhancement plan should be developed
prior to commencement of construction and must have the full concurrence of
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Response: The enhancement plan has been included as a project feature
since sponsorship is 100 percent Federally assumed. Monitoring of the
enhancement project would be the responsibility of a Federal fish and
wildl ife agency.
IV. Post-Project Construction
A post-construction surveillance and monitoring program be established
to assess the effectiveness of the enchancement plan and mitigation
measures and to provide recommendations for further improvement.
Response: If the enhancement measure gains a local sponsor it would be
the responsibility of the local sponsor to fund any post-construction
activities.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis contained in this report, hydropower development
provides the best supplement to diesel generation at Unalaska. In addition
to providing net benefits of $330,000 annually, hydropower would also
reduce the quantity of diesel fuel used for electrical generation at
Unalaska. Fisheries enhancement would provide an additional benefit of
$8,000. A detailed analysis of the hydropower alternative on the
Shaishnikof River and the fisheries enhancement plan is included in
Appendix A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS. The Pyramid Creek project is discussed in
Appendix B TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, PYRAMID CREEK.
Geothermal power also appears
Power Authority has completed
sites in the Unalaska region.
completion in 1984.
to hold promise for Unalaska. The Alaska
an exploration drilling program of potential
Detailed economic analyses are SCheduled for
42
Weatherizin~~through insulation, storm windows, and weather stripping could
provide signjficant savings to the community in the area of home heating.
Any effect on electrical demand would be small. This option should be
pursued to the maximum extent possible by the city. Further upgrading of
the distribution system should be continued. If fuel costs continue to
escalate as in the past, the reduction in distribution losses would be
warranted.
REC~MENDATIONS
• I have carefully considered the environmental, social, and economic
ramifications of providing hydroelectric generating capacity at Unalaska,
and find that such development is a feasible means for producing additional
energy in the overall public interest. I recommend that both the
Shaishnikof River and Pyramid Creek hydroelectric projects and the fish
enhancement project on the Shaishnikof River be authorized for Federal
construction, generally in accordance with the plan described herein, with
such modifications that the Chief of Engineers may find advisable, and in
accordance with cost recovery, cost sharing, and financing arrangements
satisfactory to the President and Congress. Authorization of this project
for Federal construction should not preclude the development of
hydroelectric fac"jlities at these sites by a qualified nonfederal
interest. Based on October 1983 price levels, the total first cost of the
Shaishnikof River project (hydro only) is $5,571,000 for construction and
$30,000 annually for operation, maintenance, and replacements. Total first
cost of the Pyramid Creek project is $816,000 for construction and $20,000
annually for operation and maintenance. Fish enhancement measures on the
Shaishnikof River would cost $33,800 to construct and $2,000 annually for
project monitoring, which would be accomplished by a Federal fish and
wildlife agency.
The recommendations contained herein reflect the information available at
this time and current Departmental policies governing formulation of
individual projects. They do not reflect program and budgeting priorities
inherent in the formulation of a national Civil Works construction program
nor the perspective of higher review levels within the Executive Branch.
Consequently, the recommendations may be modified before they are
transmitted to the Congress as proposals for autho~"zation and/or
implementation funding.
43
NE E. SALING
C 10ne1, Corps of
District Engineer
NPDPL-PF'
SUBJECT:
(Jun 84) "ls't Ind
Final Small Hydropower Interim Feasibility Report and Environmental
Impact Statement, Unalaska, Alaska
DA, North Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 2870,
Portland, OR 97208 1 June 1984
TO: Chief of Engineers •
I concur in the conclusions and recommendations of the District Commander.
rigadier Gener
Commanding
44
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Proposed plan for small hydroelectric power generation at Unalaska,
Alaska.
The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska.
Abstract. The Corps of Engineers was authorized by Congress to study the
feasibility of installing pre-packaged .small hydroelectric power plants at
remote villages in Alaska. The proposed plan, as developed by the Corps Qf
Engineers, includes installation of a pressure reducing turbine (PRT) in
the city's existing water supply pipeline to produce 260 kilowatts of
energy; a run-of-river hydroPQwer facility on the Shaishnikof River, which
would produce 700 kW; a 3.32 mile access road to the project facilities;
and a buried transmission line running from the powerhouse to the edge of
town. In addition, rock obstructions in a canyon area on the Shaishnikof
River downstream from the powerhouse would be removed, thereby permitting·
access to pink salmon spawning habitat. This enhancement feature would
result in an equivalent annual increase of 29,000 adult salmon which would
be available for commercial harvesting. Concurrently, the State of Alaska
is determining the feasibility of geothermal electrical produFtion of
several fumarole'fields located near Unalaska. Gener~l environmental
impacts associated with geothermal production are addressed in this
document. Hydroelectric project impacts are addressed in more detail. A
positive impact of all alternatives is reducing the use of fossil fuels.
The negative impacts associated with hydroelectric development appear to be
minor; the most significant impact would be the reduction of a
nonanadromous Dolly Varden fishery. Adverse impacts associated with
geothermal development could occur with the discharge of the heated
effluent into receiving waters.
If you would like further information or this statement please contact:
Mr. William Lloyd
U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska
ATTN: NPAEN-PL-EN
Pouch 898
Anchorage, Alaska 99506
• ,
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED PLAN FOR SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER
UNALASKA, ALASKA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SUMMARY
a. Major Conclusions and Findings
(1) NED Pl an
(2) Floodplain Development
(3) Wetland Development
(4) Coastal Zone Management
b. Areas of Controversy
c. Unresol ved Issues
d. Relationship to Environmental Requirements
II. NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION
a. Study Authority and Public Concerns
b. Planning Objectives
III. ALTERNATIVES
a. Without Conditions (NO Ac~ion) Alternative
b. Plans Considered in Detail
(1) Conservation
(2) Waste Heat Recovery
(3) Geothenna 1
(4) Wind Generation
(5) Pyramid Creek Pressure Reduci ng Turbine
(6) Shaishnikof River/Trail Lake Run-of-River
(Hydroelectric)
c. Comparative Impacts of Alternatives
IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Location and Climate
(2) Topography and Geology
i
Page
EIS-1
EIS-1
EIS-1
EIS-1
EIS-1
EIS-1
EIS-1
EIS-1
EIS-2
EIS-2
EIS-2
EIS-3
EIS-3
EIS-3
EIS-3
EIS-3
EIS-4
EIS-4
EIS-4
EIS-5
EIS-5
EIS-6
EIS-10 '
EIS-10
EIS-10
EIS-10
Table of Contents (cont) Page '-,
"
b. Si gnificant Resources EIS-12
(1 ) Hydrology and Water Quality EIS-12
( a) Dissolved Gases Supersaturation EIS-12
(b) Temperature EIS-12
(c) Stream Bank Erosion EIS-13
(2 ) Air and Noise Quality ~ EIS-13
(3) Esthetics EIS-14
(4) Floodplains EIS-14
(5) Quarry Site EIS-14
c. Biological Characteristics EIS-14
( 1 ) Vegetation EIS-14
(a) Wet Tundra EIS-14
(b) Moi st Tundra EIS-14
(c) Alpine Tundra . EIS-15
(d) Shaishnikof River Drainage "EIS-15
(2) Mammals EIS-15
(3) Birds EIS-15
(4) Fisheries EIS-15 /~)
(5) Threatened or Endangered Species EIS-17
d. Socioeconomics EIS-17
e. Historical/Archeological Resources EIS-18
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ON SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES EIS-2l
a. Physical Environment EIS-2l
(1 ) Hydrology and Water Quality EIS-2l
(a) Geothermal EIS-2l
(b) Hydroelectric Alternatives EIS-22
(c) Other Alternatives EIS-22
(2) Dissolved Gas Supersaturation EIS-22
(a) Hydroelectric Alternatives EIS-22
(b) Geothermal EIS-23
(3) Temperature EIS-23
(a) Geothermal EIS-23
(b) Hydropower EIS-23
'-(4) Air Qual ity EIS-25 )
i i
Table of Contents ~cont~ Page
...... ..•.
( a) Geothermal . EIS-25 .
(b) Other Alternatives .. . .. .
EIS-26
(5 ) Esthetics EIS-26
B. Biological EIS-26
(1) Vegetation EIS-26
( a) Geothermal EIS-26
(b) Hydropower EIS-26
(c) Wind Generation EIS-28
(d) Other Alternatives EIS-28
(2) Mammals EIS-28
All Alternatives EIS-28
(3) Birds EIS-28
(a) Hydropower EIS-28
(b) Other Alternatives EIS-2B
(4) Fisheries EIS-29
( a) Hydropower EIS-29
(b) Geothermal EIS-29
(c) Other Alternatives EIS-29
(5) Threatened and Endangered Species EIS-30
C. Socioeconomics EIS-30
(1) Geothermal EIS-30
(2) Other Alternatives EIS-30
VI. MITIGATION EIS-31
VI I. FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT EIS-3l
VI I I. SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EIS-32
(a) Geothermal EIS-32
(b) Other Alternatives EIS-32 .
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EIS-32
X. ZONE MANAGEMENT EIS-33
. XI. BIBLIOGRAPHY EIS-34
(
iii
XII. LIST OF PREPARERS
XIII. INDEX
Table of Contents (cant)
iv
.. .
Page
EIS-36
EIS-37
,
)
I. SUMMARY
a. Major Conclusions and Findings.
(1) NEU Plan. The Shaishnikof River run-of-river and Pyramid
Creek pressure reducing turbine and fisheries enhancement plan on the
Shaishnikof have been identified as the National Economic Development Plan
as a result of their ability to provide the greatest net economic benefit
compared to development and operation costs. Additionally, the need for
the electrical power supplied by the proposed project has been
substantiated and this alternative is the most economical method of
achieving the objective defined for the project dev,elopment • ..
(2) Floodplain Development. Because of the nature of
hydroelectric development, in most cases the construction of the facilities
must be in the floodplain. The Pyramid Creek alternative does not require
activities on a floodplain, while the Shaishnikof alternative would require
floodplain construction. The proposed project has been evaluated under
Executive Order 11988-Floodplain Management and all aspects of the project
have been established to minimize potential harm to people and property and
to natural and beneficial floodplain values. The Corps of Engineers will
not encourage any development on the Shaishnikof River floodplain-and no
anticipated development should occur because of the proposed project.
l3) Wetland Development. The Shaishnikof alternative would
require some development in wetland habitat classified as a Riverine
System. Approximately 2 acres of this type of habitat would be permanently
covered by dam and powerhouse construction and would be subject to the
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The information
required to adequately address the effects of such discharge, within the
meaning of Section 404(r) of the Clean Water Act, including consideration
of the guidelines developed under subsection 404(b)(1), is presented in
Appendix C.
(4) Coastal Zone Management. The community of Unalaska is under
the Aleutians East Regional Coastal Management Program. Neither the
community nor the region has completed a Coastal Zone Management Plan. The
proposed hydroelectric projects would be undertaken in a manner consistent
to the maximum extent practicable with the Alaska Coastal Management
Program. This determination is based upon the description of the proposed
projects and their effects, and upon an evaluation of the relevant
provisions of the management program.
b. Areas of Controversy. .
No areas of controversy ar'e associated with any of the proposed
alternatives to date.
c. Unresolved Issues.
There are no unresolved major disagreements among study area interests
on the proposed action.
d. Relationship to Environmental Reguirements.
Federal Policies and Regulations
-Federal Water Project Recreation Act
-Water Kesource Planning Act of 1966
-Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
-National Historical Preservation Act
-National Environmental Policy Act
-Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
-Endangered Species Act of 1973
-Anadromous Fish Act
-Flood Plain Management EO 11988
-Protection of Wetlands EO 11990
-Archeological and Historic Preservation Act
-Clean Air Act
-Estuary Protection Act
-Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
-Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuary Act
-Rivers and Harbors Act
-Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
-Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
-Clean Water Act
State
-State Coastal Zone Management
-State Water Quality Certification
II. NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION
a. Study Authority and Public Concerns.
Hydroelectric Alternatives
Fu 11 Comp 1 i ance
Full Compliance
Fu 11 Comp 1 i ance
Fu 11 Compl i ance
Fu 11 Comp 1 i ance
Full Compliance
Full Compliance
, Full Compliance
Fu 11 Comp 1 i ance
Fu 11 Comp 1 i ance
Full Compliance
Full Compliance after EPA
review of £IS
N/A
Full Compliance
N/A
Full Compl iance
Full Compliance
N/A
Compliance upon
Congressional approval
under Section 404(r).
Full Compliance
N/A
The study was authorized by United States Senate Resolution dated
October 1, 1976 which directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
determine the feasibility of installing prepackaged hydroelectric units in
isolated Alaskan communities.
Th~ community of Unalaska has grown rapidly in the recent years because
of its importance as a seafood processing center. The U.S. involvement in
the Bering Sea/Gulf of Alaska fishery is:expected· to grow considerably,
thus increasing the demand for electrical power. At the present time, all
community power is supplied by diesel generators; the individual seafood
processors possess their own power generation facilities. Although the
cost of petroleum products has decreased in the last year, the long term
trend will be rising costs with a decrease in supply. Although the
proposed project would not meet the demand for electrical power in
Unalaska, a portion of the diesel-fired generation coula be replaced with
hydroelectric power, thus decreasing their reliance on the constantly
changing petroleum products supply and costs.
EIS-2
b. Planning Objectives.
The planning objectives are to reduce the real costs of energy
generation and to reduce the dependence on diesel fuel for electrical
generation. While meeting these planning objectives, the preservation or
enhancement of the fisheries resources and the preservation of the
archeological significance of sites within the project area can also be
accomplished.
III. ALTERNATIVES
The Corps of Engineers is authorized to study the feasibility of
hydroelectric alternatives and, if warranted, recommend them to Congress
for construction authorization. Nonhydroelectric alternatives are also
assessed; however, the Corps of Engineers is not involved in their design
or construction. Numerous structural and nonstructural alternatives have
been evaluated and are presented below. Although many of the alternatives
would not meet the demand for power in Unalaska, they would all reduce
diesel fuel consumption.
a. Without Conditions (No Action) Alternative.
The no action alternative would be the continued use of diesel-fired
generation. As the demand for electrical power increases, more diesel
generators would be brought online. The primary impact associated with the
no action alternative is economic. The price of diesel fuel will increase
as shortages occur and the demand exceeds the supply •.
Environmental impacts associated with diesel generation are minimal.
Chances of fuel spills during handling could occur; however, the
probability is low. Air quality degradation occurs with the emission of
heat and noncombustible material from the plant.
b. Plans Considered in Detail.
(1) Conservation The Nonstructural Alternative. This
alternative requires the imp ementation of various methods that would
reduce or restrict the use of energy. Adding additional insulation,
installing storm windows, weather stripping, upgrading the distribution
system, adding incentives or deductions for low energy use are the primary
methods of implementing this alternative. These methods would have
significant savings in heating costs to the community. The impact on
electrical use would be slight, however, because little electricity is used
for heating.
This alternative has virtually no adverse environmental impacts
while having very positive economic and social impacts. Execution of
conservation measures found to be cost effective should be pursued at the
earliest possible time.
EIS-3
(2) Waste Heat Recovery. Waste heat recovery can be used for both
heating and electrical generation. Direct waste heat can be used to heat
water which is circulated for heating purposes. The waste heat from diesel
generation can also vaporize a liquid, which is under high pressure, and
then be used to drive a turbine.
(3) Geothermal. The Alaska Power Authority is now studying the
geothermal potential for electrical generation at two sites on Unalaska
Island. Although the study is at the preliminary stage, the Makushin
Volcano site appears to have the potential of developing at least 30
megawatts (MW) of electrical output. Development of geothermal energy at
M~kushin Volcano would require production centers at two fields.
The exact type of power plant and related facilities has not yet
been determined. For impact analysis purposes, the power plants can be
broken down into two types: 1) where the effluent from the power plant is
injected back into the ground; and, 2) where the effluent is placed in a
cooling system and released in selected drainages where it eventually
enters the sea. Environmental impacts associated with type 1 are: access
to the site transmission corridor, cooling water sources, and production
centers. Type 2 would have similar impacts in addition to the thermal and
water pollution from the discharge of the effluent. Both types of
facilities would be subject to earthquake and volcano eruption hazards.
The environmental impacts of geothermal energy at Unalaska depend
on the design of the project features and on disposal of power plant
effluents. These aspects should be carefully engineered and examined for
environmental considerations. Geothermal development may also have direct
utilization. The effluent can be piped and used for industrial proceSSing,
commercial and residental heating, agriculture, and aquaculture. In the
Unalaska area, the potential for greenhousing and aquaculture is being
studied. The State of Alaska is expected to publish a report on geothermal
power production on Unalaska Island in the near future. This report will
probably include primary plans and the associated environmental impacts.
(4) Wind Generation. The possibility of developing a feasible
wind system appears to be extremely marginal. Although no site specific
wind data has ever been gathered, the Aleutian Islands are well known for
their windy environment. Wind generators perform optimally at wind
velocities between 12 and 35 mph with a relatively constant direction and
long duration. Development of wind generation is still in its infancy.
Although some large units (the MW range) are in ~se experimentally, units
greater than 45 kW are not commerCially available for the Alaskan
environment. To provide sufficient power for a viable aJternative,
numerous small units would be tied together forming a concept called wind
farming. The biggest disadvantage of wind generation at this time appears
to be the intermittent and fluctuating nature of wind itself. Because of
the periods of insufficient wind velocities, wind power energy is
classified as a secondary form of energy and therefore, must have
sufficient backup of conventional generation. Wind machines are also
susceptible to high winds or strong wind gusts. At the present time there
exists a viabl.e wind energy source called a wind energy convers.ion system
(WECS) which transforms the force of wind moving past a tower mounted
EIS-4 \
I
(
generator into alternating (AC) or direct (DC) current electricity. Power
generated by DC may be used directly for resident space heating. lighting
and water heating. In addition. batteries can be charged for later use
during peak demand period~ or when wind velocity is insufficient to drive
the generator. For further information on WECS and a summary of its
operating range see Main Report page 25.
Environmental impacts associated with wind generation vary. In a wind farm
concept, a several-acre area is required for the production site. Although
there would be numerous bird-wind generator encounters. especially during
high winqs, the lack of large mammals on Unalaska Island would render wind
power generation an environmentally sound alternative. The limited wind
velocity data currently available from Unalaska hamper efforts to
accurately determine the potential wind resources of the area. To verify
its feasibility, several years of wind data would be required. Although
this alternative could not totally displace diesel generation because of
the need for standby conventional generation, the possibility of displacing
significant amounts of diesel fuel through wind generation could occur if
wind speed data prove favorable.
Impacts associated with implementing this alternative would be
minimal. Water in Pyramid Creek is already being diverted for domestic
consumption. The powerhouse would be located in a disturbed area, thus
vegetative losses would be low.
(6) Shaishnikof River/Trail Lake Run-of-River Hldroelectric. The
proposed hydroelectric project is located on the Shalshnlkof Rlver at the
outlet of Trail Lake, approximately 6 miles from the city of Unalaska
(Figure 1). An A-frame timber buttress. 22-foot high, l04-foot long dam
would be constructed between the lake outlet and a 100-foot high natural
waterfall (Figure 2). Approximately 1.769 cubic yards of soils and
vegetation would be removed to anchor the dam into the existing bedrock.
An above ground 920-foot, 42-inch diameter steel penstock would
transport water from maximum pool elevation 565 feet mean sea level (msl)
to the powerhouse at elevation 430 feet. The powerhouse would contain one
300-kW and one 400-kW Francis turbine. For a complete project description,
refer to Appendix A, Technical Analysis, Shaishnikof River.
As shown in Figure 2, the placement of the powerhouse and dam would
not impede the movement of either anadromous or resident fishes because
their movement between the lake and river is not now possible due to the
impassable falls. The reach of the Shaishnikof River between the
powerhouse and dam will most likely be dry except when flows exceed the
powerhouse capacity occurring primarily during the late summer and early
EIS-5
fall seasons. Low flows generally occur during the winter months, due to
little precipitation and temperatures averaging below 32°F. This
seasonally dry section of the river will not be an impacting factor to
migrating salmon since steep falls and velocity chutes exist adjacent to
the powerhouse site and therefore make it inaccessible to the fishery
resource. A canyon area on the Shaishnikof River is located approximately
1 mile downstream of the proposed powerhouse, and has also several small
falls and velocity chutes that appear to block the upstream movement of
pink salmon for spawning. These obstructions would be removed to permit
access to spawning habitat above the canyon area (see Plate 6, Appendix A).
Coho salmon have been pbserved spawning above the canyon as well as Dolly
Varden char, which are:probably anadromous forms.
Originally, an overhead transmission line was considered as the
tentatively recommended plan for the project. After holding a public
meeting in January, it was found that the residents of Unalaska preferred a
proposal to bury the transmission line. It was felt that extreme high
winds, which frequent the Shaishnikof Valley, would create constant
maintenance problems.
Alinement of the proposed buried transmission line will generally
follow the shoulder of the access road for approximately 2.6 miles.
However, there will be several areas along the road where terrain will make .
it difficult to bury the line (see Plate 1 for location of access road and
transmission line), thus sections of the line will be placed a distance
from the access road. It is estimated that approximately 27 acres of
tundra would be lost or disrupted as a result of the project features.
The environmental impacts associated with this alternative appear
to be associated with the raising of the lake and the fluctuation of the
lake's water surface elevation. It appears that there would be no adverse
impacts downstream of the proposed project features. The run-of-river
project, as now designed, should not change the physical or chemical
properties of the water; therefore, no impacts to the river fishery should
occur.
Although no in-depth studies on the fisheries resources of Trail
Lake have been performed, small Dolly Varden have been observed in the
lake. The lake has several small feeder streams along with the larger
upper Shaishnikof River. Adequate spawning gravels are present at the
mouths of all the streams and diminish with the increase in stream
elevation. With the increase of the lake's natural elevation by 3 feet, it
appears that the majority of Dolly Varden habitat would be lost.
c. Comparative Impacts of Alternatives.
The no action and the conservation alternatives are non structural and
would have no direct impacts on the physical or biological environment.
The waste heat recovery and pressure reducing turbine (PRT) on Pyramid
Creek alternatives would occur in areas that have already been altered
considerably. The waste heat recovery alternative would occur within the
diesel generator powerplant. The PRT would occur on an area leveled for
road construction. These two alternatives would not have direct impacts on
the physical or biological environment.
EIS-6
-.
(
The wind generation and geothermal alternatives are not water resources
related projects and are not studied in detQil by the Corps of Engineers.
The State of Alaska is concurrently studying the feasibility of geothermal
power generation in the area; however, no detailed plans have been
distributed. Therefore, the impacts of these two alternatives are
addressed only in general terms. Table 1 outlines the impacts of all
alternatives.
E1S-7
o , 2
! !
SCALE IN KILOIIETERS
SHAISHNIKOF RIVER
QUARRY
... SITE
PINK SALMON
BLOCK
] CANYON AREA
-(FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT
CONSTRUCTION AREA)
OWERHOUSE ITE
TRAIL LAKE
tll1.'· , UNA A. ALA_A
SMALL HYDROPOWER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
PROJECT A.REA
AI •• k. DI.t,Iot. Co, ... of ••• 1 ••• , •
. ,.-.
~I • -.' • ~ • a -• .. .. -,. .. ..
n
0 .. ,.
•
0 ..
m
~
II -~ • • .. •
TRANSMISSION
LINE
,
.... -." mE c: 21 ••• 0 ,...
c.. CIt,.. ~ . -. m !:E -.i n r--c " •. -a~~ -t -t=-• -Co ~ .. ." r-......
-to-~ c. " Z am·
-c=-
ACCESS ROAD
100 FT.
WATERFALL
/ /
DAM
SPILLWA
0
TRAIL LAK.
eoo 1200 ,
le.l. In F •• t
IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
a. Existing Conditions.
(1) Location and Climate. The community of Unalaska is located on
Unalaska Island, one of the Fox Islands in the eastern Aleutian Island
Chain, approximately 800 air miles southwest of Anchorage. The climate is
considered moderate and is tempered by its marine environment. Weather
fronts in the Aleutians generally move from west to east; consequently, the
northeast shores offer the most protected locations. Average temperatures
in Unalaska range from 40 to 60 degrees F in thetsummer and 25 to 40
degrees' F dur i ng the wi nter. There is some prec i pi tat i on on the Aleut ian
Islands during more than 200 days each year. Unalaska has an average total
precipitation of 60 inches, with a total snowfall of 80 inches. Snow
accumulation at the lower elevations rarely exceeds 2 feet because of the
freeze-thaw cycle.
(2) Topography and Geology. The Aleutian Islands are a chain of
islands stretching in a long curving arc 1,100 miles west from the Alaska
Peninsula almost to Kamchatka, Siberia. They are the northernmost in a
series of volcanic island chains that border the Pacific Ocean. Unalaska
Island is approximately 2,000 square miles in area and is characterized by
low mountains with moderateLto steep slopes and generally rolling
topography at the lower elevations. The island displays deeply indented
fjords and bays.
Makushin Volcano, located on the northwestern section of the
island, has erupted at least 14 times since 1700 and last erupted in 1952.
The fumaroles and hot springs which occur on Unalaska Island are evidence
of hot water or vapor-dominated hydrothermal systems. High heat flows
associated with the recent volcanic activity are suspected and could be
driving the hydrothenmal system. The hydrothermal systems appear to be
limited to the northern part of the island.
Summer Bay warm springs is an area of potential geothermal energy.
The warm springs occur near the base of exposed Unalaska Formation (group
of volcanic and sedimentary rocks) in a boggy swamp located south of Summer
Bay Lake. The Summer Bay Lake area consists of two thermal resources, a
shallow sedimentary basin and a deeper fault/fracture controlled system.
The Makushin Volcano is a thick pile of unaltered and
little-deformed lava and pyroclastic rocks which overlie the Unalaska
Formation. It forms a broad volcanic dome more than 1800 meters high and
16 kilometers wide. Seven fumarole fields on the volcano and several
faults in the vicinity of the fields have been identified. These faults
appear to control potential hydrothermal systems related to the fumarole
fields.
For more specific information on the geology of these two regions,
refer to Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development on geothermal
potential in the Aleutians, Unalaska (1981).
EIS-10
(~)
tTl
~
No Action
Shaishnikof
River/Trail
Lake
.pyramid
Creek
'(' Geothermal
...... ......
Wi nd
Generation
VEGETAT ION
No Impact
12 acres road,
transmission
1 ine, .. struc-
tures, 15 acres
shorel ine in-
dunduation
Less than 1
acre for all
project
features
Impact unknown
loss of vegeta-
tion f·or access
road .. fac il-
Hies con-
struction
Impact unknown
loss of vegeta-
tion for access
roads, towers
.. facilities
construction
Nonstructural No Impact
(conser-
vation waste
heat recovery)
TABLE
WILDLIFE
No Impact
Indirect
impact to
raptors if
microtine
population
is reduced
No Impact
Indirect
impact to
rap tors if
mi crot ine
popu lat ion
15 reduced
Indirect
impact to
raptors if
micro tine
population is
reduced in-
crease in
bird/tower
collisions
No Impact
COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
FISHERIES
No Impact
Loss of portion
of Do lly Varden
in lake + in-
cre ase in pink
sa 1 mon, produc-
tion with en-
hancement
No Impact
Impact unknown
thermal release
into recetvi ng
waters would be
adverse to
f tshery
No Impac t
No Impact
WATER gUALI TV
No Impact
Impact short
term return to
ex tst i ng con-
ditions by end
of construction
phase ,.
No Impact
Impact unknown
either fluid
wastes of ther-
mal would have
significant
adverse changes
to receiving
waters
No Impact
No Impac t
SOCIOECONOMIC
Continued dependence
on cost escalating
foss 11 fue 1 s
Reduction of diesel
fuel use + smal(
economic benefits
to consumer
Reduction of diesel
fuel use + small
economic benefits
to consumer
If feasible, total
dependence on diesel
use + secondary uses
as hatcheries and
greenhouse
If feasible reduction
of diesel fuel use
+ economic benefits
sma 11
CULTURAL
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Impact
Unknown
I mpac t
·Unknown
No Impact
The Shaishnikof River drainage elevations range from sea level at
the head of Captains Bay to approximately elevation 2600 feet at its
highest point. The basin is bounded on three sides by steep and talus
slopes. The topography of the drainage varies from jagged high ridges to
smoother lower slopes. The area is on the border of the pluton and the
stream gravels consist of igneous rocks which vary from granites to
diorites; and various sedimentary rocks.
b. Significant Resources.
(1) Hydrology/Water Quality.
(a) as bubble disease. The
condition of supersaturatlon occurs w en wa er oWlng over a spl11way
entrains large volumes of air as it plunges into the stilling basin.
Atmospheric gases are driven into solution by the high pressure of the
impacting water. Because the condition of supersaturation is a chemically
unstable condition, a natural degasification process occurs which releases
the excess gas in solution. The rate of gas release across the air-water
interface is generally controlled by atmospheric pressure and water
temperature.
Although gas bubble disease resulting from exposure of aquatic
organisms to water supersaturated with dissolved gas was described about
100 years ago, the problem became serious when it was recognized as a major
contributing factor to the decline of salmonid fish -stocks on the Columbia
River. More recently, a widespread gas bubble disease problem has been
realized with fish kills in steam generating station discharge plumes, both
at freshwater and marine sites. In these cases, supersaturation is caused
by the decrease in gas solubility which accompanies heating of water used
to cool condensers.
Studies have indicated that significant mortality of juvenile
salmonids commences at about 115 percent saturation where water is shallow
and hydrostatic compensation is not possible. Where compensation is
possible, significant mortality commences at about 124 percent.
(b) Temperature. Water temperatures in most of the streams in the
Unalaska area range from about 0.5 degrees C to 9.5 degrees C (32.9 to 33.8
degrees F). This does vary considerably with the configuration of the
basin and whether a lake is included in the system. Although a temperature
profile for Trail Lake was not accomplished, a recording thermograph is
located at the 1 ake out 1 et. Hi gh temperatures of 11.5 degrees C (52.7
degrees F) have been recorded in mid-August 1982. Inflow from tributaries,
groundwater and runoff cool the water substantially, water temperatures
recorded approximately 0.5 miles upstream from the river mouth
(approximately 3 miles from the lake outlet) had same day recordings of
5 to 6 degrees C (41-42.8 degrees F). In natural lakes the stream below
the outlet is fed by surface water, warmer water during the summer and
colder water during the winter. As stated above, no temperature profiles
of the lake were taken during either the winter or summer. Temperature
studies in Southcentra1 Alaska (Srad1ey Lake and Allison Lake) and
Southeast Alaska (Long Lake and Crater Lake) indicate that little
temperature stratification or thermoclines occur during the winter. At the
EIS-12
(
above lakes, winter temperatures are near 0 degree C at the surface and
gradually increase tp near 4 degrees C, 5 to 10 meters below the surface.
Summer temperatures s~ow the same pattern, a gradual decrease in
temperature from tP'le·:surface to 4 degrees C at varying depths.
Stream temperatures play an important role in subarctic aquatic
ecosystems. Aquatic organisms have adopted their life cycles to breed and
emerge at the optimal temperature regimes. Any changes to the natural
temperature cycle could cause adverse impacts to the aquatic fauna.
~. (c) Stream Bank Erosion. The reach of the Shaishqikof River from
the lake outlet to approximately 0.5 miles upstream of its 9 mouth is
considered a stable river system. There are no sloughing or undercut
banks, no overflow or braided channels. The first 1.5 to 2 miles
downstream of the lake outlet, the channel is well defined with highly
vegetated streambanks. Downstream of this reach, the river narrows into a
steep-walled canyon. The river channel is extremely stable because the
stream has cut down to bedrock. Below the canyon, the river widens and
begins to meander. There is some bank sloughing and braiding in this area.
Water flowing over a spillway or, in the case of the proposed
hydropower project, through a Francis Turbine is capable of causing severe
erosion of the streambed and banks below' the outfall. Loose earth and rock
are vulnerable to the erosive action of flowing water and may scour severely
at velocities as low as 2 or 3 feet per second. Solid rock is usually
resistant to scour, although if the rock has marked bedding planes, it may
not endure high-velocity flow. If the rock has a.rough, jagged surface,
cavitation may assist in the erosion. Erosion at a small hydroelectric site
would occur with water releases through the tailrace at too high a velocity
or a moderate velocity with the tailrace reentering the stream as a side
channel. If the velocity from a side ch~nne1 is high enough to erode the
opposite stream bank it could cause he1ita1 flows. Prus-Chacinsk, as cited
by Leopold et a1 (1964), showed that, by introducing an artificial
secondary circulation at the entry of a given bend, it is possible to
produce various kinds of secondary circulations in the next successive
bend, which, in turn, affect the circulation in the next bend, and so
forth. Erosion and deposition within the stream would have a direct effect
on the spawning and rearing of sa1monid species now using the river.
(2) Air and Noise Quality. Air quality degradation in the
Unalaska basin has been both natural and human induced. Ash and/or smoke
eruptions of Makushin Volcano have occurred as recently as 1952 and other
volcanos in the immediate area have spewed ash and smoke into the
atmosphere as recently as 1967. Human induced air quality degradation
occurred with the construction and operation of the military facilities
during World War II. Today, air quality near the corrmunity of Unalaska is
probably not classified as pristine. 'With the recent increase in
construction activities, seafood processing, and the increase in vessels,
both the air and noise quality have suffered.
The sites for either the geothermal or hydroelectric alternatives
are far enough removed from the corrmunity that they will not affect air
quality or create noise pollution.
EIS-13
(3) Esthetics. The esthetic quality of Unalaska is quite
diverse. Natural scenic quality includes rocky coastline, rugged mountains
and volcanos and abundant seabird activity. The evidence of World War II
activities also has high esthetTc qualities. Both the geothermal and
hydropower sites are removed fr6m~uman activity and the area has remained
in its natural state.
(4) Floodplains. The nature of hydroelectric projects requires
that some construction must occur in a floodplain. Executive Order 11988
applies to all Federal agencies that: (1) acquire, manage, or dispose of
Federal lands and facilities, (2) undertake finance, or assist construction
and improvements ,and (3) conduct activities and programs affecting land
use, including pt.~nning, regulating, and licensing and activities which are
subject to inundation by a flood with a one percent chance of occurring in
any year. The objective of the order is to avoid to the greatest extent
possible, the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the
occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect
support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable
alternative. The Floodplain Management Guidelines, 43 FK 6030 were used in
this document to implement Executive Order 11988.
(5) Quarry Site. Construction materials required for the
hydropower project could be obtained from either of two existing quarry
sites, one site located on the Pyramid Creek Road and the other site in'the
Dutch Harbor vicinity (refer to Figure 1 for site location). '
c. Biological Characteristics.
(1) veTetation. The vegetation of Unalaska Island is
characterized a most entirely by tundra. Climate and terrain prevent the
establishment of tall trees, although there are some dense thickets of
low-lying alder and willow around water bodies. Several stands of Sitka
spruce were planted during the Russian period and World War II. The oldest
surviving trees at Amaknak Island are over 150 years old and are still
producing viable seeds and seedlings. There are three predominant
vegetation communities (Arctic Environmental Information and Uata Center
1974) on Unalaska Island~
(a) Wet Tundra. A community found in the vicinity of standing
water and tidal lowlands, wet tundra provides a continuous cover of bog
orchid, cotton grass, and sedges rooted in mosses and lichens. A loose
shrub layer of Labrador tea, low-growing willows, and blueberries grow in
slightly higher places with better drainage. Beach and spear rye grasses
occupy tidal lowlands.
(b) Moist Tundra. This is a heath or moorland type community
characterized by an almost continuous mat of mosses, lichens, and tufted
hair grass in which other plants are rooted. Sedges and grasses are
common, and cotton grass may preaominate in poorly drained areas. At
slightly higher places with better drainage, dwarf shrubs are the dominant
type; these may include crowberry, willow, and blueberry. During the
summer, wildflowers are scattered throughout this community, produced by
forbs such as bistorf, buttercup, lousewort, monkshood, and violet. Moist
EIS-14 \
I
tundra is probably the most complex plant community on Unalaska Island,
although it does not cover a large percentage of the island.
(c) Alpine Tundra. Alpine tundra constitutes the largest
community of the island. This community occupies exposed slopes and ridges
and other well-drained locations, often at higher elevations but also on
the summits of ridges and hills only slightly above sea level. Lichens and
forbs such as aster, cinquefoil, and lupine colonize barren, windswept
areas, whereas more sheltered locations support alpine azalea, arctic
willow, bearberry, cranber~y, moss campion, and mountain avens. Crowberry,
grasses, sweet coltsfoot, and yarrow also occur in localized places •
. ~ .
(d) Sbaishnikof River Drainage. The Shaishnikof River Valley
falls predominantly in the alpine tundra classification. Wet tundra is
almost non-existent. Small pockets where the soils are poorly drained
could support this plant community. The river is fringed with willows and
alder for most of its length. Only in the extreme upper river reach does
the willow/alder fringe give way to grassy stream banks. The alpine tundra
plant community is estimated to cover over 90 percent of the valley.
It is important to recognize that tundra-type vegetation tends to
recover slowly from disturbance. This is especially true of alpine
tundra. Scars of World War II are apparent within every type of plant
community, particularly where wind or soil erosi~n has prevented or :
retarded the recolonization of disturbed areas by normal plant succession.
(2) Mammals. No large mammals are native to Unalaska Island.
Reindeer were introduced in 1891 and 1913 to both Unalaska and Amaknak
Islands; however, it appears the transplants were not successful. The
largest native mammal on Unalaska is the red fox. The arctic ground
squirrel, an introduced species, is abundant throughout the island.
Evidence of other small rodents (lemmings and/or voles) in the form
of numerous criss-crossing runs are common throughout the Shaishnikof River
valley. These small mammals are abundant in the grassy meadow area where
the Shaishnikof River empties into Trail Lake.
(3) Birds. Although the Aleutian Islands are well known for bird
life, these are basically seabirds and are not that involved with the tundra
environment. Common birds of the tundra. include, savannah sparrow, lapland
longspur, snow bunting, winter wrens and ravens. The only upland game bird
on Unalaska Island is the rock ptarmigan which has been observed in the
Shaishnikof River drainage. Raptor use of the Shaishnikof River drainage
is probably high. The abundance of lemmings and/or voles in the drainage
coupled with the anadromous salmonids provide year-around food sources. An
active bald eagle nest is located in the canyon area at river mile 1.5.
Pellet~ are also numerous in the canyon area, demonstrating its rapt or use.
(4) Fisheries. The streams of Unalaska support four species of
Pacific salmon; pink, sockeye, chum and coho. The known spawning streams
are all located on the northern side of the island with all the streams
eventually emptying into the Bering Sea. Major commercial fishing areas
are Unalaska Bay and Makushin Bay with a purse seine effort for pink salmon.
EIS-1S
At least eight streams that drain the Makushin Volcano watershed
.~upport anadromous salmon. Because no field investigations were performed
.;on the Makushin Volcano watershed, the lack of background data will allow
... impact assessment in general terms only ••
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game estimates the escapement for
pink salmon into the Shaishnikof River from 1979 to 1982 to be 18,000,
14,000, 59,000 and 26,000, respectively. Fish from the large return in
1981 constituted 36 percent of the total Unalaska Bay pink salmon
escapement. The Unalaska Bay commercial fishery harvested 551,000 fish in
1982 with the value to t~ fishermen approximately $330,000. The value to
the fishermen varies wit~ the price per pound for any given year. In 1980
554,000 fish were caught which brought $800,000 to the fishermen.
Pink salmon spawn both intertidally and instream up to the canyon
area. The intertidal spawning habitat is excellent, as is the lower
quarter mile of the river. From this area to the canyon the habitat is
fair to excellent. Numerous small waterfalls and velocity chutes are in
the canyon area, which may prohibit upstream migration of pink salmon.
Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists conducted field
investigations of the potential spawning habitat above the canyon. Using
the parameters cited in the Coordination Act Report (refer to Appendix D),
there are 2.05 acres of excellent spawning habitat. Appro~imately 90 hours
of fyke net trapping and one on-site visit during pink salmon spawning, did
not ~ealize either pink adult or smolt.
In some Alaskan streams, pink salmon have two distinctive runs .•
The earlier run consists of those fish that spawn instream. Because stream
temperatures are lower than marine water temperatures in the winter,
instream egg and alevin development requires more time. If emergence and
outmigration are to be successful, the smolt must enter the marine
environment at the most optimal time. Instream spawning must occur earlier
to assure the resultant smolt enter the marine environment at approximately
the same time as the intertidal smolt occur to guarantee equal competition
for food sources. During any given year, the possibility of early or late
emergence of the instream initiated smolt exists, and the fyke net fishing
effo·rt in late April may have missed the outmigration. However, this
possibility seems remote.
The Shaishnikof River also supports a small run of chum salmon.
The population is estimated at approximately 200 fish by Fish and Game
personnel at Unalaska. During one fyke net fishing effort near the mouth
of the river; 365 fish were captured, of which 92 were chum smolt. The
chum, spawning appears to be in the lower reaches in sloughs and
backwaters. Fyke net efforts above the mouth did not produce any chum fry.
Coho salmon were observed above the canyon area by U.S. Fish and
Wildlife in September 1982. Approximately 50 adults were observed, and a
population of about 200 adult fish for the run has been estimated. Coho,
unlike pink and chum salmon, spend at least one year in the freshwater
environment after they emerge from the gravel. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service considers the area above the canyon to be excellent coho habitat
for both spawning and rearing. Approximately 1163 hours of either baited
minnow trapping or fyke net fishing did not produce any coho juveniles.
EIS-16
)
/,.
Several of the minnow traps were painted flat black as coho fry would avoid
tne standard silver minnow traps in some streams in Alaska. Although the
black traps proved to be successful on Kodiak Island, the ones on the
Shaishnikof River were unsuccessful. Why the trapping effort for coho fry
was unsuccessful is unknown.
Dolly Varden char occur throughout the system as both anadromous
and nonanadromous resident forms. The anadromous form is abundant below
the canyon, and it appears that they are able to migrate through the
canyon, probably at certain flow regimes. The anadromous forms above the
canyon were apparent because of their large size (an adult caught in a fyke
net measured 475 mm and others larger in size were observed in several
pools). In a small river system such as the Shaishnikof, the resident
forms rarely exceed 300 mm.
Dolly Varden char juveniles use similar habitat as coho salmon
juveniles. Dolly Varden usually smoltify at 3 years; smolting fish older
than 5 years or younger than 3 years are rarely found. Twenty-eight
juvenile Dollies ranging from 27 to 144 mm were caught using baited minnow
traps. Although all fish were released alive and none were aged, at least
3 age classes of the anadromous form were represented.
The population inhabiting Trail Lake is completely isolated from
the river stocks because of the 100-foot falls at the lake outlet.
Spawning probably occurs in inlet streams; the juveniles remain in the
feeder streams for approximately 2 years, then migrate to the lake. The
size of mature adults in Trail Lake is unknown and could vary anywhere from
150 mm to 400 mm •.
(5) Threatened or Endangered Species. According to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, no known species are listed in the U.S. Fish and.
Wildlife Service threatened or endangered species listings in the local area
lSee Appendix C). Upon review of Threatenea and Endangered Plants of
Alaska, published by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, 1982,
no species being considered for threatened or endangered status have been
identified on Unalaska Island. Calamagrostus crassiglums, a plant species
classified as Rare Taxa with undetermined status is found on Unalaska
Island.
d. Socioeconomics.
The present economic setting at Unalaska is dominated by the fishing
and seafood processing industries. In the recent past, the demersal
fishery of the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska was almost entirely exploited
by foreign concerns. The U.S. fishing fleet, either individually or in
joint ventures with foreign enterprises, has become involved with the
taking of demersal fish. The foreign fleets use a mother-ship concept, and
little, if any processing occurs on U.S. shores. The U.S. fleet, although
leaning toward the mother-ship concept, still brings their catch to shore
processors, mainly to Unalaska.
EIS-17
The increased employment due to the seafood processing industry has "-'\
changed the social aspects of the community. A large influx of non-natives
into the Unalaska community has reduced the proportion of natives to
non-natives. At this time, the non-natives have a four to one population
advantage. This rapid growth has made it extremely challenging to the
native people to maintain their social and cultural integrity.
e. Historical/Archeological Resources.
Aboriginal Background. People have occupied the Aleutian Islands for
at least 8000 years, possibly longer. Various islands may have been
occupied and abandoned many times throughout this time span as resources
fluctuated, volcanoes errupted, or social pressures occurred. However, it
is clear that in the past the rich marine resources of the north Pacific
and Bering Seas allowed the islands to support a fairly dense human
population with numbers greater than today. A sophisticated hunting
technology involving highly skilled use of skin boats enabled the
aboriginal peoples to exploit this harsh but rich environment.
The Aleut populations first encountered by early Russian adventurers
were a distinct biological, cultural and linguistic group whose boundary,
on the lower Alaska Peninsula, with Eskimo and Indian groups fluctuated
over time. Remarkable homogeneity of material culture is seen along the
entire island chain; no group remained isolated long enough to produce a
completely different artifact inventory.
It is still unclear whether ethnic Aleuts were the first inhabitants of
the islands. The earliest cultural tradition, the Anangu1a tradition dated
to about 8,000 years ago at the Anangu1a site near Umnak Island, exhibits a
core and blade tradition with strong Asian affinities. The later Aleutian
t rad ; t ion, wh i ch began about 5300 years ago and 1 asted unt 'j 1 European
contact, had a less elaborate stone tool technology but a well developed
bone tool industry.
Not surprisingly, given the Aleut dependence on marine and coastal
resources, a century of archeological and ethno-historic study has
indicated that virtually all midden or village sites are located on the
coast; only burial caves, stone quarries and similar short term sites are
found inland (McCartney 1979: J-33). Sites are usually found on low
coasts of easy accessibility; however, villages were located in good
defensive positions on spits, promontories, or necks (Martinson 1973:
87). On the eastern end of the chain villages were large. Perhaps 200-300
people lived in large communal dwellings which sheltered polygamous
extended families. Villages were always located on low hills because they
provided a vantage point and also because houses were semi-subterranean
(Martinson 1973; 112).
The heads of bays, where most salmon streams are found, were
strategically not desirable for permanent villages. Short term camps might
be found in such locations.
EIS-18
Sites are plentiful on Unalaska Island, probably indicating a large
pre-contact population. These include depressions resulting from the large
communal houses mentioned above, which measure 6 x 20 meters in dimension.
After Russian influence became pervasive, the Aleuts more typically
constructed smaller, single family, semi-subterranean houses, called
.. barabaras" by the Ru ss i ans (Dumond 1977: 70).
Many sites can be easily located by the lush vegetation that grows on
them as a result of the soil enhancement and disturbance from the human
occupation. This may not be evident at the very oldest or more ephemeral
sites.
Historic Background. It was not long after Vitus Bering first sighted
the Aleutian Islands in 1741 that other Russian adventurers followed,
attracted by the rich fur resources of this new territory. The Russians,
with their superior weapons, soon dominated the Aleuts and extracted
tribute from them in the form of furs or labor. Disease and social trauma
brought about by the Russians soon decimated both Aleut popu.1ations and
their culture.
Captain·s Bay has been a focus of both native and European activities
in the past 250 years. The Bay owes its present name to Russian Lieutenant
Levashev who camped there in the winter of 1766 (Alaska Geographic 1980:
95). At that time, a native village was located at the entrance to the Bay.
A permanent Russian settlement was established at I1iu1iuk village by
the trader Soloviev at about the same time, either in 1765-66 or 1771-76.
This settlement grew into a major Russian administrative center known as
Unalaska. Russian buildings dating from the 1800·s, such as the church and
the nearby Bishop·s house, still stand at Unalaska and hav~ been placed on
the National Register of Historic Places. In general, however, the
Russians did not construct many permanent structures in the Aleutians.
Much of their trading and hunting was staged from ships, native style
barabaras, or insubstantial frame buildings which have not endured as
standing structures. If Russian building sites were located they would be
of great interest to historical archeologists and ethnohistorians.
After the United States purchase of Russian America in 1867, Unalaska
Dutch Harbor remained an important port. It was a major refueling and
resupply point for vessels sailing from southern pOints to the Bering and
Beaufort Seas. Fox trapping, fur sealing and fishing were important
industries in the chain. Commercial trading companies established stores
in most of the villages and schools were established in the early part of
this century. This had the effect of drawing the native population into a
more settled lifestyle, although subsistence and other economic activities
dispersed them at various times of the year.
None of these activities surpassed the impact of World War II on the
Islands, when the native inhabitants were evacuated and huge military
EIS-19
installations were constructed, including Fort Mears near Uutch Harbor.
There are many World War II buildings and much military debris in the
project area.
Since the war, Unalaska-Dutch Harbor has become a major fishing port
and the population has grown. The Captain's Bay-Shaishnikof River area has
not been much affected by recent developments, but the mouth of Pyramid
Creek has become a crab pot storage area.
Known Cultural Resources in the Project Area. There are many known
historic and prehistoric sites in the Unalaska area, three of which are on
or are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; the Amaknak
Bridge site, the Russian·Orthodox Church at Unalaska, and the Sitka Spruce
Plantation on Amaknak Island near Unalaska village.
Although it has never been well-studied, the Captain's Bay area is
known to have been the site of much historic, and therefore presumably
prehistoric, Aleut activity. In 1877, Dall reported nine sites on the bay
(p. 45), but did not give specific locations.
A 1923 map titled "Survey of Power Prospect, Shaishnikof River"
prepared by the Navy Yard, Puget Sound, Washington and based on other
coastal and geodetic surveys from 1867 to 1906, shows several houses and
other structures located near the mouth of the Shaishnikof River. The area
is designated "Alexander Shaishnikof's Kanch".
During World War II, A.R. Cohn, an officer stationed at Dutch Harbor
reported the locations of many sites in the Unalaska/Amaknak Island area.
These included two sites just to the north of the mouth of Pyramid Creek.
No details about the nature of the cultural material was reported, but it
is known that the sites were partially destroyed by military road bui.1ding
activities (McCartney 1979). These are probably the same sites reported by
T.P. Banks (1974) as small archeological deposits mostly disturbed by World
War II operations and designated UNL-091 on the Alaska Heritage Resource
Survey (AHRS).
T.P. Banks (1974) reported several sites on Captain's Bay as the result
of many years' familiarity with the area. UNL-102 is probably a small
shipping station 10cated·at the head of the bay to the west of the
Shaishnikof River. UNL-042 is the remains of a fairly large village mound
partially levelled during the war. In the early 1970's, there was Pan
Aleut house occupying part of the area. I' This possible village site is
located near the mouth of the Shaishnikof River near the eastern bank;
UNL-103 is located on the eastern shore of the bay near its head and is the
remains of a seasonal fish camp according to Banks.
Banks only provides a one or two sentence description of each site
mentioned so there is not much information to work with. Still, it is clear
that the shore of Captain's Bay, particularly near the mouths of the
Shaishnikof River and Pyramid Creek, is an area of high cultural resource
potential.
EIS-20 )
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ON SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES
The. alternatives to provide electric power for Unalaska are quite
diverse. The wind generation site location is unknown. The design of
geothermal alternative is not complete and the type and locations of the
facilities are unknown. Impacts associated with these two alternatives are
discussed in general terms so the reviewer may be able to compare the
possible impacts' of the different alternatives. The pressure reducing
turbine, diesel, conservation and waste heat recovery alternatives have
minimal environmental impacts. Because of the obvious lack of significant
environmental impacts associated with these alternatives, the main emphasis
will be on the Shaishnikof River/Tr~i'l Lake alternative.
l
a. Physical Environment.
ll) Hydrology/Water Quality.
(a) Geothermal. The effects on water quality from geothermal
development vary with the mode of operation, which is dependent upon the
nature of the resource. Liquid-dominated resources usually go through a
process where the vapor is separated from the liquid by lowering the
pressure of the system and the steam is used to turn the turbine. Where the
geothermal resource has lower temperatures, the resource is used to heat a
hydrocarbon, such as isobutane, which w·i11 in turn drive a turbine. With
the hot liquid dominated system, the vapor that turns the turbine is run
into a condenser, then into a cooling tower. The steam condenses, is cooled
and the waste liquid is piped out of the system. With the low temperature
process where a hydrocarbon is used, the hydrocarbon is piped to a condenser
and then into a cooling tower. This differs from the above mentioned
process because the hydrocarbon is in a closed system and the hydrocarbon
is recycled. In order to cool the hydrocarbon, an outside water source is
required. Waste liquids are generated from t~e liquid-vapor separating
process, 'steam condensate and cooling tower blowdown. Although some
existing geothermal plants dispose of these liquids as surface water, all
new plants and designs inject the liquids back into a suitable aquifer for
both environmental reasons and production aquifer maintenance.
The generation of electrical power from geothermal resources with a
waste water injection system appears to have little impact on surface water
quality. Using the heat exchanger in the hydrocarbon operation requires
'cooling water from a source outside the production fields. The amount of
water required for the cooling process at Unalaska is unknown; however,
from existing plants, the cooling water requirements range from 58 to 718
acre-feet of water per megawatt of electricity per year. Therefore, a
20-MW plant of the hydrocarbon closed system would require between 1,168 to
14,360 acre feet of water for cooling purposes. If this type of system is
employed, extreme care must be taken to assure the decrease in water from
the cooling water source does not impact the fisheries resources. Outside
sources of water may also be required for aquifer maintenance.
Nonelectrical uses of geothermal resources in the Unalaska area may
include aquaculture and greenhouse heating. Aquaculture enterprises could
EI~-21
not use the liquid waste from the electrical power generation because of
water quality requirements for the hatching and rearing of fish or shell
fish. Surface wa~er would be heated by the waste effluent. Greenhouse
heating would utilize either direct liquio waste or water heated by the
liquid waste water. Water quality impacts associated with these two
secondary facilities would only occur if either the liquid wastes were not
injected back into an aquifer or the water heated by the liquid wastes were
released into a surface water system.
As stated previously, the Corps of Engineers is not involved with
the planning or construction of geothermal power plants. The discharge of
waste liquids into surface waters is not a prActice in tpe United States.
Whoever plans and/or constructs geothermal power plants should assume that
the liquid wastes will be injected into a suitable aquifer.
(b) Hydroelectric Alternatives. Changes in the chemical
composition of water used in the Shaishnikof/Trail Lake alternatives would
be limited to dissolved gases, temperature, turbidity during facilities
construction, and possibly suspended sediments from shore erosion caused by
lake drawdown in the Trail Lake alternative •.
(c) Other Alternatives. No water quality impacts are associated
with wind generation, waste heat recovery, conservation or the no action
alternatives. L
(2) Dissolved Gases Supersaturation.
(a) Hydroelectric Alternatives. High levels of supersaturation in
the Columbia and Snake River were first reported in the 1966 spill period
(July and August) when nitrogen levels were measured above 120 percent
saturation. Subsequent studies showed supersaturation occurred throughout
high flow periods. .
During high flow periods, all of the water is not used for
electrical generation; the excess is routed over spillways. Supersaturation
with hydroelectric projects is generally associated with the water passing
over the spillways, and to a lesser extent the water used to turn the
turbines. Spillways cause air and water to be mixed and carried to'
substantial depths in a plunge basin. The major factors affecting gas
solubility are pressure and temperature. When the pressure on a given
volume of water increases, the capacity of that volume of water to hold
dissolved gases also increases. Pressure is increased in water by hydro-
static head. Hydrostatic pressure increases rapidly with depth, greatly
increasing the capacity of deeper water to hold dissolved gas as compared
to shallow water. The supersaturation problem on the Columbia River System
is apparently being eliminated with the installation of spillway deflectors.
These devices deflect the spilled flow along the surface of the tai1water
rather than allowing it to plunge to the bottom of the deep stilling basins.
In the proposed alternatives at the outlet of Trail Lake, the
spillway is not part of the dam structure, but is a side channel on a 0.05
slope which would reenter the river above the falls. From its reentry into
EIS-22
the river, the flow will react as it does without the project, except there
would be less water. The withdrawal through the penstock would be used to
turn a Francis turbine, then released into the tailrace. When the water
passes through the turbine, the energy and pressure are greatly reduced.
The tailrace would not have a plunge pool, but a chamber that would
maintain the tailrace elevation above the draft tube, which would be
approximately 6 feet in depth. As discussed above, the parameters which
cause dissolved gas supersaturation are not prevalent in the project design.
(b) Geothermal. Dissolved gas supersaturation can also occur with
a significant rise in temperature of large volumes of water. As the
t~mperature of a volume of water increases, the volume of dissolved gas it
will hold at equilibrium decreases. Increasing water temperature will
produce supersaturation in water that is initially saturated.
Supersaturation has occurred at several steam-generating facilities. Total
dissolved gas levels exceeded 140 percent at times and were frequently
above 120 percent at a nuclear power plant on Cape Cod. The high levels of
supersaturation were caused by temperature increases of 13 to 25 degrees C
over ambient temperatures. There is sufficient information to indicate
that supersaturation should be considered any time aquatic organisms may be
exposed to heated water. This includes cooling of geothermal facilities or
waters heated for aquatic culture purposes.
The role that supersaturation may cause to freshwater resources
from thermal discharges may be meaningless. An increase in stream
temperatures sufficient enough for supersaturation to be critical to
aquatic species would probably be higher than many of the species could
tolerate.
(3) Temperature.
(a) Geothermal. Increases in surface water tefflperature associated
with geothermal generation may vary considerably. Waste liquids and steams
(steam condensate, water from liquid-dominated resources, and cooling tower
blowdown) if injected into aquifers, would have little or no influence on
surface water. If a binary system (hydrocarbon) requires large amounts of
water for cooling, all the waste cooling water may not be injected into an
aquifer. The impacts of discharging the heated water depend on the amount
of water being discharged, the temperature of the discharged water, the
flow of the receiving surface water, and the topography of the receiving
water's drainage. In any case, there would be an increase in water
temperature and even slight increases would have an effect on the aquatic
resources of that system.
(b) Hydropower. There would be no significant change in water
temperature associated with installing a pressure reducing turbine (PRT) in
the existing domestic water supply pipe from Pyramid Creek. Water pressure
caused from the c~ange in elevation from the dam site to the powerhouse is
used to turn the turbine in a closed system. Temperature increases, if
EIS-23
L
• "~~"""'''''''' __ '~''~~ __ o'''~'N"''~<' ' ... ·',...N ',,'~'I ,...~.~., . .
any, would be caused by friction. An increase in water temperature from
friction is not consider~d important because the increase would be minor
and would be unnoticed in domestic consumption.
The existing water surface elevation at Trail Lake is 562 feet
above mean sea level. The proposed design is to place a 22-foot high dam
approximately 600 feet downstream of the lake outlet. The dam would cause
the water surface elevation of the lake to increase by 3 feet, to elevation
565. A small impoundment of approximately 3 acre-feet (6 cubic feet per
second per day) would be created from the lake outlet to the dam. Although
the pensvock invert is at elevation 550, only the upper 3 feet qf the lake
could fill the impoundment and be used for power production. Water
retention time within the small impoundment is short in duration, and with
an average water use of 45 cubic feet per second, the water could be
replaced 7.5 times per day. The short retention time would not be
sufficient to cause changes in water temperature through climatic
conditions. Any changes in stream water temperature below the dam would be
caused by the additional 3 feet of the water column of the lake which would
. be allowed to outflow because of project design.
the Alaska District has performed lake temperature profiles on
Allison and Bradley lakes in Southcentral Alaska and on Long lake in
Southeast Alaska; however, no temperature profiles have been completed on
Trail Lake. These temperature profiles as well as those for Karluk,
Akalura and Terror Lakes as recorded in AEIDC (1979) are similar in respect
to the changes which occur within the top 10 feet of the surface of each .
lake. There was less than a degree difference between surface temperature
and -10 feet, and less than one half degree C at the -6 foot level.
If Trail Lake is similar to the other lakes indicated above,
downstream water temperature would be altered only slightly. Table 2
indicates the simulated flows into the Shaishnikof River above and below
the lake outlet. If water temperatures are slightly different after
project completion, water temperature would reach pre-project conditions
through lateral mixing with ground and surface water inflow and through
exposure to the existing climatic conditions. It appears that the project,
as now designed, would cause little change in water temperature.
EIS-24
Table 2
ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY INF.~OWS, (CFS) SHAISHNIKOF RIVER
Month
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Above·"Lake
Outlet 1
49
38
31
31
29
22
30
75
79
34
39
55
1) This includes all inflows above the lake outlet.
Below Lake
Outlet 2
79
61
50
50
47
35
48
121
127
55
63
89
2) This includes only inflows below the lake outlet; but does not include
flows from the lake.
(4) Air Quality.
(a) Geothermal. The content of noncondensib1e gases in geothermal
fluids varies widely between fields, between wells, and over time for a
single well. Carbon dioxide would probably be the largest volume of gas in
geothermal fluids. Below asphyxiation levels, carbon dioxide promotes plant
growth and is harmless to animals. Any contribution to climatic warming
associated with the emission of high levels of carbon dioxide would probably
not occur in the Unalaska area because of the heavy rain and wind
conditions.
Hydrogen sulfide would probably be the second most abundant
noncondensible gas in geothermal fluids. Impacts associated with hydrogen
sulfide are toxic effects and displeasing odor. The toxic effects could
cause problems to workers in confined spaces if they are exposed to
concentrations above 100 parts per billion. Atmospheric oxidation converts
most hydrogen sulfide to sulfur dioxide in less than a day. Sulfur dioxide
is an important chronic phytotoxicant and contribute$ to the acidification
of rain.
If the facility is the type that uses geothermal condensate in the
cooling towers, water vapor heat and water droplets would contain all of
the geothermal contaminants. These contaminants may have an effect on
vegetation in the immediate area of their discharge. '
Dust emissions during construction would be equivalent to those of
any other project of the same magnitude. Road construction, clearing of
the facilities site and probably the transmission corridor would cause a
short term effect on air qualitr.
EIS-25
(b) Other Alternatives. Air quality impacts of the other
alternatives would occur during the construction phase. The increase in
particulate matter in the air should be short term, ending with
construction completion. The hydroelectric alte~atives at Trail Lake
would have an access road for operation and mai~tenance; however, the
operation does not require on site personnel, so only sporadic use of the
access road would be required.
(5) Esthetics. Any manmade object in a remote area could be
perceived as decreasing the esthetic quality of that area. Although the
facilities can be designed to blend with the immediate environment, the
visual impact would still be present.
b. Biological.
(1) Vegetation.
(a) Geothermal. The extent of impacts on vegetation with the
construction and operation of this alternative at Makushin Volcano can not
be adequately assessed until the project design has been completed by the
State. Access to the project site appears to be the use of an existing air
strip at Driftwood Bay. An old road from the strip runs to within 1.5
miles of a fumarole field. Upgrading of the air strip and road as well as
at least 1.5 miles of new road would be required. Approximately 13 miles
of transmission line would be required to connect the facilities with the
community of Unalaska. The mode of placing the transmission line would
probably be based on the topographical conditions of the area. If the
landscape is rugged, possibly the transmission line would be installed by
helicopter. Because of the lack of trees, a cleared corridor would
probably not be necessary. Vegetative impacts with helicopter placement of
the transmission towers and lines would be limited to the transmission
tower pads. Approximately 1.5 miles of vegetation for the new road and an
unknown acreage for the. production facilities would be permanently lost.
Any other areas scarred by construction activities would be lost for an
unknown period of time. As stated earlier, many of the areas where the
vegetative mat was removed during World War II have not fully recovered.
Extreme care should be taken during the construction phase to assure
minimal damage occurs to the fragile tundra environment.
(b) Hydropower. Nearly 12 acres of vegetation would be disrupted
or eliminated by project features. RaiSing the lake surface elevation by 3
feet with the run-of-river alternative would alter approximately 15 acres
of lake fringe habitat through inundation and lake level fluctuation.
The construction of the access road has the potential to cause
significant impacts to the environment because of the variations in terrain
from the existing road to the proposed dam site.
EI5-26
9
\
) .
./
Table 3
EXCAVATION AND FILL REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESS ROAD CONSTRUCTION
Section Type
A. (3,200 ft)
B. (7,700 ft)
C. (6,650 ft)
TOTAL
•
Excavation
Overburden Rock
17,200 cy
9,700 cy
26,900 cy
1,400 cy
." ,000 cy
12,400 cy
Fi"
3,600 cy
1,200 cy
4,800 cy
An unknown quantity of the rock that would be excavated could be
used for the powerhouse foundation and possibly for a portion of fill for
the road. The excavated overburden would be wasted. At this time, the
overburden would be placed alongside the road where it is excavated except
in those areas where steep slopes would allow the material to enter the
stream. At the steep areas, the material would be removed and transported
to a more suitable area. Revegetation of the overburden waste areas may
occur more quickly than other excavated sites in the Unalaska area, because
the root and rhizome stocks would remain in the waste site. The length of
time for the natural plants to establish themselves is unknown. Portions
of the overburden would be considered erodible and must be contained. The
proposed plan is to seed the overburden areas with the following; 50 percent
red fescue (boreal or pennlawn); 25 per cent Kentucky bluegrass (nugget);
15 percent annual rye grass; and 10 percent alsike clover at concentrations
of 40 pounds of seed per acre. Approximately 450 pounds of 20-20-10
fertilizer per acre would be applied at the initial seeding. Red fescue,
native to Alaska, should persist for an indefinite period of time while the
annuals would be short lived and allow areas for natural revegetation to
occur. Steeper slope areas and the portions of the road that are close to
the river may cause materials to enter the stream even with the seeding
effort. The quantity of material that would enter the stream is unknown
and appears to be unavoidable. The consequences of siltation of the river
are discussed in the fisheries section.
The road would act as a barrier and change the natural runoff
patterns. A total of 36, 24-inch culverts would be placed at
500-lineal-foot intervals along the road to transfer runoff across the
road. The water from the uphill side would be funneled through the
culverts which may cause rivulets on the downhill side of the road.
Although the vegetative mat is considered nonerodible, heavy rainfall and
subsequent high runoff may undermine the material below the mat and erode
tb a channel. If this occurs, it would probably be limited to the steeper
slopes. The Unalaska area averages 60 inches of precipitation per year,
but heavy rainfalls are not common.
EIS-27
"" .;
Ten areas along the road alinement have been identified as stream
crossings (effluent or intermittent). At these locations, 48-inch diameter
culverts would be installed.
The run-of-river alternative would raise the surface elevation of
Trail Lake by 3 feet. This would inundate close to 15 acres of alpine
tundra at the fringes of the lake. Some of the vegetation at the delta
area at the head of the lake would also be altered. Although the proposed
design does not include storage to augment power production during low
inflow periods, the lake surface elevation could still fluctuate on a daily
basis as much as 2 to 3 feet. Tbis daily fluctuation may eliminate
vegetation in the fluctuation zone and may cause the·banks to be subject to
erosion.
(c) Wind Generation. A IIwind fann ll would require numerous towers,
transmission interties, and roads. The wind farm would also be located in
an area which has the most suitable wind environment, which could be
several miles from any existing road. Because of the high maintenance now
associated with wind generation, a permanent road would probably be
constructed from the community of Unalaska. This road would be subject to
similar impacts as descr"ibed with hydropower construction.
(d) Other Alternatives~ There would be no impacts to vegetation
with the other alternatives.
(2) Mammals.
All Alternatives. Few terrestrial mammals occur on Unalaska
Island. During the construction phase, red fox may vacate the immediate
area, but would probably return shortly after project completion. The loss
of lemming and vole habitat would occur in the areas of project features as
well as the fringe area around Trail Lake. These small rodents are an
important food source for both red fox and raptors.
(3) Birds.
(a) Hydropower. A buried transmission line precludes any
potential hazards that may have existed if an overhead transmission line
design was proposed.
(b) Other Alternatives. There are certain unavoidable impacts on
bird life associated with transmission lines and towers. The losses are
small; however, bird-tower/transmission line collisions do occur on a
fairly regular basis. Some disruption of nesting activities near the
project features is expected, however, these impacts are short tenn and
would cease after construction activities. ,
The active bald eagle nest located on cliffs of the canyon area
(1.5 river miles from the mouth) is approximately 600 feet north of the
proposed access road. The major blasting efforts would be at the dam site,
which is outside the O.S-mile no blasting zone that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has recommended. If blasting is required for access road
benching within the 0.5 mile no blasting zone, provision can be made to
accomplish this effort during the non-nesting period.
EIS-28
)
\
.:
(4) Fisheries.
(a) Hydropower. Three possible adverse impacts are associated
with the construction and operation of hydropower facilities on the
Shaishnikof River at the outlet of Trail Lake: 1) temperature changes due
to the penstock intake 15 feet below the lake surface. 2) loss of Dolly
Varden spawning habitat in Trail Lake and its feeder streams due to
inundation and lake level fluctuation; and 3) sedimentation caused by
erosion from project construction and operation.
As discussed previously, it does not appear that water ~emperatures
would be changed after project completion. Previous studies indicate that
there is little temperature difference in the top 3 feet of the water
column, and water retention time between the dam and lake outlet is not
sufficient to change temperature •.
Dolly Varden spawning habitat at the lake edge and mouths of the
feeder streams would essentially be lost. The extent of the Trail Lake
fishery is unknown; however, the loss of the feeder streams delta areas
would be a significant impact because these provide the majority of
spawning areas for Dolly Varden. There does not appear to be any method of
direct mitigation for the loss of spawning habitat because of the
fluctuating' lake levels. : L
Siltation of the Shaishnikof River from project construction,
erosion of barren ground from road construction, and material wasting and
erosion of lake banks from lake fluctuation are extremely difficult to
assess. Material will enter the river during the construction phase,
especially at the dam site where blasting, excavation, and drilling for
installation of the wood buttress dam would occur. The amount of material
and the percentage of fines which would enter the river is unknown. Care
would be taken during access road construction and overburden and rock.
excavation to limit erosion. If areas do erode, it is impossible to
predict quantities that may enter the stream.
Stability of the lake banks and the delta area in Trail Lake would
be the major factor of sloughing or erosion caused by inundation and
fluctuation. Long Lake near Juneau, which has surface water fluctuations
of more than 100 vertical feet, did not demonstrate either sloughing or
erosion. No changes in turbidity or suspended sediments have occurred and
the tailrace water is used in a fish hatchery operation. Whether the banks
and delta area at Trail Lake would demonstrate the same stability is
unknown. If sloughing or erosion occurs, it would probably settle in the
still waters of the lake and not remain suspended and enter the river.
(b) Geothermal. The fisheries impact associated with the
geothermal alternative is impossible to predict without knowing the extent
of the fishery affected. The effects to a fishery resource, if any, would
occur through changes in the physical environment, which are discussed
above.
(c) Other Alternatives. No fisheries impacts are associated with
the remaining alternatives.
EIS-29
(5) Threatened and Endangered Species. According to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, there are no known threatened or endangered species
that would be adversely impacted by the proposed hydroelectric project at
Trail Lake or Pyramid Creek. Refer to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Letter.
c. Socioeconomics
(1) Geothermal. If the geothermal alternative proves to be
viable, significant beneficial impacts for the Unalaska community could
occur. This alternative has the potential to provide the entire community
with electrical power. This could mean a long term stable price schedule
for the consumer with eventual significant reduction in cost. There may be
some short term employment derived from the construction of the geothermal
facilities, however, the number of people employed by the operation would
be relatively small in comparison to the processing employment .
opportunities now available. During the operational phase, probably
several people would be employed full-time.
(2) Other Alternatives. None of the other alternatives would
supply the entire electrical demand for the community of Unalaska. Because
they would only supply a portion of the demand, any monetary savings may
not be realized by the general consumer. The socioeconomic benefit derived
from any of these alternatives is the displacement of a nonrenewable
resource (petroleum) with a renewable resource (wind and/or water). None
of these projects are of a magnitude to have any visible effect on local or
regional employment either during the construction or the operational
phases.
Impacts on Cultural Resources.
An archeological field reconnaissance of both the Pyramid Creek and
Shaishnikof River alternatives (Steele 1983) indicates that portions of
each alternative could have impacts on cultural resources.
Specifically, there is documentary evidence of archeological deposits
at the mouth of Pyramid Creek in the area of the proposed powerhouse and
powerline locations. This area could not be totally tested at the time of
the field trip due to the presence of a crab pot storage area. If
easements are eventually obtained in this area, systematic subsurface
testing should be performed to ensure that cultural resources would not be
impacted.
The remainder of the Pyramid Creek alternative should be considered
clear of 'cultural resource concerns providing care is taken during
construction to avoid damage to World War II remains.
There are known cultural resources at the head of Captain1s Bay near
the mouth of the Shaishnikof River in the general vicinity of the powerline
associated with the Shaishnikof River alternative. Care would be taken to
avoid all disturbances to these resources. The proposed powerline
al inement in thi.s area would be systematically tested before it is
finalized to assure that subsurface resources are not impacted.
EIS-30
I.
(
\
No cultural resources were located in the remainder of the Shaishnikof
River project area.
VI. MITIGATION
Recommended mitigation measures associated with the hydropower project
on Shaishnikof River and Trail Lake have been incorporated into project
plans. Such measures deal specifically with project impacts during
construction activities. For example, the project would be constructed in
such a manner as to minimize downstream siltation, whether the use of a
silt screen or some other dev~ce is necessary. Also, if there exists an
active bald eagle nest at river mile 1.5, blasting or heavy equipment use
will be avoided between 1 April and 15 August within a 1/2 mile radius of
the nest.
VII. FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT
The opportunity to improve the fisheries resources of the Shaishnikof
River appear to be good. Although the river above the canyon is now being
utilized by coho salmon and anadromous Dolly Varden, apparently stream
flows during pink salmon spawning do not allow their passage above the
canyon. Approximately 2 acres of excellent spawning and incubation habitat
exist above the canyon (refer to the USFWS Coordination Act Report, pages
21-25). The reach above the canyon contains considerably more spawning
habitat than rearing habitat, which would lend itself more toward pink
salmon production because there is no freshwater rearing phase in their
life cycle.
Any stream improvement on the Shaishnikof River to increase fishery
production, whether accomplished by Federal, State or local concerns, would
be successful only if the construction and operation and maintenance of the
hydroelectric project does not change the water chemistry or any other
physical conditions below the dam. From the information gathered at the
site and proposed hydropower facilities designs, the Alaska District does
not believe the reach downstream of the dam would be significantly
different from the existing conditions, if care in construction is taken.
The construction costs for the enhancement plan would be Federally funded,
including any monitoring. Even though the proposed enchancement plan is
not directly related to the development of Shaishnikof River hydropower
project, it appears that implementation of this plan in conjunction with
the power project objectives would be inexpensive and cost effective.
Sport fishing use of the Shaishnikof River/Trail Lake area does not exist
even though this ·dynamic system supports pink and coho salmon, both of
which contribute to regional and national interests. The State of Alaska,
Department of Fish and Game has been contacted. about their participation in
this enhancement opportunity. Their response has been favorable and
encouraging towards the enhancement plan. The enhancement project (refer
to Appendix A, Plate 6 for site location) has a potential of producing an
additional 37,000 pink salmon escapement which is based on statistical
harvest records from 1979-1982. Refer to pages 24 and 25 in Appendix C for
cost breakdowns and methods for providing access above the canyon. Annual
benefits and costs for the selected enhancement plan are discussed in
Appendix A, pages 38 through 40.
EIS-31
VIII. SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
a. Geothermal.
There are several modes where geothermal electrical production could
cause secondary impacts on the social well-being of the Unalaska area.
Although there ;s the potential to generate sufficient electrical energy
for the Unalaska area for many years, there would not be enough surplus
energy to entice new industry into the area just for the power supply.
However, the price of diesel and heating oil may increase to a point in the
~ near future that the residents may convert to electric heating and cooking
because the price for geothermal power Should remain stable. This
reduction in the use of fossil fuels should be construed as a positive
impact.
Secondary impacts from geothermal electrical power generation could
come from the use of waste heat for aquaculture and greenhouse heating.
The State of Alaska's report on geothermal potential in the Unalaska area
addressed both of these options in considerable length. If these options
are viable, they could cause significant positive benefits to the
socioeconomics of the Unalaska area. It should be noted that these
ancillary facilities may have adverse environmental impacts if the effluent
from the geothermal site used to heat these facilities is discharged in at
manner which may negatively influence its receiving waters.
b. Other Alternatives.
There appear to be no readily apparent secondary or cumulative impacts
associated with the remaining alternatives. None of the alternatives are
of the magnitude that would influence employment, or changes in electrical
use.
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A public meeting was held in Unalaska on 10 January 1984 to obtain
public comments on the Unalaska Small Hydropower draft feasibility report
and environmental impact statement. About 42 people attended the meeting.
The majority of the people supported installation of the pressure reducing
turbine in the water supply pipeline on Pyramid Creek and feel it should be
installed as soon as possible. In the case of the Shaishnikof project, the
public would prefer to wait for the results of the Alaska Power Authority's
study on the feasibility of Unalaska's geothermal potential. If geothermal
is found to be infeasible, they would be more in favor of the hydropower
project on the Sha~shnikof.
Coordination with Federal, state, and local officials has been ongoing
during the entire study.
EIS-32
\
J
(
Scoping for the field investigations and other activities included the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. A Notice of Intent to prepare·a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register of -~
April 8, 1982. The Sierra Club responded to the notice and they were .. .:
provided with preliminary design information.
Coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service included joint
biological field investigations for the preparation of this report, the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report and the endangered species
section of this report, as required by the Endangered Species Act.
x. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
The proposed hydropower project will be undertaken in a manner
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Alaska Coastal
Management Program. This determination is based upon the description of
the proposed project and its effects in this document, and upon an
evaluation of the relevant provisions of the management program.
Table 4
ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (ACMP) CONSISTENCY EVALUATION
ACMP ReqUirements (6 AAC 80)
Uses and Activities
040. Coastal Development
050. Geophysical Hazard Areas
060. Recreation
070. Energy Facilities
080. Transportation and Utilities
090. Fish and Seafood Processing
100. Timber Harvest and Processing
110. Mining and Mineral Processing
120. Subsistence
Resources and Habitats
130. Habitats
(1) Offshore Areas
(2) Estuaries
(3) Wetlands and Tidef1ats
(4) Rock Islands and Seat1iffs
(5) Barrier Islands and Lagoons
(6) Exposed High Energy Coasts
(7) Rivers, Streams, and Lakes
(8) Important Upland Habitat
140. Air, Land and Water Quality
150. Historic, Prehistoric, and
Arche1ogica1 Re~urces
EIS-33
Reference Page Numbers
Page 12
Page 22
Pages EIS-17 and EIS-30
Page 8
Pages 6 and 7
Pages 6 and EIS-16
N/A
N/A
Page EIS-18
Page A-10
N/A
Page EIS-1
Page A-10
N/A
Page EIS-9
Pages EIS-12, EIS-13, and EIS-14
Pages EIS-26 and EIS-27
Pages EIS-12, EIS-20, EIS-24, and
EIS-26
Pages EIS-17, EIS-18, and EIS-19
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1978. Alaska's Fisheries Atlas.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Vol. 1, page 196.
Alaska Geographic Society, 1980, The Aleutians. Vol. 7, No.3, Alaska
Geographic.
Alaska, University of, 1980. Economic Analysis of Demonstration Project
Alternatives for the Pilgrim Springs. Alaska Geothermal Site.
Institute of Social and Economic Research, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Armstrong, Robert H., 1974. Migration of Anadromous Dolly Varden
(Salvelinus malma) in Southeastern Alaska J.F.R.B.C. Vol. 31, No.4,
pages 435-444.
Armstrong, Robert H. and James E. Morrow, 1980. The Dolly Varden Charr,
Salvelinus malma. In charrs, E.K. Baloa editor. Dr. W. Junk bv
Publishers. The Hague, Netherlands.
Bank, Ted, 1974 Letter to Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, on
file at Alaska Division of Parks.
Basescu, N., R.G. Bloomquist, C. Higbec, D. Justus, and S. Simpson, 1980.
Alaska a Guide to Geothermal Energy Development. Department of Energy.
Bouck, G.R., 1976.
Oregon Streams.
Supersaturation and Fishery Observations in Selected
Pages 37-40 in Fickeison and Schneider (1976).
Bouck, G.R., 1980. Etiology of Gas Bubble Disease. Transactions American
Fisheries Society 109; pages 703-707.
Chow, V.T., 1959. Open-Channel Hydrolics. McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y.
page 680.
Dall, W.H., 1877. On Succession in the Shell-Heaps of the Aleutian
Islands. ~ontributions to North American ~thno10¥Y' U.S. Geographical
and Geo10g1cal Survey of the Rocky Mt. Regl0n, Vo • 1, pages 41-91.
Washington.
Dawley, E.M., M. Schiewe, and B. Mark, 1976. Effects of Long-Term Exposure
to Supersaturation of Dissolved Atmo'spheric Gases on Juvenile Chinook
Salmon and Stee1head Trout in Deep and Shallow Test Tanks. Pages 1-10
in Fickeisen and Schneider (1976).
Eldridge, F.R., 1975. Wind Machines. NSF Grant AER-75-12957. Mitre
Corporation, McLean, Va., page 76.
Krueger, Stephen W., 1981. Freshwater Habitat Relationships Pink Salmon
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Alaska Department of Fish and Game, page 46.
EIS-34
Laughlin, William S., 1980. Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land
Bridge. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller, 1964. F1uria1 Processes in
Geomorphology. W.H. Freeman & Co. San Francisco, Calif., page 522.
Linsley, Ray K. and J.B. Franzinm, 1972. Water-Resources Engineering.
McGraw-Hill, New York, page 690.
Martinson, Charles Richard, 1973. Aleut Settlements of the Makushin Bay
Areal Alaska. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OregQn.
McCartney, Allen C., 1979. Working Draft EIS for World War II Debris
Removal and Clean-up, Aleutian Islands and Lower Alaska Peninsula,
Alaska. Appendix J, Archaeology and History. Prepared for Alaska
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., 1981. Geothermal Potential in the
Aleutians Unalaska. Alaska Div. of Energy & Power Development, Juneau,
Alaska.
Retherford, R.W. Associates, 1979. City of Unalaska Electrification
Study. Anchorage, Alaska.
Richardson, G.C., and R. Baca, 1976. Physi~s of Dissolved Gases and
Engineering Solutions. pages 119-120 in Fickeisen and SChneider (1976).
Schneider, M.J., and G. DI Aoust, 1976. Analytical methods, pages 116-117
In Fickeisen and SChneider (1976).
Se1kreggJ Lidia L. Alaska Regional Profiles. Southwest Region. Vol. III.
AEIDC, Anchorage.
Suter II, Glenn W., 1978. Effects of Geothermal Energy Development of Fish
and Wildlife. FWS/OBS-76/20.6., page 20.
u.S. Department of Interior, 1982. Manual of Stream Channelization Impacts
on Fish and Wildlife. FWS/OBS-82/24, page 150.
EIS-35
LIST OF PREPARERS
The following people were primarily responsible for preparing this final -,
\ EIS:
ROLE IN PREPARING
NAME DISCIPLINE -EXPERIENCE EIS
John Burns Fisheries Biologist 6 years EIS Coordinator
Alaska District
Linda Ferrell Bi9logist 3 1/2 years EIS Coordinator ~ Alaska District
Julia Steele Archaeology 5 years Prepared Cultural
Alaska District Resources Sections
of EIS
Ron Maj Civil Engineer 2 years Plan Formulation
Alaska District and Development of
A lternati ve
Diane Walters Writer/Editor 4 years EIS Organization
Alaska District and Editing
)
EIS-36
INDEX
SUBJECT PAGES
Affected Environment EIS-1O
Alternatives EIS-3
Without Conditions EIS-3
Conservation EIS-3
Waste Heat Recovery EIS-4
Geothermal EIS-4
Wind Generation EIS-4
Pyramid Creek PRT EIS-5
Shaishnikof River EIS-5 ..
Coastal Zone EIS-33
Affected Environment EIS-1O
Fisheries Enhancement EIS-3l
Flood Plain EIS-1
Historical/Archeological Resources EIS-18
Mit igat ion EIS-3l
NED Plan EIS-1
Public Involvement EIS-32
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts EIS-32
Significant Resources EIS-12
Air and Noise Quality EIS-13
Birds EIS-1S
Esthetics EIS-14
Fisheries EIS-1S
Hydrology/Water Quality EIS-12 r Mammals EIS-1S (
\ Nitrogen Supersaturation EIS-12
Stream Bank Erosion EIS-13
Temperature EIS-12
Threatened or Endangered Species EIS-17
Vegetation EIS-14
Socioeconomics EIS-17
Wetlands EIS-1
EIS-37
APPENDIX A
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
SHAISHNIKOF RIVER
L
, .
A. 1
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.S
A.6
A.7
A.8
A.9
A.10
A.11
A.12
A.13
PLATES
General
Hydrology
Geology
Dam and Foundation
Spi 11 way
Powerhouse
Transmission Line
Access Road
Tail race
Power Potential
Enhancement
Appendix A
Shaishnikof River
Detailed Cost Estimate
POL Sensitivity Analysis
Page
A-l
A-l
A-9
A-31
A-32
A-33
A-3S
A-36
A-36
A-36
A-38
A-40
A-42
A. 1 GENERAL
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
SHAISHNIKOF RIVER
The selected plan for hydropower development on the Shaishnikof River
is a run-of-river diversion project which has a capacity of 700 kW. The
project consists of a 22-foot high timber buttress dam with its crest at
570 feet elevation, 920 feet of 42-inch aboveground steel penstock and a
prefabricated steel powerhouse with one 300-kW and one 400-kW Francis
turbi nee ~
A.2 HYDROLOGY
A.2.1 Climate
Unalaska lies in a maritime climatic zone, characterized by small
temperature variations, high humidity, heavy precipitation, and high cloud
and fog frequencies. The high frequency of 'cyclonic storms crossing the
North Pacific and the Bering Sea are dominant factors in the weather at
Unalaska. These storms account for the persistent high winds and the
frequent occurrences of low ceilings and low visibilities. The area
experiences cool summers and mild winters.
Dutch Harbor is the nearest climatic station to the Shaishnikof River
basin. It is located at sea level approximately 10 miles to the
northeast. A station summary is shown on Table A-l.
A.2.2 Basin Description
The Shaishnikof River drains into Captains Bay on the east side of
Unalaska Island, approximately 10 miles southwest of Dutch Harbor. The
Shaishnikof River basin above the proposed damsite has a drainage area of
approximately 4.5 square miles. Basin elevations range from about 600 feet
mean sea level at the damsite to 2,600 feet at its highest point, with a
mean elevation of approximately 1,200 feet. The basin is bounded on three
sides by steep rocky ridges. The higher elevations consist mainly of
exposed bedrock and talus slopes. Vegetation within the basin is of the
alpine tundra type, consisting mainly of grasses and low shrubs with no
trees. Trail Lake lies about 600 feet upstream of the proposed damsite.
The existing lake has a surface area of about 85 acres and depths to about
100 feet. There are two other small lakes in the basin, each having a
surface area of approximately 20 acres.
A.2.3 Streamflow
Streamflow data in the Unalaska area is very sparse. The nearest gaged
stream is approximately 500 miles away. Gaged basins on the north Gulf of
Alaska coast, which are subject to similar maritime influences as the
Shaishnikof basin, were compared to determine if some correlation existed
between streams subject to similar maritime influences. The computer
program "Monthly Streamflow Simulations" (HEC4) was used to correlate
monthly streamflows from Power Creek and West Fork Olsen Bay Creek near
-I »
ID r m
l> •
)
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
0
MEAN
MEAN TEMPS.
of
27 27 27
MAX MIN AVG
37.2 28.8 33.0
36.5 Z7.8 32.2
37.9 28.2 33.1
41.4 31.3 36.4
46.0 35.6 4Q8
51.4 41.1 46.2
57.2 45.6 51.5
59.9 47.8 53.9
53.9 43.9 489
46.7 37.9 42.3
41.3 34.4 36.8
37.8 29.2 33.5
45.6 358 40.7
CL~MATE SUMMARY
DUTCH HARBOR, ALASKA
EXTREME TEMPS. PRECIPITATION (MELTED}
of INCHES
50 50
HI YR LO YR NML MO YR & YR ~JLY YR Itm MoST t.«m
58 5 7.15 4.00 1930 2.58 1934
68 6 6.95 4.34 1940 095 1934
69 5 4.81 2D7 1922 1.13 1933
61 13 4.48 8D6 1936 1.10 1945
as 20 4.49 11.09 1937 1.25 1939
73 30 3.19 6.56 1949 053 1932
.
80 31 186 7.42 1949 023 1952
00 28 2.49 4.38 1942 027 1952
00 27 5.20 10.16 1935 0.82 1922
65 12 7.87 16.04 1951 4.04 1931
-,"
58 14 6.31 15.17 1946 1.52 1944
56 10 6.84 15.67 1922 1.27 1942
80 5 61.64 1604 OCT 023 ~
1951 1952
, )
SNOWFALL
INCHES
17
MEAN .:gT YR DAILY
~
17.9
20.9
12.6
7.2
0.2
T
0
0
T
0.3
-'"
5.3
13.5
n.9
)
,
\
Cordova; Spruce Creek near Seward; Myrtle Creek, Terror River, and Uganik
River near Kodiak; and Eskimo Creek near King Salmon. No significant
correlation was found except for Myrtle Creek. Very little correlation was
observed between monthly precipitation and temperatures recorded at long
term climatological stations in the regjon. Parameters such as drainage
area, main channel slope, mean elevation, vegetative cover, orientation to
major storm tracks, and proximity to long term climatic stations having
similar temperature ranges and precipitation volumes as those observed at
Dutch Harbor were used to compare a gaged basin with the Shaishnikof and
Pyramid basins. Table A.2 lists some of the basin characteristics used in
the comparison.
I,. TABLE A-2
Drainage Basin Characteristics
Station Drain Area Mean Elevation Main Channel Area of Lakes Area
(Sq. Mi.) (Ft. MSL) Slope FT /I~I & Ponds % Mean
Precip
ins/yr.
Power Creek,
Cordova 20.5 2000 219 -0-160
Myrtle Creek,
Kodiak 4.74 1000 105 -0-60
Uganik I-dver,
Kodiak 123 1830 31.2 2.0 60
Terror River,
N. Kodiak 15 2300 126 -0-60
Eskimo Creek,
King Salmon 16. 1 60 6.0 5.0 40
Spruce Creek,
Seward 9.26 1800 475 -0-60
Barbara Creek,
Seldovia 20.7 1500 130 -0-70
Shaishnikof River,
Unalaska 4.4 1200 250 4.0 60
Myrtle Creek on Kodiak Island was chosen as the most representative of
the gaged basins that are exposed to similar climatic and hydrologic
conditions as the Shaishnikof River bas:in. There are 18 years of records,
from 1963-1981, available from Myrtle Creek.
Estimated streamflows for the Shaishnikof were computed from Myrtle
Creek flows on a cfs per square mile basis. Monthly flow duration curves
were computed and added to the "HYDUR u computer program to estimate
potential power output from the project. The uHYDUR u program was developed
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hydrologic Engineering Center. The
A-3
program uses streamflow duration techniques to estimate power output from
"run-of-river" type projects. The adopted monthly flow duration curves for
the Shaishnikof River are shown on Figures A-l through A-3.
There is no historical flow data for any stream on Unalaska Island. A
recording streamgage was installed on the Shaishnikof River in May 1982.
Twelve months of stage data were retrieved in June of 1983. The gage data
was not used for streamflow estimates in this report due to several shifts
in the gage datum and the lack of a well defined rating curve. However,
stage data from the streamgage has been adjusted for the gage datum shifts
and the slope area method for determining discharges is being used to
develop a more refined rating curve. Data from the streamgage and a
precipitation-temperature recording aevice, installed in the Shaishnikof
basin in June 1983, was compared to the average for the 50-year sequence of
the synthesized average monthly flows developed from Myrtle Creek.
Recently, an energy estimate was made using daily streamflows from the
Shaishnikof River gage for the period September 1982 to August 1983. Based
on this limited period of record it appears that a significant increase in
the energy output of the 700 kW system may be possible lsee figure A-4).
Additional evaluation of the hydrologic data would be warranted at the next
design stage.
A.2.4 Sedimentation
No sediment transport studies have been done for the Shaishnikof River
because of a lack of any type of data. Field observations indicated the
Shaishnikof to be relatively free of suspended sediment. No major source
of sediment was found nor was any bed load movement observed. Bed material
was found to be of relatively large size (2 inches and up). Sedimentation
is not expected to be a problem.
A.2.5 Ice Formation
The dam site is located approximately 600 feet downstream of the
outlet, with rapids occurring in these 600 feet. Water intakes in northern
climes are subject to clogging by frazil ice formation. Frazil ice is
commonly formed when water that is slightly above a degree C is super
cooled below a degree C by an extreme drop in air temperature. Unalaska
lies in a maritime climatic zone, which commonly experiences mild winter
temperatures.
The proposed project would inundate these rapids, thus eliminating any
potential for the production of frazil ice. Mean monthly temperatures
below 32°F exist from 'December to April. Therefore, formation of surface
ice would be expected to occur.
A.2.6 Wind Analysis
The frequent cyclonic storms crossing the North Pacific and the Bering
Sea-account for the high persistent winds in the area. These winds
generally result from strong pressure gradients developing between the
Pacific or Siberian highs and the cyclonic storms in the North Pacific and
Bering Sea. No site specific wind data is currently available.
A-4
i
\.,.
CC
~(I)
(l)w
CC> -I~
CC::;)
"u ~ Wz
>0 =~
LL.CC
o~ ~::;) -c ~~ (1)0
-....I
CCLL.
::z:::
(I)
o co -o
CD -
> ~
~ i:%.J i u-a: a:
~ ~.~~
I • • • • •
o
~ -
I • I
I
I
I
o
N -
,
I
I
I
I
• I
I
I
I J f II !
7" J .... .. I .. I .. .. .. , , y • II! ,
I
#
I
: Vi I
#
• I • , ,
:1 Ii
1 , I , .. ! ~ 'It I " I ., : :. :, -..
: I , .
: I •• • i
V·· : I • • : I • •
' I • • : I • • ..... -'
I • I • ,
o o -o en
o co
0
~
0
CD
0
LO
0
~
0
('f')
J, If
# I
"'./ }
o
(\J
o
~. __ "
( ~ ......
o o -o
GO
• • • • • •
I
I :
o
CD
,
I
o
~
o
(\J
o
-
o
FIGURE A-I
UNALASKA, ALASKA
0
LaJ
0
LaJ
LaJ
U
X
LaJ
LaJ
X -~
~
0
~
Z
LaJ
U ex
LaJ a..
~...Jo:a -z U~(I)
SMALL HYDROPOWER FEASIBI LlTY STUDY
A-5
FLOW DURATION
CURVES
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
180
160
140
F
L 120 0
V
)::0 . I 100
I ! ,=".
N
C 80
F
S 60 »
D
fit
:Ir
D 40
0 ,... ,..(J)
fit 5 m:!: c: -»» ~ z (J)r ~ 20 n o~ ii;r r -~"TI .. Co en-
0 r:I: ~@ :Oc --< ~::a 0 <:0 '0 ~ '" ~ -<~ ~~ 0 '0 rn~ fit o rl
0
(1)"'0 ~N 'i en -c: ~
m 0 om ~
=' Z -<~ a
=' • • ~
'"
.~ )
•••••
• • •• , , • ..
'\
, • • ,
• ~"
\
\
~--\ ,
" ~\ . ,
~,
~l~. ""~
SHAISHNIKOF RIVER I ALASKA
FLOW DURATION CURVES
-~AY
••••• !l' ------,UGUSl
,.
~ ~ •• •• .... .-.. ... ---t:---••••• ~ •••••
~ . ............... -----~----. ..... -.-... .-, -.-. ' ... -.""-. ... r-. ____
~--o. ......... -... ..... 100 __ ..
r-..... ._-
~ •• ••• ~ .......... •• ••
........ _-1---.,:: ~-.... ... ~-.
> ........
o 10 20 30 40 60 60 70
PERCENT OF TIME EXCEEDED
80 90 100
r
L o
V
)::0 I
~ N
J>
D en
~
D
~ 'TI :; 5
!l o~
o ~o
o <c ... :0 ~ rrI»
o oo-t --fT1 0
~ Z
ID
~
CD
CD ... en
C
F
S
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
_._e. .. ..
~--, ..
~ .. ..
~ .. \
I·,
~'--. ............ , \ , .. ..... ,.....
SHAISHNIKOF RIVER, ALASKA
FLOW DURATION CURVES
-SEPTE~ BER ... -. ~~~~ 1101 ---ER ---ECEM ER
~ r----.. .. r---.. ..
~(-.-: --~ . ... --. ..: ..... ~ ... \ .-.. , ......... _---... ~ , ... . ..
" -... ".-....... , ....... ~ ........ ........ --.. -----. ..... ---1-----. -----
~.~ . .. .. .. ~ ..
r--.,...._-.. ~·-.S ~------. ----..
o 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT OF T UE EXCEEDED
80
70
80
en
I&.
CJ 10
:>1 • I 0 (X) :. » ..I • I&. • < 40
~ m(l) • c 2J::z: ",,-»» mKc • G)-:.:'z ... m(l) cnr-~ .. -I\:::Z:
_r-r-"" n II ~-... _:z: _ • .. O! r--e~= n -c~· Z~ -I • 0 -e~~~ .. -1 0 " r-. • ::Z:" cn'V~.
12J -10-
0 CE~ ... -<-c ~
m < -em
:I "m ::III
G 12J
:I 0
30
20
10
• ~ • .. (I) •
SHAISHNIKOF RIVER
AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS
r -..... ~ . , , . , . · , · , • • • • • • , ,
I , , • , • • ,
I , • , • ,
I , , ,
• , • -... -. : -, ~
" .... , -,-
"" ""
--GAGED DATA
•••• -. ADOPTED DATA
IYNTHE81ZED FROM
IIYRTlE CREEK
D.ATA
~ I . ,
\ I . , , , . , • • , " \ ' • I . , , .
\ .-_.-. " "
.. ..
"--.. , , , • ,
" , • " • '" ,
'. ,
',,,,' GAGED: 120'8.7 CFS-DAYS
ADOPTED: 11813.3 CFS-DA YS
", ,
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP O(:T NOV DEC
MONTH
)
Data on wind speeds are available for Sand Point, Alaska, a community
located on the Alaska Peninsula, which is exposed to the same storm
patterns as Dutch Harbor. A maximum wind speed frequency curve was
developed from Sand Point data (refer to Figure A-5) and is considered to
be a reasonable estimate of wind speeds that could be expected at the
project site.
A.3 GEOLOGY
A.3.1 Regional Setting
~
The Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian Chain consist of a chain of
mountains stretching 2,000 miles known as the Aleutian Range. This range
is bordered on the north by the Bering Sea and on the south by the Pacific
Ocean. Mountains in the range are frequently separated by large northward
trending partially flooded lowlands. Several large islands and numerous
islets and rocks lie offshore over much of the chain. The range has been
deeply eroded by glaciers, streams, and frost action to produce many steep
slopes, scarps, cliffs, and bare rocks. Icefields and small glaciers occur
on the higher peaks, especially on the north and northeast slopes.
A.3.2 Regional Topography
Unalaska Island is the second largest island west of the Alaska
Peninsula, and is 85 miles long and 39 miles wide, having an area of about
2,000 square miles.
The mountains rise abruptly from the Pacific Ocean on the south, with
steep-walled, fjordlike bays that indent the rugged coastline. With the
exception of the lowlands which partly encircle the larger bays, only a few
broad, flat valleys interrupt the persistent cliffs and steep slopes.
Narrow boulder beaches lie at the foot of the rocky cliffs, and 'sand beaches
are found along the coastal lowlands and at the heads of some bays and
coves.
The Bering Sea lowland constitutes a gently sloping plain that rises
gradually from the sea to merge either imperceptibly with the mountain
slopes or, in places, to intersect them sharply. This lowland is
continuous throughout much of the area and varies from 2 to 10 miles in
width. Surface elevation is generally less than 200 feet above sea level
and is characterized by many rounded hills, numerous lakes, streams, and
swamps. Sea shores are commonly sandy and backed by low bluffs cut into
the grass-covered foredunes.
Rivers and streams abound in the area. Tho~e draining into the Pacific
Ocean generally flow in steep-walled valleys and are shorter and steeper in
gradient than those that flow into the Bering Sea. These valleys, of which
the Shaishnikof is one, are principally U-shaped glacial troughs with
relatively flat floors. Many of the streams begin in glacial cirques and
then meander north through unconsolidated sediments of varying grain sizes.
A-9
46804;;3
~
20 2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01 10
-:I: a..
::E -o
7
6
5
4
--
-:-~ NOTES:
I. ONE AND TWO HOUR DURATIONS DEVELOPED
FROM FI VE YEARS CORPS OF ENGI NEERS
DATA FROM SANDPOINT, ALASKA.
2. FASTEST MILE DATA TAKEN FROM
3 r-----H.C.S. THOM, "EXTREME WIND DISTRIBU-
TIONS", 1968.
2
3. LOG PIERSON TYPE III DISTRI BUTION
WITH ZERO SKEW WAS USED TO DEVELOP
STATISTICS.
-_:=~-r--+~I+-I--+-ItI~"'Htt+-ttl=t + J:-----
H+HI+H-+-H+-I-+-I--+---++ --------
--'--r-----------
_ L-_ --_1--'-_ -
H +l2,+-ttnlt+HH++lH-I--Htt-=t~tttt110-2ot---50-100 --.--~··~~·~~-+-r++H~~~-~~~H+~##a+H+H+H+~~~~~~**~H+I·~I~L~I-+--_--~1~--~~U~++-~-~-~-~-I++++I--'-~I~--
H+le-l++++++--t--t-+-tt-t-l-i-l-l---ll+ttlH-+-t++H-I-1H++++H-t-I---I---. ETURN I NTERVAL ("'EARS IY.+++H++-I-t-------_-fj +-IH++--
--1------
--_. ----~+-I--I-++I---+--I--I-1--1-t+f-++++++-I-t+-+++H-tHf+++f-++-t-+-t-f--,I--'--I--t-H-+-I-t-Hr-H-t-+-t-
-f------t-t-t-f+----I--II--'-+-'+-' 1--'-H+H+-H++Ht-+H+f--I+H-t-H++-IHf-H t-IH-H-++~-t+HH1I+/-t-If-t-t-t-t-i-t--t-t--r-----FASTES~ ~ M l ~ ----
__ c= ,::: -:= 9
0(1') 80-
o 70 ---=--
z-:=.::~: -'
60 ---3: .----
50 -,----
-"'--f== '-= '----
-=-r:= :::--__
---f--
-1--
cc= -::~, c,~_ -----. .. ..
_ .~'-', t=;: -
--c--
==
--c--r-:-
-=
40 r, -1_ ==---1, _ 1: ~=,H ~ ±Ht-,-= -__ '-=_cc __
_-_--:--=-+~t-t-t-t--t-H-_~_:_~== ~-_ 2 HOURS DURATION' 1-' -
f ----:-~----:== ---It--_ G 30 ,.::.+__---------c----n ~
,n: 'J t~
~! -- -. ---1 tLt··. -!
f' -n
It-III til
t---
f--
-1------
-- - - -
-
IO,~,~ _=~,_,",-=-+_
-:1:':=--::: _ _-=c 5
'. ::=t~-_ :."-.:.:. _ .-: _ -_-f:--:-co::
. ---
.. -------.:-~ --=---,_ c: _::_ -r=--4
-1----
---
J..J-l-Lll-I-JI-I------J-=-__ : L-
UNALASKA, ALASKA
SMALL HYDROPOWER
FEASIBI L1TY STUDY
-:1::-"':"_
MAXIMUM WIND SPEED
FREQUENCY CURVE
1200 -2500
TRAIL LAKE
3
2
-r . Tr'll ~*r -~~t· i I )' I j I I I I Iii! :1 i I Ii'
U1 i ,,-_IL.U..o.L1 ---,-_.-'-_J~iL.J....'-.~----,--,-"u.J1 L-' ----L....-,---,--I, I I i I' I i I 1 111: t I 'I! jill I Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
10 _ ''1: I Iii IJ i _ II II i iii I i I! j I t ~ illli ill I J-LLl..LL".J...L. __ -----:::-:-__ ~~ __ _ 00l~)5 0 1 0.2 05 2 5 10 :'0 10 40~· ) 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99,9
1
)l9,99
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
A.3.3 Regional Geology
The island is the subaerial part of the wave-beveled platform of the
Aleutian Ridge with incised slopes extending south to deep water in the
trough. The amount and rate of marine erosion suggest that the insular
shelf is no older than middle Pleistocene. Most of the Makushin volcanics
and all of the glaciation of the island postdate the marine beveling of the
platform.
The oldest rocks on the island, the Unalaska formation, consist of
altered andesitic intrusive and extrusive rocks, and sedimentary rocks
derived from similar igneous rocks. Conglomerates and coarse breccias are
the dominant sedimentary rocks of the northern and eastern part of the
island;, finer epiclastic and pyroclastic rocks, particularly argillite, are
dominant in the south. The coarse facies is probably a nearshore deposit;
the finer facies suggest deposition in deeper basins. Conspicuous,
bulbous, igneous masses whose diameters range from a few to several hundred
feet were intruded into and possibly extruded upon muds and are associated
with pillow-lavas. .
The Unalaska formation is exposed over two-thirds of the island and
forms a thick sequence of coarse and fine sedimentary and pyroclastic rocks
intercalated with dacitic, and~sitic, and basaltic 'flows and sills. This
is cut by numerous dikes and small plutons and unconformably covered by
basalt and andesite of the Makushin volcanics to the west of the project
sites. The batholith, at the head of Captains Bay, forms an intrusive
facies ranging from granite to granodiorite, with surrounding belts of
hydrothermal wall rock alterations which show some metamorphism.
Sedimentary rocks in the site area consist of some graywacke and
conglomerates and coarse pyroclastic deposits separated by wide transition
zones. Tuffaceous sandstone, mudstone, agglomerates, and coarse breccias
can also be found. Bedding in coarse sediments is characteristically crude
and lithologic units are massive. Finer gradational bedding occurs in the
finer grain-sized material.
Fossil identification and correlation with related units in Puget
Sound, Baja California, and Japan place the age of this formation at
probably early Miocene.
Topography varies from jagged high ridges to smoother lower slopes.
Exposed rocks are brownish gray and greenish gray, with scattered yellowish
gray to reddish gray brown patches.
A discontinuous mantle of glacial till, volcanic ash, humus, and soil
covers the island. Moraines are restricted to the vicinity of present
glaciers. Beaches raised in recent times are local and poorly preserved.
A.3.4 Local Geology
The Shaishnikof River flows about 3 miles in a northeasterly direction
from Trail Lake to the head of Captains Bay. An additional 2 miles of
stream flows from a glacial cirque and empties into the lake. This area is
on the borderline of the pluton and stream gravels co~sist of igneous
rocks, whiCh vary from granites to diorites, and various sedimentary rocks.
A-ll
The damsite is about 600 feet downstream of the lake outlet, roughly
centered in a bend of the river. Below this area, the river cascades down
a series of moderately sloping falls, which are controlled by major joint
sets. Auger holes begun on the west bank in 1981 indicated an average of
5 feet of clayey silts with some rock fragments near top of rock. This is
overlain with a mat of tundra ranging from a few inches to 1 foot in thick-
ness. Some reddish brown clay zones are visible above the stream cuts. The
rock, a massive granodiorite, would be excellent as a foundation after the
weathered surface rock is removed. Remedial treatment, such as pressure
grouting of major joints and fractures, is recommended duriAg project
construction.
Water would,be transported through a short penstock to a powerhouse
located approximately 920 feet downstream of the dam on a bench on the
right bank. Explorations indicate that a considerable amount of fill
material composed of gravels and cobbles of granodiorite graywacke and
mudstones intermixed with clay, silt, and sand underlie this site. This is
overlain with a mat of tundra similar to the damsite. The glacial fill is
of unknown depth except close to the upstream hill, and appears porous
enough to sustain an aquifer with a head of 2.6 feet.
Investigations of the riverbed at the Shaishnikof damsite, approximate
elevation 550 feet, included three holes drilled approximately 22 feet into
bedrock and 11 hand dug pits. Overburden consists of a .3-to .s-foot mat
of tundra vegetation overlying organic rich clayey silt. This material
grades into a moist, brown silty sand with occasional fragments of
granodiorite at top of rock. Bedrock is moderately jointed with orienta-
tions nearly perpendicular to the proposed dam axis. These orientations
dissect the granodiorite into large blocks. Weathering does not appear
extensive and should be limited to the top of rock and joint surfaces • .
The potential powerhouse site is situated on the right bank at
approximate elevation 430, 900 feet downstream from the damsite. It is
sited on overburden ranging from 15.2 feet in DH-s, and 18.2 feet in boring
DH-6 to in excess of 24 feet in boring DH-4. This material consists of a
tundra mat similar to the damsite up to .5 feet thick, which overlies 1 to
2 feet of organic dark brown silty sand with scattered gravels and cobbles.
This material overlies gravels and cobbles of granodiorite, graywacke and
other sedimentary rocks, intermixed with brown silts and sands. Cobbles of
granodiorite and sedimentary rocks indicate mixed sources and reflect the
intermixed bedrock geology of the area. The coarse fraction of material is
generally subrounded with brownish weathering on the surface.
Sources could be morainal dumping after glacial retreat, alluvial river
material, colluvial talus debris, or a combination of the three. After
deposition, these materials appear partially reworked as evidented by low
2-to 4-foot berms, roughly paralleling the river course. Subsequent
flooding and possible ash falls have overlain the coarse mixture with rich
silty sandy soil. Location of the borings is shown on Figure A-6. Actual
boring log information follows Figure A-6.
A-12
)::0
I ......
W
"" -G c .. • ,.
I
CJ)
r"AlL LAKE
(
\
\
10 20 --SCAlE:: I". ISO'
i
fiGURE A-6
DAM SITE
DlSTRICT.~PI f1f ENGINEERS
MTr, __
. _ .. _. ----------------------------.--.-.. -
PItOoIET HYDROELECTRIC ~1 OF 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SHAISHNIKOF
NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION
LOCATION ( ., SIot_,
N. E. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ,ALASKA DRILLING AGUCY qp CORPS OF EIIIGNERS
EXPLORATION LOG C::=J OTHER
HOLE NO. INAME OF UltlL.L.1:1I lS~y, cool 'IELD AH-7 P' ...... lMT AH-7 Wolfe
-TYPE OF HOLE _ DEPTH I~"" l!~TAL TO ORl..LED DEPYH OfF 3.3' TEST "T c:::J AUGER Hau cx:::J CHURN DM.L c:I .. TO ~~LE r"zi: "M.o-T-Yji[-OF-BIT IDATUM FOIl ELEVAf"tciN-5H(JWIIt TYPE 01 laUtP ... T
c::::J T... c::::::J IIISL. Pick and shovel ,
TaTAL NO. OF sallfOt.U I TYPE OF SAMfOt.ES =Ta WATER
\: DATE HaU
STMTED 7/4/82 COMfIL,£TED] /4/82
EL. TmI OfF tG.l ....... I
.... Clllef.RI , ..................... DoN
Cor~v
DEPTH ,-.~ l--oU! SOIL
SURF~SlFlCAnON
MAX
'(ffi) ~T NO. ~GEND ~ FORMATION DESCRIPTION a REMARKS
ORGANICS: Tundra-like Hole was easily dug with a . OL vegetation, root zone
o Ii' is matted but affords shovel to the bottom.
a shovel easy penetraf
tion.
1.0: -MH SOIL: Very dark brown
silt,damp to wet, -contains some roots J~ -
down to 2.0'. Grades
to dark brown, moist, Seasonal Frost
2.0: 1---silty sand b~ 2.0'. -
Material is loose to
-moderately loose. -
ML
.3.~ ! -
':! ':!
.
1M o~ 1-101 ~ ,II Kr
TOP OF ROCK --
.
--
--
--
--
--
--
.. ,. '0101"
ore. '.5.'. '.EVI A-14 PROJECT SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC PERMANENT AH-7 HOLE NO. _____ _
\,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
~~KT I.
SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC· I~ 1 ~ 1
L~TION ( • S ..... ,
NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION
U.S. ARMY ENGINE ER DISTRICT, AL ASK A r.:!=·IL:"'7L-=_=-:"AGE=;c.,=. :--___ .....::E::.,.. -....,~-...,C,..".ORP~S-:~........."E,....NGI-NEE-=-R....:jS
EXPLORATION LOG C:=J On4ER .'
I~'"I:.· I Cdy, rain AH-8
HOLE No.-UP l)RILLER
'IR ..... ENT AH -8 Wo 1 f e
TYPE OF HOLE DEPTH I~
TUT PIT c:::::l AUGER HOLE a::J CHURN DRI.&o E::::J TO I~UD 4.3 1
SIZE AND TYPE 01 BIT I DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN I TYPE OF EQUlPME .. T
c:::::::JT... c:::::JMSL. 1 Pick and shovel
TOTAL NO. OF SAMPLES TYPE f1' SAMPLES ~ TO DATE HOLE 1.11:':-STARTED 6128/82 CDlllflLETED 6/28/8(·
ELo TOP 01 HOLI ..... Corey I
DEPTH ,WATD SAMPLE SOIL
~ ~T NO. UIEMD
MAX
SURfWet5S1F1CATlON ~ FORMATION DESCRIPTION a REMAI:tKS
ORGANICS: Tundra-like
OL vegetation. root zone Hole was easily dug with a
+-.Io.I...o.,;nC::~_-+_-+~--,1 i s matted but affords r--+_.=.s.:.;.ho::..v;..::e;..;l......;.to::......;t;.:.;h.=.e...;b;.;o:..::t;,.;;t..:,om;;.;.:.... _0--/
a shovel easy penetrcV
-
2 • .0:
-
3.0:
-
4.Et
4.3
-
-
-
-
-
tion.
MH SOIL: Very dark browr
silt, damp to wet,
contains some roots
down to 2.0 1 • Grades
to dark brown, moist l
I-- -si lty sand by 2.0 1
•
Material is loose to I
moderately loose.
ML
BonOM OF HOLE
TOP OF ROCK·
Seasonal Frost
A-15. PROJECT SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC ~~ AH-8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--.' ----------------._----------
PIlOoiECT ~ 1 CJ' 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC
NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION
LOQTION e ., 'Stet'-,
N. E. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ,ALASKA DRI.LING AGUCY '\ ~ CORPS CJ' EHGIIE£IIS
EXPLORATION LOG ~ OTMEII .. .
HOLE NO. N_ 01' UIIL~I;"
"LD AH-9· 'IR ..... ENT AH-9 Wolfe I-'~" Cdy, rain
G
TYPE OF HOLE • DEPTH I~~o ·I~~OF PIT c:::J AUGER NOLE CiZ:I CHURN OIIU. ~ TO 2.7 1
.-TlST HOLE
SIZE ANO TYPE OF BIT I DATUM 'OR ELEVATION SHOWN TYPE OF EQUlPII£ ... T
c::JT.... . c::::JMlL. Pick and shovel
TOTAL NO. OF SAM~lS TYPE fW SA~ES e~ Il DAT£ HOLE
ITMTEO 6/28/82 COMPLETED 6/28/8~
EL. TOIl 0# HOLE ....... ....... Cllllf.Ri J.. • ............... Dote Corey I
DEPTH 'WAil SOIL ....
F/if"o ClDNTlNT NO. LEUND SURF~ ~IUFICAnON ~ FORMATION DESCRIPTION a REMA~KS
OL ORGANICS: Tundra-like Hole was easily dug with a vegetation, root zone 05 is matted but afford shovel to the bottom.
a shovel easy penetr -
tion. 1.n...: -
MH .SOIL: Very dark brow
silt, very wet to -saturated from 0.5 -.
to 2.7.
2.CT: -
2 7--BOTTOM OF HOLE
TOP OF ROCK .
--.
--
-1 -
--
. --,
--
--
NPA 'ORM It Ilthl DEC. 1.5.
A-16 P~ECT SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC PERMANENT AH-9 HOLE NO. _____ _
PRO.IltT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC [SHEET 1 OF 1
NORTH 'PACIFIC DIVISION
~ATICIN ( • Stat_,
N: E. u.s. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ,ALASKA DRILLING AGENCY ~ CORPS OF ENGINEERS
EXPlORATION LOG [:=:J OTHER
HOLE NO. NAME OF ~RILLER 1---'-" '"LD AH-IO PERMANENT AH-IO Wolfe Sunny, cool
TVPE OF HOLE DEPTH l:~ r L
PIT c::J AUGER HOLE C2Cl CHURN DItLL. c:::::::J TO DRLLED DEPTH OF ,
TUT .. TO HOLE 4.8
SIZE AHO TYPE OF 81 T 1 DATUM FOit EI.E\iaTICIN SHOWN 1 TYPE OF EQUlPIIIPT
c::::JT". ~"IL. Pick and shovel
TOTAl. NO.O' SAMPLES TYPE OF SAMPLES e TO DATE HOI.E
EI.. TOP OF HCX.E ........
DEPTH ~WATP SAMPLE
~' FamNT NO.
n 1::'
1.9-
-
2.0.:
-
3.0.:
-
·4.(T:
--
4.R
-
-
-
-
NPA FO .. M" i .. h, .e. .,"
rrir,:.v
SOIL
LEIEND
OL
--
MH
f---
ML
-
A-17
D-. ~ STMTID 7/4/82 COMPLETED 7 /4/82 WATER
I ..... CIIW.'" .................. Dote
MAX
I ,I IR ~iH.SSlFlCATION ~:u FORMATION DESCRIPTION a REMA~J(S
ORGANICS: Tundra-like Hole was easily dug witha ve.getat i on, root zone
is matted but affordS~ shovel to the bottom.
a shovel easy penetra
tion. -
SOIL: Very dark brow~
si lt, damp to wet, •
contains some roots -
down to 2.0'. Grades : to dark brown, moist, --j silty sand by 2.0'. J~
Material is loose to J
Seasonal Frost ~oderately loose. -
I
I . . -
-
RnTTnM nr: !-In! ~ -!, 1
TOP OF ROCK -
-
-
-
.
PROJECT SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC PERMANENT AH-IO HOLE NO. ____ _
~T ~ 101"1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC
NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION
L~TlQN ( ........ ,
N. , E. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ,ALASKA DRILL .. AGlHC't liP CORPS 01" EJaIEERS
t=l.OTMEIt ~XPLORATION LOG
MOLE NO. ,_ " .. u ...... I. .. 1-_.
NLD AH-ll ~'.MAII,"T AH-ll Wolfe Sunny, cool
TY~£ cw HClLE DE~TH I~D 1=~0I' ~IT c:::::J AUGlIt HCIL£ CD CHUM..... t::=I TO TEST liTO HOL£ 5.0 1
Sill AM) TY~ OF liT \DATUfil "OR lLE_TICIN .... TYPE or lQUIIItIlNT
t::::::I T8M. c::::::J MIL. Pick and shovel
TOT~ NO. or ,.11"-11 J TYPE 01' SAll"-EI e TO
WATlIt
II IMtTl MOLE
IT_TO 7/4/82 Cf1WU.Tf.D 7/4/82
,EL lOP or HOLE ........
, f"n.,."",
O£PTH , .. -I. lOlL 1-.-ew-ClCllftNT NO. UllNO
OS·
OL
La..: MH
". -.
2.0...: r---
. -
ML 3.q....:
-
4.0-:
,",
-
5 ,0
-
-
-
I
...... C*f.%'11 ........... _ 0.-
....
SUR~f1CAnoN . ~ FORMAT1ON DESCRIPTION a REMARKS
ORGANICS:Tundra-like Hole was easily dug with a vegetation, root zonE shovel to tne bottom. is matted but affords i~ a shovel easy penetra
:t ion • .
SOIL: Very dark bro~r
silt, damp to wet,
contains some roots
down to 2.0 1 • Grades
to dark brown, moist,
silty sand by 2.0 1
• J~ Material is loose to Seasonal Frost moderately loose •
.
.
BOTTOM OF HOLE " TOP OF ROCK
. .
PRCUECT SHIAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC PERMANENT AH-11
HOLE Nf\
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
I
PROoIlCT ~lQlfl DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC
NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION
LOCATION ( ........ ,
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ,ALASKA N. E.
DRILLING AGENCY ~ CORPS QIf ENGINEERS
EXPLORATION LOG [:=J cmtER
HOLE NO. N_ gl' D""'L.~"
l'-s7nny, COO 1 PELO AH-12 ~lRNAII£NT AH-12 . WOLFE
TY~E M HCll.E DE~TH 1~1"TIt l=~OF TnT ~IT t:::::J. AUGER HClLE ~ CHUR .. ORI.\. ~ TO DRLLED 3.0' TO HOLE
SIZE AIIIO TY'l M 81T 1 DATU" '011 EL"~lTlON SHOWN I TYPE OIl £QUIPIIEJIT
c:::JT.... c::::JMSL. Pick and shovel
TOTAL 110. OF SA"~11 TYPE OF SA~EI =~ DATI HOLE
ITUTED 7/4/82 COMPUTED 7/4/82
EL TfJ/I'.rw HCII..E ....... .... CIIIII."u ... IIL ............... 0...
,.." ... " , I
~ ",IIIa,,-., SOIL MAX
~T -LE81110 ·<;URF~SlflCATION ~ FCIRMATICN DESCRIPTION a REMARKS 110.
ORGANICS: Tundra-like
ell vegetation, root zone Hole is easily dug with a
n t::' is matted but affords shoVf:~ 1 to th~ bottom
a shovel easy penetra~
tion. 1.e: I-SOIL: Very dark ,brown -
MH silt, damp to wet,
-contains some roots r--r---down to 2.0'. Grades 1\
to dark brown, 'moi st Seasonal Frost
2.0: ---silty sand by 2.0'. -
Material is loose to
ML moderately loose. ---
. ~ n-BOiTOM OF HOLE "I' TOP OF ROCK .
--
'. --
--.
--
--
----
--
-
A-19 PROJECT SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC PE~ AH-12 ..... ~.;..;;;.;.;.;.;.;;......;. __ ..;.... _______ HOLE NO _-.. -__
\
~~lCT ~l CPl i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SHAISHNIKOF·HYDROELECTRIC
L~ATKIII c ........ , !
NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION N. E. ....
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA 1lRIU._ A«Mt:r ~ COIIPS OF ENGIHEERS
EXPLORATION LOG c:J OntrR
HOLE NO. __ UP UIQI,. .. ~" \_."-
P1lLD AH-I3 PI_MAIIOT AH-13 . Wolfe Sunny. cool
TY~E Of HOLE OE~TH I::-'~D 1= OF TEST PIT c::::J AUGER HOLE c%X:l CNUR .. DIIU. 1::=1 TO 5.0 1
111'0 HOLE
SIZE AND TYPE Of' liT IDATU .. fOIl lLlE_TION ..... "PI Of' IQUlPtKMT
c::::J T", c:::lMlL. Pick and shovel
10TAL ItO. M SA"Pl-1EI I TYPI OF SAW\.II =~ WAtt"
Il DATI HOLE ST_TIED 7/4/82 COIIIUTED 7/4/82
IEL. n. 011 HOLE .....
QUlTH ....
~ FanutT
"
"
0.5"
1.0':
-
2.~
-
3.0":
-
4.0-:
-
5.0
-
-
-
NH "0"" I' til""
DIe. "5'
ItO.
rn Y'1:a V
sou. UIUD
OL
MH
1---
ML
.
..... Cllllf"ft • • I ............ 0...
J
MAX
SURF ,@!SllFICATION ~ FORMATION DESCRIPTION a REMARKS
ORGANICS: Tundra-like Hole was easily dug with a
vegetation, root zone shovel to the bottom
is matted but affords /
a shovel easy penetra
tion.
SOIL: Very dark brown -
silt. damp to wet,
contains some roots
down to 2.0 1
• Grades
to dark brown,moist.
silty sand by 2.0'. J"
!Materia1 is loose to Seasonal Frost
moderately loose.
BOTTOM OF HOLE ,II
TOP OF ROCK
SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC PERMANENT AH-13 A-20 PROJECT _____________ HOLE NO.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
I
PROoIICT
HYDROELECTR I C ~ 1 t6 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SHAISHNIKOF
NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION
"~ATIC*( or s.t6Ia I
N. E. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ,ALASKA DRILLING AGENCY .~; ~ CORPS OF ENGINEERS·
EXPL ORATION LOG C:=J cmtER i
HOLE NO. 1 __ 01' DRILL.E" r--N: .. D AH-14 'lR ..... £MT AH-14 Wolfe Sunny, cool
yy" OF HOLE DE,T" I:£ffl I TOTA" TEST 'IT c=J AUGER HOLt c:::J C ...... DIIU. ~ TD DltLLED DEPTH 011 4.5' INTO HOLE
SIZE oUIO YY'l OF 81T I~TU" 'OR ELt_TIC* SHOWN j TY" OF !QUI"""T
c::::JT.. ~"'L. Pick and shovel
TOTAL. Il10. OF '''''''''IS I TY" 011 IAWLES
=TO
DATE HOI.E
WATER STAIITED7/4/82 COMI\.ETED 7/4/82"
tL. TaP 011 HCU ....... ....... CIIIIf.".,*" 18 ............ DIlle
Corey I
DEPTH ,wa" . ., SOIl. MAX
~ CGNrDIT 110. iUlIlID SURF~~TIO" ..:::u FORNATICN DESCRIPTION a REMARKS
OL ORGANICS: Tundra-like Hole was easily dug with a
nB"
vegetation, root zone shovel to the bottom.
is matted but affords
a shovel easy penetra ~
1.0: . tion. . .... . -. SOIL: Very dark brown
MH silt, damp to wet, -contains some roots -
down to 2.0'. Grades
2.&:
to dark brown, moist, -~--silty sand by 2.0'. 'I' raterial is loose to Seasonal Frost -moderately loose. -• I
3.Et: ML ! -
--
4.tT: -
A c: BonOM OF HOLE , ~
TOP OF ROCK
--
--,
--
--
A-21 PROJECT SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC PERMANENT HOLE NO. AH-14
...
. . . ------------------------------------------------~------------------------
PRCWICT
r-rl (It 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SHAISHNIKQF HYDROELECTRIC !
LOCATION « ....... , ,
NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION
U.s. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ,ALASKA N. E. ; DR....... IJIE.ItI(;Y L.ft-I~ aI EMIfGRS
EXPLORATION LOG c.:::J O1MER ... I HOLE NO. . .......:uP
\'S':nny, COO 1
I
NLD AH-15 PER ...... T AH-15 Wolfe .. n,,1 OF HelLl OI"T" =~D I~~'" TEST I"IT c:::::l AUGDt MCU c:::x:J CHURN...... r::::=a TO
HOLE 4.9' i
SlZI ... TYPE CW In I DATUM ,. IU,""YION .... "'" CW tauII'IIENT
t:::]T_. r:::::::I..... Pick and shovel
1'DTAL IIO.CW 5 ...... " I TV" CW ...... 1$ ·E~ I! DATI MOLl
.'MATlD7/4/82 COMIIUTED 7/4/82
EL ,. CI1 HCII.! ....... ...... c:aw.... • , ........... -Dee. Corey I
(;; ... -," SQq,. ....
1"" .::u FORMATION DESCRlPTIQN. a REM.RKS ClllnlMT NO. UK..., SURF}oI.I.r "_11ON
OL
PRGANICS: Tundra-like Hole was easily dug with. a
~egetation, root zone shovel to the bottom.
n c: is matted but affords
~ shovel easy penetra
tion.
-.1.9--. -
MH SOIL: Very dark brown
silt, damp to wet, -~ontains some roots -
~own to 2.0'. Grades
to dark brown, moist .
2.0-: p.---~ilty sand by 2.0'. -I~
Material is loose to Seasonal Frost . moderately loose • ... --ML
t
. 3.0-: -
-":'
4.0"': -
--
4 0 ...... _... nJ:'!-In! ~ ~I -TOP OF ROCK -
. -, -
--
<
--.. .
..... ., ... ore. 'IS. II U,,,,,
A-22 PROJECT SHAISIINIKOF HYDROELECTRIC . __ ~ AH-l~5 """J.aro-. _
. 1
PRO.IECT ~lCJ1rl DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC
NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION
LQQTlON ( ...... ,
N. E. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ,ALASKA DRUING AGENCY ~ CORPS (s ENGINEERS
. EXPLORATION LOG [=:J OntER
HOLE NO.
AH-16 "-W;lfU:-LU I~I~
PIlLD AH-16 ItIRNAII£NT Sunny, cool
TYPE OF HOLE DEPn4 =~O 1~~a1 TI!ST PIT c:=J MaGER HOLE C¥:J CHURN ORU. t::=I TO 4.4' HOLE
SIZE AM) TYPE OF BIT I DATUM 'OR ""'AT'" SHIMN TYItI OF IGUlNENT
~T". ~MIL. Pick and shovel
laTA\. NO. OF Sa ...... ES TY" OF SAMPLES e~ Il DATI HOLE
ITMTID 7/4/82 COMPLETED .7/4/82
. ELo TOP a1 HCI.l ....... ...... CIIIIf." .11. .............. oe..
Ccrev I
DEPTH ".TP SAMPLE SOIL MAX
~ I:cIaaT NO. ~'E"O I SllRF~FlCATION ~ FORMATICN DESCRIPTION a REMARKS
ORGANICS: Tundra-like Hole was easily dug with a OL vegetation, root zone shovel to the bottom. .
o Ii" is matted but affords
a shovel easy penetra
tion.
1.~ . -. MH SOIL: Very dark brown
silt', damp to wet, -contains some roots -
down to 2.0'. Grades
·2.a: to dark brown, mOist, ---silty sand by 2.0'. .-
There·is some season-/,
al frost from about Seasonal Frost -2 • 0' to 3. a ' .. -
. ML Material is loose to
3.~ moderately loose. -
-0.1' of material -
stained red-brown
4.0.: at 3.5'. -
4.4 SOnOM OF HOLE "Ill
-TOP OF ROCK -
--
·
--
--
· · --
·
A-23 PROJECT SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC PERMANENT
HOLE NO ..
AH-16
r:
i
i
I
!
~-----~----------------I.------------
PltOoIlCT ~ 1 cp'l . SHAISHNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION
LOCATD ( ...... ,
N. E. U.s. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ,ALASKA DRILUNI AGENCY ~ CORPS OF ENGINEERS
-EXPLORATION LOG c:=:J cmlER
MOLl NO. 1_ gp UI'II .. Id."
, Sunn NU AH-17 ... MAN£IIT AH-17 Wolf@ cool.
TYI"£ M MOLE IIa.,!.TH IFO !~T.L
TUT PIT c:::::::r AUIIR HO..t: C20 CHUM CJIIIIU. c:::::::I TO DIEPTM OF 6 O' .10 HOLt: •
SIlE AND TYPE M BIT J DATUM POll lLE\IIlTlCltl ...... TYPE cw EQUIIIMDIT c::::::J'. .t:::l...... Pick and shovel
TOTAL ~. 0IIfI ......... " I T't ... CW IAllllPl.II =~ WATER
11 DATE MOU
STMTID 7/4/82 CCIWLITED 7 /4/82
£Lo ..... 0IIfI ttOL£ ....... ...... Cllllf.1ItI • n 1 ......... _ ....
~or@v I
DO'TH ,,_.-!WIU SOIL ...
~-FotnaT 110, 1.1.110
Sl .'-, ... __ a1'1C)N .:::u FORM&TICN DESCRIPTION .. REMARKS
JKrl'\ -,
ORGANICS: T~ndra-likE Hole was easily dug with a
n "
OL vegetation, root zonE shovel to the bottom. is matted but afford
a shovel easy penetra~ Water table is at top of groun.
. 1,~ tion. . • --SOIL: Very dark br:owl1 MH silt, damp to wet, .
-contains some roots -. down to 2.0', Grades
to dark brown, moist,
2.0..: r---silty sand by 2.0'. -
Material is loose to Allllill.
-moderately loose. -
A few cobbles were
3.0-: ML encountered at the -. 2.5' and 3.5 1 levels •
---
4.0--
--
5.0--
--
~ n RnTTllM n~ unl J:'
TOP OF ROCK . . .. --
NN ~OR" DIe. '.5. ,. tlt"'1
A-24 P~ECT SHAI~HNIKOF HYDROELECTRIC PERMANE!oIT AH-17 . HOLE NO _ " __ _
Hole Mo. DA-l
I DIVISION
DRILLIMG LOG NPD
INST ... LL ... TION TSHEET r
Alaska District OF 1 SHUTS
I! PROJECT to. SIZE AND TVPtE OF lilT NO °0 i i'lmnn'd
Shaishnikof Hydroelectric 11. DATUM FOR li.L .. VATION $HOWN (TBM_~ 6i-.~LO~C~"'~T~10~N~(~C~~~m~.~'_~.-_~s,~_~~~------------------~ MLLW
~~~~~~== ____________________________ ~hl~i.~M~A~N~U~F~AC~T~U~R~E=R~'S~.D~E~S~IG~N~"'=TI~O~N~O~F~DR~IL~L------------~
3. OAII.LING AGENCV $oraQue and Henwood
1-:-=~U~S:;:C:.::Ef.?C:"'-'~ ___ --'---'-~~~ _____________ --i 13. TOTAl. NO. OF OVER. I OISTU".IE.,
4. HOI.E NO. (A. ehD .... _ •• ..., ,,,,_, BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN i 0 .
and III......... l DH-l •
5. N ... ME OF OfULL!!R 14. TOT AI. NUMBER CORE BOXES 3
Daniel Sull ivan v 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
S. DIRECTION OF HOLE -1 •• DATE HOLE I i su"n., I CO~~~T,1EO
[]J VIE" TIC AI.. DINCI..INIEO _____ Olt •• "'!IIIOM VIt!lllT. I-------------I....!I! 6i;LSio 12!.lI!6iLJtl. ./B .... 2 ____ ..... : ~6u! 1,.J:2:.:=: D",I/.,l: ,BI.!:2:...-__ -I
7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN 4.4 I 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE
95.9 i:::i::: • i::: ta. TOT AI. CORE .. ECOVE"V 1"0" BORING
J-.a_. _D_EP_T_H_D_ .. _I..;.L..;.LE_D __ IN_T_O_ .. _O_C_K ________________ --i I •• SIGNATU .. E OF INSPECTOR
•. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 26.6 Mi chae 1 D. Corey
ELEVATION D"PTH L-GEND CLASSI .. ICATION 0 .. MATUlIAU .... (D_vjpClon!
"CORE BOX OR .. ECOV. SAMPLE .. EMARKS
(D..",,,,, '..... __ lou. .",,. 01
-...nllllt. .tc.. it ."mlle.'"
a
ERV NO.
• f II O.C e SURFACE II = OVERBURDEN: Very dark brown NX casing to 4.0 1
A A= to dark brown silty sand,damp
__ .,.. + +. ,~nd mod .... !~o~~. ___ .. )1----l---I------------I
iI III~ [J~ ~fU-K 100% water return to -" , -'~:' GRANODIORITE:Hard, massive, 94.3 the bottom of the hole.
-.,.. ""-mod. fine grained,some quart"ZJO----I
10-:: '~' is deposited in the more ver~ = ' ; / tical trending fracs. the -= "; , ! rock is generally mod. weath-"94 r 0 -,+;t, ered throughout, intensely • = ~ +-,"" fractured to 20.0' ,and highl.)
20...= ... ~ ~ fractured to 26.6 1
• 1----1
-I
1
2
-~ +-;-0 .3' core los s (4.4 1 -9.7') = /~-... ' 0.6 1 core loss (9.7 1
.. 19.4') 100.0. 1--~-1 -..... 3 ?~ .:.. +-.++-, -. -------------------------------------. --:: --
BOTTOM OF HOLE
Note: Pressure test was
not performed.
A-25 '.-
Note: Core losses are
distributed between
interval depths.
-, --
ENG FORM 1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. P.,.A P'ROJECTSHAISHN IKOF HYDRO I HOLE N'
nll_1
H.I. H.. OH-2
I DIVISION
DRILLING LOG NPD INSTALLATION I SHEET 1 Alaska District 0" 1 SHEETS
I. PROJECT 10. SIZE AND TYPE 0 .. BIT NO 01 amond
~:-:'lI:-:::S;;h:o:;a;..;i,;s.:.;,h.:.;,n~i k_o .... f_.,Hr=y~d:-r~o_e_l_e .... c_tr_i c'"""-_-----111. DATUM I"Oft t:;,,"!:;VATION lIiHOWN CUlM __ ~
Z. LOCATION (C...., ....... or .I,... MLLW .-."
ho-""""~"""""'''''''''''="",'''''''' _____________ --1'Z. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION 011' DRILl.
3. DRIL.LING AGENCY Sprague and Henwood
1-:-=~U;:S;:;C::;E;;C~:--_--:---: __ ~~ _______ ----l13. TOTAL NO. 01" OVER-10IiTUIlt.IED ! UNDI.TUIII.IED
&. HOL.E NO. (Ae .... --........ tI"o' BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN! 0 : 0 .., tile...... I DH-2
14. TOT AL NUM8ER CORE 80XES 2 5. NAME 011' DRIL.LER Daniel Sullivan ta. EI.EVATION GROUNDWATER
6. DIRECTION Oil' HOLE _ II. DATE HOIoE' i IT .IIIT 110 ! COM6P''''2IlST,IlSD2 [2DVIEIIITIC ...... OINC ... IHIED _____ D ...... IIIOM V.ItT. 1-______ ....L.--=6;.!'.:2:..;,7..!/.:S:.:2:...._..i:_.:;.:...=.;:.:...;;.=--_-I
7. THICKNESS 011' OVER8UI(DEN S. 4 17. EI.EVATION TOP 011' HOI.E
18.'0 I,. TOT AI. CORE RECOVERY ... OR BORING
",,'_' _D_E_PT_H_DR_I_I._L_ED_IN_T_O_R_O_C_K __ ~~""!-______ -I It. SIGNATURE 011' INSPECTOR
88.3
t. TOTAL DEPTH 011' HOI.E 26.4 Mi chae 1 O. Corey
EI.EVATION DEPTH LEGEND
• O.fl c
------,-S.4_ -.... + 10-1.,t ... " --, .. '" ' -+-f.:f---I " , -" ..... , -. .. -ri-,. -" .. , -.,.. .J-..
20-\ ~ 1--.,..-""'l-~ --'~'f, -
I?F\.~
( ,--
T.+' +' --------------------------------------. -
CI.AIIllflCATION Olf MAT£IIlIAI.S (D...,.-
I SURFACE " OVERBURDEN: Very dark brown
to dark brown silty sand.damp
and mod. loose.
TOP OF ROCK
GRANODIORITE: Hard. massive.
mod. fine grained.some~quart2
is deposited in the more ver-
tical trending fracs. The
rock is generally mod. weath·,
ered throughout. and varies
from intensely to highly
fractured.
0.2' core loss (10.6'-20.1 1
)
BOTTOM OF HOLE
Note: Pressure test was
not performed.
" CORE RECOV.
£lilY
0
.
97.9
100.0
BOX OR REMARKS
SAMPI.E (DrIll"" , ..... .., ... -. .,.,. ol
NO. ...". ....... e'c., II e'"u"CantJ
f II
NX casing to 10.4 1
Drill water goes bright
rllc:t rll'd fnr'n " Jilt '7('
Starter barrel chewed
up the first 2.2' of
core.
1
100% water return
Note: Core losses are
distributed between 2 interval depths.
---, -A-26 ____ +-__ -+ ____ ~-----------
ENG FORM 1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOI.ETE_ MAR 7'
(THAN Sf ",' .''Y ....
PROJECT
SHAISHNIKOF HYDRO I HOLE NO. ou-:
........
Hoi. Mo. 01-1 .. 3
I DIVISION
DRILLIMG LOG' NPD INSTALL.ATION I SHEET. 1
Alaska District OF 1 SHUTS
t. PROJECT 10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT NO Di amond ~:-::::-:S-=h-:-::a:o::i~s,:=:"h_n_i k:"!",o_f~_H-=y~d~r_o,!,,,e_l_e_ct_r_l_' c _____ --t n. gATUM f'Uf'CML""LL.W.'I:.VATJUN :tHOwN CT •• _1/IllU..}
2. LOCATION (Coord .. ., •• Ol! Sf_~
t-:-::::-::-:::-:-:"::"::~~=:,,-------------:"----i 12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRU.1..
3. DRILLING AGENCY Sprague and Henwood
r.-~~U;-S=.C;:-E-;C":",,:",,,:,,:,,:,,--:-:--:--~~~ ________ """'i II. TOTAL NO. OF OVER.. I OISTUIII.I:O ... HOLE NO. (A. eho_ -drawfnC ""., DH-3 BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN I" 0
! UNOISTUIII.I:D
: 0 and m. nunlJec) i
So NAME OF DRILLER I .. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES 2
Dan i e 1 Su 11 i van lIS. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
•. DIRECTION OF HOLE I ST AIIIT EO ICO~~ETI:O
~YEIIITIC.L. OINCL.INI:O _____ DE •• 1'1110" YEIIIT. 1-1_ •• _D_A_T_E_H_0_L_E ___ 1L.......:6:;..:./-=2:.;:8:L/-=8;.;:2~_ ....... !....;;;.6'-!2;;.8;;./:..;8;;.;2;;;""_--1
1'1. ELEVATION TO" OF HOLE
'1. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN 6.3
94.3 'I la. TOT AL CORE RECOVERY FDR BORING
I-a_. _D_EPT_H_D_R_I_L_LE_D_IN_T_0_R_0_C_K_-::l,-::-,4o-::-0 _______ -l It. SIGNATURE OF INS"ECTOR
9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 20.3 Mi chae 1 o. Corey
.. ELEVATION DE .. TH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION 0(11' .. ATaIALa (D __ _
o nlfl c ----
".L
-+.+-'
C:II~F' At"F' ..
OVERBURDEN: Very dark brown
to dark brown silty sand,dam~
and mod. loose.
TOP OF Rt5C« = ;-;-t!::: GRANODIORITE: Hard, massive,
10 -= ... +--mod. fine grained,some quart
-1+;;, is deposited in the more ver =" tical trending fracs. The --=~_" .... +-. rock is generally mod. weath·
-+-+.' ered to 16.0',slightly ·weath· .= + -;..; ered to 20.3' II intense 1y to
?n..::L_ I IJighly fractured to 15.5',
-and mod. fractured from 15.5 = to 20.3'. -= slicks at 13.41 and14.8'.
-mud filled frac. at 12.7' --p.6' core loss (6'.:3'-9.1 1
) --= p.2 1 core loss (9.1 1 -10.6') = Hole ends with a flange. -= BOTTOM OF HOLE
--------------------------------. ---
'Note:Pressure test was
not perfonned.
'I CORE BOX DR RECOV-SA .... LE
!tRy NO. . ,
78.5
88.2
100.0
1
2
REMARKS
(DrUI"", t ........ '0", ..., ... 01 _ ............ '0., " .,.,.11':"'> •
NX casing to6.3'
100% water return to
the bottom of the hole.
Note: Core losses are
distributed between
interval depths.
'-----=_::t----i-----------A-27~ ____ +_---r------------------;r--
I HOI.. £ NO.
OH-3
PROIECT
SHAISHNIKOF HYDRO
DRILLING LDG . 1-.'ON ... .,T ........ 1 I'"'''' 1 NPD Ala."a District £I' 1 '"lElEn
t. ~o.I'CT la. SlZIE AltO TV .. 0' aIT NO Diamond Shaishnikof Hydroelectric I It. ""TU" r"," ...... A ...... " .. gW" fl." __ 1.4
1. .. OC ... TION ("-_" ... ,'"',. . MLLW
111. IIIA .. U' ... CTUII& ........... u .. A ION UP DIUI.I. :s. 0111 ........ AGIENC'f Sprague and Henwood I1~C~C I .. TDT ..... NO. Oil' OYIEIIo .1 DI.T .... !f.D ! _D1_"6'&&D 4. "OI.l NO. (A. __ ..... ""_1 .UIIOIEN ........ I.IE. TAICIEIt • _m.-.. DH .. 4
I. .. _1£ 0' 0111 .. 1.1£11 14. TOTAl. NUII.U COllIE 110111£1 0
Daniel Sullivan ,I. IEI.IEVATlON .IIOVItD _"TU
.. DIIICCTION 0' "01.1 -I .. OATIE MOt.II '-'6i'2T
9&L82
!C_ ... TU
liIy ... ".c ..... O ... C ..... &D DIE .. """"_T. ! 6/30/82
25.S' l't. It.&VATION TOI" 011' "01.1
't. T"ICICMIE" OIl"OYIEII.UIIOIEN
0.0 II. TOTAl. COllIE IlIECOVIEIIV 'OIl _1M. 0 'I
.. £II"" OIIII.I.CD INTO IIOCK II. IIGNATUIlIE £III' IM'''.CTDII
t. TGT AI. DIE"" £III' NOI.II ~C:.C!I Michael D. Corey
CI.AIIIII'ICATION Oil' _TDIA'" " COllIE DDII 011 IlIEIIAIIIC. IEl.IEVATION DIE"" 1.1E.IENO tD.. .... ...., IIIECOV. 1A1I"1.1E trhII • ...,.-. __ I ............ .,
UV ND. -......... " . ...." ...... • n"n • ISlJR F Ar.F 4 • , • -OVERBURDEN: Very dark brown NX casing to 22.0 1 : to dark brown silty sand,damp . -= and mod. loose, some seasonal . : frost at 1.0',Sizes include
Standing water at 7.0' : clay, silt sand,granuels,
pebbles,and cobbles.Comp.-ler: granodiorite and graywacke. -At 12.5' the material include. -Water return resembles -= bluish .. gray clay. that from dri 11 ing in . : solid rock but the colo : comes from the clay.
20-:: . -
2si
• : BOTTOM OF HOLE -Note: The hole could only bE -:
: . cased to 22' and the -core barrel could onl~
I -= proceed as far as 25.~ •
= The hole was finished
I -without finding the
-= top of rock.
: -.
-: ----: --, . ", .. --= : -= :
: ...
A-28
! ", _dON NPD IN,r ... t.I. ... T' j ~/ l' ~HI:ITI DRILLING LOG A"d<;!ca Dhtr'i et
I ... ROJECT 10. 11lI: ..... 0 TVI'f. 01' liT N~mond Shaishnikof Hydroelectric I , .... t ". ~ ........... v .. " ..... _ .. ow II ____
l. 1.0C;ATI0 .. ( __ •• _ ...... ,. MLLW
II.. ...... "I'A .. T"RII:II'I Dc;aJGNATIOH 0' DRIl.l.
S, DRII.I.INO "'OINC'I SpraQue and Henwood USeEe '1. TOTA" NO. 0' OVIII-I DlaT_.CO I IINDI.TU .....
.. :::"I.:':!.:.::. __ -..... fI"el DH-S • "IIIDIN &10 .... 1.1.1 TAICIN n : n
I .4. TOTA" NU ... IR CORI IOItEI 1 So NANI Oil' DRI .. I.IR : Daniel Sullivan .,. II. I .. IVATION GROUND WATIR
.. DIRU;TIOH 0,. HOI.I -.• I·T Eti30iS2 le_I.CTI:O
II. DATE HOI.I i 7/1/82 I[JVCRTICAI. c'_1. ... -.... I'ItOM •• "T,
15.2' 17. II: .. II:VATION TO" 0' "01.11:
1. T"ICKNIII 01' OVER.URDII:N 96.8 9.4' .a. TOTAl. CORII: RICOVIR" 'OR IORIN. " tl. DIIITH DRI .... m INTO ROCK It. IIGNATUR. 0,. IN' ... CTOR
I. TOTAL. OEIIT" 01' HOL.II: 26.6' Michael 0 Corey
1I:L.lI:vATION CL.AIIII"CATIOH 01' MATalAU " co .... lOX OR RII:IIIARICI
DEIITH I.II:GII:ND (D_ ..... III.COV-' ... 111 .... 1 rorm..., , .... __ ,. ...... " '"
0.10 C:IIRF'Ar.I=' lEA" NO. _ ....... M-; " ., .... ".."., e • " • ,
-OVERBURDEN: Very dark brown NX casing to 17.2 1 : soil grades to red-brown fr~ -1.0' to 2.0'. loose and damp • -. -Lose cobbles and pebbles -start at 7.6' and continue -1~ to top of rock.
-Artesian flow begins at -12.5'. head-2.6', 10gpm 1U TOP OF ROCK -+++ GRANODIORITE: hard, massive, 100.0 -, , .. " 100S water return to -• + fo mod. fine grained,some quart 2~
., ... the bottom of the hole. ++ .,. is deposited in the more ver 100.0 1"_ -. -... .,..,., tical trending fracs. The -\ .,~ ~ ""+.t. ,rock is generally mod. weath 90.' -= ered throughout, and varies
= from intensely to highly -fractured.
-:: 0.3' core loss (24.3'-24.6·~ -= BOTTOM OF HOLE
-:: I
= . -,-= ---
: -------::
: -= -: -
A-29
• ..... O.IICT 10. IIU AJlO TVI'!!: 0 .. 8,T NO 0; amond h--;~~S!Cha:-:1",s~h,!,:::n~ik~0~f~~Hy~d~r~0_e_l_ec_t_r_i_c ____ --1 n. v .. , V_ ,,_ &1.&" .. , ..... ~"g.H CTIlM .. -", Ill. I.g .... TlgN C ____ ".__ MLLW
~~~~~~~ ________________________ ~II~MANU"~U"&~IO~gNATIOHO"~11.1.
~ OIlII.I.INO AOIlHCV SDragUe and Henwood
USCEC I~ TOT~ NO. 0 .. OVII... ID .. ,.U ..... O ! UNOIn'UII •• O
I 0 .
... NAMI~" Dl!II.I.P , .. TOTAl. NU .... :JII COllI: eolen
Daniel Sullivan ILII.IVATIOHG"DUHD.ATIII
L OIRICTION 0 .. NOl.I -•• II. OATtt NOl.I '1'1'7".,"1",082 I CD_I.S,. .. O til " .. ,.'c~ r:::::I11tCI., .... ______ D." _ " .. T. I-___________ .l-;.:..;:..:...;::::. ___ ......i.: _,:..7:.;'3~':...;8_2;;..._-1
'T. TN'CKNID 01' OVl1l8UIIDD 18.3 ' .,. ttl.ttVATION TO," 0 .. Not.l
,I:I.IVATIOH DItfi'TN I.IOINO ; • o itO • -: -= = = 10-: -.= -:
'0 .;:
CI.AIII"'CATIOH OP MAT_'AU rD __ •
SURFACE II
OVERBURDEN: Very dark brown
to dark brown silty $and.dam
and mod. loose down to 0.5'.
becomes mainly sand with a
substantial amount of. silt.
pebble~ and ~obbles to the
top of rock. The pebbles and
cobbles are predominantly
granodiorite.
TOP OF ROCK
"COllI: 80ll OIl
III:COV-' IAIO"I.1 IIIV NO.
• I
I -=~,",,+' GRANODIORITE: Hard. massive. 100 0 I = ,t,+, mod. fine grained. generally •
i : .,..+-.. mod. to highly weathered 1
96.4
HX casing to17.0'
100% water return to
the bottom of the·hole.
! .,.:,;;:'~ +' throughout. and highly to 92.1
i---+''''''-~_3-';''''~ ; ntensely fractured. 11---1--+------------1 , = ,\0.3' core loss (26.3 1 .26.6) I
_ BOTTOM Of HOL.E = = -: = . --:
: --= -:
.-::
:
....: :
: -= :
A-30
A.3.5 Previous Geologic Investigations
Initial investigations were made by various Europeans from about 1763
on, and were generally confined to stopovers and fur hunting expeditions.
In 1850, Grewingk compiled a geologic map and description that was later
refined by T.A. Jagger, A.S. Eakle, and others (1907) on a technology
expedition. S.R. Capps l1934, pp. 147-149) gave a brief description of
Unalaska Bay and Chernofski Harbor areas. In 1948, F.M. Byers, H.H.
Waldron and others made a preliminary study for the USGS and their maps,
notes, and collections were used in a later report (1953) by G.D. Fraser,
G.S. Synder, and others. Mapping was completed in 1954.
A.3.6 Materials for Construction
A quarry up Pyramid Creek road and valley is a workable source and
should provide suitable aggregate for concrete foundations (See Plate 6).
A.4 DAM AND FOUNDATION
A.4.1 Structure
The proposed structure would be a flat, direct strutted, A-Frame timber
buttress. Maximum height would be 22 feet and total crest length would be
104 feet. Both upstream and downstream dam faces will have a slope of
lH:1V. The upstream face would be faced with one layer of pressure-treated
tongue and groove wood decking and one layer of marine plywood to form an
impervious membrane. Each individual timber buttress section would be
constructed of pressure-treated wood to avoid deterioration. A catwalk
would extend 70 feet across along the crest of the dam from the right
overbank to the emergency drawdown sluice. Plate 1 shows the general
project location, while plate~ 2 and 3 show selected design features.
Pertinent structure information follows:
Crest Elevation
Base Elevation
Existing Lake Elevation
Design Water Elevation
Water Elevation @lOO-yr flood event
A.4.2 Excavation
570 feet
548 feet
562 feet
565 feet
569 feet
The existing soils and tundra would be removed to expose sound bedrock
beneath the entire area of the dam. Approximately 1,769 cubic yards of
excavation would be required in the soils and tundra. Little or no
stripping of weathered bedrock would be required beyond benching it into
horizontal steps parallel to the river channel to provide level support for
the l2-X12-inch concrete buttress sills. A minimum bench width of'12 feet
would be required for equipment access. The bedrock is too hard to
excavate by ripping. Drilling and blasting would be necessary.
A.4.3 Footings
The struts and braces would be supported on strip footings or sills
made of reinforced concrete cast into trenches cut into the bedrock and
would be at least 12 X 12 inches set at 4-foot centers.
A-31
A.4.4 Seepage Control
To control seepage and support the face of the dam, a 2-foot wide by
3-foot deep concrete cut-off sill would be cast into a trench extending
across the river and up both abutments to the top elevation of the dam (see
Plate 2). The depth of the trench should be no less than 3 feet when
measured from the inside edges if the benches are normal to the slope.
About 30 cubic yards of excavation would be required for the cut-off sill.
Close line drilling would be necessary to excavate the cut-off sill. The
grout curtain should extend along the entire length of the cut-off sill and
should be at least 15 feet deep. The groqt holes should be spaced on
5-foot centers. Twenty-four grout holes~ '15 feet deep on 5-foot centers
would require 360 linear feet of drilling and grouting. The estimated
amount of Portland cement for grouting is 0.25 CF/LF (drilled hole) or
approximately 90 sacks. Some of the excavated surface soils (clayey silts)
can be used to cover the exposed bedrock in the river channel upstream of
the dam to reduce infiltration and seepage losses.
A.4.5 Penstock
Description
The penstock would be aboveground throughout its length except for 110
feet which would be buried. It would run along the right side (looking
downstream) of the river outside the confines of the ravine in which the
river flows. The vegetation cover along the penstock route is minimal.
The selected penstock diameter was determined by minimizing pipe costs and
the dollar value of energy lost through head losses for various penstock
diameters. In addition~ an average water velocity within the penstock of
7 ft/sec was a design requirement. Maximum velocity would not exceed
10 ft/sec.
The penstock would be a 42-inch inside diameter steel pipe extending
920 feet from the intake invert at the 550-foot elevation, 20.0 feet below
the top crest of the dam to the powerhouse at an elevation of 430 feet.
The project's gross head ;s 135 feet and net design head is 130. The
penstock would be designed with a minimum wall thickness of 0.25 inches.
Anchorage of the penstock would be accomplished through the use of wood
piers spaced at 30-foot intervals. Thrust blocks would be constructed at
required points along the penstock. Selected penstock profile and penstock
supports are shown in Plates 1 and 4.
A.5 SPILLWAY
A.5.1 Description
To avoid water spilling over the timber buttress dam, a straight
uniform channel would be constructed. Since a natural depression in both
bedrock and overburden exists approximately 110 feet to the left of the dam
centerline looking downstream, the spillway a1inement was selected to
generally follow this depression.
The selected design is a straight uniform rock cut channel on a
supercritica1 slope of 0.05 with a bottom width of 38 feet and side slopes
of lH:4V (see Plate 1).
A-32
-
The spillway would be designed to accommodate a 100-year flood event
equal to 1000 cfs. A spillway, which would pass the 100-year event, was
judged to be sufficient to meet dam safety criteria for several reasons:
(1) for a structure classified as low hazard and small size, according to
the guidelines set forth in the Corps of Engineers manual IIFeasibility
Studies for Small Scale Hydropower Additions, A Guide Manual, July 1979/1
the recommended spillway design flood is the 100-year frequency; (2) the
lake upstream of the dam would attenuate the flow to a greater extent than
provided for in the calculations; and (3) the dam would be located in a
remote area with no habitation downstream.
A.6 POWERHOUSE
A.6.1 Powerhouse Layout
The powerhouse would be a conventional indoor plant with the
substructure constructed of reinforced concrete and the aboveground housing
being a pre-engineered metal building. The powerhouse would contain two
generating units including controls, governors, and switchgear. Flow of
water to the units would be via a 42-inch diameter penstock and would be
controlled by hydraulically operated butterfly valves. Two manually
operated sluice gates would be located on the outside of the powerhouse to
close off the draft tube from tailwater. Main equipment inside the power-
house would be installed and serviced by a 7.S-ton bridge crane. Access
into the powerhouse would be provided by a personnel access door and/or a
10-foot rollup door located at ground level elevation. (See Plate 5)
Control facilities would be for an unmanned plant, and protective
devices would operate automatically to protect equipment without the need
for operator assistance.
The main power equipment would consist of two horizontal shaft,
synchronous type generator units, one rated at 500 kVA, 0.80 P.F., 900 rpm,
and the second unit rated at 375 kVA, .80 P.F., 900 rpm. The turbines
would be horizontal Francis type, the larger rated to discharge 44 cfs at
130 feet of net head and the smaller rated to discharge 34 cfs at 130 feet
of net head. One transformer, rated at 1000 kVA would be provided.
A.6.2 Turbines
The installation of two II s tandardized ll horizontal Francis turbines with
wicket gates and butterfly valves would match the site1s hydraulic condi-
tions. The site would have two turbines of differing size and capacity.
This would allow the project to operate over a wide variation of flow
conditions. The selection of these size units is based upon an economic
study performed by the Alaska District. "Standardized ll units were selected
because of the economic advantages of using pre-engineered equipmeAt. If
further studies are made, all appropriate turbine types and configurations
will be considered. Based on average monthly streamflow and the available
daily streamflow data, the system would operate throughout the year. Only
one of the two turbines would operate during low winter flows which
normally occur during the months of December though March. It could be
expected that this single turbine would operate within its operating range
during this time period. During the remaining months both turbines would
be operational.
A-33
For the purpose of this study, the turbines would have the following
characteristics. The small unit would be rated to discharge 34 cfs at 130
feet of net head. At this condition, the generator output would be
approximately 300 kW assuming a generator efficiency of 95 percent. The
unit is estimated to have a 19-inch runner throat and would operate at 900
rpm. The runner centerline would be approximately 5 feet above minimum
operating tailwater. The large unit would be rated to discharge 44 cfs at
130 feet of net head. At this condition, the generator output would be
about 400 kW assuming a generator efficiency of 95 percent. The unit is
estimated to have a 20.5-inch runner throat diameter and would operate at
900 rpm. The runner centerline would be at about 5 feet above minimum
tai lwate,r. (See Plate 5) .
A.6.3 Major Electrical Equipment
Generators
The generators would be of the horizontal shaft, synchronous type with
the shaft directly connected to the turbine. The generators would be
3-phase, 60 Hz, 4BO V. The large unit would be rated at 400 kW (500 kVA at
O.B P.F.) 900 rpm, and the small unit rated at 300 kW (375 kVA at O.B P.F.)
900 rpm. Drip-proof housing would be provided. The generators would be
open ventilated with an BO°C rise, and have a Class B insulation system
without provisions for overload. The generators would have full run-away
speed capability. The excitation systems would be specified to be the
manufacturer's standard type. This could be either a direct connected
brushless exciter or a bus-fed power potential service static excitation
system. Solid-state continuously acting dynamic type voltage regulators
would be used ana would be incorporated in the unit switchgear.
Power Transformer
One power transformer would be provided. This would be a 0.4BI34.5 kV,
delta-grounded wye, 3-phase transformer, OA Class, 1000 kVA, with ,the
minimum nonpremium impedance specified.
Load Contro 11 er
The load controller would be of the gate shaft actuator type. It would
be designea to regulate the load of the generator and prevent run-away by
controlling the wicket gates. The load controller would consist of the
necessary indicating and control devices, an oil pumping set consisting of
a sump tank and two motor driven oil pumps, one or two pressure vessels as
required, and all necessary servo-motor piping.
A.6.4 Generator Voltage System
The connection between the generators and breakers would be with
cable. The generator and station service breakers would be metal enclosed
drawout type rated 600 V, with BOO amp frames. The breakers would be
combined in a common switChgear lineup along with generator surge
protection and instrument transformers.
A-34
A.6.5 Unit Control and Protective Equipment
Unit controls would consist of manual startup and shutdown circuits,
basic protective relays, and basic instrumentation. Protective relays for
each unit would include generator differential, overspeed, overvoltage and
ground overcurrent. Instrumentation for each unit would include a
voltmeter, an ammeter, a wattmeter, and a watthour meter. The controls
would be contained in a single cabinet. No annuciation or station battery
would be provided.
A.6.6 Station ~ervice
The station service power would be obtained via a tap between the
generator breaker and the main power transformer. The station service
distribution panel would be adjacent to the generator switchgear lineup.
Station service power distribution would be at 480 volts 3-phase and
2.81/120 volts single phase.
A.6.7 Connection to Load
A 3-phase 34.5 kV buried transmission line would tie the plant to the
existing system. The line will be connected to the powerhouse through a
disconnect switch.
A.6.8 Mechanical Equipment
The mechanical equipment installed in this powerhouse would be the
minimum necessary for operational requirements. Raw water from the penstock
would be provided for bearing cooling. A small 120 psi air compressor and
receiver would ~e provided to serve as the air source for the service air
and governor air systems. A compressor furnished with each governor would
increase the air pressure as required for governor operation. Building
drainage and unit dewatering would flow by gravity into the dewatering and
drainage sump. Two pumps would be provided in the sump. Because of the
small unit sizes, fire protection would be limited to portable fire
extinguishers. Oil would be handled in barrels and passed through a
portable filter. Drinking water and restrooms would not be provided.
The HVAC system would consist of a fan, ductwork, louvers, dampers,
duct heater and controls. The system would provide powerhouse cooling
using outside air and heating with an electric resistance duct heater.
Controls would be electric.
An overhead electrically operated bridge crane of 7.5-ton capacity
would be provided to hanole generator and turbine parts and miscellaneous
powerhouse equipment during erection and repair. The crane would span the
prefabricated steel building and travel its length.
A.7 TRANSMISSION LINE
Approximately 8 miles of 34.5 kV (three phase 12ACSR) buried transmission
line would run from the powerhouse to the edge of town. The connection at
the city would consist of a set of fuse gear and jumper loops to connect
with the community distribution system. This deSign would be fully
A-35
compatible with the existing distribution system. The proposed corridor
layout is shown on Plate 1. Clearing would not be required because the
maximum height of existing brush in the corridor is 1 foot. Excessive
winds and icing problems dictated the use of a buried line versus an
overhead transmission line. Based on their experiences on the maintenance
of overhead lines, the city of Unalaska has concurred with use of a buried
1 ine.
A.8 ACCESS ROAD
Access to the project facilities, powerhouse and damsite for construc-
tion purposes would be accomplished by construction of an unimproved dirt
road. Proposed layout of the access road is shown on Plate 1. Travel
width would be approximately 10 feet. Culverts would be placed at required
locations.
A.9 TAILRACE
The proposed tailrace channel would have a trapezoidal cross section
with side slopes of one vertical on two horizontal. Maximum flow velocity
would be 2.7 feet per second at a design slope of 0.23 percent. Maximum
flow depth would be 2 feet with a free board of 1.9 feet. A 2-foot thick
layer of cobbles would be sufficient to prevent erosion of the underlying
material. Plate 5 shows a typical channel section.
A.10 POWER POTENTIAL
Table A.3 provides a summary of the average power potential of 600,
700~ and 800 kW units.
Month 600-kW
Oct 305
Nov 252
Dec 165
Jan 195
Feb 174
Mar 112
Apr 200
May 411
Jun 383
Ju1 222
Aug 245
Sep 327
Total 2991
TABLE A-3
Average Energy Production
(MWh)
700-kW
318
250
170
202
171
115
196
455
419
226
250
342
3TT4
800-kW
327
241
172
202
164
115
191
486
444
221
246
351
3160
To optimize the turbine size, the information in Table A-3 was compared
with the energy demand for the months of October through September. An
assumption in this analysis was that the annual usable energy is equal to
the average annual energy produced by the hydropower system. In the case
of Unalaska, where the energy demand greatly exceeds the energy supplied by
hydropower, the above assumption would be justified. Table A-4 shows the
annual output of each hydro alternative. This amount, adjusted by a 5
percent line loss, was used in the benefit analysis.
A-36
TABLE A-4
Estimated Yearly Usable Energy
(MWh)
Unit
600 kW
700 kW
800 kW
POL (1993)
2991
3114
3160
The value of the diesel energy that would be displaced by the
hydropower system was calculated in accordance with the analysis outlined
in Section 5.1.2 of the main report. The following benefit analysis was
used for each hydro alternative. ~
Gross
Generation
(kWH)
Avoidable Line Loss Avoidable
Cost/kWh Adj. Cost
Fuel costs/kWh 3,114,000 x
Escalation 3,114,000 x
O&M saved 3,114,000 x
Extended diesel life 3,114,000 x
Annual benefit (700 kW unit)
.1008 x
.0605 x
.0201 x
.0035
.95 =
.95 =
.95 =
=
=
$298,000
179,000
59,000
11 ,000
$547,000
The hydropower system would allow part-time use of the basic diesel
units. The annual savings in O&M was estimated to be $.02/kWh and by
increasing the operating life of a diesel unit from 10 to 20 years an
annual savings of $11,000 was realized. This represents the average annual
cost of the diesel that would be displaced by the hydropower system.
\. Benefits were claimed for reduced O&M and extended diesel life of $O.02/kWh
and $0.0035/kWh, respectively.
Annual costs were calculated by applying an interest and amortization
rate of 8-1/8 percent for 50 years to the sum of project first cost and
interest during construction. To this figure, an annual operation and
maintenance cost of $30,000 was added. The total average annual costs were
calculated at October 1983 price levels.
The annual cost for the hydropower system was then compared to the
annual benefits. The avoidable costs from the diesel system would be the
benefit if the hydropower system ;s installed. A summary of these costs
and benefits is shown in Table A-5.
First Cost ($)
IDC (18 months)
Investment Cost
Interest & Amortization
(50 yrs. @ 8-1/8%)
TABLE A-5
Estimated Costs and Benefits
600 kW
$5,478,000
450,000
5,928,000
492,000
700 kW
5,571 ,000
457,000
6,028,000
500,000
A-37
800 kW
5,749,000
465,000
6,214,000
515,000
Operation and Main-
tenance (.$) 30,000 30,000 30,000
Total Annual Costs $ 522,000 $ 530,000 $ 545,000
Annual Benefits
Fuel Displacement ($) $ 286,000 298,000 $ 303,000
Fuel Escalation \$) $ 172,000 179,000 182,000
O&M Avoided 57,000 $ 59,000 60,000
Extended Life 10,000 11 ,000 10,000
~
Total Annual Benefits $ 525,000 $ 547,000 ' $ 555,000
BIC Ratio 1.0 1.03 1.02
Net Benefits ($) $ 3,000 $, 17,000 $ 11 ,000
Based on this analysis, the project with an installed capacity of
700 kW maximizes net benefits. If the streamflows vary significantly from
the estimates, the optimum unit size could either increase or decrease.
For the purposes of this report, a 300-kW and a 400-kW unit were chosen for
the selected plan because of their ability to maximize net benefits.
Additional streamflow information may alter this selection slightly during
post-authorization design work. However, any change would affect only the
turbine-generator sizing.
A.ll ENHANCEMENT -SHAISHNIKOF RIVER
The opportunity to improve the fisheries resources of the Shaishnikof
River appear to be good. While fish enhancement is not directly related to
the hydropower development, it would be inexpensiye and cost effective to
implement the enhancement plan in conjunction with the power project.
Also, anadromous salmon of regional and national significance are involved
and there is no sport fishing on the Shaishnikot River. Although the river
above the canyon is now being utilized by coho salmon and anadromous Dolly
Varden, streamflows during pink salmon spawning do not allow their passage
above the canyon (See Plate 6). Approximately 2 acres of excellent
spawning and incubation habitat exist above the canyon (Refer to the USFWS
Coordination Act Report, pages 37-40). The enhancement would result in a
maximum of 37,000 additional salmon per year for harvest. Refer to pages
21-25, USFWS CoordinatiQn Act Report (App. D) for the procedure used in
determining the maximum yield from the enhancement plan. Due to the
cyclical nature of pink salmon, an annual equivalent equal to 29,000 fish
per year was used in the benefit computations.
Any stream improvement on the Shaishnikof River to increase fishery
production would be successful only if the construction and operation and
maintenance of the hydroelectric project does not change the water
chemistry or any other physical conditions below the dam. From the
information gathered at the site and proposed hydropower facilities
designs, the Alaska District does not believe the reach downstream of the
dam would be significantly different from the existing conditions.
A-38
In evaluating the upper 1 and 1/2 miles of river as potential pink
salmon spawning habitat, the following parameters were examined: water
temperature, water depth, water velocity, and substrate composition. A
comparison of the parameters measured in the lower and upper reaches of the
Shaishnikof River indicates that the upper 1 and 1/2 miles would provide
viable pink salmon spawning habitat. Water temperature warms to 8.0°C in
July at the beginning of pink salmon spawning. Both water depth and gravel
size lie within the acceptable range of pink salmon spawning requirements.
Water velocity measurements for June 1982 averaged 0.53 meters/second
(m/sec) which lies midway in the range 0.21 to 1.01 m/sec for pink salmon
given by Reiser and Bjornn (1979). It is expected that water velocity
de~eases somewhat during Ju1y-August-September when actual spawning
occurs; average monthly discharge at the lake outlet decreases from 76
cubic feet per second (cfs) in June to 33 cfs in July and then increases
again to 50 cfs in October. Compared to the lower river reach, which
supported an average escapement of almost 30,000 pink salmon between 1979
and 1982, these spawning parameters for the upper reach are quite similar.
Annual benefits were determined by allowing an average weight for coho
salmon of 3.6 pounds at a value of $.415 per pound. Using a 30 percent net
to gross (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries) value,
the plan results in an annual benefit of $13,000 to the commercial fishing
industry in Unalaska. .
Two methods were examined for constructing the fisheries enhancement on
the Shaishnikof River:
(1) Steeppass -Ziemer (1962) describes in detail a sectional,
prefabricated, lightweight, portable, corrosion resistant steeppass fishway
used for passing upstream migrating salmon over low head barriers.
(2) Removal of the rock obstructions in the canyon area through
blasting. Approximately 240 c.y. of rock would be removed.
Both methods would result in the same increase of annual equivalent
fish. Method one would cost approximately $100,000 with a maintenance cost
of $10,000 per year. Method two would cost $33,800, including E&D and S&A
with annual monitoring cost of $2,000 per year. Based on the above figures
and a recommendation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, method two,
removal by blasting, was determined to maximize net benefits. The results
are summarized below:
Excavation, Rock 240 c.y. @ $100/c.y.
Contingency 25 %
Engineering & D~sign
Supervision & Administration
Total First Cost
Investment Cost
Interest and Amortization
Annual Monitoring
Total Annual Cost
Annual Benefits
A-39
$24,000
6,000
2,000
1,800
$33,800
$34,000
2,800
2,000
$ 4,800
$13,000
Net Annual Benefits $ 8,200
Benefit-Cost Ratio 2.7
As shown above, the enhancement project would be well justified. Since
anadromous salmon of regional and national significance are involved (and
there is no sport fishing on the Shaishnikof River), the Federal government
would pay 100 percent of the cost for implementing the enhancement project.
A.12 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE -HYDROPOWER PROJECT
ITEM/DESCRIPTIOh QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL
LANDS & DAMAGES
Administration Costs 1 l.s. $ 10,000
Lands 1 1.s. 63,000
Contingency (20%)
$
15 2 000
Total Lands and Damages 88,000
MOB & DEMOB 1 1. s. $ 600,000
Contingency (15%) 90,000
Total Mob and Demob $ 690,000 .
DAM & INTAKE STRUCTURE
Excavation, Common 1,769 c.y. 15 $ 26,535
Excavation, Rock (Dam) 687 c.y. 100 68,700
Excavation, Rock (Spillway) 1,880 c.y. 50 94,000
Concrete, Dam 67 c.y. 1,200 80,400 .-..
Steel, Structural 4,800 c.y. 1. 50 7,200
Steel, Rebar & Misc. 4,000 1bs. 2.00 8,000
Sluice Gate Assembly 1 ea. 18,000 18,000
Penstock Gate 1 . 10,000 10,000 ea.
Trash Rack 600 lbs. 3.50 2,100
Air Vent 400 1bs. 3.50 1,400
Timber, Treated 40 mbm 3,300 132,000
4"X12" T-G Decking 10.5 mbm 3,600 37,800
3/4 ACX Plywood, Treated 2,600 s.f. 3.10 8,060
Grout Holes, Uri1ling 360 1. f. 40 14,400
Grout 90 sacks 130 11,700
Rock Bolts 130 ea. 30 3,900
Contingency (20%) 104 2805
Total Dam and Intake Structure $ 629,000
ROCKFILL COFFERDAM 1,000 c.y. 25 $ 25,000
Contingency (25%) 5z000
Total Rockfi11 Cofferdam $ 30,000
PENSTOCK
42" dia 1/4" Steel 111,440 1bs. 2 $ 222,880
Ring Stiffeners 5,600 1bs. 1.80 10,080
Rock Bolts 64 ea. 30 1,920
Timber Supports 32 ea. 255 8,160
Concrete 34 c.y. 1,400 47,600
Excavation, Common 92 c.y. 15 1,380
Contingency (20%) 57 2 980
Total Penstock $ 350,000
A-40
ITEM/DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL
POWERHOUSE
Structure 1 ea. 128,000 $ 128,000
Turbine Generator 2 ea. 269,000 538,000
Accessory Electrical 1 ea. 162,000 162,000
Auxiliary Sys. & Equip. 1 ea. 39,000 39,000
Switchyard 1 ea. 46,000 46,000
Contingency (20%) 183,000
Total Powerhouse $ 1,096,000
TAILRACE
Excavation 334 c.y. 5 $ 1,670
Kockfi 11 154 c.y. 10 1,540
Contingency (20%) 790
$ 4,000
TRANSMISSION LINE 8 mile 155,000 $ 1,240,000
ontlngency 248 z000
Total Transmission Line $ 1,488,000
UNIMPROVED DIRT ROAD
Excavation, Common 16,940 c.y. 5 $ 84,700
E2<cavation, Kock 12,360 c.y. 25 309,000
Fi 11 4,535 c.y. 10 45,350
2411 Cmp 630 l.f. 38 23,940
48 11 Cmp 175 1. f. 100 17,500
Contingency (20%)
$
96 z510
Total Unimproved Dirt Road 577,000
\
SUBTOTAL $ 4,952,000
Engineering & Design (6.5%) 322,000
Supervision & Administration 297,000
(6.0%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 5,571,000
A-41
A.12 PROJECT ECONOMICS
(Hydropower Only)
A. 12. 1 Federal Criteria
Under criteria established for Federal water resource projects, the
tentatively selected plan is feasible. Factors influencing the feasibility
have been presented in appropriate sections of the report. The results are
presented below.
ANNUAL COSTS and BENEFITS
Investment Cost (Incl. IDC-18 months)
Interest and Amortization (8-1/8% @ 50 yrs)
Operation and Maintenance
Total Annual Cost
Annual Benefits
Fuel Displacement Benefit 1/
Fuel Cost Escalation BenefTt 1/
08l'1 Saved
Extended Life of Diesel
Total Annual Benefit
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Net Annual Benefit
1/ Includes a 5 percent transmission loss.
A.13 POL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
$ 6,028,000
$ 500,000
J 30,000
530,000
$ 298,000
$ 179,000
$ 59,000
$ 11 ,000
$ 547,000
1.03
$ 17,000
The year 1993 was chosen as the most realistic power on line (POL) date
based upon the current time required for review and subsequent authorization
as a Federal project. Realizing that the feasibility of the Shaishnikof River
hydropower project is sensitive to fluctuations in the diesel fuel escalation
rates. an analysis was made to determine this effect assuming:
a. Project is constructed not as a Federal project, but as a State of
Alaska project or city of Unalaska. POL date would be 1988.
b. Project POL date is delayed to 1998.
The results of this analysis are summarized below in Table A-6.
Item
Annual Benefits
Annual Costs
B/C Ratio
Net Annual Benefits
1988 POL
$505,000
530,000
.95 to 1
(25,000)
TABLE A-6
1993 POL
$547,000
530,000
1.03 to 1
$ 17;000
1998 POL
$593,000
530,000
1.1 to 1
$ 63,000
~
As the Shaishnikof River project is delayed further into the future, the
feasibility of the project improves. Construction of the project prior to the
Federal POL date of 1993 would result in a nonfeasible project.
A-43
D
c
B
A
570-
560-
550 -
FLIP BUCKET
EXCAVATED
IN ROCK
I
300
FLIP BUCKET
EXCAVATED IN ROCK
5
I
250
..,-'"
.......
I
200
I
150
SPILL WAY PROFILE
N.T.S.
-....,... l'
'" SLOPE QQ!i
.l.. J..
200'
I
100
T
ill
1
SPILL WA Y PLAN
N.T.S.
4
TRANSMISSION LINE
PROJECT GENERAL PLAN
600' 0' 600 1200'
11-=-=-1£:111::.<:::···.' __ .'::: J
~--""';:"""'--ELEV, 565
.,..
1
I
50
-.......
...-'" ,
I o
DAM SITE
NTS.
b ,
CONSTRUCTION ROAD
COFFER DAM
FOR DIVERSION
TIMBER DAM --~ .... ~-
SPILLWAY
PENSTOCK
(ABOVE GROUND)
SIDE CHANNEL SPILLWAY
Drawn by:
RJK
Cheehd by:
LOCA TION MAP
U,!!t ARMY ENGINEER DiSTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHMAGE, ALASKA
UNALASKA, ALASKA
SMALL HYDRO
SHAISHNIKOF RIVER
PLAN AND PROFILE
Sh •• t
t-________ -Io;;,-----------1:~~;:·~------------~
c
8
A
D
C
B
A
ACCESS
ROAD
5
..
TO
TRAIL LAKE
4
TO
CAPTAINS BAY ...
PLAN VIEW
SCALE: FEET
!So 0 !S;O .... 100
3
TOP OF DAM ELEV,
I
100 YEAR EYENT WATER ELEVATION AT ELEII. 569
I
\
(
\C
MAX, OPERATING POOL
MIN, OPERATING POOL
TRASHRACK (6',S') no, B
REBAR w/S". 12" OPENING
PENSTOCK GATE··
" 8" BLOCKING CONT. w/Y4"
: : 12" ANCHOR BOLTS
AT 2' o,c,
INYERT ELEY,
ELEV 54B
W 18.86
ELEV, 544
2
DAM AXIS
2".4" POST a BRACES
AT 41 Q,C
--2ux 4" HAND RAILS
___ 2" DECKING ,
4"x8".IO' LONG BEAMS AT 4 O,c.
1
2"x4" ------,
4".4" POSTS AT 4'0,0.
CLEAT. 4".8" .,2" LONG
-----SS ALL BENTS 4" a" SWAY BRACE ACRO (T)
....---w/~" LAG SCREWS a WASHERS yp,
",.
b~.
~ 'o~
2' WID~.3'DEEP 4".a"lAtRosS ALL BENTS (Typ. L 2" 12" CONCRETE SILL(TY~.)
CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL ___ -=~~..:.:.::.:......_ _________ _ I·~:(:.J.-L::--=--=-=-=-~RO:.::.CK~B_OL_T --P-E-N-ST--O-C-K-~:~~ SECTION 0 ~rb
/! SCoALE: FE.ET
GROUT CURTAIN ~ t.. _ I I.
IS' MIN DEPTH
WALKWAY
570-
MAX, POOL
ELEV. 565
! o .,:,
= r
I
b
OJ
N
NOTE: S ARE IN FEET, ALL BENTS ARE 4'· O' I ALL ELEVATION
, CENTER TO CENTER, a WOODEN MEMBERS TO BE
2, ALL TIMBERS, PLANKS OTE NO UNTREATED WOOD TO TREATED WITH CREOS ,
BE USED, BE ROUGH COMMON (RC) UNLESS 3 ALL TIMBERS TO
, OTHERWISE DESIGNATED, R BORED SHALL HAVE
4. ANY CREOSOTED TIMBER CU!C~S MOPPED WITH CREOSOTE
THE NEWLY EXPOSED SURF OF NOT LESS THAN TWO FOUR TIMES AT INTERVALS
HOURS OF EACH APPLICATlOE~S RAMP FOR RESERVOIR
5, SLUICE GATE AND GATE AC;ENSTOCK GATE AND ACCESS DRAWDOWN IS SIMILAR TO
RAMP.
Oat. Approved
ELEV, 559-L..L....l-.L.f-'---L~ -ELEII. 559 560-JL~tiJ
5
ELEV, 548--
-dj ESERVOIR DRAWDOWN
SLUICE GATE (Nol. 5 )
INVERT ELEV, 548
PENSTOCK GATE W/~~'6SH RACK
~VERT ELE~
C
ELEVA TION VIEW
SCALE; FEET
10 20 to 0 ~
10 .... -••••
4
TO BE EXCAVATED
-550-
WI8xas
Note: Looking downstream
3
! [ ~?
i i -<.0 " j LJ
.....jS"i.---4·· a"---I6" ~
PENSTOCK GATE
N,T, s,
2
Destgned by:
US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
, 'CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE. AlASKA
~ UNALASKA, ALASKA
I-n-,.w-n-b-.,---i':t::-eo::' SHAISHNIKTORFERSIVSERDAM
'!JK TIMBER BUT
Chf!(:ked by: PLAN & SECTION
I-A-P_--.'-~-b.-'---'L-~_'_r.·~ ________ ~
.... Drawing
Code: PLATE 2
1
D
C
B
A
5
o
C
B
314" PLYWXlD FACE (ACX I MARINE)
EXT" APA, GRADE 5-1 (GROUP I SPECIES)········· ...... __ /
4".12' T 8G WOOD DECKING
A
5
4
i----!»'lM AXIS
I
12". 12" CONCRETE SILL
-I
SECTION ED
4'
~". ""
S'
I
q~~~~~~~J-----4"X6"X 10' AT 4' D.C.
SECTION
4' O' 1M _ I
4
4' ,
POSTS AT 4' D.C.
___ -----CU,AT, 4".6". 12"
CD
S'
I
4".6' SWAY BRACE ACROSS
ALL BENTS (TYP)
EL 554
SILL
3 2
42'" STEEL PENSTOCK
~----snFFENER RING
r----WEDGE
r--r~~~---~~~~~-----t~~+-=+-------T1MBER
SECTION
!' 0'
Iooi l000i'
2'
I
1-----12", 12'~ S'
---3/4' II! ROCKBOLTS
1
APPROX. GROUND Ii. SIDE CHANNEL SPILLWAY
APPROX BEDROCK I
If.. DIVERSION STRUCTURE
I
EL. 565
DAMSITE PROFILE
NOT TO SCALE
3 2
Symbol
o.algned by:
Date Approved
u.s. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
~ UNALASKA,ALASKA
1---------1 U5 >nny"""" SMALL HYDRO
D,.wnO., .. "",,-~ SHAISHNIKOF RIVER
Che.;ked by:
SECTIONS
R",ylewed by: Scale: She ••
~------Ji~~ .. ;,-----------l~~!~:~.~------------~
Approved by:
PLATE 3 Drawing:
Code:
1
o
C
B
A
5
o
\
C
700
B 650
600-
550
500-
450-
A
5
~
\
\
I
o
~I
!-' 0'
:>
'" ....
U)
w
'" ;'!
~
1+00
4
CHANNEL SPILLWAY
I
2+00
DAM
I
3+00
PLAN
50' 0' !50' 100'
'~_~ .. ~_t===~' ..... '
i'PIERS @ 30' O.C. (TYP.)
5+00
PENSTOCK PROFILE
4
5d 0' ---SO'
I
100'
I
PENSTOCK
3
7+00
3
I
8+00
2
r:OWERHOUSE
-~--r ---1-'
I
II
/ /
ELEV. 430
10+00 11+00
2
I
THRUST BLOCK PROFILE DETAIL
N.T.S.
STIFFENER
RINGS~-·,
I-~ROCKBOLT
I
TYPICAL PIER CONSTRUCTION DETAIL
N. T.S.
Reviewed by: $oale:
Date Approved
u.s. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGiNeERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
UNALASKA, ALASKA
SHAISHNIKOF RIVER
Sheet
~ ____________ ~~~~~::e~ _____________ ~
:--------------1 Date:
Approyed by!
Drawing
Code: PLATE 4
1
o
c
B
A
D
c
B
-
A
5 I 4
5 0 5 10
.. _... ' !
SCALE, FEET
TYPICAL TAILRACE SECTION
OUTLINE 24' • 40~
STEEL BUILDING \.
0 ..
CONTROLS UNIT I-t---
/1\
I
-THRUST BLOCK
--+-CONTROLS UNIT 2
I
I
I
I , ,
I
PLATFORM : I •
-
(11-
\PERSONNEL
ACCESS DOOR
STEEL GRATINGiC--e : /_ !
I I
'i=r-----1===r--C'---"Si:sL::UuiiCIC:EE GGAiATrEES"S---,::::l---'j:==~ _______ --' TAILRACE
5
h-------I A A f-------..A~.
V V V
4
"
o 4 --;
SCALE, FEET
POWERHOUSE PLAN VIEW
4
I
I
3 I
If. ROAD
I
5' 5'
-I
2 ~-:-I -----!..I 2 1Z ,FliLLJ ~:
#1*lu I.
TYPICAL ROAD FILL SECTION
5' 0 s' 10' ~~~~~~----~~~~~I Scale in Feet
I,......
7.5 TON BRIDGE CRANE~ c::::
r'i. UNIT I
GOVERNOR UNIT I
2
If. ROAD
5' 5'
~:J--,
CUT J I ~1
FILL
5'
I
TYPICAL ROAD
CUT & FILL SECTION
5'
M
Scale In Feet
10'
I
EXISTING SOIL
TOP OF ROCK
TYPICAL ROAD CUT SECTION
Symbol
D
EXISTING SOIL
EXISTING ROCK
c
~ ROAD
B
R.vlslons
De.criptions Date Approved
( II 1(1(,::\1\
EI •• -43-2'-G-RO-U~D LINE\ ~ 111---jI~I-ll-MII\-HI\:HeV»-++-~+-ll----+l-!-+----n~;i.;n fMINIMUM OPERATING
1----~----------------------------_4--__1----_1~
;~ ... TAIL WATER Elev. 430' 1----+----------------+---1I-----i ",,:y .~i \L':~"·"'·":"'·":if"':"':""'~':"_--91, .. i:;'/~/' K
i---+t---SLUICE GATE
3
J----CONCRETE WEIR
~: <;l;"~:--------------£l1750J~;~,,,~\W~"~,w~/\\\~"'\!V;;,./?,;\~''''{07
U/ 'r m~\W///
4 o 4 8
" --! !
1
SCALE, FEET
POWERHOUSE CROSS SECTION
I 2
Designed by:
u.s. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
m
I--o'-... -n-.-.'-------I ~SE~i/-~
UNALASKA, ALASKA
SHAISHNIKOF RIVER
TPH POWERHOUSE PLAN &
I-C-he-c'-ed-.,-, ------1 SECTION, TAILRACE SECTION &
TYPICAL ROAD SECTIONS
Reviewed by: Scale: She.t
~----------~~!~::.~----------~ 1--__________ -1 Date:
Approved by:
I
Drawing
Code: PLATE 5
A
\.
o
I
1 2
; !
SCALI ... KILOMITE ...
SHAISHNIKOF RIVER
QUARRY
... SITE
PINK SALMO'N
BLOCK
] CANYON AREA
-(FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT
CONSTRUCTION AREA)
POWERHOUSE
SITE
TRAIL LAKE
WlALASK", ALASKA,
SMALL HYDROPOWER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
ENHANCEMENT AND
QUARRY SITE
Aleeke Dletrlct, Corpe of EnSlln •• re
PLATE 8
APPENDIX B
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
PYRAMID CREEK
B. 1
B.2
B.3
B.4
B.5
B.6
B.7
B.8
B.9
B. 10
General
Hydrology
Geology
Dam and Foundation
Site Access
Powerhouse
Transmission Line
Power Potential
Detailed Cost Estimate
Project Economics
Appendix B
Pyramid Creek
Page
B-1
B-1
B-3
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-6
B-6
B-8
B-9
B.l GENERAL
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
PYRAMID CREEK
The selected plan for hydropower development on Pyramid Creek is a
pressure reducing turbine (PRT) system with an installed capacity of 260
kW. The project consists of installing the turbine series with the
existing water supply line.
B.2 HYDROLOGY
B.2.1 Streamflow
The Pyramid Creek basin is located approximately 1 mile northeast of
the Shaishnikof River. The basin area above the city of Unalaska's water
supply dam ;s about 2.7 square miles. Elevations range from approximately
500 feet mean sea level (MSL) at the dam to 2,600 at its high point, with a
mean elevation of about 1,250 feet. Vegetation is the same as the
Shaishnikof basin. There are two small lakes in the basin with surface
areas of about 10 and 20 acres (Figure B-1).
B.2.2 Streamflow
There is no historical flow data for any stream on Unalaska Island.
Hecording streamgages were installed on Pyramid Creek in May 1982. Twelve
months of stage data were retrieved in June 1983. The gage data was not
used for streamflow estimates in this report due to ~everal shifts in the
gage datum and the lack of a well defined rating curve. However, stage
data from the streamgage is currently being adjusted for the gage datum
shifts and the slope area method for determining discharges is being used
to develop a more refined rating curve. Data from the streamgage and a
precipitation-temperature recording device, installed in the Shaishnikof
basin in June 1983. was used along with temperature and precipitation data
from the long term climatic station in Dutch Harbor to make a more
reasonable estimate of expected streamflows on Pyramid Creek.
Some spot discharge measurements have been taken by Alaska District
personnel and Northern Technical Services at the existing damsites. Table
B-1 lists all spot discharge measurements taken.
TABLE B-1
Streamflow Measurements
Site Date of Measurements Flow in CFS
Pyramid Creek 04-20-81 11
II II 02-26-82 04
II II 05-07-82 19
II II 06-07-82 21
II II 09-15-82 45
II II 06-07-83 50
Streamflow data in the Unalaska area is very' sparse. The nearest gaged
stream is approximately 500 miles away. Gaged basins on the north Gulf of
Alaska coast, which are subject to similar maritime influences as the
Shaishnikof basin, were compared to determine if some correlation existed
between streams subject to similar maritime influences. The computer
program "Monthly Streamflow Simulations" (HEC4) was used to correlate
monthly streamflows from Power Creek and West Fork Olsen Bay Creek near
Cordova; Spruce Creek near Seward; Myrtle Creek, Terror River, and Uganik
River near Kodiak; and Eskimo Creek near King Salmon. No significant
correlation was found except for Myrtle Creek. Very little correlation was
observed between monthly precipitation and temperatures recorded at long
term climatological stations in the region. Parameters such as drainage
area, main channel slope, mean elevation, vegetative cover, orientation to
major storm tracks, and proximity to long term climatic stations observed
at Dutch Harbor were used to compare a gaged basin with the Pyramid basin.
Table B-2 lists some of the basin characteristics used in the comparison.
Myrtle Creek on Kodiak Island was chosen as the most representative of the
gaged basins that are exposed to similar climatic and hydrologic conditions
as the Pyramid basin. There are 18 years of records, 1963-1981, available
from Myrtle Creek.
TABLE B-2
Drainage Basin Characteristics
Station Drain Area Mean Elevation Main Channel Area of Lakes Area
(Sq. Mi.) (Ft. MSL) Slope FT/MI & Ponds % Mean
Precip
ins/yr.
Power Creek,
Cordova 20.5 2000 219 -0-160
Myrtle Creek,
Kodiak 4.74 1000 105 -0-60
Uganick River,
Kodiak 123 1830 31.2 2.0 60
Terror River,
N. Kodiak 15 2300 126 -0-60
Eskimo Creek,
King Salmon 16. 1 60 6.0 5.0 40
Spruce Creek,
Seward 9.26 1800 475 -0-60
Barbara Creek,
Seldovia 20.7 1500 130 -0-70
Pyramid Creek,
Unalaska 2.7 1250 170 2.0 60
B-2
,--,
""''¥ic
Table B-3 shows the estimated average monthly streamflow for Pyramid
Creek.
B.3 GEOLOGY
MONTH
October
November
December
. January
February
March
April
M~
June
July
August
September
TABLE B-3
STREAMFLOW (cfs)
30
30
19
19
18
14
19
47
49
21
24
24
The Pyramid Creek powerhouse would be located on colluvial and alluvial
fan material originating from the small stream and hillside on the
southeastern shore of Captains Bay. Surface reconnaissance identified a
mixed assemblage of course fragments (gravels and cobbles) in a fine
grained matrix of sand, silt and some clay. An auger hole, bored in 1982,
confirmed this overburden to be in excess of 29.9 feet.
Most of the fragments in the coarser clastics consist of assorted
angular to subrounded andesite or basalt common in the Unalaska formation.
However, Pyramid Creek bedrock exhibits finer grain size and gradation
characteristic of the sandstones.
A visual examination of the surrounding cliffs indicate that bedrock at
Pyramid Creek includes a calcareous mixed fine-to medium-grained
conglomerate with varying grain and pebble sizes. Additional rocks in the
area include a siliceous, cherty, fine-grained sandstone with varying grain
sizes, and cobbles of quartzitic graywacke.
Investigations at the Pyramid Creek site were limited because of water
sources needed for drilling. Only one hole was drilled to 29.9 feet and
shows a mixed assemblage of coarse materials and fines having very poor
sorting with a great deal of permeability and porosity. An exploration of
surrounding bluffs discloses an interbedded sequence of sedimentary rocks
ranging from conglomerates to well sorted sandstones. This materiQl is
well jointed anywhere from .5 to over 3 feet apart. The site is placed on
a fan shaped wedge of colluvial material of unknown depth. Composition
ranges from fines of sand, silt and clay to mixed assemblage of cobbles and
gravels composed of subangular to angular mixed sedimentary rocks and some
volcanics ranging from tuffs to basalts and granites.
B-3
This material appears stable and should make a suitable foundation
providing adequate footings are designed for the proposed structure.
Materials for Pyramid Creek
Building materials may need to be brought in unless the town has a
readily available source. A quarry up Pyramid Valley road (see Figure B-1)
and valley is a workable source and should provide suitable aggregate for
concrete foundations.
B.4 DAM AND FOUNDATION
B.4.l Description
This alternative would utilize the existing diversion structure which
serves the city's water supply line. See Figure B-1.
B.4.2 Penstock
Currently, the city of Unalaska is replacing the existing 16-inch wood
stave pipe, which serves as a water supply line, with a 24-inch 1.0. steel
pipe.
B.5 SITE ACCESS
Access to the site would be provided by the existing roadway system.
No upgrading would be required.
B.6 POWERHOUSE
B.6.1 Powerhouse General
The 260-kW unit would have all equipment housed in a 20-by 20-foot
prefabricated insulated, weather tight, steel structure built on a l6-inch
reinforced concrete slab. The structure would be constructed on a rock
pad. Floor elevation would be at 40 msl. The roof would be paneled to
allow removal of the turbine and other equipment. The proposed powerhouse
layout is shown in Figure B-2.
8.6.2 Powerhouse Mechanical
Turbine
The installation of a single "standardized" horizontal Francis turbine
with wicket gates and butterfly valve would match the site's hydraulic
conditions. A "standardized" turbine was selected primarily because of the
economic advantages of using commercially available pre-engineered
equipment. Other turbine types were considered (impulse turbine, pump
operating as a turbine) but were rejected during the economic analysis due
to operating constraints. For the purposes of this study, the turbine
would have the following characteristics. The unit would be rated to
produce 260 kW of generator output at 170 feet net head. At this
condition, the turbine would discharge approximately 22.3 cfs assuming a
generator efficiency of 95 percent. The turbine is
B-4
estimated to have a 16-inch runner throat diameter and operate at 900 rpm.
~ecause of the long penstock l12,000 feet) tne turbine would be designed to
operate at full run-away conditions to reduce the waterhammer pressures and
eliminate the requirement for a surge tank. In later studies, detailed
waterhammer and speed rise studies should be performed to assure safe
operation of the turbine and penstock. The turbine centerline would be set
to meet design requirements. Rated head was determined by subtracting
penstock friction losses (approximately 105 feet) and the required 80 psi
discharge pressure (approximately 185 feet) from the gross head of 460
feet. The purpose of this turbine is to reduce pressure in the water
supply system to 80 psi. To assure that the water supply system will
operate while the turbine is out of service, bypass piping with an orifice
plate (pressure reducer) would be required.
HVAC System
The Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning (HVAC) system would be a
forced air system mixing outside air and recirculated inside air. A
thermostat would control cooling with outside air, while controlling the
heating with an electric resistance heater. Equipment would include
louvers, mixing dampers, duct work, fan, air filter, electric resistance
duct heater and thermostat control.
B.6.3 Generator
The generator would be of the horizontal shaft, synchronous type with
the shaft connected directly to the turbine. The generator would be a
3-phase, 60 Hz, 480 V, rated 260 kW (330 kVA @ 0.8 P.F.). A drip-proof
housing would be provided. The generator would be open ventilated with
80°C rise, Class B insulation system without provisions for overload. The
generator would have full run-away speed capability.
B.6.4 Excitation System
The excitation system would be specified to be the generator
manufacturer's standard type. This could be either a direct connected
brushless exciter or a bus-fed power potential source static excitation
system. Solid-state, continuously acting, dynamic type voltage regulators
would be incorporated in the unit switchgear. Unit controls would consist
of manual startup and shutdown circuits, basic protective relays, and basic
instrumentation. Protective relays for each unit would include generator
differential, overspeed, overvoltage and ground overcurrent.
Instrumentation for each unit would include a voltmeter, an ammeter, a
wattmeter and a watthour meter. Synchronizing would be accomplished by
speed switches, with the static excitation system being energized at 95
percent and the generator breaker closed at 98 percent speed. The
generator would be provided with a connected amortisseur winding to
facilitate pull-in with the system. The controls would be contained in a
single cabinet. No annunciation or station battery would be provided.
6-5
B.6.5 Power Transformer
One power transformer would be provided. This would be a 0.48/34.5 kV,
delta-grounded wye, 3-phase transformer, AA Class, 500 kVA, with the
minimum nonpremium impedance specified.
B.6.6 Load Controller
The load controller would be of the gate shaft actuator type. It would
be designed to regulate the load of the generator and prevent run-away by
controlling the wicket gates. The load controller would consist of the
necessary indicating and control devices, an oil pumping set consisting of
a sump tank and two motor driven '0; 1 pumps, one or two pressure vessels as
required, and all necessary servo-motor piping.
B.6.7 Generator Voltage System
The connection between the generator and breakers would be with cable.
The generator and station service breakers would be metal enclosed drawout
type rated 600 V, with 800 amp frames. The breakers would be combined in a
common switchgear lineup along with generator surge protection and
instrument transformers.
B.6.8 Station Service
The station service power would be obtained via a tap between the
generator breaker and the main power transformer. The station service
distribution panel would be adjacent to the generator switchgear lineup.
Station service power distribution would be at 480 volts 3-phase and
208Y/120 volts single phase.
B.6.9 Connection to Load
A 3-phase 34.5 kV overhead transmission line would tie the plant to the
existing system. The line would be connected to the powerhouse through a
disconnect switch.
B.7 TRANSMISSION LINE
The selected plan would use the existing transmission line that passes
the powerhouse site.
B.8 POWER POTENTIAL
The primary disadvantage to the PRT is its tenuous ability to provide
firm energy. Whenever a routine or emergency shutdown of the water
pipeline would occur, no energy would be produced. As a result', standby
generating capacity would have to be maintained at all times. Such standby
capacity would probably be provided by existing diesel generators. The
percentage of time that this would be necessary cannot be precisely
predicted. However, the energy that the PRT would prodcce could be fully
used in the Unalaska system and save the cost of diesel fuel that would
otherwise be needed.
B-6
Another concern worthy of further consideration is the availability of
water. The proposed 24-inch steel line was designed to accommodate a
maximum flow of 22.3 cfs (10,000 gpm). Analysis has shown that this
maximum flow would be available 8 months of the year (May through
November). The remaining 5 months of the year, the availability of flow
would vary from 85 percent to 64 percent of the design flow. During this
period of decreased streamflow, the hydropower system would operate at less
than its capacity. City records indicate that during this 5-month period,
the existing water supply penstock could flow at partial capacity. Table
B-4 shows the availability of water for hydropower use.
Month
October
November
December
January
February
March
Apr; 1
May
June
July
August
September
TABLE B-4
Average Monthly
Streamflow (cfs)
30
30
19
19
18
14
19
47
49
24
24
24
% Available
for Hydropower
100
100
85
85
82
64
85
100
100
100
100
100
Operation of the system would not depend upon the daily water demand of
the city on the Pyramid Creek system. As the daily demand fluctuates, a
pressure regulated bypass system located below the powerhouse would
maintain the 80 psi requirement. When demand decreases, the valve would
open and a proportional amount of water would be wasted to account for any
rise in pressure. As demand increases to the maximum (22.3 cfs or 10,000
gpm), this bypass system would close. Therefore, energy would be produced
100 percent of the time at the full capacity of the hydropower system.
Month
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Total
TABLE 8-5
1>-7
kWh
193,000
187;000
175,000
175,000
148,000
175,000
168,000
193,000
187,000
193,000
193,000
187,000
2,174,000
The above estimates of capacity and energy were derived from available
flow estimates, a gross design head of 460 feet and the requirements that a
residual pressure of 80 psi be maintained in the 24-inch line at the
intersection of Pyramid Creek Road with Captains Bay Road.
Pertinent data for the projects follow:
Installed Capacity
Annual Energy
Dependable Capacity
260 kW
2,174,000 kWh o
The annual energy benefit was calculated according to procedures
outlined in Section 5.1.2 of the main report and Section A.10.
B.9 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
Item Cost
Mobil ization $ 100,000
POWERHOUSE $ 35,000
(Structural and Architectural)
TURBINE/GENERATOR
(Package Unit)
ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIP
(Control System)
AUXILIARY SYSTEMS & EQUIP
(HVAC and Dewatering)
SWITCHYARD
BYPASS PIPE SYSTEM
SUBTOTAL
Contingencies (25%)
SUbtotal
E&D (6.5%)
S&A (6.0%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
IDC (9 months)
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST
$ 225,000
$ 82,000
$ 11 ,000
$ 27,000
$ 100,000
$ 580,000
$ 145,000
$ 725,000
$ 47,000
$ 44,000
$ 816,000
$ 32,000
$ 848,000
B-8
B.10 PROJECT ECONOMICS
B.10.l Federal Criteria
Under criteria established for Federal water resource projects, the
Selected Plan is feasible. Factors influencing the feasibility have been
presented in appropriate sections of the report. The results are presented
below.
ANNUAL COSTS AND BENEFITS
Interest and Amortization (8-1/8% @ 50 yrs)
Operation and Maintenance
Total Annual Cost
Annual Benefits
Fuel Displacement Benefit
Fuel Cost Escalation Benefit
O&M Saved
Extend Life of Diesel
Total Annual Benefit
B/C Ratio
Net Annual Benefit
B-9
$70,000
20,000
90,000
$219,000
132,000
44,000
8,000
$401,000
4.5 to 1
$313,000
..
Cit, of
UNALASKA
';\. ,
"t .. ~~ . ~;.\.. . J '" ~~ of.
--. ;";'. '), ~'-<';"'c,,: ...... l~. : __ :", \ '. ~;'_,: ....... ,'~ 'IL.u~ .• ~,., .... ,~;.:::::.,:s: ""':', :-.·,,7~.,,~ •. '-',: .:~"'~:O •
.. ~~~~i;.1~ ." ~"""" ...... , '., '.' "";,' _";' , ',. '." .• ,
• STA~E PIPf PIPE EXISTINGE=-A~Y 24 STU 10 BE R
. ,'., .. " •• ~ '. ~ ',,'" "':"~ , .. ",'0,., ,'''', "" "'\'. , .. , , ...... ; , ...... ;
..... , (:{;;:t~ti~t,~:~:f::~;~:.< ''',';?j/''~;~~t~I~~2~~{{1'~%t)~ . "',;,~, ,., .
'" "." .. " •. , ............ ". ,'" ,,' " "'-', POWE~SSURE :-..... , .. "'" ~ "',-" .• ,,, "."., , ..... , .. ,., •• "" ". . . • '". ITH rn.. ItoIE . ~', ";,' :,:~_. . ..... · ~., ., .. ", ..... ,":.;.'. ,.. ''''',. · '., ,: .. ' .. ,'.. ".' . " . " "> ".,. • TUOI ", " ... ,.\;... "<".,.." . ".
TREATMENT 'AQLlTY
0 __
••n'III01U -,
<.,.., .. ':., .... J··'··J'~.I'\'-' .•...• , .. ': .• ,. , ' •. 1 E\~~;~·~~~--!-:,:<~'):· \'::,.,:.;~ ..... .. -... :~ : ..... "
l1~~~--~F:~=!fE~~~;-lsi.:K:A-------I
UNAI..AS"",. ER
~"'s~BW.W>~DY
PYRAMID CREEK
AI .. 110 Ohtrlct. Corp. of En,llIllra
.4.
20'x 20' Prefab Building
Isolation Valve __ -_
Bypass Pipe
Orifacl Plate
Pntaure
Regulated
Va Iv.
Surpl us Waste
2'-cf 0 Penstock
PROFILE VIEW
SCALE: 1/8"= 1'_0"
Station Service
Transform.,
Switchoear
-----~---III--Generator
-------.;..-....a--Turbin.
PLAN' VIEW
SCALE: 1/8"." -0"
FIGURE B-2
UNAlASKA, ALASKA
SMALL HYDROPOWER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
PYRAMID CREEK
POWERHOUSE
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
B-11
APPENDIX C
404(b)(1) EVALUATION
SECTION 404(b){1) EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located on the Shaishnikof River near the
outlet of Trail Lake approximately 6 miles from the city of Unalaska,
Alaska. The proposed small hydroelectric project would produce about
700 kW of electrical energy. The project consists of an A-frame timber
buttress dam, 22 feet in height, with a total crest length of 104 feet. An
above ground 920-foot, 42-inch diameter steel penstock would transport
water from invert elevation 550 feet mean sea level (msl) to the powerhouse
at elevation 430 feet. Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of rock would be
excavated just south of the dam site for the construction of a spillway.
Refer to Figure 1 for the placement of the project features. This material
would be used to form a cofferdam just upstream of the proposed timber dam
site. The cofferdam is used to divert the streamflow to the spillway while
the timber dam is being constructed. Upon completion of the dam, the
cofferdam would be removed and the material would be disposed of at an
upland site away from the river and lake. Other areas where fill material
may be placed in waters of the United States may be associated with the
tailrace below the powerhouse. Riprap may be placed in the stream at the
confluence of the tailrace and the river to provide protection from
erosion. The quantities would be small, probably not more than 10 cubic
yards.
II. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS
a. Physical Substrate Determinations
The cofferdam would be constructed at about elevation 560. The
cofferdam is oriented across the stream with little difference in elevation
between the upstream and downstream toes of the dam. The substrate
receiving the material for the construction of the cofferdam is bedrock
with a very thin layer of loose rock. The material from the spillway
excavation consists of about 0.5 feet of organics (vegetative mat) and
2 feet of very dark brown saturated silt. Bedrock is located about 2.7
feet below the surface. The overburden (organics and soil) would be
removed and disposed of at an upland site, while the rock would be used for
cofferdam construction.
The possible disposal site at the confluence of the river and tailrace,
which would be used for erosion control, would be along the river bank and
the river channel. The river bank is mainly cobble and boulders; however,
some vegetative banks would have to be covered to meet the riprap
objectives. The river channel is also cobble and boulders. The material
for the riprap would come from excavated areas from the construction of the
access road or from the cofferdam after it has been dismantled. In either
case, the material would be rock.
The substrate at the timber buttress dam disposal site is similar to
the cofferdam site. However, 690 cubic yards of overburden would be
removed from the river banks to expose bedrock so that the dam can be
properly anchored. This material would be disposed of at an upland site,
and should not enter the river.
o 1 2
; !
SCALE 1M KILOMETERS
SHAISHNIKOF RIVER
QUARRY
... SITE
PINK SALMON
BLOCK
] CANYON AREA
--(FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT
CONSTRUCTION AREA)
POWERHOUSE
SITE
TRAIL LAKE
C-2
UNALASKA, ALASKA
SMALL HYDROPOWER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
PROJECT AREA
Impacts to benthos at the tailrace and cofferdam sites would mainly be
burial. In both instances, recolonization is expected to occur rather
quickly because there would not be a change in substrate type. The area
proposed to receive the timber dam would impact the benthos both in burial
and change in substrate. Because there are no trees in the Unalaska area,
colonization of timber buttress dam may take considerable time, and only be
colonized by the most opportunistic species.
Actions to minimize the impacts on benthic organisms include using fill
material which is similar to the existing substrate, where applicable.
b. Water Circulation, Fluctuation and Salinity Determinations
The purpose of the cofferdam is to change the direction of the flow
away from the area of the proposed timber dam to facilitate its
construction. When the cofferdam is removed, the water would flow back in
the original channel to the dam. The dam would decrease water circulation
during the period of impoundment, then circulation would return close to
natural conditions. The spillway would be constructed to protect the dam
from failure due to high water. During a high water event, the majority of
water would be passed around the dam via the spillway, therefore, water
circulation patterns would be altered. The water diverted through the
penstock would also alter the natural water circulation patterns.
The operation of the proposed project would cause fluctuations in water
surface elevations of both Trail Lake and the Shaishnikof River. Although,
the proposed project would only increase the water surface elevation of the
lake by 3 feet, the project may be operated to produce maximum output
during peak demand periods drawing down the entire 3 feet of water.
The impacts associated with water level fluctuations would be at the
lake, and to a much lesser extent, downstream of the powerhouse. The
changes to the lake would probably impact the Dolly Varden fishery.
c. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations
Theoretically, there should not be any increases in either suspended
particulate matter or any increases in turbidity because the fill material
is either riprap size rock or timbers. However, some material would enter
the water column, which would have a minimal increase in turbidity.
d. Contaminant Determination
As discussed above, the fill material is either hard rock or timber.
There are no sources of either natural or man induced contaminants that
would be released into the water column from the proposed fill.
e. Aquatic Ecosystems and Organism Determinations
No studies have been conducted on the planktonic and benthic organisms
at the areas of the proposed fills. Because of the presence of juvenile
Dolly Varden, there must be an undetermined population of aquatic organisms.
C-3
Although the fills would cause the loss of some of these organisms, the
overall effect on aquatic fauna would be minimal. The proposed fills are
not in areas where the movement of fish would be impaired. The lOO-foot
falls between the powerhouse and dam has naturally blocked any fisheries
movements of either anadromous or resident stocks.
f. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations
Because of the nature of the fill material, the need for the mixing
zone determination is not applicable.
In determining compliance with applicable water quality standards, the
State of Alaska's water quality standards were examined. All standards
applicable to the proposed action appear to be in compliance for the
following reasons:
1. The Shaishnikof River is a high energy system, and if any fined
grained material is included with the designed fill material, adequate
mixing would occur.
2. The fill material for the cofferdam and erosion control at the
tailrace originates from the immediate area.
3. All fill material is far removed from any source of contaminants
either natural or man induced.
4. The area proposed to receive the fill material is not enclosed and
is subject to the same currents as the rest of the Shaishnikof River.
Recreational and commercial fisheries should not be impacted by the
fill material. Although the pink salmon runs in the Shaishnikof River are
used commercially, the fills are far enough removed from spawning or
rearing areas that no impacts should occur.
The project features would be in an area that has not been visually
impacted by any construction activities. The proposed project features
would cause definite esthetic impacts; however, the project features are in
an area where little human activity occurs.
No parks, national or historical monuments, national seashores,
wilderness areas, research sites, or similar preserves are located near the
proJect area, nor would these areas be subjected to adverse impacts from
the proposed action.
g. Determination of Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem
Cumulative impacts to the aquatic ecosystem resulting from the proposed
action are difficult to assess. Because the proposed hydroelectric project
would not have a surplus of power, it appears that no activities would
occur ;n the Shaishnikof River basin because of the project. Salmon
spawning areas are rather fragile, and if other activities that are related
to the river occur, the possibility of adverse impacts is high.
C-4
h. Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem
There are no expected secondary impacts resulting from the proposed
action.
III. FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE OR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON
DISCHARGE
a. Adaptation of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
The proposed project complies with the requirements set forth in the
Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines for specification of disposal
sites for dredged or fill material.
b. Evaluation of Availability of Prac~icable Alternatives
An Environmental Impact Statement was prepared in conjunction with this
document to evaluate the different alternatives associated with producing
electrical power generation in the Unalaska area. Because of the nature of
hydroelectric development, the placing of fill material in waters of the
United States is necessary.
c. Compliance with Applicable State Water Quality Standards
The proposed action would comply with all State Water Quality Standards.
d. Compliance with Applicable Toxic Effluent Standard or Prohibition
under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act
The proposed operation complies with the toxic effluent standards of
Section 307 of the Clean Water Act.
e. Compliance with Endangered Species Act of 1973
The proposed action complies with the Endangered Species Act.
f. Compliance with Specified Protection Measures of Marine Sanctuaries
Designed by the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
The proposed disposal sites comply with the Marine Protection's
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
g. Evaluation of Extent of Degradation of the Waters of the United
States
There would be no significant adverse impacts to municipal and private
water supplies, recreation and commercial fisheries, plankton, fish,
shellfish, wildlife and/or special aquatic sites caused by this proposed
project.
C-5
h. Appropriate and Practicable Steps Taken to Minimize Potential
Adverse Impacts of the Discharge on the Aquatic Ecosystem
All appropriate and practicable steps would be taken to minimize
potential adverse impacts of the discharges on the aquatic ecosystem.
These include: placing the minimal amount of material while still
maintaining the integrity of the structure, and using only clean quarry
material for temporary and permanent fills. Although, these criteria were
not established for the protection of the aquatic ecosystem, the flora and
fauna of the area would be impacted less by these steps.
On the basis of the guidelines, the proposed action is specified as
complying with the requirements of these guidelines.
C-6
-
APPENDIX D
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
COORDINATION REPORT
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPL Y REFER TO:
WAES
Colonel Neil E. Saling
District Engineer
Alaska District
Corps of Engineers
Pouch 898
Anchorage, Alaska 99506
Dear Colonel Saling:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1011 E. TUDOR RD.
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
(907) 276-3800
12 Ol.i J 1933
RE: Final Coordination Act Report
Unalaska Small Hydropower
This letter transmits the attached Final Coordination Act (CA) Report
prepared under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat. 401, as amended: 16 U.S.C., 661 et seq.) for the proposed
hydroelectric development of the Shaishnikoff River and Pyramid Creek
located near Unalaska, Alaska. The CA report has been coordinated with
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Nationa 1 ~Iarine Fisheries
Service.
We support the Corps' recommended hydroelectric development plan for
Pyramid Creek. Implementation of this proposal would provide public
benefits with no apparent environmental concern.
Close coordination between our agencies during project planning for the
Shaishnikoff River alternative has resulted in project deSign changes
which have made this alternative more enVironmentally compatible. Two
such deSign changes involve the realignment of the project access road to
avoid multiple crossings of the Shaishnikoff River and the realignment of
the aerial transmission line to further avoid an active bald eagle nest.
We recommend, however, that measures to mitigate adverse impacts to fish
and wildlife resources, as outlined in the CA Report, be incorporated
into the development plan for the Shaishnikoff River hydroelectric
project.
Finally, an enhancement plan has been identified which would increase
pink salmon production in the upper one and one-half miles of the
Shaishnikoff River through steeppass installation/barrier removal.
Stream surveys indicate that sufficient spawning habitat exists in the
upper river reach that, if made available to pink salmon, would nearly
double the existing salmon run resulting in a benefit of $56,000/year to
the commercial fishery of Unalaska Bay. We understand that the Corps is
actively seeking a sponsor for this enhancement plan. We support this
effort and will provide further assistance as necessary.
0-1
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and advise on matters regarding
fish and wildlife resources associated with these proposed hydropower
development proposals.
Sincerely, //r->W ~L_~
Acting Deputy Regional Director
Enclosure
cc: FWS, ROES, WAES
ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, Anchorage
ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, Juneau
FWS, Federal Project, WDC
0-2
Small Hydropower
Unalaska, Alaska
Final
Coordination Act Report
Submitted to Alaska District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Anchorage, Alaska
Prepared by: David Ferrell, Project Biologist
Approved by: Robert Bowker, Field Supervisor
Western Alaska Ecological Services Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Anchorage, Alaska
October 1983
0-3
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Summary •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I. Introduction •••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
II. Description of Project ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
III. Description of Resources ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Environmental Setting •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Terrestrial Resources •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Vegetation ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
MaDlDa 1 s •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
B ; rd s ....•...•••..•••..•••••••.•..•....••...........•.•...
Aquatic Resources •..••.•..•....•••........•••.•..••.••••••••••
Description of Shaishnikoff River •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Coho Salmon ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••..••••.•
Pink Salmon •.••..•••••.•..••••.•.•..••••••••••••••••..••••
Churn Salmon •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Dolly Varden ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Threatened and Endangered Species •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
IV. Major Project Impacts ••.•••••••••.•••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••
Terrestrial Habitat •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Mamma 1 s ••••••••.•••....••.•..••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••
B ; rd s •••.•....•.•.....•....•.................•••..........
Fish ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
V. Discussion ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Mitigation of Adverse Mnpacts •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Enhancement Opportunities •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Assessment of the Upper Shaishnikoff River as
Pink Salmon Spawning Habitat ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Estimation' of Potential Pink Salmon Spawning
Habitat in the Upper Shaishnikoff River •••••••••••••••••
Page
iv
v
1
1
7
7
8
8
8
9
10
10
12
12
13
13
15
16
16
16
17
17
18
18
21
21
23
Value to Commercial Fishery ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 24
Alternative Enhancement Methods ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25
Alaska Steeppass .•••.•••••.•••••••••••••••..•.•••••••••• 25
Blasting to Form Step Pools ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 26
Other Structura 1 ~lethods................................ 26
ii
0-4
-"
~.
Table of Contents con1t:
VI. FWS Reconunendat ions •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 27
VII. Literature Cited •••.••••..••••••.••••.••.••••.••.•••••••••••••• 29
VIII. Appendices
A. Scientific and Common Names of Fish and
Wildlife Referenced in this Report •••••••••••••••••••• 31
B. General Salmonid Distribution within the
Trail Lake/Shaisnikoff River System ••••••••••••••••••• 33
C. Mean Monthly Flow, Shaishnikoff River at
Trail Lake Outlet (198l) ••••••• ~ •••••••••••••••••••••• 34
D. Fish Sampling Catch Results for Shaishnikoff
River/Trail Lake near Unalaska, Alaska •••••••••••••••• 35
E. Upper Shaishnikoff River Stream Survey of
Potential Pink Salmon Spawning Habitat ••••••••.••••••• 3~
F. Photographs of Fish Migrational Barriers
on the Shaishnikoff River ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 41
G. Interagency Coordination ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 42
iii
D-5
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1. Raptors of Unalaska Island •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10
Table 2. Terrestrial Habitat Loss/Disruption
as a Result of Project Construction ••••••••••••••• 16
Table 3. Pink Salmon Spawning Requirements ••••••••••••••••••••• 22
Table 4. Temperature, Depth, and Gravel Measurements
through Spawning Beds for the Upper and Lower
Reaches of the Shaishnikoff River ••••••••••••••••• 22
Table 5. Unalaska Bay Pink Salmon Harvest/Escapement
Statistics (1979-1982) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 24
Table 6. Benefit/Cost Estimate for Steeppass Installation,
Shaishnikoff River •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25
Fi~ures
Figure 1. Location Map of Unalaska Island •••••••••••••••••••••• 2
Figure 2. Location of Shaishnikoff River and Pyramid Creek ••••• 3
Figure 3. General Development Plan, Pyramid Creek
Hydroelectric Project ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4
Figure 4. General Development Plan, Shaishnikoff River
Hydroelectric Project ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5
Figure 5. Dam Site Cross Section: Shaishnikoff River •••••••••• 6
Figure 6. Shaishnikoff River Habitat Map ••••••••••••••••••• Attachment
iv
D-6
<-
Summary
Small Hydropower
Unalaska~ Alaska
The Corps of Engineers (CE) proposes to construct a 700 kilowatt (kW)
hydroelectric facility on the Shaishnikoff River and a 260 kW hydroelectric
facility on Pyramid Creek near Unalaska, Alaska. ~Iajor project features of
the Shaishnikoff River alternative include a 100-foot long by 22-foot high
timber/concrete dam at the mouth of Trail Lake and a 3.32-mile access road up
the Shaishnikoff River valley. An approximate 8-mile aerial transmission line
would be constructed to relay electricity to the village of Unalaska. Plans
for the hydroelectric development of Pyramid Creek call for the installation
of a pressure reducing turbine in the existing water supply line to produce
260 kW of power. There are no identifiable impacts associated with the
Pyramid Creek proposal which would require mitigation.
Fish and wildlife resources of the Shaishnikoff River valley center primarily
on anadromous salmonids. Pink, chum, coho, and anadromous and resident Dolly
Varden inhabit the river/lake system. Bird use of the valley (particularly
raptors) is important. Terrestrial mammal use is limited.
The effects of sedimentation/turbidity on the Shaishnikoff River as a result
of clearing an estimated 17 acres of upland tundra is an environmental concern
associated with this project. Degradation of fishery habitat could result
unless best management practices during clearin~ operations (particularly at
the dam site) are utilized. Stream bank encroachment should be minimized.
Nitigation measures to further minimize these impacts are recommended.
The impoundment and fluctuation of Trail Lake would degrade Dolly Varden
spawning and rearing habitat. Construction activities at the dam site would
degrade the upper reach of coho spawning habitat and additional Dolly Varden
habitat. Approximately 15 acres of alpine meadow habitat would be inundated
during lake impoundment. Further field studies would be necessary to quantify
the unavoidable impacts associated with the inundation and fluctuation of
Trail Lake to determine if additional mitigation is warranted. Impacts to the
upper reach of coho and Dolly Varden spawning habitat can be miti~ated through
best management practices and proper project design.
The maintenance of adequate stream flow during dam construction and reservoir
inundation is critical to the viability of the downstream fishery. A minimum
release of 60 percent of average annual flow is recommended during dam
construction and reservoir inundation to prevent impacts to this resource.
Reservoir inundation is recommended to take place during a ~erioa of time
between mid-July and the first of August to avoid conflicts with anadromous
salmonids.
An enhancement plan to increase pink salmon production in the upper one and
one-half miles of the Shaishnikoff River through steeppass installation/barrier
removal is proposed. Stream surveys indicate that sufficient s~awniny habitat
exists in the upper river reach that, if made available to pink salmon, would
nearly double the existin~ return resulting in a benefit of $56,OOO/year to
the commercial fishery.
v
~7
I. Introduction
II.
z..-~
This Final Coordination Act (CA) Report provides the Corps of Engineers
(CE) with planning information regarding small hydroelectric development
on the Shaishnikoff River and Pyramid Creek near Unalaska/Dutch Harbor,
Alaska. Involvement by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in this
planning effort was formally initiated in February 1981 and is scheduled
to conclude in October 1983.
The information presented in this report is a result of joint field
investigations by FWS and CE biologists, information provided by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) biologists, a review of pertinent
literature, and conversations with knowledgeable individuals. The CA
report provides planning assistance prepared under the authority of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 48 stat. 401, as amended.
The proposed CE small hydroelectric facilities are located on Unalaska
Island, part of the Aleutian Island chain forming a 1,lOO-mile arc which
separates the Bering Sea from the North Pacific Ocean (Figure 1).
Unalaska Island lies approximately 740 air miles southwest of Anchorage,
Alaska. The Shaishnikoff River alternative is located on the northern
side of the island at the head of Captain's Bay (Figure 2). The mouth of
the Shaishnikoff River at Captain's Bay is approximately five miles by
gravel road southwest of the community of Unalaska/Dutch Harbor.
This hydroelectric facility would be designed to provide 700 kilowatts
(kW) of electricity to the village of Unalaska (Ounalashka), population
615 (l980). Village electricity needs are now met by diesel generation.~·
Dutch Harbor and Unalaska are incorporated and politically known as the
City of Unalaska; however, Unalaska has remained the traditional Aleut
native village while Dutch Harbor has developed into the major seafood
processing center for the Beriny Sea.
An additional hydroelectric site has been identified on Pyramid Creek.
Pyramid Creek lies approximately two miles southwest of Unalaska ana
empties into Captain's Bay (Figure 3). Hydropower development on Pyramid
Creek would involve the installation of a pressure reducing turbine system
in the existing water supply line to produce 260 kW of power.
Description of Project ,t;GFAe~
The proposed Shaishnikoff River hYdrOel-~c project (Figure 4) would be
designed to provide the village o~fn f:~~~l~ith 700 kW of electricity.
The construction of an A-frame timb buttress aam 22-feet high ana
100-feet long at the outlet of Tr 1 Lake would provide for storage
capacity through lake impoundmen~/{Figure 5). Lake surface elevation
would be raised approximately ~ feet with daily fluctuations of up to
-ii~ht feet. Excavation of approximately two acres of upland tundra
overburden and the drilling and blasting of bedrock to construct bedrock
benches for buttress support would be required. An overflow s~illway,
designed for a lOO-year event of 1,000 cubic feet per second, consisting
of a uniform rock cut channel with a bottom width of 38 feet would lie in
a natural depression 110 feet to the left of the dam centerline looking
downstream.
1
0-8
FIGURE 1.
LOCATION MAP
of
UNALASKA ISLAND
-----------------------------
.--
+
\
:iCALE 1:250 000 3 0-10
'" os
. ~" ~ Fishermans
.• PI T 7Z 5 -Brundage
Head..o
Qd'd'
.... ...
~
T 74 5
OUiW
FIGURE 2. Location Map
of
Shaishnikoff River
and
Pyramid Creek
o
I ...... ......
City of
UNALASKA
. ~r~~ .. ~"
~;~."('~~ . ~~~~~~~;~~~~~~ '<Ot
f
.... ". .... • .... _.~.t:,~\.*\. . 'ILIULIUK~ t:.!.;'~:~'.;,,), -;"':-,.,'.;;':'. , ..... ~ ..... :; ~ .. '" . ~;·~¥t:il.:~~~~it:; 1i1~!~~:::1:·;'.:1~.; . ." ":~~~:, ~}r" ""::;j:i~~ii1"1"~~":~?i,~i:~~\ti' .c\
,·"t· .. ,.,., ......... , .... , .. ,. :.'·d ..... ". c' ''', . . .: •• ~. POWERHOUESSSURE .... '. __ .... , . ... ··'·""·c, '" .......... ":. .... ..... .. ... ," ... .... ". . WITH PR E .... , •.•• " • ,
--..... __ -:::z::
" D STAVE PIPE EXISTINGElp6LA~re 8Y 24" STEEL PIPE TO 8E R
DAM
EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITY
a 400 800 lIcorn, III .tLl
I
f _.~~~~~ ,; , ......... " .... , ...... ,.,..... '.' ..... "''', . CAPTAIN S BAY..,... . . " .,. .... ' •... , . . ..... ....... ''', , ...... , ..... ,. ALL HYDROPOWER
. .
~ttASIBILlTY STUDY
PYRAMID CREEK
AIOIllo 01 ,Irlel, Corp • of Entin",.
-1-
REGIONAL INVENTORY & AECONHAISSANCE STUDY
SMALL HYOAOf'OWER PROJECTS
ALEUTIAN ISLANDS. ALASKA PENINSULA. KOOIAK ISLAND
~2~~~~~;;;;~~~~~~~~ FIGURE "f. SHAISHNI/CuFF RIVER at
UNALASKA
TRANSMISSION LINE
POWERHOUSE
)
i OF SPILLW"Y CHANNEL
GROUND I
590 .......
550
'-....... a EDR OCK.....t''' __ _
S: 4V:IH
(TYP)
I"
RESERVOIR
DAM SITE CROSS SECTION
570 -MAX. PO OL
MI N. POOL
T It ASH RACK .....
1560 -
r
I
550 I
RESERVO~R
ORAWDOWN
PIPE
/
PENSTOCk
ELEVATION
BULKHEAD ST ORAGE~
RVOIR RESE
ORAWD
PIP E
OWN /
TRASH RACK"
IX
VALVES
\.~
PLAN
~~ ..:; J,...
\
AIR VENTS
~~ v >-
..
~ENSTOCJ(
6 D-13
i.
I
MAX POOL
IS 69'
10 0 10 20 '0
""'FE vr,. T. ANO KOII.%
SCALE
UNALAS KA S H P
INTAKE STRUCTURE
I": 10'
I": 10'
UNAL A SKA SHP
INTAKE STRUCTURE
F'I"URE 5. DAM SIT£
C ROSS SECT ION
SH A ISH N I K 0 F' F' R I V £ R
AT
UNALASKA
A 42-inch steel pipe penstock would extend 920 feet from the intake invert
at the SSO-foot elevation to a powerhouse at elevation 430 feet. The
penstock would be above ground throughout its length except for 110 feet
which would be buried. An open channel tailrace would be excavated below
the powerhouse into the Shaishnikoff River.
Access to the project site would be accommodated by the construction of a
10-foot-wide, 3.32-mile-long access road, This permanent roadbed would
begin at the mouth of the Shaishnikoff River and terminate at the dam
site. Approximately 27,000 cubic yards (c.y.)of overburden and 13,000
c,y. of rock would be excavated for roadbed construction. Gravel. fill for
the roadbed, obtained from an existing quarry site near Unalaska, is
estimated at 5,000 c.y. Approximately 36 24-inch culverts to accommodate
tributary crossings and to facilitate runoff would be installed in the
roadbed.
An 8-mile buried transmission line traversing the Shaishnikoff River
valley and paralleling the existing road at tidewater along
Captain's Bay would relay electricity to the village of Unalaska.
The Pyramid Creek hydroelectric site would be located on the hillside at
the junction of Captain's Bay and Pyramid Valley Roads, Electricity would
be transmitted to Unalaska via an existing transmission line,
Approximately 260 kW of power would be realized.
III. Description of Resources ,
Environmental Setting
The fauna and flora of this region are comprised of species from both the
North American and Asian continents. The eastern Aleutians support a
fauna typical of the Alaska mainland, while the western islands have
Asiatic species, Murie (1959) described the Aleutians as a II ••• melting
pot for faunal elements from two continents not yet reaching equilibrium.1I
Climate is maritime with a minimum of sunshine and a maximum of fog, rain,
and storm. Gusty winds and rain predominate. Average temperatures are
cold, but not normally severe, due to the moderating effect of warm water
transported into the area by the Japanese current. Mean annual
temperatures hover around 400 F. Snowfall rarely exceeds one to two feet
and is typically wet and slushy at lower elevations, but higher mountains
are snowcapped all year. Rainfall varies, averaging from thirty to over
sixty inches per year.
Unalaska Island is quite mountainous and scenic. The entire island is
virtually treeless. The island hosts active volcanoes, with Mount Makushin
currently under investigation by the State of Alaska for IDtential
geothermal power. The island served as a strategic staging area during
World War II. Numerous war debris remain today in the Unalaska/Dutch
Harbor area.
7
0-14
-
Terrestrial Resources
Vegetation
The vegetation of the Aleutians is classified as a terrestrial-maritime
tundra ecosystem (Shack1ette, 1966). Except for Unimak Island, where
alder covers much of the surface, the chain is dominated by the heath,
grass, and composite families. Essentially, there has developed a rather
uniform vegetative complex of relatively few species. The chain is
treeless except of a few spruce introduced by the early Russians and the
Americans during World War II. The maritime conditions and continual
winds are thought to suppress larger plant life forms.
There are three general Aleutian plant communities represented on Unalaska
Island (Amundsen, 1972): (1) the beach area: dominated by beach rye, and
contains reedgrass, fescues, bluegrasses, and succulent herbs; (2) the low
tundra: marshes dominated by sedges, reedgrass, and to a lesser degree bog
blueberry, horsetail, and rushes; and (3) the upland tundra: areas that
are somewhat drier and are dominated by crowberry, willow, lichens,
mosses, and sedges.
The Shaishnikoff River valley falls predominantly into Admundsen1s plant
community category (3) of upland tundra. Only in poorly drained areas is
category (2), low tundra, evident. The river is fringed with willows and
alder for most of its length. Only in the extreme upper river reach does
the willow/alder fringe give way to grassy stream banks. The upland
tundra cover type is estimated to vegetate over 90 percent of the valley.
The percent cover of willow/alder within the valley is less than ten. The
occurrence of low tundra is less than one percent. The upper river valley
contains a large, flat alpine meadow dominated by grasses (bluejoint) and
a variety of wild flowers such as Canadian dogwood, Cypripedium, Pyrola,
and others. Mountain slopes are dominated by grasses and fireweed. The
large cow parsnip is scattered throughout the valley. Soils consist of a
thick layer of peat (i.e., up to six feet) underlain with gravels. In
many areas Sphagnum moss is the dominant ground cover.
The low tundra/marsh areas are dominated by sedges, horsetail, marsh
marigold and others. These areas are not common. There are a number of
edible berries found throughout the valley, including: crowberry, bog
blueberry, lowbush cranberry, and salmonberry. The valley is treeless
with the willow/alder stands attaining heights of not more than six feet.
A list of the scientific and common names of plants, fish, and wildlife
referenced in this report can be found in Appendix A.
Mammals
Unalaska Island does not support a diverse terrestrial mammal population.
Large ungulates and carnivores are conspicuously absent. Two small
mammals inhabiting the island are transplants. Arctic ground squirrel
were introducted on Unalaska Island by early Russian settlers and the
European hare was introduced to Hog Island, west of Dutch Harbor, in the
1940 1 s.
8
D-15
The largest terrestrial mammal observed utilizing the Shaishnikoff River
valley is the red fox. Several fo~ have been spotted traversing the
valley slopes. It is not known whether there are denning sites located in
the valley. The arctic ground squirrel is particularly abundant in the
lower valley but diminish in numbers in the upper valley. Evidence of
smaller mammals (rodents) in the form of numerous crissMcrossing runs is
common throughout the valley. These small furbearers appear to be very
abundant in the grassy meadow areas such as the alpine meadow in the upper
valley and at the headwaters of Trail Lake. The arctic ground squirrel
and other rodents provide a food source for the fox and raptors which
inhabit the valley.
Birds
Field observations indicate a tendency for birdlife in the Shaishnikoff
River valley to be spacially distributed according to habitat types:
(1) those birds preferring the lower (below the canyon) portion of the
valley influenced by the marine environment of the Captain's Bay;
(2) those birds preferring the upper (above the canyon) portion of the
valley and Trail L~ke; and (3) those birds inhabiting the entire river
va lley.
Fourteen species of birds have been sighted in the Shaishnikoff River
valley. A fifteenth species, Peale's pere~rine falcon, has tentatively
been sighted in the cliffs above Trail Lake. Five species of biros have
been observed actively nesting along river banks, in adjacent foothills,
and in near-vertical rocky cliffs.
Actively nesting birds observed during a June, 1981 survey incluoe the
abundant dipper. Several active dipper nests were observed in rock
crevices and burrowed into mud cutbanks always close to ,the river. Adult
dippers were observed feedin9~outmigrating pink salmon fry to their young,:
an apparent important part of'the young birds' diet. A colony (i.e.
100 birds) of bank swallows was found near the river mouth. This colony
was actively nesting in a ten-foot mud cutbank. Other nesting birds
observed included rock ptarmigan and mallard duck. both nestiny on the
ground in upland tundra.
An active bald eagle nest was located at the base of the canyon area at
river mile 1.5. This stick/grass nest was situated approximately 150 feet
above the river on the ledge of a stable, nearMvertical rock cliff. The
nest was strategically located to take advantage of these birds'
fish-eating habits as pink salmon upstream migration is impeded in this
area and numerous fish are funneled into this river reach. Salmon
carcasses, apparently having been fed upon by eagles, were observed
scattered along the river banks in this area.
Other birdlife observed utilizing the Shaishnikoff River valley include:
raven M typical in the lower valley near Captain's Bay; gray-crowned rosy
finch -found in smaller numbers in the lower valley and more numerous in
the upper valley; lapland longspur -numerous in the upper valley/Trail
Lake area; common merganser -probable Trail Lake nester; the common snipe
and belted king fisher have been observed in the lower valley; the song
sparrow and common redpoll have been observed throughout the entire river
valley; and, an occassional winter wren and one pair of snow buntings were
observed in the canyon area.
9
0-16
Raptor use in the valley is probably not limited to the above mentioned
species. Table 1. provides a list of raptors which have been sighted on
Unalaska Island. Available raptor habitat includes the river canyon
between approximate river mile 1.5 and 1.8 and the cliffs on the southwest
side of Trail Lake. The canyon area appears to be good raptor habitat, as
evidenced by the numerous life-signs (pellets) scattered throughout this
area, and raptors have been sighted fighting, divin~, circ1in~ ana perched
in the cliffs above Trail Lake.
Table 1. Raptors of Unalaska Island
SpeCies
Snowy owl
Short-eared owl
Rough-legged hawk
Bald eagle
Marsh hawk
Gyrfalcon
Peale's peregrine falcon
Merlin
Source: John Sarvis (1982)
Status
Occassional visitor
Year-round resiaent
Summer resident
Year-round resident
Summer resident
Year-round resident
Year-round resident
Migrant
The birdlife of the Shaishnikoff River valley is considered a valuable
resource in terms of species abundance and diversity. Passerines are the
dominant bird group, with the bulk of nesting activity occurring on the
ground in upland tundra habitat. Waterfowl use is low and rapt or use
considered high.
Aquatic Resources
The following description of Shaishnikoff River fishery resources is
preceded by a physical description of the river they inhabit. General
salmonid habitat and life-history requirements are based on literature
{Morrow, 1981; AEIDC, 1981; Reiser and Bjornn, 1979; Crone and Bond, 1976;
and ADF&G, 1981a.}, information provided by ADF&G biologists of the Alaska
Peninsula and Aleutian Islands area, and stream surveys conducted in April
1981 and in June and September, 1982. A generalized habitat map of the
Shaishnikoff River {Figure 6} accompanies these descriptions (see
attachment). General salmonid distribution within the Trail
Lake/Shaishnikoff River system is presented in Appendix B.
Description of Shaishnikoff River
The Shaishnikoff River flows a distance of approximately three and
one-half miles, originating from Trail Lake at elevation 562 feet mean sea
level (msl) and emptying into tidewater at the head of Captain's Bay.
Eighty acre Trail Lake lies in a cirque basin rimmed by mountainous
peaks. A large tributary at the head of the lake meanders through an
alpine meadow and represents the lake's main source of water. These
tributary waters are cold (2.2°C in June) and well oxygenated (l3.5
milligrams/liter (mg/1) dissolved oxygen). The lake bottom is flat and
10
D-17
shallow in the vicinity of the lake outlet, while depths of 100 feet are
reached at the southern end of the lake. The lake shore consists of a
gently slopin~ sand/gravel nearshore zone with no aquatic vegetation
observed.
A precipitous 100-foot bedrock waterfall is encountered at the lake
outlet. Water flow at the outlet is fairly stable on a seasonal basis.
Average summer flow at the outlet (July, August, September) during the
peak of anadromous migration is 41.2 cubic feet per second (cfs). Average
winter flow (January, February, March) is 28.8 cfs. Mean monthly flows
for the Shaishnikoff River (1981) can be found in Appendix C. Lake outlet
water temperature fluctuates from a recorded low of 3.5°C in May to a high
of 11.5°C in mid-August. Winter temperatures are unavailable, but
observations in February, 1981, revealed the river is ice-free (NORTEC,
1981).
After leaving Trail Lake, the Shaishnikoff River meanders approximately
one and one-half miles through a broad, U-shaped upper valley. River
gradient is low (two to three percent) as the river flows through a
well-defined channel. Numerous gravel bars and deep pools, interspersed
with riffle habitat, are common. Stream stability is high, as evidenced
by vegetated stream banks, lack of overflow channels or braids, and the
abundance of green filamentous algae covering the cobble substrate areas
of the streambed.
Near the confluence with the Burke River, stream gradient increases and
riffle/rapids become more typical. Stream flow is increased approximately
fifty percent (98 cfs in June) with the addition of the slightly cooler
(4.5°C in June) Burke River water.
Approximately one-quarter mile downstream of the Burke River confluence
the river narrows into a steep-walled canyon. Riffle/rapids, interspersed
with deep plunge pools are typical in this one-quarter mile long canyon.
Some pools (formed in solid bedrock) are over twenty feet wide and up to
ten feet deep. Much of the riverbed is bedrock in the canyon. Average
canyon stream gradient in this one-quarter mile reach is estimated to be
five percent.
Downstream of the canyon the river widens and gradient decreases. Stream
flow gradually increases with the addition of water from several smaller
tributaries. June flow at the river mouth was recorded at 165 cfs. Water
temperatures and dissolved oxygen remain relatively stable at 5° to 6°C
(90-day thermograph for Ju~e, July, August located 0.5 miles upstream from
river mouth) and 12 mg/l, respectively.
Gravel bars are common along river bends, in deeper pools and downstream
of islands in this lower one and one-half miles of river. The river
meanders through the smaller foothills of the valley and eventually into
tidewater at the head of Captain's Bay. The Shaishnikoff River watershed
encompasses approximately 20 square miles. This river is the primary
tributary of Captain's Bay.
11
0-18
The Trail Lake/Shaishnikoff River system can be divided into four
hydrologic/habitat regimes: (1) the lacustrine habitat of Trail Lake; (2)
a stable one and one-half mile upper river valley; (3) a one-quarter mile
riffle/rapid/plunge pool canyon; and a sinuous and variable one and
one-half mile lower river valley.
Coho Salmon
Coho salmon are known to utilize the entire Shaishnikoff River up to the
falls area at the outlet of Trail Lake. Prior to a stream survey
conducted in September, 1982, this species had not been documented as
inhabiting the river. Approximately fifty fresh adults were observed
during this survey, indicating that a coho run was in progress.
Population estimates are preliminary (approximately 200 fish). Additional
surveys conducted in September 1983 revealed that schools of 30 to 40
adult coho spawn in the deeper pools just downstream of the waterfalls at
the lake outlet (L. Ferrell, CE, pers. comm.). Adults begin to enter the
Shaishnikoff River in August and continue to spawn through November and
December. Rearing and outmigration information is currently not available.
The Shaishnikoff River provides "good" to "excellent" habitat for coho
salmon production in terms of carrying capacity up to smo1t size
(generally considered the limiting factor for coho survivability).
Habitat requirements for juvenile coho include deep, quiet pools
contiguous with faster riffles and associated with some kind of cover.
After emergence, fry usually congregate in shallow backwaters or quiet
areas along banks, especially near accumulations of organic detritus which
provides a food supply. As they develop juveniles abandon shallows for
deeper pools (i.e., exceeding one and one-half feet in depth) and prefer
those pools associated with good cover (undercut banks, closely
overhanging riparian vegetation, rock boulders, etc.). Juveniles tend to
distribute themselves widely throughout the system in which they are
spawned, often entering smaller tributaries where little or no spawning
habitat exists. Young coho typically feed on terrestrial and aquatic
insects and spend one or more years in fresh water before outmigrating.
In light of these habitat requirements, the lower one and one-half miles
of river is considered "good" coho habitat. The one-quarter mile canyon
is also "good" habitat with the deeper gravel-bottomed pools providin~
spawning habitat. Schools of 10 or more coho were observed in these
canyon pools. The upper one and one-half miles of river is considered
"excellent" coho habitat. Pools, riffles, cover, and, particularly,
rearing habitat are abundant. Spawning gravels are also abundant. The
majority of the coho surveyed were located in the upper valley.
Pink Salmon
The Shaishnikoff River is considered an important pink salmon producer.
From 1978 to 1982 average escapement was 29,250 fish. The 1981 pink
salmon escapement alone was 59,000 fish (Shaul, 1982). The river is
annually surveyed by ADF&G (anadromous fish stream number 302-40-06).
12
0-19
Shaishnikoff River pink salmon spawn from July to October. Outmigration
begins in March, peaks in April-May, and terminates in June. Fyke net
trapping efforts (Appendix D) resulted in catches of pink salmon fry
during peak outmigration in April to as late as mid-June. Fry have been
trapped upstream from the mouth of the river to the base of the canyon, a
distance of approximately 1.5 miles.
Adult pink salmon have been observed spawning from tidewater, upstream to
the head of the canyon (approximately 1.8 miles). At the base of the
canyon an approximate four-foot high waterfall is encountered. This
waterfall spills into a ten-foot deep plunge pool. While adult pink
salmon have been observed in the canyon above this falls, it appears to
represent a discouragement to further upstream migration. At the head of
the canyon, however, a three to four-foot falls and approximate
fifteen-foot bedrock velocity chute blocks further observable pink salmon
upstream migration.
The majority of pink salmon spawning activity occurs within the lower
river reach with minor spawning occurring in the canyon. This river
system does not exhibit a well-defined even-odd year pink salmon cycle.
Strong returns are sporadic and cannot be accurately predicted.
Pinks in the Shaishnikoff River have been observed spawning in mar~inal
habitat (i.e., small patches of gravel between cobble/boulders). Pink
salmon fry emerge and outmigrate almost directly to sea. As such,
riverine rearing habitat, cover, and food source(s) are not required.
Carrying capacity is more directly related to suitable water temperature,
adequate flows, water depths, and spawning gravels. Both the upper and
lower reaches contain "good" to "excellent" pink salmon habitat; however,
it appears that the upper reach is unutilized in terms of pink salmon
production.
Chum Salmon
A chum salmon population exists in the Shaishnikoff River. The population
is estimated to be approximately 200 fish. Chum have been observed
spawning in the sloughs and backwaters in the lower river reach (Griffin,
per. comm.). It is probable that chum upstream migration does not exceed
one mile.
Chum generally spawn from July to October. Fair numbers of outmigrants
have been trapped.at the river mouth during April. Upon emergence, chum
salmon fry outmigrate almost immediately. As with pink salmon, adequate
spawning habitat (not rearing habitat, cover, and food) is the limiting
factor. In fact, chum and pink salmon will hybridize and both will
intertidally spawn.
Do TTy Varden
The Shaishnikoff River/Trail Lake system supports thousands of both
resident and anadromous Dolly Varden. There are three identifiable
populations of Dolly Varden inhabiting this system:
13
0-20
Anadromous Dolly Varden: Sea-run Dollies have been observed conyregating
at the river mouth as early as mid-June. While population estimates are
unavailable, the adult return appears to be substantial. Local residents
state that Dolly Varden up to four pounds are caught recreationally.
Little is known about Dolly Varden movement in the Shaishnikoff River.
Anadromous Dolly Varden have complex migration patterns, including
entering and leaving a fresh water stream several times before spawning
and straying into other streams after spawning. Some of these anadromous
fish are known to overwinter while others outmigrate after spawning.
The lower reach of the Shaishnikoff River below the canyon sustains a
healthy anadromous population. Dolly Varden habitat requirements are
generally similar to those of coho during the juvenile stage. Dolly
Varden fry emerge and move into shallow backwaters initially, but soon
enter riffle areas or runs, especially in the presence of instream cover
such as boulders and undercut banks. They generally prefer faster, more
turbulent rearing areas, especially as yearlings or older juveniles. For
larger juveniles, depth becomes an important consideration. Deep, swift
runs, plunge pools and long riffles with an abundance of large boulders
provide "good" to "excellent" juvenile Dolly Varden habitat. The
juveniles are also found in relatively deep, quiet pools, especially in
the absence of competition from other juvenile salmonids. Juvenile
anadromous Dolly Varden spend from two to three years in fresh water
before outmigrating.
There is an abundance of "good" to "excellent" Dolly Varden habitat in
both the lower and upper Shaishnikoff River. In general, the lower river
contains more turbulent, riffle type habitat with less stable stream
banks. The canyon area contains some riffle/run habitat interspersed with
deeper plunge pools. Large boulders and rock ledges/outcrops represent
the type of rearing habitat available for Dolly Varden in the canyon. The
upper river contains longer riffle/run areas with occasional deeper,
placid pools. The often continuously undercut, stable stream banks,
coupled with habitat in the Burke River, provides an abundance of rearing
habitat in this upper reach.
It is not known if anadromous Dolly Varden migrate through the canyon into
the upper valley. It is suspected that they may, as numerous, large Dolly
Varden (i.e., 40 to 50 em.) have been observed in these upper pools in
early April (presumably overwintering in these deeper areas) and have
vacated these pools by mid-June (presumably having outmigrated). As many
as thirty of these large fish were observed schooling in a single pool.
The upper one and one-half miles of river is considered "excellent" Dolly
Varden habitat, owing particularly to the abundance of rearing habitat.
River-Resident Dolly Varden: Trapping efforts resulted in catches of
juvenile Dolly Varden throughout the entire length of the Shaishnikoff
River, the Burke River and Trail Lake and its tributaries. While the
proportion of anadromous to resident juveniles is unknown, it is suspected
that resident fish inhabit both rivers. The bulk of this resident
population may inhabit the upper river reach (above the canyon) as sixty
percent of the juveniles trapped were from this area. The range of
juvenile fork le~gths (2.7 to 14.4 cm) indicate that from 0 to 3 age class
14
D-21
fish were trapped. Dolly Varden emerge at about 2.5 cm in length and are
anywhere from 10 to 20 cm long at age 3. Mortality rate after age 5+ is
high.
Lake-Resident Dolly Varden: An unknown number of Dolly Varden inhabit
Tral I Lake. ThlS populatlon is completely isolated (lOO-foot falls at
lake outlet) from the river stocks. It appears that these fish congregate
at the lake tributaries, particularly in the main tributary at the head of
the lake. Over 20 percent of all juveniles trapped were from Trail Lake.
The main tributary at the head of the lake provides abundant observable
spawning gravels, cover, depth and flows to support this lake population.
Fork lengths of juveniles trapped in the lake (5.0 to 13.0 cm) were
comparable to those of juveniles trapped in the river system (2.7 to 14.4
cm). In comparison to other juveniles trapped in the river, however,
these lake-resident Dolly Varden were highly colored (brillant pink
spotting with contrasting orange-colored pelvic and pectoral fins).
Fishery resources in the Pyramid Creek drainage are limited. Trapping
efforts, produced one six-inch Dolly Varden and one coast range sculpin.
Fyke net efforts produced no anadromous sa1monids.
The mouth of Pyramid Creek has been cu1verted at an existing road
crossing. One of the two culverts has been blocked, while the other is
partially buried and would pass fish. Ken Griffin (ADFG, Unalaska)
reports that a small run of pink salmon existed in the creek prior to 1978
when a chlorination plant for the town water supply was installed on the
creek and apparently terminated the run. Investigations during September
1983, however, revealed that the run may be returning as several pink
salmon carcasses were observed on the creek banks. There is approximately
one-quarter mile of usable spawning habitat in Pyramid Creek.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Listed or proposed threatened or endangered species for which the FWS has
responsibility are not known to occur in either the Shaishnikoff River of
Pyramid Creek project areas (USDI, 1982). The endangered Aleutian Canada
goose (Branta canadensis 1eucopareia) is found in the Aleutian Islands,
with the only known breed1ng populations occurriny on Bu1dir and Chagulak
Islands. Considering their limited range, no conflicts are anticipated.
The endangered peregrine subspecies Falco peregrinus anatum has not been
sighted in the Aleutians (Benfield, pers. comm.). .
A bald eagle nest, containing actively nestin~ adults during the 1981
nesting season, is located within 900 feet to the west of the proposed
transmission line corridor at river mile 1.5 and additional bald eagles
have been sighted on the cliffs on the southwest side of Trail Lake (as
well as a tentative sighting of Peale's peregrine falcon).
A rare plant species (Calamalrostis crassitlUmiS) has been found in a few
localities of Kodiak and Una aska Islands Murray, 1980). It is not known
whether C. crassiglumis inhabits the project area. While it is a species
of concern, It 1S not protected by the Endangered Species Act.
15
0-22
IV. Major Project Impacts
Terrestrial Habitat
It is estimated that, as proposed, project construction would eliminate
approximately 12 acres of predominantly upland tundra-willow/alder
habitat. Transmission line installation would disrupt an estimated five
acres and the Trail Lake Impoundment an additional 15 acres, bringing the
total loss/disruption of terrestrial habitats to approximately 32 acres
(Table 2).
Disruption and loss of stream bank/riparian vegetation would be of
concern, considering the potential for erosion and siltation. The loss of
the riparian fringe surrounding Trail Lake and its tributaries as a result
of lake impoundment and regular lake level fluctuation during
hydroelectric operation would result in a continuous strip of denuded,
barren ground. Dolly Varden lake habitat (undercut banks, riparian cover,
and shallow lakeshore zone) would be degraded.
Table 2. Terrestrial Habitat Loss/Disruption as a Result of Project
Construction.
Project Feature Estimated Acreage
Access Road (3.32 miles)
Road Shoulders (overburden sidecasting)
Dam Site (includes penstock, spillway and powerhouse)
Overburden Disposal (dam site and storage areas
Transmission Line (3.32 miles)
Trail Lake Impoundment
TOTAL:
Mammals
4
4
2
2
5
15
~
Terrestrial mammal use in the river valley is minimal. Red fox would be
expected to be displaced during the construction phase, but would probably
return. A small amount of small furbearer habitat in the alpine meadow
areas would be eliminated as a result of access road construction. Of
greater concern would be the elimination of an estimated 15 acres of
alpine meadow habitat at the head of Trail Lake as a result of lake
impoundment. Numerous criss-crossing runs, indicating the presence of
small rodents, were observed during lake surveys in this meadow. These
small furbearers represent a food source for the rap tors such as those
observed in the cliffs above the lake.
16
0-23
Birds
The majority of birds, with the exception of raptors, are ground nesters
or nest in willow/alder shrubs. Some disruption as a result of
construction activities (noise) would be expected. After construction,
these impacts would cease.
Unless construction activities are carefully planned and timed, nesting
raptors could be impacted. Construction activities (blasting, heavy
equipment use, etc.) in the vicinity of nesting bald eagles may cause
abandonment or destruction of the nest. Improper transmission line and
support pole design can cause electrocution of bald eagles and other
raptors and large birds.
A secondary impact to rap tors at Trail Lake involves the loss of a fOOd
source due to the flooding of microtine habitat in the alpine meadow at
the head of the lake. Further investigations and observations of this
predator/prey relationship would be required to identify the extent of
th i s impact.
Fish
There are three general areas of concern with this hydroelectric
development proposal as related to Shaishnikoff River/Trail Lake fishery
resources: (l) the impoundment and water surface level fluctuation of
Trail Lake; (2) that portion of the river in the vicinity of the
dam/powerhouse; and(3) erosion/siltation as a result of construction
act ivit ies. .......,
As previously noted, the impoundment of Trail Lake would degrade/eliminate
lake-resident Dolly Varden habitat. The bulk of Dolly Varden spawning and
rearing activity is suspected to occur in the main tributary at the head
of the lake. Raising the lake level an estimated five feet, with daily
fluctuations of two to three feet, would flood this tributary an estimated
one-quarter mile, eliminating many of the continuous stable, grassy
undercut banks which are important cover for rearing juveniles. Water
depths would fluctuate in relation to lake levels, making it difficult for
a new riparian vegetative fringe to develop. In addition, flows over
spawning gravels would be reduced thereby degrading the value of spawning
habitat. The overall effect of these lake alterations would result in an
unstable aquatic system, which over time would regain some stability.
The discharge of water from the powerhouse tailrace {estimated velocity of
3 fps} would create a flume expected to alter the inmediate downstream
river reach. This reach is considered IIgood" to lIexcellent ll Dolly Varden
and coho salmon habitat. The erosion/movement of gravels from spawning
beds, river channel alterations, stream bank erosion/slumping, and
supersaturated dissolved atmospheric gases (gas bubble disease) are all
potential impacts. The tailrace is presently designed as a
trapezoidal-shaped channel lined on the channel bottom with rock cobble
without the benefit of a plunge pool to reduce plume velocities. Reiser
and Bjornn (1979) list the average maximum water velocity for successful
coho spawning at 2.5 fps, which is below the currently designed flume
velocity. Spawning coho have been observed in the pools below the
17
D-24
proposed powerhouse site. If the receiving waters do not slow flume
velocities below the point of successful spawning, it appears that a
portion of the coho spawning habitat would be lost. The installation of a
plunge pool in the tailrace would ensure this does not happen.
Water temperature alterations as a result of a five foot lake impoundment
are not expected to be substantial. Work performed at the Terror Lake
hydroelectric project on Kodiak Island indicates that there is less than
one-half degree Centigrade (C) temperature difference between the water
surface and the -6 foot level. Changes in water temperature at the
powerhouse of less than one-half degree C are anticipated. Mixing of
water downstream would help to rectify any slight difference in water
temperatures.
Instream construction activities (six tributary crossings, overburden
clearing and disposal at the lake outlet for dam construction, etc.) are
expected to introduce sediments into the river system, especially
considering the amount of rainfall this area receives. An estimated two
acres of overburden, consistiny of loose, dark· brown silts and silty sands
overlain with a tundra mat, would be excavated to bedrock (five to seven
feet deep) for dam construction. Degradation of downstream spawning
gravels, mortalities to incubating eggs and rearing fish, and in general,
the lowering of the quality of fishery habitat could result; however, as
sedimentation decreases, habitat quality would improve as the river
returned to its pre-project condition.
Finally, instream flows are not expected to alter substantially as the
project is designed as run-of-river. Post-project flows below the lake
outlet will actually increase somewhat and, it is expected, become more
stable. Higher flows would be accomodated by the overflow spillway at the
dam site. Provided adequate flows are maintained at the lake outlet
during dam construction, lake impoundment, and operation and maintenance,
dewatering of fishery habitat would not occur.
V. Discussion
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts
In accordance with the Fish and Wildlife ~Iitigation Policy (FR Vol. 46,
No. 15), evaluation species were identified for the purpose of
establishing resource categories and mitigation planning goals. Two
species of salmonids (Dolly Varden and coho) and the raptors in the
vicinity of Trail Lake have been selected as the evaluation species for
the Unalaska small hydropower project.
Coho salmon are not common to Unalaska Island. A recent aerial and foot
survey of the Island reveals that only two streams (out of 116 surveyed)
contain runs of coho (Holmes, 1982). The Shaishnikoff River is only the
third system on Unalaska Island known to support coho. Due to their
limited distribution and the potential for impacts to observed coho
spawning habitat near the dam site, coho were selected as an evaluation
species with a deSignated resource category of two (2). The mitigation
planning goal for category two is no net loss of in-kind habitat value.
18
0-25
Dolly Varden and raptors were selected as evaluation species due to
potential for habitat loss/degradation as a result of the impoundment and
fluctuation of Trail Lake, as previously described. Based on available
field data, the habitat of these evaluation species is medium to low value
in the project area and relatively abundant. Accordingly the designated
resource category is four (4) with a mitigation planning goal to minimize
the loss of habitat value.
There are three areas of impacts inherent with the hydroelectric
development of the Shaishnikoff River:
1. Terrestrial Habitat: The loss of approximately 17 acres of
predomlnantly upland tundra will result from the stripping and
wasting of overburden for the construction of project features. In
addition, the inundation of 15 acres of alpine meadow at the head of
the lake will eliminate observed microtine habitat, resulting in
secondary impacts to red fox and raptors through the partial
elimination of their food source. An undetermined area of riparian
habitat fringing Trail Lake and its tributaries will additionally be
lost. It is estimated that in excess of 30 acres of terrestrial
habitat will be impacted and/or permanently displaced.
2. Water uality: The introduction of sedime~ts into the Shaishnikoff
lver urlng dam, powerhouse, and access road construction, even with
best management practices, is unavoidable. While increased
sedimentation will be short-term (during and shortly after
construction), degradation of Dolly Varden and coho salmon spawning
and rearing habitat in the upper river reach will result.
3. Impoundment of Trail Lake: The resident Dolly Varden population in
Trall Lake wli I lose spawning and rearing habitat. While this
population has not been fully described, trapping efforts indicate
that fair numbers of comparably-sized fish to those trapped in the
river system inhabit the lake.
It is felt that water quality impacts described above can be mimimized
through proper project design and construction. The installation of a
silt screen at the dam/powerhouse site will help trap excessive
sediments. A silt screen which would retain sediments of a grain size
larger than 0.05 millimeters (mm) (course silt) would be adequate.
Trapped sediments would have to be periodically removed and disposed in a
contained upland site. Aligning the tailrace channel as closely as
possible to the natural river channel to reduce opposite bank scour and
downstream erosion would help to reduce siltation. The incorporation of a
plunge pool into the tailrace design would reduce plume velocities
(estimated to be 3 fps) entering the Shaishnikoff River. Loose earth and
rock are vulnerable to the erosive action of flowing water and may scour
severely at velocities as low as two or three fps. If these three
measures (silt screen, plunge pool, tailrace alignment) are incorporated
as project features, water quality impacts will be minimized and
effectively mitigated.
Design changes during project planning and recommended measures such as
revegetating road shoulders and other disturbed areas have satisfactorily
mitigated for terrestrial habitat losses.
19
0-26
The extent of adverse impacts associated with the impoundment of Trail
Lake is not a significant concern based upon existing limited surveys. A
detailed survey of Trail Lake is needed to better quantify aquatic and
terrestrial habitat resources. If. upon further study. it is determined
that these resources are found to be of more importance and,
correspondingly, are elevated to a higher resource category. the
development and implementation of additional mitigation measures will be
necessary.
Except for the inundation and fluctuation of Trail Lake, impacts of
hydroelectric development on the Shaishnikoff River appear to be
short-term in nature. The effects of sedimentation/turuidity during
construction represents an environmental concern. Best management
practices during clearing operations (particularly at the dam site) should
be utilized. Stream bank encroachment should be minimized. Periodic
on-site inspections by FWS and CE biologists during construction would
help to assess the effectiveness of these best management practices.
The maintenance of adequate stream flow during dam construction and
reservoir inundation is critical to the viability of the downstream
fishery. Emergency release values, side-channel spillway, and other such
devices are measures to insure the passage of adequate water flow.
Tennant (1975) considers 60 percent or more of average annual flow to be
"optimum" for the maintenance of fishery resources. As derived from CE
1981 monthly flow data at the outlet of Trail Lake (Appendix C) this
translates into a flow of approximately 25 cfs. It is not antiCipated
that reservoir inundation would require more than one month. As
recommended by ADF&G, inundation between mid-June and the first of August
would result in minimiziny conflicts with anadromous fish.
A disruptive feature associated with this proposal is the construction of
a 3.32-mile permanent access road up the Shaishnikoff River valley. While
the original access road has been realigned, extensive earth moving,
installation of culverts for tributary crossings, and the hauling of
gravel for roadbed construction would still be required. Extensive
benching would be necessary to accomodate an acess road along a steep
slope adjacent to the Shaishnikoff River at river mile 1.8. A quarry site
and disposal site(s) for large quantities of overburden ~ould need to be
located. Roadbed construction represents a potential source of
sedimentation/turbidity. Road maintenance and potential conflicts with
use by local residents also need to be considered. To help facilitate
access, heavy equipment could be prestaged prior to breakup. The use of
helicopters could also augment accessibility.
The timing of some construction activities (particularly blasting) needs
to be carefully coordinated to avoid conflicts with nesting birds. The
bald eagle nest at river mile 1.5 would be particularly susceptible to
blasting and heavy equipment use during nesting periods. The bald eagle
is classified as endangered in the contiguous United States, but is not on
"the endangered list for Alaska. The bald eagle is protected by the Bald
Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-688d) an the fvligratory Bird Treaty Act
(16 U.S.C. 703-711). The colony of bank swallows, a migratory bird, at
the river mouth is also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
20
0-27
New information indicating the presence of currently threatened or
endangered species administered by the FWS, or the listing of new species
which might be affected by the proposed project would require initiation
of the Section 7 consultation process.
There are no impacts associated with the Pyramid Creek hydroelectric site,
as proposed, which would require mitigation. No in-river work or water
diversion is proposed. It is felt that this proposal offers public
benefit at a minimum expense with no apparent environmental conflict.
Recent investigations (Griffin, ADF&G, pers. comm.) indicate that pink
salmon are beginning to re-establish themselves in the lower river reach
which will not be affected by this proposal.
Enhancement Opportunities
The following assessment of enhancement opportunities in relation to the
hydroelectric development of the Shaishnikoff River is based on the
following premises:
1. The upper one and one-half miles of the Shaishnikoff River contains an
abundance of suitable spawning habitat which is underuti1ized in terms
of fish production; and
2. The introduction of pink salmon into this upper reach would enhance
Shaishnikoff River fishery resources and benefit the commercial
fishery.
Assessment of the Upper Shaishnikoff River as Pink Salmon Spawning Uabitat
In evaluating the upper one and one-half miles of river as potential pink
sa Imon spawning habitat, the fo Howing parameters were examined: water
temperature, water depth, water velocity, and substrate composition. A
considerable amount of research has been performed regarding the habitat
requirements for the successful spawning of pink salmon. Table 3.
provides a comparative overview of pink salmon spawning requirements.
A comparison of the parameters in Table 3. to those measured in the 10wer
and upper reaches of the Shaishnikoff River (Table 4.) indicates that the
upper one-and-one half miles could provide viable pink salmon spawning
habitat. ,Water temperature warms to 8.0°C in July at the beginniny of
pink salmon spawning. Both water depth and gravel size lie within the
acceptable range of pink salmon spawning requirements. Water velocity
measurements for June 1982 averaged 0.53 meters/second em/sec) which lies
midway in the range 0.21 to 1.01 m/sec for pink salmon given by Reiser and
Bjornn (1979). It is expected that water velocity decreases somewhat
during July-August-September when actual spawning occurs; average monthly
discharge at the lake outlet decreases from 76.11 cubic feet per second
(cfs) in June to 33.01 cfs in July and then increases again to 50.49 cfs
in October. Additional water velocity measurements during this period
would be useful. Compared to the lower river reach, which supported an
average escapement of almost 30,000 pink salmon between 1979 and 1982,
these spawning parameters for the upper reach are quite similar.
21
0-28
N
N
o
I
N
1.0
Table 3. ptnk SalMOn Spawning Requirements
Parameter Source of Infonaatlon
Reiser and Bjornn 11979)
Water Temperature 7.2 -12.8
ICen!fgrade)
Water Depth 0.15 -0.53
(Meters)
Water Veloctty 21 -101
(Centtmeters/Second)
Gravel She
(Centimeters)
McNetl and Batley
7.2 -12.8
0.15.Int_
60
1.2 -15.2
0973) AUf&G 0981-1 Bell (1973)
7.2 -18 7.2 -15.5
0.09 -1.2 0.45
10 -132 69
0.6 -3.8 1.2 -5.0
Table 4. Telllperature. Depth. Flow. and Gravel She Measurements Through Spawntng Beds
for the Upper and lower Reaches of the Shatshnlkoff River!!
Parameter
Water Temperature
(Centigrade)
Water Depth
(Meters)
Water Velocity
(Centimeters/Second)
June: 4.9
0.15 -0.60
June: 49.0
Gravel She 601 Gravel: 0.05-0.8
June: 4.9
0.15 -0.72
June: 60.0
70S Gravel: 0.02-0.7
June: 5.6 June: 5.7
0.15 -0.46 0.15 -0.56
June 64.0 June: 5.1.0
lOS Gravel: 0.15-0,55 601 Gravel: 0.Ol-0.6
June: 5.3
July: 8.0
August: 10.0
June: 4l.0
(Centieters) 401 Sand lOi Sand 60S Cobble: 0.55-10.0 Occasional Cobble to 15.0
101 Sand 30S-401 Sand
Dtssolved Oxygen 12.3 12.l 12 12.1 12
(mg/I)
!! Based on cross sectfon prof ties and CE hydrologtca} data. Upper Reach: One and one-half miles above canyon area. lower Reach: One and one-half miles below canyon area.
Estimation of Potential Pink Salmon Spawning Habitat in the Upper
Shaishnikoff River
The following estimate of potential pink salmon spawning habitat in the
upper one and one-half miles of the Shaishnikoff River and subsequent
estimate of pink salmon production are based on stream surveys conducted
in 1981 and 1982, cross-sectional profiles across gravel bars in the upper
and lower reaches of the river, escapement observations, and a compilation
of literature.
I. Useable Spawniny Area (Square meters) (m 2 )
1. Stream Length
2. Length of ttlapped Spawniny Grave 1 s
(see Stream Survey, Appendix E)
3. Stream Width Useable for Spawning
4. Useable Spawning Area
II. Physical Dimensions of Pink Redds
Researcher
Wells and McNeil (1970)
McNeil and Bailey (1973)
Be 11 (1973)
Hourston and MacKinnon (1957)
III.Area Required Per Spawning Female
Researcher
Hourston and MacKinnon (1957)
Blackett (per. comm.)
McNeil and Bailey (1973)
ADF&G (1981b)
IV. Total Number of Female Spawnersl/
Area (m2l = 10.900 = 12,674 Females
Female (liZ) 0.86
Mean:
~Iean:
2,414 m
1,090 m
10 m (average)
10,900 m2 (2.05 acres)
Dimension (m2)
0.6 -0.9
1.0
0.63
0.60
O. 75 m~
Dimension (m2)
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.83
'O:'Bb Fema 1 e/m2
V. Total Pink Salmon Spawners: 12,674 x 2 = 25,348
lIAssumes 1:1 sex ratio
23
0-30
Value to Commercial Fishery
Parent-year escapement/adult return relationships for Shaishnikoff River
pink salmon are not well known. Strength of returns can vary dramatically
from ~ear to year. This relationship during years of high return can be
10:1, whereas during years of low return, this relationship can be less
than 1:1 (Shaul, ADF&GF, pers. comm.).
Harvest/escapement relationships for Shaishnikoff River pink salmon,
however, can be derived from statistical harvest records. Between 1979
and 1983, the average harvest/escapement r.atio for Shaishnikoff River pink
salmon was 1.5:1 (Table 5). Thus, for every pink salmon returning to
spawn during this 4-year period, an average of 1.5 pink salmon were
harvested in the Unalaska Bay salmon fishery. This translates into
approximately 43,000 Shaishnikoff River pink salmon commercially harvested
each year.
Table 5. Unalaska Bay Pink Salmon Harvest/Escapement Statistics
(1979-1982) •
Year Numbers of Fish Approximate Value to Fishermen
1979 512,000 $720,000
1980 554,000 600,000
1981 238,000 320,000
1982 551,000 330,000
Shaishnikoff River Percent of Total Unalaska Bay
Pink Salmon Escapement Pink Salmon Escapement
(Numbers of Fish) Prodticed by the Shaishnikoff River
1979 18,000 6
1980 14,000 5
1981 59,000 36
1982 26,000 5
Source: Shaul, ADF&G, 1982
Applying this harvest/escapement relationship to the potential 25,000 pink
salmon spawners in the 10,900 square meters of available spawning habitat
in the upper Sahishnikoff River, an additional 37,500 fish would be
available for harvest. This would nearly double the existing production.
The 1981 price/pound for Unalaska pink salmon was $0.415 with an average
pink salmon weighing 3.6 pounds (ADF&G, 1981c). This results in the price
of $1.494/fish. Thus, the 37,500 additional pink salmon available for
harvest through enhancement represents a commercial value of $56,025/year
to fishermen.
24
0-31
Combining the commercial value of pink salmon potentially pro~uce~ in the
lower river ($64,000/year), the total commercial value of Shalshnlkoff
River pink salmoF would exceed $120,OOO/year duri~g an average return
year. Comparing this to the total Unalaska Bay plnk salmon narvest
between 1979 and 1982 (an average harvest of 463,750 fish with an average
annual commercial value of $542,500) reveals that the Shaishnikoff River,
through enhancement, could produce approximately one-fifth of all pink
salmon harvested in Unalaska Bay.
Approximately ten purse seiners typically fish for pink salmon in
Captain's Bay each season. Additionally, there are several fish camps
with commercial set net sites on the bay which catch pink coho, and
sockeye. An unknown number of subsistence set nets are a~so utilized in
the bay.
Finally, considering that the price of pink salmon is likely to increase
in future years, the estimated value of pink salmon realized as a result
of enhancement in today's dollars will correspondingly increase.
Alternative Enhancement Methods
Alaska Steeppass Ziemer (1962) describes in detail a sectional,
prefabricated, lightweight, portable, corrosion resistant steeppass
fishway used for passing upstream migratiny salmon over low head barriers
which, to date, has been successfully installed in excess of twenty
anadromous streams from Southeastern Alaska to Sand Point in the Shumagin
Islands. There are currently eight steeppass facilities on Afognak Island
alone passing 165,000 salmon with an ex-vessel dollar value of $400,000
(Probasco, 1982). The most succe.sful steeppass facili~y in Alaska lies
on the Frazer River, Kodiak Island, which passed over 400,000 sockeye in
1980 (Blackett, per. comm.). .
There are two locations on the Shaishnikoff River where the installation
of a fishway could facilitate passage of pink salmon into the upper one
and one-half miles of river (see photos, Appendix F). Barrier #1 would
require one to two ten-foot sections and barrier #2 probably three
ten-foot sections. Cost of materials would approximate $15,000
($2,000/ten-feet constructed in Anchorage). labor, however, would
increase this cost significantly. It is estimated that the entire initial
enhancement would cost $100,000.
Table 6. provides the benefit/cost estimates for steeppass installation.
These prefabricated units are portable and can be installed by a small
crew of workers.
Table 6. Benef1t/Cos~ Ratio £st1 .. tes for Steeppass Installation.
Sha1shnikoff RiYer 11
Senefits Cast SIC Ratio
$56.000 $100,000 9.0:1
Including Operation and Ma'intenance of $10.000/10 years:
$56.000 $100,000 6.2: J
11 Discount rate of 7.875S oyer a 50-year project life.
25 D-32
Provided the steeppass facilities are anchored securely (often bolted into
a bedrock channel) and designed for high flows, maintenance is expected to
be minimal. The Shaishnikoff River valley is treeless and, therefore, log
jams/ obstructions, which often plague steeppass facilities in forested
areas, is not a concern. An annual inspection prior to pink salmon
migration (i.e., June) is anticipated.
Blastini to Form Step Pools: Blasting to form bedrock resting pools and
to ellmlnate small falls and velocity chutes is a possible alternative to
steeppass installation. For example, Laura Creek on Afognak Island has
been extensively blasted to remove rock barriers in conjunction with
fishway installation. Evans (1972) describes some common blasting methods
and ADF&G personnel (Fishery Rehabilitation and Enhancement Division,
Kodiak) have applied this method successfully at Afognak Island.
Additional geologic and hydrologic investigations would be needed to
determine the feasibility of blasting as a method of improving
Shaishnikoff River pink salmon production. This method does have the
advantage of remaining relatively maintenance free.
Other Structural Methods
Reeves and Roelofs (1982) describe various structural techniques which
could be utilized to pass fish. Rock-filled gabions to provide
stair-stepping might prove applicable to the Shaishnikoff River. Other
structures such as rock and log sills could also potentially be utilized.
These structures, however, would require varying degrees of maintenance.
Blackett suggests that a combination of step-pooling with a portable, gas
driven rock drill to reduce the height and gradient of the falls at both
barriers #1 and #2 and installation of vinyl-coated, cement-lined gabions
to break up water velocities in the velocity chute at barrier #2 may
facilitate pink salmon passage. Rock-filled gabions are inexpensive
(i.e., $40 for a 3 x 3 x 6 foot gabion) and can be installed permanently
with galvanized pipe drilled into bedrock. Initial enhancement and annual
maintenance costs would be expected to be minimal. Corresponding
benefit/cost ratio (cost of $50,000) would be 13.9:1. This technique
appears to be the most cost-effective and maintenance-free means of
accomplishing enhancement.
The single-largest environmental issue associated with this project is
potential for the enhancement of pink salmon production in the up~er one
and one-half miles of the Shaishnikoff River. The timing of this
enhancement proposal appears to be compatible with project implementation
in that it would take several years for a pink salmon run to establish
itself in the upper river, during which time river stability would return
to pre-project conditions. In a recent survey over ten streams on
Unalaska Island have tentatively been identified as potentials for
steeppass installation/barrier removal to open up historically unutilized
spawning habitat (Holmes, 1982). The Shaishnikoff River appears to be
suitable for such improvements.
An example of a successful project similar to the potential increase of
pink salmon production in the Shaishnikoff River is a 45 ft steeppass
installed in 1977 in Portage River on north Afognak Island. The Portage
26 0-33
River steeppass (over a 9 ft falls) has increased pink salmon average
annual escapement from 18~232 (1968 through 1977) to 50,250 (1978 through
1981) (Probasco~ 1982). Similarly, the Seal Bay Creek steeppass on
Afognak Island increased by 30.5% pink salmon spawning habitat in an area
previously unuti1ized (McDaniel, 1981). By comparison, the Shaishnikoff
River average annual escapement of 29~250 (1979-1982) could potentially be
increased by 25,000 fish, thus increasing the total escapement to over
50,000 pink salmon.
VI. FWS Recommendations
Project Design
A. The tailrace be aligned as closely as possible to parallel the
natural river channel in order to reduce opposite bank scouring and
downstream erosion. Reduction of tailrace water velocities through
the installation of a permanent plunge pool (eg. reinforced concrete)
in the tailrace channel is recommended to further minimize erosion
and protect downstream fishery resources.
B. The transmission line be raptor-proofed to minimize the possibility
of accidental electrocution. DeSign suggestions for minimiziny this
potential impact can be obtained from the Edison Electric Institute
Raptor Research Foundation publication, Suggested Practices for
Raptor Protection on Powerlines, the State of the Art in 1~81, Raptor
Research Report #4, Onlversity of Mlnnesota.
C. All tributary crossings be adequately culverted and desiyned to pass
high water flows.
D. Further field studies to determine the value of the habitat impacted
by the inundation and fluctuation of Trail Lake are recomnlended to
assess the magnitude of impacts and determine if additional
mitigation measures are warranted.
1. Survey of Trail Lake to determine Dolly Varden standiny
stock and microtine populations impacted by reservoir
impoundment.
2. Confirmation of raptor nesting in the cliffs above Trail
Lake.
Project Construction
A. A minimum flow of 25 cfs (60% of average annual flow) at the outlet
of Trail Lake be reserved for downstream fishery resources during dam
construction and reservoir impoundment. Reservoir impoundment should
occur during a period from mid-June to the first of August.
B. A siltscreen, designed and maintained to retain sediments entering
the Shaishnikoff River, be installed at the dam/powerhouse site
duriny construction to minimize downstreanl siltation. Sediments
should be periodically removed and disposed in a contained upland
site.
27 0-34
-
C. Overburden disposal take place no closer than 200-feet from the
Shaishnikoff River or its tributaries. Spoil mounds should be
contoured and seeded to prevent erosion.
D. If the bald eagle nest at river mile 1.5 is found to be active the
year project construction would commence, no blasting or heavy
equipment use between April 1 and August 15 within a one-half mile
radius of the nest be permitted and no construction be allowed within
a 300-feet radius of the nest.
E. The CE fund periodic on-site monit9ring by FWS and CE biologists to
assess the effectiveness of best management practices and mitigative
measures during project construction.
Enhancement
A. Measures to eliminate impasses to pink salmon upstream migration in
order to increase pink salmon production in the Shaishnikoff River be
incorporated as project features and a sponsor identified. The use
of blasting to form step-spools and the installation of gabions where
necessary appear to be the most cost-effective and maintenance-free
means of accomplishing enhancement. This enhancement plan should be
developed prior to commencement of construction and must have the
full concurrence of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Post-Project Construction
A post-construction surveillance and monitoring program be estabished
to assess the effectiveness of the enhancement plan and mitigation
measures and to provide recommendations for further improvement.
28
0-35
Literature Cited
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1981a. Freshwater habitat relationships,
pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), Habitat Protection Section,
Resourcement Assessment Branch. 41 pp.
• 1981b. Memorandum to Habitat Division Supervisors from John Clark,
---~De-p-uty Director, Habitat Division. Subject: Value of a spawning area.
May 22, 1982. Ip.
----.;r::"'I"'=" .• 1981c. Finfisheries Annual Report, Alaska Peninsula -Aleutian
Islands areas. Arnold R. Shaul. 68 pp.
Amundsen, C.C. 1972. Plant Eclogy of Amchitka Island. Final Report.
Battelle Institute, BMI-171-139. Columbus, Ohio. 27 pp.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. 1981. An investigation of
the feasibility of constructing a spawning channel at the Tyee Lake
hydroelectric project. Anchorage, Alaska. 32 pp.
Bell M.C. 1973. Fisheri~s handbook of engineering requirements and
biological criteria: useful factors in life history of most common
species. Portland, OR: Fisheries -Engineering Research Program, Corps
of Engineers, North Pacific Division.
Benfield, D. 1982. Personal communication, Dan Benfield, USFWS, Endan~ered
Species, to David Ferrell, USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska.
Blackett, R.F. 1983. Personal communication, Roger Blackett, ADF&G,
Kodiak, to David Ferrell, USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska.
Crone, R.A. and C.E. Bond. 1976. Life history of coho salmon in Sashin
Creek, Southeast Alaska. Fishery Bulletin: Vol. 74, No.4, pp. 897-923.
Evans, W.A. 1972. Fish nligration and fish passage, a practical guide to
solving fish passage problems. U.S. Forest Service -Region 5. 43 pp.
Ferrell, L. 1983. Personal communication, Linda Ferrell, CE, to David
Ferrell, USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska.
Griffin, K. 1982. Personal communication, Ken Griffin, ADF&G, Unalaska, to
David Ferrell, USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska.
Holmes, P.B. 1982. Aleutian Islands salmon stock assessment study. Special
report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. 82 pp.
Hourston, W.R. and D. MacKinnon. 1957. Use of an artificial spawnin~ channel
by salmon. Trans. Am Fish. Soc. 86:220-230.
McDaniel, T.R. 1931. Evaluation of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) fry
plants at Seal Bay Creek, Afognak Island, Alaska. ADF&G, Info. Leaf.
193:9p.
29
0-36
McNeil, W.J. and J.E. Bailey. 1973. Salmon Rancher1s ~lanual. National ~Iarine
Fisheries Service, NOAA, Auke Bay, Alaska. 95 pp.
Morrow, J.E. 1981. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest
Publishing Co., Anchorage, Alaska. 248 pp.
Murie, O.J. 1959. Fauna of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula. USFWS,
N. Amer. Fauna 61. 407 pp.
Murray, D.F. 1980. Threatened and endangered plants of Alaska. U.S. Dept.
of the Interior. 59 pp.
Northern Technical Services. 1982. Stream guage installation, Dept. of the
Army, Alaska District Corps of Engineers Contract No. DACW85-82-C-000S.
21 pp.
Probasco, P.J. 1982. Afognak Island fish pass maintenance and evaluation.
Annual report for 1981. ADF&G. 22 pp.
Reeves, G.H. and T.D. Roelofs. 1982. Influence of forest and rangeland
management on anadromous fish habitat in western North America.
Rehabilitating and enhancing stream habitat: 2. field applications. U.S.
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Port land, OR. 38 pp. .
Reiser, D.W. and T.C. Bjornn. 1979. Influence of forest and rangeland
management on anadromous fish habitat in western North America. Habitat
requirements of anadromous salmonids. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 54 pp.
Sarvis. J. 1982. Personal communication, John Sarvis, USFWS Refuge t-Ianager,
Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, to David .Ferrell, USFWS,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Shacklette, H.T. 1966. The Aleutian Islands Oceanic Tundra. Address to
Alpine Research Seminar, Boulder, CO. 12/9/66
Shaul, A. 1982. Personal communication, Arnold Shaul, ADF&G, Kodiak, to
David Ferrell, USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska.
Sheridan, W.L. 1979. Production of salmon in relation to fish habitat
enhancement projects. Unpublished U.S. Forest Service report, t<larch 1,
1979, Juneau, Alaska.
Tennant, D.L. 1975. Instream flow regimens for fish and wildlife,
recreational and related environmental resources. USFWS, Billings, t<IT.
30 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1982. Endanyerd and threatened wildlife and
plants. USFWS. 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. 13 pp.
Wells, R.A. and W.J. McNeil. 1970. Effect of quality of spawning bed on
growth and development of pink salmon embryos and alevins. USFWS. Spec.
Sci. Rep. Fish. No. 616. 6 pp.
Ziemer, G.L. 1962. Steeppass fishway development. Info. Leaf. 12. Juneau,
Alaska: ADF&G. 9 pp.
30
0-37
Appendix A
Scientific and Common Names of Fish
and Wildlife Referenced in this Report
Common Name
Fish
Pink salmon
Coho salmon
Chum salmon
Do 11y Varden
Birds
Pea1e 's peregrine falcon
Merlin
Falco co1umbarius
Rough-legged hawk
Marsh hawk
Gyrfalcon
Snowy owl
Short-eared owl
Bald eagle
Raven
Common merganser
Ma 11ard
Anas platyrhynchos
Common snipe
Dipper
Cinclus mexicanus
Belted klngflsher
Bank swallow
Ptarmigan (Rock)
Gray-crowned rosy finch
Lapland longspur
Song sparrow
Common re,dpo 11
Winter wren
Snow buntiny
Mammals
Red fox
Arctic ground squirrel
European hare
31
0-38
Scientific Name
Oncorhynchus ~orbuscha
Oncorhynchus lsutch
Oncorhynchus keta
Salvelinus ma~
Falco peregrinus
Buteo 1agopus
Clrcus cyaneus
Falco rusticolus
Nyctea scandiaca
AS10 f1ammeus
RiTTaeetus leucocepha1us
Corvus corax
Mergus merganser
Gal1inayo ga11inago
Megaceryle alcyon
Rlparla rlparla
Lagopus mutus
Leucosticte tephrocotis
Calcarius la~ponicus
Melosplza me odla
Caraeulis flammea
Troglodytes tro~lodytes
Plectrophenax nlvalis
Vu1pes vUlpes
Cltellus undu1atus
Lepus europaeus
Appendix A (cont'd)
Plants
Beach rye
Fescue
Bluegrass
Sedge
Bluejoint grass
Horsetail
Rush
Crowberry
Wi llow
Alder
Canadian dogwood
Fireweed
Cow parsnip
Marsh marigold
Lowbush cranberry
Bog blueberry
Salmonberry
Sphagnum moss
32
0-39
Elymus spp.
Festuca spp.
Poa spp.
"Cirex spp.
CaTamagrostis canadensis
Equisetum spp.
Luzula spp.
Emletrum nigrum
Sa ix spp.
Alnus spp.
Cornus canadensis
Epilobium angustifolium
Reracleum lanatum
Caltha palustris
Oxycoccus microcarpus
Vacclnium uli~lnosum
Rubus specta611is
Sphagnum spp.
Appendix B
Salmonid Distribution within the Trail Lake/Shaishnikoff River Systeml/
Location Juveniles and Resident Adults Anadromous Adults
Coho Pink Chum Do lly Varden Coho Pink Chum Do lly Varden
Lower Reach ? ++ + ++ ++ ++ + ++
(up to 1 112
miles from
tidewater)
Canyon Area ? + 0 ++ ++ + 0 ?
Upper Reach ? 0 0 ++ ++ 0 0 ?
(1 112 miles
above canyon)
Burke River ? 0 0 ++ ? 0 0 ?
Trail Lake 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0
Key
++ Present and relatively abundant
+ Present, but not abundant
0 Not present
? None sampled, but presence strongly suspected
1/ Based on stream surveys conducted in April 1981 and June and September
1982 and information provided by biologists of ADF&G, Alaska
Peninsula -Aleutian Island Area.
33
0-40
-
Appendix C
Mean Monthly Flow, Shaishnikoff River
At Trail Lake Outlet (1981)1/
Month ~Iean Flow (cfs)
October 50.49
November 38.44
December 29.91
January 33.21
February 31.01
March 22.16
Apri 1 31.19
May 76.81
June 76.11
July 33.01
August 33.21
September 54.58
1/ Source: Corps of Engineers, Hydro1oyy Section
34
0-41
Appendix D. ftsh Salllpltng Catch Results for Shalshntkoff River/Trail Lake near Unalaska. Alaska.
Sampling Locatlon* Salll!!ltng Gear Date S!!ecles Ca2tured NUilber Ca2tured fork Length (CIII' TI.e fished (hrs' Catch Totals
Hne 0.1 fyke Net 4/21/81 Pink Sallllon 273 fry 18 Pink Sal~n: ~90 (fry'
(Near Mouth' ChulII Sal~n 92 fry ChUIII Sal~n: 92 (fry'
Scul!!in 2 Dolly Varden: 29 (28
Juveniles, 1 Adult,
MUe 0.1 fyke Net 6/1/82 ptnk Sall110n 10 fry 10.5 Sculpin: 2
(with 10' wingS)
FhliJng Uforf
MUe 0.5 Minnow Tra!! 6/9/82 £lIptt 46
w Bel~ Canyon: 329 hrs.
\Jl MUe 0.7 Minnow Tra!! 6/9/82 £lIIptt 46.5 Above Canyon: 678 hrs.
Water falls: 156 hrs.
MHe 0.7 -1.4 12 Minnow Traps 4/18/81 Dolly Varden 3 12.0-14.4 120 Trail Lake: 371 hrs,
0 Total: 1.634 hrs. I
4/18)81 .p. MHe 1.5 2 fyke Nets Ptnk Sa I IlIOn 7 fry 40 N
Mile 1.8 Minnow Trap 6/9/82 £1II!!tt 48
Mtle 2.0 fyke Net 4/20/81 Dolly Varden 4.8 44
(Burke River Confluence'
Mile 2.2 Mtnnow Tra!! 6/9/82 Doll,r Varden 1 5.0 47
Htle 2.4 4 Mtnnow Traps 4/20/81 £mptt 176
Mtle 2.4 3 Minnow Traps 6/9/82 0011,r Varden 7 2.7-12.6 90
MHe 2.5 ftke Net 4/20/81 Oolll Varden 1 47.5 (Adult' 45
Mile 2.5 5 Mtnnow Tra!!, 4/20/81 Ool1l Varden 7.0 225
MHe 2.7 Minnow Trap 6/9/82 Dol1l Varden 12.4 51
Mtle 2.8 3 Mlnllow Traps 6/10/82 Dolly Varden 2 6.0 and 12.4 156
(Water Falls'
MI Ie 3.0t 7 Minnow Traps 6/10/82 Dolly Varden 5 5.0-13.0 371
* Sampling locations measured In river IIIlles upstrealll from tidewater
) 1
"
Appendix E
Upper
Shaishnikoff River
Stream Survey
The following stream survey is a compilation of three field investigations:
April 1981; June 1982; and September 1982. The survey begins at Trail Lake
and continues downstream to the canyon area (approximately 1.5 miles).
Corresponding photographs are found in Appendix F. Scale is approximately 1" = 315 1
• River miles are measured upstream beginning from the river mouth at
tidewater.
Key to Riverine Habitat Types:
f(:':If.. ~~~
-* -Good Spawning Gravels
r==:-:l U -Riffle Areas
-Rap; ds
36 0-43
y
In [V E rs MIL E : 2.51
....-; ____ '::t:.:S:I_ANo.
D-44
37
AT L~\'-.e. CUTl..E.T I"" «I"":":, V:""!"'E=-n~M~1 ':"'"L'='E-: 2,-S-'
\
S~e.AM <;'Uo,~:vlii:'1
SHA\~1'\N\"'O;:~ ~\\Jeft...
~O\"ES: \.V'~"'M JAd.\£'S. t:LDtA.
~ -\~ P'\, RLi='o='l..tI.~" "'Ni>tc..Aw.."/
u:s.ca ,,"fIIoioJ 11"\ aEV. Du:...f'lS.~O"'A'Poo,-I.IJ~ NU~U~ Oou..'f \JAif)~,J.
R'\JiU. G«A~Ie....rr L.OW.i ~\\.lIiiL ""~I .. U:':lIi.2..S.
~«ouc.~ '"nu"!:> 'PoL'T'lo..J ~ -n.I.~ VAu.e.'1.
~'T'I:.E.AM SPII'V~c;. ,,~C AN C
S'M"Ii!:.I....&.. E"""~T c.ol-lO ~Ae.ITA\.
S""t"'ll:::.e~M. Suit.Je.Y
5\-\p..\~~~\ \<.ot=~ ~'''E2..
tUo,-iLS. ~ !e\\oI'Iiioo2. c:;,&A~\e.N"'\
l,.Jt.AIii~~ l:.."'t' e~ .. lIt~ ~\\je.2-
c:...M.I~IW~. e.1JW«.. 1J"1!.e.auJ~
~NC:::. e.tF'F1.e J RAPtI);' ~.
MD'1t.e -r4PI~'-. ~\"ect...Def"\\t'S.
~ a.s:: "'11) l.() t.I\ \oJ l-n.\ ttt.A'i:I~~\..
ca::t P f"ooL..... Oou. '/ VAIUWia....J
c:...a .... MmJ.
\
111 'V E R MIL E : 2.0 \
,-+-----c..c.;.\'C ~Au"\t:>N S.PAw~ \~ e:,. C 'S.E.~'\~~. \c!'~z..)
......... 1:------~M ... t.c:H ... <;. ~OuCi' DQu..'i VAfl.fl .. rl (S'O-i.oUC.M)
(PI,",PRO,)(, ~o ;:"'i.roi)
0-45
38
ST1taA"", ~u.~e.'1
S~A.S."'-.I~"-Dpr", te\\J e It.
Ncrres: ae\ye..t. s..iT'sli!.'1 A.,
sraaP-\OJ lit ""'-1ie. CAN "41»J l!.ot.1 "t"W -
u.uJ ..... .J A ~~. ~ ... I:I.'f ~IC.QP.
~N iII¥¥At:.EM"T" VSl..l.':t..A'T"'I ~"'1"'6
"'~~ 'i=A\.L..c:. (_') I'Le'II • ...r'\~ __ I
Rl~ UPsrGiIr'M MlC'::r&lfT\ON
oJi. ?ltV"-~l.MON. Muc..'" X
1Cl"Si...t&W \~ Dm£.IX.K. W I."'T"~
~~U; 11:A'\D~ II\J""tIMSPli'QS.e~
uJ L -n+ b.w Po .......
I Block "'2 I
I n I v E n MILE 1.e I ... < __ ~I~+\ S,-",t..'I<. r..ve...oc:..\'·r~ UiI..tTE ~
lM.~'i..\
lJ,.."" .... o(!---Lu .. i\rT", rf p".,,)\<.. s.A,-,""oJ U~M
o.P P'CIO'-""""~ M\6rIiI'''''n0'!J ~~::::::::=.:::;::.:;...,,. ...... !~ I .. t ___ p...)", ~ ~tJEa ~_,\~'Z.j
;c-~
.... ;e
*-J<itr
~
39 D-46
y
/""E----(!.c)~ s'AI.r'\DI\l CPAWlJ'W'J'"
(S."~IM. I \C,Y1.)
<C)
~ __ ~ M. '::A\..\..~ Lo,:::.c.a..atA~N"'i "'t"'O
PIN~ 'SAI..MBN UP~MiI\ Mf(stA'n~).
r~---Cowo ~AI.I-WN SPAI.OAJIIJI!D (.r~lt.ll'\tZ,~
-.... f I t< IVEt< M I LE:1.5 I . : -: ! 1"..1>(, SAI.I'IoIJ CA~C.A= oN 6 ... "",
€'I~' S.AI..I"'\~ :;PA~IN& U~'SettvleC
( Ff:.a)A. Mt;~ \U ~\le(" ~ )
CAh'Au,J'~ 6A~
\.. '!> 1"\ \ I-e:. ~
.40 0-47
~'TR..eA'M ~i.v6\(
S+l~~titV\"'o,,:,:: te,.,Je..'L .
Ncrre:s : )' .,J \(;.. 'S.AI..M.O....l A,f.:e.
.,..~~ NU~"(..AU.'i Do""'I~f\N\
S.Pet..\6 T='t..ItM \.loeC:: 'TO -r'!-\6
R.\vEit. HOu;n-\ ~"T" CAPT"AnJ'-s.
BA"I: f"J \<-os Af.e 'T'f 4' I c..A'W.. "/
~Iol~ IN ~1S R.lFI=I..e. A(sA'S.
p..,..l b CD \io IN -ni e C:eeP€'«.. ftOlS .
Appendix F
Photographs of Fish Migrational Barriers
on the Shaishnikoff River
Photograph 1. Looking upstream at barrier #1 at
river mile 1.5. This 3 to 4-foot
bedrock falls is a discouragement
to further pink salmon upstream
--........... .,..
Photograph 2.
migration. (April 1981)
Looking upstream at barrier #2 at
river mile 1.8. This 3-foot falls
and 15-foot bedroCK velocity chute
terminates further pink salmon
upstream migration. (April 1981)
41 0-48
MAMMALS
'-".~.'III~ • .,_ ........ , __ .,;_ .. tI""""#i .. 'HY~
;;:;!C':'::~1,,:,;:;::!:::,.~~:;.;,,:.,::::.:,~I!:y
FIGURE 6
SHAISHNIKOF RIVER
HABITAT MAP
SILL SHEFFIELD. GOVERNOR
", , , l 4:37 E. Street
.," ~. -... / ~ SECOND FLOOR , ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501
/ (907) 274-2533 DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
'-LH
P.O. BOX 515 /. D , KODIAK. ALASKA 99615 SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE
(907) 486-3350
P.O. BOX 1207 CJ SOLDOTNA. ALASKA~
(907) 262-5210
Apri 1 22, 1983 P.O. BOX 1709 CJ VALDEZ. ALASKA 99686
(907} 835-4698
P.O. BOX 1064
Col. Neil Saling
District Engineer
A1aska District
CJ WASILLA. ALASKA 99687
(907) 376-5038
Corps of Engineers
Pouch 898
Anchorage, Alaska 99506
Dear Col. Saling:
A revi ew has been completed by the Department of Envi ronmenta 1
Conservation of the proposed Unalaska Hydropower Project, Coordi-
nation Act Report by the Fish & Wildlife Service. We support
the recanmendations and miti gation measures as outl ined by the
Fish & Wildlife Service. Our major concerns deal with water
qua 11 ty related to the project deve 1 opment and operat ion. In
addition to potential downstream temperature changes or fluctua-
tions, we are concerned with possible turbidity induced by the
project in terms of suspended sediment changes and bedscour.
During the construction phase, turbidity would be of special
concern related to gravel borrow and spoil sites as well as stream
cross; ng or cul vert placement. The el imination of the proposed
road construction could substantially resolve such potential
probl ems.
We have no further comments at this time.
Cordi ally,
~~ .. %-----("~. ---
Bob Martin, P.E.
Regional Supervisor
DW/BM/jfr _____
cc: Robert Bowker, WAES/FW&S ~
Keith Kelton, ADEC . ~ .. ~. -' ' ..
,,> .• "U t 0
iECEI"
0-50
,... .. "!i-,'
-y-""""""""0,",
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
AL.ASKA CISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
POUCH 8118
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA II11S08
April 27, 1983
Environmental Resources Section
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Wester.n Alaska Ecological Services
ATTN: Robert Bowker, Field Supervisor
605 West Fourth Street, Room 6~8l
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Bowker:
APR.2 91983
The Alaska Oist'rict has reviewed the draft Coordination Act
(CA) report for the small hydroelectric project near Unalaska,
Alaska. We would like to commend you on a well written and in-
formative document.
Calculations for the tailrace discharge have been completed
and the discharge velocity would be 2.7 feet per second (fps),
not 10 fps as stated previously. The decreased discharge
velocity should reduce the probability of downstream erosion
and movement of gravels considerably. Stream degradation
caused by the 10 fps tailrace discharge was included as an
impact which, in part, would require mitigation. In order to
inc1 ude passage faci 1 ities as a project feature under
mitigation requirements, justification for the mitigation
measure must be refined. ---
Upon rev; ew of the report it became apparent that addi -
tiona1 field studies are required to refine the impact as-
sessment associated with the change in water surface elevation
of Trail lake. These studies will be coordinated with your
office during the Advanced Engineering and DeSign (AE&D) phase
of the project.
Upon the request of your office, an alternate road design
will be i"ncluded in the feasibility report. The road' alter-
native would remain on the east side of the river and require
no stream crossings.
0-51
-
If we can be of
Mr. John Burns of our
552-2572.
-2-
.-•
further assistance, please contact
Envi ronmenta 1 Resources Secti on at
0-52
.,1.1 SHEFFIELD. GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GA ME 344-0541
May 9, 1983
333 RASI'8ERRY ROAD
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99602
0583-IV-77
Mr. Robert Bowker
Field Supervisor
Western Alaska Ecological Services
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
605 W. 4th Avenue, Room G-81
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Bowker:
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the Draft
Coordination Act Report for the Unalaska Small Hydroelectric Project on the
Shaishnikoff River. We generally concur with your analysis of available
data and your recommendations, except for the specific comments listed
below:
Page 19, V. Potential Adult Return, 1.: The calculations should correctly
show 12,674 females X 1,700 eggs/female = 21.5 X 10 6 eggs, not
12.5 X 10 6 • Also, an adult return of 21,500~ults translates to
10,750 returning females (50%), which is less than the 12,674 females
calculated for full utilization of the spawning area. A continued
iteration of the calculations used in Section V would result in a
steadily decreasing population. A more likely average survival for fry
to adults may be 1.5% (range 1-4%), rather than the 1% used (R.
Blackett, ADF&G, Kodiak, personal communication).
Page 20, Value to Commercial Fishery: In the first paragraph, all 21,500
returning adults are used in the calculations of harvest and commercial
value. If all returning adults are harvested, the population will
decline at an even faster rate than that illustrated by calculations on
page 19. l~e suggest that the report be revised to include information
available from ADF&G on parent-year escapement/adult return
relationships that can be used to predict potential increases in run
size due to the addition of 10,900 square meters of spawning habitat in
the upper river. Harvest figures should be derived from ADF&G
management guidelines for allowable harvest/required escapement.
D-53
Mr. Robert Bowker -2-May 9, 1983
The 1981 escapement of 59,000 pink salmon to the lower 1.8 miles of the
Shaishni koff River suggests that more than 21,500 adults coul d be
produced by the additional 1.5 miles of potential spawning area
upstream of the present migration barriers.
Page 21, Alaska Steeppass: Considerable blasting, jackhammer use, and other
rock work would be required to install fishpasses on the Shaisnikoff
River, therefore the estimate of $40,000 is probably much too low for
deSign, construction, and installation.
Page 25, II. Project Construction, A.: We suggest that full river flow
should be maintained during emergence and migration of salmon fry and
smolt. Reservoir impoundment should occur during a period from
mid-June to the first of August, rather than May -June.
We support your recommendations that p1 ans for a permanent road to the
project area be abandoned, and that a transmission line/bulldozer trail be
aligned along the east side of the Shaishnikoff River valley to avoid
multiple stream crossings.
ADF&G also supports enhancement proposals to increase pink salmon production'
in the Shaishnikoff River, in order to compensate for habitat losses in the .~
reservoir inundation area. We recognize, however, that the hydroelectric
project as proposed should not impose long-term adverse affects on eXisting
salmon populations in the Shaishnikoff River, and that proposed stream
improvements in the lower river do not comprise in-kind mitigation.
We appreCiate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Coordination Act
Report. If you have any further questions, please contact Denby Lloyd
(267-2333) or Kim Sundberg (267-2334).
Si ncere1y,
Don W. Colli"sworth
Comissioner
/1 .. / . <v~.-1.fi~1
BY: Denby s-: Lloyd ,~
Habitat Biologist
Region IV
Habitat Division
0-54
APPENDIX E
REPORT RECIPIENT~ AND PERTINENT
CORRESPONDENCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXHIBIT
NO.
lo
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Report Recipients
Ltr from City of Unalaska, Ak, City Manager, dtd 28 August 1980.
Ltr from State of Alaska, Division of Parks, dtd 12 March 1981.
Ltr from U.S. Dept of Interior, dtd 23 April 1982.
Ltr from State of Alaska, Division of Parks, dtd 1 September 1983.
Ltr from Heritage Worth, dtd 25 November 1983.
Ltr from State of Alaska, Office of Management and Budget,
dtd 25 March 1983.
Ltr from Dept of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease
Control, dtd 28 December 1983.
Ltr from U.S. Dept of Interior, dtd 4 January 1984.
Ltr from State of Alaska, Division of Government Coordination,
dtd 5 January 1984.
Ltr from Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration,
dtd 6 January 1984.
Ltr from Dept of Housing and Urban Develop, dtd 9 January 1984.
Ltr from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dtd 9 January 1984.
Ltr from U.S. Dept of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Admin, dtd 10 January 1984.
Ltr from State of Alaska, Dept of Fish and Game, dtd 19 January 1984.
Ltr from City of Unalaska, AK, City Manager, dtd 24 January 1984.
Ltr from City of Unalaska, AK, City Manager, dtd 15 February 1984.
Ltr from Federal Energy Regulatory Commision, dtd 2 April 1984.
Ltr from Alaska Power Authority, dtd 31 May 1984.
E-1
REPORT RECIPIENTS
Federal AgenCies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Director, Office of Ecology and Conservation, NOAA, Department of Commerce
Department of Energy, Division of NEPA Affairs
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Advisor on Environmental Quality
Federal Emergency Management Administration
Department of Health and Human Services
Director, Office of Environmental Project Review, Department of Interior
Deputy Assistant, Secretary for the Environment
Office of the Chief of Engineers, Civil Works Programs
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
Director, Alaska Operations Office, Environmental Protection Agency
Director, Alaska Region, National Weather Service
Regional Director, Department of Housing and Urban Development
Commander/Director, U.S. Army CRREL, Hanover, New Hampshire
Commander/Director, U.S. Army CRREL, Fairbanks, Alaska
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation
National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska
National Park Service, Juneau, Alaska
Soil Conservation Service
Area Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Field Supervisor, WAES, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service
National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, Alaska
Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, Alaska
Director, Anchorage Field Office, National Ocean Survey
Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resource Division
Alaska Resources Library
U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration
Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors
The Honorable Ted Stevens, United States Senate
The Honorable Frank Murkowski, United States Senate
The Honorable Don Young, United States House of Representatives
Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office
State Agencies
Executive Director, Alaska Power Authority
Director, Division of Strategic Planning
Director, Division of Governmental Coordination
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Commissioner, Department of Community and Regional Affairs
Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land and Water Management,
Southcentral District
Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska
E-2
-
Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Dutch Harbor
Coordinator, Office of Coastal Management
Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation
Department of Environmental Conservation, Southcentra1 Regional Office
Commissioner, Department of Commerce and Economic Development
Department of Natural Resources, Uivision of Parks
Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office
The Honorable Bill Sheffield, Governor
Alaska State Library
Alaska Historical Library
Organizations
Alaska Conservation Society
Kodiak-Aleutian Chapter
Anchorage Audubon Society
Library, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska
Library, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska
Director, Institute of Water Resources, University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
Alaska
Arctic Information and Data Center
State Representatives, Friends of the Earth
Alaska Native Foundation
Alaska Center for the Environment
The Wildlife Society
General Manager, Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative
Fifth District Planning and Development Commission, Pierre, South Dakota
Local
Honorable William Fisher, Mayor
Jack Aderson, Manager, Unalaska Electric Utility
Ronald Anderson, City Council Member
Franklin J. and Betty Arriaga, Marine Construction and Engineers
Emil W. Berikoff
Glenn P. Boledovich, Media Division, City of Unalaska
Lee Bowman
Russell Buck
Glenda Martin Currier, City Clerk
Jeff Currier, Director of Public Works
Mr. and Mrs. J. DeBakker,CHy Planning Commission
Suzi Dengler
Abi Dickson
Dan Dunaway
Arne Erickson, Planning Director
Lear N. Fellows
Charles Gasta
Jeannette Gaul, Ounalashka Corporation
Benjamin J. Golodoff
J. P. Goforth, The Aleutian Eagle
K. Grimnes, Ouna1ashka Corporation
Pete Hendrickson
Stan Holmes, City Council Member
Ray Hudson
Frank Kelty
E-3
Darrell W. Langley, Superintendent, Department
of Public Works
Elizabeth Manfred, City Council Member
John Marnik, City Planning Commission
Jurate Mazeika, Parks and Recreation Director
Del Olsen
Barbara Rankin, City Treasurer
D. Ruth Shaishnikoff
Nancy Steres
Samuel and Gertrude Svarny
Gail Tharpe, KIW-TV, KIAL-AM Radio
Sherry Thompson, City Council Member
Leonard E. Wasserman
Persenia Whittern, City Council Member
E-4
-
EXHIBIT 1 (cont.)
CITY OF UNALASKA
/-
P.O. BOX 89
U~ALASKA. ALASKA 99685
581-1251
"Capita~ Ob tlte uHeuHOIt!,t
August 28, 1980
Colonel Lee R. Nunn
District Engineer
Alaska District Corps of Engineers
P.o. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Dear Colonel Nunn:
The City of Unalaska is presently undertaking a staff study of the
feasibility of expanding our municipal electric utility in
accordance with the recommendations contained in a 1979 study
commissioned by the City. In brief, we are working on upgrading
o\~ diesel generation capacity to expand service areas with the
intention of using this new capacity, eventually, for peak power '
requirements only, relying upon hydroelectric power for base
capacity. Since, however, the electric utility is subsidized
from the City's General Fund revenue, it would be some time
before the preliminary engineering feasibility studies of specific
hydro sites could be undertaken from internal City sources.
From a telephone conversation with Mr. Loren Baxter of your
staff, I understand that the Corps 'has authorization to invest-
igate certain sites in Alaska with a view towards determining
their feasibility for hydroelectric generation. I also under-
stand that among those sites is Shaisniknoff Creek on Unalaska
Island. The City of Unalaska would be very interested in the
results of any investigations that your office could undert.ake
regarding this import.ant. wat.er resource. We are prepared t.o
extend our every cooperation to you, including periodic data
collection on st.ream guage stations.
We look forward to an associat.ion with the Corps on this
worthwhile project.
EXHIBIT 2
JAY S. HA .... OND, GOVERNOR
DEPABTMEBlT OF lV&I'UBAI, RESOIJIl(zs
DIVISION tW ItA ..
tn, WAREHOUSE DR •• SUITE 270
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501
PHONE: 27"""'"6
March 12. 1981
Re: 1130-2-1
Alaska District Corps of ,Engineers
EnviroIDllental Section
P. o. Box 7002
Anchorage. Alaska 99510
At tn: Mr. William Lloyd
Subject: Proposed Hydro Projects on UDalaska Island
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
We have reviewed the subject proposal and would like to offer the
following comments:
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
Our review indicates that significant cultural resources maybe impacted.
Specifically, AHRS site II UNL-09l may be adversly disturbed by construc-
tion of the powerhouse at site 112. Construction at site 11 may impact
AHRS site II UNL-042, or one or more currently unlocated sites. There-
fore, per 36 CFR 800, a preconstruction cultural resources survey is
recOmmended. If there are any questions c tact Dilliplane of
this office. /
bert D. Shaw
State Historic Preservation Officer
STATE PARK Pt.ANNING
The proposed action is consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management
Program's recreation standard.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND GRANT PROGRAM
No comment.
Sincerely,
~~~-,,// /\~';rlI';.'/-~ L;~~ I -Chip Dennerle1n
,. Director EXHI BIT 3
CD:mlb
1Q.J11LH
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPLY REFER TO:
WAES
Colonel Lee R. Nunn
District Engineer
Alaska District
Corps of Engineers
P.O'. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska
Dear Colonel Nunn:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVIGE
1011 E. TUDOR RD.
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503
(907) 276-3800 .
99510
23 APR 1982
Re: Small Hydropower
Unalaska, Alaska
This is in reference to your request,for our determination regarding the
occurrence of any listed threatened or endangered species, or species
proposed foriisting, and their critical habitat at the alternate project
locations of Pyramid Creek and the Shaishnikof Riv~r at Unalaska, Alaska.
Please be advised that no listed or proposed threatened or endangered
species for which the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has responsibility
are known to occur in the project areas. You may, therefore, conclude
that the proposed projects will have no effect on those species and that
formal Section 7 consultation with the FWS and preparation of a biological
assessment is not re~uired.
Protection of some species of threatened and endangered marine mammals is
the responsibility of the National.Marine Fisheries Service. There are
eight species of endangered whales occurring in Alaskan waters: blue,
sei, fin, black right, bowhead, sperm, gray, and humpback. To determine
the potential effects on those species, inquiries should be directed to
that agency.
New information indicating the presence of currently listed threatened or
endangered species administered by the FWS, or the listing of neW species
which might be affected by the proposed projects will require reinitiation
of the consultation process.
If further information is required, please contact the Western Alaska
Ecological Services Field Office at 271-4575.
~relY, //
~/J?(~
"'stant Regional Director
cc: FWS-ROES, WAES
NMFS, ADF&G, Anchorage
EXHIBIT 4
BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMElIT OP lI.DUIAI, 1IES01l1l«ZS
DlwaION 01' ItA"
819 WAREHOUSE AVE., SUITE 210
ANCHORAGE. ~LASKA 99501
PHONE; C90n 276-2653
100J11LH
September 1, 1983
Re: 3130-1 (CaE)
Mr. Harlan E. Moore, Chief
Engineering Division
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Environmental Resources Section
Pouch 898
Anchorage, Alaska 99506
Dear Mr. tfoore:
Thank you for the report entitled Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Un-
alaska Hydropower Projects by Julia Steele, District Archaeologist.
We concur with tl8. Steele's recollllendationa. Although there may be consi-
derable disturbance at the mouth of Pyramid Creek, it is entirely possible
that intact resources may remain UDder fill or, in particular, UDder the crab
pots. Hence, we agree that systematic testing is highly desirable if this
alternative is selected.
In the ShaishDikof River mouth area, there appear to be several significant
archaeological sites. Ms. Steele's reconnaissance level survey was not able
to determine their extent. Prior to transmission line placement, these areas
should be systematically tested so the line can be routed aroUnd the sites as
necessary.
Could you please in£oca us of the status of this project? Please feel free to
contact U8 if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Neil C. JohamLsen
Director
'-J r #-; ! ~~!J "'<~t~ ~i--
By: Ty L. D~lipiane J' 7
.~IState Historic Preservation Officer
TAB: elk
ALASKA STATE PARK'S
Let's Put Them on the Map!
EXHIBIT 5
HERITAGE I\CIRTH
38011 _ OfUVE • NICHOIIABE, AI.ASI<A II950J • (1101) 2'.'2114
Gul. Neil ~aling, DisLrlct Engineer
II.S. ~rll'Y COI'VS of !;'nglneera
Pouch 591l
Anchorage, AlhHka 99506
lJ",or Col. SaIl nl, Ue: Unalaska lIydropowtlI'
Interim Study
A rcv lew has Leen completed by lIel'itaee Ijorth of tI,e Um~la8ka
draft lIyd1'opowel' lnterl", !teport and support for the report's
recoUlII.endntlonfl nnel analYSis Is granted. llowever, J hAve aome
Concern D regarding (jec t Ion E, Hlatol'lcAI/Archaeologlcal
lle8ource>l.
lihlle the brief overview Is wall written and accurate there
Is no ,,,entlor, of tl.e State Historic l'reaervatlon Glftcer's
co .... uents refardlng cultural reSOlll'Ct! Impact In his letter to
the Corpe dnted /4nrct. 12, 1981 Which is contained In Appendix
D of the draft report. I don't think Ute Corps clln In good
faith delete or not tAltc Into account the text or Its uleanlng
01' the afol'e mentioned letter In the flnsl report; that there
Hre slgnl flcan t cultural resollrces that u.ay be iulpacted by
future hydropower nct tv 1 ty.
,\t the very lenet, a stl'teOien t retard InF iii proposed and/or
planned cuI tural resource survey shOll Id be included In section
I:: of ~he flnnl report. Preferably, I' cuI tural reSOUl'ce survey
s),ollld be conductad to ~auj>;e the vlllue of historiC sites and
the su,'vey res1I1 to be Included in the final report.
~'hankyou for this opportunity to comment on this draft report.
:Jlncerely,
U"l~~t~
lit stuI'I An
A professional reconnaissance level cultural resources survey of the
project area .as perfonned as requested by the State "Istorlc
Preservation Officer and required by federal law. This report Is now
Included as an appendix to the docuaent. The report recommends further
extensive survey of portions of the powerllne alignments If the project
goes forward In order to avoid possible IMPacts to significant cultural
resources.
..
m >< :::r: ......
to ......
-l
OIA3ttlH
~¥&¥[ @~ ~~m£~~ /
•• "(;B .Il 'l'UB ..aVBRNOR
OfFICI OF MANAOIMINT AND BUDOET
IlII/1S1ON Of GOVERNMENTAl COOAIlINATION
Colonel Neil Sailing
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Pouch 898
Anchorage, AK 99506
Dear Mr. Sailingl -
November 25, 1983
The Division of Governmental Coordination «DGCI received
the Peasibility Report and supporting information
you 8ubmitted for our advisory consistency review under
Section 307«c' «2' of the Pederal Coastal lone Management
Act as per 15 CPR 930 Subpart C on Nov~er 21, 1983. We
have titled your projsct, Unala8ka Hydropower Feasibility
Report Draft.
State 1.0. No. AK831123-34 has been aeeigned to your
project. Please refer to this nu~r in sny future
reference to the project.
Appropriate materiale have been dietributed to partici-
pante in the Alasta Coastal Management Program for their
review and commente. The review ca..ent period ie eched-
uled to end 30 daye from the date of thie letter. The
State finding will be ieeued ae aoon ae poee~ble after
that date.
Thank you for your cooperation in thie review procee8.
8a/l193
Encl08ure
Dorothy Doughe
Project Reviewer
_.25, '98J
(II 1Ir. J.~ 1Io ... tn.". Depor_nt 0' T" • .,....totlon ..... " .. II. , .. llItI ••• Anchor ...
lU'1 1Ir. Cr •••• h'or". Anchoro.. '.
!2GI 1Ir .... lutt., Depor_nt 0' Natur.1 lIo_rca .......... ..
,'SI) 1Ir. Joe Cta_ •• Dopar_t 0' EMir_tal _ ..... tlon ...........
(2561 1Ir. Jom C'.rk, Doport ... t 0' fhl> .. d C_ ...... ...
In,) Tho _ •• bl •• 1I1t .. flol>or, .... I •• ka
Un) .... ~ ... 110 .. , Dep.rt •• t ., T ........ rt.tton •• d Publl. focIIlU ........... .
,58t) 1Ir. Aglloo ... _r, Anchoro ..
Jl02l11lr. Carlton Laird, Dop •• loont 0' Co_rca .... u.-Ic Do •• I_t, ...... _
("0) 1Ir .... "'rtl., Depor_t ., En.1 r .... t.1 eon .... otlon. Anchoro ••
12'1) .... 010 ..... ,.r. orrl .. 0' __ t •• " ...... t. _
IISS) 1Ir. Crt, "ot .... 01111 .......
121') 1Ir. Ilchord Spillor. Dopor_t .r c-..nlt1 •• d 110,10001 Arroln, .........
11711 1Ir. L .... Truk" Dopor_nt 0' flo" .... C-, Anchor.
[ZOO) 1Ir. Ire .1 ...... ". Dop.r_t 0' C:-It~ ond 1Io,lon.1 Arroln • .-. ..
• I .
)
"~J-.""'" :'
I ............. -------------------------------------Clnt ... lor DiN." Contlo.
fMEN' Of IlEAL'" .. tlUMAN SERVICES Public HuUh Se""'/;t
Colooel Mell I. Sellnl
Alaake Dtetrlet, Corpa of 10110e.ra
Pouch 898
Aoehorele, Aleek. 99~06
A,'on,> GA 30333
Ve heve eo.pleted our review of tha Draft S .. ll Hydropower lotari. 'aa.lbillt,
Report .nd Invlrooaaot.l Iapeet Steteaant (lIS), Unale.ka, Ala.ke. Ve .r.
reapoodina DO behalf of the U.S. Public Health Servlca.
1. to dete, there h.e oot bean a for .. l publlc .eetln, DO tbe alectrlcal
leaeretioo alternetlvae for the Uoalaaka area. It wea ooted, howevar, tbat
publlc .. etl0la ere plaooad befora a floel docuaaot ta prep.r.d. Publlc
partlclp.tloo ia • vital part of aoy proJact which .. , lapact upon tba
public'. well belo,. Wa raco ... od thet publle offlciala aDd COOauaara io
Unalaaka b. ,l.ao .vary opportunity to reylew end coaaant DO the propo.ad
project prlor to ao, daclalon .. klol'
Z. aelelnl tha laka .urfaee elavetloo by 3 feet with the run-of-rlver altaroatlYe
would elter ao UOkOOVD e.ouot of lake frlo.e habltet throu.b 10undatlon eod
lake level fluetuatloo. Kow.var, tba Draft 115 doaa oot eddraae tbe potenttal
lapact thl ... , h ••• upoo locel .oaqulto vector populetlooa. Wa raeo ... od
thet the '10.1 119 dlecuaa the curraot .aaqulto probl •• , poteDtlel lapacte the
propoaed project would hava upon tble popul.tlon, and plenned attlaetlon
proC!8durea.
l. A querry elta for cooatrvctlo, the hydroelectric fect1ttlea hea ,at to b.
Ideotlfled. We nota that eaveral ,uarry eltee exlat 10 Uoal.eke whlch could
be ua.d for con.tructlon .. terlel. the 'Ioel liS ehould eddreee the u •• of
• peclflc ,u.rrlee ead the .aaocletad lapecta, laeludln. aola., du.~,
traoaportatloD, end water ,uallty, .e w.ll .e, tha propo •• d .1tla.tloa
••• ure ••
4. Th. Stete of Al •• ke le exp.et.d to publleh e r.port 00 aeother .. l power
product loa on Uoel.eke lelend "In the o •• r futur.-(paa. 115-5). Ceotharaal
alteroetlv.a .re not watar reeOurcea r.lated eDd, therefora, .r. not .tudled
by the Corpe of loal0.ere. In vl.w of thl., we bellay. a d.elalon to ialtl.te
conatructlon of en elt.rn.te enerlY .ourea in Un.l.ake be po.tponed uotl1 •
coaperleon la .. da with the propo.ad proJ.ct .nd the upcoatoa I&otheraal
report. The Dr.ft lIS .ddr ••••• aaother .. l .oar., 0.1, ln a.naral ter .. ,
therefore, • aore thorouah coaparlaoo would be d .. lreble ln the 'In.1 lIS.
Alehouah hydropowar 1 •• val1abl •• od f.aalbla .a an .lternata enarl' eourc.
the 10nl~ter. aolutioo to the depeodeoc. DO foa.il fu.l. ebould be raviaved'io
det.n •
....,
>< :r::: ......
to ......
--I
00
1. A public meeting was hel~ at Unalaska on 10 January ,1984. Refer to the
Public Involvement Sectlon'for a summarization.
Z. Inquiry has been made with three federal government health serylces to
learn If a local mosquito vector population exists In the Unalaska area.
Apparently, there has not been In the past or present a mosquito problem
and In view of the proposed project, potential mosquito population
Increases should not occur.
l. Construction materials required for the hydropower project could be
obtained froo either of two existing quarry sites, one site located on
the Pyra.ld Creek road and the other site In the Dutch Harbor vicinity.
All associated Impacts will be of minor temporary consequence •
4. He are continuing to coordinate with the Alaska Power Authority re-
garding the flnd~ngs of their geother.a1 studies.
Page 2 -Colonel Neil E. Saling
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this Draft EIS. We would
appreciate receiving a copy of the final document when it becomes available.
If you should have questions regarding our comments, please contact Mr. Ken
Holt of our staff at (404) 452-4161 or FTS 236-4161.
Sincerely yours,
..L~.A.~..-.:. r: I ~ .. c:r t"'_/
• LiS~ Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Center for Environmental Health
EXHIBIT 8 (cont.)
United States Department of the ~nterior
ER 83/146!i
OffiCE OF THE SECItETAIlY
P. O. 10& IIIlI
AllIC.'horap. Alub II1II10
Colonel Hell E. Saling. "r.
Dlslrlct Engineer. AI .. ka Dlatnct
Corl'" of Engineera
Pouch 89.
Anchorage. Alaska 99!iO'
Dear Colonel Saling:
.. anuary 4, 1984
In responae 10 your Hovember II. 19n requeat. we have reviewed the Dran
Small Hydropower Interim Feaalblllty Report and Environmental Impact Slate-
ment, Unalaaka, Alaaka. and orrer the foUowlng commenla for your con-
sideration.
GENERAL COMMENTS
I. It la our underatandlnl tbat the propoead enhancement plan can now be III.'
(f'ierally funded. We recommend that the plan. aa outlined In Ihe Flah and
WildUfe Coordination Act Report (CA). be Incorporaled 8a a project teature
an" Ihat the Final Environmental Impact Statemenl (FlUS) be expanded to
Include a detailed dlacuaalon of the enlillneerlng and economic conalderallona
assoclaled with It. We will be pleaaed to provide furlber lecbnlcal aaalatance
as neceasary.
2. There la a need for additional environmental aludlea to determine the value or
Ihe habitat Impacted by the Impoundment of Trail Laka 10 determIne It addi-
tional mitigation meaaurea are warranled. We anticipate further coordInation
wllh you In thla regard durlnl tbe Advanced Enlillneenng and Dealgn (AK'D)
Phase of projecl development.
3. There are known gold occurrencea on Unalaaka latand; one betng on Iha
Makuahln RIver and two othera In cloae proxlmlly to the lown of Unalaaka.
and 10 Ihe Pyramid Creek and Shatahnlkof River hydropower projecl altea.
The aUached data provided by the Bureau of Mlnea IilIve. Information on Ihe
name. numbar of clalma and type of dapoalt. commodity and active year., It a
claim haa been worked. Alao allached la a map denoting the Iocallon of theu
occurrences.
4. The Shalahnlkof River dam alte la In cloee proxlmlly 10 the Makuahln volcano
and, therefore, In an earthquake lone. Any plana ahould Inaure Ihat Ihe 22
foot high. 96 fool long bullreaa dam la reinforced 10 wllhatand Ihe borlaontat
and verllcal mollon cauaed by earthquake acllvlly.
1. C_nt hilS been Incorporated.
2. See response to specIfic c_nt ".
3. C_nt noted.
4. Further design work would be .ccordlng to specifications set forth In
the Corps of Engineers r~ul.tlons.
ITl
>< :::c ......
o;:J ......
-f
"" ~ n
0 :::s
rt
Page! -Colonel Saling -Small Hydropower, Unalaska, Alaska
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
PubliC' Involve!!!ent and Coordination: Response to U.S. Fish and "UdlUe
Sen"lce'a cA Report and RecommendatiOna:
1. Pajle 31.1. Project DesirE.: The DEIS should add res II the FWS recommen-
dlltlon that a plun~ pool e Inatalled In the tailrace channel to reduce dl&-
(!har~ velocities. ThIs wUl minimize erosion and protect downatream flahery
resources.
2. I'all'e 32.11. Project Construction: The Alaaka Department (>f Fish and Game
(AJlFlG) has recommended thAt reservoir hnpoundmpnt occur during s period
from mid-June to the flrat of AUl!'Ust to ml.nil'1lze flahery Impscts, lind the FWS
haa recomm .. nded that a minimum flow of 25 o.f.s. be resenred 'or downatrealD
flahery reSClureeB during dam construction and reservoir Impoundment. These
recommendations should be fullr dhlcuased In thla eectJon.
3, Page 32.111. Enhancement: We reCOlDmend thst the prevtollsly Identified
enhancement plan be Incorporsted as • project feature and be evaluated aa
auch In the FEIS.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL UlPACT STATE~IENT
.,. Page EIS-2. (d) Relllllonshl!5 to Envtronmental Re%ulrements: State: We
recommeml that the State He nat Protection Permtt e Included tn this sec-
tion.
~. Page EIS-li.(5) Pyramid Creek Preasure-Redueln seCC'nd psra-
lI'l"aph: lI'e suggest at e statemen ram ree CleS not support a
fishery ••• • he r .. wrltten. DoUy Varden have been traDped In P"rllmld Creek
and the AJlne: In Unalqka reports thnt a Sl'lall run of pink 6alrnon returned
to the creck In 1983. There Is approximately 0.25 mile of usnble spawning
habitAt In Pyramid Creek. It appesrs that a pink sal""," population Is be-
coming reestablished In this system.
6.. Page EIS-I0. Table 1. Comparative Impact6 of Alternatives; Shalshnlkoft
Rlver/Trall I,ake; VegetatIOn: \\e question tlie estimate that 9 acres of ter-
restn81 vp,etstion would be ellimnated as ststed In Table 1. Refer to page
16, tllble :I of the CA Report for II breakdown, by acres, ot terM!strial
habitat Ion. Fisheries: We suggesI that the h-rm "Mltlgation/Enhlln('el1'ent~
be cha"l'ed 10 "Enhancel'lent" 8S the Increase In pink salmon production hi .
considered an enhancement measure and not out-or-klnd mitigation for 108a ot
Dolly Varllen production •
. 7.
~.
Page EIS-14. (5) QuarrY Site: Thla section states Ihal a quarn' site for
hydroelectrir. Ilevelopment has not been locsted, while P"I1" A-12 (i..3.6.) at
the Technical Analysis states that 8 quarry In the Pvranld Creek valleY
8ppears suitable. We aUII'~st thla be clarlned In the FEIS. .
Page EIS-16. Parsgraph 5: It should be noted that a school of 30 to 40
spawning coho were ob""rved by Corps personnel In Sept"tllber, 1983 In pools
just downstream of the waterfalls 8t the outlet of Trail I,ake.
\
I. As stated In the draft EIS, the tailrace has ~een ~eslon"d to closely
J IIgn te the natura I r her channel to prevent SCl)ur 0'; t"e oppos ttE'
oank. Tt-e "'I>IIIIUIII flow velocity In the tailrace lfouM thEn be 2.7 feet
per second.
2. ThE construction of the project features Ifl1uld not ImpEde the natural
alllOunt of flolf. The raising of the late's Ifater surfacE' elevation by 3
feEt Ifoul~ ~e accomplished In a ",anner as not te ~Isturb any state of thE'
life cycle of either resident or anadrolllOus fish of the Shals"nUof
River. The Alas~a District cannot concur Iflth ralsl~Q the late only frOlll
mid-June to the first of AU!:1USt, but wuld accOll'pllsh the tas~ Iflt""ut
harm tc the fishery.
3. The Corps believes It has adequately I~cl)rpl)rated the en"anceII"ert
plan within the project futures primarily ~UE' to the lot'S Federally
sponsorEd prcgrar.
4. Text has been revised.
5. Text has b .. en revised.
6. VEgEtation: Due to Itlnor changes in the prcjE'ct featllre!, VE'getatlo~
loss reflected In the total $IlOunt of acrE'S has beE'n recalculated, SE'e
EIS-IO, Table I Comparative Impact of Altt'rnatlvEs.
Fisheries: Text has been revised.
7. Ther .. are several existing Qaurry sites In t" .. Uralas~a area ",~Ich
are possiblE' sources for project construction ~ater;als.
8. tioted •
Pitge ~ -Colonel Saling -Small Hydropower, Unalaaka, Alaaka
9. Poge £18-38.(4) Fisheriea. (a) Hydropower, paragraph I. We suggest that
the atatenlent "There doea not appcar 10 be any method 01 direct mitigation
ror Ihe lOllS of (Dolly Varden) spawning habitat because of the nuctuatln,
lake levels ..•. • be deleted from the FinS. Addltlo •• al environmental Itudlel
al Troll l.ake may reveel mltl,atlon meaBures that would offset this loaa.
10.
n.
12.
Page EI8-30. VI. Mltl~atlon: We rer.ommend that this aecllon be retitled
"Enhancement" and lb. It dlscuaa Federal sponsorahlp regarding conatruc-
tlon. operation, and melntenance of the enhancement plan. A aeparate aectlon
II needed on "MIUgatlon" addresslnK auch relource a,..ncy recommendatlona as
Inatallatlon of a plunga pool In the tailrace, timing, minimum flow recommen-
datlona, alit acreen InataUation at the dam site, and other best manaKe_nl
practlcea.
Psge EI8-31. Paragraph 1: We feel thet Ihls paragrsph requires clarification.
The upper 1.5 miles 01 the Shalshnlkoff River could provide spawning habitat
for 25,000 pink salmon. Pascd on ataUatical barvest recorda (11119-1982). a
harveat/eacapement relationship Indlcalea Ihat 31,500 pink lalmon would be
available for harveat by purae selnera un Unalaskl PlY. This represents an
exvesael vllue of $5S,Oli/year (1981 dollara) to commercial fllhermen. Refer-
ring to page 35 and 39 of Appendix A doea not provide the reader with coat
breakdowna and _thoda for accomplishing enhancement. We suggest that the
reader be referred to pagea 21 to 21 01 the CA Report for a dlacusalon ul
enhancement.
APPEHntX A: Technical Analyala, Shatshnlkolt River
Page A-n. Tranamlaalon Line: It waa our understanding during preparation
of the CA Report that fhe franamlsslon line would parallel the accan road
along the valley alopea. and not traverse the valley floor and crosa the
Shalahnlkof River aa depicted In Plate :I, Plan and Pronte. This ahQuld be
Clarified In the FI!lS.
APPENDIX C: 404(b)(I) Bvaluatlon
13. Page C-I.Il.
We appreciate tbe opportunity to comment on the DBI8.
o o
::::I
("t .
Sincerely,
g. The Alaska District does not believe at this tille that further
considerations pertaining to mitigation llleasures lswarranted. Although,
If detailed studies during future Investigations reveal additional
Information, then IIltlgallon discussions between a9~ncles could take place.
10. Text has been revised.
11. Since usable spawning areas and total nuillbers of pink feraale spawners
are all determined by visual observations, guestitaates, and call;uhtlons,
It Is not at all unusu.' to obt.ln • different SUtl! tot.l frOil that of other
researchers, for the occurrence of pink salmon spawners In the Shalshnlkof River.
12. Text has been revised.
Il. Due to the nlture of the 5011 conditions, we have rec~nded I design
feature to Include rlprap, thereby preventing the possibility of continuous
erosion problems.
..,.,
><
:::I: .......
-to n .......
O-i
:J
rt \0 .
3mall "ydrapown, Unalnke, Alaska
The fullowlng Information pertlllnlnif to the known end polontial mineraI re-
aourooll of Ihe study eree Ie pronded by the Pureau of Mines.
I(ardcx number (lIone)-MAS number 0021430004 (deelgneted wllh X4)
Neme: Makuahln River
Clalme: never eteked. loceted by placer occurrence
Commodity: Gold
Yeara: Kr.own IIbout alnce 1907
kardex number (none)-MAS number 00214:10002 (deellll.ted with
Neme, Amakn.k lallUld
Clalme: !. lode
Commodity: Gold
Years: Known about alnne 1907
Kardell 143-008-' MAS number OOUUOOO, (dealgnated with
Name: Pyramid Peak
Clalma, 10. lode
Commod .. y: Oold. Copper
Yeara: 1800, examIned by IISBM personnel In 1845. Vein lound to hllve
ahort atrlke lenrth.
The occurronce. lIated above were never found to be 01 .uftlclent (rade or
quantity to be economIc. There may be .. yet undlBCOvered .urlferoue
quert. velne In the area. The preeance of a granitic batholith and the
hydrotbermal alteration alllOCleted with Ita Intruelon polnta to the likelihood 01
additional mlneralbod aonea In tho area.
A aubaldlary conalderaUon 01 the OBIS waa Ihat 01 the ftOOthermal el\flrlrY
potential aasoclated with Ihe M.kuahln volcano, Attached la • map ahowlng
the location 01 aollatarlc aulfur clalma on the nank 01 the volcano. The
numbe ... lIaslgned to the clalm blocka are Kardell numba.... Theae are cmaa
referenced bclow to the MAS number. Information, auob a. wa. liven wIth
the gold occurrencea la alao UatfKI.
brdex l-MA8 0021430001
Name: Mllkuahln IUId varloua elternatea (aee Itttitched MAS ftle). Theae
clalms were ataked and re.taked by many people 1I'OIII18n to 1813.
Reateked under Kardex Number. ',.,1,7,8,8,10,1', and 13 ..
well. Bech time a new realaklng took pleca the number and Iype
of clelm appeara to heve chltnlled. dependIng on the Intention. or
the owner.. The IIIIIP, however, .howa the IIIneral dlmenalona of
the blocka, ea 01 1878.
Clalm: 28. placer
Commodity: Sulfur
Yeara, orr and on from 1817 to 18U
Kardex 2-
Clall1Ia: 8, placer
Commodity, Sullur
Kardex 4-
Clalma: 58, pieceI'
Commodity: Sullur
)
""':it" ~ -Small lIydropowell'. UlnW881t11l. AI8Sh
lerdex 11-
Clalma: 15. lode
Commodity: Sulfur
Karde. 7-
Claim.: 28. plecer
Commodity: Sulfur
Kltrdell 8-
Clalm.: 28, lode
Commodity: Sulfur
Kard .. 9-
Clalma: 30. lode
Commodity: Sulfur
Xardax 10-.
Clalma, 15, lode
Commodity: Sulfur
Kardex 12-
Clalme: 50, lode
Commodity: Sulfur
Karde:x 13-
Clalma: 8. lode
Commodity: Sulfur
The Bureau of Mlnee pronde. tltla Informallon to a.ldat In the .. aeaament of
the loothermal altematlvo for the Unalaaka community. The Iocatlona of claim
blocka wUl be of critical Imporlance II and wban the limo com •• to build a
road to the fumarole nelda. The Bu .... u of Mlnea. Alnka Field Operation 1
Center. .luneau. would like to receive the final lUIel,.la of the geothermal
enerlY atudy acheduled for completion at the end of 1.8 ••
01·A35LH
-fi-
BILL SHEFFIEW, GOVERNOR .
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
DIVISION OF GOVERMENTAL COORDINATION
Colonel Neil Saling
u.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Pouch 898
Anchorage, AK 99506
Dear Colonel Saling:
January 5, 1984
POUCHAW
JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811
PHONE: (907) 465-3562
SUBJECT: UNALASKA HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY REPORT DRAFT
STATE I.D. NO. AK831123-34
The Division of Governmental Coordination has completed
review of your consistency determination and the support-
ing information on the above proposal pursuant to Sec-
tion 307(c) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act as
per 15 CFR 930, Subpart C.
As currently planned, we agree that the project is consis-
tent to the maximum extent practicable with the Standards
of the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP).
If changes to the original proposal are made during its
implementation, you are required to contact this office to
determine if a review of the revision is necessary.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Region IV has not been
contacted regarding the fisheries management plan referenced
in the report. Prior to finalizing the plans for this
project, please contact the Department.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Dorothy
Douglas at 465-3562.
Thank you for your cooperation with the Alaska Coastal
Management Program.
sn/1414 EXHIBIT 10
•
Department Of Energy
Alaska Power Adminlsualion
P.O.80.!!iO
Juneau, Ala .... 99802
COlonel Neil Saling
Alaaka District Engineer
COrps of Engineers
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage. Alaska 99~10
Dear COlonsl Saling I
January 6. 1904
Thank you for sending the review copy of the COrpa' report on _11
hydro opport .. nitie. at Un.laak.,
The report re~nd_ reder_I euthorization for developaent of the
Pyramid creek press .. re reducing t .. rblne, an adjunct of the unalaska M •
I water .upply eyst ... and a r .. n-of-the-river power developaent On the
Sh.i.hnitof River.
I have reservation. abo .. t eppropriatene.a of Federal developaent of
the.e two project.. They don't involve un ...... l difficulty in deaign and
co .... truetion. they are in a co.t rang .. that .. ho .. ld be flnanc1ble through
non-Fadaral ao .. ree_ lf fea.1billty 1. eatabll.hed. and Federal developaent
would not appear to offer .ignificant advantage to local power con.u.er ••
If the projecta were to proc.ed a. Federal developmenta, the lntere.t
rate pollcie. in the Sept.-bar 1. 1983 Ar.y-Racl ... tlon-Energy agreement
wo .. ld apply. New project. atarting in fT 1984 would c.rry an intereat
rate of 10.75 percent. Applying that rate to the coat data ln your
report. t~e proposed developDent wo .. ld not be ftnancially fe •• 1ble.
fT1 >< :c ......
to ......
-f
I-'
I-'
Sincerely,
RJ.~
Robert J. ero ••
Adainbtretor
}
As directed In the (conomlc and (nv'roomental Principles Ind Guidelines
for Wlter and Rellted land Resources Implementation Studies, the Corps of
(ng'neers Is required to deter.lne economic feas.bllt, using the current
Interest rate of 8-1/8 percent during fiscal year 1984. The cost of
energ, fro. the Sh.15hnlkof h,dropower "ste. would be $0.22 per kilowatt
hour. ·tf 100 percent federall, financed at an Interest rate of 10 75
percent. However, the President and Congress are coslderlng cost ;harlng
proposals which .. , slgnlflcantl, change the amount of Intltlll
construction funds required fro. non-federal Interests. The cost per kwh
for electrlclt, could be higher or lower depending on how the proJect Is
financed b, the non-federal parties and what Interest rate Is paid.
)
/:" \ :·11·' \.. ....... /
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN OEVI<I.OPMENT
MATTL£ RfGIOHAL OffICi
ARCAOf 'LAZAlUllOING. U3IIiI!COHD AV£HU£
MATTLi, WAIIHINGTON l1li10'
Mt:GIOH II
Nell E. Slllng, Colonel
Corps of Engineers
District £nglneer
"lash Dhtrlct
Pouch 898
Anchorage, AK 99506
Dear Colonel Saling:
IN fII."",,, ....... Uh
SUBJECT: Unalaskl. "I~$k. -Draft 5 •• 11 Hydropower lntert. feasibility
Report and £nvlro~ntal I.,act Stlteaent
Our "nchorage Office has reviewed your Report and '-Pact
Stateaent. The ca.ments of the Acting .Inager and the £cono.lst Ire
enclosed for your consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your report and statement.
Enclosure
Sincerely.
y Tlnlno
Reglonll £nvlron.entll Officer
Ca.munlty Planning and
Development Division. lot
A"~AO".·K'I.S
rut ...... o. ............ w ...... utl • AIIK ....... AlMa.
HDIOIilAtlDUK FOB: Rabert C. ScaUa, Director, OfUce of Co_nity Planninll and
Development, SBO, IDe
ATTENTION: BY'ranino, Bellional Environaental Officer, SID, IDe
FBOlh Susan Ohen, "'Ung Hanager, AD. IO.lS ~ 0.)-
SUBJECT. Unalaska, Alaeka
Draft S .. ll Hydropower Interim Feasibility leport and Environmental
Impact State .... nt
The above DEIS haa been reviewed by the Anchoralle Office and our comment a
on the report are contained ln the attached .... 110 by Al Iobln.on, Area !!conOlllat.
HUD has asaisted the con.tructlon of 20 Mutual Help houa1na unita 1n Unalaaka,
and the availability and coat of electricity will have an indirect effect on
these unlta. Howvver, none of the propoaed locationa for tl_ power foclilties
wl11 directly illpact tb .. "e HUD "'8alat"d aniu. The aIIJor ill8uea raieed dudna
tha review rel .. te to ea.e of the projections and forecasta incorporated into
the Feaaibllity leport.
If you have any 1uBstione or need any additional infor-atlon. pleaae
contact' Ken Bowring at 271-4181.
Attachment
RECEIVE.D ·SRO·CPD
.....
N
n o ::s
rt
I'
U.S.~"'Hou"" __ o.""""", AncI"". At .. 0IIk:<0. fIoo,jioo X
10'''C· SIt •• 1liolr ~
~~,~-~~
HEHOII..UiDUII fOIl. kannech B_rin" Envlron .. ental 11(( I.er, 10.lSl
fHUH: I. Allen Robin.on, £eonomlat, 10. ISH .~~
SUBJEct. Unaksk •. ,AJo.ka --Revlev of Uraft Small Hydropover Int.r~ Feaalblli',
Report and Envl[onaental Sta,ement
Thla replie. to ,oor [ .. q .... t of Decf!llbcr 9 lion • ",vbw th. subject
UEl5. 1 vlalted the Dutch .Iorbor ar .. a (or ""arly tva ... , .... voral ,eara a,o
alter the br14S. conm'etln, Dutch lIarbtlr vlth Un .... k. had been bullt.
'fh. Corp. of En,ineen r.port on ... Ile If Indicate •• podtive combined
boneflt-con r.Uo. EconOlllic data .pp"ar adeq .. at. to tI •• ,.ara for which d.ta
ar .. prod4..... 'bellf I.h catch and v.l .. a in Tobl. 1 on 'aae 1 Want down
con_Iderably 1n 1982 and .or. 1n 198J. Th. alanific.nt lncr.aaa project"
for bott"",{lah lOa, occ .. r b .. t It la not a certain thin, ,at. Henca the
population proJactiona .ay ba on the hi,h .14a. Th. Sta,a'a .id-1982 papulattoD
est~te for Unal.aka ",aa 1,922, a dacllna of 22 from the .iol-1981 raported
In the fourth paraaraph on pafl. 12. Finall" tha .nern d_nd proJactions
1n fllur. 4 on paa. 11 .ppear hiah.
Deapita tl.a hazarda of proJecttlll population, "ploy.ent, .nd enera, de .. nd,
tha Ha.U ",dropover deyelop .. ent woul4 probably be more aconomic.1 In tbe lon,
run tl • .,n 011 .... 1 fuel nO\l use4, provld,," dlatributlon coate to a ,eolr.p", .. l1,
d.1v.ra .. _ .. t of customer. ar_ not too hl,h.
As • ftnal note, 'a,e 14 te • r.peat of 'a,e 1) •
The revised data his been incorpor~ted into Table 1 page 1.
remaining ComMents hive been noted.
Your
)
u. s. E N V I RON MEN TAL PRO TEe T ION AGE N C Y
REPLY TO
ATTN .OF, M/S 443
JAN 9 1984
Colonel Neil E. Saling
REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
District Engineer, Alaska District
Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
RE: Unalaska, Alaska, Small Hydropower Draft Interim Feasibility Study
and Environmental Impact Statement
De ar Co lone 1 Sa 1 i ng :
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed its review of the
draft feasibility study and environmental impact statement for the
Unalaska project.
The DEIS adequately addresses and provides environmental mitigation
meas~res for water quality concerns of EPA. It states that construction
impacts a$sociated with the pressure reducing turbine at Pyramid Creek
would be minimal and short-term. With implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures, it also indicates that impacts of constructing the
diversion dam on the Shaishnikof River can be minimized.
We also reviewed the discussion of mitigation of operational impacts,
i.e., installation of a silt screen at the dam/powerhouse to trap
excessive sediments; alignment of the tailrace channel as closely as
possible to the river'S natural channel; and incorporation of a plunge
pool to reduce tailrace velocities. If these project features are
included in the deSign of the Shaishnikof River hydroelectric project, we
expect water quality impacts to be effectively mitigated.
EPA has rated this DEIS LO-l (LO-Lack of objection; l-adequate
information) in accordance with our responsibilities under Section 309 of
the Clean Air Act. .
We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed hydroelectric
deve 1 opment.
wv!bJ
Robert S. Burd
Director, Water Division
EXHIBIT 13
Hydropower and Comprehensive
Depa rtment of the Army
Alaska District, COE
Pouch 898
Anchorage, Alaska 99506
.
Dear Sir (Madam):
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
. NatiDnal Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministratiDn
Washington, ~.C. 20230
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
January 10. 1984
Planning Section
.. ,. .
This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement on the
Una laska • Alaska Draft Small Hydropower Interim Feasibi 1 ity Report and EIS.
Enclos~ are comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide comments which we hope
will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving four copies of
the final environmental impact statement.
S1 ncerely.
,-/k!.+~
Joyce M.· Wood
Chief, Ecology and Conservation Division
Enc 1 osure
JMW:dma
EXHIBH 14
fjlMiVIU. IIW"'1i1il IoliIlP .... VMEIIIT OF COMllliiORCiIi
1I.'I"n.' 1I»c ... .,1c linol ",",oapllarlo "dmlftla'rc(I;io",
NATIONAL OCEAN stRYICE
.... h.n.lan.O,C lOnG
January 5, 1984 N/MBlx5:VLS
TO:
fROM:
SUBJECT:
PPl -Joyce Wo~~". ~ ,r
N -Paul M. Wol it J
DEIS 8311.17 -alast.. Alaska Draft SlIIiIll Hydropower Interlll
feasibility Report and EIS
The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of the Nattonal
Ocean Service's (NOS) responsibility and expertise, and In teras of the I~act
of the proposed let Ion on NOS activities and projects.
Geodetic control survey .onuments laY be located In the proposed project
area. If there Is any planned actlylty which wnl disturb or destroy these .onu-
Ments, NOS requires not less than 90 days' notification In Idvance of such
lettyl ty tn order to plan for their relocation. NOS reco_nds that funding
for this project Includes the cost of any relocation required for NOS
.mnuments. for further Infonnatlon lbout these monuments. please contact
Mr. John Spencer. Chief. National Geodetic lnfonnatlon Branch (N/CGI7), or
Mr. Charles Novak. Chief. Network Nalntenlnce Section IN/CGI62), at 6001
hecutIYe Boulevard. Roekvnle. Maryland 2085l.
(~ ••
A review of e.htlng IIOnuments In Dutch Harbor/Unalaska region has
revealed that none are located In the project area. If In the future
any IIOnllllln1$ are located, the necessary steps· will be taken to Info";' your agency.
• t·«'12LH
.....
U1
/" \, [II " , L" '"
I," \ t ~_: I , LI U _ .,,, '-.:./ d".1
Pt:P~.T'IIt:NT.F FINH ~NPC;~Mt:
January 19, 1984
Colonel Neil E. Saling
U.S. Army Corps of Ingineera
Alaaka District
Pouch 898
Anchorage, Alaaka 99506
Dear Colonel Saling.
J , ,I 1'.0.80,1( :I-lOtIO
.JUNEAU. ALASKA filJ02
/'HONE, /11011 461'4'00
Re, Enhanced rish Paaaage Aasociated with Unalaska Small
Hydropower Project
The Department of Fish and Game IADF,G' reviewed the Draft
Small Hydropower Interilll reasibility Report and
Environ.mental I8lpact StatBlll8nt IBIS' for Unalaska, Alaska,
and provided commenta dated Dece~er 19, 1983 IEnclosure l'
to the State Office of "anagelllent and Budget. In reaponae
to your letter dated Dece~er 20, 1983, we aupport the
addition by the Corpa of Bngineers of an enhancement
project, in conjunction with the hydropower developlIIBnt, to
facilitate fiah pasaage to previoualy inaccesaible apawning
habitat. The U.S. Fiah and Wildlife Service IUSFWS'
conaulted cloaely with Illy ataff in developing the
enhancelllent propoaal outlined in the EIS. We anticipate
that further coordination between the Corpa of Engineers,
usrws, and ADr'G, based upon the plan provided by usrws, can
result in the construction of a valuable enhancBlll8nt
project.
Benefits to be derived frOll! enhanced production of pink
sa IRIOn in the Shahhnikof River should accrue directly to
local commercial fiaheries of Unalaska Island. We believe
tha~ the benefits, as eatimated by the usrws in the
Coordination Act aeport, lIIay well exceed coats incurred in
the enhancement project, thus increasing the overall
benefit/cost ratio of the entire Unalaska hydropower
project. We are encouraged that thia particular hydropower
project lIIay result in a net benefit to fish production.
we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the lIS and to
lend our' support to the associated enhancement project on
the Shaiahnikof River. If you have any specific questions,
Co"oi~el Neil B. Salting -2-January 19, 1984
or reqUire further asaistance in defining appropriate
designs, pleaae contact Denby Lloyd 1261-2333' or Lance
Trasky 1261-2346'.
Sincerely,
cr;;,.-! ~~-~ Don W. Collinsworth t' -COllllllissioner
Enclosure
cc, John Clark, ADriG
Stan Hoberly, ADFiG
Wendy Wolf, OMB
Tilll aUlllfelt, DBC
Dave rerrell, usrws
ME:. .. JRANDUM State of Alaska
10 Wendy Wolf D"I, Oecelllber 19. t98l
St.te-Federil Coordlnitor
'RON:
BY:
Division of Governmentil CoordlMtfon flU NO 118l-IV-242
Office of ManageMent , Budget
Dennis O. I(eho
Deputy COIInlnloner
Departlllent of Fhh and GiMe
Denby S. lloyd 1, .
Kabltat Biologist
Region IV
lI.bltat Division
ULI:PHONf NO; 344-0541
Unllisk. Hydropower
Drift fe.slbility
Report and ElS
SIO AKIIl1l23-34
The AI15k. DepartMent of fish and Gillie (ADF&GI hIS reviewed the Unalask.,
Alaska Draft Small I\ydropower Interl. feasibility Report and EnvlronMentll
J~ct StateMent relelsed by the Corps of Engineers (COE) In November, 1983.
lie generilly concur that the tenutlvely selected plan conSisting of a
run-of-river hydropower facHUy on the Sh.hhnlkof River .nd I pressure
r'lduclng turbine In an e)lhtlng penstock on Pyn.ld Creek will produce
little significant adverse lI .. pact to fhh and wl1dltfe resources In the
area.
We do, however, have SOMe specific comments on the drift feasibility report
and environmental Impact stateMent;
I. pa~e 10, Section 3.1.3: Only four. not five, species of Pacific Silmon .re
In igenous to Onalaskl Island, IS stated later on page (15-15.
2. Pages EIS-30-31, Secdon VI -MIUgatlon: The Corps of Engineers has
Interpreted thlt strel. flllprovelllenis. to IlI1prove fish production In the
Shl1shnlkoff Rher Iccampl hhed during construction of the hydroelectric
project, constitute enhlnCeMent, not .'tlgatlon. We generally concur with
this Interpretation. However, the Departlllent of fish Ind Gallle has not been
forwlly contacted ibout our partlclpltlon In Iny enhlncement pro]iCt, IS
stated In the EIS (page :n). The State of Alaska should not be held
responsible for participating In a project where no written request has been
sent by the Inl tlllor of the proJect.
3.. I/lthln the saMe paragraph, the COE has stated that a proposed enhanceMent
project has the potential of producing an additional 21,000 pink $lImon
eSCIpement, resulting In • possible addition of between $32,000 Ind 37 000
annu •• ly to commercial fisheries In Captains 'ay. The COE does not e)lpilin
the derivation of these estlNte51 moreover. their reference to pages A-l5
and A-l9 does not provide the cost brealdo.n and methods for achieving the
enhancement.
4. The COE esti~tes of benefit fro. the enhancement do not Igree with those
presented by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In Appendix C. fin.'
..
I. Text hIS been revised.
2. Fonaal contact with APF" has occurred since the submittal of the fiS.
l. Text has been revised, the corrected reference pages are 24 and 2S,
of Appendix C.
4. Further coordination between the Corps and Fish and Wtldlife Service
his resulted in an agreement that the escapement could produce 25,000
pink salmon, therefore the DEIS has been revised.
Wendy Wolf -2-December 19, 1983
Coordination Act Report. On page 25 of the CA report the USFWS estimates
that enhancement would provide 10,900 square meters of additional pink
salmon spawning habitat which could support an additional escapement of
25,000 pink salmon. Using harvest/escapement relationships provided by
ADF&G, the USFWS estimates that the increased pink salmon production would
yield an additional $56,025 per year to commercial fisheries.
The Department of Fish and Game has no objection to the project as proposed,
although we believe that the Corps of Engineers should diligently pursue the
potential low-cost fishery enhancement opportunities presented by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service by requesting that a qualified fisheries
enhancement organization participate in the project. This could be
accompl i shed by directing a written request to the Coomi ssioner of the
Department of Fish and Game, or to Delmar Olsen, Hatchery Manager, Unalaska
City Schools, Unalaska, Alaska 99685.
Pursuant to 6 AAC 80.010{b), the ADF&G finds this project to be consistent
with the Standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program.
By copy of this memorandum we are providing the Corps of Engineers with our
comments and recommendations on this project pursuant to the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666e).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
cc:~ Barrows, CaE
T. Rumfelt, DEC
EXHIBIT 15 (cont.)
CITY OF UNALASKA
'0. IIOX at
UNALASKA. ALA$KA _
1101' 1iII1·I2ft
"COpllot,a, I" utfe.ll~.'"
Jilllu"ry 24, 1984
Itvn 113j, Civil eugineer
I.l.'l ... ka Pill!:r tct
Con .. " of Ellqille"I Ii>
Pooch 1198
r,uchor age 1\1: 9950G
Pear ROil:
011 your (.IratI: [(:p)[t tor a ;}mall b)'uro l'l"nt in unulaskol, the
Planning Director alld I hove concern" about lile background
into(D.atiun beinq oltJ and out of uate, Our Ele<:tric Utilit ..
I·tilu.'agcr feel!; all trans,d",,10n8 should be underground and neeui:)
tu be 34.5 I;V to be com1'.ltlbl.J. It aho needs to be <:o"'l,al:i&:.ll" ,
Villi "lawtillluld prouucts,
II ... "l'l'rcciati: yuur attention to the lJOller l\(,edl> ot our COllllnUlllty,
anu if we can be of further assistance, please teol free t~
cuntact UI:.
Report has been revised to ref lect changes In the C_1ft I ty' 5 background
Information. Your suggestion on the undergound trans-Iss Ion line and the
type has been Incorporated Into the project des Ign.
CITY OF UNALASKA
P.o. BOX 89
UNALASKA, ALASKA ~
19071 581·1251
"Cap{taQ 0& the U'Ueutiofls"
UNALASKA, ALASKA
February 15,1984
Colonel Neil E. Saling
District Engineer
Alaska District
Corps of Engineers
Pouch 898
Anchorage, Ak 99506
Dear Colonel saling:
The City of Unalaska has been pleased that the Corps has carried
out its reconnaissance of the hydroelectric potential of Pyramid
Creek and Shaisnikoff River here. Our need for electricity is
growing and .we see those projects as being able to meet a large
part of that need. lV'e would support the construction of
facilities as outlined in your report. We understand both the
present and proposed cost sharing formulas for such projects.
We would be unable to construct the facilities under the
proposed, 100% local funding plan, but our need remains.
1&Sinc rely,
a c ros
Ci t-lanag r
EXHIBIT 17
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20426
~--..
IN REPLY REFER TO:
OEPR-DHL-HBPS
r r ;-
Federal Project ReviP'
Draft Interim Feas.
Colonel Neil E. Saling
District Engineer
Report & El S
Unalaska, Alaska
Alaska District Corps of Engineers
Pouch 898 APR 2 \364
Anchorage, Alaska 99506
Attention: Plan Formulation Section
Dear Colonel Saling:
This is in response to your letter of February 16, 1984, furnishing addi-
tional information for our review of hydropower plans at Unalaska, Alaska.
Your letter stated your reasons why the use of monthly flow data developed from
average monthly flows at Myrtle Creek should be used instead of data based on
Myrtle Creek daily flows.
We agree that derived daily flow duration curves, using Myrtle Creek daily
flow records a~ the hydrologic basis for power studies on the Shaishnikof
River, are not precise enough to constitute the basis for the final design of
the project. However, the use of derived monthly flow duration curves, using
Myrtle Creek monthly flow records, also has limitations. Obviously, it would
be desirable to have daily flow records at the project site. Hopefully, the
stream gage installed in May 1982 will result in records that will better
define the relationship between the flows of Shaishnikof River and Myrtle Creek
or other comparable streams.
As indicated in our letter of December 29, 1983, we believe that the ~1yrtle
Creek monthly flow used must be modified to reflect that some daily flows are
less than the average or minimum monthly flows. Trail Lake and the other two
small lakes in the basin would provide flow regulation which would increase power
generation. However, because of the small amount of additional storage (less
than 300 acre-feet), it would not compensate fully for the difference between
generation projected using monthly flows and that determined with daily flows.
Therefore, after considering the additional information you provided, we
conclude that the Shaishnikof River hydropower development is slightly less than
economically feasible. We would be pleased to provide further cOl11ments following
additional studies that may be undertaken.
~ Sincerely __
/ -, ~, \
/ ./ . . . . . I (, I
\.,\,O A.1)\,\"O-\ ~. C~J\i'0.Q 'l Il.-) \"
~ Lawrence R. Anderson, Director
Office of Electric Power Regulation
EXHIBIT 18
ALA.SKA POWER A.uTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 89501
May 31, 1984
Colonel Neil Saling, District Engineer
Alaska District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Pouch 898
Anchorage, Alaska 99506
Dear Colonel Saling:
Phone: (907) 277·7841
(907) 276-0001
The Alaska Power Authority is currently conducting a reconnaissance
study of energy requirements and alternatives at Unalaska, Alaska.
Alternatives being considered in detail include diesel electric gen-
eration (base case), geothermal energy development, and the two small
hydropower projects (Pyramid Creek and Shaishnikof River) proposed by
the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Upon completion of the reconnaissance
study, the Power Authority will determine which, if any, alternative or
alternatives to the base case appear to provide a more reliable,
economic source of electricity to the power market. A decision to
proceed with development of any of the alternatives will be withheld
pending the outcome of a detailed feasibility study and negotiation of a
power sales agreement with the local utility.
If either or both of the two small hydropower projects proposed by the
Corps prove to be economically feasible and beneficial to the power
market, the Power Authority could use the feasibility study being
performed by the Corps as a basis for recommending state funding partic-
ipation in the design and construction of the project or projects.
State funding would require a legislative appropriation. Consequently,
the Power Authority supports the Corps' of Engineers continued invest-
igation and participation in these hydropower projects.
Sincerely,
~,Il~ La~ Crawford
Executive Director
DDC/LDC/ald
2480/218/D1/F1
EXHI8IT 19
-
APPENDIX F
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
Project BacKgrouna
CULTURAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE
OF UNALASKA HYDROPOwER PROJECTS
The Alaska District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is stuaying the
feasibility of a hyaroelectric system on Unalaska lslana to provide power to
tne city of Unalaska. Two potential power sources, Pyramia Creek ana the
Shaishnikof River, are unaer consiaeration. Both streams run steep, ruggea
courses to the soutnwest of the city. Transmission lines would run parallel
to the stream banks and then next to the road tnat follows the coast to the
city (see map). Exact alinements have not been designed yet.
Aboriginal Backgrouna
People have occupiea the Aleutian IslandS for at least 8,000 years,
possibly longer. Various islanas may have been occupiea and abanaoned many
times thoughout this time span as resources fluctuatea; volcanoes erupted,
or social pressures occurred. However, it is clear that in the past the
rich marine resources of the north Pacific and Bering Seas allowea the
islands to support a fairly dense human population with numbers greater than
toaay. A sophisticatea hunting technology involving highly skilled use of
skin boats enabled the aboriginal peoples to exploit this harsh but rich
environment.
Tne Aleut populations first encountered by early Russian aaventurers
were a aitinct biological, cultural and linguistic group whose boundary, on
the lower Alaska Peninsula, with ESkimo ana Indian groups fluctuated over
tirne. Remarkable homogeneity of material culture is seen along the entire
islana chain; no group remained isolated long enough to prOduce a completely
different artifact inventory.
It is still unclear whether ethnic Aleuts were the first inhabitants of
tne islanas. The earliest cultural tradition, the Anangula traaition aated
to about 8,OuO years ago at the Ananyula site near Umnak Islana, exhibits a
core ana blade traaition with strong Asia~ affinities. The later Aleutian
traaition, wnich began about ~,300 years ago ana lasted until European
contact, haa a less elaborate stone tool technology out a well aeveloped
bone tool inaustry (lJumond 1~77).
Not surprisingly, given the Aleut aepenaence on marine ana coastal
resources, a century of arCheological ana ethno-historic study has indicated
that virtually all miaaen or village sites are locatea on the coast; only
burial caves, stone quarries and similar Short-term sites are found inlanu
(rtlcCarney 1 !:J79: J-33). Sites are usually founa on low coasts of easy
accessibility; however, villages were located in gooa oefensive pOSitions on
The heads of bays, where most salmon streams are found, were
strategically not desirable for permanent villages. Short-term camps might
be found in such locations.
Sites are plentiful on Unalaska Island, probably indicating a large
pre-contact population. These include depressions resulting from the large
communal houses mentioned above, which measure 6 x 20 meters in dimension.
After Russian influence became pervasive, the Aleuts more typically
constructed smaller, single-family, semi-subterranean houses, called
"barabaras" by the Russians (Dumond 1977: 70).
Many sites can be easily located by the lush vegetation that grows on
them as a result of the soil enhancement and disturbance from the human
occupation. This may not be evident at the very oldest or more ephemeral
sites.
Historic Background
It was not long after Vitus Bering first sighted the Aleutian Islands in
1741 that other Russian adventurers followed, attracted by the rich fur
resources of this new territory. The Russians, with their superior weapons,
soon dominated the Aleuts and extracted tribute from them in the form of
furs or labor. Disease and social trauma brought about by the Russians soon
decimated-both Aleut populations and their culture.
Captain's Bay has been a focus of both native and European activities in
the past 250 years. The Bay owes its present name to Russian Lieutenant
Levashev who camped there in the winter of 1766 (Alaska Geographic 1980:
95). At that time, a native village was located at the entrance to the Bay.
A permanent Russian settlement was established at I1iu1iuk village by
the trader Soloviev at about the same time, either in 1765-66 or 1771-76.
This settlement grew into a major Russian administrative center known as
Unalaska. Russian buildings dating from the 1800's, such as the church and
the nearby Bishop's house, still stand at Unalaska and have been placed on
the National Register of Historic Places. In general, however, the Russians
did not construct many permanent structures in the Aleutians. Much of their
trading and hunting was staged from ships, Native style barabaras, or
insubstantial frame buildings which have not endured as standing
structures. If Russian building sites were located they would be of great
interest to historical archeologists and ethnohistorians.
After the United States' purchase of Russian America in 1867, Unalaska
Dutch Harbor remained an important port. It was a major refueling and
resupply point for vessels sailing from southern points to the Bering and
Beaufort Seas. Fox trapping, fur sealing and fishing were important
industries in the chain. Commercial trading companies established stores in
most of the villages, and schools were established in the early part of this
century. This had the effect of drawing the Native population into a more
settled lifestyle, although subsistence and other economic activities
dispersed them at various times of the year.
F-2
~ ..
None of these activities surpassed the impact of World War lIon the
islands, when the native inhabitants were evacuated and huge military
. installations were constructed, including Fort Mears near Dutch Harbor.
There are many World War II buildings and much military debris in the
project area.
Since the war, Unalaska-Dutch Harbor has become a major fishing port and
the population has grown. The Captain's Bay-Shaishnikof River area has not
been much affected by recent developments, but the mouth of Pyramid Creek
has become a crab pot storage area.
Known Cultural Resources in the Project Area
There are many known historic and prehistoric sites in the Unalaska
area, three of which are on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places; the Amaknak Bridge site~ the Russian Orthodox Church at
Unalaska, and the Sitka Spruce Plantation on Amaknak Island near Unalaska
village.
Although it has never been well-studied, the Captain's Bay area is known
to have been the site of much historic, and therefore presumably
prehistoric, Aleut activity. In 1877 Da11 reported nine sites on the bay
(p. 45), but did not give specific locations.
A 1923 map titled "Survey of Power Prospects, Shaishnikof River"
prepared by the Navy Yard, Puget Sound, Washington and based on other coast
and geodetic surveys from 1867 to 1906 shows several houses and other
structures located near the mouth of the Shaishnikof River. The area is
designated "Alexander Shaishnikof's Ranch".
During World War II, A.R. Cohn, an officer stationed at Dutch Harbor,
reported the locations of many sites in the Una1aska-Amaknak Island area.
These included two sites just to the north of the mouth of Pyramid Creek.
No details about the nature of the cultural material was reported, but it is
known that the sites were partially destroyed by military road building
activities (McCartney 1979). These are probably the same sites reported by
T.P. Bank (1974) as small archeological deposits mostly disturbed by World
War II operations and designated UNL-091 on the Alaska Heritage Resource
Survey (AHRS).
T.P. Bank (1974) reported several sites on Captain's Bay as the result
of many years 1 familiarity with the area. UNL-102 is probably a small
stone-flaking station located at the head of the bay to the west of the
Shaishnikof River. lINL-042 is the remains of a fairly large village mound
partially levelled during the war. In the early 1970's there was "an Aleut
house occupying part of the area". This posisble village site is located
near the mouth of the Shaishnikof River near the eastern bank~ lINL-103 is
located on the eastern shore of the bay near its head and is the remains of
a seasonal fish camp, according to Bank.
Bank only provides a one-or two-sentence description of each site
mentioned, so there is not much information to work with. Still, it is
clear that the shore of Captain's Bay, particularly near the mouths of the
Shaishnikof River and Pyramid Creek, is an area of high cultural resource
potential.
F-3
Field Reconnaissance
On June 7-10, 1982, a cultural resource reconnaissance of the proposed
project area was conducted by Alaska District Archeologist Julia L. Steele.
Field methodology was to walk the entire project area on foot looking for
evidence of cultural resources and assessing the probability that any would
be found in a given area on the basis of thorough background knowledge.
Pyramid Creek: "rhe likelihood that the dam or penstock portions of this
project would disturb any prehistoric, Russian or early American era
cultural resources is extremely low, as most activities in those periods
were concentrated near the coast. World War II structures and debris are
located in the general vicinity of Pyramid Creek, but the dam and penstock
will not impact any of this material.
As discussed above, aboriginal sites are known to have existed at the
mouth of Pyramid Creek where a powerhouse might be located. Military
activities may have initially destroyed these resources; the extent of
damage during the war is unknown. No subsurface testing could be done in
the area because it is now a major crab pot storage area. Roads and a house
have also caused disturbance. The shoreline in the general vicinity appears
to have been levelled by earth moving equipment within the past several
decades. No cultural resources were noted in subsurface exposures near the
edges of the storage area.
Recommendations:
Despite the indications of severe disturbance it is recommended that the
area be thoroughly tested if this project alternative is selected.
Background research indicates sites in the area, and it is impossible to
confirm or deny this possibility without testing under the crab pots.
Shaishnikof River
"rhe proposed power 1 i ne and penstock routes were v i sua 11 y examined, as
were the dam site at Trail Lake and the proposed powerhouse site near Trail
Lake. The upstream portions of the project area are fairly rugged, with the
power1ine in particular crossing some steep terrain. The river flows in a
canyon for part of its length. The probability of locating any prehistoric
remains in areas very far upstream from the bay and river mouth was deemed
low based on background studies. There were no World War II remains in the
upstream area either.
At the head of the bay near the mouth of the
barabara or some sort of collapsed structure was
site consisted of an approximately 2 meter high,
mound. The open side of the U faces the river.
4 meters in length.
river, the remains of a
located (see map). This
U-shaped, grass covered
The walls are approximately
Six shovel test pits were excavated near this structure, but all were
sterile except for surface trash. This is the vicinity of UNL-042, the
village site discussed above.
F-4
Nearby was a war vintage structure that may have been placed on the
remains of another barabara. Shovel testing revealed some buried wooden
features.
World War II structures were excavated into the hillsides near the road
leading to the mouth of the river.
About a mile to the north of the remains mentioned above are the remains
of thre barabaras lined up in a row on a bank overlooking the rocky
shoreline. The dimensions were similar to the one discussed above; they
were U-shaped with the open side facing the sea. This is in the vicinity of
the reported UNL-103, although Bank's description is so brief it is
difficult to be sure these are the same sites.
Recommendations:
Due to the number of resources noted at the head of Captain1s Bay during
this brief reconnaissance and those discussed in various documents, it is
recommended that once the powerline alinement is finalized a systematic
testing program be initiated along the powerline right-of-way in the areas
noted on map. Should subsurface resources be noted, the line should be
shifted to avoid them. The above surface cultural resources noted above
should be avoided during construction ~ctivities.
Impacts on Cultural Resources
An archeological field reconnaissance of both the Pyramid Creek and
Shaishnikof River alternatives (Steele 1983) indicates that portions of each
alternative could have impacts on cultural resources.
Specifically, there is documentary evidence of archeological deposits at
the mouth of Pyramid Creek in the area of the proposed powerhouse and
powerline locations. This area could not be totally tested at the time of
the field trip due to the presence of a crab pot storage area. If easements
are eventually obtained in this area, systematic subsurface testing should
be performed to insure that cultural resources will not be impacted.
The remainder of the Pyramid Creek alternative should be considered
clear of cultural resource concerns providing care is taken during
construction to avoid damage to World War II remains.
There are known cultural resources at the head of Captain1s Bay near the
mouth of the Shaishnikof River in the general vicinity of the powerline
associated with the Shaishnikof River alternative. Care should be taken to
avoid all disturbances to these resources.
F-5
The proposed powerline alinement in this area should be systematically
tested before it ;s finalized to assure that subsurface resources are not
impacted.
No cultural resources were located in the remainder of the Shaishnikof
River project area.
Julia L. Steele
Archeologist
f-6
Bibliography
Alaska Geographic Society
1980, The Aleutians. Vol. 7, No.3, Alaska Geographic.
Bank, Ted
1974 Letter to Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, on file at
Alaska Division of Parks.
Da 11, W. H.
1877 On Succession in the Shell-Heaps of the Aleutian Islands.
Contributions to North American Ethnology, U.S. Geographical and
Geological Survey of the Rocky Mt. Region, Vol. 1, pp. 41-91.
Washington.
Dumond, Don E.
1977 Eskimos and Aleuts. Thames and Hudson: London.
Laughlin, William S.
1980 Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston: New York.
Martinson, Charles Richard
1973 Aleut Settlements of the Makushin Bay Area, Alaska. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Oregon; Eugene, Oregon.
McCartney, Allen C.
1979 Working Draft EIS for World War II Debris Removal and Clean-up,
Aleutian Islands and Lower Alaska Peninsula, Alaska. Appendix J,
Archaeology and History. Prepared for Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
F-7