The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBlack Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project Progress Report 1988'~y-.- ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY I)z ",!_,._••_~,••_,.._._' P.O. BOX 222 • 702 WATER STREET PORT TOWNSEND. WASHINGTON 98368 (206)-385-1733 November 29, 1988 Regional Director u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Nevin Holmberg-JUN 907-586-7240 {Andy Grossman} Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska Progress Report Hello: Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) holds a FERC Preliminary Permit for the Black Bear Lake Project. I have been designated as the Liaison Officer in accordance with Article 7 of the permit. I can be contacted at the following address and telephone: Robert S. Grimm, President Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, Wa 98368 (206) 385-1733 Enclosed is our first progress report prepared in accordance with Article 8 of our Preliminary Permit. If you have questions or comments please feel free to contact me. ROber-t~S~.~'Grim~ President cc Vern Neitzer Enclosure !-J?JL!S .Alas.Ka Kl:!:'{Jl:;::;:r; ~.njr:,;" & ;:1ror!nfttionSer9lcu Lih! :.;', i')Hii~;~~;.:. ,;l,~i!\.! 111 32d i'p.::i·J.;:~.~; ')r!vc Anc:horagc, /d'~ W5d~-J.fa 14 First Progress Report Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska November, 1988 By: Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, Wa. 98368 (206) 385-1733 Contact: Robert Grimm Progress Report Page 1 1. Studies conducted during the past six month period. The major effort during this period was to prepare a summary document of all the fish and wildlife related studies which have been previously prepared. This study is scheduled to be completed by November 15, 1988 (attachment A). A site visit was conducted in September by the permittee to take photographs of the project site and to reference the environmental maps to the project maps. The permittee has made arrangement with the u.S. Geological Survey (USGS) through the Alaska Power Authority to continue the the streamgaging effort at Black Bear Lake. (attachment B) 2. Summary of Consultation under 18 CFR 4.38 during the past six month period. The permittee consulted with and secured the required memorandum of agreement from the Forest Service. This memorandum was filed with the FERC in accordance with Article 10 of our Preliminary Permit. Considerable time and effort was devoted to developing the Initial Stage Consultation Information in accordance with 18 CFR 4.38 (b) (1). This information was mailed to all required agencies and interested parties on September 15, 1988. We requested assistance from the agencies and interested parties in determining which of the project alternatives and/or combination thereof would represent the best project after giving consideration to the area's natural and socioeconomic resources. We also requested assistance in identifying the additional studies necessary. (attachment C) On October 14, 1988 we gave notice to all agencies and interested parties of a Joint Agency meeting to be held in Juneau, Alaska on October 26, 1988. The meeting was well attended. A meeting record was prepared and circulated to those in attendance for comment. (attachment D) We received written comments from many of the agencies who received the Initial Stage Consultation Information (attachment E). These comments and the meeting record was reviewed to identify the preferred project alternatives and the additional studies requested by the agencies. We presently are having the studies outlined by order and priority. We are unable to submit a specific schedule showing Progress Report Page 2 when study tasks will start and when they will be completed at this time. We have not received all the written comments and due to time constraints have been unable to develop the specific schedule. We have enclosed a preliminary schedule (attachment F) and will file as part of our next progress report the specific schedule. 3. An outline and summary of the investigations to be conducted during the ensuing six month period. a. The investigation of third powerhouse location. We hope to identify a location further upstream that is free of the physical hazards associated with powerhouse location A. The study by Alaska Woods Service Co. is enclosed as attachment G. This is the study that identified the hazards associated with powerhouse location A. b. The requested studies will be reviewed in order to develop a specific study plan. Once the study plan is developed a specific schedule taking into account timing and order of the studies will be developed. Proposals will then be sought from qualified individuals or firms in order to determine the cost associated with the studies. c. The investigation of how to maintain minimum flows in the event of a penstock or siphon failure and the associated costs. 4. A summary of the consultation that will take place during the ensuing six month period. a. We will be consulting with agencies in conjunction with the development of the environmental study plan and the specific schedule. This will allow the agencies to assist us in making sure our study plan addresses their concerns. b. If a third powerhouse location is identified we will be consulting with the agencies for their comments as to that site. c. We will continue to consult with Sealaska Corporation Klawock Heenya Corporation and others as to the necessary land and rights needed to construct and operate the proposed project. A letter outlining the time line for these negotiations is enclosed as attachment H. Progress Report Page 3 5. An assessment of the feasibility of the project. They are still many details to work out and several studies that need to be conducted in order to determine feasibility of the project. However, based upon our review of the previous studies conducted by the Alaska Power Authority, the Draft EIS (FERC/DEIS-0036) prepared on their project in February, 1983 and the agency comments received in the initial stage of consultation, there is no reason to believe that the project is not feasible environmentally, technically, or economically. We intend to continue our investigations and study as indicated in this report and expect to file our license application on/or before April 15, 1991. Progress Report Page 4 Mailing List Regional Director u.s. Fish and wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Director Office of Hydropower Licensing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mail stop 301-RB 825 North Capitol street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 Director Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Endangered Species Specialist u.s. Fish and wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Chief of History and Archeology Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks Pouch 7001 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Regional Forester U.S. Forest Service P.O. Box 21628 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1628 state Director Bureau of Land Management 710 C Street, Box 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Progress Report Page 5 Mailing list continued Regional Environmental Officer Department of the Interior 1675 C street Anchorage, Ak. 99501-5198 Division of Environmental Quality Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation P.O. Box 0 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 Regional Environmental Coordinator National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2892 Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation Alaska Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Juneau, Alaska 99801 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Environmental Impact Review Officer Environmental Protection Agency 1200 sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Director Division of Land & Water Management P.O. Box 107005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7005 Regional Director Alaska Regional Office National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dan Bishop Environaid 12175 Mendenhall Loop Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 Progress Report Page 6 Mailing list continued Jack Broughton General Manager Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority P.o. Box 210149 Auke Bay, Alaska 99821-0149 Glen Charles President Shaan Seet, Inc. P.O. Box 90 craig, Alaska 99921-0090 Dennis Dorratcague ott Water Engineers 12310 N.E. 8 th street Bellevue, Wa. 98005 corrine M. Garza Chief Executive Officer Klawock Heenya Corporation P.o. Box 25 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sealevel Drive suite 203 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Robert E. LeResche Executive Director Alaska Power Authority P.o. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Robert W. Loescher Senior Vice President Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Diane Mayer Division of Governmental Coordination P.o. Box AW Juneau, Alaska 99801 Progress Report Page 7 Mailing list continued Theodore F. Meyers Chief, Habitat Conservation National Marine Fisheries Service P.o. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Eugene Neblett 1617 Roger Court El Cerrito, Ca. 94530 Regional Manager Andrew Pekovich Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1000 Constance Sathre Staff Attorney National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration P.o. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Jim Sprague Mayor City of Craig P.o. Box 23 Craig, Alaska 99921 Dan Wagner Mayor City of Thorne P.O. Box 19110 Bay Thorne Bay, Alaska 99919 Roy S. Williams Mayor City of Klawock P.o. Box 113 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Attachment A ENVIRONAID 12175 MENDENHALL LOOP ROAD. JUNEAU. ALASKA 99801 . (907) 789 -9305 Summary of Environmental Studies Completed in Black Bear Creek Watershed in Association with the Proposed Black Bear Creek Hydroe1ectric Project Oani elM. 8i shop November 2 II! 1988 Summery of Envi ronmentel Studies Completed 1 n Black: Bear Creek: Watershed in Associ ot i on wi th the Proposed Black: Bear Creek: Hydroe 1 ectri c Pro j ect Table of Contents Introduction Page 1 Bishop, D.M.: Black: Bear Lake Aquatic Study: Phase I 1 ENVIRONAID .. December 15, 1980. The purpose 1 Wetershed dimensions 1 Sal mon escapements 2 Observat ions of adul t sal mon 2 Mammal sign 2 Water chemisty values 2 Lak:e profil es 2 Streum nnd 1 nice shorel i ne morphology 2 Charecteristics of streamflow volumes 2 Regulation of the BBl"s outflow 2 Altered peak: flows 3 Low flow pro j ect1 ons 3 Stream temperature measurements 3 Effects, regul ating streamflow ... on temperatures 3 Water temperatures during winter low flow conditions 3 McVey, R.W., Regi onol D1 rector, NMFS, Juneau. Letter of 3-30-81 to HARZA Engineering Co. 4 Summary of pre-study solmon escapement informotion 4 Descri ptions of the system"s salmoni d hobitats 4 Potent i 01 dom-related impocts 4 Recommended pre-project fisheries studies 4 Recommended hydro 1 ogi c studi es 4 Milner.. A. M. Preliminary Study of Outmigrant Fry From Black Bear Creek, Prince of Wales Island .. Alaska. ENVIRONAID. May IS .. 1981. 5 Purpose 5 Peak outmigrations 5 Beaver ponds 5 Bi shop .. D. M... A.M. Mi 1ner & l.A. Smi tho An I nteri m Report on Biolog1cal-Ecological Work on the Black Bear Creek System. ENVIRONAID. Noyember 2 .. 1981 5 I ntroducti on 5 Purpose 6 Flow regime and water quall ty 6 Stream system 6 Comparat1ve streamfl ows/l ake 1eve 1 fi lake proflles of temperature, conductivity and diss. 02 1 Stream temperatures 1 Adult Salmonids in the Stream Above Bl ... Summer-Fall, 1981 1 Sockeye adul ts 8 Chum salmon 8 Odd-year run of pinks B Coho 8 Schools of Dolly Varden char 8 Resident JuYenile Salmonid Populations 8 Mammal Populations 9 Beaver Sign 9 Bear 9 Wolf 10 Mink 10 Marten 10 Mitigation and Protective Measures 10 Des] gn flow route of tail race water 10 Revl ew desl gn of road access 10 Reduced beaver populat] on 10 loss of coho habitat 10 Proposed project flow regime 1 1 Appendix Materials 1 1 WOOd .. R.E. ADF&6 Ketchikan Area Management Biologist ... Game Di v . Letter to HARZA Eng1 neeri ng Co. MOY 17, 1982 1 1 Purpose 12 Summary 12 Protective action 12 Bishop, D. M., A.M. Milner &. L.A. Smith. Biological-Ecological Investi gatinns of the Black: Bear Creek: System Near K1 awocK, AlasKa. ENVIRONAID, August, 1982. 12 Purposes 12 Characteri st i cs of Upper Black: Bear Creek Drai nage 12 Physical 12 C1 i mat i c i nf ormat 1on 12 Confi gurat i on and sub-drai nage areas 12 BlacK Lake 1 3 South Fork 13 Spring Fork: 13 Lake Fork 13 Flow characteri st i cs 1 3 Groundwater flows in BBC above BL 13 Stream Sediment Characteristics 14 Stream temperatures 14 Waterfall produces major changes 14 Diurnal temperature ranges and patterns 14 \.vater temperature accurnulat ion uni ts 14 Lak:e profile information 15 Addi t i onal water cherni stry data 16 Characteri st i cs of Fi sheri es 16 Black Bear Lake ~ 6 Adult salmonid escapem~nts 16 Steel head 16 Outmigration studies 17 Pink fry 17 Chum fry 17 Coho fry 17 SocKeye smolt 18 Coho smolt 18 Black: LaKe Rest dent Fi sh 18 Coho juveniles 18 Lake product f vi ty 18 Habi tat studi es above BlacK Lake 18 Four habi tat Zones 18 Characteri st i cs of wi 1 dl ife populat ions 19 Black Bear 19 Beaver 20 Deer 21 Wolf 21 Mustelids 21 Effects of Proposed Hydroelectric Project-Fishes 22 Spawni ng habi tats 22 Regulated flows compared with unregulated flows 22 Effect of regulated October and December flows 23 South Fork 23 Lower LOKe & Spring ForKs" some South Forks waters 23 Spri ng Fork .. wi th variobl e i nfl ows from lake Fork 23 Spring Fork above overflows from Lake Fork 24 LaKe Fork .. upstream of the beaver pond 24 Evaluation of Zone II cross-sections 24 October regulated vs unregUlated flows 25 December regulated vs unregulated flows 26 Spri ng Fork: temperatures-regulated and unregUlated 26 Effects .. groundwater route from powerhouse site to Spring Fork 27 Stream dynami cs Bnd bedload movement 27 Water chemistry 27 Rea ri n9 H a bit a t s abo ve B la c Ie l a k e 27 Water temperatures in Zone I 28 Reari ng habi tat j n beaver ponds.. 26 Black Lake as reari ng habi tat Bnd salmonid migration route 28 Eff ects of flow regulat i on on temperature and f1 ow cond~t i ons below Black Lake 29 Bi shop .. D. N... A.M. Mi 1ner &. l.A. Smi tho A Report on late-Summer and Fall Observations in Upper Black Bear Creek and Black Bear lake. ENVIRONAID .. November 15 .. 1982. 29 Purpose 29 Hydrologic investigations 30 Woter temperotures 30 Block: Beor Lake profi 1 es 30 Groundwater flow routes 30 Fi sheri es Investi got ions 30 Salmon escapements 31 Juvenile salmonid rearing populations above Block Lake 31 Mammal Observations 32 Black Bear 32 Beaver 32 Mustell ds 32 Wolf 32 Deer 32 Milner" A.M. Fry and Smol t Dutmi grati on Studi es on Black Bear Creek" Prince of Wales Island" Southeastern Alasko" Dur'ing Spring" 1983. Work done for" ENV I RONA I D" Juneau and for Schoo 1 of Fi sheri es Sci ence, Uni versi ty of A 1aska, Juneau" Rpt. 8305. September" 1983. 33 Purpose 33 Sockeye fry 33 Coho fry 33 Chum fry 33 Sockeye smo 1 t 33 Coho smolt 34 Dolly Varden 34 Cuthroat trout 34 Bishop" D. M." A.M. Milner & l.A. Smith. Further Investigations on the BlOCK Bear Creek System Near K1Dwock" Alaska. ENVIRONAID" October 13" 1963. 34 Hydrologi c data 34 Stream sediment 35 Water temperatures 35 Table of temp. changes downstream from BBl 36 Lasting ice cover" HBl 37 Temperature uni t accumulot i on" out 1et of Bl 37 Dissolved 02 37 lake profiles 38 Outmigrotion Studies 38 Wildlife 38 BlaCK bear 38 Beaver 38 Deer 39 WOlf 39 Bi shop .. D. M., A.M. Milner &. L.A. Smi tho Environmental Monitoring.. Upper Block Bear Creek -1984 ENVIRONAID, November 30 .. 1984. 39 Purpose 39 Hydrologic work 39 Comparison of sub-drainage flows 39 Relation of Spring Fork to Black Bear Lake outflow 39 Response of Black: Lake 1 eve 1 to 61 BCk: Bear Lake out flows 40 Water temperature records 40 Lake profiles 40 Wi nter temperatures 40 Spri ng temperatures 40 Summer temperatures 41 Foll temperatures 41 Dissolved 02 41 Snow Avalanche Hazard ot Powerhouse Site 41 Fish eri e sin yes t i got ion s 41 Sockeye 41 A few chum 42 Coho 42 Juvenil e Populations 42 Coho 42 Dolly Varden 42 Wi I dl i f e Observations 42 Black Bear 42 Beaver 42 Deer 43 Wolf 43 Mustelids 43 Bi shop" D.M. Environmental Status Report.. Late Summer Visit to Black Bear Creek -1985 ENVIRONAID" October 1 0" 1985. 43 (A summary of work included here is proy;ded in the f 011 owi ng fi na1 report f or the peri ad) Bi shop" D.M. Fi nal Report on Black: Bear Creek Moni tori ng Work, Fall, 1985 and Late Winter.. 1986. ENV I RONA I 0, Apri 1 24" 1986. 44 Purpose 43 Hydrologic work 43 Water temperature 43 Temperature unit ftccumulfttion 43 Summer water temperatures 43 Lake Profiles 45 Adult salmon escapement counts 45 Pink salmon 45 Sockeye run 45 Sockeye spawners seek out iron stO] ned grove 1 s 45 Mammol observations 45 61 ack Bear 45 Beover 46 Deer 46 Mustelids 46 Munch ... E_ Report of Investigations of the Block Beor lake Hytlroel ectri c Pro j ecL Alaska Wood Service Co.~ August 5, 1987. 46 Background and purpose 46 Large landslide deposit~ about 320 years ago 46 SummBry of EnvironmentB1 Studies Completed j~, Black Bear Creek Watershed j n Associ at j on wi th the Proposed Bl ack Bear Creek Hydroe 1 ectri c Pro j eet Thi s surnmary 1nc 1udes all fi sh and wil dl1f e related studi es cornp 1eted as part of the pro j ect. I t does not include cultura1/archeo 1 ogi cal studi es. As a po; nt of ref erence and begi nni ng, t Vv'O 1 et ters from envi ronmental agenci es at the onset of the work have been included. A11 of the envi ronmental work done ; n associ at i on wi ttl thi s project was fi nanced by the State of Alaska's Power Authori ty and was coordi nated by HARZA Engi neeri ng Company of Chi caga, 111 i nOl S I the contractor responsi b 1 e for engineering and environrnental studies of the Project. The fish, vvildlife and env; ronmental hydro logy studi es for the project 'were compl eted by ENV IRONA I D of Juneau. Bi shop, D.M.: B1 ack Bear lake Aquat j c Study: Phase I ENVIRONAID, December 15, 1980. The purpose of this work was to begin the process of describing the hydrologic conditions of the Black Bear Creek (hereafter shown as BBC) watershed as these relate to the fisheries of the drainage} and at the same time to begin to define the fishery values of tr,e portion of the watershed bet ween Black lake (hereafter shown as Bl) and the waten a11. Observations of wildlife sightings and tracks and impressions as to numbers were a secondary ob j eet i ve. Watershed dimensions: BBC at tidewater = 17.5 mi 2; at mouth Bl = 7.4 mi 2; i mmedi ate 1 y above BL= 6.3 m i 2; outlet .. BBl = 1.8 mi 2. BBl dral nage area represents 29% of drai nage above Bl The reported magnitudes of the BBC solmon escapements were examined. Lack of stream surveys after mi d-September suggests 11 mi ted accuracy of present coho escopement estimotes. lock of sockeye numbers in escapement records probably refl ects diffi culty of access to pri nci pa 1 spaY-/ni ng areas above BL. The three peri ods of vi s1 tall owed observations of adult sal mon spawners usi ng the system} parti cularl y the upper dra1 nage. An esti mate of up to 500 sockeye in or upsteam of BL was suggested from the August visit. Pinks were not seen in or upstream of Bl and few churn were seen in the dral nage. October observat ions i ndi cated S1 gni fi cant numbers of coho. Mammal sign observed in the course of fleld't/ork indicated heavy bear use of lovy' country} frequent S1 gn of marten and mi nk} dense S1 gn of beaver} and lit t 1 e present evi dence of deer. Mammal use of the area appeared to be at a low poi nt. 01 der trail s} now 1 1 ttl e used} i ndi cate heavi er use i n former years. A fai rly comprehensive set of water cheml sty yal ues for stations in the watershed was developed} indicating the waters to be generally very dilute} unbuffered acid v-... ater with low hardness/alkalinity} and no unusual metals found. Lake profiles were developed in both BBl and Bl for dissolved oxygen} conductivity and water ternperature. The water temperature proflles are used in projections of regulated water temperatures. 2 The stream and laKe shoreline morphology of the BBC system in its pre-logged condi ti on is descri bed in some detai l} v'r'hi ch provi ded a base from which to predict possible effects of stream regulation UPO!! these features. CharacteristiCS of streamflow yolumes within the drainage were exam; ned. The basi s for th1 s anal ySi s included three sets of fl ow measurements (August) September} October) each representing current meter measurements at four stations within the drainage} along with USGS measurements of BBl} outflow} and synthesized flow values for the watershed developed by CH2M Hill I nco of Anchorage. Total regulation of the BBl·s outflow is projected to reduce instantaneous peak fl ows (of 10 or 20 year recurrence interval s) by 35% at the upper end of BlI and by 15% at the mouth of BBC. Altered peak flows would produce gradual Changes in the streambed upstream of BL and possi b 1 Y at the outlet of BL. Changes 1i ke 1y upstream of BL include buildup of tributary deposition into mainstream} associated increases in spri ngfl ows from under deposti on} increased stability of bed materials (particularly coarser rnaterials upstream)} less bank cutting and undercut ti ng and more stable stream chenne 1 1 ocat i on. Th"~ lower gravel bed channe 1 bet ween south fork and SL may degrade s 1 owl Yto be in bal ance wi th lower sedi ment 1 Dads. low flow projections for SSC synthesized frorn regional data by CH2M Hi 11 suggest a much larger percentage "j ncrease 1 n unregulated low flow bet 'ween the outlet of SBL and the outlet of SL than bet ween the out 1 et of BL and the mouth of SSC. The projected lo\"'/ f1 ow regi me has a si gni ficant beari ng on stream temperature conditions under natural '.Is. regulated low fl ow condi t ions. Thi s stUdy included three rnonths of conti nuous stream temperature measurements at four stat10ns 1n the drainage. From this late-summer f all record} and usi ng strearnfl ow data to assi st 1 n anal ySi s} several conclusions were suggested: the stream's route between BSL outlet and BL in 1 et appeared to act toward moderating stream temperatures (cool er if SBL was warm) warmer if BBL Y-las relatively cold)} while the ternperatures above and below BL during this period suggested just the reverse for the lake passage. (The role of the waterf ell in a1 teri ng strearn temperature had not yet been identified at the time or this work.) Tt1e combined effects of regulating streamflow and taking water from 20 feet below BBl"s surface was projected for temperature condi t ions that prevail ed on August 20} September 20} and October 20} of 19S0} indicating a maximum difference of 0.3 0 C. on SeptRrnber 20 at the outlet of BL ('with the projected temperature under regulated flow being warmer). Little or no difference between ,.yater temperatures for regulated vs. unregUlated fl ows was projected for the nlouth of BBC under the August} September or October conditions. Speculati't'e estimates of water temperatures during winter low flow cond1 t1 ons (February) under regulated YS. unregulated flow regimes suggested that water temperatures bet ween the powerhouse and BL under regulated flow would be 1.3 to 2.00C. warmer than unregulated water temperatures whit e regulated temperatures at BL outlet and at the mouth of BBC would be about 0.5 0 C. and 0.7 0 C. warme'·} respectiye1y. 3 McVey .. R.W ... Regional Director.. NMFS .. Juneau. letter of 3-30-81 to HARZA Engi neeri ng Co. An attachment to this letter provided a succinct summary of pre-study sal mon escapen1ent i nf orn1ati on as well as bri ef de~cri pti ons of the system's sal rrloni d habitats . The purpose was to establ i sh a basi s for recommending "Pre-project Studies for Black Bear Hydroelectric Project" .. which is elaborated in the document. From ADF&G surveys to that date .. the NMFS surrlrrlary showed peak counts f or the entire stream system as f 011 oWS: pi nks -110 .. 000 to 350,000 (1940·s).: chum -10 .. 000; coho -6,500; sockeye -700. Averege escepernent of pinks given as 30,920 fish, with 1953 count at 490 and 1963 count at 62 .. 000. Sport fi sh present: Doll y Varden char} cut throat trout, rai nbov'/ trout} steel head trout. Salmonid habitats of BBe were surnmarized: I. Tid ewe t e r to B L: n1 0 s t (0 r all?) pin k & c h u n1 spa W n i n9 and spa\¥ni ng/rearing for D.V. char .. cut throat} steel head .. and coho. II. BL.: the ma j or reari ng area f or sockeye; sockeye spawni ng 1i ke 1y below lake and along spri ngf ed 1akest1ores. III. BL to Falls: (a) slow reaches .. one-half rnile; rearing for D.V. char, 4 coho .. as well as several beaver ponds with likely rearing} coho .. D.V. and sockeye(?); (b) upstream of (a).. another hal f -mil e of steeper .. gravel stream with likely spawning and rearing for sockeye} coho} D.V.} cutthroat} steel head. IV. Falls to BBL: resident rainbow only. Potential dam-related impacts discussed included" I. Alteration of natural flovis; II. Rapid fluctuation of flows; III. Loss of rearing habitat; IV. Changes in water quality. Recommended pre-project fi sheri es studi es: I. Instream flow measurements; II. Stream surveys; III. Fry emergence surveys; IV. Lake surveys. Recommended hydrolog1c stud1es: I. USGS gaging station; II. trlree non continuous gaging stations; III. Other data at non-continuous stations. Mi1ner~ A. M. Preliminary Study of Outmigrant Fry From BlacK Bear Creek, Prince of Wol es I slond~ A lasko. ENVIRONAID. May 15, 1981. Thi s was the fi rst pro j ect i nvesti gati on with a specl fi c fi sheri es mi ssi on. The pr"incipal purpose of this initial work was to estimate the timing and rnagnitude of pink and chum fry outmigrations from BBC in the spring of 19B 1. A secondary ob j ecti ve was to obta"j n exploratory i nf ormati on regarding tlle species and titning of outmigrations from ttle stream above BL. The v-lark ShO\Ned peaK outmigrations for pink and chum fry occurring bet'vveen March 21 and 24. The t i rni ng of both outmi grat i on peaks was found to be strongl y ti ed to increase in streamfl ow and ri se in water temperature} a re lat i on that rIBS been reported by other invest i gators. Numbers of outrn1 grat 1 ng p1 nks were much larger than chunl. Nomadic coho fry (evidently being forced from rearing areas by population pressure) and a s£1la11 number of coho smolt were also found moving downstream out of the system. Two genetic stocks of chum salmon were tentatively identified through outmigrants. There may be batt. sum£1,er and fall runs of chum in BSe. .. Chum salmon have been found to spawn above SL The beaver ponds above BL nlay not be an important rearing habitat for coho. (These ponds were later found to be irllportant contributors to coho smoi t). 6i shop, D. M., A.M. Mi 1ner &. L.A. Smi tho An I nteri m Report on Biologica1-Ecological Work on the Block Bear Creek System. ENV I RONA I D. November 2, 1981 This work is based upon fi eld work compl eted in summer and fall 1981} with stream temperature data gathered in 1980 included in the presentation and anal ySi s. The work is focused '.;pon hydro 1ogi c} fi sheri es and wil dlt f e features of the BSe drai nage above the ouU at of BL .. f 011 owi ng earli er work i ndi cati ng that the hydrology of the lower drai nage waul d not be rnuch 5 eff ected by trle proposed project. The primary purpose of this work was to present the digested results of the season's fi e 1 d work, with 8 cornprehensi ve envi ronrnent8 1 8n81 ySi s of the pro j ect schedul ed for 1982. A bri ef outl i ne of further anti ci pated work is provided. Several short and tentative cornrnents are inc1t.:ded for nlitigative or protect i ve measures for desi gn-construct i on of the project. Flow regime and water Quallty: The stream system upstream of Bl was mapped by stadi a traverse at a scale of 1" = 50 feet. This provided 8n in1port8nt base for 811 further hydrologic end fisheries investi get i ons.Me j or drei nege components include: -frorn lake upstrearn 3,000 feet: slow-flowing, sand-dominated crlanne1, 50 to 75 feet \-vi de, with gradi ent of 0.04%. -for 300 feet upstream of slow channel, the corYlmon route of water from BBl and most of the flow from the South Fork. Gradient, ca. 1%, iron stained gravel streambed suitable for spawning; channel width: 35 to 50 feet wi th many logs and wi ndf a 11 s. -for 700 feet upstream of South Fork confl uence} two ch8nne 1 s fed by water frorYl BBl: lake Fork & Spri ng Fork, 'f/i th gradi ent ca. 1%. ~vi dth of these channels: 25 to 35 feet. Gravel-bedded} progressi vel y 1ess i ron stal ned movi ng upstream} sui tab 1 e for spawni ng. lake Fork inc 1 udes much i nfl uence from beaver ponds. -above Hie 700 f oat reach of lake Fork descri bed above, thi s channel leading to the waterfall steepens,'"with rubttle and boulder rYlaterials present. Reduci ng fl ows recede i nta the streambed below powerhouse 1 ocati on. No si gnifi cant fi sh habi tat. -South F ark not mapped beyond confl uence wi th fl o'yvs from SBL. Thi s channel also continues another 700 feet of streambed} also providing' spawni ng habi tat. Comparative streamflows/lake level above and immediately below BL. BBl high and low flow yields (CSM) probably more extrerne trlan below other stream stati ons observed, movi ng downstream to the outl et of BL. -summertime lovy' flows measured of the combined flows of Lake and Spring Forks have higher yields (CSM) than for other measured units above the mouth of BL., probably as a resul t of spri ngfl ow sources. -relation bet\-veen Bl outflow and BL levels stable for this period of observati ons; stabili ty depends upon the log j am at mouth of the 1ake stayi ng i n place. -BL rose aDout 1.25 feet 1n late August 1 n response to two 1 nches of r81 n; rose 3.5 feet in earl y September as a response to three inches of rai n. 6 Lake profiles of temperoture JO conductivity and dissolved oxygenJO taken duri ng August, September and October, 19S1, were compared wi th profiles at sinli1ar dates in 19S0. BBl tenlperatures near the 1 ake-surf ace were n)uch hi gt1er in August 1981 than in 1980 (nlaxi rnunlS of 150 C. VS. l1.20 C.). The Sepenlber therrnoc 1 i ne was 40-50 feet in 1981 VS. 50-60 feet in 1980. In October the lake again became isotrlermal in 1981 at 7.40C. VS. 6.3 0C. in 19S0. Conducti vity values remai n low for BBL. Oxygen va 1ues are consi stent 1 y high. BL near-surface ternperatures reached 170C. in 1981 vs. 12.3 0C. in 1 geO. B1 conduct i vi ti es remai n low} but show some increase in October} apparentl y due to wind action. Dissolved 02 values for BBl ren-,ain near saturation 1eve 1 s except as the lake bottom is approached in August. Stream temperatures monitored at four stations in BBC were evaluated for the peri ad August, 19S0 to Jul y} 1981. The out 1 et of BL genera 11 y sho'vVed the hi ghest mean daily temperatures of the four stations. Dail y terrlperatures upstream of BL tend to be nearest to the mean for the stream. Di urna 1 temperature f1 uctuat i ons vy'~re exarni ned. A sunny day in sunlmer, 1980, developed ranges of 2 -30C. at respecti ve nleasuri ng stati ons} whil e a 7 sunny spring day in 1981 shovv'ed 0.5 -1.0 C. ranges. Mid-October, 1980 showed di urna 1 f1 uctuati ons of 0.5 0C. and even December 22} 1980 i ndi cated a half-degree di urna 1 fl uctuati on below BL. Cal cu1 at i on of cumu1at i ve temperature uni ts (an i ndi cati on of the cumu1 at i ve amount of heat in the water passi ng a measurement poi nt) for the SOCkeye j ncubat i on months September} 1980 through April .. 1981 showed the stat ion just upstream of BL to have the lowest rate of accurnulat i on .. the mouth of BBC next lowest and the outlet of Bl the hi ghest rate. For thi s 1980-81 i ncubati on season .. 900 T .U.'s (OC.) were reached in mi d to late January and 1000 T.U:s around the mi ddl e of February -somewhat earl y dates for fry emergence. " Adult Salmonids in the Stream Above f'lJO Summer-Fall JO 1961: Sockeye odults returned to upper BBC in 1Bte Ju1y-eBr1y August, with spBwners peBki ng in trle streBm in the thi rd week of August Bt B count of 1,190 fish of which 15-20% were estimated to be precocious males '.i acks' . Total sockeye spawners 1 n the BBl strearn system was est i mated at 650 fi sh. Most of the remai ni ng fi sh spawned in the South Fork system. A few i so 1ated efforts of sockeye to beach spBwn in Bl were observed. less than 20 chum salmon were counted in the system above Bl. These fi sh were seen on 1yin the Spri ng Fork. The relatively large .. odd-year run of pinks into BBC resulted in pinks moving into and above Bl during high water, 21 -28 August. The run peaked above the 1ake in mi d-Septernber, when 3,907 fi sh v-rere counted. Of this nun)ber} about 2}OOO fist) spawned in the BBl stream systeni, reaching as far as hi gh flows woul d all ow} beyond the beaver dams of the lake Fork to the base of the steep rubb 1 e-boul der channel} and to the head of the Spring Fork. The pinks \·vere spawning over the redds occupie,j earlier by sockeye salmon. Coho begtHi to rnove into upper BBC in mid-September anlj counts continued to ri se till work was termi nated in late October. Popular coho spawn; ng areas appeared to be in the South Fork and in the vicinity of the Lake Forks beaver ponds. A speculati ve estimate of total coho escapement into upper BBC is 200 to 1000 adul ts. Schools of Dolly Vorden chor were seen in the stream above BL. Total 8 number of fish did not exceed 200. Though D.V. in spawning coloration were not seen} juvenile trapping confirms spBYv'ning of D.V. in the upper creek. Resident Juvenile Salmonid Populations in Black lake and Upstream Waters: In BBC and in beaver ponds} above Bl, mi nnow traps} bB; ted wi th borBxed eggs were used witrl mark-re-cBpture to develop population estimates of coho and Dolly Varden char. In Bl four 1 arge fi e 1 d f abri cated wi re traps y,/ere used wi th supplemental sarnp 1 i ng by rod and 1 i ne J also emp 1oyi ng mark-recapture. Samp 1es taken ina 100 meter reach of BBC above Bl i nd; cated a populati on of about 372 coho fi ngerl i ng. Samp 1 i ng wi thi n the two sets of beaver ponds associated with BBC above Bl indicated a combined population of about 946 coho 11 ngerll ng. These beaver ponds CO.I trlbute s1gn1flcant 1 y to coho product 1 on. Lake Fork upstrearn of the beaver ponded secti on and tiel ow the steep rubb 1 e-boul der secti on becomes intermittent duri ng low flow condit ions and i so 1ated pool s cause mortality to fi ngerl i ng coho. The natural reari ng nurnbers here are low} however. Few Doll y Varden were found in the stream system above BL. r'1ost of those found were in the beaver pond system of the Lake Fork} est i rnated at 82 fl ngerl i ng. The esti mated popu1 at i on of coho fl ngerl i ng in Bl ack Lake was 2}628. The two most populous 1i t tara 1 areas were found in extensi ve sha 11 ows at ei ther end of the 1ake. Very few Dolly Varden were caught in BL. Population is low. Four cutthroat v\'ere caught in the lake wi th rod and 1i ne -too f ew for rnark-re-capture work. Observat j ons of Mammal Populations Above Black Lake: The purposes of this work were} to approxirnate numbers of beaver and black bear using the drainage above BL} to identify key mamrnal habitats} to mal ntai n a record of beaver and bear si ght i ngs} and to develop a map of key habi tats in the vall ey bot tom above BL. Mammal sign (tracks) den & beddf'ng sites} feeding sites} scats} remnant 9 hai r} ani mal si ghti ngs) were observed and recorded dail yin the course of fi sheri es bi 01 ogy work along the stream and 1akeshore. Fi ve traverses concentrating on rrlamma1 observations allowed a complete circling of the vall ey as well as more i ntensi ve forays into areas heavil y used by marnrnal s. Areas used i ntensi ve 1 y inc 1 ude: marsh area south of lower beaver ponds} 60 meter wide conduits up Lake Fork to steepening channel and along the length of Spring Fork} and a sornewhat wider conduit along the lower South Fork. Fresh beaver sj gn was seen extensi vely from BL upstream to the confl uence of the South Fork} then conti nUl ng up the Lake Fork to a maintained dam and pond area. The lower ponds nearer to BL eyldence light beaver use. About 40 runways in the lower creek above BL also are lightly used. From July 31 to August 17} 1981 only one small bear·s traCK was seen U-Irougt-Iout trle study area. A large bear moved into the area on 18 August and ttle two bears spl i t the area up with the 1it t1 e bear taki ng the upstrearn area in the vi C1 nity forks of the stream. On September 3 tracks of a sow wi th t 'wo cubs were seen in the area above BL The bears fed heavil y on fish; on September 16 over 200 fresh} part i all W eaten, pi nk sal nion carcasses Vv'ere seen haul ed out in the vi C1 nity of the upper forks area. Nine Black bear sightings were made between August 4 and September 13} 1981. These inc 1 ude seven si ght i ngs I probably of the three adul t bear men t ion e dab 0 v e as well a s a s 1 g h t j n9 0 f two b ea r h 1 9h 0 nth e s lop e s a tl 0 v e the outl et of Black Bear Lake. Two wo 1 f troci<s were seen near Uie head of BL in earl y August. No other wolf sign wes seen nor were any wolf-frequented treils identified. Hi nk: traCKS were seen on every tri p up BBe above BL} inc 1 udi ng a11 tt-wee forks of the stream. [,,1i nk use appeared to be heavi est in the slower reaches of BBe with good coho rearing habitat. . Morten si gn was 1ess abundant than rni nk} bei ng di spersed throughout the upper vall ey} but none seen in the dense brush an,j b 1 o"Ndown north of the Lake Fork. One rnarten sigtlted in dense forest east of the South Fork's falls. Further Work: Anticipated -Spring.. 1982: Thi sis not summari zed here, si nee the work 1 s sumnlari zed later. 10 Tentotive Comments on Possible Mitigation and Protective Measures Needed for Design-Construction of Hydropower System. Des i g n flo w ro ute 0 f t ail ra c e water sothat b81a n c e is po s sib 1 e between f1 ows enteri ng groundwater route vs. surf ace fl ow routes. Consider an infiltration ditch across the valley with width and depth of 'water SUbject to variable control at the outlet into the natural channel. Revi ew desi gn of road access below the outlet of BL Mai nta] n the free f1 ow of coarse sedi ments from the northerl y s1 de of the valley} through tributary stream into BBe just below the BL outlet. Develop an approach to deal wi th reduced beaver populat i on and the likely resulting loss of coho habitat. The proposed project flow regime n1Ef8 require more adjustment now that more is known about the habi tats i nvo 1ved. Appendi x Materi 81 s: Ten photos of stream channel characteri st i cs above BL. Records of KlaVv'ock Ri ver wei r counts. Wood .. R.E. ADF&G KetchjKan Area Management Biologist .. Game Djy. Letter to HARZA Engi neeri ng Co." May 17 .. 1962. The purpose of thi s 1et ter was to i ndi cate possible eff eets upon wll dllf e of the B.B.L. hydroe 1 ectri c project. No speci f; c data are prov; ded. Tt1e evaluation is based upon experience in v·/orking 'Nith effects of roading and 1oggi ng on v\'il dl if e and wil dli f e habi tat condit ions. Summary: the effects of 1oggi ng and conversi on to second-growth are to reduce wlldl1fe nurnbers; road access also detr1mental , but for fewer speci es. Vegetati on-rel ated eff eets of pro j ect i nsi gnifi cant compared v1i th effects of logging: permanent road flccess in drainage -deer popu1fltions 1ess impacted than bear or sorne furbearers. Actual project constructi on acti vi ti es associ ated wi th necessary access road , dam, powerhouse etc.:I very 1 it t1 e impact, because area aff ected is smalL I ndi rect eff eets on wildlife by impacting or changing fisheries: coho probably a more critical food source for wfldlife than adult fish that return to the stream earlier. 1 1 Mai ntai ned road access Tvi 11 increase deer havest in drai nage I but deer numbers and harvest wi 11 later drop off in drai nage due to 1oggi ng impact. bear harvest may increase excessively in drainage due to access to 1 ocati ons of fi sh concentrati on. Protect1 ye act jon: close road to pub 1i c access? Is thi s possi b 1 e or even practical? Bishop .. D. M... A.M. Milner &. l.A. Smith. Biological-Ecological Inyestigat10ns of the Black Bear Creek System Near Klawock .. AlasKo. ENVIRONAIO, August, 1982. Thi s ; s the prj nci pa 1 envi ronrrlenta 1 document completed by ENV IRONA I 0 for the BBL hydroelectric project. This work fvcuses primarily upon BBe above BL, f 0 11 owi ng the general conc 1us; on that the potential for fi sh and wil dl i f e impacts from the hydroe 1 ectri c proJect exi sts pri marll y 1 n the upper drai nage. The purposes were to complete descri pti on of the fi sh and wildlife values and habitats of the upper BBC drainage" to increase the base of hydrologic information relating to fish and wildlife of the upper drainage, end then to eve 1 uate eff ects of the proposed pro j eet on fi sh and wil dl if e of the upper dra] na~e. Characteristics of Upper BlacK Beor Creek Drainage: Physi cal: Cl i mot i c i nf ormat ion for Crai 9 is gi ven. Weather i nf ormat ion for upper SBe during periods of significant residence is included with records of BL water leyel fluctuations. The configuration and sub-drainage areas of the upper BBC dral nage i ndi cate the re 1 ati ve i rnportance of respective units in affecting the f1 ow end qual ity of U-Ie streem. The f 0 11 o'yv; ng table prov; des a surnrnary: %of entire %of area upstr. %of area" So. Fk. %of entire Sub-dra i nage SSC area of inlet to BL + entire Lk. Fk Lk.Fk. area BBL basin (1.82 mi 2) 10.4% 28.9% 34.5% 58.7% Lk.Fk.system (3.1 mi 2) * 17.7 49.2'" 58.8 100.0 So. Fk.+ Lk. Fk. drai nages} (5.27mi2) 30.1 83.7 100.0 BBC at inlet to BL (6.3 rni2) 36.0 100.0 BBe at mouth of BL (7.39 m12) 42.3 * The value shown in the text for this area is 3.34 mi 2 which isJ 1 nconsi stent wi th other f1 gures gi ven here or with the fi gure 91 ven ] n 8 1ater report. 12 B1oct( Lok:e: area -ca. 62 8.; average depttl -25 ft.; max. depth -ca. 40 ft. range of 1eye 1 f1 uctuati on 3.5 ft. South Fork:: gravels of lower reaches are iron-stained franl groundwater emergence. Spri ng Fork: enti re 1 y spri ng fed; rneasured flo'vYS have been bet'vveen 17 and 25 cf s though lower fl ows occur; gradi ents frorn 0.3% to 2%+ near the source of spri ngfl aws. Lake Fork: upstream of beaver pond area) gradient of streamflow increases to 1 to 3% vyi ttl cobb 1 e-graye 1 bed) bef ore react,i ng i nterrni t tent channe 1. The i ntermi t tent ct1anne 1 is steep -5 to 10% -boul der bed 'vvith tYlany logs and wi ndf all s. After 13 days of dry-peri ad flow recessi on in August, 1981} the f1 ow out of Bl VY'as 7.2 cfs \'\/hile Hie flovy' frorn BBl \'\I8S 4.1 cfs. Ttlus BBl outflow} represent1 ng 1.52/7.39 (or 25%) of the dr51 nage at outl et BL} was con t ri b u ti n9 57% 0 f t his low fl 0 w . Exami nati on of a Septernber storm also suggests hi gh i ni ti a1 yi e 1 ds frorn BBl, and agai n shows lower fl ow yal ues contri buti ng more fl ow than the percent drai nage area waul d i ndi cate. May} 1982 f1 ow "181 ues from outlet BBl and frorn outlet Bl i nd; cate that these snowrne 1 t f1 ows are inc1 osl! accord with percentage contri buti ons 13 accordi ng to thei r respect i ye drai nage areas. (note: These re 1at ions are shown in Fi gure 4 of the report. The fl gure shows a proportion 1 i ne of 3.82:1 whi ch is in error and shaul d be 4.06: 1. Conc 1 usi ons stated in trle report are not aff eeted.) Groundwater flows in BBC above BL: Stream temperature observat ions as vy'ell as prorninence of iron-stalned streambed materials indleate an important role of upwelling groundwater in upper BBC gravel-bed channels. Springflows in winter 1981-82 remained oyer 20 C. In August} 1981 surface flows with 0 temperoture of 1 :2OC. entered the boulder-rubble streambed in to the vi ci nity of the proposed powerhouse 1 oeati on, and emerged at 9.5 to 1~C., varying according to the specific location of emergence. The latter information is be1ieyed to indicate a rapid flow through the rubble-boulder route. (later di seussi on in thi s report of temperature obseryat ions suggests only a Urne of about three hours from BBL through the aquifer route.) Though di ssol ved 02 ITleasurements of emergent waters were not taken, presence of fi nger1 i ng sal rnon i ndi cated at 1 east adequate 1eve 1s. Flow tTleasurernents in spri ng.. 1982 i ndi cote the capac; ty of the groundvvater f1 o\'v route to the Spri ng Fork i s between 17 and 25 c. f.s. A January} 1982 trleasurement suggested a 'vvi nter rni ni tllUrr of about 10 c. f .s. VihUe no SUrriITler niinimurn flow was directly measured .. the BBl discharge of August 18} 1981 (4.1 c.f.sJ indicates a SUITlrner rninimum of 4 to 5 c.f.s. Stream Sediment Characteristics: During the period of tt-lis stUdy the streambed has appeared relatively stable and sediment movement not extreoie. But evidence of period(s) of more active seditnent rnovement suggests years of mild activity may be punctuated by major sediment pulses fron1 1ands 1i de or torrent sources. Stream temperatures: BBl outlet temperatures fell lower during winter 1980 -8 1 t t1 ani n Vv i n t e r, 1 98 1-82. T his rn a y bedu e tom i n i mal ice co v e r i n 1980-81 J wt-licti allowed for longer periods of wind chilling and heat loss. Duri ng the warm} dry peri ad of August} 1981 10Vv'er Bl exceeded 170C. when the in 1 et to Bl reached 12.50 C. and the ITlOuth of BBl reachelj 150 C... aga1 n suggesting that the flow route below the waterfall acts to cool warOi summer waters. \"/'r,en there is a marked di ff erence between the out 1 et temperature of BBl and air temperature .. the waterfall produces major changes in water 14 temperatures. June 20 .. 1982 BBl outlet temperatures of ca. 10C. warrried to 5.5 0 C. at the base of the fall s. Thi s occurred when ai r teITlperature was measured in the valley at 9.20C. Diurnal temperature ranges and patterns Vv'ere discussed here) ITluch ~s in the eorlier interim report. One notevv'orthy bit of information came from the Stream Gravel Thermograph .. new1 y i nsto 11 ed just downstreaoi of the j uncti on of lake and Spri ng Forks. Thi s added record sho\¥s dur; ng the warm period of August .. 1981 .. a lag of about 3 hours betiind the ttieroiograph record of the outlet of BBL. Since the flows below the waterfall were passing entirely into the streambed-groundwater route at that time} this compari son i ndi cates a time peri od for water to make tt-Ii s transi t. Computati ons of water temperature accumul at ion uni ts (OC.) are made for the five thermographs operated during September through April .. 1981 82 and ore compared wi th the data obta'i ned for the four stat ions operated during the 1980-81 perlod. This information is used later to examine possible effects of the hydroelectric project on stream temperatures. Lake profile information: surnrnary information lS concentrated on water ternperature profiles of BBL, since other data dealing \Hith conductivity, di sso 1 'led 02 } and profil e condi ti ons in Black Lake are of 18SS i mportance for trli s work. Tab 1 e 2 of the sub j eet report provi des the best sunlmary and is exerp ted bel O'vV: 15 Date Ct18nQe wi th ref erence to tt-Ie lake surf ace "" @ -10ft. @ -20 ft. @ -30 ft. 8-20-80 -0.1 vC -0.2 vC. -0.4VC. 8-11-81 -1.5 -2.3 -3.0 9-23-80 0.0 0.0 -0.1 9-13-81 0.0 0.0 0.0 10-29-80 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 10-20-81 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 1-21-82 +0.6 +1.0 +1.2 No spri ng samp 1i ng data is available. The 1-21-82 val LJes shown above are suggested for use as Ule "worst case assumption". Open winters or early spri ngs wi 11 reduce these wi nter dirf erences. Additional water chemistry data were collected in this phase II work. The phase I data characteri zi ng the stream system is presented here as it was in U.e phase I i nteri m report. Phase" data concerns BL product i vi ty end is i ncorpoorated in the fi sheri es section. Characteri sti cs of Fi sheri es: B 1 a c k Be a r l a k e sup port sap 0 pU1ali 0 n 0 f ra i n bow t ro utori gin ell y s t acked 16 by ADF&G. The log for the USFS cabin reports fist-ling es "good"} "poor"} "slow". A one-day test fish by ADF&G produced three trout} 24 cm. (3+)} 32cm. (4+)} and 39.5cm. (5+). An August} 1981 attempt at mark-re-capture survey in the lake} using rod end line} was aborted when only one fish was caught ina day. A second schedu1 ed at tempt to obtai n a popu1 at ion esti mate and spawning information for May} 1982, was prevented by lake ice which persi sted until mi d-June. A further attempt was made in lete summer, 1982. Adult salmonid escapements: while this account of escapernents is more comprehensive than earlier information presented in this summary} t he on 1 y i mpo rt a nt new in forma t ion a s of Aug u s t} 1 982 was the ace 0 U n t 0 f steel head trout observed in spring} 1982, while fyke-netting. All si ght i ngs of stee 1 head were made between Mey 1 and 17 in the vi C1 ni ty of the outlet of BL} near or below the lOy jam} where the fyke net was located. Three fi sh were captured by rod and 1i ne: 590 mm., 2350 grams, (5+, 4 fresn, 2 salt water); 406 mm.} 568 grams} no seal es taken; 385 mm.} 606 grams, scales all regenerated. A survey of suitable spa'",/ni ng area above BL produced no f1 sh} i ndi caU ng that all steel head spawning occurred in the stream section below the lake. An est i mated 20 to 25 stee 1 head vvere in the upper creek he low BL in spri ng, 1982. Outmigration studies: The extensive} spring 1982 fyke net workl reported rlere f 011 owed the pre 1 i mi nary study reported by Mil ner l 1 n May, 1981. In spri ng} 1982} three fyke net si tes were operated: above BL .. from Apri 1 lOti 11 June 8, continuously except f or three days of hi gh water; i rnrnedi ete 1 y bel OVI the log j arn at the outlet .. BL} fron1 April 9 unt 11 June 9, on alternate days to Apri 1 25} then dall y; and near the ti deY-later mouth of BSC I on on every trli rd day schedu1 e. About 450,000 ernergent pi nk fry moved 1 nto BL from the gravel strearnbeds upstream} lndlcat1ng an egg to fry surv1val of about 11 %} a normal survival. Of these fry entering the 1ake only half successfullyl n10ved out of the lake towards tide'Nater. Lake ice and cold conditions may have aff ected survi '.18 L The peak of pi nk outmi grati on from the lake came with high flo'yYS and ice leaving the lake. Pink outmigrants at the outlet of BL were significantly heavier than earlier frYI suggesting \J.teight gain in the lake while ePNaiting suitable outmigrating condi t ions." 17 The May peaks of pi nk fry outrni grati on observed at the n10uth of BSC probob 1 y come from the streem below BL} prov; di ng further i ndi Cot ion U1et it1i slower streambed accumUlates i ncubat i on heat un1 ts n10re sl owl y than the strearn above BL Few chum fry were observed rnoving into BL} possibly because the peek of tt-Iei r outmi grati on was m1 ssed. Larger numbers of crlum fry trapped below BL probably reflect known spawning areas below the outlet of BL. The fyke net at upper BL indicated that less than 20}OOO SOCkeye fry entered the 1 ake. The low number} i ndi caU ng low egg to en1ergence survi val .. may ref1 ect the over-spawn; ng of pi nks on top of SOCkeye redds ; n the fa 111 1981. About 3.000 coho fru were trapped enterinq Bl. 849 trapped at the outlet . "'" .. . ....,. . . of BL .. and 693 trapped i nterrni t tentl y at the rnouth of BBe. The prorni nence of "nomad" fry among these numbers was not establlsfled. About 16,500 sockeye smolt emigrated from BL in spring, 1982 between April 18 and June 10. Emi grati on was greatest when 1ake outflow ternperatures were around 70 C., (flround May 17 and agai n a peak peri od of t1ay 27-28) and appeared to be arrested by peri ods of increased snownie It waters. Preliminary information indicates thflt at least 85% of tl"le srnolt were age I fish .. having spent one full season of rearing in the lake. 7 }606 coho smo 1 t were esti mated to have rnoved out of BL} with a peak of run about May 13 to 24. Fulton's condition factor for these predorni nantl y age II fish vyas measured at 1.04. Smo1t were observed to move out of lower BBC during the sonle tinle period. Black lake Resi dent Fi sh: These include rear; ng coho and sockeye J cut throat trout and Do 11 y Varden char; the latter two found to be present in only small or very small numbers. Threespine sticklebacks are also present. A rnark-recapture experi ment, Septernber 7 -15, 1981 i ndi cated the population of coho juveniles as coho 1+ = 2.. 196 to 3.. 271; coho 0+ = 1.. 930 to 3 .. 154 fish (at 95% confidence limits). The most productive areas were in the shall ows at opposi te ends of the lake. Visual observations indicating few coho juveniles in the stream above BL in February, suggest that the lake is an i trlportant overwi nter; ng habi tat. lake productivity studies indicate that BL's primary production is limited by low phosphorus 1eve 1s. Exam; nati on of plankton tows provi ded an est i n)ate of plankton species and abundance. Results i ndi cate heavy grazing pressure by sockeye j uvenil es upon zooplankton. Sockeye nurnbers in BL are evi dent 1 y at the lake's carry; ng capacity. Habi tat studi es above Black lake: The prirnary purpose of thi s vyork was to estimate numbers of coho using respective habitats within the stream system above BL and affected by the outflow of BBL. SecondarilYJ the work allowed investigators to obtain a better understanding of the re loti on of reari ng hob; tats to stage of streamfl ow. Four habitat Zones were defined: Zone IJ from BL upstream along the 10'yV gradient stream to the entry of the west branch of the South Fork: Zone II .. up the combined or separate flows of Spring Fork and Lake Forks about 1000 feet to where the gradlent 1ncreases s1gn1i ,cantly more than 1 or 2%; Zone III, from the upper ends of Zone II to the beginning of the steep} 18 intermit tent channel; and .. Zone I V .. the beaver ponds (a) at the lower end of the Lake Fork .. and (b) upstream from BL, near the stream's southv18sterl y banks. Zone I supported a populati on of about 3, 100 coho at the ti rne of the August, 1981 trappi ng. They 'vvere predomi nant 1 y 10cateci along the str-earn margi ns wi th overhangi ng vegetat i on, undercut banks} or logs and branches of fall en trees. Thi s preferred habitat ¥las seen to di rni ni sh duri ng the August, 1981 lo\'v' fl OV1S. Zone " supported small numbers of coho. Mark-recapture population estiniate was not attenipted here. This relatively fast-flo\¥ing Zone has 1ess overhangi ng vegetat i on, undercut banks and banksi de \¥oody detritus habitats than Zone l. Zone III is not a producti ve tiabi tat for reari ng sal moni ds. Zone I V supported about 946 coho j uvenj 1 es in the two pond areas. Characteri st j cs of wi 1dl j f e popul at j ons: The observati on base for thi s report was developed in 1981 and 1982 in the course of f1 sheri eS or hydro 1 ogi c i nvesti gat ions as well as f ron) a seri es of hi kes concentrati ng on wil dl if e-related observati ons. Ttie observations made duri ng the 1981 fi e 1 d \¥ork have been sumrnari zed in the November.. 1981 Inter; m Report. The following material adds to the 1981 observations .. and then reaches more general conc 1 usi ons. 19 131 ack: Hear: In 1 ate October 1981 J bear scat 'Nith deer hai r V18S found in the BBe drai nage above BL. Locat i on of a deer carcass known at that ti me to be in the lower BBe drainage near tidewater suggests route of travel of that bear. No bear. sign was seen in late "January, 1982, while walking/skiing through trle study area. Possible denning sites were examined and found empty. From 4-8 to 5-29-82 tracks of a small bear were seen above BL -probably ttie same bear resident of sumrner-fall, 1981. On 5-29-82 a large bear was seen on the southeast shore of BL J eating sedges. Two bears then used the drai nage above BL. On 6-18-82 extensive sign of a third} yet smaller} bear was seen on the va 11 ey headwall northeast of the waterf 811. Thi s S1 gn conti nued up to the ice near the mouth of BBL. The numbers of bellr in the vllll ey bot tom obove BL vori es wi th avoi 1 abi ty of spawni ng sal man. Ouri ng the peak of sal man returns in 1981 ttli s area supported five bears .. in close proxirnity, working the forks area. As spawni ng tapered off, all but one small bear 1eft the area. In the spri ng} the wetl ands ad j acent to the low gro,ji ent channel above BL pravi ded bear with sedge and skunk cabbage grazi ng. Later .. in summer .. these areas were used as routes of travel. The 1oggi ng road is used by bear as access to the BL area. Observat ions i ndi cate that no nlore than t \NO bear are year-round res] dents of the area bet\,veen BL and BBL} vy'i th add iti onal transients corni ng to feed on sal rnon in September. In Septenlber} 1981 there \¥ere three transi ents. Beaver: as with bear} 1981 observat ions have a1 ready been summari zed. The following deals Y'lith subsequent information and with general conc 1usi ons. January 21} 1982} fresh beaver tracks in snoVY' around Lake Fork pond. t1any recentl y cut al der sap li ngs; extensi ye cache of cut t i ngs near pond and under logs and snow. Fresh tracks also near Spring Fork. No other sign seen above BL. 20 I n earl y Apr; 1 1982, extensive beaver action conti nues at Lake Fork pondJ and in the general vicinity of the forks. A large new beaver darn wasl discovered on the South Fork. It was built betvy'een late fall} 1981 and early spri ng , 1982. In the spri ng eveni ngs of 1982} beaver were seen or heard several ti rnes in the slow f1 owi ng stream not far upstream of BL. Though beaver sign is extensively seen generally above BL, the hub of activity is around the Lake Fork pond. Frorn spring to fall beaver rnaintain the two lower po n d son the sou t h sid e 0 f B BCab 0 v e BL.. but de part i n win t e r except for casual feeding. Beaver above BL are very wary of humans. The beaver population appears to be expanding. An estimate of present population is 7 to 12 animals .. which is likely one family group. This group probab 1y di sperses from spri ng to fall } dwell i ng under overhangi ng banks and stumps, but concentrates in winter to 1ivd communally at the Lake Fork pond. Old beaver sign as contrasted with more recent beaver sign, as well as i ndi cati ons of trappi ng activity one or two decades ago i nt i mates that the present beaver popul at ion is recentl y estab 1 i shed. Deer: thi s surnrnary agai n proceeds to 1982. Bet'vveen 1-20-82 and 6-8-82 deer or deer tracks were seen only four tirnes; three of these were of one deer and one si gt1ti ng of t \NO deer. A wi nter kill was found 200 meters dO'vvnstream of the fyke net below the outlet of BL and hai r from another probable wi nter kill was found in the fyke net above BL. Deer popu1 atl ons are 1o'vver in 1982 U1an in recent years. Deer si gn is much rnot-e abundant bet ween BL and ti dewater than above BL. Tt1ere is no evidence U1at deer use tt-,e \·vatershed above BL for wintering. Wo 1f: tt1i s surnrnary proceeds to 1982, On 1-20-82 t·wo wolf tracks were seen e~:tensively on the sno'w over BL and in upstream areas, \1101 ves h o v .... 1ed in the earl y rnorni ng of 1 1 in the vicinity of Big Salt Lake. In earl y April two adul t "vol f tracks were seen on snow over BL and two wo 1ves were seen on the road} one mil e dov.... nstream from BL. Tracks of three adul ts were seen on April 26 8 st10rt di stance atlove BL and in earl y ~1ay two adults, di ff erent i ndi vi dual s than seen earl i er, were agai n seen on21 the 1 ogg; ng rood. . It is probable that wolves hunt more regularly bet'vveen BL and tide'vvater than in the upper drainage. Wolf use is likely to be in proportion to deer use. The upper dra1 nage has a f ai r1 y we 11 used game trail movi ng upvall ey towards the falls and the steep passable slide area} but it is not known whether wolves use thi s potenti al route. Mustelids: Mink tracks continued to be commonly seen in 1982 along the stream banks of the creek above BL. Marten sign was less abundant than mink , occurring diffuse 1 yin the forest areas of the upper va 11 ey. The fi rst 8i gn of otter above BL was SGer. in October of 1981 and S1 gn cont i nued to be seen from January through June of 1982. I n January otter scat 'was found to conta'j n small fi sh bones and S1 gn was common in the Forks area. In ttle spri ng otter S1 gn vv'es wi de 1 y di spersed throughout the area above BL. Effects of Proposed Hydroelectric Project on Fishes & Their Habi tat: This section does not address the present fishery values and habitats of B1 ack Bear Lake, or the i rnpacts that may be expected frorn the hydroe 1ectri c project. Tt-Iese are questions sUll to tie ans\'vered. It does address effects of Ule proposed project on salrnonitj spav'lning and rearing rHltdtats above Black Lake. SpHwning habitats above BL v·d-lict-i n-Iay be irnpacted by the project are fourllj principall!~ in Zone II (see earlier section, Character-istics of Fisheries: Hatlitat studies .. .). The SOU"U1 Fork is not likely to be affecteljJ atilj is not included in this exarnination. Five pt"l!dsical features 'y'y'tlich rnay be alterelj tly a hydroelectric proJect and affect fi sh or thei r habi tats are: stream di scharge, spri ngfl o'YY(s)} \'v'ater ternperature, 00-18r water qual ityl ct-Jerni stry features, and strearnbed dynerni cs end que 1ity. The fi rst three f eetures ere the pri nei pel f oeus of at tenti on here. Ttle 1ast t \-\'O features are rnore bri efl y handl ed. The regulated flow regime propo:;ed for ttlis project is compared with S~dnttlesized unregUlated flows (t,y CH2t'1 Hill) in U-Ie table belo'vV: tv1 0 nth Avera 9 e r"1 0 nt rll1d Flo 'AI s Pea k tvl 0 nth lid Flo '1'/ s L(I vdvl0 nt rll y F1[I Vi S regul ated unreguloted reguloted unreguloted reguloted unreguloted Jan. greater greater greater Feb. greater greater greater Mar. greater greater greater Apr. same greater greater t"1a~d greater greater greater June greater greater same July greater greater greater Aug. Sept. greater san1e greater greater greeter greater Oct. greater greater same Nov. sarTle 8reater greater Dec. greater greater si mil ar Trl8 atlove tatd 8 SUg~~8StS ttlat for H-Ie spa\,vni ng tbrougrl i ncubati on peri ad} August through April, the regulated project flovYS could be a problem primarily in Octotler anlj Decernber-, vitien regulated monthly flov'IS are projected to tie less than unregulate,j rnonthlld flov·/s. The effect of regulated October Hnd December flov'/s on the spavvning stxearn cbanne 1 s of Zone II "Nas exarni ned in 16 str-earn cross-secti ons. Of these sect ions, one \.\/as at the mouth of the Souttl Fork! two were in the c:r-lflnn81 cornn"iCtn to part of H-Ie South Fork fl (IVv' fJrllj fJ 11 of tr,e Spri ng and La~:~e Fork f1 a"I\"S I four vv'ere in the Spri ng Fork but vari ab 1y 1nfl uenced by overflovv's and 1eakage frorn H-,e Lake Fork) fi ve \-vere in tJle Spri ng Fork above rnost or all i nfl uence of fl oodi ng or 1eaki nl~ frorn Lake Fork, and four vv'ere in Lake F (Irk upstream of the tleaver pond. As sug~~ested frorn tt-Ie descri pti on at1ove .. Hie n O\N paths in Zone II are cornp 1ei< arllj ct-Ifmge \tvi tt"! the volumes anlj levels of strearnflo"Ns, trlaking H-Ie analysis rnore Ijifficult. Expected effects of regul atelj Octotler and Decerntler flovy's ~ (62 arllj 36 cfs .. respect i vel y) as compared \.yith the pro j ected unregu 1ated f1 O\,,'S for tJlese rnonths I (75 end 44 cf respect i ve 1y) ere surnrnari zed bel O\¥ for U"le sub units of Zone II. South Fork: not included in HilS e:~aminationl since regulation of EiEiC out f1 O\'\'S wi 11 have no di rect effect on the Souttl Fork. lower lake &. Spri ng Forks + some South Forks waters: Cross23 sect ions of thi s sub-uni t (uni tis 200 ft. long on report map) caUl d not be fit teij Vv'itt-I projected f1 O"N 1eve 1s. The form of tri8 secti ons 'vVitJI rel ati ve 1id steep banks, i rllji cates the channel of ttl; s sub-unit 1 s not part i cul arl y suseepti b 1 e to exposure of ti Ie bed as the vv'ater 1eve 1 drops. Spring Fork .. with vari8ble inf10ws from Lake Fork: This sub-unit .. atll)ut 350 feet in lengtti~ includes a section WiUi rnuch flow-r-ated V-later level information} thus allo'-Ning conclusions to be react-lett First} it is e\.'i dent that the regul ated average fl O'vvs of October and December l Yv'hi ch ere lower than the proJected unregUlated f10vv's, will not cause any exposure of streernbed. V,lith regard to ct16nnel conditions under low flows for these t 'y'y'o nlonths} the water 1 eve 1 s rneasured across ttii s sect i on when the strearn 'vvas f1 ovv'; ng at 4.3 cf s ; nd; cate trlat trle streatYlbed in thi s secti on begi ns to si gni fi cant 1 y de\.\/eter at about 4 cf s. Trre otrler U-,ree cross-sect ions of trli s Zone II sub-uni t each show \'vater 1eve 1 s only for a specifi c date of observati on. Est i mates of f1 o'ws v",ere not levels only for a specific date of observation. Estimates of flows were not given in the report for these days. They are added here by providing USGS doily flow values for the outlet BBl for the respective days: BBl on 5-26-82 = 46 c f s; 6 -2 -82 = 77 c f s; 6 -5 -82 = 44 c f S. \-\1 hen ttl e sethre e sec ti on s } \·vith their respective levels of \-Yater and volumes of f1("1w} are cornpared with ttle one section vv'hich was rated by succe;ssive flow measurements} they are seen to be sirnilar in cross-sectional forrn and it is reasonable to cone 1ude that ttle flo'w condi t i ons for a11 four cross-sections are niuch the same. Spring Fork above most or 611 influence of overflows from Lake Forlc Thi s sub-unit of Zone II is approxi mate 1 y 500 feet long. The fi ve representati ve cross-secti ons show water 1 eve 1 s for a fl o\-y vol urne of 17 to 25 cfs. Unregulated surnrner low flow in Spring Fork is known to reach 4 efs. (flo\.....· measuretYlent do\-ynstreatYl/ 8-18-81) and may reach 3 cfs. \.vater 1eve 1 s f or these low fl OVv'S have not been approxl mated. The shape of H-Ie channel in Hiis sub-unit} with vertical banks and generally flat cross secti on i ndi cates that Hie streambed wi 11 become dewatered s 1 oV'll y. Lake Fork, upstream of the beaver pond: This sub-unit about 600 feet long is represented by f our sections. Each of these sections include water 18Y81s for 8 30 cfs flow and projected leY81s for flows of 21} 12 and 5 cfs. These secti ons represent an unstab 1 e streambed trlat 1 s coarser and rougher and more troughed and rnult i -ctianne 11 ed than the other sub-uni ts of Zone II. Significant dewater'ing of these chanllels occurs around 12 cfs and extensive loss of wet ted stream is evi dent at 5 cf s. 24 Eva 1uat1on of Zone II cross-sect j ons: (supp 1 ernentary i nf orrnati on 1S added here). The principal question with regard to these cross-sections is related to condi t ions of water 1 eve 1 at low fl ow, part i cul arl y for the rnonths of October and December} since regulated flow for these months is low with respect to monthly averages. The regul ated average f1 ow proposed f or October below the powerhouse is 38 cfs; for DecetYlber it is 25 cfs. Extremes of low flow for these two months are, October} 25 cfs; December} 10 cfs. Comparabl e} synthesi zed, unregulated average monthly f1 ows are: October, 48 cfs; December} 24 cfs. The low extrem&s of synthesized rnonthly flovv's are: October, 25 cfs; Novernber .. 15 cfs; December, 6 cfs. (January, F ebruary, Marchi and Aprl1 all have low extremes of rnonth 1 y val ues -1ess than 1 cf s for the 30-year synthesi zed record. The synthesi zed seven-day, 10 year recurrence interval low flow from Black Bear Lake is 0.13 cf s. It can be concluded that the August 18 I 1981 low fl ow condit 1on \Nhl ch produced a di scharge of 1.41 cf s at the outlet of f3BL and a f1 ow of 4.2 9 c f s below the fork s ofth eBB L s y s t e 01 w 8 s not 8 p8 rti c u 18 r 1y eve n t for the natural stream.) To ass] st in eV81 uati ng October and December fl ow 1eve 1s under regulated or unregUlated conditions} an allocation of respective flows below the proposed pO\"v'erhouse was rnade} based upon current meter measurements n1ade in Lake and Spri ng Forks. Thi sis sumrnari zed in the f 0 11 OWl ng table: Flow below BBL All ocati on Allocation below falls tail race to Spri ng Fork to lo\-\,er Lake Fork unregul ated regul ated unregUlated regulated unregUlated regulated Oct. 48 cfs 38 cfs 18cfs 17cfs 30cfs 21 cfs (25)* (25)** ( 13)* ( 13)** ( 12)* ( 12)** Dec. 25 17 13 10 12 7 (6)* (10)** (5)* (7)** (1)* (3)** * Low extremes for monthly flows} over 30 years synthesized record. ** Extreme low regulated flow for m"onth .. with allocations to H-Ie forks. The above f1 ow values i ndi cate tt1e si ze of f1 ow from BBL that woul d make up or dorninat.e the Zone II stream channels during average or 10V'/ floV'/ condi t ions. The co01pari sons shown above are important to understand: open nurrlbers} e.g. 48 cf s} are average monthly regul ated or unregul ated values; bracketed} e ;9325) numbers are either low .montllly va 1ues (over 30 years synthesi zed record) or 8ctua 1 low extremes expected duri ng the respect i ve rnonths. As indicated in the earlier footnote} srlorter term low flows for unregu1 ated condi t ions (i.e. 7 day; to year events) can be much lower. The f 011 0 win g con c 1 us ion s wit h re g a rd toO c t 0 bera n d Dec ern b e r low flo W s in Zone II streams: October: Under average conditions of ei ther regulated or unregUlated flow .. none of the four sub-units examined bre likely to be impacted by any dewateri ng} nor wi 11 the low extremes of regu1 ated flows or the unregul ated low fl ow month in the 30 year record produce i rnpact. Unregul ated low 25 flows of lower probebll tty nley produce deweteri ng i rnpect. Decemb er: Under overLlge condi t ions of regul tlted f1 ow ~ the sub-uni t of Zone II} Leke Creek above beever pond~ mey experi ence sorne de\·veteri ng. Thi s caul d potentia 11 y impact e srna 11 nun-,ber of pi nk spfwners on rri gtl run Iyears but w 0 LJ 1 d not imp act c h u rn J soc key eJ 0 r co ho. 0 ttl e r pert s 0 f Zan e II under everage regul eted condi t ions} and all of Zone II under average unregulated condi t ions woul d not be edverse 1 y i mpected. Ttle lov-, extretTles of reguleted flovv ere elso likely to inlpect pink spavvning in Lake Creek above beever pond , but are not likely to significantly impact spawning in Spri ng Fork. The unregul ated lovv' fl ow rnonth for the 30 year record waul d i rnpact pi nk spewni ng in Leke Creek ebove beaver pond; woul d have lit tl e or no effect on Spri ng Fork or other dovvnstream components of Zone II. More severe effects of dewatering on Zone II are likely to result from low probabil ity unregul ated low f1 ov,, condi ti ons. Spri ng Fork temperatures under regulated and unregUlated condi t ions: The f 0 11 owi ng va 1ues are based upon: rneasured \'vater temperatures at the outlet of BBL; occasional measurements of vy'ater ternperatures at the base of the waterfall; intake water teo-,peratures et 17 fee t bel 0 \'\" the surf e ceo f B B L } e s ti met e d fro 01 pro f 11e mea sure men t s; and occasional water temperatures above and below the groundwater route that feeds Spri ng Fork. Ternpereture in Spri ng Fk. " Tempereture in Spring Fk. et groundweter etTlergence at groundwater ernergence 26 Month unregUlated regul eted month unre,~ul ated regulated August 9.5 OC. 9.0 0C. Februery 2.00C. 2.5 0 C. Septernber 9.0 9.0 March 2.5 3.0 October 7.5 7.5 April 3.0 2.5 November 7.0 7.0 May 5.0 4.5 Decernber 2.5 3.0 ....June 8.0 7.0 January 2.5 3.0 July 9.0 8.5 Warmer water temperatures by about a half degree during the Decernber to spring period indicate that cumuletlve tempereture units eccumulate more rapi dl y duri ng fall to spri ng i ncubati on end suggest that fry emergence wi 11 occur earlier under the regUlated system drawing water from submerged 1eve 1 s of the Lake. Effects, groundwater route from powerhouse site to Spring Fork:: Thi s route stabil i zes Spri ng Fork's flow regi me withi n en observed range of about 4 to 25 cfs.; it moderates the extremes of water temperature} which rnay be useful to prevent wi nter freezi ng in the stream. The pos; ti on at thi s channel and the stebll ity of its flows f evor stebll ity of the bed end reduced mortal ity to eggs end al evi n. Throughout thi s e>::al ni nati on and the consideration of possible effects of the project, it has been assurned that th; s groundwater f1 ow route wi 11 rernai n intact. Stream dynamics and bedload movement: ActiYe bedload rnoyernent davin the Lake Fork is evi dent. Reduced peak f1 ows Vii 11 act to stab; 1 i ze th; s systern} whi ch caul d benefi t spawni ng habitat frorn the beaver pond up to Ule point ¥lhere the strearnbed steepens and becomes rubble-boulders. Water chemi stry: No adverse effects are expected from the proJect 'vvittl regat-d to di sso 1yed 02 and other features of viater chemi stry. Reari ng Habi tats above 61 BCI< lal<e: Rear; ng t-,abitats above BL ere i denti fi ed as Zone I end I V and inc 1 ude 2}500 to 3}000 feet of meinstreem channel (below Zone II) and the beaver ponds on the westerl y S1 de of the channe 1 and on the Lake Fork (Zone I V). These habitats mey be affected by chenges in water 1eve 1s) ve loci ti es or ternperatures. Possible effects upon strearrl channel tlabitat were exarnined by use of27 eleven cross-sections of the stream for which the lJ¥f!rlJge regulated and unregul ated June and August water-1 eve 1 s were projected) and ttle low f1 ow weter-1evel of August) 1981 yves i dent i fi ed. Neither the everege June condit i C1n ('yvhere the unregul ated fl ow exceeded the regul ated) nor the average August condition (where the regul eted flow exceeded the unregul ated) sho\¥ much eff ect upon stream water 1 eve 1s. Exarni nali on of the August) 1981 low f1 ow water 1 evel s, hO'yvever, srlo\¥s S1 gnifi cent loss of stream margi n habitat. I twas perti cul arl y thi s mergi n habitat that \.yas found) during trapping work) to be preferred by juvenile coho and Dolly Verden. It is the low flow extremes that are more likely to i mpect reari ng habi tat. The project's flow regime anticipates reduced ranges of extreme low flow for every month except June, October and [acernber as compared with the loyv month flow for the 30 yeer syntt-Iesized record. For these rnonths) the extreme regul ated 1a'l1 fl ow wi 11 be about the same as f or the low mont h of record. Here} as wittl the Zone II examination the unregulated extremes of l low flow (at lower levels of probability) will develop n",ucll lo,\,er flows thon the f1 OViS of the reguloted extremes. Thi S wi 11 reduce the occurrence of lovv' ¥t'ater levels such as shovv'n for-August l 19B 1. Water temperatures in Zone I: Changes in water temperatures sho'y'y'n for Zone I are valid here, too, altrlough the differences betvv'een unregulated and regulated water terrlperatures will be diminished by Ule temperature changes fl 0'yV1 ng downstream. The ternperature differences (unregul ated vs. regulated) are likely to tlave less effect upon rearing t-Iabitat and temperature conditions than the beneficial effect of more sustained volunle of fl ow duri ng the SUtllrner months. Flows reduce or prevent the occurrence of local hi gh temperatures along shorel i ne pool areas. Ttle surn of project effects on coho habitat in the rnai nstrearn is l'j ke 1y to be f avorab 1e. Rearing habi tat in beaver ponds (Zone IV) of the upper Black Bear Lake systern are likely to suffer as a result of loss of access into the ponds by salrnon adults or young during higrl water periods and from reduced beaver popul at i on from possi b1e trappi ng. Beaver dams and water corri dors y·ri 11 then deter; orate. Lack of beaver mai ntenance rnay resul tin eli mi nati on of Ule Lake Fork pond and gradual reduction in ponded area in the lO'yver part of the system above BBL. Improved access into the upper vall ey maYI alone I impact beaver popu1at i on28 and thus beaver hob; tat. Block lake as rearing hRbitot and salmonid mlgrot~on route: Level s of Black Bear Lake Ulrough the year wi 11 change as a resul t of the regUlated flo\...... regime. Levels of Black Lake in January} February, March} July, and August are calculated to rise about 0.1 foot with regulation, based upon an estab 11 shed lake 1 evel-lake d1 scharge re lat i onshi p. Levels duri ng MaYI June and October wi 11 drop by a si mllar amount} wt-Ii 1 e 1 eve 1 s for four months will experi ence 1itt1 e or no change. The eff ect wi 11 be to moderate the peaks and lovv's whi ch the lake experi ences seasonall y as well duri ng specific storm or low flo\¥ events. The regulated winter flow regime .. where Decernber flows are reduced 9% ·while January flows increase 22%} February flows increase 30% and March flows increase 40%1 will alter ice formation and melting. If cold weather comes in December, ice may form at that time. Black Lake ice, when formed, wi 11 not stay as long or buil d up as much thi ckness. Lake breakup wi 11 come earli er. Change in heat flow into or out of BL does not) however l suggest much chan gel n 1 a k e \'Va t e r tern p e ra t u re s. Itis 1 ike 1 y t hat 1 a k e surf ace ternper-atures in \Ali nter \Ni 11 show 1it t 1 e increase. Surnmer surf ace water at the inlet to SL may experi ence small reducti ons 1 n ternperature with regulated flO\N. This effect) however) is likely to be nlasked by much larger ternperature changes in the surface waters of the lake. For trlat reason l trle la~(e's ternperature regirne \Nill not tie rnuctl affected tly regulation of flovv'. ''''i nter di sso 1'.led 02 1eve 1sin BL rnay 1ncrease as a resul t of reduced 1ce coverl but no evi denee has been seen of si gnifi cant oxygen depressi on in rnost of the lake's water co 1urnn. Ttle lake's naturally 1 a v,, product i vity \'Vi 11 not be a1 tered by flow regul ati on. It is possible that altered ice conditions in BL will change the timing of fry or srno It outrni gration. Effects of flow regulation on temperature and flow conditions be low Black: lak:e: (see ENV I RONA ID's Phase I study) 12-15-60) Ternper-ature: srna 11 or very small effects. 29 Flow: Augment both winter and summer low flows significantly. Reduce the 20 year-) peak flow at the stream nlouth about 15%. Intermediate flov'/s 11 ttl e 8ff ected. Bishop .. D. M... A.M. Milner &. L.A. Smith. A Report on Lute-Summer and Fall 0 b s e rv a t ion sin Up per B 1 a c k: Be arere eI< and B 10 c k: Be a r Lak:e. ENV I RONAlD .. November 15 1 1982. Purpose: The work reported here continued hyurcdogic fisheries.. and wildlife J observeti ons and measurements in upper SSC and in perti cular made a concentrated effort to estimate the population of rainbow trout in BBL wtli ch 'was the most i rnportant object 1 '.Ie of thi s reporting per; od. Hydrol Ogl C 1nvest 1got ions: Water temperatures: The comparati ve arnplitudes of water temperature va 1ues a t respect; '.Ie therrnograph stati ons is as f 011 ows: greatest arnp 1itude stat i ons are} outlet BBL} out 1et BLI and mouth BBC near t; devv'ater; 1east arnp 1 itude stat ions are the burl ed Spavv'ni ng Grave 1 Stat i on l and the inlet of BL. Temperatures in BBC above BL rose abruptl y on Jul y 9 1 1981 to a range sui tab 1 e f or opt i ma 1 sa 1oloni d reari ng. A cornparab 1e condi ti on in 1982 \NaS not reactled unt; 1 Ju1 y 26. Trle di ff erence rnay have been due to rnuch heavi er ice conditions in BBL in spri ng} 1982. BlOCK Bear Lake profiles in late August and September-} 1982 sho'vv thernlocline levels at 20 and 30 feet, respectively. This compares v'littl 30 and 50 feet for 1981 and 30 and 45 feet for 19S0 rneasurernents. Groundwater f10w routes through the coarse aqui fer below the proposed povverhouse si te \,vere exarni ned usi ng Pylam yellow fl uorescene dye and activated carbon filters placed at nun1ber of dovv'nstream locations. The strongest route of groundvv'ater fl ow appear-s to be to the head of the Spri ng Fork. Dur-; ng 10\,\1 f1 ow condit fans most groundwater fl 0\'\' emerges in the Spring Fork. Groundwater evidently travels from the powerhouse site t030 the head of the Spring Fork in less than 20 hours. This fast-flowing route evi dent 1 y has on 1 y a small reservo; r capac; ty. It is poss; b1e that spri ng flows f eedi ng the Lake F ark duri ng lovv' fl ow conditions are derived frorn a perched 'y'y'ater table vy'hich is partially sealed and di sti nct from the deeper vv'ater table that feeds the Spri ng Fork. Trle perched water tab 1e ",Ioul d be i n all uvi um; the deeper water table; n coarse) broken rock. The heat eXChange and thus temperature change associated with the ground\·yater route to Spring Fork is not known. It is speculated that rather 1i ttl e loss or gal n occurs. Fisheri es Investi gftti ons: Mark-recapture work was done in BBl for si X days in 1ate August} 1982 usi ng hook and 11 ne J mi nnow traps and hoop traps lin that descend; ng order of importance. Most fi sh were caught in sha 11 ow 1ake margi ns 10 to 40 feet deep. Thi s work i ndi cated a populati on of 434 trout. 95% confi dence 1i mits were 155 to 11 S f1 sh. A 1 anger study waul d have been requi red to improve Hie population accuracy. The biologist's appraisal} after completing the \''y' 0 rk 'IV 8 sap 0 pula tl 0 n 0 f 500 to 800 f ish. J Gro'yvth is bet ter in fi sh 1ess than 3+ age. BBL trout becorne 1 i ghter for thei r 1ength as they grow older. BBL trout may Spa\Nn in U-Ie lake's outlet stream} in Hie only possible inlet stream of suitable gradient} near the USFS cabin (though this stream has coarse substrate)I or along the 1ake's beaches. A HARZA geo 1ogi st worki ng in the area Sa\N spawning fish congregating along U-Ie rnargins of tt-Ie lake in earl y . ...Iul y. Fi sh may have been spawni ng along beaches 'y'v'here runoff was enteri ng Hie lake. Solmon escopements into Black: Bear Creek above Block: Lake: 828 sockeye were counted at the peak of spawni ng in U-Ie 1ast 'yveek of AU!Just , 1952. The tl me of peak \'y'as the same as in 1951 but the nurnbers \'vere sonlewhat 1ess. The South Fork was 1ess successfull y used for spav'lni ng because of the new' tleaver darn. Agei n} SOCkeye di d not spe'yvn above the beaver pond in Ule Lake Fork. No pi nk sal mon spa'wned above BL. Eleven chum Y-tere recorded on August 21 below the confluence of the South31 Fork. Thei r spowni ng dest i noti on was not i dent i fi ed 1ater. 100 chum 'yyere seen at the end of August on spawning ground below the log j am at the out 1 et of BL. An extensi "Ie count on October 26 reveal ed 63 coho above BL} of whi eh 18 appeared to be on spawning ground. Total spawners in 1982 are estimated bet ween 100 and 150 f1 sh. On 1 Y a f ew Doll y Varden were seen in BBC thi s year. Juvenile salmonid rearing populations above Black: Lak:e: A section of Zone A was re-sanip 1 ed in late September 1982. Coho numbers werel more than twice that of 1981. These numbers suggest either more coho spavvners used upper SBe than the 85 to 100 est i rnated in 1981 1 or the egg to fry survival was higher then expected. Mammal Observotions: BlaCK Bear: During tJle field study period from August 21 to October 29} 1982 only one srnall ~ worm-parasH 1 zed bear used the area~ rangi ng extenslvely but concentrating rnost acUvity in U-Ie Forks erea. Sockeye vvere heavi 1 y used. The absence of other bears for thi s season 1 n 1982 may ref1 ect Ute absence of pi nk sa 1nion. Beaver acti vity increased above BL in late August wi Ui wot-k evi dent on the Lake For-k dam and ne'yV a1 der and sal rnonberry cuttings seen. An old beaver darn \flaS found in Uie upper South Fork drai nage ~ but tt-Ii s srnall tiebitat is not 1 i ke 1 y to provi de a populati on reservoi r to rnai nta; n the dO'yYnstream populations in the future. Intensive beaver dam-building and f ood-cactie act i vi ties \'Vere obset-ved in the lower Soutti Fork. The eeo 1Og1 eal pat tern of beaver acti yay in the upper yal1 ey i nvo 1yes a dynamic cycle vvhere dams create suitable soil habitat for new alder and dec; duous growth} provi di ng f ood ar~d buil di ng materi 81 s. 6e8\,ler practi ce pat-tial cutting sl1viculture} vv'tiich lengthens the tirne period a habitat is used} tl!:t does not ul ti mate 1 y prevent an on-comi ng genereti on of coni f ers32 from ta~ci ng over. By that time the beaver popul at i on has moved} qui te eff; ci entl y} to an adjacent or nearby area to begi n anoUier cycle. The durat i on of beaver pondi ng end "Neterway rr-tei ntenance in an erea prov; des val uatd e coho flabitat. Mustelids: Mink sign became noticeably more scarce in October} 1982. Reason is not known. Very 1 i t t1 e si gn of at ter thi s fall except for fresh haul-out s; tes on 10-29 82 in upper Spri ng F ark and near the beaver ponds adjacent to the lower stream. Wo 1f: no si gn observed" August through October. Deer: t 'NO tracks seen} August} through October: one at outlet BL; one in upper South Fork VB 11 ey. Milner.. A.M. Fry and Smolt Outmigration Studies on BlacK Bear CreeK, Prince of Wales Island .. Southeastern AlasKa .. During Spring, 1983. Work done for, ENVIRONAID, Juneau and for School of Fisheries Science, University of Alas~~a, Juneau, Report 8305. September, 1983. The purpose of ttli s study was to con-ID 1ete a second season of spri ng outoli grati on observati ons and rneasurements to COtllP 1i ment and strengthen trle earl i er 'Nork done in 1981 (exploratory) and 1982. Thi s season of work di ff ers from the earl i er in that it concentrates ent ire 1y on outmi grati ons frorn BL and fronl above BL, using only two fyke nets and elinlinating the operat i on at lov'ler BSe near ti dewater. Sockeye fry: just over 66/)00 sockeye fry entered BL duri ng the net t i ng operBti on bet \-veen March 29 and r'1ay 20, and the total nurnber esti rnated into the lake is 75 to SO,OOO, allovv'ing for fish passing through the station during flood nOViS. Fry \Here the sarne length and wei grit as fry in spring, 1982. The migration into BL peaked April 2 and again April 17-18. The second peak appeared to be in response to a hi gtl f1 ow event. Egg to fry survival for 1982-83 was 4.7% -much higher than in 1981-82. The di ff erence mi ght be part 1y due to the ~d nk sal rnon spawni ng on top of the SOCkeye redds in 1981. Fry in 1983 emerged wi tt"! about 100 1 ess ternperature uni ts Ulan -j n 1982,33 which llccounts for a significant period of time. This difference may have resulted frorn differences after the eggs hatch in Ule intra-gravel condit ions of the t \'VO years, (di sso 1"Ie 02, temperature arnount of fi neJ sedinlents), and/or from differences in trle spring runoff conditions in "lvhich the 1983 runoff produced more high flo"lvS 'which flushed the fry out eat-lier. Coho fry: 7,753 fry entered BL during fyke netting t1arch 29 to Ma!d 20 and 7}354 fry migrated downstream from BL between April 9 and June 1. Timing of coho mi grati on downstream coi nCl ded closely with that of SOCkeye. Chum fry: 35 fry collected at the inlet of BL. 53 fry were collected below the outlet of BL. Sockeye smolt: 2}S 15 smolt were counted below the outlet of BL. Emi grati on from the lake began Aprlr ~ and peaked May 13. Peak outrrli grat i on appears to be correlated wi th the temperature regi me in BL. About 89% of these were Age I smolt; 11 % Age II. Fry to smolt survival for the 19S 1 brood stock was estinlated at 16.3%} 8 high figure. Srnolt \'Vere a1 so rnuch 1 arger than in 1982. Tt-Ie hi gt-,er survi val and larger si ze rnay rlave resulted from less competi ti on ~nd more per c~pit~ food for the reduced nurnber of fry from the 1981 pflrent year. Coho smolt: 3}217 coho smolt were counted below Ule outlet of Bl begi nni ng April 10 and peaki ng fiay 5 to Sand r'1ay 13 to 19. Thi s cornpares wi tll an esti mated tota 1 in 1982 of 7 }607 srno It. Smo 1t 'vvere si gnifi cantl y 1arger Ulan in spri ng} 1982} but thi s di ff erence rnay have been the resul t of 1oSi ng sorne 1 arger fi sh duri ng the 1952 trappi ng operaU on. Dolly .Vorden: 321 D.V. were collected below the outlet of BL. Very few vy'ere co 11 ect ed in 1982} probably because these larger.. faster sVii rnrni ng fi sh escaped from Hie trap. f'1ost of U-Ie fi sh caugt-It in 1983 'were probably nil grat i ng sea\'Vard after freshviater reari ng. Cuthroat trout: of the 65 collected belo\·..., Bl} most are thought to tie eitJler f 0 11 0'111 ng an anatjrornous life pat tern or possi til y rnovi ng to anott-Ier part of the BSe system. Bishop .. D_ M... A_M. Milner &. L.A. Smith. Further Investigations on the BlacK Bear CreeK System Near Klawock .. AlasKa. ENVIRONAID .. October 13.. 1983. The purpose of the work reported here was to enlarge tt-Ie upper Black Bear34 Creek base of records f or hydro 1 Og1 c} f1 sheri e's and Yiil dl i f e i nf ormat ion. The outtnigration studies infonnation tlas already been summarized in the preceedi ng report by A.M. fii 1 nero Hydro 1 Og1 c data: The spri ng of 1983 strearnfl ow di scharge frorn BBl and the respondi ng lake surface levels for Bl have been plotted to provide background inforrnation f or the sal rnoni d outmi grat ion vvork (see} Mil ner} 1983} above). The greater occurrence of hi gh f1 ows and hi gh lake 1 eve 1sin spri ng, 1983 as compared wl th 1982 is evi dent here. The re lati on of BL's water surf ace 1eve 1 s to outl et di scharge appears to have ctH:mged between October 27} 1982 and January 20.. 1983. Thi s change persisted through spring .. 1983. This conclt.,jion appears to be supported by cornpari son of rai nf all in the Black lake plots seen in the 1982 eco 1ogi cal report Yvith spring .. 1983. The cause for this possible change may be a shift 1 n the log jam 1 oeated several hundred feet belo\¥ the out 1 et of BL. The re 1 atl on bet ween flow reg1 me and BL water 1eve 1 s woul d tie good to estab 11 sh before a pro j eet proceeds. Stream sediment: recent channel changes in Lake Fork atlove the beaver ponds and sediment rnoven1ent into the t,e3ver pond ~.ldicates sizeable movement of bedload upstream. Water temperatures: In late September l 1982 additional thermographs were i nsta 11 ed in BBe at H-Ie proposed powerhouse site and at tt"le spri ngfl o Vv' upvve 11 i ngs at the head of Spri ng Fork. These instruments provi ded a si gnifi cant amount of new 1 nf ormati on anlj sorne refi nen1ent of understand1 ng. \vater temperatures at the po\·verhouse site f1 uctuate two or more degrees J i ndependentl y of ternperatures at 81 ack Bear Lake -qui te evi dentl Y 'j n response to warmi ng or ct1ill'i ng frorn prevail i ng a1 r ternperature and \"v'1 nd conditions. Tt1is fluctuation is likely to be largest wrlen greatest di ff erences eX1 st bet 'ween water temperature at the outl et of BBL and ai r ternpereture in the vicinity of the waterfall route. The ternperature moderating effect of groundwater routes of flow below the povvert-Iouse site increase as the volume of flow entering the aquifer upstrean1 decreases. vlhen the outl et fl 0'11S from BBL are 1ess than about 15 cf s, hourl y or dall y f1 uctuat ions of t.ernperature at the po\-verhouse s1 te are rnueh 1ess eV1 dent dOYv'nstrearn at trle t1ead of Spri ng Fork or \N itrli n trle35 spawni ng grovel site several hundred feet further doVY'nstream. Conversel YJ when flovys are increased, the flow tirne Yv'ithin tt1e aquifer to the head of the Spring Fork is reduced and the ternperature conditioning effect is d~ mi ni shed. The aljdi ti ona 1 ternperature measuren1ents n-,ade S1 nee the August, 1982 report make a revi si on of temperature changes downstream from BBL necessary. The foll OWl ng tabl e is excerpted: Cause of nieasured/pro j ected Net change, TOC. frorn temperature changes Bl ack Bear out 1 et to groundV'/ater di scharge Falls beGr'dwtr fl O'yYS Proposed Observed Est in-late for t1ontt-, low B.B.Lk. tlelov\' falls flow or estimprojected measured} tneasured} intake ated} floY1s 1962-63 1962-63 1962-63 1_)Col. (1) (2) ,-:> (4) (2+3) (3+4) Sept} 1 ast -1.6 + 1.0 0.0 -0.6 + 1.0 7 days Oct. -1.6 + 1.4 +0.1 -0.2 +1.5 Nov. -1.5 +2.0 +0.3 +0.5 +2.3 Dec. 0.0 + 1.5 +1.5 +0.5 +2.0 Jan. +0.3 +0.3 +0.0 +0.6 + 1.1 Feb. +1.7 -0.6 +0.8 + 1. 1 +0.2 f'1ar. + 1.2 0.0 +0.5 + 1.2 +0.5 Apr. + 1.9 -0.6 +0.2 + 1.3 -0.4 May + 1.0 -1.1 0.0 -0.1 -1. 1 June(est) +2.0 -2.0 -0.2 0.0 -00 L..L. Jul y(est) +2.0 -3.0 .. -1.0 -1.0 -4.0 Aug.(est) + 1.0 -2.0 -1.8 -1.0 -3.8 The fall / earl y ytli nter tnonths i ndi cate that the project woul d produce a greater temperature increase to Spring Fork water than wes shoV'/n in Table 12 of the 1982 eco 1ogi cal report (8i shop} Mil ner} Stni th} 1982). Thi s greater increase results froITI eli mi nati ng the i nfl uence of the waterf all} whll e rna1 nta1 ni ng the warrni ng fl 0\,1 route through the ground ",,"ater systen1 between the po\,verhouse site and the head of the Spring Fork. The project ternperature changes predicted in Colurnn 6 of the table may be too large. If fall temperature increases through the groundvy'ater route were half that shown in the table} project fl ows into Spri ng Fork woul d sti 11 be around l°C warmer than suggested ; n the 1982 report. It i s therefore reasonable to assume that the project temperature conditions through fall into January will tend to eccel erate sal moni d i ncubat i on end hatch; ng. Project reduction in late March and April stream temperatures} shown in the table rnay tend to delay fry emergence from stream gravels} particularly 36 wtlen such cond; ti ons occur ; n combi nati on with a relati vel y low fl ow regi me. There is 1 it t1 e doubt now that late spri ng and sumrner temperatures v'li 11 be somewhat reduced from the natural state. Th; s reducti on may not., tl0'wever J be as large as suggested in the table. Ttle degree of reduction will depend upon Hie depth end the strength of Bleck Bear Lake's therrnocline end tt-Ie extent of cooling of flow througtl the ground water route. Pro j ect temperature ctlanges upstream of BL may de 1ay or eli rni nate ice formation in the lake during late fall -early winter. In spring and summer l tlo'vvever-, project temperature changes appear to be rnuctl small er than ttle natural fl uctuat ions in BL vvater temperature due to sol ar radi aU on or other causes. As a resul t .. H-Ie t i rll1 ng of SOCkeye smo 1t outnli grat i on from Bl ack Lake rnay be 1it t1 e aff ected by project ternperature Changes upstream. V.fater ternperatures above B18ck Lake wi 11 f1 uctuate 1ess under project f1 O'YV condi t ions due to the eli rni nati on of the waterfalL Thi S rnay result i n fewer fry or COt-IO smolt being stimulated to early outrn1gration. Tv'lo years of cumul at i ve ten1perature records at the outlet of BBL suggest that the date when lasting ice covers BBl marks a tr8nsition from a t-Ii gtler rate of curnul at i ve temperature accumul at i on to 8 lower rate 'l'thi ch is then quite constant unt i1 ice goes out of the 1ake. In thi s way a 1ate freeze-up d8te appears to be 8n index of 'y'y'hether the cumulative ternperature uni ts for an i ncub8ti on season wi 11 be advanced or 1ate.*: I n a S1 n-lil ar way, it appears that a major source of difference 1n37 temperature unit accumulation found at the outlet of BL in 19B 1-B2 versus 1982-83J stemtned from the duration of ice cover in BL. An open 1ake 1 n FebruarYJ 1983 caused an increase in rate of ternperature uni t accunlul at ion. *: Oi sso 1ved 02: A test of di sso 1ved 02 in \'Vater ernergi ng fronl Spri ng Fork vvas prornpted by staff of FERC. r1easurements 'with a VSI ~10del 57 meter Yvas used. When trle oxygen saturation level was at 13.2 ppm, measurements at seven poi nts of upwell i ng showed di sso 1ved 02 1eve 1 s ranging from 11.2 to 12.0 and averaging 11.7. *: There appears to be inconsistency between this concept and a concept expressed earl i er in another SBe report that 1 ate freeze-up favors greater l heat loss in 1 akes exposed to wi nd. These concepts needs to be reconci 1 ed and their relationship clarified. - ~ Lake profiles: In light of the foregoing discussion of differences in temperature uni t accumul at i on} (see also footnote *) the .January profll es of 1 9 8 2 and 1 9 8 3 show c lea r 1 y t hat Oi e 1 a k e i n Jan u a ry} 1 9 83 con t a i ned ni Uc h rnore heat. Such di ff erences rnay contri bute si gnifi centl y to the rate of spring and surnrner surface water tenipereture increases in 66L} and consequentl y to resul ti ng dO'vVnstream temperatures at that ti rne. Oxygen measurenl"lents ; n both BBL and BL exhi bi t candi t ions as reported in earl i er work. Outmi grot ion studi es: Thi s work has been summari zed 8arl i er. See} r1i1 ner} A.M.} 1963. Wildlife: B1 ack: bear: Only one bear (be 1i eved to be the same i ndi vi dual that spent fa 11) 1982 above BL) was seen several ti mes in the earl y spri ng. Th; s bear probab 1 y overwi ntered in the upper vall ey. I n earl y tv1ay} a second} srna 11 er tleer entered ttie upper drat nage and the t'TIO bears fed on skunk cabbages; n the marshes back of the creek. I n late May) the larger bear moyed into the upper South Fork basi nand 1 eft the lower va 11 ey to the snia 11 er bear. Bears continue to use trle logging roa"d for-access to the Black Lake area. A stylall bear was reported shot along the road in the fi rst week of Apri 1.38 Hunt i ng pressure is i ncreasi ng on black bears in the area of stUdy and it's on 1 y a quest] on of ti me unt i1 the bears above B1 ack Lake are di scovered and hunted. Beaver: More beaver sightings (11)) and more beaver activity was seen above BL duri ng thi s spri ng peri ad than duri ng any previ ous work peri ad. Beaver populati on in thi s area is bell eved to be ; ncreasi ng. TrJi s may be due to: (1) low fur pri ces; (2) 1 it t 1 e wolf predat ion dur'j ng recent years; and} (3) the previ ous mi 1 d wi nter. The f1aggi ng f or the access road to the powerhouse S1 te passes wi thi n 25 yards of the Lake Fork beayer pond. Beayer are not 1 i ke 1 y to fare vy'e 11 wi th such easy access. A sma11 family group of beaver (5 to 8 7) r~side in the upper South Fork not one i ndi vi dua 1 as earl i er suggested and mi ght serve as a populati on reservoir} in case the population in the lower valley is trapped out. Beaver here feed on skunk cabbage in spri ng) as well as on hemlock branches and Vacci nl um (sPP)J whi ch have been heavil y grazed. Again this sphng the strength of beaver activity seen and heard near the lov'ler stream indicates that beaver move into this ar~a for Hie rrlilder rnonttls of the year. Ali ke 1y banks1 de resi dence si te was found not far upstrearn frorn the 1ake. Deer: S1 gn is cons pi cuousl y absent. Wo 1f: sporadi c si gn; probably refl ects absence of deer. Bi shop I D. M.I A.M. Mi 1ner &. L.A. Smi tho Envi ronmenta1 Moni tori n9 .. Upper B10ck Beor Creek -1984 ENVIRONAID I November 30 .. 1984. Ttle purpose of thi S v-tork was to strengtrlen and enlarge trle botrl the hydro 1 ogi c and b; 01 og; c base f or proceed; ng wi th thi s project to app 1 i caU on and poss; b 1 e project des; gn. Hydrologic work: Comparison of sub-drainage flows used most of the instantaneous flow nleasurements taken over the previ ous f1 ve years in upper BBe to estab 1 i sri etYlpi ri cal relati ons bet ween Hie gaged out 1 et of BBL and otrler sub-drainage39 un; ts. The resul ts are summar; zed in the regress; ons belovy': South Fork flow = .74156 (BBL outflow) ... 4.3186 cfs r2 = 0.8673 B1. Lk. out flow = 2.4575 (BBL out f1 ow) + 15.35 cf s r2 =0.9373 South Fork flow= 0.69 (Lake Cr.,one mile below BBL) + 0.47 cfs r2 =0.824 Exami nat i on of three years of USGS data i ndi cates that BBL is yi e 1 di ng at 15.3 cfsm} compared with the CH2M Hill estimate in 1981 of 14.3 cfsm andJ the out 1 et J BL is yi e 1 di ng 11.3 cf sm compared w; th the 1981 est 1 mate of 10.5 cfsm. Relation of Spring Fork to Block Beor lake outflow: Unlike the precedlng relationships wtiicti are linear) the outflow of Spring Fork is c1ear-l y a 1ogarlthrni c functi on of trle di scharge of B1 eck Bear Lake) 1n whi ch flo'vYs in Spring Fork increase at a decreasing rate as BBL outfloYv's increase. ~v'rlen BBL out f1 ovy' reaches about 90 cf s) Spri ng Fork di sctiar-ges 1eve 1 off at around 27 cf s. Thi s re 1ati onshi pis very much in accord v'Iith v-diat has been t-eported from earli er fi e 1 d-based obser-vati ons. This relation may be of use in design end evaluation of povy'erhouse out fl o'ws. Response of Black Lake level to B1HCk Bear Lake outflows: An exami nati on 'Nas niade of the year by year re 1ati on of BBl out fl OYVS to 1eve 1s of BL. Although there is a potential for alteration in this relation .. none 'yves Ijernonstratelj in thi s exami nati on. Water temperature records: A si xth thermograpti 'Nas i nsta 11 ed at 20 feet be low Uie surf ace of BBL at the norHi end of BBll in Hie vi ci nity of \·vrlet-e lake profll es had been taken. The probable date of lce departure from SBl Votas signalled in the thermograph record on May 22 -23. TerTlperatures for tt-Ie -20 foot deptti showed a rnarked drop, indicating lake mixing. This 'was accornpanied by ri si ng ternperatures rneasured by trle therrnograph i nsta 11 ed at the out 1 et of the 1eke, rneasuri ng surf ace temperatures. The record in the v'leeks tt-Iat f 0 11 o\·ved ice departure SfiOVot rapt d hicreases i n surface \Nater temperature punctuated by r-api d ups and downs I agei n derrlOnstreti ng the statti 1i zi ng ro 1e40 of ice cover. Lake profil es: The f 0 11 O\Nl ng i nf orrneti on provi des a surnr-nery of ell pi-ofil es duri ng the peri od of the stUdy to date. Wi nter temperatures range frorrl near OOC. at 1 ake surface or under tt-Ie ice to near 4':'C below the thermocline during 'winters 'yvith early lce cover. Duri ng \'Vi nters \Ali th extensi ve open water, the thernioe 1 i ne is 1ess defi ned and ternperatures at greater depiti are nearer to 20 C. The rm 0 eli n e i n B B L un de ric e i s abo u t lOt 0 1 5 fee t below the s u n-ace, and 'vvi thout ice is poorl y defi ned. Thermoe 1 i ne in Bl under ice is about 5 feet be low the surf ace; duri ng open wi nters it is poorl y def j ned. Spring temperatures are not yY'ell representelt Spring conies to BBL in May to ,June, and commonly follows break-up of lake lC8. A strongly 'y'y'errned surface 10 to 20 feet thi ck is 1 i ke 1y over 40 C. water. Surface ternperatures in Bl are likely to begin at about 40 C and warm rapi dl y to 10 to 12°C at the surface and 6 to 7°C. near the bottom. Summer temperatures at surface BBl range from 150 C.in early August to 8°C. in early September. Trlerrnoclines range bet wen depths of 20 and 30 feet. Ternperatures beloY't Hie ttlermocl1ne} 5 to BClC. Bl ranges from 160 C. in August to 11 0 C. in earl y September. A surnrner therrnoc 1i ne is not well defi ned -mi xi ng occurs to the bot torll. Fall temperatures (late October) in BBl are nearly constant with depth} rangi ng fronl 7.5 to 50C. Mi xi ng reaches 100 feet deep. A sirnilar conljition occurs in Bl betY'/een atlout 10 and 60C. with near surf ace temperatures elevated 1 to 20C. Dissolved 02: Summary of all years of record. BBl oxygen levels always exceed 10 pprll} except at considerable depth Y'tt"lere depress] ons to 8 ppm have been observed. Bl oxygen 1eve 1s range from 12 to 14. ppm in wi nter and from 8.5 to 11 ppm in sumrner} with defi ni te oxygen depressi ons near the bottom dOYv'n to 2 to 441 pprn. Snow Avalanche Hazard at Powerhouse Site: On October 31 .. 1984 a t wo-f oot deep tongue of snow was encountered in BBC channel below the po\'verhouse site. It is be 11 eved to have been a mil d avalanche. Further exarninati on suggests that dry snoY'/ avalanches have occurred in the vicinity of the powerhouse site - a spruce with a snapped off top presents strong evi dence that a very fleavy wi nd event occurred here in the not di stant past. The brush margi n adjacent to the stream channel a1 so suggest the possi bi 11 ty of avalanche condi t ions. Fisheries Investigations: Adul t escapements: Sockeye spawning peaked in late August. 375 spawners used the BBl system and 275 f1 sh spayvned in the South Fork. None spawned above the lake Fork dam. A few chum spawned at the head of the Spri ng F ark and a 1 arger nunlber spawned below the outlet of BL. ApproXl rnate 1 y 60 coho spayvners '\'Vere located above BL. Anal ySi s of t hi s years esti rnate of young of the year coho i ndi cates a fi gure of 150 to 200 coho spa\'vners in 1983. A ski ff for fi shi ng coho is now on the 1 ake I and thi s is 1 ike 1 y to reduce Hie nurnber of cOtiO spawners in 1984. Juveni 1 e Popul at ions: The previous survey yvas made in 1981. Coho popul et ions \,vere si gni fi cent 1 y hi gher then in 1981} part i cularl y young of the year (0+ f1 sh). r1a Jor coho reari ng areas are the san1e: the s 1 o'y\, f1 OWl ng channel above Bl and the beaver ponds. The South Fork beaver pond rnade a si gnlfi cant contri but i on to rear; ng habi tat and supported the hi ghest overall densi ties of j uveni 1 e coho. Juvenile Dolly Varden were also found in increased numbers in 1984. They were restri cted rnai n 1 y to the beaver ponds. Zooplankton and chemical analysiS of Bl further support the conclusion that phosphorous is the nutrient limiting productivity and that the lake is at its carryi ng capaci ty for j uveni 1 e coho. Wj 1 d 1 ife 0 b s e rv at ions: B1 ack Bear: Duri ng the 1ate summer 'vvork (B-1 B to 9-11-84) one srna 11 bear ranged throughout the stUdy area} from lower Bl on upstream; inc 1 udi ng rangi ngs i nta the upper South Fork. Prirnary food appeared to be skunk cabbage and berri es. Sockeye were frequentl y caught and parti all y eaten. A somewhat 1 ar-ger bear vi si ted upper Bl around 8-18 to 8-21 and 1eft the area. The same bear} seen t wi ce in the summer} sti 11 appeared to be resi di ng in the upper drai nage at the end of October. I twas catchi ng coho along the South Fork and the Spring Fork. Tracks of a second} larger bear were seen on 10-29 810ng the road} headed for Bl, and were seen agai n on 10-31 in the vi ci ni ty of the proposed powerhouse. Beaver: Act i vi ty seems to have 1ess promi nent in 1984# after the expansl oni st activit i es more wi del y seen in 1953. The beaver popul at ion presently appears to have stabilized at an estimated 12 to 20 animals, 42 cornpri sed of two f an111 y groups. One group resl des in the lower oeaver pond and the slow fl OWl ng waters aoove BL. The other group is located in trle Lake F ork-upper 5pri ng Fork area. A suo-group of a few beaver in the upper South Fork are pr-ooab 1 y associ ated wi th thi s f ami 1y. Tt1e nevv'l y bui 1t darn in the lower South Fork has been ab lndoned , with the bui 1 ders possi b 1 Y movi ng dOvvnstream in summer to the lO'v'v'er beaver ponds vv'here food appears to be more p 1 ent iful. Dbservati ons duri fig the f all vi sit aga1 n suggest that most of the beaver have gathered agai n to the Lake Fork center of act i vi ty. Deer: Duri ng the 1 ate SUn"lmer, more deer si gn was seen in upper BSe I primarily in higher elevation locations such as ttie upper South Fork , or on ttie slopes above the South Fork than was seen in previ ous years. A pil ot reported that .. a lot of deer" had been taken out of BBL in the earl y hunt i ng season. During the snowy fall visit at the end of October, more deer tracks v·tere seen in the upper BBC vv'atershed than at any time si nee observati ons began in 1980. Tracks 'A'ere seen in widely dispersed locations both in the lower vall ey above BL and in the vi ci ni ty of BBL. Deer are more p 1 ent i fu1 here than at any ti me in the past fi ve years. Wo I f are still itinerant vi sitors. 5i gn seen on 8-28 and 9-5-84. .. Mustelids: Mink: sign \NaS comrYlon dut-ing visits. Most tracks were noted43 in the Forks area, up Spri ng F ark and across to the South Fork pond. Morten scat was found on a log in the Lake Fork pond on 8-26. Otter cant i nue to evi dence thei r unpredi ctab 1 e habi ts. Several tiaul-out S1 tes noted on 8-18 along SBC below the Forks and otter S1 gn seen on Spri ng F (irk} just above Lake Fork pond. Bishop, D.M. Environmental Stotus Report, late Summer Visit to Black Bear Creek -1985 ENV I RONA I D, October 10, 1985. A summary of work included here is provided in the following final report f or the peri od. BishopI' D.M. Final Report on Black: Bear Creek: Monitoring Work:1' FH11 .. 1965 and late Winter.. 1966" ENV I RONA I D .. Apri 1 24.. 1986. Ttlis work rnarked the end of the nl0nitoring of hydro 1 )gic and biologic condit ions Yv'tli ch tlad f 011 owed the peri od ¥lhen envi ronmenta 1 documents and app 1i cati ons vvere prepared. The purpose was to enlarge the base of i nf ormaU on for envi rontnenta 1 use in project desi gn and in post -pro j ect eva 1uaU on. Hydro 1091 c work: inc 1uded water temperature and 1ake profi 1e observet 1 ons. No flow rneesurernents \~/ere included during this peri od. Water temperature: The parUcular strengttl of this report is that it has a second year of observation of temperatures 20 feet below BBL surface as well as additional years of temperatures at U"le pov'Ierhouse and head of Spring Fork sites. Wi th regard to the effect of t.he altered route of f1 ow f or regUlated water} eXatl11nation of the temperature-changing effects of respecUYe route components 1 ed to severa 1 conc 1 usi ons: Temperature unit accumulotion ..between September 1 and March 15 is not 1 ike 1 y to Change si gni fi cantl y v'li th a proposed water withdrawal 2044 feet belov'l BBL's surface. The year to year variability of the date when curnul aU ve temperature units reach the 1 eve 1 for fry outrni grati on '1'1'111 be reduced. The natural vari abi 1 i ty in t i mi ng of upper BBe's temperature uni ts sufficient to reach trlis condition has varied more than a nlonth during the years of measuretnent. This is similar to records exanlined for Sashin Creek} Auke Creek} and Kadashan River. The regulated timing of temperature units to the outn"ligrat1on conditon is likely to be within Ule normal range. Summer water temperatures are likely to significantly change below the proposed regulated f1 ows. During May through September} tailrace water is likely to be one or more degrees C. less than present powerhouse site tenlperatures. The temperature moderaUng effect of the groundwater route to Spri ng Fork is an area for speculat i on. To what degree will re 1 at i vel y cold waters discharged from the tailrace in spring and summer be warmed by passage through a route that presently p,cts more to cool water duri ng thi s peri od? It 1 s possi b 1 e that there wi 11 be l1t t 1 e a1 terat i on of the powerhouse di scharge temperatures) 1 eavi ng summer waters one or more degrees colder than normally experienced. lol<e ProfU es: I n late summer} 1985} both BBL and BL demonstrated low heat content. BBL} in part i cul ar} s~lovved a very sharp thermoc 1i ne on 8-29 85 at 30 foot depth} below whi ch the 1eke reached record lO'y)l profil e t ernperatures for thi s ti me of year. The ternperature profile for BBL on 3-20-86 was on the low side of observed winter proflle values. BL on 3-19-86 was ice free and nearly isothermal at ca. 40 C. trlrougrlout its depth. Adult salmon escapement counts: A peak count of 877 SOCkeye was made on 8-30-85. Of these} 275 sockeye vvere found in the South Fork. As anti ci pated l pi nk: sal mon 'were begi nni g to move up into upper sse at the end of August. 571 plnks were counted on 5-30-55} and several thousand fi sh were seen in BL, yet to move upstrearn. It is 1i ke 1y that these fi sh agai n spawned over the SOCkeye redds} wi th resul ti ng reduced egg to fry survi val of sockeye. The sockeye run into upper BBe appears to be tin1ed to arrive on their spa w n i n g g ro u n don eta seve ra 1 wee k s e 8 r 11 e r t han the 'vV 11 d soc key e ru n moving into Klawock Lake. This .. may be due to colder incubation ternperatures for upper BBe. 45 Socl<eye spowners in BBe appear to seek out iron stai ned grave 1s. Thi s suggests an hypothesl s that sockeye spawners in sse seek out preferred spawni ng si tes by sensi ng hi gher di sso 1ved iron concentrat ions in the water ernergi ng from certai n areas of the stream upstream of BL. Thi s nii ght provi de a survi val advantage in provi di ng ei ther /both better associ ated thermal regime} and/or more stable upwelling flows (from deeper aquifers ?) of such areas. Mammal observations: Black: Bear: In late summer.. 1985 1 two bear resided above BL, concentrat i ng most of their act iYi ty in Spri ng Fork and South Fork. These bear may have been the same two individuals residing here in November} 1984 -the track sizes are consistent. In spring, 1986 1 no bear sign was noted. They rnay have still been in hi bernati on or possi b 1 Y downstream on estuari ne flats. Beaver: Summary of fa 111 1985 observati ons: beaver presence in the study area is undiminished. The characteristic shifting of area of activity is still evi dent and the "'lest Branch of the South Fark was the new area of interest. The Lake Fork pond is stab 1 e and st ill an important hub (If acU vi ty. Beaver popul ati on remai ns stable. Brief observations in spring l 1986 1 showed beaver activities, dam repairs l alder and salrnonberry cuttings J around the vicinity of Lake Creek pond and ad j acent areas of Spri ng Fork. Some i ndi cat i on that the West Branch of the Sou t h Fork rn a y bet hen ext f 0 cal poi n t 0 f be a v era t ten t ion. Deer: In the fall of 1985, no sign of deer in Ole lOYv'er basin. On 8-29 one doe was seen 200 feet above BBL. Fresh deer sign at outlet of BBL. Mustel ids: M'ink: In late sur-orner, 1985, no fresh sign due to heavy rains. t1arten:" .. one fresh adult track near South Fork pond. Otter: " scats at several 1 ocat ions in Spri ng Fork and Lake fork po n d vic i niti e s. Inthe f 0 11 0 win g s p ri ng, add i t ion a 1 s i g n see n in the same vi ci ni ties. 46 Munch .. E. Report of Investigations of the Black Bear lake Hydroe 1 ectri c Pro j ect_ AlaSKa Wood Service Co ... August 5 .. 1987. Thi s 'work was completed under contract with HARZA Engi neeri ng Co. and is considered as preliminary information by HARZA. Trle work examined possi b 1 e routes of the proposed penstock as well as the proposed 1 ocati on of the povverhouse for potential geophysical hazards, in particular landslides, torrent flows, snowslides as well as hazards from trees which might fall. It is relevant to questions that concern groundwater flow routes and possi b 1 e groundwater storage areas. Munch i denti fi es a consi derab 1 e area in the vi ci ni ty of B1 ack Bear Creek near and downstream of the proposed powerhotise S1 te (A) as wi thi n a 1 arge landslide deposit originating about 320 years ago. The position of this deposit with respect to Black Bear Creek upstream of the confluence of the South Fork may si gnHi cant 1 y improve our understand; ng of the characteri sti cs and f1 ow routes of ground water associ ated wi th both the Lake Fork and the Spri ng Fork branches of 61 ack Bear Creek. 47 Attachment B ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the (1st) day of October 1988 by the Alaska Power Authority ("APA"), and the Alaska Power and Telephone ("AP&T"). 1. The parties hereto agree that subject to the availability of appropriations and in accordance with their respective authorities there shall be maintained in cooperation the installation and operation of a streamgage at the outlet of Black Bear Lake near Klawock, Alaska hereinafter called the Program. 2. The following amounts shall be contributed to cover all of the cost of the necessary field and office work directly related to this program. a. $12,900 by the AP&T during the period October 1, 1987 to September 30, 1988. b. Additional amounts by each party during the above period or succeeding periods as may be determined by written agreement. 3. Expenses incurred in the performance of this program are the sole obligation of AP&T, provided that the APA may advance all expenses and shall be reimbursed by AP&T. Each party shall furnish to the other party such statements or reports of expenditures as may be needed to satisfy fiscal requirements. 4. The field and office work pertaining to this program shall be under the direction of or subject to periodic review by an authorized representative of the APA. 5. The areas to be included in the program shall be determined by mutual agreement between the parties hereto or their authorized representatives. 6. During the progress of the work all operations of either party pertaining to this Program shall be open to the inspection of the other party, and if the work is not being carried on in a mutually satisfactory manner, either party, may terminate this agreement upon 60 days written notice to the other party. Termination of this agreement is not a waiver of AP&T's obligation to reimburse the APA for expenses incurred prior to the termination of the Agreement. 7. The original records resulting from this program will be deposited in the office of origin of those records. Upon request, copies of the original records will be provided to the office of the other party. 3846/903(2) 8. Billing for this agreement will be rendered November 1, 1988. Payments of bills are due within 60 days after the billing date. AL~~A~D TELEP WE AUTH(~ITY By /~s:;. Q(~...,J.Qt---- Robert Grimm LeResche President Director 3846/903(3) Attachment C INITIAL STAGE CONSULTATION INFORMATION BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska Alaska Power & Telephone Company September 1988 LIST OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION GENERAL DESIGN OPERATIONAL MODE ENVIRONMENTAL/RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION STREAMFLOW AND WATER REGIME APPENDIX A BIBLIOGRAPHY CONSULTATION MAILING LIST' INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 8/88 INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION The Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project is located on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska approximately 14 road miles north east of the town of Klawock. This hydroelectric site has been studied by the Alaska Power Authority and others since 1977.* Alaska Power & Telephone Company is now proposing a somewhat smaller initial project using an overground penstock with either a small dam or siphon intake. The project would initially provide electric energy to the towns of Craig and Klawock. The powerhouse site can be reached by traveling approximately 6.8 miles northeast from the town of Klawock on US Forest Development Road No.5000 to the mouth of Black Bear Creek and then approximately 5.4 miles southeast on private logging roads belonging to Sealaska Corporation. Two possible powerhouse locations, a dam or siphon site, two transmission line routes and one sUbstation site are presently being evaluated. These features are shown on Maps I, 5 and 6. *See BIBLIOGRAPHY i , \ \. ' \ o LEGEND ROADS TRANSMISSION LINE BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION MAP ALASKA POWER S TELEPHONE () N A L SCALE q 1/2 Jmiles d' SUBSTATIONS AND TRANSMISSION ALASKA POWER a TELEPHONE COMPANY REVISED MAP 5 /; N X r 11 , .,~ POVRrhouse Location A: 5.25 river mi. fran rrouth of Black Eear Cr. at Big Salt Lake BLACk BEAR L AI< E ~-Pov.erhouse Location B: 5.0 river mi. fran rrouth of Blad< Bear Cr. HYDROEL ECTRIC PROJEC.Tat Big Salt Lake GENERAL PLAtJo 1/g I /~ mIle-sc.o.le. : t___ __=L . -.-------. -.j ALASKA POWER s... iELEPHONE CO"'·PN~Y ... ___ ___ 1. IO/~-! '-,( I , ...... GENERAL DESIGN 8/88BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT GENERAL DESIGN Water will be drawn from Black Bear Lake using one of two possible alternatives. The first is a small concrete or rockfill dam that will provide a maximum normal water elevation of 1695 ft. The second is a siphon type intake that will not change the natural maximum normal lake elevation (1687 ft). Both alternatives will use an unconventional screened intake structure to minimize intake water velocities and submersion requirements. Minimum lake elevation with the dam alternative will be 1685 ft and with the siphon alternative, 1672 ft. The siphon alternative will require a small building to house vacuum pump equipment at the outlet of Black Bear Lake. In addition, both alternatives will employ remotely controlled valves or gates to discharge water below Black Bear Lake when minimum flows are not met by the powerhouse discharge or spill from the lake. A welded steel penstock will convey the water from the intake to the powerhouse. The penstock will be above ground supported on saddles down to about 550 ft. elevation. From that point it will be buried until reaching the powerhouse. The penstock diameter will be approximately 22 inches. The final diameter will be selected during the detailed design stage. The powerhouse will be located at one of two alternative sites. Powerhouse location A is the site established by Harza Engineering Company and is above the uppermost reaches of fish habitat. This site is threatened by possible snow slides, land slides and flooding.* The other alternative, powerhouse location B, is approximately 1500 ft. downstream from powerhouse location A. It is assumed at this time that very little fish habitat will be affected by the use of powerhouse location B. While powerhouse location B will require a longer penstock, the additional head and protection from geological hazards will increase capacity and reliability. The powerhouse will be a prefabricated metal building approximately 30 ft. by 60 ft. by 20 ft. high, located on a reinforced concrete foundation. It will house two 2000 hp horizontal shaft impulse turbines and auxiliary equipment including a standby diesel unit to provide backup station power during outages. *Munch, E., Alaska Woods Service Company. 1987. GENERAL DESIGN (Cont.) An open tailrace channel will conduct powerhouse discharges into Black Bear Creek. It will be approximately 15 feet wide and concrete lined for the first 20 feet from the powerhouse. A 4.16kv/34.5kv 6000kva sUbstation will be located adjacent to the powerhouse and be connected to a 34.5kv/12.47kv sUbstation at Klawock via one of two alternative transmission line routes. Transmission Line Alternative A would follow the existing logging and Forest Development roads for about 14 miles to the Klawock sUbstation. Transmission Line Alternative B would follow the existing logging road for 1.5 miles and then proceed overland in roadless areas for 5.5 miles to the Klawock-Hollis highway, which it would follow for 2.5 miles to the Klawock sUbstation. OPERATIONAL MODE BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 8/88 OPERATIONAL MODE The proposed project will be operated to maintain streamflows within the minimum and maximum flow restraints established in previous studies for protection, mitigation and enhancement of the fisheries resource. Since the powerhouse discharges will not always meet the minimum flow requirements, particularly during initial years of operation and during maintenance or emergency shutdowns, provision will be made to release flows from the lake to supplement the powerhouse discharges. Since there is a good record of streamflows and since the project load requirements will be known during the project operation, releases can also be made in anticipation of spill flows that would exceed the maximum flow requirements. A computer model is being used to study reservoir operation for various energy demands, load factors, monthly flows, project capacities, reservoir area-volume ratios, turbine-generator efficiencies, penstock head losses, and powerhouse locations. The calculations for the coefficients used in the computer model are shown in Appendix A. Two' Black Bear Lake Operation Sheets, show the reservoir operation for an initial year (1994) and an unlimited load year (Table I-4a and Table I-4b respectively). Both operation sheets are for the following scenario: 1. Powerhouse at location B 2. Capacity 3.0 MW 3. Siphon Intake 4. Generator Efficiency 96% 5. Turbine Efficiency 87% 6. Monthly Load Distribution same as 1983-1987 (Table 1-3) 7. Maximum Penstock Head Loss 180 ft. 8. Average year watershed streamflow 9. Load characteristics from Figure 1-3 For the initial year operation sheet, Table I-4a, a load growth of 6% per year was assumed and the load factor and monthly distribution of energy requirements were assumed to be the same as the average for the last five years as shown in Table 1-3. The unlimited load operation sheet, Table I-4b, shows the typical flows with the project operating at maximum capacity and a maximum reservoir drawdown elevation of 1672 TABLE 1-4a • • • • • • • BLACK BEAR LJJ:E OPERA Tlot.IS •••••••• * • • • * AVG.YR. I6l.TERSHED STREAHflOU lIiPUT VARIABLES CAlOJUTED VALUES EXISTlWG AVG JOHHLY FLOU (CfS) Jan 19.00 feb 18.00 )tar 10.00 ~pr 14.00 Hay 35.00 Jill 41.00 Jul 2B.00 Aug 25.00 Sep 30.00 Oct 44.00 loIov 25.00 De(: 21.00 25.8.3 PROJECT CAPACITY (HIJ) AWNUAl EWERGY DEMAJID (HlJH) CFS I1ONTH/HWH lK fl. CIWiGE/CfS MCIITN BEGINNING lK. fl. POJER LOAD fACTI» EWDIWG U:. El. M!wllU4 U:. EL. PEAK LCW> DEHAND (HIJ) AWNUAL PROJ. ENERGY (HlJH) PEAK PROJ. DEHAWD (HW) AVG. PROJ. DEHAWD (HIJ) AWNUAL DIESel ENERGY (HUH) PEAK DIESEL DEHAND (H\.I) AVG. AJiNUAL FLOoi (CFS) AVG.SPILL/RElEASE (CFS) SP 1 LL/RELEASE EClJ! V. ENE RGY Envir~ully Constrained flows (CFS) MIN MAX 9 29 12 34 9 34 19 34 25 49 15 49 24 55 24 38 29 46 25 44 23 42 9 29 3.00 10402 0.014662 0.301745 1687.0 0.6 non'variable 1687.0 1685.0 2.28 10402.0 2.28 1.19 0.0 0.00 25.83 13.12 10741. 1 LOAD AS X OF AVG. MONTHLY YEARLY (HWH) ENERGY DEMAND (MIJH) 9.0l 936.18 8.4l 873.77 7.7"1. 800.95 8.4l 873.77 8.2l 852.96 7.5l 780.15 7.2l 748.94 8.1l 842.56 8.2l 852.96 8.6% 894.57 9.1% 946.58 9.6% 998.59 10402.00 PURHSE lOC A/\JfDM4=.015203 PIJRHSE LOC A/WOOAM=.015332 P\JRHSE lOC B/IJ/DA.I4=. 014545 P\JRHSE LOC B/W/OOA.l4=. 014662 1987 IF=.57 PEAK ACTUAL DIESEL ACTUAL POIJER PIJRHSE GENERATED PIJRHSE LAKE SPILL fLOIJ TOTAL flOU DEMAND ENERGY ENERGY DISCHRG ELEVATION ACTUAL RELEASED SBL. CR. (MW') (M\JH) (MIoIH) (MW'H) (FT) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) 1687 2.14 936.2 0.0 13.73 1687.00 5.27 0.00 19.00 1.99 873.8 0.0 12.81 1687.00 5.19 0.00 18.00 1.83 801.0 0.0 11.74 1686.47 0.00 0.00 11.74 1.99 873.8 0.0 12.81 1684.97 0.00 6.19 19.00 1.95 853.0 0.0 12.51 1687.00 15.75 0.00 28.26 1. 78 780.2 0.0 11.44 1687.00 29.56 0.00 41.00 1.71 748.9 0.0 10.98 1687.00 17.02 0.00 28.00 1.92 842.6 0.0 12.35 1687.00 12.65 0.00 25.00 1.95 853.0 0.0 12.51 1687.00 17.49 0.00 30.00 2.04 894.6 0.0 B.12 1687.00 30.88 0.00 44.00 2.16 946.6 0.0 B.88 1687.00 11.12 0.00 25.00 2.28 998.6 0.0 14.64 1687.00 6.36 0.00 21.00 10402.0 0.0 12.61 0.52 25.8.3 TABLE 1-4b • • • * * * * BUO: BEAR L.J.i:E ClPERATIOHS • * * * * * * * * * • * * AVG. YR. \L\TERSHEO STREAMFLOI.I INPUT VAIl IABlES PROJECT CAPACITY (IN) 3.00 A.NHUAL ENERGY OEJ4AHO (INK) 28050 CfS tOtTH/lNH 0.014662 U:: EL. CIWiGf/CFS MONTH 0.301745 BEGINNING U::. EL. 1684.2 PWER LOAD FACTOR 0.6 non-variable CAlaJlATED ENDING U::. EL. 1684.2 VALUES HINIK.14 Lt.::. EL. 1672.0 PEAl: LOAD DEMAND (IN) 6.15 A.NNUAL PROJ. ENERGY (INH) 20691.6 PEAl: PROJ. DEMAND (IN) 3.00 AVG. PROJ. DEMAND (IN) 2.36 A.NNUAL DIESEL ENERGY (M'Ioni) 7358.4 PEAl: 0 I ESEL DEMAHD (IN) 3.15 AVG. ANNUAL FLOI.I (CfS) 25.82 AVG.SPlLL/RELEASE (CFS) 0.54 $II I LL/RELEASE EW I V. ENERGY 441.8 EnYir~t.lly Constrained EXISTING AVG Flow (CfS) LOAD AS X OF AVG. HONTHL Y HatTHLY flOl.l "IN MAX YEARLY (M\oIII) ENERGY DEMAND eCfS) (MIoIH) Jan 19.00 9 29 9.0X 2524.50 feb 18.00 12 34 8.4X 2356.20 Har 10.00 9 34 7.n 2159.85 Apr 14.00 19 34 8.4X 2356.20 Hay 35.00 25 49 8.2X 2300.10 JlX'I 41.00 15 49 7.SX 2103.75 Jut 28.00 24 55 7.2X 2019.60 Aug 25.00 24 38 8.1X 2272.05 Seep 30.00 29 46 8.2X 2300.10 Oct 44.00 25 44 8.6X 2412.30 Nov 25.00 2.1 42 9.1X 2552.55 Dee 21.00 9 29 9.6X 2692.80 25.83 28050.00 PEAK PO'.JER DEMAND (HIoI) 5.76 5.38 4.93 5.38 5.25 4.80 4.61 5.19 5.25 5.51 5.83 6.15 P\lRIISE LOC A/U/DAM= .015203 P\JRHSE LOC A/lJIOOAH= .015332 PURHSE LOC B/lJIDAH=.014545 PIoIRHSE LOC B/lJIOOAH=.014662 1987 LF::.57 ACTUAL DIESEL ACTUAL PI./RHSE GENERATED PIoIRHSE LAKE SPILL FLOW TOTAL FLa.I ENERGY ENERGY DISCHRG ELEVATION ACTUAL RELEASED BBL. CR. (HIoIH) (HIoIH) (HIoIH) (FT) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) 1684.2 1829.1 695.4 26.82 1681.84 0.00 0.00 26.82 1737.3 618.9 25.47 1679.59 0.00 0.00 25.47 1624.8 535.0 23.82 1675.41 0.00 0.00 23.82 1737.3 618.9 25.47 1671.95 0.00 0.00 25.47 1705.8 594.3 25.01 1674.97 0.00 0.00 25.01 1591.6 512.1 23.34 1680.30 0.00 0.00 23.34 1540.9 478.7 22.59 1681.50 0.00 1.41 24.00 1689.9 582.2 24.78 1681.57 0.00 0.00 24.78 1705.8 594.3 25.01 1681.87 0.00 3.99 29.00 1768.4 643.9 25.93 1687.00 1.08 0.00 27.01 181.4.0 708.6 27.04 1686.39 0.00 0.00 27.04 1916.6 776.2 28.10 1684.24 0.00 0.00 28.10 20691.6 7358.4 0.09 0.45 25.82 TABLE 1-3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ENERGY SOLD CRAIG & KLAYOCK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (HUH) YEAR 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Honthly Percentage CRAIG KLAI.'OCK CRAIG KlAI.'OCK CRAI G KLAI.'OCK CRAIG KLAUOCK CRAIG KLAYOCK Total 5yr of Yearly a:==========:::=:===::=============::::::=:::::========================================================================== January 280 128 391 134 415 177 414 182 465 235 2821 9.0% JAN February 287 130 366 131 363 140 433 139 432 211 2632 8.4% FEB March 245 118 300 156 349 132 381 160 404 192 2437 7.7% MAR Apr; l 264 139 351 170 365 155 434 163 420 185 2646 8.4% APR May 228 119 317 146 390 172 391 191 402 231 2587 8.2% MAY Jl.I'le 234 107 334 104 355 156 388 142 388 152 2360 7.5% JUN July 245 104 318 131 330 109 347 163 378 141 2266 7.2% JUL August 292 108 334 126 384 158 404 173 403 176 2558 8.1% AUG Septerri:>er 292 139 347 145 381 160 386 149 414 152 2565 8.2% SEP October 302 120 346 170 372 173 395 202 416 210 2706 8.6% OCT Noverri:>er 323 128 362 170 428 163 431 212 472 184 2873 9.1% NOV Decerri:>er 333 181 370 157 456 233 434 206 453 192 3015 9.6% DEC ========================================================================================================================= Total 3325 1521 4136 1740 4588 1928 4838 2082 5047 2261 31466 100.0% Avg. KU Demand 380 174 472 199 524 220 552 238 576 258 Peak KU Demand 675 N.A. 800 N.A. 1020 N.A. 960 450 1050 450 Load Factor 0.56 N.A. 0.59 N.A. 0.51 N.A. 0.58 0.53 0.55 0.57 Craig &Klawock Coobined 4846 5876 6516 6920 7308 Annual Growth 21% 11% 6% 6% ) ) ) Joo r,. ~ 75% < w P-4 ~ ....l <t:: :I! E-t (() Z < ~~O% A <t:: ~ a 0 .....J I::x.J ,........ ... I i I' C G' rl) en m IJ) L I'J " OJ .---Ij) CJ -) In IJJ rJ ) f r'J IlJ ";) r,. (;10 <C L'f-4 tJz 2.5<J, ;,.. ~ l)<:.) ~ c:LI P-l --f r~ 0 ~D 1J12 pmf2 pm \l noon ~ IJ1'IHE OF DAY -~ LOAD FACTOR .6 -v l' (,1 rn --_..,.-..- ! r.;;) IFIGURE 1-3 r,OA D CHAR t\CTER ISTICS CRAIG AND KLAWOCK I rJ I i I I I ENVIRONMENTAL/RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 8/88 ENVIRONMENT/RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION PREVIOUS STUDIES The affected environment and resources in the project area were identified, impacts assessed and mitigative measures proposed by the Alaska Power Authority during the licensing of a 6MW project (FERC No. 5715) in 1980-1984. The APA withdrew their license application in 1984 and continued studies under a preliminary permit which expired in 1986.* In 1987 the APA studied the feasibility of an overground penstock route and siphon intake which would eliminate the dam and/or tunnel in previous project designs. These features were found to be technically feasible although somewhat less reliable than the original design. In assessing the natural hazards that the overground penstock would be exposed to, it was found that the powerhouse site was also threatened by snow slides, land slides and flooding. Therefore the alternative powerhouse location B is being considered at this time. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Geoloqy Soils: The project area is rugged and mountainous with glacier-carved rock basins. Previous studies indicate a "possible" regional fault passing through Black Bear Lake and valley. Bedrock includes highly metamorphosed Silurian-Ordovician age volcanic and sedimentary rocks and Cretaceous-Jurassic age igneous intrusive rocks. Inorganic materials at the project site include thick talus deposits at the base of steep slopes, gravel sand and silt on less steep slopes, steep streambeds containing boulders and course gravels and lower gradient streambeds containing smaller gravel to medium and fine sand. Organic soils formed from plant materials are common in poorly drained low gradient areas. These muskeg soils range in depth from 6 inches to several feet. Water Quality: Previous studies have found the water of Black Bear creek to be brown in color, weakly acidic, low in cations, phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations. A significant increase in total dissolved solids occurs between the outlet of Black Bear Lake and upper Black Lake due to upwelling of mineralized water from groundwater systems in this reach of the creek. The water temperature of Black Bear Creek is controlled by several factors which vary seasonally and in magnitude. The humic materials which absorb solar radiation tend to increase the water temperatures from April through August. However, the flow from the groundwater reservoir appears to moderate these temperature extremes. Vegetation: The project area includes old growth forest, muskeg forest, subalpine vegetation and in the lower elevations, recently logged clearcut areas. The maximum area disturbed by the project will be 42.5 acres. *See BIBLIOGRAPHY EXISTING ENVIRONMENT (cont.) wildlife: Black Bear, sitka black tailed deer, timber wolves, beaver, mink, marten, weasel, land otter, red and flying squirrels, shrews, mice, moles and bats are known to inhabit the project area. Birds: The USFS wildlife Task Force has listed 268 species of birds in Southeast Alaska. It is possible for any of these birds to be found in the project area. Only a few of these species occur as breeding birds in the Black Bear Lake drainage. These include common goldeneye, red breasted merganser, common loon, belted kingfisher, dipper, hawks, owls, thrushes, flycatchers, sparrows, chickadees, wood warblers, finches and robins. The northern bald eagle is also a common year around resident although most eagle nests are located within 100 yards of salt water and none are known within the project area at this time. Reptiles and Amphibians: The western toad and possibly a few salamanders are the only members in these groups. Threatened or Endangered Species: No species of plant, fish or wildlife, federally listed as threatened or endangered, resides in the project area or general vicinity. The federally listed endangered species, peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinius), may occur as an occasional migrant in the project area (FERC, 1983, Draft Environmental Impact Statement). Fish: Black Bear lake was stocked with rainbow trout in 1956 and has been self sustaining. In the valley below Black Bear Lake, anadromous fish species include pink salmon, chum salmon, sockeye salmon, and coho salmon. Resident fish species include cutthroat trout, rainbow trout or steelhead, Dolly Varden, sculpin and threespine stickleback. Anadromous forms of cutthroat, Dolly Varden and rainbow trout are also believed to be present. AFFECTED RESOURCES Fisheries Resource: The fisheries industry is a major contributor to the economic base of Southeastern Alaska. The principle anadromous species using Black Bear Creek is the pink salmon, followed by the chum, coho and sockeye. The quantitative contribution of Black Bear Creek to the Prince Of Wales fisheries resource is not known at this time. The mitigative measures proposed in the previous studies by the APA and in future studies are expected to maintain or enhance this fisheries resource. Land Resource: The land surrounding the project area is primarily used for timber production. In late 1986 through 1987, Sealaska Corporation, landowner of the lower slopes and Black Bear Creek valley bottom, harvested the timber in the powerhouse area and lower reaches of the penstock route. Private logging roads now provide access to the powerhouse site. The 2.5 acres of penstock right of way clearing will include some timber of commercial value. The clearing required for the Dam option including inundated areas will be less than 18 acres and has no commercial value. Approximately 10 acres of transmission line ROW would be cleared on route A and 22 acres on route B. Both routes will include some commercial timber. AFFECTED RESOURCES (Cont. ) Resources: Fishing, boating, hunting, camping and hiking are popular recreational activities on Prince of Wales Island. The project area presently has a USFS cabin located on Black Bear Lake. The land in the Black Bear valley including the powerhouse site and lower penstock route is owned by Sealaska corporation and is not open to public recreation at this time. The upper penstock route and Black Bear Lake are in the Tongass National Forest (see Maps 5 & 6). Since Black Bear Lake is usually accessed by float plane, recreation activities are somewhat limited. Development of the project could improve access to the area. This would be viewed as an adverse impact by those who favor wilderness oriented activities and as a benefit by others who would find improved access. The State Of Alaska is currently considering selecting approximately 460 acres along the southeastern shore of Black Bear Lake for community development (hydroelectric development) and community recreational purposes. The selection is a Priority A selection. The Prince of Wales Area Plan (Public Review Draft) states: "State lands at Black Bear Lake will be managed to maintain the opportunity to develop hydroelectric power and community recreation facilities for the communities of Hollis, Craig, Klawock, and possibly Thorne Bay. To the extent consistent with the power project, state lands at Black Bear Lake will be managed for community recreation." Visual Resources: The Black Bear Lake area and spectacular falls at its outlet have been rated Class A by the USFS national forest visual management system. The lower portion of the valley had been rated Class B prior to the logging. The project will have a visual impact on the Black Bear Lake area and the areas traversed by the transmission line. Resources: Previous studies identified two historically near Hydaburg. The proposed project no longer includes those areas and there no known archeological or historical sites in the project area. ENVIRONMENTAL/RESOURCE PROTECTION The Alaska Power & Telephone Company has reviewed the environmental studies that have been done and will incorporate the previous environmental protection, mitigation and enhancement plans as they may apply to the presently proposed project. These plans, to the extent they are known at this time, are summarized in Table I. significant sites BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 8/88 TABLE I ENVIRONMENTAL/RESOURCE IMPACT PROPOSED MITIGATIVE MEAS. 1. DAM ALTERNATIVE a. vegetation: Disturbance or removal of vegetation to new lake el. and in area of darn. Approx. 18 acres b. wildlife: Loss or disturb ance of habitat during construction and inundation c. Water Quality: Short term sedimentation during constr. d. Air Quality & Noise Lvs: Temp. increases in partic lates & noise levels during construction. e. Fisheries Resource: possible loss of self-sustaining Rainbow trout population f. Visual Resource: Darn crest & unnatural shoreline visible from USFS cabin. Loss of 1300ft. falls. 2. NO DAM OPTION (SIPHON) a. Water Quality: Short term sedimentation during constr. b. Air Quality & Noise Lvs: Temp. increases during con struction. c. Fisheries Resource: possible loss of self-sustaining Rainbow trout population d. Visual Resource: Unnatural shoreline -vacuum pump house visible from USFS cabin. Loss of 1300ft. falls. 3. POWERHOUSE LOCATION A a. Water Quantity: Modified flow particularly in the upper reaches of Black Bear Creek. Minimize brush clearing in areas of periodic inundation Remove all trees & slash revegetate disturbed areas. Disturbed areas revegetated with natural habitat values. Erosion/sedimentation control methods during construction. Use water spray as needed to control dust. Establish fish stocking as needed. Texture & color concrete to blend with environment. Erosion/sedimentation control methods during construction. Use water spray as needed to control dust. Establish fish stocking as needed. Use natural colors for vacuum pump house and screen with vegetation. Flow regime within min/max constraints (see "Proposed Flow Regime"). TABLE I CONT. ENVIRONMENTAL/RESOURCE IMPACT PROPOSED MITIGATIVE MEAS. 3. POWERHOUSE LOCATION A (cont.) b. Water Quality: Short term sedimentation during constr. Minor increases/decreases in water temp. depending on lake elevation and powerhouse discharge rate. Localized reduction in dissolved oxygen in areas associated with grd. water discharge. c. Air Quality & Noise levels: Temp. increase in partic ulate & noise levels during construction. d. Fisheries Resource: possible disruption of salmon spawning and rearing because of const. and modified flows. e. Visual Resource: Minor impact from visibility of powerhouse, penstock and transmission lines. 4. POWERHOUSE LOCATION B a. Water Quantity: Modified flow below powerhouse. De watering of Lake fork above powerhouse during no spill periods. Likely reduction in Spring fork flows. b. Water Quality: Short term sedimentation during contr. Minor increase/decrease in water temperature depend ing on lake elevation and powerhouse discharge rate. Localized reduction in dis solved oxygen in areas with grd. water discharge. c. Air Quality & Noise Lvs. Minor increases in partic ulates and noise during construction. d. Fisheries Resource: possible disruption of salmon spawn ing/rearing because of modified flows/temperatures. e. Visual Resource: Minor impact due to visibility of powerhouse, penstock, sub station and transmission ROW Minimize impact through use of proper flow regime. Time constr. to avoid periods when fish are spawning. Use erosion/sedimentation control methods during constr. Use water spray as needed to control dust. Minimize impact through use of proper flow regime and construction timing. Use natural screens and best ROW alignment. Pump tailrace water to supply minimum flows above powerhouse during no spill/ release periods if feasible. Minimize impact through use of proper construction timing and flow/pump regime. Use erosion/sedimentation control methods during constr. Use water spray as needed to control dust. Minimize through use of proper flow regime and/or small spawning channel down stream of powerhouse. Minimize through use of natural screens and suitable ROW alignment. TABLE I CONT. ENVIRONMENTAL/RESOURCE IMPACT PROPOSED MITIGATIVE MEAS. 5. Transmission Line Alt. A a. Vegetation: Disturbance or removal of about 10 acres of vegetation. ROW will follow existing roads. b. wildlife: Loss & disturbance of existing habitat. possible adverse impact on eagles c. Air quality and Noise Lvs. Minor increases in partic ulate and noise levels during construction. d. Geology: Erosion during construction & minor erosion during operation e. Visual Resources: Minor impacts from construction Some areas visible from roads, water or air. f. Cultural Resources: No known impacts 6. Transmission Line Alt. B a. Vegetation: Disturbance or removal of about 22 acres of vegetation. Approx. 6 miles through roadless areas. b. wildlife: Loss & disturbance of existing habitat. possible adverse impact on eagles less than Alt.A. c. Air quality and Noise lvs. Minor increases in partic late and noise levels during construction. d. Geology: Erosion during construction & minor erosion during operation. Greater impact likely than Alt.A. e. Visual Resources: Minor impacts from construction. Some areas visible from roads,water or air. f. Cultural Resources: No known impacts. Limit clearing only to vegetation that posses a hazard to the line. Avoid eagle nest areas and minimize electrocution hazard with proper line design. Use water spray as needed to control dust. Minimize ground disturbance during construction and replant disturbed areas as needed. Select location and alignment to naturally screen the line. None Limit clearing only to vegetation that posses a hazard to the line. Avoid eagle nest areas and minimize electrocution hazard with proper line design. Use water spray as needed to control dust. Minimize ground disturbance during construction and replant disturbed areas as needed. Select location and alignment to naturally screen the line. None STREAMFLOW AND WATER REGIME BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 8/88 STREAMFLOW AND WATER REGIME Black Bear Lake has a drainage area of 1.82 square miles, a natural lake surface area of 215 acres and an estimated volume of 22,000 acre feet. The mean drainage basin elevation is 2410 ft. and the natural lake elevation is 1687.4 ft. A USGS streamflow gauge station (No. 15081580) was set up at the outlet of Black Bear Lake in June 1980. This gauge has accumulated eight years of streamflow record. Thirty years of synthesized monthly streamflow records have been compiled by HECO using log-log regressions with the nearby USGS gauge station (No. 15085100) at Old Tom Creek. These synthesized monthly flows were combined with the USGS recorded flows by HECO in 1985-86 and updated again by AP&T in Table 1-2. The estimated average annual flow has remained unchanged at 26 cfs but some changes in monthly flow distribution are noteworthy. Table I-I shows that the average recorded flows in January and March are higher while May thru October and December are lower than previous estimates. This new estimated flow distribution as shown in figure 1-2 is closer to the environmentally preferred flow distribution than the previous estimates which had very low flows in January, February, and March. The average monthly flow duration curve for the years 1949 to 1987 is shown in Fig. 1-1. The proposed flow releases from Black Bear Lake are the same as those recommended in the FERC Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the APA project in 1983. These flows will be maintained by a combination of powerhouse discharge, spill from the lake and controlled release as discussed under nOperational Mode" and shown in Table 1-4 and Table 1-5. Figure 1-2 shows the mean streamflow curve for each month and its relationship to the proposed flow regime at the powerhouse tailrace. TABLE I-I BLACK BEAR LAKE ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW Current 1985-86 1980-81 Estimate Estimate Estimate Recorded Number of Years 38 36 30 7.25 Avg. Annual Flow (cfs) 26 26 26 28 Month Monthly Flow (% annual) October 171 170 180 154 November 97 96 130 101 December 83 81 95 62 January 74 69 25 127 February 70 88 21 79 March 40 38 18 59 April 52 50 61 57 May 136 130 150 128 June 158 160 180 148 July 107 110 110 95 August 97 110 88 82 September 116 120 140 103 TABLE I-2 AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW, BLACK BEAR LAKE OUTLET* * * * * * * * * * ( C F S ) YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ANNUAL ====================================================================== 1949 N N N N N N N N N 24 33 34 N 1950 47 24 16 2 3 5 17 37 61 40 37 37 27 1951 25 14 14 11 9 7 10 35 41 24 25 26 20 1952 20 16 13 23 21 7 18 35 49 31 20 34 24 1953 29 15 28 12 23 14 16 40 31 21 26 35 24 1954 59 30 21 8 33 4 8 35 45 31 15 24 26 1955 47 40 32 16 12 6 8 29 34 21 29 34 26 1956 71 16 6 4 8 4 15 43 46 29 34 25 25 1957 45 31 25 6 12 5 10 33 34 23 15 29 22 1958 26 32 20 41 19 5 11 34 16 11 24 29 22 1959 59 23 21 12 16 14 11 34 52 31 22 31 27 1960 26 27 36 15 16 10 16 34 42 38 20 31 26 1961 46 22 23 18 21 16 12 31 44 22 18 25 25 1962 41 20 11 25 8 8 11 30 37 28 32 30 24 1963 43 38 34 16 24 6 11 28 32 21 15 33 25 1964 56 26 32 24 22 8 10 33 46 34 32 29 29 1965 37 14 11 28 12 6 11 34 35 22 14 16 20 1966 37 9 23 13 16 14 10 38 37 21 19 37 23 1967 46 15 21 29 27 6 6 35 36 30 30 38 27 1968 55 15 22 19 18 18 12 31 41 22 21 36 26 1969 52 35 12 3 4 5 23 37 46 35 48 31 28 1970 23 41 36 18 26 13 12 33 34 29 26 32 27 1971 47 22 18 10 16 9 14 37 54 33 39 33 28 1972 33 24 11 10 6 13 8 36 44 31 46 25 24 1973 33 29 13 14 23 8 14 38 49 32 18 31 25 1974 40 9 27 4 16 4 13 37 46 35 19 28 23 1975 57 31 36 21 11 6 14 38 51 32 28 23 29 1976 37 23 30 28 14 11 17 40 50 42 35 32 30 1977 47 27 32 13 29 11 15 33 47 33 16 24 27 1978 87 27 6 6 24 10 9 32 25 15 19 32 24 1979 56 30 21 10 10 14 9 33 30 20 17 30 23 1980 41 26 41 14 28 8 29 33 23 25.5 22.4 25.1 26 1981 63.1 63.1 32.2 55.4 21.9 21.4 12 31 24.5 14.6 18.5 42 33.4 1982 24.6 51.7 11.7 16.3 6.75 4.2 8.21 34 56.3 32.9 12.4 24.8 23.7 1983 40.4 13.7 9.01 24.3 21.8 12.2 24.6 45.6 31.3 21 41.2 27.9 26.2 1984 48.9 16.8 5.11 48.7 28.7 27.4 16.3 36.5 46.9 28.7 34.3 20.6 30 1985 32.3 19.2 16.2 45.7 22.9 11.4 13.3 37.7 54 44.7 31.2 24.8 29.5 1986 34.3 8.62 20 27.3 31.6 32.7 16 30 34.4 21.1 13.6 17.6 23.9 1987 63 28.7 29.3 35.3 22.7 7.5 23.5 41.7 48.6 25.5 11.2 48.8 32.2 AVG. 44 25 21 19 18 10 14 35 41 28 25 30 26 % Yr 171 97 83 74 70 40 52 136 158 107 97 116 USGS gauge record since July 1980. Earlier monthly flow from APA/HECO regression with Old Tom Creek. FIGURE 1--1 80 60 (I) u.. U ~ 40 3: o ...J u.. 20 o o 10 20 80 90 100 \ \ ..~ ~ ~"-..... ....... .........., .......-....-~ -.....r---............... ~, -.......... 30 40 50 60 70 PERCENT OF TIME EOUALED OR EXCEEDED ........... .......... BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA FLOW DURATION CURVE l.-.LL\..R-zA ENGINEE~ING COMPANV· MARCH 1981 I'LASKA POWER Mm«RTY 1'1,' LEGEND 1 .. __ ..Existing .Condi tions: Average Monthly Flows ~ Range Project "........, (l) Regime .w ::I C -rl ::s ~ (l) p... .w (l) (l) ~ U 'rl ..0 ::I 30 20 10 0 38 year period 2. With Proposed Proposed Flow A M JJ F M U "-" W \..? P::: -<::r:: u CI) H ~ TH----- FIGURE 1 2. Relationship between the natural Black Bear Lake mean streamflow curve and the l)rOposed flow regime at the powerhouse tailrace J JA s o N D TABLE 1-5. Proposed Minimium Month flow January 9 February 12 March 9 April 19 May 25 June 15 July 24 August 24 September 29 October 25 November 23 December 9 flow releases from Maximum flow 29 34 34 34 49 49 55 38 46 44 42 29 Black Bear Lake (cfs) Avg. Natural flow 19 18 10 14 35 41 28 25 30 44 25 21 APPENDIX A APPENDIX A La ke-e/evt:JCfJo"1 ~/fhoV\ of-l-t OVl me-\...'X lJoV' .. IYi I V\ D~~ OP+/Ol-\ (Yl"-x. /JOY ,..v1,n. II L C( ke-sfo Y"Q.;.re.. ~&a. C 11I ..s i f k 0101 0P+IOV\ ~oc>r:.) OLC..-+t ~W\ 0f+'oVi 1900 qc..-t-t ---------------_._.. _--- 0;0+'0\/\ A 2.61 ff 0P+,Ov\ 8 /20 -ft C'V\ (APl\ ~ ITt: :;opt, p., w/ £Ay,r.. I.-;J/ S/PhoVi opttoY\ fS w I ex:... ....1 /5 i 2 ff wi .s., f h(';;'r1 /500 +t P0h S tOC-k. Optloh A 6(>+,ov'\ B P~~+och ~e.ctd Joss a.t 3c) c+s Oft, c.; V\ f) /54 fT / ~o Ifop-froV\ B ~\ e..-t;;:.-r{, '-I ~~i-.__ e. ", €.x a.1 Oy" 5-f{,c~~~=.~t __---------_.--.... vYI~l.,tC>~ TvI'" bltle... -&..-'i\. E{{fC 9 7T We, +e..r .s'f~OV1 PCM$+oc It (Qpf,,,'" t3 et!>,-"'ew'Q""~_c..). PeN\!:>fC)c-I<. lI~o1 los.s DIe... ~ Le.-¥'-~-f (,., 10 0/0 c..,1 ~ / t>,;2 4 11 78.5 f-t I 4,2 J ~" 21 gO .ft 12., (; 4 <6. 0 22'1 J 100 It 2t1·2 77.0 .0 7.0 <[)4,O p~ Opi-,O'lf'\ \..,..J/opt,O'0 B fou.~JfLo~_ ~b t-oc.-~ ~ss;. e..v. +,~ f{~ .s-~Q oS. 0. to G) v C Of+'OV\ A fO\JJ-<:N-~oJse-/oe-at/ov\ H~c. __p~s+ock II ; "("-J c~ c~ 4,2J I / J;;';.b 4'6,0 1700 J~~ 17"L1 ~.56t T/O~ 1. 7 C .. ~ )q. J -f-f 7~. u .{1 ( -[VOV>" If U< Id{j I f(:~·· ..zC) !: '1,0 IOI.Y 5t1,3 1t:,l{,,7 / C:, P I~o ft 9 .. 0 10/. '1 1(.../,0 Fo..ctoy--to Co", vevf E "lex-.!.j (m r...J H) -to ""0 V\tt, l'j of /cLc) (C\s ') . EV1eN""J.j (Vt1WH) = POt-Jt_">e.k-(rdv.))x 1VY1~(hV'5) T'l_-(t I r,'--1' ..., Cu) Il C 1-':> e... =-Ie''" .~ '. c-( • 7..30 II) goo /tl cJH /n1c~fh:::-• 0 (;,/ ~'(I he.. q Or q ( -.--~.--- /,vlwH /Yt1o'1H, bC:>b/<r;('{/ he: ---. .. A (rc...VVl40 v c --.---~ f&.u~~(.)Se.... A ~/oa.VV\ wi SIP~ov, if't\ I rJ. It \'C_I_~'_::"he.a..d i ( f-t) G eAi'. -Tv vb 111 c-~N..s+cck ~l:bfl1e.J---------1I ..:t Flo\... @) .3 »-'~, I L{ 3 I S 3· .s 7.'~ () Cj 74.3 c c-,1t-f1C] <63,5 D l 7 L{,3 73,S" (: , 73, I I i i 3~.i~015 iI ~oOJS332 33_ .0 I ':f5CfS 3 l.. ! .0)4062. 3 ~ .. Plo'-..J @ .3 mW = :..f5 k<. ck .Be.o.. ~ ~----i ~FoJtc-f(( (" JoY" To Co..1v'c"v"f c...-~c( Vlqc. ] 1/', I(,! C ....... -e.. Ie VO( tl (/ Y\ Ie..: b. L k ~. ? C -+5 (_~'''-t~) /bg 7 fA- lb 72 {t = IS ,(1 3,000 )5 O-.t:~. /. 3 0 b 8 t< 109-If 3 I ~ V0 I u vy, C-;;-1.30," 'i? x I:-J /, -----------,-~ e..le..l.t;<.t/C">o'\. /sp ~V.=::: y 1: whet~...:-q -=--J!OLU -h r-G--OYl~ W10 ~+k pl?fi 10 cJ r....::. .2. b;<b-~ X 0 ,-' /' ~__ 6V Qr---~I 7 12.-.6p-~ /:J fJ-~ 6. J* x.\ --c ---.. _._---&l 50/745 It ~. 7Jc... X. /0'-<if. 7 { 2.. X / oG~ ~y\~e... l\-i LC{ ke. e..1-e Vee f, J-, 0 _ 301745 -rt cf.s Y't'Io"'\ ;-~ I • RESERVOIR AREA IN ACRES FIGU;E -W-33 300 200 100 o '-~"-~ ,e.87 ~ 1(...72- JIIIIIIII"" ~ ."",.. ~ I' .... / V '----_. ~... ......-~--... ~.... ......" ."".,.".,...... ~ -~ ~ , ~ --, .. ....... -1 1 I I EL. 1721 Max ~ EL. 1715 Max N ".".""".."""" EL. 1685 Min NI .-.... ...",fIIIII""" ........ ~ '--... ~ ~ f' 18001800 S. orm W.S • rm W.S. 1700 1700 ... ...w w W W LL LL Z Z z 1600 1600 Z 0 0 « ~ t= «> >w w ..J ..J w w 1500 1500 1400 1400 '" ~23,750o 10,000 20,000 ~2.0 750 30,000 ) RESERVOr R STORAGE IN ACRE -FEET BLACK BEAR LAKE. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA RESERVOIR AREA -VOLUME CURVES~ I--lAR.ZA E"'-'GINEEI"lING CQ'VIP.o.r.l'" • MAI"lCH 1981 ILASKA POWER AlITlfOfIITY 11..r,\ BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 1 of 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1988. Prince of Wales Island Plan (Public Review Draft). Juneau. Alaska Power & Telephone Company. 1987. Application for Preliminary Permit for Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project (No. 10440-000). Port Townsend, Washington. Alaska Power Authority. 1981. Application for License for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project (No. 5715), Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (Revised, 1982; Supplemental Information, 1982). Anchorage. Alaska Power Authority. 1982. Findings and Recommendations Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, Prince of Wales Island. Anchorage. Alaska Power Authority. 1984. Application for Preliminary Permit for Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project (No. 5715-001). Anchorage. Bacon, G., Alaskarctic. 1981. (revision). Archeological Investigations for the Proposed Black Bear Lake Hydro electric Project, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Fairbanks. Bacon, G., Alaska Heritage Research Group, Incorporated. 1982. Final Archeological Investigations for the Proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Fairbanks. Bishop, D.M., Environaid. 1980. Black Bear Lake Aquatic Study, Phase 1. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Environaid. 1981. Notes on Black Bear Creek Investigations, Visit 2-13 to 2-18-81. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Environaid. 1981. An Interim Report on Biological-Ecological Work on the Black Bear Creek System. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Environaid. 1982. Preliminary Report-Black Bear Lake Investigations. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Environaid. 1985. Late Summer Visit to Black Bear Creek. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Environaid. 1986. Black Bear Creek Monitoring Work, Fall 1985 and Late winter 1986. Juneau. Page 2 of 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont.) Bishop, D.M., and Milner, A., Environaid. 1981. Preliminary study of Outmigrant Fry from Black Bear Creek, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Milner, A.M., and Smith, L.A., Environaid. 1982. Biological-Ecological Investigations on the Black Bear Creek System near Klawock, Alaska. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Milner, A.M., and Smith, L.A., Environaid. 1982. Late Summer and Fall Observations in Upper Black Bear Creek, Southeastern Alaska. Juneau. Bishop, D.M., Milner, A.M., and Smith, L.A., Environaid. 1985. Creek. Environmental Monitoring Upper Juneau. Black Bear CH2M Hill Northwest, Incorporated. Hydrology Report. Anchorage. 1982. Black Bear Lake CH2M Hill Northwest, Incorporated. 1982. Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project-Hydrology Update-October 1982. Anchorage. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Electric Power Regulation. 1983. Black Bear Lake, Project No. 5715, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, FERCjDEIS-0036. Washington. Harza Engineering Company. 1979. Black Bear Lake Project, a Reconnaissance Report. Chicago. Harza Engineering Company and CH2M-Hill Northwest, Inc. 1981. Black Bear Lake Project Feasibility Report. Chicago and Anchorage. Harza Engineering Company. 1983. Black Bear Lake Hydro electric Project, Geology Report (Preliminary). Chicago. Harza Engineering Company. 1983. Black Bear Lake Hydro electric Project Update of Power Market Forecast. Chicago. Harza Engineering Company. 1986. Black Bear Lake Hydro electric Project, Feasibility Report Update (Draft). Chicago. Page 3 of 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont.) Harza Engineering Company. 1987. Black Bear Lake Hydro electric Project, Penstock Siphon Study Report. Chicago. Munch, E., Alaska Woods Service Company. 1987. Report on investigation of the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project. Ketchikan. OTT Water Engineers, Incorporated. 1987. Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project Cost Estimate. Bellevue, Wa. Pool Engineering, Incorporated. 1982. Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project Field Survey Report, 1 October 1982. Ketchikan. u.s. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. Water Resources Data-Alaska, annual summaries 1980-1987. CONSULTATION HAILING LIST MAILING LIST OF AGENCIES AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES TO BE CONSULTED: Regional Director u.s. Fish and wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Director Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service P.o. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.o. Box 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Endangered Species Specialist u.S. Fish and wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Regional Director Alaska Regional Office National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Chief of History and Archeology Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks Pouch 7001 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Regional Forester U.S. Forest Service P.o. Box 21628 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1628 Diane Mayer Division of Governmental Coordination P.o. Box AW Juneau, Alaska 99801 State Director Bureau of Land Management 710 C Street, Box 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 MAILING LIST CONTINUED Regional Environmental Officer Department of the Interior P.O. Box 100120 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-120 Division of Environmental Quality Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation P.O. Box 0 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 Regional Environmental Coordinator National Park Service 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2892 Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation Alaska Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Juneau, Alaska 99801 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Environmental Impact Review Officer Environmental Protection Agency 1200 sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Robert E. LeResche Executive Director Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Robert W. Loescher Senior Vice President Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801 President Gordon R. James Shaan Seet, Inc. P.O. Box 90 Craig, Alaska 99921-0090 MAILING LIST CONTINUED Theodore F. Meyers Chief, Habitat Conservation Division National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Constance Sathre Staff Attorney National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration P.o. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Corrine M. Garza Chief Executive Officer Klawock Heenya Corporation P.o. Box 25 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Jim Sprague Mayor City Of Craig P.o. Box 23 Craig, Alaska 99921 Roy S. Williams Mayor City of Klawock P.o. Box 113 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Mayor Dan Wagner city of Thorne Bay P.O. Box 19110 Thorne Bay, Alaska 99919 Jack Broughton General Manager Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority P.o. Box 210149 Auke Bay, Alaska 99821-0149 Director Division of Land & Water Management P.O. Box 107005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7005 Attachment D BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 10440-000-ALASKA JOINT AGENCY MEETING OCTOBER 26, 1988 1:30 PM FEDERAL BUILDING ROOM 465 JUNEAU, ALASKA AGENDA Agenda Page 2 1. Introduction of Agencies and interested parties present at meeting. 2. Present status of project and the remaining consultation and licensing process. 3. General description of proposed project. 4. Specific description and discussion of alternative project features, their environmental/resource impact and their respective proposed mitigation measures: A. siphon and Dam. B. Power Plant sites A & B. C. Transmission routes A & B. 5. Identification of studies [18 CFR 4.38 (a) (2) (i)] needed to determine: A. Economic Feasibility B. Technical Feasibility C. Design or location of Project Features D. Impact on natural or cultural resources E. suitable mitigati.on of impacts F. How to minimize impacts to a resource 6. Conclusions to be reached if possible: A. Preferable project alternative features. B. Identification of required studies. NOV 28 '88 12:45 project: Date of Meeting: Location: Author: Attending: MEETING RECORD Files: 10440.001 BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 10440-000 state ID AK880930-16J October 26, 1988 Federal Building Rm 465 Juneau, Ak. Vernon Neitzer, APT National Marine Fisheries Service John Hamilton (907-586-7235) u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service-KTN Chuck Osborn (907-225-9691) , ..,....r; t 1 d' ,Q~V1§k9-ll ~ Goxernmen a Coer ~natlQn Diane Mayer (907-465-3562) Alaska Department gf ~~~ Rick Reed (907-465-4290) Alaska Desartment g1 Natural ReSOurces Chris Landis (907-465-3400) Ron Schonenbach (907-465-3400) Alaska ~ower Authority Tom Arminski (907-561-7877) Bnviron;aig Daniel ,Bishop (907-789-9035) Sealaska COkPQration Rick Harris (907-586-1512) ~law~9k Heenya Corporation Richard Carle, Jr. (907-755-2355) ~Qt. Th.Q)~·..tt~ ~~~.Y Sam Romey (907-828-3380) Tlingit Haida REA Jack Broughton (907-789-3196) ~q power k Telephone Company Robert Grimm (206-385~1733) Vernon Neit~eL (907-983-2202) ~~O\) 28 '88 12:44 F F:Or', 1 8079::::32204 Sf~HGLuHY TO RF'T-PT Agenda Page 2 1. Introduction of Agencies and interested parties present at meeting. 2. present status of project and the remaining consultation and licensing process. 3. General description of proposed project. 4. Specific description and discussion of alternative project features, their environmental/resource impact and their respective proposed mitigation measures: A. siphon and Dam. B. Power Plant sites A & B. c. Transmission routes A & B. 5. Identification of studies [18 CFR 4.38 (a) (2) {ill needed to detet1.nine: A. Economic Feasibility B. Technical Feasibility C. Design or location of Project Features D. Impact on natural or cultural resources E. suitable mitiqation of impacts F. How to minimize impacts to a resource 6. conclusions to be reached if possible: A. Preferable project alternative features. B. Identification of required studies. NOV 28 '88 12:45 F ROt"'1 19078832204 SKAGlJ.IAY TO APT-PT PAGE.004 Meeting Record october 26, 1988 Page 2 MEETING PURPOSE The purpose of the meeting was to provide information and receive comments from the agencies on the project. Assistance was requested to determine the most desirable of the alternative designs presented in the Initial Consultation Packet and to determine any additional studies necessary. fROJECT OVERVIEW An overview of the project was provided by Bob Grimm. AP&T's Preliminary perroit application was filed with the FERC on July 6, 1987 and issued on June 7, 1988. An initial consultation packet was prepared and sent to the agencies and interested parties on September 15, 1988. Comments and suggestions from this consultation will be incorporated into the study plan and the study results will be included in a draft license application for comment from the agencies. A third and final consultation will be held at the license stage to assure that all the agencies require~ents have been met. The first 6 month report will be filed on Nov. 30,1988. PROJECT DES~EIPTIQN ~ DESIGN ALTERNATIVES A general description of the project was provided by Vernon Neitzer. Project location, design, previous work by the APA and the present design alternatives were explained. The environmental impacts and proposed mitigative measures were described for the dam vs. siphon, powerhouse site A vs. powerhouse site B and transmission route A vs. transmission route B. ~~Y~~QN QE ALTERNATIVES DAM vs. ~A dam would raise the lake above its natural level while a siphon would draw the lake down below its natural level. Either option will disturb the rainbow trout spawning habitat. However, it is not presently known where spawning is taking place. Likely areas are the lake inlet, lake outlet or beach areas. A dam would require relocating th~ U.S. Forest Service cabin. Actual use of the lake by sport fish~rmen is believed to be light due to lack of access. Reliability of a siphon or a dam to maintain flows out of thG lak~ was discussed. For the siphon option, a separate siphon or a pump sized to deliver at least minimum f30v,lS cou]o hp n~(!>('l n"'r t-"\..11"> c:nn;;l""t~::::l+-~ ~i't'"\hl"'\'I'""l~ l"lr1r1 r'>OTlc:-t-",...,,\r.,.. t~OI.} 28 FROM 19079832204 SKAGWAY TO APT-PT PAGE.80S MEETING RECORL~ october 26, 1988 Page 3 For the dam, automated gates could be used to release water. A lake tap or trenched in penstock were also mentioned as possibilities. Existing siphon intake designs in Alaska were also discuss·ed.. Intake depths were compared to previous designs and lake temperatures vs. withdrawal depth and time of year were considered. ~QWERHOUSE ~~ VS. B: Maps were studied to get an understanding of the sites. It was suggested that large aerial photographs need to be taken to help visualize the area. The physical hazards of site A were discussed. The importance of the groundwater flo~s and the possible effect of site B on spring fork flow in particular was discussed. TWo underground flows are believed to exist, one relatively shallow and one deeper flow. The contribution of watershed areas between Black Bear Lake and the tailrace to the groundwater system was mentioned. Quantifying the flow distribution in the groundwater system between Black Bear Lake and the various channels and upwelling areas was believed to be very difficult and possibly infeasible. Prior reasoning for not performing instream flow studies was reviewed. Since the beaver ponds and underground flows did not fit the rigorous computerized instream flow model, it had not been used. The effects of logging on the beaver population is not known at this time. studies of the fisheries resource were suggested to document pre-project conditions. post project monitoring of the fisheries will be necessary to determine further mitigative measures if necessary. The feasibility of annually stocking salmon in Black Bear Creek as a mitigative measure was considered. Water temperature effects likely to occur due to the project were discussed. It is believed that the available temperature studies can be reviewed and updated to provide the necessary information. TRANSMISSION ROUTk ~ VS. B: The reliability of a 30 foot right of way width was questioned because of the large timber particularly on route B. It was mentioned that route A would be able to provide power to the Klawock airport and some 38 homesites. It was suggested that route A be located on the north side of the forest service road between Big Salt Lake and the Klawock substation in order to serve the airport area and avoid interference with future logging activities. QT.HEB D1 SCUSSI01~ 7 1hc Jl..PA I IS posi tion as un lntervener and financier of the 12:46 FROM 19079832204 S~RGWRY TO RPT-PT PRGE.DOGNOV 28 MEETING RECORD October 26, 1988 Page 4 project was mentioned. The importance of not losing sight of the object of the project--low power rates on Prince of Kales Island--was discussed. Black Bear Lake Project's enhanced feasibility due to previous work by the APA and the new logging road access was mentioned. The proposed project's capacity of twice the present demand of Craig and Klawock with e~pansion capability of up to four times the present demand were discussed. CONCLUSIONS AHQ INFORMATION REQUESTS Preference was for the siphon intake provided it was as reliable as a dam. The feasibility of a lake tap and/or a two penstock system needs to be studied. Powerhouse location preference was to keep upstream as far as possible to provide flows into the groundwater system. The feasibility of determining the floW distribution between Lake and Spring forks and the contribution from Black Bear Lake needs to be explored. Additional work needs to be done to further evaluate project effect on water temperatures. Preference was for transmission line route A. Request was made for a report on the actual power costs to the consumer. VJN cc; All Attendees Mailing List for October 26, 1988 Joint Agency Meeting Record: Mr. Chuck Osborn U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 3193 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Mr. Tom Arminski Alaska Power Authority 701 E. Tudor Road P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Diane Mayer Division'of Governmental Coo'rdinatlon· P.O. Box AW Juneau t Alaska 99801 Mr. Richard Reed Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 20 Juneau, Alaska 99824-0020 Mr. John Hamilton National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1688 Juneau; Alaska 99802 Dan Bishop Environaid 12175 Mendenhall Loop Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Richard Carle, Jr. Klawock:H~enya·~Cof~o~ation P.O. Box 25 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Mr. Sam Romey City of Thorne Bay P.O. Box 110 Thorne Bay, Alaska 99950 Mr. Rick Harris Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza Suite 400 June3u, Alaska 99801 Mr. Ron Schonenbach Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Avenue Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1000 Mr. Jack Broughton Tlingit-Haida REA P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, Alaska 99821-0149 Mr. Chris Landis ,Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Avenue Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 999801-1000 NOV 28 '88 12:46 FROM 19079832204 S KA GWAY TO RPT-PT F'AGE • 007 . ---', . ... ... .• .... -: '. . . . ..' '1 . '. ... . .~' .' ; , " ' , 50 SHEETS 32·1 ~ CANARY 8Va IN. ¥. 11'~ IN . 32-225 WHITE. E9 Benchmark /O-Z~-8B J]{.+CIC 1JE,yc tAKe, ~J/~c; ;v'~ e-Fe?r e.5cd-;vI .-r- {~L.,4 W r.)c./~ lIe~N yA c.. ott f. Cd~ (){2 Thr:srne-Dqj U.S. h~~ ~ w(td.{;+~ S«(v. -k+, AI' /£,Ue/L AJ1TlltjlllT( ~~~l\~l Frs~""t.CA4E ";;-tJv\.\l-p ~ ~R 1¥v-&0-~ nN It -~L.t..UtL1 {,/(,..:~ ..?'j':)r.~ O/V~--~LWM 5~4f~~ TI»~6PQ A~L... 'f-Te1r/c"<. c ,.t-;.....J ~I , vn" ,'-.j__F · ~ " IJ;"V\ rs Attachment E United States Department of the Interior IN REPLY REFER TO: Mr. Robert S. Grimm FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Juneau Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Southeast Alaska Ecological Services P. O. Box 021287 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1287 (907) 586-7240 November 23, 1988 Alaska Power and Telephone Co. P. O. Box 222 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Initial Stage Consultation Information package presented by the Alaska Power and Telephone Company for the proposed Black Bear Lake hydropower project (FERC No. 10440-000) on Prince of Wales Island. We have coordinated our review with the National Marine Fisheries Service, and concur fully with their comments and recommendations relevant to aquatic habitat resources. We offer the following additional comments. Specific Comments Based on the geographic location of this project, we believe the Prince of Wales flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus griseifrons) may occur in the project area. This is a species not currently listed as "endangered" but is being investigated to ascertain its population status. We do not believe that the proposed project will significantly affect this species or its habitat. No federally-proposed or listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur in or near the project area, and therefore no further Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat, 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required with the Service. Ba1d eagles occur throughout the project area. The potential for aerial strikes and electrocution of bald eagles can be a problem on improperly designed transmission lines. Great horned owls, a common species in southeast Alaska, are also very susceptible to electrocution. Good preconstruction planning will decrease the chance of future problems. Adequate separation of energized wires, ground wires and other metal hardware is the most important factor in preventing eagle and other raptor electrocutions. Young birds whose flight skills are not fully developed are most vulnerable. The objective is a 60-inch minimum separation of conductors. A design that minimizes the chance of bird collisions and electrocutions will also minimize maintenance costs and power outages. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of "Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines." We appreciate the opportunity to provide preliminary comments on this project. Since:;, ~ J ~~r7/~ Nevin D. Holmberg Field Supervisor cc: NMFS, USFS, Juneau ADF&G, Douglas EPA, Anchorage ADF&G, FWS, Ketchikan tltnCjJt &, haJba R€CjIOnal €l€ctRlcal authoRity P.O. Box 210149 • Auke Bay, Alaska 99821 • (907) 789·3196 October 11, 1988 Robert S. Grimm, President Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 702 Water street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Re: Black Bear Hydroelectric Project Dear Mr. Grimm: I am writing to add my support of your efforts to construct a hydroelectric facility at Black Bear Lake near Klawock, Alaska. I believe this project is a higher order viable alternative to current diesel-electric generation, especially when consideration is given to long-term cost of diesel fuel, power plant maintenance and the environmental effects caused by diesel exhaust. With a clean lower cost renewal energy source, economic development in the area would stand on firmer ground, therefore, enhancing the opportunities of residents on Prince of Wales Island. If I can be of any assistance with your preliminary investigation[ please feel free to call on me. Sincerely, i~D~'B~~ General Manager cc: Frank See, Sr. Marvin Davis Harry Brown I STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Robert S. Grimm, President Alaska Power & Telephone Co. P.O.Box 222 Port Townsend, Wa 98368 October 31, 1988 The Department of Environmental Conservation has completed a review of the Initial stage Consultation Information submitted by the Alaska Power & Telephone Company in accordance with 18 CFR 4.38 (b) (1) for development of the Black Bear Lake hydroelectric project. We have several general comments on the selection of the transmission line routes, the sUbstation site location and the use of a dam or a siphon system. For all items mentioned above we urge you to select the option with the lest environmental impacts overall. One of the biggest environmental impacts that can result from construction of a dam is the blockage of fish passage. Since there are resident populations of anadromous fish in Black Bear Lake, the design of any dam should include a fish passage structure. A build up of sediments behind the dam may result in siltation of the natural substrates. This can change the natural composition and may adversely affect the spawning capacity of resident fish in Black Bear Lake. The retention of sediments also reduces the amount of allocthonous material that reaches the lower portions of the stream. This can reduce the nutrient levels and adversely affect the food chain. Dams can also alter the temperature regimes of the stream and reservoir which may adversely affect the resident fish and macro invertebrate populations. We strongly recommend that you weight the possible environmental impacts of both the dam and siphon options before you make your final choice. Mitigation for the development of either option will be in line with it's environmental impacts. The selection of a powerhouse location should include consideration of the site with the least impact on fishery resources. The maintenance of minimum acceptable stream flows without large fluctuations in discharge will be critical to the continuation of a productive fishery resource in Black Bear Lake and stream. Location A, which is further upstream may have fewer impacts than location B. This alternative should be considered. Mr. Robert S. Grimm october 31, 1988 page two The selection of a transmission line route should again be based partially on the choice with the least environmental impacts. Line A would require less disturbance of habitat and follow an existing road corridor. Disturbance of fewer acres of vegetation may result in fewer water quality problems. We appreciate the opportunity to review your project during the early design stage so that we may minimize the possible future environmental impacts. We look forward to working with you in the future. /f::;71~ Amy Kruse Ecologist cc Jack Gustafson, ADF&G Richard Sumner, EPA Nevin Holmberg, USF&WS Elizaveta Shadura, ADNR Diane Mayer " DGC UNITED STATES "'-PARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic J Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fi8heries Serviae P.o. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668 october 31, 1988 Robert S. Grimm Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA. 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the Initial Stage Consultation Information Package for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska) sent to us on September 15, 1988. The Black Bear Lake system supports considerable resources which contribute to commercial, subsistence, and recreational fisheries. We have summarized this information in a previous review of the project status (NMFS letter of September 23, 1986). NMFS has been actively involved with the Black Bear Lake Project since early 1981. We have participated in meetings with the previous applicant, Alaska Power Authority (APA) , Environaid (contracted to conduct biological and impact studies), and concerned state and federal agencies to discuss mitigating potential impacts that may result from the project. A representative from NMFS also conducted an on site inspection of the proposed project area in 1981. In March 1981, NMFS recommended six baseline studies to assess the fishery resource, salmonid habitat use, and the potential dam impacts. Five of these recommended studies have been carried out over the past four years in an effort which, for the most part, adequately addressed most of our questions associated with the project. In place of the sixth recommended study, an instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM) flow investigation, an alternative instream flow study was conducted. Unique circumstances, including groundwater flows into upper Black Bear Creek, made this investigation more appropriate. Based upon alternative study and assessment of the Black Bear Creek channel and evaluation, negotiations between the previous applicant and fisheries agency personnel took place in 1982. Out of this discussion, environmentally constrained flows for Black Bear Creek were agreed to and included in the DRAFT Environ mental Impact Statement (DElS) for the Black Bear Lake Project dated February 1983. Given the information we now have, and assuming the continuation of other existing stream conditions, including comparable groundwater flows, NMFS feels these negotiated instream flow regimes will adequately protect anadromous fish habitat. NMFS remains concerned these groundwater flows be maintained in Black Bear Creek. A section of coarse, porous substrate in Lake Creek Fork and bedrock fissures at the base of the falls apparently contribute to upwelling areas in Spring Creek Fork and Lake Creek Fork. This groundwater provides spawning habitat in the form of upwelling groundwater flows. Sockeye salmon in particular use these upwelling areas when the water returns to the channel further downstream. The proposed bypass of water through the powerhouse, rather than into groundwater aquifers, may significantly reduce downstream upwelling volume. Further, the proposed relocation of the powerhouse 1,500 feet downstream is a considerable departure from the DEIS and may conflict with past plans to recharge groundwater. On page 4-10 of the DEIS, it is stated that discharge at the powerhouse location A would result in a degree of recharge of groundwater systems. By moving the powerhouse to location B, this recharge may be lost or de creased considerably to the detriment of water quality and quantity necessary for downstream anadromous fish habitat. NMFS recommends, therefore, additional studies be undertaken to quantify first, the reduction in groundwater flows, if any, due hydropower development and, second, assess the effects that moving the location of the powerhouse would have on groundwater flows in Black Bear Creek. In addition, NMFS recommends the following studies: A. Additional studies to examine the feasibility of intake structures which allow the intake of water at various temperatures from Black Bear Lake and modeling to determine optimal tailrace discharge temperatures during summer months. Water temperatures in upper Black Bear Creek and Black Lake will apparently be reduced over the critical summer rearing period. These depressed water temperatures may decrease growth of fry and parr in upper Black Bear Creek and Black Lake and, possibly, reduce the returns of adult salmon. B. Studies are needed to determine the status of beaver ponds in Black Bear Creek below the powerhouse and above Black Lake. These beaver ponds have provided considerable rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon when fish can access these areas at higher water levels. Should these 2 ponds still exist, the feasibility of providing access flows needs to be considered. C. If above studies show that regulated spill from Black Bear Lake or relocation of the powerhouse will decrease significantly groundwater flows, study is needed of the feasibility of discharging a portion of the tailrace waters so they reenter the groundwater system. D. post-project fisheries evaluations of Black Bear Lake and upper Black Bear Creek should be implemented. The scope of this post-project assessment needs to be discussed further, but some degree of follow-up evaluation is necessary to verify that fish habitat and resources have been given adequate consideration. It is our understanding all hydrological and fisheries related studies which are pertinent to the Black Bear Creek project are being consolidated and summarized into one document to assist in the consultation process. This information will be helpful prior to application for FERC licensing and may point out the need for additional monitoring, if any, of water quality, instream-flows, salmonid escapements, or outmigration timing of anadromous fish resources in the Black Bear Lake system. NMFS must be a full and active party to the development of studies and determinations of the impacts of the proposed project on anadromous fishery resources and the actions necessary for the protection, maintenance and enhancement of this resource. Once the information requested above is available, NMFS will better be able to evaluate whether the construction and operation can be carried out to insure no net loss to the Black Bear Creek fishery resources. If not, compensatory mitigation for the loss of habitat may be required. Sincerely, ~(I i7r)f::~ ~ , V~~L.,rl./L f . , mes Brooks~g Dlrector Alaska Region 3 STEVE COWPER, COVERNOR I)EPAIIT~IENT 0.' .'ISII ANI. (;..'\'~IE P.D. BOX 20 DOUGLAS. ALASKA 99824-0020 SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE PHONE: (907) Habitat Division October 25, 1988 Hr. Robert S. Grimm Alaska Power & Telephone Company P. O. Box 222 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Initial Stage Consultation information for the proposed Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project recently submitted by Alaska Power & Telephone Company. Our preliminary comments at this stage of the review are as follows: (1) Much of the watershed between Black Lake and Black Bear Lake has been clearcut following Environaid's investigations of the area. As extensive logging of the area occurred after the collection of biological and hydrological data, the present biotic and physical stream characteristics may be somewhat different now than what was previously reported. Recent changes may have taken place regarding stream temperature regimes, flow characteristics, debris deposition, sedimentation, oxygen levels, rearing habitat availability, water quali ty, and similar parameters. We recommend that additional assessment work be discussed and possibly be designed so that post-construction hydroelectric studies will adequately differentiate possible logging related impacts from the potential future hydroelectric impacts. It may also be to the Alaska Power and Telephone Company's advantage to document present stream conditions and physical parameters in the event that post-hydroelectric construction monitoring indicates the need for fisheries mitigation at a later date. Such post-logging information appears necessary to adequately determine possible suitable post-hydroelectric development mitigation, should future mitigation become an issue. 11-K15LH -2 (2) If the powerhouse is moved to Location B, some additional stream assessment work may be necessary regarding habitat impacts in this area. Powerhouse Location B appears to be located within the upstream portion of cataloged anadromous fisheries habitat along Black Bear Creek (Stream #103-60-10310-0010). We understand there will be dewatering of Lake Fork above the powerhouse during no spill periods and the likely reduction in Spring Fork flows. will the adjacent downstream area also be affected by the powerhouse relocation? What is the value of the habitat bypassed by the penstock? Under what conditions is it feasible to pump tailrace water above the powerhouse as suggested? What will be the affect of temperature changes in downstream waters following project construction? (3) Black Lake and Black Bear Creek are productive and valuable for the spawning, rearing, and migration of pink, chum, sockeye, and coho salmon, as well as for Dolly Varden char, and cutthroat, steelhead, and rainbow trout. For this reason we feel that post-project fisheries evaluations of Black Bear Lake and Creek should be implemented. The scope of this post-project assessment work needs further discussion, but such studies seem necessary to determine suitable mi tigation if the need should arise. The life-cycle for one age class may be an appropriate study period. Our preliminary suggestion is to begin fisheries evaluations for at least one year before project start-up, if possible, and continue post-project monitoring for five years after project completion. Annual reports would be distributed to summarize each year's findings. (4) The Alternative B transmission line alignment would require right-of-way clearing for a distance of approximately six miles through a roadless area. It may be beneficial to maintain this existing wildlife habi tat around Klawock to Black Lake, which has been heavily logged in the recent past. For this reason the Alternative A transmission line alignment, which is located along existing roads, may be preferable, providing beach fringe cutting is held to a minimum. We assume that Alternative A is identified as having more adverse impact on bald eag s because it is closer to the beach. We cannot adequately evaluate the transmission line alternatives until we get more specific information regarding the proposed eagle impacts, the exact amount of clearing at each location along Alternative A, and the habitat characteristics of clearing Alternative B. -3 Please feel free to contact Jack Gustafson at 225-2195 or by writing him at 2030 Sealevel Drive, Suite 203, Ketchikan, Ak 99901 if you have any questions concerning these review comments. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input at this stage of the project. Sincerely, -:::::c;!P. ..J..-D.'"R~ Richard D. Reed Regional Supervisor cc: J. Gustafson, ADF&G, Ketchikan G. Freeman, ADF&G, Klawock N. Holmberg, USFWS, Juneau R. McVey, NMFS, Juneau D. Mayer, DGC, Juneau IN "IE'-LY "IE"-':" TO: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Ju neau Area Office P. O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 October 11, 1988 Mr. Robert S. Grimm, President Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, W~shington q8J6q De arM r. C r i mm : The Bureau of Indian Affairs (JnA) has received your request for assistance related to the proposed Black Bear Hydroelectric Project, dated September 15, 19S8. ~le have reviewed your proposal concerning the various alternatives presented for the project ::lnd offer the following comments for your consideration. Since we have no recorri of any Native allotments in the area of the proposed project, our comments are necessarily limited to the overall project impacts as reflects the contemporary scenario specific. to potentinl and real direct and indirect effects on Alaskan Natives. Accordingly, it is our conclusion thnt the project studies heretofore completed hy Environaid are no longer completely applicable. Tt is our understanding that extensiv(' logging adjacent to the project site has occurred subsequent to the completion of studies performed by Environaid. Consequently, conclusions deriven from those studies may no longer be totally pertinent owing to the change of environmental parameters precipitated by the logging near the project site. Therefore, we recommend that: 1) the existing studies be consolidated, 2) that a summary of all these studies be developed, 3) the .npplicability of these be determined in light of the recently logged areas, and 4) that new studies be completed where necessary. There are a wide range of resource impacts which could occur in Black Bear Lake, creek and surrounding environs. The major adverse impacts to anadromous fishery resources potentially resulting from the proposed project are changes in instream flows, water temperature changes, ground water infiltration, and downstream sedimentation during project construction. Tn addition to thE' maj or salmon spec i es; i . e., sockeye , pink, chum, and coho, the BI ack Bear system supports, resident or anadromous populations of cutthroat, rainbow, steelhead, trout and dolly varden char. STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION October 13. 1988 3601 "e" St. I f Anchorage, AK., luite 13E)(l 99b03 Mr. Robert S. Grimm Alaska Power & Telep F.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, Wa., hone Co. 98368 Subject: Black FERC # Bear Lake Hydroelectric l0440-000-AK ject Dear Mr. Grimm: I am respond to your letter of 9-15 88 concerning the AK. Power & lephone Co. application the B Bear Lake Hydro project. The in ial s consultation information raises a number of questions. Not hav the AK. Power Authority docu ments to re r to, the information presented gives an incomplete picture of the project. Therefore, the comments made here are preliminary, bas on the initial information you've provided. With reference to the propos project alternatives, "No Dam Option/Siphon" seems to minimize the siting impact and could enable temperature adjustments to compliment thermal regime. v.lhile "Powerhouse Site B" appears to be the pre rable location, due to physical problems assoc with Alt. A, it is unclear as to possible impacts at this location, ego the ef of stream flow reductions anticipated project related temperature variations. What is characterized as minor temperature changes and stream flow reductions needs to be ibed detail. Cons ring potential distu 6 related to the powerline c()rridor, .. Alternative A", following existing road corridors, appears to be the preferable route. From the rmation provided in Ie 1 5, the project flow velocities suggest that bed scour and re-entrainment of sediment should be addressed. Also. stream de-watering may be an un accept Ie impact bas on possible fisherie~ impacts. Addi tionally. if the ect will result in any major water quality changes, ego temperature variations from natural conditions, bed scour/re-entrainment of sediment, the department may require a wastewater disposal permit. Finally, the department will have to complete a 401 Certif ion of the project, based on the project license application, environmental assessment/impact statement any Corps of inecrG 404 rmit, and certi the project relative to Coastal Consistency. It appears that the 1 agency review will be coord through the Division of Gov(::rnrnental Cool-din0,tion -wi th t.he del,.>art.ment· 8 Sc)utheastern E f.: g: i 0 II a.l (I f fie (; in -page 2 The department will need the more detailed information as noted prior to proceeding with the identified project reviews and permit determinations. You may contact me if you have questions concerning these comments. Sinccerely, ) .../ )N{it/{!Ji£)~------ ~'l L. Wilkerson I)\~ /dw cc: ry Dietrick " ,... ~ --. ERr 1:; 7 D . >:Jtvkeb, ..1lct S Diane Mayer, OMB/DGC TAKE •-PRIDE INUnited States Department of the Interior AMERICA .--BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT .6881 ABBOTT LOOP ROAD ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99507-2599 2800 (041) OCT 07_ Alaska Power and Telephone Post Office Box 222 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Dear Sirs: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has reviewed the Initial Stage Consultation Information for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 10440-000-A1aska, and determined that BLM has no administrative interest in these lands. The lands are either managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Tongass National Forest) or are in private ownership. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, Sandra Dunn Assistant District Manager, Lands 1 Attachment: 1 -Initial Stage Consultation Information Public Lands USA: Use, Share, Appreciate Hr. Robert 5. Grimm Page 2 Wp would hope that evaluation of existin~ studies in concert with the need for new studies would entail adequate provision for species potentiRlly affected by this project. Additionally, we believe that there is a high 'Probability that due to the change in environmental parameters new studies will be necessary. Upon receipt and subsequent review of our com~ents and recommendations should you feel the need to consul t further with someone regarding this project, please contact Robert D. Schultz of our Natural Resource Section, (907) 586-7064. we appreciate the opportunity to comment on your proposed project. Sincerely, CJ~~dkt;i~ -k'£1 George A. Wal ters Acting Area Director P.O. Box 23, Cruig, Alusku 99921 (907) 826-3275 Robert Grimm Alaska Power and Telephone Co. P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, Wa 98368 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydro Dear Bob: The Ci ty of Craig has historically supported the concept of a hydroelectric generation plant at Black Bear Lake. While the newly elected City Council has not yet had an opportunity to review the latest proposal, I can state that the Council in the past has been supportive of improvements to the electrical system on Prince of Wales Island and the Black Bear Hydro project. The Ci ty lobbied vigorously for the intertie between Craig and Klawock with the long range goal of having the communities connected to a larger distribution grid that obtained power from the Black Bear Lake project. We know that there are numerous details to be worked out, but I believe I can safely speak for the Council in saying that they endorse the Black Bear Lake project. Executive Assistant to the Mayor cc: Mayor Sprague Steve Cowper, Governor ~ Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska October 3, 1988 Mr. Robert S. Grimm President Alaska Power &Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98318 Subject: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project Initi a~ Sj,ge Consultati on Informati on Dear r~r~-'c ' Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject information packet. We have no specific comments or recommendations at this time. We would, however, appreciate it if you would provide us with copies of comments from other recipients of this information. Si~lY, / ; /e:;L~ Donald L. Shira Director of Program Development and Facilities Operations TJA:DLS:tlj cc: Remy Williams, Alaska Power Authority PO Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 >( PO Box 190869 701 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 3990/838(1) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINA TlON STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR CENTRAL OFFICE P.O. BOX AW JUNEAU, ALASKA 9981 H)165 PHONE: (907) 465-3562 SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 431 NORTH FRANKLIN 2600 DENALI STREET 675 SEVENTH A VENUE P.O. BOX AW. SUITE 101 SUITE 700 STA TlON H JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811..()165 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-2798 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701-4596 PHONE: (907) 465-3562 PHONE: (907) 274-1581 PHONE: (907) 456-3084 September 30, 1988 Mr. Robert S. Grimm Alaska Power & Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: SUBJECT: BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PERC NO. 10440-000-ALASKA The Division of Governmental Coordination received the informa tion regarding you submitted for our review. The enclosed project information sheet includes a State I.D. number (AK880930-16J). Please refer to this number in any future reference to the project. Appropriate materials have been distributed to participants in the Alaska Coastal Management Program for their review and comments. Reviewer milestones are also indicated on the enclosed sheet. Meetings regarding the project can be arranged upon request. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process. Sincerely, ~.~~ ~ Diane E. Mayer Project Review Coordinator Enclosure csak88093016jsucc -- I STEVE COwnl, COVEINO. OFDCB O. TBB GOVERNOa SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFJC! 431 NORTH FRANKUN P.O. BOX AW. SUITE 10' JUNEAU. ALASKA 99811-01as PHONE: (907) 4e5-J5QDIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINA TlON PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET STATE I.D. NUMBER/REVIEWI G OFFICE: AKBB oQS() -IGeJ DGC CONTACT: ~(£!£io £,. '-rQa.!fI1 Co APPLICANT CONDUCTING ACTIVITY: aOa d?a M.I!£f\ 1l d ~~p C1ut [YVl ~ DIRECT FEDERAL ACTION: YES __ NO~ IlL r~/-'O~, REVIEW TYPE: CONSISTENCY__ ANILCA OCSLA NEPA OTH~O\? ~-If ACTIVITY TYPE: ARMED FORCES ACTIVITIES FISHERIES PRODUCTION: COMMERCIAL/TYPE V f"~{)7]j7L.. GENERAL LAND MGMT. PLAN HATCHER-Y MINING: HARDROCK MINING REMOTE RELEASE PLACER MINING FISHERIES FARMS: OFFSHORE MINI~ FINFISH OIL AND GAS SHELLFI~ OTHER SEA VEGETABLES PUBLI~C~UT~I~L~I~T~I~E~S~/~F~A~C~I~L~IT~I~E~S~------FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT PRIVATE P.ESIDENTIAL --FISHERIES PROCESSING FILL PLACEMENT FLOATING STRUCTURES TIMBER PROJECT LOCATION: NEAREST COASTAL DISTRICT: PROJECT INSIDE THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY: YES NO V DISTRICT PLAN APPROVED: YES V NO_-_ PENDING REVIEW MILESTONES: DAY 1~~~~~~q~/3~'~6~!~k~x~~~~~~~~~~~ REVIEW. SCHEDT?LE: lS-Day__30-Day__ 50-Day__ OTHER_V______ REVIEWER REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY: COMMENTS DUE TO DGC BY: \llo,l~~~~~~~~~~~.~.~~:~~_~..~.~~.··.~~~~~~~~~f! NOTIFICATION TO APPLICANT BY: ______~-~~~~==~~=.~~~~~==============--~~-~-----~~. DECISION DEADLINE: ---------- -------- ------------------ --------- ------------------------------- -- ---------------------- ------- -------------------------- r ~ ~ PROJECT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED UNDER STATE 10 NO._~~____ __________________~~ STATE APPROVALS (LIST AGENCY/APPROVAL TYPE/I.D. NUMBER): FEDERAL APPROVALS (LIST AGENCY/APPROVAL TYPE/I.D. NUMBER): FEIZ(2 (f?lLPhm(n4o'j h!lrn~~ {k. IO<fYo-()()O-A/aQ~ EXTENSION GRANTED FOR: FORMAL INFORMATION REQUEST __ PUBLIC HEARING HELD---... PROJECT IN U.O.B. FIELD REVIEW DNR DISPOSAL SMCRA MISCELLANEOUS APPLICANT REQUEST UNUSUALLY COMPLEX PROJECT ELEVATION TO DIRECTORS: YES NO "IF YES, BY: ELEVATION TO COMMISSIONERS: YES NO IF YES, BY: CLOCK STOPPED ON CLOCK RESTARTED ON WAS STOPPED FOR DAYS ACTION AT CLOSEOUT: CLOSE-OUT DATE ACTUAL NUMBER OF DAYS IN REVIEW DISTRICT COMMENTS RECEIVED: YES NO FOR CONCLUSIVE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS: CONSISTENT CONSISTENT WITH STIPULATIONS INCONSISTENT WITHDRAWN FOR OTHER REVIEWS: COMMENTS SUBMITTED OTHER SERO pis/prinfo. DISTRIBUTION LIST [15] Mr. Richard Sumner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Anchorage [52] Mr. Rick Harris, Juneau [72] Mr. Rick Reed, Department of Fish and Game, Douglas [1631 Mr. Al Macasaet, Klawock [275] Ms. Rochelle Rollenhagen, Craig [375] The Honorable Roy S. Williams, Klawock [389] Mr. Rich Poor, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau [394] Mr. Robert McVey, U.S. Department of Commerce, Juneau [488] Mr. Ron Wolfe, Juneau [4911 The Honorable James Sprague, Craig [6911 Mr. Jack Gustafson, Department of Fish and Game, Ketchikan [745] Mr. Nevin Holmberg, U.S. Department of the Interior, Juneau [900] Mr. Dick Stokes, Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau [1206] Ms. Judith Bittner, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage [1211] Ms. Linda Kruger, Department of Natural Resources, Juneau [1280] Mr. Mike MCKinnon, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau [1421] Ms. Nancy Holguin, Division of Governmental Coordination, Juneau [1439] Ms. Elizaveta Shadura, Department of Natural Resources, Juneau distribution list September 30, 1988 STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR 3601 C STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 PHONE: (907) 561·2020 DEPART1tIENT OF NATIJRAL RESOURCES MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 107001 DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510·7001 September 26, 1988 File No.: 3130-1R FERC Subject: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska Mr. Robert S. Grimm, President Alaska Power and Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Grimm: We have reviewed the information provided by you about the Black Bear Hydroelectric Proj ect, FERC No. 10440-000-Alaska. We have also reviewed the 1982 archaeological survey report for the project done by Alaska 'Heritage Research Group. We are satisfied that no cultural resources will be effected by the project. Sincerely, Neil C. Johannsen Director (~L~\\~C~""'-L"- By: Judith E. Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer JEB:DR:dw DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY u.s. ARUY &NGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA p.o. BOX 1181 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA ~ 12 NOV 1997 Regulatory Branch Permit Processing Section 0-870589 Alaska Power and Telephone Post Office Box 222 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Attention: Mr. Robert S. Grimm Dear Mr. Grimm: This is in response to your permit application dated October 16, 1987, concerning the proposed construction of a dam, water intake structure, powerhouse with penstock supp1y system, and access road at Black Bear Lake near Klawock, Alaska. Department of the Army Nationwide permits (NWPs) have been issued pursuant to 33 CFR 330.5{a)(12}(13)(25), which authorize: 12. Discharges of material for backfill or bedding for utility lines including outfall or intake structures provided there is no change in preconstruction bottom contours (excess material must be removed to an upland disposal area). 13. Bank stabilization activities provided: (a) The bank stabilization activity is less than 500· in length; (b) The activity is necessary for erosion prevention; / ,i (c) The activity is limited to less than an average of one cubic yard per running foot placed along the bank within waters of the United States; (d) No material is placed in excess of the minimum needed for erosion protection; (e) No material is placed in any wetland area; (f) No material is placed in any manner so as to impair surface water flow into or out of any wetland area; . (g) Only clean material free of waste metal products, organic materials, unsightly debris. etc. is used; and -2 (h) The activity is a single and complete project. (Note: This work may be necessary at the site of the powerplant.) \ 25. Discharges of concrete into tightly sealed forms or cells where the concrete is used as a structural member which would not otherwise be subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Your proposed dam, powerplant and associated facilities may be constructed under the authority of the above NWPs provided they conform to the conditions and management practices listed on the enclosed sheets. Accordingly, no further individual permits will be required from this office provided the project is constructed as proposed. In, addition to the NWP conditions we have a1so enclosed a list of regional conditions which have been established for various NWPs in Alaska. Please note that regional conditions "0", 'lEu and UH" apply to the Nationwide permits that authorize your proposed project. This letter verifies that your project, as proposed, complies with the terms and conditions of the above referenced Nationwide permits. Our verification is valid for a period of two years from the date of this letter. Further verification on the applicability of these permits may be required after this date, in order to keep current with changing regulations and conditions. If you have additional questions, please contact Mr. Richard L. Howard at the address above or at (907) 753-2712. Sincerely, ~~rY~ Chief, Southern Unit Penmit Processing Section Regulatory Branch Enclosures Conditions and Management Practices for Nationwide Permits Regional Conditions REGIONAL CONDITION A: Fills for access roads, pads, airstrips, field camps and other major support facilities are not authorized by this ' ' Nationwide permit (NWP) under the definition of ·seismic exploratory opera.tions" .. Survey activities are subject to surface management'" regulations of the Department of Natural Resources and/or the Minerals ."~""',' Management Service and those mitigating measures pertaining to $tateand .; :;. federal oil and gas lease sales. This REGIONAL CONDITION is applicable to NW? (6). . , REGIONAL CONDITION B: Placement of causeways, gravel islands, pipelines and other support structures in State waters, or in waters of judicially disputed ownership, are not authorized under this NWP. This REGIONAL CONDITION ;s applicable to NWP (8). REGIONAL CONDITION C: Placement of structures or materials related to the ·construction of new small boat harbors are not authorized under this NWP. This REGIONAL CONDITION is applicable to NWP (9). REGIONAL CONDITION 0: Revegetation of backfilled materia) or alternative stab1lization techniques are required to minimize erosion. This REGIONAL CONDITION is applicable to NWP (12). Erosion control activities are limited by NWPs (13), (18) and (19). REGIONAL CONDITION E: Timing, siting, road access, design and construction methods lor utility lines are subject to authorizations of Federal and State agencies with Regulatory responsibility for such projects. This REGIONAL CONDITION is app1icable to NWP (12). REGIONAL CONDITION F: A minor road crossing fi1l is further defined as involvlng a total a,scharge of less than 200 cubic yards of fill material below the plane, of o~d;nary high water and into adjacent wetlands. This REGIONAL CONDITION ;s applicable to NWP (14). REGIONAL CONDITION G: This NWP applies provided that the Federal agency or department has received concurrence from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination that the category of the project or specific activity proposed will have no more than minor effects on water quality. In the absence of State COncu~rence, the Federal agency or department wi 11 'need an individual permit under standard permit processing procedures. This REGIONAL CONDITION is applicable to NWP (23). REGIONAL CONDITION H: Work in a deSignated andromous f1sh streams is subject to authorization from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. (This REGIONAL CONDITION is applicable to NWPs (3). (13), (14). (18). (19), (21). (22), (23). (25) and (26). ' I I I ILl ("", I Nationwid@ Conditions (1) That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake; (2) That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production unless the discharge is directl.r related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by 33 CFR" " 330 • 5 ( a) (4 ) ; . ,.., , ',' (3) That the activity will not jeopardize a threatened or endangered. . '.., species as identified under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). or destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. In the case of Federal agencles, 1t is the agencies' responsibility to comply with the requirements of the ESA. If the activity may adversely affect any listed species or critical hahitat, the District Engineer (DE) must initiate Section 7 consultation in accordance with the ESA. In such cases, the DE may: (;) initiate Section 7 consultation and then, upon completion p authorize the activity unoer the Nationwide permit (NWP) by adding t if appropriate. activity specific conditions, or (ii) prior to or concurrent. with Section 7 consultation he may recommend disc~etionary authority (see 33 CFR 330.8) or use modification, suspension, or revocation procedures (see 33 CFR 325.7); (4) That the activity shall not significantly disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic 'life indigenous to the waterbody (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound water); (5) That any discharge of dredged or fill material shall consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act) in toxic amounts; . (6) That any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained; (7) That the activity will not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; nor in a river officiaJly designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an officia1 study status; (8) That the activity shall not cause an unacceptable interference with navigation; (9) That, if the activity m~ adversely affect historic properties which the National Park Service has listed on, or determined eligible for . listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. the permittee, will notify the DE. If the DE determines that such historic properties may be adversely affected. he will provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the effects on such histor1~ properties or he will consider modification, suspension, or revocation in a~eordanee with 33 CFR 325.7. Furtharmort, that, if the permittee before' or during prosecution of the work authorized, encounters a historic property that has not been listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register, but which may be eligible for listing in the National Register, ha shall tmmed1ately notify the DE. (10) That the construction or operation of the activity will not impair reserved tribal rights, including. but not 1imited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights; (11) That in certain states. an individual state water quality cert1ficat;on must be obtained or waived (Water quality certifications have been issued for all NWPs in the State of Alaska.); " .' " (12) . That in certain states' an individual. state coastal zone man,agement ,,' consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived (Coastal zone:., , ' ~ management consi·stency concurrence has been obtained for all NWPs in the', State of Alaska.); (13) That the activity will comply with regional conditions which may have been added by the Division Engineer [Note regional condition(s) mentioned in letter, 1f any, and refer to enclosed list of regional conditions.]; and (14) That the management practices listed in 33 CFR 330.6 shall be followed to the maximum extent practicable. (Management practices on enclosed list.) . 2 Management Practices In addition to the (enclosed) Nationwide conditions, specified in 33 CFR 330.5, the following management practices shall be followed~ to the maximum extent practicable, in order to minimize the adverse effects Qf these discharges on the aquatic environment. Failure to comply with these practices may be cause for the District Engineer to recommend, or the . Division Engineer to take, discretionary authority to regulate the , activity on an individual or regional basis pursuant to 33 CFR 330.8., ' ',' " J ' (1) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United, States shall be avoided or minimized through the use of other practical alternatives. ' (2) Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons shall be avoided. (3) Discharges shall not restrict or impede the movement of aquatic species indigenous to the. waters or the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters). (4) If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow, shall be minimized. - , (5) Discharges in wetlands areas shall be avoided. (6) Heavy equipment working in wetlands sha11 be placed on mats. (7) Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl shall be avoided. (8) A11 temporary fills shall be removed in their entirety. Attachment F Further Environmental Studies Needed for BloCK Bear LaKe Hydroelectric Project The pri ority envi ronrnenta 1 questi ons are concerned v'li th: A. Preservi ng U-Ie groundv,tater f1 a"rl system bel ov'/ ttle se 1 ectelj pov·terhouse tail race 1 ocati on; B. Estab 1; st-I; ng a r-ecord of the ternpereture reg; rne in the regul ated f1 o\·v systern 016t is cornpatitde 'Witt-I rearing arllj spa'y'v'nin~~ salrrlon; C. Establlstling a record of the present general condition of strearrl, ponds .. 1ake .. fi st-Ieri es and '\·v11 d1 i f e tlet v·teen the \Naterf a 11 and Ole outlet of 61 ack Eiear Lake D. Deal i ng yo/ith ri sks associ ated v'/ith the physi cal i nsta 11 at ion: in part i cul fU-ri associ ated v-lith snov·/ avalanches .. 1ands 1i des and torrent1 f1 o'vvs, as "Nell as U-Ie possi b 1 e loss of di set"large frorn the tail race 'y'v'hen U"le lake is not significant1~d spilling. E. Post-project environrnental assessrnent is a priority itern in U"lat it affects environn-Iental cornrnitrnents and project costs. Tflese ar-e di scussed further, as f 0 11 0,1./8: A. A1U-loUgtl we kno'y'v' U"le general location of the groundvv'ater route betvy'een the pO\Nert-IIJUSe A site ar"j the head of tJle Spr-ing Fork, a rnore precise deterrni nat ion is needed of the 1ocat i on (zone) v·/here ,,'vaters {It laH' fltiJ'v condi t ions enter ttle strearntled. I suggest 10vy' f1 ov\·' tlecause ttli:3 is the t i rne V'/flen preservation of ground'vvflter flov'/s are lH(ely to be rnost critical. If the ground\.yater route is rnai ntai ned at lo'vv f10\-..., it \"'I,-j 11 in all 1 H~e 1i hood be rnaintained at tligt-Ier-flov'lS. A more preCise understanding of the forrnation that creates the I~rourjljv'later f1 av·... route rni ght f acil1 i tate bott-, protection of ttl; s system as vv'e 11 as desi ~~n of the tai 1race f1 oVv' route to tfle recharge area and/or the surface flov·... charme 1. B. There is suffi c1 ent i nf orrnat i on on lake profil e ternpenjture:=;~ lake ternperatures and strearn ternperatures ~ I tie li eve) to \Nork to"'."lanj "rrlode 11 i ng to Ijeterrni ne opU rnum tail race di scharge ternperatures (for t-eari ng fi sh) Ijuri ng surrlrner trIOnU-ls"} as su~~gestelj tly Nr~1FS. DepU-1 of 1 ake i ntat~e is certai n 1 W one vari ab 1 e U-18t v'li 11 need to tie e:x:arni ned, ,jependi nq upon the ki nd of ~ desi gn that is selected. There rna!J aI so be some ~ opportuni ty for control throu~~h Ule route(s) of fl 0\"/ tiel ow the pov'Iert-louse. C. Pre-project condi t ions: these include tleaver popul at ion, bea'·ler darn andJ pond condi ti on, streambanks and stream channels, arllj possi til e effects of bridging on flo\·\, of streams, in particulat-the outlet of Blac~( Lake. Ttle project'f; re~~ulated flovy' is likel!J to ent-lt1tlCe the stat'ility of the level of Black Lake .. and it \,\'"oul d be useful to estab 1 i sh a present base for 1 ater cornpari son. f suggest the follo'vving pre-project fist-Ieries work: one, late-surnrner pet-io,j of j u v e nile sal trion i d pop u 1 at 1 one stirn ate a tl 0 v e B 1 a c k La k e ; 0 near t ......'" 0 1a t e surnrner, early fall counts of returni ng adult sal rnon; and} one spri ng season of fyke netting. Instrurnentat i on or routi nes of measurement -begi n a year before project open:Jtion and run for? years after project begins operation: (a) keep a record of the total flo\·v of Black Bear Creek at/adjacent to U"le pov'lerhouse.: (b) 'water ternperature of tail race \'v'ater; (c) vv'ater ternpet-ature in the tlead of Sprinq Fork; arllj (d) rn81ntain dailq record of the level of Black La~(e -this is a good ~ barorrlenter of the hydro 1 ogi ~ c conditions upstrearn. E. Evaluation of proJect in operation: late surnrner-fall counts of adult sal man; e>~ami nat i on of beaver ponds to see if coho can/are accessing these r-eari ng areas; defer deci si on as to \Nhether j uvenil e trappi ng and fyke netting operations are justified, to tie based upon nutnber of returning adults. r~'laintain the aforernentionelj instrurnentation/routines of l lrneasurernent until an agree1j upon date of re ev·(.... ; Ttiese are f ai rl y conservail ve recornmendati ons but I rlave not at ternpted to deterrnl ne H-Iei r-cost. £L--~ Dani elM. Bi shop Black Bear Lake FERC 10440-000-Alaska Agency suggested studies: 1. Studies concerning ground water system. a. Quantify first if possible, the reductions in ground water flow, if any, due to project. b. Assess, if possible, the effects that powerhouse locations B would have on ground water flows in Black Bear Creek. c. If ground water system is affected by project or location of powerhouse study feasibility of recharging ground water system at tailrace. 2. Study the effect of the changes in water temperature in Black Bear Creek and Black Lake due to the project. What is the effect of temperature change on habitat? a. Can the temperature change be minimized by placing the intake at a certain elevation? b. What is the change in temperature if recharging ground water system at tailrace is required? 3. Update habitat study to establish post logging and pre project habitat. a. Do beaver ponds still exist? What is their value to fisheries? b. What is the value of habitat bypassed by penstock? 4. Determine the physical hazards to powerplant and sUbstation at location A. 5. Determine post project assessment needed to verify fish habitat and resources have been given adequate consideration. 6. Consolidation of all previous fish and wildlife studies. UIl/a? Job Description 19a9 Jl>n feb Mar 2 4 Jun 7 :> _____• ______•••________c;;_> Jul B USlI 1990 Aug Sep Nov Jan Feb Har Apr Hay Jun II 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 . ... '" " " .. .. ..-----------------------------------------------X Aug 21 Oct 23 1I0v 24 1990 Dec 25 Feb 27 Har 28 Apr 29 Jun 31 .luI 32 Aug 33 Nov 36 Dec 37 38 fer J~ >-----------> " . .... .." . . . >--------_._-._ ------------X>--------...--------------..._X -Explanation lll"i:ratlOr, of a nol""!tal job Sl .. c~. time for l> non-al job Durat.ion of l> critical path job Durat.ion ot a cOlllplet.ed job Job with zerO duration 0----> wi th no prerequisites >----x wi th no auccea"ors ..--c::: Attachment G ALASKA WOODS SERVICE CO. Box 6811 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-5372 BE?ORT ON I:~VESTIG.ATION OF TH3 BLACK 3~A3 LAKE HYvnOELECT~IC ?30J~CT FO.3. HALiZA El~GINEE::iING COH?AHY PRELIMINA~Y. AUGUST 5, 1987 ,. REPO.3.T ON INVESTIGATION ON THZ BLACK BEAn LAKE HY~30ELLCTaIC r~0J~CT S UNi1.A.3.Y The Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project was investigated in January through June of 1987 to identify natural or constr~ction induced physical hazards. Previously reported data were combined with past natural processes to hyposethise future events. The area is ell steep or threatened by nearby steep areas. Most of the hazard is from snow or land slides or flooding from off the penstock route invading the lower areas of the site rather than from soil failures on the higher steeper portions of the routing. Trenching of the penstock is not recommended for the higher steeper portions of the routing but is recommended in the lower portion. A surface penstock ap~ears to be a feasible and reliable alternative that should lower costs below the 87% of_ an und'~rground design previously estimated. However the underground alternative is ~till expected to be more stable and maintainance-free with less enviroTll.'1ental impact. CONTENTS SUI1MARY 1 PURPOSE ~D SCOPE ! ! CONCLUSIONS 2 RECON11ENDATIONS FDa A SURFACE PENSTOCK ? MAPS A, B-1. B-2~ B=J 10 P&~STOCK TOPO WITH ADDITIONAL DETAILS separate 1 .\, PUnPOSE AND SCOFE , This report is of a surface investigation of the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project done for Harza Engineering Company, prime contractor to the Alaska Power Authority. The ~urpose is to identify natural physical hazaras to the project as depicted in drawings prepared by Harza Engineering Company as of December 1986. The primary concern was the soil stability of a surface penstock route. However all forese~able hazards to the entire project from natural occurance or aggravated by construction activites have been addressed. JwlETHODS The study consisted of three activities. 1. A review was done of U.S. Forest Service soils research papers and of the Harza Engineering Company nPrelim~nary Geology Report~ (June 198) and related maps and drawings. 2. A study was made of available maps and stereoscopic photo " coverage of th e project area for a broad view of topography, land forms, and vegetation patterns. 3. Three visits were made to the area. On January 2, 1987 the vegation was investigateu throughout as well as soils in the lower project area. On May 31 cutting of timber in the lower area was virtually complete so tree stump ring counts were done and soils and rock exposed by logging road construction was observed. On J~~e 25,the'entire area was revisited with Alaska Power Authority representatives Roy Taylor and aemy Williams and soils of the upper area were examined. Topography,surface soil characteristics and vegetative> patterns were used to infer a history of past influences and disturbances .. This was combined w.i th kno\'in effects of logging and construction "to predict physical hazards that could affect the planned installation. COHCLUSIOHS General The entire project area is mountainous. All of the project site is either on steep slopes or influenced by the forces created on nearby steep llopes. rlazards to the safety of the planned installation have been identified as either "on-site" hazards created by conditions found in the immediate area or as "invasive" hazards created by the mountainous country as much as a mile away. "On-site tl hazards include: 1) soil failure in the form of slides, slumps, rockfalls, or similar mass movement orginating at or very close to the installation, 2) soil erosion as surface or rill erosion or mud flows from the construction site, and 3) wind thrown trees large enough to damage the structure. \. -Invasive" hazards include 1) landslides or debris flows originating hieher up, 2) snoHslides transiting the site and J) flooding, which may be caused or aggravated by slides. These are s hOl-in on maps A and B. Hazards have been further classified in this report by their estimated frequency as well as by the likely destruction they would Cause to the installation. Present Condition Of Project Area During late 19a6 and through July 1987 road construction and logging was done by the Sealaska. Corporation, land owner of t:ne lower slopes and vally bottom. An access road exists fro~ the Big Salt Lake HighwaJ to the approximate powerhouse site and a logging spur climbs approximately parrallel to the planned surface penstock route in the lower third of it$ length. The heavy timber in the lower portion of the project site has been clearcut and high-lead yarded. Logging is now about finished in the project area. These developments are shown on maps A and B. Damsite The damsite is threatened by snowslides from the ridge to the southwest, which is about 1000' higher. There is li~ited accu~Ulation area but the bare steep slope probably will not retain much snow. Slides probably plug the creek gorge and reach across to the northwest side each year. A lack of soil on the slope and a lack of rubble or debris in the gulley as well as intact trees on the low ridge north of the foot of the lake indicate that slides are not massive and are composed only of snow. Surface Penstock The route can be divided· into upper, middle and lower seg~ents! each with different soils and forest growth and exposure to ~nvas~ve hazards. This conclusion is based on observation and correlates with data in the Geology Report pp.8 to 11, Strati graphy-Overburden. For the most part this division into three segments differs in approach, while most conclusion agree • . -Upper. Segnlent.. The. upper segment is characterized by thin mostly organ~c soils over bedrock on slopes ranging to nearly 45 0 • Soil moisture is constantly very high because of the organic content, lack of deep drainage and frequent rain. Vegetation is muskeg mosses and grasses, thick huckleberry and otherbrush, and scrubby yellow cedar and hemlock trees. The trees, while small, are very slow growing and old. Partially deco~posed mounds of previous growth and a very slow rate of decomposition due to cool wet con~itions indicate that the area has had a long undisturbed history, estimated at several hundred years. Trees are mostly too small to be a windfall hazard. The one slide track east of ~he penstock route is apparently a local till accumulation. .3 in a depres~ion on the slope. Due to a lack of accum"J.lation areas, there does not eppear to be any hazard fro~ snowslides passing through the area. Also, the low ridge north of the lake does not have the steepness or soil accu~ulation to make up a massive landslide. ~rosion of the organic soils during and after construction is a hazard that could lead to undermining of support structures, saddles, or thrust blocks. These soils are thixotropic. They have a living and Qead net work of roots and plant fiber which retains its structure even ~hen putrified or partly uecomposed and is thus highly resistant to erosion as long as it is undisturbed. As soon as disturbance breaks up the dElicate fiber structure, the high moisture content causes a quick change to a thick liquid muck even without ongoing rainfall. The ability of these soils to withstand wear or to bear weight is almost nil. l'liddle Segment. From just above the bands of rock cliffs and extending to the south enge of the large snowsliue is a zone composed of colluvial soils and bare rock. Along the penstock route there is little drainage due to the limited watershed area above. The bands of steep rock have almost no soil. In between and below them the soils are a mixture of forest litter and mosses, old uproots and tree trunks, and talus from the cliff bands. These soils have fairly deep internal drainage. Even on slopes of 30· or more, 15 feet of soil may be encountered in local areas. Vegetation consists of an old stand of all-age timber. Tree size increases with lower elevations, but is small to shrubby on ~he cliff banas. Along the east .:iide of Black Bear Creek along side the falls and above the lower gorge there is a 100 to 200 foot wide zone of smaller younger more even-aged ti~ber. This timber occupies a similar soil and its orgin is unknown. A massive snowslide that follovleQ. but overflowed the creek channel Iilay be indicated. Age of the stand (not neccesarily of individual trees) increases towards the east away from the ere eke This is indicated by buttressed roots of some large spruce and heoloek trees of 200 years or more that have grown up on root wads of wind felled trees of similar age. An estiMate of continuos occupation of this site by a climax stand is 500 years or more. No invasion by large earth or sonwslides is foreseen here except for a 200 foot wide strip along siae the creek. Lanaforms that show no sli~es tracks or snow accumUlation areas uphill of the penstock !'o:::.te c,o~.:.firm "this conclusion. The soils ~re expected to be stable along the penstock route. There is no evidence of major slides or slumps and there is little drainage area to oversaturate the soil, anQ the drainage is probably deep. Also the whole area is essentially a large graQually formed talus cone from occasional mess wasting of the cliff areas, It is unlikely to have come to rest at more than its natural anGle of repose. Blo~down of individual trees in the area above the clearcut is a hazard as many of these are large enou5h to damage 4 .\. the pipe or support structures. This can be expected to be an ongoing pru~lem after construction. Lower Se~ment From the large snowslide track and drainage from the east down to the powerhouse site comprises the lower segment. This is almost entirely a talus deposite. Along the pipeline route slopes range from 10° to about 27° in places, with the lower edges of the snowslide track just above its entry into the main creek gorge being cut away to about 50~. Original vegetaticn (before clearcutting) was varied. A very narrow and discontinuous band of very large spruce (6 to 9 foot diameter) to about 450 years old lined the lower part of the snowslide track down to about 150 feet above the main creek. The slide track Was alder, salmonberry, and devil club brush with scattered spruce saplings to 20 years or so. Below that most,of the timber was a uniform even-age stand of J to 5 foot diameter spruce and some hemlock of about 320 years. However the main creek gorge lined on the east side by a zone of smaller younger even-age trees to about 100 feet wide. This band is continuous with the zone in the miudle section. . Almost. the entire area appears to have been created by a rnaSS1ve lands11de about 320 years age. It probably originated at the 2000to 3500 foot level on the ridge northeast of the powerhouse site and cleaned the soils from the 2000 to 1000 foot elevation area of the hill. It deposited in the area below 1000 feet elevation as a steep talus cone at the base of the hill and spread to a gentle talus fan for one or two thousand more feet do~n the valley. All existing vegetation in its path must have been wiped out, and it gave rise to the even age stand found there in January of 1987. A very thin layer of mosses and forest litter covered the course and deeply drained talus 1:1 this entire area and there were no down trees or stump mounds older than the livi~ trees. There was none of the stump swell and buttressed roots that typically characterize trees which have started life on! root wads and down logs in an old forest. This invasion of talus probably forced Black Bear Creek into its sharp left bend at the mouth of the lower gorge, as suggested at the bottom of page 9 of the geology report. However the large impressive trees found on the talus are not due to s considerGble stable time period, as the geology report sug~ests, but to the ideal growing conditions of. a new well-drained sunny soil, made to order for Sitka spruce. Except for snowslide tracks ~~d flooded areas this is the youngest forest stand (not necessarily the youngest individual" trees) found in the project area. Hazards in this segment are from snowslides in the large track at its upper end, and from another land slide. Large powerful snow slides do not appear to reach down to the penstock route every year, and apperently have not for 10 or more years. 5 \,. ( Heavy snow ye~rs are cyclical and it is estimated that destructive snowslides would occur at this site at perhaps 20 year intervals. Since many slides occur in late winter or spring h'hen lOr/er slopes may melt off, it is likely that a large slide could carry soil a nd logs and be a partial debris flow while transiting the penstock route. In ~1y Case the force of a large sno~slide is considerable ~nd could cause total failure of a short portion of penstock. Even with an automatic shutoff, a ruptured pipe could gush enough high pressure water to wash out gravelly talus or till soils a~d thereby cause even more secondary erosion damage to other parts of the structure. The likelihood and frequency of another large landslide is difficult to predict. It seems unreasonable to suppose that residual glacial till soils left perched on high angle slopes up to 10,000 years ago were suddenly all disposed of a mere 320 years ago. A review of other similar deep mountain valley areas suggests that these really massive slides are not co~mon and there is plenty of time for even-age spruce stands to convert to lower volume all-age predominently old growth hemlock-spruce stands. Therefore 600 years seems a reasonable guess at a likely repeat, , but in the absence of better information such guesses are not very meaningful. Also smaller but stlii destructive slides probably occur more frequently. Another massive landslide could wipe out the lower end of the project but a smaller slide along a drainage path could be more limited in its damage. Windthrow is precluded by the clearcut and erosion or soil failures by the deep'drainage and gentler slopes of this segment. ?owerhouse Site Like the lower segment of the penstock route, the powerh::->use site is :thre't.;.tened by .landslide potential from the steep ridge to the northeast as described above. It occupies si~ilar soil conditions. In addition the powerhouse as well as the extreme bottom eni of the penstock is threatened by flooding from Black ~ear Creek. A swath of smaller even-age ti8ber extenQs to the northwest from the she.rp left bend in the cree~~ at the bottom of the lower gorge. This timber is all dbout 110 years old. Indications are about that length of time ago the creek picked up a heavy load of debris, p~obably during a high flow period. This may have been 8ssociated with a possible slide from upstream of the gorge on the steep slopes of the left side, or fro~ a slide down the snow slide track comin3 down fron the northea~t, or from failure of over steepened tE.lus be.nks in the gorge. In any case debris app~rently jammed up at the tiharp left bend, filled the ch~~nel, and lifted. t'tle, creek fIoH and debris to the level of'surround.ing Ian:is. -Tt.:en it shot out through the then ~10 year old even-age spruce sta:n~ to the northwest, mowing down an 80 fo~t wide swath 6 \,. « of it. As energy was dissipated it dropped the debris and drained off dO\in the talus slope to the southwest to rej Din the main creek, carving several now dry cha~~els. The lower edge of this swath is at the east edge of the powerhouse site. It seems entirely likely thst such an event could oc~ur' again with destroy or an estimated frequency of perhaps severely damage the powerhouse. 200 years. It could Ac ce s s Roe.·i The access road built by ?hoenix Log~ing COJ1psny for Sealaska Corporation traverses several very steep slope~ with up to 20 feet high very steep backslopes in talus and glacial till between the Black Bear Creek bridge and the bridge crossing of 2nother large creek about 3000 feet west. Fro~ there to the middle of its pass~ge past Black Lake there are several crossingci of an.'tlually active erosion or clebris flow areas. ::aoad blockage is alQost a certainty in the first stretch within a few years and cO!lsider801e maintainance will be needed on the second stretch for an indefinite future. It is li~ely that Sealaska will lift its 50 foot-prefab bridge over Black Bear Creek at the project site and its 40 footer over the creek 3000 feet west for re-use elsewhere. Also a long soan lo~ stringer bridge at the outlet of Black Lake will have a llmited~life estimated at not over 6 years if left in place. These recommendations are in addition to or in lieu of. those cont ained in the Harza Engineering Company letter to Alaska 'Power Authority of May 21, 1986. ' 1.) A surface penstock appears to be a feasible alternative that should lower costs below the 87% of the underground design that was suggested in the May 21, 1986 letter. A surface penstock 1s expected to have a high reliability with only a very low chance of serious damage from natural or construction induced hazards. However natural phenomenon can not be absolutely predicted. An underground routing is still expected to be more stable and maintainance-free with less environmental i~pact. 2.) The selected surface routing appears to be the best available general route. It was not possible to exactly locate this route hovlever. so these recomrnenda tions are designed as "a guide to field loc,ation of supports, saddles and related structures. 3. ) The dam, intake structures, siphon line or whatever is located at that site as well as the extreme upper end of the penstock should be deSigned to withstand snowslide forces from the southwest slope and deep burial. 7 4.) Supports, structures, and the gener1.l routing of the upper .. portion of the route should be located to utilized thin soil areas, and to av~id any possible till soil accumulation areas, 5.) Construction disturbed areas should be individually treated, probably with hand work, to shape each area to drain and to divert accumulated water into natural drainage cha~~e13. Seeding with hardy perrenial ground cover should be done to ~inimize surface erosion. 6. ) " Vegetation clearing for the line should be kept as narrow as practical. Heavy debris from grubbed areas should be deposited in drained areas of less than )7° slope to avoid, overloading soils. 7.) All trees close enough to hit the penstock and large enough to damage it should be cut. If this results in most of the trees in anyone area being cut an alternative would be to top so~e trees so that they cannot reach the penstock. The object should be to leave several live trees interspersed throughout the routing area. Smaller trees should be left undamaged as much as possible. 8.) In the middle segment locate the penstock east of the younger timber next to the creek and west of the wetter gully system that lies northeast of the cliff bands. This somewhat rounded brow of rock and colluvial soil gets the least moisture from upper slope areas. 9.) Bury or trench the penstock from just above the large snowslide from the northeast to below the presently designed powerhouse site. 10.)Keep the penstock about 200 feet east of the creek and about 200 feet north of the sharp left bend in the creek. The existing logging spur roads can be used in this area. 11.)Mo~e the powerhouse site to the end of the spur r03.d that extends downslope and west from just north of the bridge over Black Bear Creek. This will add about one quarter mile of length and about 200 feet of head pressure and will remove the powerhouse from the hub"uf-three slide areas ana a flOOQ area. 12.)Consider buying the two prefab bridges on the existing access road from Sealaska Corpor3.tion. They should have ~ long useful life in them yet. l).)Consider moving the aCcess road location down-slope between the Black Bear Creek Bridge and th~ north end of Bl3.ck Lake. The existing road was located for access to timber rather than 8 easy gOing. This would cost at least ~JOO,OOO but would save on maintainance and increase reliability. END 9 ~) BLACK BEAR / MAP A ~ OIST!...qROAP __ <'~ ~u~~"c...e P£~~OC::IC. ROUTE. · 'r ..' . . ... ..J. ~ .. ., tII' . R£COMM£NOG E)(n;'U :no'-J .. .I ""'~'rOYc.._C1T\t~ .(.,,0_ -S~...\ a.~kQ.. .,:.. . · ... ~ .... .. .• .:.,:::.. ;.: <..... .... . :.... . . . .... ~6Y",.. lo~\:s f''''P't ~r~· .' .. · .• pU.NAJEO OA..yPW~~~ s·in:.· .:. Ol"M!. ... d.a..1Q. 4yo...-n ~\.c.\J ,,~«<vo...'\·o't'\~ W R£eO>""""'~t..lt>i"D Pl...JI\<J,~·M£'" r t . I I"C.~ Al'IJ / "..... 0 y,"",o ~o ""., ca.l \ y ccV"V~c.1~ ~4.R.£~S 1000 d~.,.\t:t.' f1...dto ..... 0 ~ 0. i <. • _ :: :: -;:::') R. £"c. V..:: S<:C .... T .LIOA!:/n-oeob ... ,.'" ""'''''''-'L-'''-'" t_._/~ ~~ , .. ,. ~----- ; of' If) r r: r "'UOJ 0 z 1) -\ 0 ~r'Q t: Q . 0 ~ ~ 0 \/I \1'1 0>tI~ ." Ln~ ~ (/\~ 01J 0 m~©::: < ~ "~ ., r<1 \l-u 0 ~'-... 1/1 ~ -~ .. 1ft '" Z. -fOJ 0 fT1 ~< ~ ~ ;; "Tj;:> -A n I ~ r 0 ~ ) ;-~ 0 ~ "0tJ '" 0 CJ ~ C ~~J~t' \ > > ~ ~ V' CD -<" '-../ '. ""0 Ul AI r o > Ln MA n -'tD fT'\ ~ AJ t ~ ~ OJ 7 Attachment H ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY PO BOX 222 • 702 WATER STREET PORT TOWNSEND. WASHINGTON ~B36B (206)·3B~ 1733 November 7, 1988 Robert W. Loescher Senior Vice President Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project Dear Bob: I wanted to thank you for hosting our meeting on October 26, 1988. To summarize my understanding of the agreement reached at the meeting: 1. Per Sealaska's request, AP&T will request the DNR to put a hold on our Water Rights Application for 180 days. This would be until April 25, 1989. 2. Sealaska will by January 25, 1989, do the research into the various alternatives in order to determine it's initial position as to all the necessary land and rights needed to construct and operate the proposed hydroelectric project. 3. Both AP&T and Sealaska agree to begin negotiations as soon as possible after Sealaska's initial position is available on January 25, 1989. Both parties further agree to endeavor to reach an agreement as to the appropriate compensation and/or agreements in lieu of compensation needed to secure all the necessary land and rights needed to construct and operate the proposed hydroelectric project, by April 25, 1989. Sealaska Page 2 If have misrepresented any part of our agreement reached at the meeting, please contact me immediately. ~ Robert S. Grimm President cc Vern Neitzer Rick Harris ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY P.O. BOX 222 .702 WATER STREET PORT TOWNSEND. WASHINGTON "8368 (206).385.1733 November 7, 1988 Chris Landis state of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Southeast Regional Office 400 Willoughby Avenue Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1000 Re: Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric project Dear Mr. Landis: We request that a hold be placed on our Water Rights Application for the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, until April 25, 1989. We have entered into an agreement with Sealaska, in which both parties have agree to endeavor to resolve all the land and rights needed to construct the proposed project by April 25, 1989. Sincerely, . ~? President cc Vernon Neitzer Bob Loescher-Sealaska