Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Before the FERC Application for License for a Minor Water Power Project, Volume 1 Old Harbor Project 1999
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ApPLICATION FOR LICENSE FOR A MINOR WATER POWER PROJECT, VOLUME 1 OLD HARBOR PROJECT FERC PROJECT No. 11690-000 AND No. 11561-000 April 26, 1999 Submitted by ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. 4831 EAGLE STREET ANCHORAGE AK 99503-7497 :. ;'-;)11' uS1~'U...JJ.. .. Alaa.u .c(1.:~H)t:W.::~ Uhniry & information Services Librar\ iJu:klinl!. Suite 111 321 i Proviucncc Drive ~horagc,PU( 995~14 prepared by polarconsult alaska, inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310 Anchorage,AJaska 99503 Phone: (907) 258-2420 polarconsult alaska, inc.o 1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 31 0 :::~~-' """":_ /1;. Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3638 ,--, Phone: (907) 258-2420 FAX: (907) 258-2419 ~:-:: :' MEMORANDUM DATE: 05111199 To: Mary Ellen Wilson, Collections Development, Loussac Library FROM: Dan Hertrich RE: Old Harbor Environmental Assessment CC: Attached is a copy of the License Application and Draft Environnlental Assessment (combined in two volumes) for the Old Harbor Project. Please add these to your collection. Included is the cover letter, which you may discard if you wish. The drawings are attached seperately. Feel free to fold them if needed to add them to your collection. If you have any questions feel free to call me. Thank you, Dan. DOCUMENTS polarconsult alaska, inc. Project Nos. 11690-000 and 11561-000 ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • ENERGY CONSULTANTS Old Harbor Project April 23, 1999 THE SECRETARY FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 888 FIRST STREET NE VVASHfNGTON,D.C.20426 Subject: License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Hydro Project FERC Nos. 11690-000 and 11561-000 Dear Secretary, Enclosed are the original and eight copies of the Application for licensing of the Old Harbor Hydro Project. This filing initiates the third-stage consultation of the licensing process. A draft of the Public Notice is enclosed with this package, as required. The Applicant, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc, has completed the following requirements for this stage. Copies of the filed Application have been proved to all resource agencies previously • consulted. A public notice will be posted in the local paper (Anchorage Daily News) for two • days within the next two weeks. A copy of the Application has been placed in the City of Old Harbor city hall and in • the Anchorage Municipal Library for public inspection and copying. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, ])~/~ Daniel Hertrich, PE cc: Nan Allen Tony Azuyak Jay Bellinger Rick Berns David Boerges. Secretary Walt Boyle John Bregar Bret Christensen Emil Christiansen Wayne Dolezal Walter Ebell Christopher Estes Linda Freed Percy Frisby U. Gross Steven Hom Don Kohle Shirley Macke Brad Meiklejohn Eric Meyers Gary Prokosh Benme Rmehart Tim Rumfelt Tim Smith Brad Smith Rita Stevens Dan Vos Charles Walls Gary Wheeler John Williams Jennifer Wing 1503 WEST 33RD AVENUE • SUITE 310 • ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 PHONE (907) 258-2420 • TELEFAX (907) 258-2419 License Application and Draft Environmenta1 Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 VOLUME 1 VERIFICATION INITIAL STATEMENT Initial Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 EXHIBIT A EXHIBITE Executive Summary ................................................ 14 Description of Project .............................................. 14 Need for Power ................................................... 15 Environmental Issues and Proposed Environmental Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 License Is Justified. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 Purpose and Need for Action ......................................... 17 Purpose of Action ................................................. 17 Need for Power ................................................... 18 Proposed Action and Alternatives ..................................... 20 Applicant's Proposal ............................................... 20 Project Description ...................................................... 21 Project Construction ..................................................... 23 April 23, 1999 Page 1 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Project Operation ....................................................... 24 Proposed Environmental Measures ......................................... 25 Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Conditions ................................. 26 Old Harbor Native Corporation Conditions ................................... 26 City of Old Harbor Conditions ............................................ 26 No-Action Alternative .............................................. 26 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis .............. 26 Consultation and Compliance ........................................ 28 Agency Consultation ............................................... 28 Scoping ......................................................... 28 Water Quality Certification .......................................... 28 Coastal Zone Management Act ....................................... 29 Environmental Analysis ............................................. 30 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment ............................... 30 Proposed Action ........................................................ 30 Analysis of Effects ...................................................... 30 Federal Agency Comments ............................................... 30 Proposed Mitigation ..................................................... 30 General Description of the Lagoon and Barling Bay Drainage Areas ......... 31 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis ................................. 34 Geographic Scope of Analysis ............................................. 34 Temporal Scope of Analysis .............................................. 34 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Geology and Soil Resource Issues .......................................... 35 Affected Environment ............................................. 35 Environmental Impacts and Recommendations .......................... 35 April 23, 1999 Page 2 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Aquatic Resource Issues ................................................. 38 Water Quality and Gravel Recruitment. ............................... 38 Mountain Creek Fishery ........................................... 39 Lagoon Creek Fishery ............................................. 43 Project Operation ................................................. 49 Monitoring Plans ................................................. 50 Terrestrial Resource Issues ............................................... 51 Wetlands........................................................ 51 Vegetation Disturbance ............................................. 53 Habitat impacts .................................................. 54 Mammal Disturbance .............................................. 55 Threatened or Endangered Species. . .................................. 56 Avian .......................................................... 56 Bald Eagles ..................................................... 57 Recreation and Other Land Uses ........................................... 58 Affected Environment ............................................. 58 Environmental Impacts and Recommendations .......................... 58 Agency Comments ................................................ 60 Cumulative Effects ................................................ 60 Land Ownership ........................................................ 61 Affected Environment ............................................. 61 Environmental Impacts and Recommendations .......................... 61 Archaeological Concerns. . ............................................... 62 Affected Environment ............................................. 62 Environmental Impacts and Recommendations .......................... 62 Socioeconomic ......................................................... 62 Affected Environment ............................................. 62 Environmental Impacts and Recommendations .......................... 62 Impacts of the No Action Alternative .................................. 62 Developmental Analysis ............................................ 64 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternatives .............. 67 Recommendations ofFish and Wildlife Agencies ........................ 68 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 April 23, 1999 Page 3 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690·000 Finding Of No Significant Impact ..................................... 70 Literature Cited ................................................... 71 List of Prepares ................................................... 73 AppenrlixA Figure A-I, Lagoon Creek Fish Reach and Cross Section Locations Figure A-2, Mountain Creek Fish Reach and Cross Section Locations Figure T-l, ATV Usage in Project Area Figure X-I, Stream Cross Sections -Lagoon Creek Figure X-2, Stream Cross Sections -Mountain Creek Figure X-3, Stream Cross Sections -Mountain Creek Powerhouse Location Stream Flows Chart Canyon of Mountain Creek Stream Flows Chart Mouth of Mountain Creek Stream Flows Chart Intake Location Stream Flows Chart Total Monthly and Average Monthly Rainfall for Kodiak, AK Chart Project Schedule Correspondence Log List of Interested Parties Corps of Engineers 404 Permit Application Form State of Alaska Coastal Consistency Application Form AppenrlixB Old Harbor Stream Gaging Report, Final Report, October 1996, 28 Pages August 13th, 1996 Fishery Report, 5 Pages October 8th, 1996 Fishery Report, 4 Pages Photos From September 23rd, 1996 Stream Bed Survey, 2 Pages September 5th, 1996 Bird Report, 7 Pages Map And Photos For Bird Report, 6 Pages August 9th, 1996 Gauging And Water Quality, 5 Pages September 3rd, 1996 Gauging, 1 Page June 1997 Archaeological Survey, 33 Pages July 1997 Mammal Study, 6 Pages September 5, 1997 Vegetation Study, 8 Pages A Census of Birds Breeding in the Area of a Proposed Hydroelectric Project Near Old Harbor, AK, 10 pages October 1998, 1998 Fishery Report, 1 page April 26, 1999 Page 4 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 VOLUME 2 Appendix C . List of Correspondence included with this EA Copies of Correspondence Appendix D Comments from National Marine Fisheries Service, January 27 1999 Comments from United States Department of the Interior, March 11 1999 EXHIBITS F and G Figure G-l, Cover/Project Map Figure G-2, Legal Description of Lands Occupied by the Project and the Required Access Routes Figure F-l, Project Layout Figure F-2, Pipeline Plan And Profile Figure F-3, Pipeline Plan And Profile Figure F-4, Pipeline Plan And Profile Figure F-5, Pipeline Plan And Profile Figure F-6, Pipeline Plan And Profile Figure F-7, Pipeline Plan And Profile Figure F-8, Intake, Truss Bridge, and Pipeline Details Figure F-9, Powerhouse Site Plan, Bridge, and Access Trail Details Figure F -10, Powerhouse Details April 26, 1999 Page 5 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment O]d Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Verification This Application for a New License for the Old Harbor Hydropower Project Is Executed in the: State of: Alaska County of: Municipality of Anchorage by: Charles Y. Walls Alaska Village Electric Cooperative 483 1 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497 being duly sworn, deposes and says that the contents of this application are true to the best of his knowledge or belief. The undersigned applicant has signed the application this c?=,l d day of I!t:fl.. (L ,1999.. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. By: ~e:I -X-fcfih (/ Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public of the State of Alaska this 23yd dayof~~~__~r-______ . --" STATE OF .!\LASKA OFFICIAL SEAL PaUline s. HDo~eT' State of: Alaska My Commlss:o"! E:Zl""C'. ··:'·~·.lr::-\' 30, 2002 County of: Municipality of Anchorage by: Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 1503 W 33 M Ave #310 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 being duly sworn, deposes and says that the contents of this application were prepared by him or under his direct supervision, and are true to the best of his knowledge or belief. The undersigned applicant has signed the application this _2__day of_-""I7,-,-,-P--,X~J_L___,1999 .. State ofAlaska NOTARY PUBLIC Amber O'NeaJ-. j.Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public of the State of Alaska this My Commissjon Expires ::t;). April 22, 1999 Page 6 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Initial Statement Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Application for a Minor Un constructed Water Power Project. 1. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a new license for the Old Harbor Project (FERC project No. 11561 and 11690) water power project, as described hereinafter. 2. The location of the project is just north of the native community of Old Harbor, Alaska on Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek. 3. The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant is: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage AK 99503-7497 907-561-1818 phone, 907-562-4086 fax 4. The name, address, and telephone number of each person authorized to act as agent for the applicant in this application are: Charles Walls, President & CEO Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage AK 99503-7497 907-561-1818 phone, 907-562-4086 fax 5. The applicant is a domestic corporation and is not claiming preference under section 7(a) of the Federal Power Act. 6. State requirements for the Project include obtaining the following permits that will be applied for after submitting this application. AS 16.05.870 Protection ofFish and Game. Where anadromous fish exist in a stream where the applicant desires to constru?t a April 22, 1999 Page 8 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 project that will disturb that stream that applicant shall get approval from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to do such a project. This Project will have stream crossings, tailrace construction, and bridge construction in anadromous portions of Lagoon Creek. This permit will be applied for following submittal of this application. AS 46.15.030-46.15.185 "Appropriation and Use of Water.II 11 AAC 93.040-93.130 "Appropriation of Water." The Alaska Department of Natural Resources requires that application be made and a permit issued allowing the use of water prior to construction of the project. The statute outlines who may obtain water rights and for what purposes. This permit will be applied for following submittal of this application. AS 16.10.010-16.10.020 "Interference with salmon spawning streams and waters" and "Grounds or permit or license." These statutes require that an applicant who proposes to affect the waters utilized by salmon for propagation apply for and receive approval from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. The statute outlines specifically development ofpower as a purpose for obtaining a permit. This permit will be applied for following submittal of this application. AS 46.40.030-46.40.040 "Development ofdistrict coastal Management Programs." 6 AAC 50.010-50.190 "Project Consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program." Requires that agencies manage resources located within a coastal area through a permitting process. This permit will be applied for following submittal of this application. 7. Brief project description. Proposed installed generating capacity is 500 k W. It is an unconstructed project. 8. Lands of the United States affected are shown in Exhibit G. Type of U.S. Land Name (United States Owned Land) Acres National Forest Indian Reservation Public Lands Other Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) 4.059 Other KNWR & Conservation Easement l 9.156 Total U.S. Lands 13.215 lRecorded in the KodIak RecordIng DIStrIct, Record # 95-2116. April 22, 1999 Page 9 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 The Project is located on unsurveyed lands. 9. Construction of the project is planned to start within I months, and is planned to be completed within 18 months, from the date of issuance of license. April 22, 1999 Page 10 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Description of the project and the proposed mode of operation. General Data: Installed Capacity Number of Units Type of Turbine Basin Area Operation Maximum Annual Energy Current Power Needs Design Flow Gross Head Operating Head Penstock Diameters Penstock Length Diversion Structure Height Reservoir Area Average Flow of Creek Economic Data (0 to 35 yrs): Project Construction Cost Additional features include: 500 kW 1 Impulse 1.81 square mi. Automatic, run of the river. 3,426,869 kWh 713,000 kWh 13.2 cfs 755 Feet 610 Feet 20,18 & 16 inches 9,800 feet 7 feet 0 Acres 17 cfs $2,444,700 • A 7-foot-high, uncontrolled, diversion located on the East Fork ofMountain Creek at an elevation of 840 feet above mean sea level with a total length across the stream of 86'; • A trash rack, screens, and a de-sander box at the diversion intake; • A 20 to 18 inch diameter, 3200-foot-Iong high density polyethylene pipe; • A 16 inch diameter, 6600-foot-Iong steel pipe; • A 625 square foot powerhouse containing one Impulse turbine with a generating capacity of 500 kilowatts (kW) and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 13.2 cfs; • A 5500 foot long buried transmission line that would connect the Project with Old Harbor's existing power supply system near the town or Old Harbor; and • A 5500 foot long access road to the powerhouse. The purpose of the Project is to reduce the communities' reliance on diesel generation and to reduce the cost of power generation. April 22, 1999 Page 12 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #] 1690-000 Executive Summary Description of Project The Project is located near the community of Old Harbor, Alaska. Old Harbor is on the southeastern coast of Kodiak Island at latitude 57° 12' North and longitude 153 ° 18' West. Old Harbor is approximately 70 miles southwest of the City of Kodiak and 320 miles southwest of Anchorage. AFOGNAK ISLAND o ' .. -" ,..a .&> The Project is a 500 k W run of the river hydroelectric plant with a diversion structure, pipeline, powerhouse, and electric line. The project involves collecting up to 13.2 cfs of water year round from a tributary (Mountain Creek) ofBarling Bay Creek and transporting it across a basin boundary to Lagoon Creek just west of the city of Old Harbor. The proposed design consists ofa 86' wide x 7' tall diversion structure at the intake site (elevation of 840 feet above mean sea level). The water will then flow through 3200' of22" through 18" High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe and 6600' of 16" steel pipe to a 25' x 25' powerhouse. A 500 kW impulse turbine will be utilized to drive the three phase, 480 volt generator. The electrical energy will be carried through 5500' long cables buried next to the access trail to the existing water treatment plant where it can be connected to the existing electrical system. The Project is being permitted for 50 years. Construction will begin in the spring of 2000 and be completed by the end of2000. Apri122, 1999 Page 14 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 Need for Power Currently, power is supplied by diesel electric generators. There is a need for providing a more economical and farsighted source of power other than the current system. Without this Project Old Harbor will be forced to continue producing power using diesel generation. This has been very costly in the past and is expected to remain costly in the foreseeable future. With the Project, power costs will remain fixed for a very long time thus avoiding price increases due to inflation. Additionally, the Project will lessen the community's use of non-renewable fossil fuels, lessen air emissions due to burning diesel, and give the community the opportunity to lower the cost of electricity over time. Environmental Issues and Proposed Environmental Measures The major issues analyzed in the Environmental Assessment are • Geology and Soils • Wetlands • Water Quality • Gravel Recruitment • Mountain Creek Fishery • Lagoon Creek Fishery • Project Operation • Fishery Monitoring Plans • Re-Vegetation • Habitat • Mammals • Threatened or Endangered Species • Avian • Eagle Nesting • Recreation and Other Land Uses • Land Ownership • Archaeological Concerns • Socioeconomic • Impacts of the No Action Alternative The proposed environmental measures to mitigate the effects of the Project are: • Gates will be installed to prevent unauthorized A TV access to the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. • A tailrace barrier will be constructed that will prevent migrating fish from entering the tailrace. • Increase fish habitat in Lagoon Creek, by diverting water from Mountain Creek, a stream with marginal habitat. • Operate the project as a run of the river facility which follows natural hydrologic fluctuations and avoid daily flow fluctuations by installing a bypass system. • Install a stream gauge in Lagoon Creek to monitor water flows in the dry section. • Install silt barriers at various sites during construction. • Build bridges over creeks and construct other soil erosion prevention measures. • Install a de-sander box to return gravel to Mountain Creek. • Bury the transmission line for avian protection. • Locate project facilities to avoid any disturbance to archeological sites. • Use local labor for construction and maintenance. April 22, 1999 Page 15 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 License Is Justified Based on the limited impact to the environment and the feasibility of providing Old Harbor with hydroelectric energy, it is concluded that a license should be issued to allow this Project to be constructed. April 22, 1999 Page 16 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Application On March 1 st 1996, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) filed for a preliminary pennit (pennit # 11561) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Comnlission (Commission) to begin the licensing needed to build, operate, and maintain the Old Harbor Project (Project). A second preliminary pennit (#11690) was filed for and issued beginning March 1 1999. This most recent pennit incorporates all activities and records under the previous pennit. This environmental assessment is part of the application for an original license filed by AVEC. Purpose and Need for Action Purpose of Action The 500 kilowatt (kW) project would be located on Mountain Creek, near the town of Old Harbor, on Kodiak Island, Alaska (see Figure F-l, Exhibit F). Licensing the Old Harbor Project would allow A VEC to construct, operate, and maintain this Project for the purpose of generating electricity for the tenn of the license. The project would be capable of generating an average of about 3,400,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy annually. To produce this power with diesel would require an annual use of 252,000 gallons of diesel fuel. This draft environmental assessment (DEA) analyzes the effects associated with construction and operation of the project, alternatives to the proposed Project, and makes recommendations to the Commission on whether to issue a new license, and if so, recommends tenns and conditions to become part ofany license issued. The Federal Power Act (FP A) provides the Commission with the exclusive authority to license non-federal water power projects on navigable waterways and federal land. In deciding whether to issue any license, the Commission must detennine that the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway. In addition to the power and development purposes for which licenses are issued, the Commission must give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of, damage to, and enhancement of, fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. This DEA reflects the above considerations. For AVEC, the Commission staff must assess (1) whether to issue a license to AVEC and, ifso, (2) what, ifany, conditions should be placed on that license to protect or enhance existing environmental resources and/or to mitigate for any adverse environmental impacts that would occur due to project operation. The Commission staffweighs the effects of the Project against the no-action alternative. April 22, 1999 Page 17 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # I 1690-000 Need for Power The City of Old Harbor, like most rural Alaskan communities, is isolated from major power producing centers and thus relies on a small set of diesel generators and barged in diesel fuel to supply it's power needs. There is an opportunity to provide a more economical and farsighted source of power other than the current system. Currently, fuel must be barged in 2-3 times per year during periods of extremely high tides. Also, the header is logistically difficult to get to for the barge. Due to these constraints, the amount offuel delivered is limited by the time oftide and the small pipe size. Larger barges would not be any more effective in fuel delivery. This causes higher fuel costs because of the additional handling, time constraints, planning, and preparation required. Also, sometimes there is only enough fuel in storage to supply the generators and public buildings. This can happen if a shipment is missed (due to bad weather or suppliers not being available at high tide). When this happens, residents are forced to bring in fuel in 55 gallon drums on their fishing boats from Kodiak in order to heat their homes. Added fuel handling increases the amount spilled too. The small amount of power generated and the City's isolation equates to high power costs for the community. Fuel is one of the biggest expenditures. Currently the cost of power is partially subsidized by the State of Alaska. This subsidy is likely to end in the future. Old Harbor would benefit greatly from this Project as it will isolate the community from fuel price increases and, in the long term, reduce the overall cost of power. The utility currently generates an average ofabout 86 kW throughout the year (751,000 kWh). Peak loads are approximately 195 kW in the winter. Load growth has been 2.1 % per year from 1992-1996. A recent economic analysis (Locher, 1998) predicted load growth to continue at a rate of 2.0%. Detailed discussion of the Project economics can be found in the "Developmental Analysis" section. The Project will produce a peak power output of 500 kW and is capable of delivering around 3,400,000 kWh annually. This is far in excess of the community's requirements but it has been shown in the feasibility studies that the total cost of the Project with a smaller turbine is about the same as the Project with a 500 kW turbine. Plus the community and the utility have both expressed an interest in utilizing the excess power in ways that would otherwise not be feasible with the existing diesel system. This would be through resistance heating, utilization of an existing, unused freezer plant, electrification of the harbor, and possibly the addition of an ice plant to improve the quality of fish. Because the Project would supply nearly all of Old Harbor's power needs throughout the year, the Project will substantially reduce the amount ofnonrenewable fossil fuel that is burned which reduces the amount of noxious byproducts released to the atmosphere. Fuel handling would also decrease thereby decreasing the chance of costly fuel spills that are hazardous to the environment. Without this Project Old Harbor will be forced to continue producing power using diesel generation. April 22, 1999 Page 18 License Application and Draft Environmenta1 Assessment 01d Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 This has been very costly in the past and is expected to remain costly in the foreseeable future. With the Project, power costs will remain fixed for a very long time thus avoiding price increases due to inflation. Overall, the Project is not going to noticeably negatively impact either the Mountain Creek or Lagoon Creek fisheries. It is expected that it will enhance the Lagoon Creek fishery noticeably in a portion of the creek. Lagoon Creek is utilized by the local residents for fishing. Also, bears and eagles frequent the Lagoon Creek area. Any improvement in the fishery there will be a benefit to those species. April 22, 1999 Page 19 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 Proposed Action and Alternatives Applicant's Proposal Two comment letters were received after submitting the Draft License Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment. One was submitted by the Unites States Department of Interior (USDOI) and the other was submitted by the United States Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Copies of these comment letters are included in Appendix D. Where the comments concern specific environmental issues they are noted and addressed in the appropriate sections. Both USDOI and NMFS requested more detailed drawings.and descriptions of the Project and its construction. This has been done to a level of detail that should be sufficient for assessing the environmental impacts of the Project. Drawings are included in Exhibit F and G. The Project description, construction, and operation methods are detailed in the following sections. USDOI also requested a more detailed description of the drainage basins and their fish popUlations, the popUlations caught in area 258-52, locations of eagle nests, their history of use, and their locations with respect to the Proj ect. Also, USDOI required the evaluation ofalternative actions. The section describing alternatives has been revised so that it is clearer what other alternatives were considered. All reasonable alternatives to the Project are discussed in that section. USDOI also commented in their last paragraph of the General Comments section that the Project should be consistent with the management plan for the area and with community interest and should provide for the appropriate enhancement of recreational opportunities. As stated in the section "consistency with comprehensive plans", the project is not consistent with the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Consistency Plan because it is not an allowed use ofthe land. The plan will have to be changed: Community interest and recreational issues are discussed in the recreational use section. USDOI comments on land issues (first paragraph under Specific Comments) has been addressed using maps G-l and G-2 and is also discussed in the Land Ownership section ofthis document. The second paragraph ofcomments in the Specific Comments section suggests making specific changes to the table in the license application regarding the land ownership and the identification of the conservation easement. Some changes were made to better reflect that all ofthe lands shown in that table are owned by the United States of America and the conservation easement was identified. USDOI also called for determination of Section 18 Fishway Prescription to be determined by the agencies. This section has been removed. April 22, 1999 Page 20 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Project Description The Project is located near the community ofOld Harbor, Alaska. Old Harbor is on the southeastern coast of Kodiak Island at latitude 57°12' North and longitude 153°18' West. Old Harbor is approximately 70 miles southwest of the City of Kodiak and 320 miles southwest of Anchorage. The Project intake is located about 3 miles northwest of the community on Mountain Creek. The Powerhouse is located about 1 mile northwest of the community on Lagoon Creek (see Figure F-1, Exhibit F). The Project is within the Kodiak Island Borough, on Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Old Harbor Native Corporation, and City of Old Harbor lands. The Project is a 500 k W run of the river hydroelectric plant with a diversion structure, pipeline, powerhouse, and electric line. The project involves collecting up to 13.2 cfs of water year round from a tributary (Mountain Creek) of Barling Bay Creek and transporting it across a basin boundary to Lagoon Creek just west of the city of Old Harbor. 0.2 cfs of that water could be used to supply potable water to the City. Refer to Figures F -1 through F -10 (Exhibit F) for preliminary drawings ofthe proposed Project. The pipeline route has been surveyed in detail and tied into local known monuments. Detailed surveying of the power transmission and access trail will be completed in May 1999. The current alignment ofthe access trail to the powerhouse is shown on the drawings is estimated using partial survey data, aerial photographs, and topographic maps. The following table shows the general characteristics of the Project. Table I -General Characteristics of the Project Installed Capacity 500 kW Number of Units 1 Type of Turbine Impulse Basin Area 1.81 square mi. Estimated Annual Energy 3,400,000 kWh City's Power Needs 751,000 kWh Design Flow 13.2 cfs Gross Head 755 feet Penstock Diameters 22 though 16 inches Penstock Length 9,800 feet Diversion Structure Height 7 feet Project Construction Cost $2,444,700 The proposed design consists of a 86' wide x 7' tall diversion structure at the intake site at an elevation of 840 feet above mean sea level constructed out of galvanized steel frames with Ekki wood stop logs. The intake structure will incorporate a bypass gate for flushing accumulations of sand and gravel. Water will flow through a trash rack directly into the desanding structure. The de sander will have screens to catch leaves and other suspended debris. The screens will be April 22, 1999 Page 21 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 flushed by opening a gate that will allow water to drain from the desander. This gate will also flush out accumulated gravel and sand. The desander will be made of steel, wood, and concrete and will be approximately 30' long, 8' wide, and 6' tall. The water will then flow through 3200' of HDPE pipe until the higher pressures will necessitate using steel pipe. The first 1150' from the intake is very flat with only a 12' drop below the level of the top of the diversion structure. 20" or 22" pipe will be used for this first section. The next 350' the elevation drops another 18' to the beginning of a bridge crossing a 100' wide gully. The bridge will be constructed from two trusses and steel grating. The bridge will slope down at a 40/0 grade. For the next 750' the penstock drops another 15', a relatively flat section. Afterwards, the penstock begins a mostly uninterrupted descent of 380' from stations 2350 to 4850 feet from the intake. During this section the HDPE penstock will gradually increase in wall thickness until ,steel pipe is used. The steel pipe will be 16" in diameter and have a wall thickness of 0.13" thickness. The steel pipe will be joined using gasketed slip joints. The pipe will have an epoxy coating on the interior which will meet American Water Works Association (A WWA) requirements for potable water systems. This coating is necessary to prevent corrosion which would be detrimental to the long term efficiency of the penstock. The exterior of the pipe will also require a coating to prevent corrosion. The exterior coating will either be a tape system or epoxy coated. After station 4850 from the intake, the penstock levels out slightly then drops into a wetland that is adjacent to Lagoon Creek at station 5250. The bog extends from 5300 to 5650 where the penstock then climbs up and begins a relatively flat run with several gullies and uphill sections. This continues until about station 8400 where the pipe drops significantly (215') to the powerhouse at station 9750'. This last section of steel pipe will have a wall thickness of 0.18". The penstock will be anchored at the powerhouse. The powerhouse will consist of a concrete footing and slab for anchoring the turbine and pipeline and a 25'x25' metal building. The building will incorporate a crane for lifting of the turbine, generator, and interior piping. Prior to the turbine, a bypass system will be installed to mitigate the potential for daily flow fluctuations due to changing demands. The bypass is a needle valve that controls the amount of water that is exiting the bypass pipe. The water is directed into a submerged container so that the energy is dissipated before entering the bypass tailrace. Also located before the turbine will be a tap for withdrawing drinking water for the City. The City's water demands are about 0.2 cfsl. A 560 k W impulse turbine will be utilized to drive the generator. The turbine will incorporate twin nozzles controlled by needle valves, a deflector plate system for rapid shutdowns, and a direct lCity of Old Harbor, 1998. Conversation with Jim Nestic (Public Works Director). April 22, 1999 Page 22 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 coupled horizontal shaft. The turbine will operate at 900 rpm. The generator will be a 575 kW, three phase, 480 volt synchronous generator. Total efficiency ofthe turbine and generator operating at 13 cfs will be about 82%. The electrical energy will be carried through 5,500' long cables buried next to the access trail to the existing water treatment plant where it can be connected to the existing overhead electrical system. Project Construction Construction ofthe Project is expected to begin in the spring of2000. The schedule for construction is included in Appendix A. The manner in which construction is carried out will vary depending on the equipment purchased or available, the availability and size ofhelicopter used, the superintendent, and the time of year. In general, the most severe impacts to the environment that can occur using expected reasonable construction methods are analyzed in this EA. However, it is not practical to spell out in complete detail the exact construction procedures and methods that will take place. This EA has been prepared with the following basic construction procedures expected. The major equipment for construction of the Project will be brought in separate from the materials. This way, the access trail and trail to the intake can be constructed and ready for use when the materials arrive. The dozer and the backhoe will make in stream crossings through Lagoon Creek near the water treatment building. The dozer will cross Lagoon Creek driving off the existing sloped gravel bank next to the infiltration gallery for the water system. Prior to crossing with the dozer, the backhoe will stack logs against the opposite bank in the stream and parallel with the bank. The backhoe and the dozer will then be able to get out of the creek by climbing up this sloped log ramp. This same method of stacking logs against the bank will be used when the backhoe crosses Lagoon Creek near the powerhouse. The access trail to the powerhouse will be cleared ofvegetation using a dozer and/or a clearing crew. The cleared vegetation will be pushed to the downhill side of the trail (east side) or be collected and left in piles at various places along the trail. A backhoe will install the power lines and water line. The trail will be built using a end dumps to haul in gravel with a dozer spreading the material. The backhoe will then make another in stream crossing across Lagoon Creek near the powerhouse. The backhoe will dig the powerhouse foundation and tailraces. The back hoe will proceed up to the intake site via the pipeline route. There are several places where it is too steep to ascend with the backhoe without the use of a winch. In these locations, a four wheeler will bring a small rock drill to the top of the hill to install rock anchors. A frame for attaching the winch cable will be bolted to the anchors and the backhoe will winch up the hill. Going down these hills the backhoe will use the same procedure but will also be installing the pipeline as it goes. As the backhoe proceeds up towards the intake, the four wheeler trail will be constructed. For the April 22, 1999 Page 23 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 most part, this will simply involve driving over the vegetation with four wheelers. This will limit the destruction of vegetation to just two tracks the width of a four wheeler. In some areas, some smoothing ofthe terrain will be required. This will involve removing vegetation to a width of about 4 feet, smoothing the soil and removing any large rocks, installing ramps for wetland crossings, and installing temporary ramps and small bridges to cross some ofthe gullies. The four wheeler trail will be about 10' away from the pipeline center line so that when the backhoe is working its way down four wheelers can still get to the intake. When the backhoe gets near the intake the materials for the Project will arrive and a helicopter will be used to unload the penstock and intake materials from the barge and place them at their proper location. This is expected to occur around June to July. The helicopter will be a Bell Jet Long Ranger which has a sling load capacity of 1000 lbs. This will allow all of the pipe except for the 3/16" steel sections to be in 40' lengths. The helicopter will take about 8 to 9 days at 10 hours per day of flying to offload all of the materials. A smaller Jet Ranger may be utilized at various other times later in the construction phase for Y2 to 1 day at a time to deliver miscellaneous items. Once at the intake, the backhoe will begin working on installation of the diversion and desanding structures. The stream bed and banks will be excavated down until a rock bottom is reached or there is sufficient depth to retain the base ofthe diversion wall. For this work, the stream will have to be temporarily diverted. This will likely being done using a section of pipe and gabion baskets. Once the intake and de sander are completed the backhoe will begin trenching in the penstock as it works its way downhill. The backhoe will be equipped with a rock bucket and will dig a trench and set the material to one side. The pipe, sitting on the other side will be placed into the trench and covered with material. Excess material will be stacked in piles near the pipeline. The piles will be placed so they will not erode. They will also be re-vegetated along with the soil covering the pipeline. The bridge over the gully will be assembled next to the gully then pulled across using the backhoe and cables. It is not likely that blasting will be necessary for any portion ofthe work but there may be occasional small ridges ofsolid rock that can only be excavated by blasting. The backhoe may also be equipped with a hydraulic hammer for breaking up rock and installing anchors. Project Operation AVEC proposes to divert the East Fork of Mountain Creek to generate power. The project would have no capacity to store water. Flows up to the maximum hydraulic capacity of the project, 13.2 cfs, would be diverted to meet the power needs of the City of Old Harbor. Therefore, all quantities of water in excess of 13.2 cfs will overflow the diversion structure and remain in Mountain Creek. The City of Old Harbor plans to withdraw about 0.2 cfs from the Project for its water supply. The City's water supply would be withdrawn from the penstock upstream ofthe powerhouse. The water withdrawn for the City would not be available for power generation. All of the remaining diverted flow will be discharged to Lagoon Creek at the powerhouse location. April 22, 1999 Page 24 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 The Project will continuously divert all water available up to 13.2 cfs regardless of the electrical demand. This will be accomplished using a bypass system that will discharge water into a separate tailrace. Therefore, the turbine will only use enough water to meet the community's electrical demand while the bypass will operate to ensure that a continuous 13.2 cfs is flowing through the pipeline when this amount of water is available at the intake. The turbine will match demand by maintaining a constant line frequency and it will control the flow of water by opening or closing the needle valves. The bypass will measure the flow of water using a needle position sensor in conjunction with the hydro output and will maintain 13.2 cfs by opening or closing it's needle valve. The bypass will also be limited by maintaining a certain level of water in the de sander box so that when there is less than 13.2 cfs in the stream the bypass won't drain down the pipeline. During periods of low flows, or excess demand, the hydro project would be augmented by the existing diesel generating facility. As evidenced by the stream flow charts, the rate at which water flow decreases at the intake is very predictable. When projected peak loads for the day are expected to meet or exceed the output of the hydro plant then a signal will be generated to start a diesel generator. The operation of the diesels may be done manually or automatically. The hydro plant will also signal when to shut down a generator. The hydro plant will always displace the diesel power so the diesel will back off until it reaches a point where it is no longer needed. Then, the bypass would begin opening as the quantity of water at the intake increased. Sensing that there is excess water, the hydro plant will signal for the shut down ofthe diesel so long as the excess is more than is required to provide projected short term (--6 hours) peak loads. Nearly all of the Project's operations will be controlled automatically. Logs and operating parameters will be stored on a computer in the powerhouse and will be able to be accessed remotely over phone lines. Only periodic maintenance items, equipment failure, and conditions exceeding the Project's capacity to control will require an operator. Such items that will require an operator include: • Oiling, greasing, and changing the fluid of the mechanical components. • Replacement of failed controls and sensors. • Cleaning of the intake and desander when debris loads are excessive. Proposed Environmental Measures The following environmental nleasures are proposed to protect and enhance the environmental resources that may be affected by the project. • Gates will be installed along access routes to hinder A TV access to the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. • A tailrace barrier will be constructed that will prevent migrating fish from entering the tailrace. • Increased fish habitat in Lagoon Creek, by diverting water from Mountain Creek, a April 22, 1999 Page 25 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 stream with marginal habitat. • Operate the project as a run of the river facility which follows natural hydrologic fluctuations and avoid daily flow fluctuations by installing a bypass system. • Install a stream gauge in Lagoon Creek and perform fish surveys to assess the Project's impacts. • Install silt barriers at various sites during construction. • Build bridges over creeks and construct other soil erosion prevention measures. • Install a de-sander box to return gravel to Mountain Creek. • Bury the transmission line for avian protection. • Locate project facilities to avoid any disturbance to archeological sites. • Use local labor for construction and maintenance. Please refer to the individual resources in the environmental analysis section for a more detailed discussion of each of these proposals. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Conditions Specific conditions on the Project requested by the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge will be included here. Old Harbor Native Corporation Conditions Specific conditions on the Project requested by the Old Harbor Native Corporation Conditions will be included here. City of Old Harbor Conditions Specific conditions on the Project requested by the City of Old Harbor Conditions will be included here. No-Action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, the Commission would deny the license for the proposed Old Harbor Project. The project would not be built and there would be no change to the existing environment. The no-action alternative is the benchmark which is compared with any proposed action alternative. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis Past feasibility assessments have been performed to analyze the potential of providing Old Harbor with hydroelectric energy. These include Alaska Power Administration (AVEC, 1979), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Ebasco Services, 1980), Alaska Power Authority (CH2M-Hill, 1981) and Alaska Power Authority (DOWL engineers, 1982). None of those previous studies identified the current Project configuration. Only two later studies performed by AVEC (Polarconsult, 1995) and Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (Locher Interests, 1998) compared the previous alternatives from the past studies with the proposed Project. Both Polarconsult and Locher, through extensive evaluation of the alternative's cost, permitting April 22, 1999 Page 26 License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 ability, and power produced concluded the current Project is the most feasible means of providing Old Harbor with hydroelectric energy when compared with the numerous other alternatives considered. The current Project is a variation of a layout proposed quite some time ago. The main alternatives analyzed were the dual intake project on Mountain creek, Midway creek some distance from Old Harbor, and a small creek located just west of Old Harbor. It was concluded that collecting water from both the east and west fork of Mountain Creek would provide substantial power but would require a substantial amount oftunneling and/or rock excavation that would cost too much. Midway creek, identified as the best alternative by DOWL, was found by Polarconsult to cost more than the Mountain Creek project and produce less power. All studies concluded that the small creek to the west of Old Harbor would not provide enough power. One alternative to the current Project evaluated during this permit process was running the penstock to the east to drop quickly down to a powerhouse located in the Big Creek basin. This would involve 3000' less penstock but 4000' more transmission line and access trail. Total savings would be from lOOk to 200k dollars. However, connecting the City water system to the Project would be much more expensive. Environmentally, this alternative would eliminate the potential fishery enhancements that are likely to occur at Lagoon Creek. There wouldn't be any expected enhancements to the Big Creek fishery. An alternative to the current Project was the use of a smaller turbine (330 kW). Analysis shows that a larger turbine (500 k W) can be used without much additional cost because the pipeline sizes would be the same. Weighing the potential ofthe extra power available versus the additional cost, AVEC has elected to construct the Project with the larger turbine. April 22, 1999 Page 27 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Consultation and Compliance Agency Consultation The Commission's regulations require prospective applicants to consult with appropriate state and federal environmental resource agencies and the public before filing a license application. In October of 1995, AVEC applied for the preliminary permit. On March 11 1996 the Commission issued the preliminary permit. Since that time studies of the environment began. Several agencies provided the Commission and AVEC with comments regarding the Project. During the rest of 1996 and through the summer of 1997 agencies were contacted and added to the list of interested parties. A communications protocol was agreed upon and AVEC requested to use the applicant prepared EA process. In November of 1997 the Initial Stage Consultation Document was released. Several comments were received by interested parties and study plans were developed during the first part of 1998. In April 1998 Scoping Document 1 was released with a site visit occurring in May of 1998. Study plans were developed based on agency comments during the site visit and the subsequent agency meeting. The studies were carried out through the rest of the year. The Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft License Application were released in December of 1998. On March 1 1999 the old permit (# 11561) expired and a new one was applied for and obtained (#11690). The full list of correspondence for the Project is in Appendix A. Appendix C includes copies of the significant correspondence. Copies ofthe Initial Stage Consultation Document, Scoping Document 1, and progress reports are not included but are available from FERC or from Polarconsult. Scoping As indicated above in the agency Consultation section, Scoping Document 1 was issued on April 8, 1998 to agencies and interested parties. FERC issued a notice that the Project was ready for scoping on April 14, 1998. Two meetings were held along with a site visit. A public scoping meeting was held in Old Harbor, Alaska on May 12, 1998, following a site visit, and an interagency meeting was held in Anchorage, Alaska on May 14, 1998. Based on the discussions during the meetings and the written comments there was no need to make revisions to Scoping Document 1. Water Quality Certification By agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), application for a Department ofthe Army permit to discharge dredged or fill material into navigable waters under section 404 of the Clean Water Act also may serve as application for state water quality certification. AVEC will be submitting its 404 application at the same time as the Coastal/Consistency application required by the State of Alaska. A copy of the 404 application form is included in Appendix A. April 22, 1999 Page 28 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project. FERC #] 1690-000 Coastal Zone Management Act AVEC will be submitting its Coastal/Consistency application required by the State of Alaska after filing the License Application. A copy of the Coastal consistency application form is included in Appendix A April 22, 1999 Page 29 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 Environmental Analysis As required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801), an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessment is required for this Project. The EFH is included in this section of the EA. Also in this section, we first describe the general environmental setting of the Project area. We then discuss the site-specific and cumulative effects of the resources affected by the proposed action versus the no action alternative. In our detailed assessment of resources we first describe the affected environment -which is the existing condition and the baseline against which to measure anticipated changes of the proposed Project and any action alternative -and then we discuss environmental effects of the Project including proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. In this section we also make recommendations for measures where there is no interaction with or effect on other power or non-power resources. Our recommendations for the measures that have effects on other power or non-power resources are found in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternatives section. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment Proposed Action The proposed action requiring the EFH Assessment is the Project, described in the Proposed Action and Alternative section. Analysis of Effects The Project may affect, not likely adversely the Mountain Creek fishery meaning that the Project will have insignificant impacts to that fishery. This conclusion is based on the results of surveys and the associated analysis in the "Mountain Creek Fishery" section under Aquatic Impacts. The Project may affect, not likely adversely the Lagoon Creek fishery meaning that the Project may be beneficial and some ways and insignificantly adverse in other ways. This conclusion is based on the results of surveys and the associated analysis in the "Lagoon Creek Fishery" section under Aquatic Impacts. Federal Agency Comments Proposed Mitigation Monitoring has been proposed to mitigate potential impacts. The scope of monitoring plans is outlined in the "Monitoring Plans" section under Aquatic Impacts. April 22, 1999 Page 30 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 General Description of the Lagoon and Barling Bay Drainage Areas As shown in Figure G-1 (Exhibit G), the project is located in Old Harbor, Alaska, a small community on the southeast coast of Kodiak Island, 70 miles southwest of the City of Kodiak and 322 miles southwest ofAnchorage. Kodiak Island is thought to have been inhabited for 7,500 years. Currently, about 300 people live in Old Harbor. In 1964, the Good Friday earthquake and resulting tsunami destroyed the community ofOld Harbor. Only two homes and the church remained standing. The community has since been rebuilt in the same location with the following significant changes. The diesel plant and storage area have been relocated to higher ground, a new water source was developed using an infiltration gallery at Lagoon Creek, and the airport has been relocated to a higher location, as is the new housing developed in the north village. Many of the residents are commercial fishermen and tourism is an increasing part of the economy. 34 residents hold commercial fishing permits. Most depend to some extent on subsistence activities for food sources, such as salmon, halibut, crab, deer, seal, rabbit, and bear. The climate of the Kodiak Islands is dominated by a strong marine influence. There is little or no freezing weather, moderate precipitation, and frequent cloud cover and fog. Severe storms are common from December through February. Annual precipitation is 60 inches. Temperatures generally remain within 24 to 60 degrees F. The area around Old Harbor (from Barling Bay to the City) is located in the Alaska Fish and Game statistical area 258-52. The following table shows the number of fish harvested in the last three years from that area. Table 2 -Fish Harvested from Area 258-52 year chinook sockeye coho pink chum # lbs # lbs # lbs # lbs # Ibs 1996 0 0 147 830 0 0 610 2015 3140 29969 1997 6 120 983 5031 5206 44830 326950 1138763 10131 95018 1998 6 130 564 2839 671 6671 197664 734303 1610 14046 The Mountain Creek drainage consists primarily of two main forks that converge near the dividing boundary with the Lagoon Creek basin at an elevation of about 500'. The total drainage area for Mountain Creek is approximately 8.024 sq mi. The East Fork and West Fork drainage areas are 1.79 and 2.60 sq mi respectively. Although the east and west forks only account for 55% of the total drainage to Mountain Creek, they most likely produce most of the water because they are high mountain valleys that catch a lot of snow while the rest ofthe drainage is generally at a much lower elevation and does not contain valleys. The east fork valley has a small glacier at the far end of the drainage area. On the East Fork near the intake the average annual streamflow is 17 cfs. After the confluence ofthe east and west forks, Mountain Creek drops about 450' in 2 miles through a very steep walled and rugged canyon. From there it flows another 1.5 miles over nearly flat gravel April 22, 1999 Page 31 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 1 ) 690-000 that is very permeable. During mid to late summer in most years all of the water flowing out of the canyon goes subsurface in just 113 mile. This lower area is an alluvial fan consisting of very large amounts ofgravel deposited below the canyon. The stream often changes course in immense spring floods. Finally, Mountain Creek drains into the Barling Bay Creek. The Mountain Creek stream channel joins the Barling Bay Creek near it's confluence with the tide water. This is a high energy deposition area where the channels are unstable and migrate during major flood events. Depending on where the edge of the bay is measured to, tide level, and the current course of Mountain Creek, the mouth empties anywhere from 0 to 3000 feet upstream of the mouth of Barling Bay Creek. The following is a picture of Mountain Creek. Barling Bay Creek is a river that has a drainage area of approximately 16 sq mi. It never seems to run dry during the late summer and fall as Mountain Creek does. It supports a large salmon population. Lagoon Creek has a drainage area of about 1.44 miles. It consists of a main stem that drains from the mountain behind the village of Old Harbor. Lagoon Creek begins at around an elevation of700' and flows about 2 miles to the elevation ofthe powerhouse. At the powerhouse location the average April 22, 1999 Page 32 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 annual flow is estimated to be 13.4 cfs. From the powerhouse the creek flows through cottonwood and alder stands in a relatively flat expanse along the talus ofthe mountain behind the village of Old Harbor. This portion of the creek flows through permeable gravel deposits and dries up just as Mountain Creek does. However, 4200' below the powerhouse, a spring fed tributary joins the Creek which produces surface flows. The water often dries up from the powerhouse to the spring fed tributary in late summer and fall. This section is about 3/4 of a mile long. It has never been o bserved during the past three years to dry up from the spring fed tributary and on down to the Lagoon. Adult salmon have not been found during the last three years in Mountain Creek. Lagoon creek empties into a large, tidally influenced lagoon called the Salt Lagoon. The Salt Lagoon is fed by Lagoon Creek and another small spring creek. The Salt Lagoon occupies about 82 acres (0.13 sq miles) and drains through a culvert under the road into the strait. The culvert is high enough that during low tides the water level is higher than the tide and the Lagoon drains fairly rapidly through the culvert. During high tides the level ofthe Lagoon matches the level in the strait as water flows in through the culvert. Local residents claim that the number of salmon in Lagoon Creek has declined noticeably since the installation of the culvert (Jim Nestic, personal communication). During the last three years, primarily chum and pink adult salmon were found in Lagoon Creek. The following is a picture of Lagoon Creek. April 22, 1999 Page 33 Draft Environmental Assessment O]d Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 The Project intake is located in a sub-alpine environment dominated by an intermixed willow/alder habitat and grass/moss/lichen environment. Two thousand feet along the pipeline below the intake, the habitat changes to open fields of sedges and grasses interspersed with dense alder thickets. Along the access route from the powerhouse to the water treatment building the habitat consists of cottonwoods and Kenai birch with an understory of willow and alder thickets and some open grass fields. Mammals in the area include the Kodiak brown bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goat, red fox, land otter, beaver, weasel, snowshoe hare, tundra vole, and little brown bat. Along the Project, a total of 14 species of birds were recorded, the most common being the Fox Sparrow, Wilson's Warbler, and Savannah Sparrow. A total of 30 species of birds were observed in general vicinity of the Project and around the town of Old Harbor. Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEP A, an action may cause cumulative impacts on the environment if its impacts overlap in time and or space with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period oftime to include hydro power and other land and water development activities. Based on the license application and agency consultation, we've identified recreational activities as having the potential to be cumulatively affected, and consequently have included this resource area as part of our cumulative effects analysis (CEA). Geographic Scope of Analysis Our geographic scope of analysis is defined by the physical limits or boundaries of (1) the proposed action's effect on recreation; and (2) contributing effects from non-hydro power activities, such as hunting, hiking, and ATV use. Temporal Scope of Analysis The temporal scope of our cumulative analysis in the EA will include past, present, and future actions and their effects on recreation. For purposes of our analysis, the temporal scope will look 50 years into the future (expected term of license), concentrating on the effect on recreation from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical discussion will, by necessity, be limited to the amount of available information for the resource. April 22, 1999 Page 34 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives Geology and Soil Resource Issues Affected Environment The geology in the upper portion of the Project area (from the powerhouse to the intake) is typical ofthe mountainous regions ofKodiak Island. Shallow soil ( -1-2' deep) overlies slate and sandstone formations (U.S. Department of Interior, Map MF 674). There are often small depressions and valleys that fill with water and peat creating wetlands. The wetlands consist ofmoss at or just above the level of water in the depression with occasional pools. Below the moss is peat to the depth of solid rock. Active erosion is not evidenced except for taluses at the base of very steep slopes. In the lowlands (large flat expanses), such as the portion of the Project from the beginning of the access trail to the powerhouse, the geology consists of alluvial deposits overlain by several feet of a mixed organic and gravel soil. Wetlands also are common with mostly moss and peat overlying soil and gravel. Stream banks in the low lying areas exhibit erosion. Most of the streams appear to meander rather quickly in the low lying areas. About 2000' feet of Mountain Creek changed course significantly during flooding in 1998 due to large deposits of gravel and erosion of banks. Where the streams are in wooded areas there are lots of uprooted and fallen trees lying in or across the stream due to the eroding banks. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Identified erosion impacts due to construction, post construction, and operation of the Project are: 1. Control of erosion from the tailrace ofthe powerhouse to Lagoon Creek and erosion caused by the additional water in Lagoon Creek. 2. Control of erosion and ponding in wetland and other areas where the pipeline is partially or fully exposed. Where the pipeline is partially or fully exposed in wetland areas the situation of concern is where the slope of ground is not parallel to the pipe direction. In this case, water may flow up to the pipeline and then it will be stopped. Water will then begin to pond and flow along the pipeline either until it gets to a point where it can go around the obstruction (i.e. the pipeline is fully buried) or it will get to a height where it will flow over the pipeline. Another situation that can arise is when the pipeline is partially or fully exposed going down a steep slope. Water may collect along the pipeline and run rapidly down the slope along the sides of the pipe. Material may start to be eroded from around the sides of the pipe. 3. Control of erosion due to vegetation loss and soil disturbance during construction phase. Along steep slopes there will be exposed soil that can erode during heavy rains. Stream banks can slough off and be eroded by the stream where they are disturbed. Equipment can collect mud and soil and have it washed off when crossing streams. Also, where the banks are vertical, heavy equipment can not climb in and out ofthe stream without April 22, 1999 Page 35 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 ramping the banks. This could lead to quicker erosion of the banks next to the ramps. Equipment that will be crossing streams without the use ofa bridge will be a track hoe when working to install the pipeline and a bulldozer when working on the access trail. The backhoe will need to cross Lagoon Creek by the water treatment building twice and another two times at the powerhouse location. The small bulldozer will cross Lagoon Creek twice by the water treatment building and powerhouse. To limit erosion problems, AVEC proposes to take the following steps: • Install a buried or rock lined tailrace to prevent erosion from water leaving the powerhouse. • Fully bury pipe, install water stops around the pipe on steep slopes, and install drains under the pipe where the flow of water across the pipe is impeded. • Install silt fences at the toe of slopes where exposed soil can erode into a wetland or stream. Also, install a silt fence in Lagoon Creek during the construction of the tailrace. • Use log ramps in the stream to climb up and down banks. Analysis of the mitigation measures follows. • The tailrace will begin with a concrete basin below the turbine. The concrete basin will be tied into a culvert that will be buried below ground and extend from the building to the creek bank or, alternately, a rock lined channel will be used. At the creek bank a vertical grate will be attached to the culvert or channel. Large rock will be placed at the end to dissipate energy. The tailrace water will then flow through this grate and into the stream. Adult fish will not be able to get though the grating. The tailrace velocities will be low -about 2 ftlsec in the 24" culvert or channel. Gabions will be placed at the end of the culvert along the banks to a height equal to the surrounding banks. This will prevent water from eroding the bank due to turbulence caused by water flowing by the end of the culvert. The effects of the additional water in Lagoon Creek are discussed in the Lagoon Creek fishery section. • Control of erosion due to a partially or fully exposed pipeline will be accomplished in one of several ways. Unless absolutely necessary, the pipeline will be fully covered. It is anticipated that along wetland type areas there will be plenty of soil to provide cover for the pipe. Generally, the only exposed pipe will occur at ridge points and other areas where there is very little topsoil. To prevent ponding, should the pipe be exposed in a wetland area, we propose to install the pipe on 2' sections of drain filters spaced 8' apart. The filters will extend from 4" below,the April 22, 1999 Page 36 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 pipeline to the ground surface and will have a total width of 24". Water will encounter this filter while traveling along the surface or subsurface. Water will be able to flow under the pipeline through the filter below the pipe. To prevent erosion along the sides of the pipeline where the pipe is not fully buried on a steep slope, wood blocks will be cut so that they fit around the pipe tightly. The plane ofthe wood block will be perpendicular to the pipe. Water running down the slope along the side of the pipe will encounter these blocks and be forced out the ends where it will return to its nonnal random surface flow through the vegetation. The blocks will be installed as necessary to prevent erosion. • Control of erosion during the construction phase will be accomplished using the following techniques. The erosion that will occur on steep slopes will consist of soil being carried away during heavy rains. The depth of soil is generally from 12" to 18". Below the soil is mostly large rocks, boulders, and bedrock. Because there is so little soil the potential for catastrophic slides and major gully fonning does not exist. The concern will be to prevent soil eroding off of steep slopes and depositing in streams. Where work is being done along a steep slope adjacent to a stream silt fences will be erected at intervals and at the bottom of the slope on the exposed soil portions. Silt fences will also be used as necessary on steep slopes to prevent soil from eroding away until revegetation occurs. Before working in the stream and on the banks at the powerhouse a silt fence will be installed across Lagoon Creek just downstream of the work to catch large amounts of sediments. Then excavation of the trench for the culvert or channel will commence with material being pulled back away from the stream with an excavator. The culvert will be installed and the backfilling will be completed as soon as possible. Backfilled soils will be compacted to 95% compaction at the bank. Gabions will be used around the end of the culvert to a height equal to the surrounding banks. This will prevent water from eroding the banks adjacent to the culvert and prevent freshly backfilled banks from eroding. Because the number of crossings of streams by equipment is limited in frequency and the equipment size is small there will not be any special controls to prevent tracking mud into the streams. To prevent bank erosion, sloped log piles will be placed in the stream parallel to the bank. The height of the log ramp will be even with the top of the bank. This will allow the heavy equipment to scale the bank without disturbing it substantially. The logs will be reused as necessary and will be ultimately discarded next to the stream. Excess soil from excavations will be piled neatly in such a way as to prevent any erosion. The excess soil piles will be revegetated as outlined in the vegetation section. It is recommended to the Commission based on the analysis that AVEC institute the erosion April 22, 1999 Page 37 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 prevention measures stated above. Agency Comments USDOI encourages using straw or coconut fiber matting to stabilize soils on steep slopes until vegetation can take hole. They also request using bioengineering techniques to restore stream banks disturbed by construction activities. NMFS requested information on the buried transmission lines and penstock and requested that a revegetation and monitoring plan be included. NMFS requested that installation of facilities across streams be done using directional boring if possible. NMFS also inquired as to what will be done with excess soil. Aquatic Resource Issues The scoping document treats the affects on the Lagoon Creek and Mountain Creek fisheries separately. The same will be done in this assessment. Water Quality and Gravel Recruitment. Affected Environment Water at the intake site and the powerhouse site was sampled once on the same day and analyzed. The following table shows the results. Table 3 -Water Quality Summary Parameter Mountain Creek (Intake) Lagoon Creek (Powerhouse) Detection Limit Units Calcium 1.95 1.48 0.2 mgIL Magnesium 0.499 0.295 0.2 mg/L Potassium 2.78 2.35 NA mgIL Silicon 2.09 1.84 0.5 mglL Sodium 1.61 2.13 0.5 mglL Nitrate-N 0.100 0.119 0.1 mglL Total KjeJdahl Nitrogen 0.312 0.485 0.2 mg/L Total Phosphorous 0.02 0.016 0.01 mgIL Temp 43 53.3 NA of Conductivity 24 36.5 NA f,1mhos Dissolved Oxygen 6.8 7.5 NA ppm In addition to the measured water quality parameters, the water at the intake will likely transport sand and gravel during periods ofmoderate to high flows. Bed load material that is diverted through the intake will be deposited in the desander box and flushed right back into the stream. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations U.S. Department of the Interior has concerns regarding the following water quality issues and the associated impacts. April 22, 1999 Page 38 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 How will the Project impact temperature and dissolved gases and what will those impacts do to fish spawning, incubation, and rearing. The hydro plant will have the following impacts on water quality. Discussion of the impacts to fisheries is discussed in the Lagoon Fishery section. • The dissolved oxygen content of the water will be higher after passing through the turbine. This is due to the turbulent action of the water hitting the turbine and splashing down to the tailrace. This occurs at atmospheric pressure so there will be no super saturation which is destructive to fish. Water enters the penstock and leaves the penstock at atmospheric pressure. Because there won't be any air in the penstock, gases will not be dissolved in the water as the pressure rises in the penstock. The only time the water is exposed to air is at atmospheric pressures when the water exits the nozzle of the turbine. The only way to determine how much the dissolved oxygen level will increase would be through direct measurements. The amount of increase will vary with the current dissolved oxygen level and the temperature of the water. It is estimated that the dissolved oxygen should increase by about 2 or 3 mg/L. • Briefly remove sand and gravel from the intake and deposit them on the other side of the diversion structure. Also, the diversion structure will impound sand and gravel behind-it between flushing. • The Project will add 13 cfs of water from Mountain Creek to Lagoon Creek. As shown in Table 3, the Project will be adding water to Lagoon Creek that is slightly higher in Metals and slightly lower in organics and is 10 degrees F cooler. The Project itself will not noticeably change the temperature of the water. The heat generated by the conversion ofenergy is insufficient to change the temp ofthe water. All friction and inefficiency losses combined only could raise the temperature of the water by 0.20 F. This is not a significant amount of change. In order to prevent sand and gravel from being removed permanently from Mountain Creek and to prevent damage to the turbine a desander will be installed that will deposit all sand and gravel collected through the intake structure back into Mountain Creek a short distance below the intake. Collecting small amounts of sand and gravel at a time and then depositing them back to the creek all at once will not impact the environment since only a small section ofMountain Creek is affected and there aren't any fish at that location. We do not recommend any mitigation other than the installation of the de sander box. Mountain Creek Fishery Affected Environment Past reports and drawings have named what is currently referenced as Mountain Creek as either Barling Bay Creek Tributary or sometimes, erroneously, Barling Bay Creek. April 22, 1999 Page 39 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 The following table shows the results of the adult salmon surveys in Mountain Creek. Table 4 -Adult Salmon in Mountain Creek Date Method Species Number I 8/9/96 helicopter all 0 9/3/96 foot all 0 9/23/96 foot all 0 8/13/98 foot all 0 10/6/98 foot all 0 No adult salmon were observed spawning because the creek was dry on every visit. A trip was not made in 1997 because the streamflow conditions in general on Kodiak Island were even drier than they were in 1996 meaning that Mountain was dry also. Investigations on August 9 1996 consisted of setting a minnow trap in a pool where the water was still running in the upper reaches ofthe creek (about 6750' upstream from the mouth). The following table shows the what were captured after 4 hours. Table 5 -Juvenile Salmon in Mountain Creek number species size (mm) 1 Dolly Varden 87 8 Coho Salmon 51-62 According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Atlas of Fish Habitat, Mountain Creek is identified as stream 258-52-10020-2002 and supports coho, pink, and chum salmon to a point near the center of section 22 (around 5400' upstream of the mouth). Actual extent of habitat, and observed juveniles, is actually 8100' feet upstream ofthe mouth. No juveniles have been found near the intake site. Water in the lower reaches of Mountain Creek is a scarcity during long periods in the summer and fall. Stream gauging and numerous site visits have shown that even during periods ofabove average rainfall the water exiting the canyon goes subsurface before reaching the mouth ofMountain Creek from mid-July through at least the end of October. From January through October, Kodiak received 92" of rain whereas the average for that same period is 62". As the chart below shows, a stream gauge at the mouth showed zero depth of water in the lowest portion of the channel from 7/8/98 through 1 0/17 (day gauge was downloaded) with occasional periods ofwater being presence totaling 15 days (mostly from mid to the end of July). Based on rainfall and stream gauging information and runoff analysis it is likely that the lower reaches of Mountain Creek remain dry throughout the winter and early spring. April 22, 1999 Page 40 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 Summer 1998 Old Harbor Project Stream Flows Mouth of Mountain Creek 300 250 -.200 J!! CJ...... 150~ .2 u. 100 50 0 6/6 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 - !. A' \ fI"\JAI\ \ ..-. ~ II \. I ,,', , '" 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 Date The portion of the creek that is below the canyon is very wide in places and has extremely large floods on almost a yearly basis. Even when dry, a rainfall can occur that will cause flows to rapidly rise to near flood proportion but then immediately return to a dry condition. Peak flows that occurred during the June 1998 floods are estimated to be 1000 cfs at the exit of canyon. That flood uprooted many large trees and changed the course of the stream between 4200 and 6600 feet from the mouth. Also, near the mouth, the creek overflowed the main channel and dumped large quantities of gravel over a wide area to the north and south of the mouth. Stream cross sections shown in Figure A-2 show how Mountain Creek is very wide and is subjected to extreme floods. Mountain Creek stream channel joins Barling Bay Creek (Also known as Barling Creek) near it's confluence with the tide water. Depending on where the edge of the bay is measured to, tide level, and the current course of Mountain Creek, the mouth empties anywhere from 0 to 3000 feet upstream of the mouth of Barling Bay Creek. Currently, Mountain Creek is emptying into Barling Bay Creek right around the extents of high tide. Barling Bay Creek has never been observed to dry up. The following table shows the number of fish observed in Barling Bay Creek. April 22, 1999 Page 41 Draft Environmenta1 Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Table 6 -Adult Salmon in Barling Bay Creek Date Method Species Number 8/9/96 Helicopter Pinks 10,000 9/3/96 Foot Pinks 1,000 9/23/96 Foot Pinks 200 9/23/96 Foot Coho 80 The following conclusions about the existing environment are drawn. • The only potential salmon habitat is below the canyon (8100' above the mouth). The presence of fish beyond 8100' feet from the mouth in the canyon is very unlikely given the steep side slopes and overall steep stream gradient. Fish are not at the intake site. • Small concentrations of juvenile salmon have been present in pools in Mountain Creek. During every visit these juveniles were only sighted in the region that is 6000' through 8100' upstream of the mouth. This region has had water in it during every site visit. This has been true even when water was present down to the mouth. • Spawners in any portion of Mountain Creek are rare. Not one adult salmon, nor evidence of adult salmon, has been seen in Mountain Creek during 2 years of observation. The presence ofjuveniles in Mountain Creek is attributed to migrants from the prolific Barling Bay Creek salmon population. • Mountain Creek is usually dry at the mouth from mid July to at least late in the fall. Also, it is subjected to large floods with associated bank erosion, channel changes and diversions, and large amounts of gravel deposition. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Fish surveys have found that Barling Bay Creek is a significant spawning stream for adult salmon. Mountain Creek empties into Barling Bay Creek right near the mouth of Barling Bay Creek. In fact, when the tide is high, the extents of the bay reach the mouth of Mountain Creek. While the removal of 13 cfs of water from Mountain will result in a loss of water for recharging of the water table that affects Barling Bay Creek, this 13 cfs is only a minor portion of the water that contributes to Barling Bay Creek. Removing all of the water from the east fork basin of Mountain Creek would reduce the water contributing to the mouth of Barling Bay Creek by 7.5% (basin area of the east fork of Mountain Creek divided by the total basin areas of Mountain and Barling Bay creeks). This doesn't take into consideration that a significant portion of the water in the east fork, due to its high elevation, is in the form of snow and melts rapidly in the spring time so that most of that snow melt water gets past the intake because the flow rate is greater than 13.2 cfs. It is concluded the diversion of 13.2 cfs out of Mountain Creek will not have a measurable impact on the Barling Bay Creek fishery. One of the main reasons is that the confluence of the Mountain April 22, 1999 Page 42 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 and Barling Bay Creeks is below the reach in Barling Bay Creek that is utilized by salmon for rearing. It is also concluded that Mountain Creek contains a marginal fishery habitat. Mountain Creek provides some rearing habitat for juvenile salmon in a 2100' stretch of the creek 6000' upstream from the mouth. It is also concluded that Mountain Creek doesn't contribute measurably to fisheries production in Barling Bay Creek and to the ecosystem as a whole. Agency Recommendations Both USDOI and NMFS commented that the limited fishery studies do not warrant declaring that Mountain Creek does not support a fishery. USDOI suggested stating that Mountain Creek appears to provide some rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon and not broadly categorize it as a marginal fishery habitat. USDOI also requested discussing the Mountain Creek's worth in terms of all life stages for fish since it is clear that there are juveniles present. USDOI also requested s~arizing the numbers offish found during the surveys and a description of the fish harvest in area 258-52 in tables in the EA. Both USDOI and NMFS commented that statements regarding removal of water from Mountain Creek not having an impact on Barling Creek are erroneous since, even though the water may be subsurface, it still contributes to the estuary, altering salinity and perhaps contributing to intergravel flows and intertidal spawning. With regard to this issue, the Draft Environmental Assessment has been revised to state that the removal of water from Mountain Creek will not have a measurable impact on Barling Creek. NMFS also suggested that statements regarding the lack of a fishery in Mountain Creek be revised to state that Mountain Creek contains a marginal fishery habitat and doesn't contribute significantly to fisheries production. This form has been used as opposed to, and conflicting with, USDOI's request that the creek not be broadly categorized as a marginal fishery habitat. Lagoon Creek Fisbery Affected Environment According to the Alaska Department ofFish and Game Atlas ofFish Habitat, Lagoon Creek (also know as Unnamed Creek and Village Creek) is identified as stream 258-52-1 00 15 (the tributary with the lakes is 258-52-10015-2004) and supports coho, chum, and pink salmon, and dolly varden to a point near the northwest comer of section 18 (11,560' upstream ofthe mouth). Actual observations reveal that the potential salmon habitat and locations that juveniles have been found extends from the Salt Lagoon to about 50' upstream of the powerhouse (about 8,400' upstream from the mouth). Adult salmon have only been found in the reaches below the spring fed tributary (lower 4800' ofthe creek) because during all of the observed spawning runs the main stem of Lagoon Creek was dry from the powerhouse to the spring water tributary. The number of spawning adult salmon observed in the past two years is shown in the following table. Apri122, 1999 Page 43 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Table 7 -Adult Salmon in Lagoon Creek Date Method Species Number 8/9/96 helicopter chum 80 9/3/96 foot chum 30 9/23/96 foot chum 18 9/23/96 foot pink 20 9/23/96 foot coho 0 8114198 foot pink 0 8/14/98 foot chum 2 10/6/98 foot chum 2 10/6/98 foot pink 30 High concentrations ofjuveniles have been sited through this entire area except in the section that runs dry (from the powerhouse to 4800' upstream of the mouth - a section about 4200' long). The following table shows the results of a minnow trap that was set for 4 hours near the powerhouse site on August 9 1996. These juveniles were slightly larger than the one's found in Mountain Creek. Table 8 -Juvenile Salmon in Lagoon Creek number species size (mm) 26 Dolly Varden 78-138 9 Coho Salmon 40-90 1 Slimy Sculpin 100-102 In comparison with Mountain Creek, Lagoon Creek is narrower, has less flow variability, and has a slightly better habitat for salmon. The June 1998 floods were substantial and did cause some bank erosion, uprooting of trees, and some channel changes (totaling about 1350 ft in length) but these changes were of a much smaller scale than the changes that took place at Mountain Creek. Channel changes occurred from 2100' to 2400', from 6000' to 6600', and from 7200' to 7650' downstream from the powerhouse. Peak flows at the powerhouse during that flood are estimated to be about 100 cfs. At 4200' below the powerhouse a spring fed stream joins Lagoon Creek. This is a significant point in the stream because the characteristics of the creek change substantially. From this point on Lagoon Creek is significantly different. This tributary has never been observed to dry up. It appears that the tributary is fed by underground springs in the lake at the headwaters of the tributary. The tributary flows outofthe lake for 3800' overland before joining Lagoon Creek. An existing four wheeler trail that appears to be used quite frequently crosses Lagoon Creek twice at this confluence. F our wheelers cross just below the confluence and drive either on the bank or in the stream for about 300' before crossing again just above the confluence. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations The impacts to the Lagoon Creek fishery will be: April 22, 1999 Page 44 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 • The addition of up to 13 cfs to the creek. • Impacts due to differences in the water quality between Lagoon and Mountain creeks. • Stream bank disturbance due to installation of the tailraces and bridges. • Stream crossings by heavy equipment during construction. The addition of 13 cfs to Lagoon Creek essentially doubles the estimated average streamflow of 13.4 cfs at the powerhouse. A stream gauge at the powerhouse on 6/15/98 measured a flow of 13 cfs, width of 17.5', and a maximum depth of 0.8'. On 5115/98, the measured flow was 25.5 cfs, width of 22', and maximum depth of 1.1'. Calculation of the wetted perimeter shows that when the streamflow at this section increase from 13 to 25.5 cfs, the wetted perimeter increased from 18.2 to 22.4 (23 %). Therefore, doubling the average flow in the stream will not double the potential salmon habitat based on the stream cross section at the powerhouse. The most significant effect, however, will be the addition of 13 cfs when the creek normally runs dry in the mid section. However, it is also possible that the water being added will also go subsurface. Because the flow is constantly 13 cfs, whereas the natural flow is diminishing, it may take a significant distance for it all to go subsurface if at all. Post construction monitoring will observe how far this additional 13 cfs runs before going subsurface during the dry, later parts of summer. The extra water should not cause significant erosion to occur. Most of the erosion that occurs in Lagoon Creek is during flood events where there is -10 times more water in the creek at the powerhouse. Based on stream gauging, the estimated peak flows that occurred in the spring of 1998 are around 100 cfs. To verify this, calculations performed using Manning's formula were done. 1.49xR2/3xS1l2 Manning'S Formula: v = ------ n The average velocity, v, is mUltiplied by the area to determine the flow. Back calculating using two gaugings at the powerhouse determined the values S and n. There was less than 10% difference between the two results. Using the values for n and S and sections 900, 1200, 1500, and 1800 from the stream survey (see figure A-I ,appendix A), calculated maximum flows averaged 190 cfs. This is reasonably close to the maximum flows estimated from stream gauging given that these flows are nearly an order of magnitude larger than any directly measured flows. Using section 900 as a representative section, and additional 13 cfs was added to the calculated maximum flow of 177 cfs at that section. Then using the Manning equation a new R was solved. The results show that for an additional 13 cfs, the stream will increase in depth 0.11' (1.3") and will increase in average velocity from 4.2 to 4.3 feet per second (an increase in velocity of only 2%). Calculating the increase in the size of the particle transported by this increase in average velocity would show very little change. To point this out, the bed shear stress, which is directly related to the bed load, increases by 3% when the average velocity increases 2%. This would indicate a 3% April 22, 1999 Page 45 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 increase in bed load. Bed load formula's are suited for order of magnitude type of calculations, not small changes. Based on this analysis it is concluded that there will be little additional erosion during floods. This conclusion can also be extrapolated to lower flows. There is considerable erosion taking place near the peak flows as evidenced by the post flood changes. At low flows, there is almost no erosion taking place since the stream is armored. At some point however, the stream begins to erode the armoring. It is certainly not at 26 cfs (the amount of water that would be present using the average flow in Lagoon Creek plus the additional 13 cfs from the hydro plant) because a stream gauging was done at the powerhouse when the flow was 25 cfs and visual inspection did not reveal a noticeable mobile bed load. When erosion does begin, the additional 13 cfs will not be such a large contributor to the stream flow velocity as evidenced by the above calculations so the amount of increased erosion will also be small. It needs to also be noted that the stated average flow of Lagoon Creek of 13.4 cfs is at the powerhouse. There is a significant amount of additional flow added as the stream flows towards the Salt Lagoon. A spring fed stream feeds Lagoon Creek that, during all the field trips in the past three years, had as much or more water flowing in it than did Lagoon Creek at the junction (based on visual observation). This means that the affects ofthe additional 13 cfs will be less pronounced further downstream from the powerhouse. The additional flow will have a noticeable affect on sedimentation near the powerhouse at low flows. When the stream flow slows down, suspended sediments begin to drop and collect in pools and other areas of the stream with low velocity. Because this sedimentation increases as the flow decreases, the addition of 13 cfs will have a significant impact. This will actually be an advantage for the incubation period ofthe Lagoon fishery because it means that sediments will not settle out and cover eggs as readily -at least in the reaches of the stream just below the powerhouse. The overall result of adding 13 cfs will be a more stable channel. Noticeable impacts will be less sedimentation and less low flow variability downstream of the powerhouse. These effects will diminish the further away from the powerhouse and should almost be undetectable once Lagoon Creek joins with the spring water tributary. Erosion and sedimentation can also be caused directly by construction activities. Stream bank disturbance and crossing ofthe stream can affect the fishery by causing sand, sediments, and gravel to be introduced into the stream. This material will settle out thus covering any existing salmon eggs that may be present. Also, high amounts ofsuspended solids could kill juvenile salmon. Prevention of buildup of these sediments in Lagoon Creek is discussed in the Geology and Soil section. The water coming out ofthe tailrace has two significant differences in quality with the existing water in Lagoon creek. These are dissolved oxygen levels near saturation levels and a lower temperature (up to 10° F cooler). State of Alaska water quality regulations for the growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife (18 AAC 70.020) require dissolved oxygen levels to be at least 7 mg/l. The April 22, 1999 Page 46 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 1 ] 690·000 maximum level permitted is 110% of the saturation value (which is about 12 mg/l at 43 0 F). The DO measured at the intake site was 6.8 mg/I. Because the turbine will be increasing the DO by about 2-3 mg/l the discharge water into Lagoon Creek will be above the minimum required by the regulations for the support of aquatic life. The water exiting the tailrace will not have DO levels greater than the maximum allowed by the regulations either. The increased levels of dissolved oxygen should not impact adult salmon to any degree. The excess oxygen will have dropped out during the time it takes to get to the confluence (the assumed upper limit of adult salmon in Lagoon Creek). Also, mixing with the tributary will dilute the oxygen content even further. Incubating salmon should not be affected either because they, like the adult salmon, are not presumed to be in the main stem of Lagoon Creek above the confluence with the spring water tributary. Juvenile salmon, however, may be attracted to the oxygen rich waters during times of low flows in Lagoon Creek. This attraction should not cause any harm to the juveniles. They may try to swim up the tailrace but will not be able to reach the turbine because the water entering the tailrace will be very turbulent and substantially entrained with air bubbles. State of Alaska water quality regulations for the growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife (18 AAC 70.020) require that the temperature of water discharged is no higher than 59 0 F for spawning and rearing waters and 55 0 F for incubation and fry waters. A minimum temperature is not specified. The temperature level of the water being discharged into Lagoon Creek is within regulatory requirements. The water will gradually warm up as it flows downstream. The amount the water will warm up depends on the amount of sunlight, stream section characteristics, air temperature and humidity, riparian cover, and ground temperature and substrate type. Once the water encounters the spring water confluence, mixing will further dilute the temperature difference. And finally, the Salt Lagoon, because it is so large and tidally influenced, will be the final point at which the temperature difference will no longer be significant. The temperature difference should be most pronounced in the late (when the measurements were taken) and they should be nearly the same in the spring time (both just above 32 0 F). Studies indicate that temperatures below 50 0 F will slow growth ofjuveniles and incubating salmon. The lower temperature water exiting the tailrace will likely slow the growth ofjuvenile salmon if they occupy the area below the powerhouse. The incubation period will also be slowed down due to the lower temperatures. This means that the salmon will complete the incubation process later in the spring. This may increase the opportunity for predators to feed on the juveniles. It may also increase their survivability once they reach the ocean due to an increase in the available food supply. It is difficult to quantify the net effects. It is also difficult to ascertain when the temperature of the water will rise to the same levels currently found in Lagoon Creek. However, the temperature of Lagoon Creek will warm up after the confluence with the spring water tributary. The total amount April 22, 1999 Page 47 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 1 ] 690-000 that the water will warm up will depend on the temperature and quantity of water in the confluence. The primary area that will experience lowered temperatures and dissolved gases will be in the vicinity ofthe powerhouse. Juvenile salmon have been found above the powerhouse site and below the spring water confluence. There lack of presence between the powerhouse and the spring water confluence is due to water drying in this area. No adult salmon have been found in this section either. Because the most noticeable impacts from temperature and dissolved gases occur where salmon appear to be scarce at best there should be little or no impact on the fishery. Future field investigations and monitoring plans will be able to verify impacts, if any, of the temperature and dissolved gas differences. By allowing four wheeler access on the trail from the water treatment building to the powerhouse crossing of Lagoon Creek at the confluence with the tributary will be stopped. Locals currently use the four wheeler trail to get to lakes and Big Creek. The access trail to the powerhouse will be a much faster route so there won't be a need to use the existing trail. This will cut down on the deposition ofmud and sediments washing offthe ATV's and into the stream. Also, the destruction of stream banks will be stopped. As far as the impact to the fishery, it will be positive but small enough that it will not likely be noticeable. In order to prevent adult salmon from getting into the tailrace and possibly getting killed if they jumped into the turbine, a tailrace barrier will be installed. This will consist of a stainless steel screen with 1.5" maximum openings just before the end of the tailrace culvert or channel. The screen will be removable so that it can be cleaned. The tailrace will have large rocks at the end of it to dissipate energy and slow the velocity down. Maximum tailrace velocities will be about 2 feet per second. Other than the erosion control measures outlined in the Geology and Soil section, instituting a monitoring plan, and the construction ofa tailrace screen, the applicant does not propose any specific mitigation measures for fishery impacts to Lagoon Creek. It is concluded that Lagoon Creek, as a result from receiving up to 13 cfs from Mountain Creek, will probably make the mid-section ofLagoon Creek a better habitat for salmon. There will be increased water available that may enable spawners to get into that reach of the creek. There will also be less sedimentation in this section. It is also concluded that there will be little noticeable impact to the fishery in the remainder of the creek. Agency comments. USDOI recommends that a tailrace barrier be installed and that the DEA discuss the what type of fish will be stopped by the barrier and whether tailrace velocities will prevent fish from migrating upstream past the tailrace. NMFS also requested information on the tailrace size, velocities, and potential for erosion and scouring. April 22, 1999 Page 48 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 USDOI requested analysis of water quality issues with respect to the Lagoon Creek fishery. Specifically, they requested an analysis of how changes in temperature and dissolved gases would impact the fishery. USDOI and NMFS requested an analysis of how the extra water in Lagoon Creek will impact erosion and the amount of usable spawning habitat. Both USDOI and NMFS questioned statements in the PDEA regarding the number and potential of spawners that would be drawn into the upper, dry section of Lagoon Creek as a result ofthe Project. Project Operation Affected Environment Project Operation, as a load following plant, will be such that flow fluctuations will occur throughout the day due to varying demand in electricity. Such variability has the potential to affect the Lagoon Creek fishery. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations The town requires electricity in various quantities throughout the course ofthe day. The hydro plant, if it were load following, would adjust the flow of water through the plant based on these load variations. Such variations in the flow of water coming out of the plant may be detrimental to spawning fish. A spawner may swim up the mid-section of Lagoon Creek in the afternoon, lay eggs in an area that has water, then have those eggs perish later in the evening and at night because that section of the creek went dry due to low demand for electricity. AVEC proposes to operate the plant so that all of the water available at the intake up to 13 cfs will be diverted to the powerhouse. At the powerhouse, whatever water that is needed to meet the electrical demands will run through the turbine while any leftover will be discharged through a bypass system in the powerhouse. This will completely eliminate daily flow fluctuations due to fluctuations in the electrical demand. There will be some unavoidable disruptions of flow however. This can happen when there is a loss of water at the intake due to problems with clogging or the flush system. Another possible disruption would be replacement of an air relief valve, gauge, or other repair that requires draining or stopping the flow in the penstock. Such shutdowns will not occur very often. The operator ofthe power plant will try to limit shutdowns as much as possible because it would mean that the diesel generators would need to provide power. Preventative maintenance will be scheduled for times where the least effects will occur to fisheries in Lagoon Creek. Agency Comments NMFS requests that AVEC meet all timing restrictions for preventive or routine maintenance and construction activities. April 22, 1999 Page 49 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Monitoring Plans Affected Environment A monitoring plan is needed when the effect of an action is not known. The issue is whether the assessment of the impacts, both qualitative and quantitative, are accurate. Many impacts to Lagoon Creek have been discussed but it is not known for certain what the impacts will be. It is expected that the only means of accurately assessing the extent of the enhancement is to perform monitoring of conditions before and after the Project is constructed. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Monitoring of the Mountain Creek fishery and the impacts due to removal of 13 cfs from that drainage do not appear warranted given the data gathered. There are a few juveniles utilizing the upper reaches of Mountain Creek. They are found in the small portion of the creek that is between the exit of the canyon and the upper limit of complete subsurface flow. Removing 13 cfs from the basin during the year should not change noticeably the upper most reach of completely subsurface flow in Mountain Creek. F or the juveniles to get there in the first place implies that there is water down to the mouth where they can migrate from Barling Bay Creek. When there is that much water flowing in Mountain Creek 13 cfs is just a fraction of the total flow. It is expected that there won't be any sign of spawners in Mountain Creek regardless of whether the Project is constructed unless there are unusually high amounts ofrainfall and runoff throughout the entire summer and fall. Based on these expectations a monitoring plan in Mountain Creek would be of little value. Impacts to Lagoon Creek are potentially much more significant than those in Mountain Creek because Lagoon Creek has been known and observed to have a significant fishery. Impacts that should be monitored include the temperature, erosion, and fishery affects. A monitoring plan should be developed that can evaluate the extent of impacts and the interrelationships between the impacts. Stream depth and temperature recorders can be used to monitor temperatures and flows. Photographs and measurements at various sections over time can document erosion and channel changes. Fish surveys can during various stages ofthe life cycles of all species will reveal fishery response to the changes that occur because of the Project. A VEC proposes to develop a monitoring plan that will incorporate the above mentioned methods for documenting changes to Lagoon Creek. The monitoring plan will include procedures for implementing the surveys and will outline steps that will be taken in the event that unexpected impacts occur. Agency Comments USDOI states that monitoring ofimpacts to Mountain Creek and Barling Creek may be appropriate. USDOI also states that a thorough monitoring plan be considered in the final EA that would insure that the existing Lagoon Creek is not negatively impacted. April 22, 1999 Page 50 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 NMFS requests that a detailed monitoring plan be developed that documents changes in surface flow through the dry section during spawning and incubation periods for five years, verify increased fish production through spawning surveys for five years for all species of salmon with a separate tabulation ofnumbers in the dry section, document changes in stream morphology and bank stability be redoing cross sections during years three to five, and operating a stream gauge in Lagoon Creek for a minimum of five years during Project operation. NMFS also requests a contingency mitigation plan that would identify negative impacts and outline AVEC's responsibility for mitigating them. Terrestrial Resource Issues Wetlands. Affected Environment Wetlands in the Project area are very small and widely scattered. There are often small depressions and valleys that fill with water and peat creating wetlands. the wetlands consist of moss at or just above the level ofwater in the depression with occasional pools. Below the moss is peat to the depth of solid rock. Wetlands in the low-lying areas (the portion from the powerhouse to the water treatment building) are generally mostly grass and peat overlying soil and graveL In some locations they consist of active springs that are emerging from the end of the talus and running into Lagoon Creek. Wetlands and stream crossings along the Project route are at the station locations shown in the following table. These locations are taken from the alignment shown in Figures F-2 through F-7 in Exhibit F. April 22, 1999 Page 51 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 Table 9 -Wetlands Item Station Elev Description wetland 1750-2250 795 A wetland with alpine like plants. Moss and lichen clumps with a spring stream ~ running through it. stream 3350 620 A stream that has a steady flow year round. Only minor fluctuations noticed in all I visits and never observed dry. Estimated average flow is 1 cfs stream 4150 520 A small runoff stream channel. Does not have a baseflow. wetland 5325-5650 350 Wetland with moss, grass, and alders. Spring fed with one continuous stream running through one end of it. stream 5650 350 Continuously running stream. Never observed dry during site visits. wetland 6000-6375 370 Wetland with grasses and moss and peat. Has some deep, open pools. Never observed dry. stream 6625 330 Storm runoff stream at bottom of big gully. Never observed having water. wetland 6950-7250 325 Wetland with mosses, grasses, and alders. Spring fed, with open, deep, spring pools. Never observed dry. stream 7350 330 Storm runoff stream that has never been observed with running water. stream 7800 315 Storm runoff stream that has never been observed with running water. stream 8100 310 Storm runoff stream with a very small baseflow stream 8750 255 Storm runoff stream that has never been observed with running water. stream 9275 150 Storm runoff stream that has never been observed with running water. wetland 11400-11750 60 Spring fed wetland with grasses and alders. Several spring rivulets running through it. Never observed dry. Wetlands are typically broadly scattered and ofsmall size throughout the Project area. The total area of wetlands affected by the Project is 1.27 acres. The value and function ofthe wetlands is therefore limited on an individual basis. All of the wetlands that the Project affects do not have any apparent special significance or substantial role in vegetation, mammals, and water quality issues. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations The Project has been located to minimize impacts to wetlands. The Project will impact approximately 1.274 acres of wetlands. The disturbance will consist of overlaying a gravel trail along the access route and installation of the pipeline and a four wheeler trail from the intake to the powerhouse. The four wheeler trail, where it crosses wetlands, will be all weather wood timbers laid perpendicular to the trail with all weather wood planking as a driving surface. The access trail will have low water crossings that will allow run off water to run over the trail. Large rock will be used at these crossings to prevent the trail from washing out. Where continuously flowing streams occur, small bridges and/or culverts will be installed so that the water flows under the trail. Also, the bridge, powerhouse, and access road will be located high enough to be outside of the flood plain of Lagoon Creek. The four wheeler trail over the wetlands will not contribute to ponding or be susceptible to washing out because it will be supported above the wetland using timbers. The timbers will be in the wetland but will not impede flow because they are not continuous and are spaced far enough apart to allow April 22, 1999 Page 52 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 water to move around them. Refer to the Geology and Soil Resource section for information on other wetland preserving measures. Agency Comments USDOI commented that the Project should avoid wetlands wherever possible. Also, USDOI was concerned about the potential for damage to vegetation and Project features located in the flood plain of Lagoon Creek. NMFS requested that the EA include the wetlands impacted. Vegetation Disturbance. Affected Environment The Project intake is located in a sub-alpine environment dominated by an intermixed willow/alder habitat and grass/moss/lichen environment. Two thousand feet (along the pipeline) below the intake the habitat changes to open fields of sedges and grasses interspersed with dense alder thickets. Along the access route from the powerhouse to the water treatment building the habitat consists of cottonwoods and Kenai birch with an understory of willow and alder thickets and some open grass fields. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Proj ect construction would result in the loss or disturbance of 15.76 acres of vegetation. This is based on a 30' wide construction easement along the penstock and the access trail. 4.53 acres of that is for the temporary access which is also bases on a 30' wide corridor. The disturbance along the penstock will be due to a backhoe digging a trench, moving pipe around, and driving four wheelers around the backhoe and pipe sections. Along the access trail the disturbance will be due to the initial clearing, the burial of a water line, phone line, and power lines using a backhoe, grading using a dozer, and the placement of backfill along the trail bed. For the construction access zones, disturbance will be due to moving the backhoe around obstacles twice one trip up and once down. Also, they may be used on a daily basis during construction for transporting tools, materials, and personnel via four-wheelers. While the area of calculated disturbance is based on a full width of 30' many locations will have disturbance that is less than that full width. For the most part, the backhoe will only mat down the existing vegetation. The vegetation should have no problem recovering because the soil and root systems will still be intact. Only the where actual digging is done will the vegetation be permanently removed. All disturbed areas will be re-seeded. However, only grasses will be able to be planted. Once permanently disturbed by digging, the alders and willows will not return in those areas for many years. Wetlands that are disturbed will also take many years to recover. A VEC proposes to revegetate the disturbed grass areas. The grass and alder areas will be re-seeded using a mixture of 600/0 Bering Hare grass, 30% Arctic Red Fescue, and 100/0 annual rye. This mixture will be applied at 1.5 pounds per 1000 square feet. Fertilizer will be added also to promote April 22, 1999 Page 53 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 growth. A 20-20-10 formula will be applied at 475 pounds per acre2• Wetland areas will be left alone to revegetate naturally. To minimize erosion which might delay revegetation, AVEC will prepare and implement a soil erosion control plan that includes covering as much exposed pipeline as possible with soil and installing wooden erosion control blocks along steep slopes (refer to soil section for more detailed discussions). Agency Comments NMFS recommends that the following measures be implemented to minimize or mitigate vegetation disturbance and loss: A detailed monitoring plan be provided that would include short and long term monitoring definitions ofsuccess (regarding natural revegetati on), plan ofaction ifrevegetation does not occur in two years including planting densities, native plant species used, and other erosion control measures that may be needed. USDOI requests discussion of the long term impacts of vegetation disturbance and measures taken to stabilize soil in disturbed areas. Habitat impacts Affected Environment A diverse array ofwildlife occupy the habitats surrounding the project. Common mammals include Kodiak brown bear, Sitka black-tailed dear, mountain goat, and others. Surveys for brown bear, black-tailed dear, and mountain goats have not been conducted. However, brown bear densities in the Old Harbor project area are expected to be similar to those found at Shearwater Peninsula and Kiliuda Bay areas of Kodiak Island (270 bears/1 000 km2 ; Barnes and Smith 1997), located about 14 miles from the Project. Brown bears are known to den in the project area and prevalently use similar habitats for denning on the southwest side of Kodiak Island (Van Daee et al. 1990). Brown bears also feed on alpine and subalpine vegetation within the proposed construction zone and fish in Lagoon Creek during the autumn silver salmon run (R. Holt, personal communication). Habitats along the pipeline are also important summer habitat for black-tailed deer females and fawns and are used by both sexes in the winter. Mountain goats are primarily found on the high peaks above the project, but traverse the project area when traveling between peaks. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Project construction would physically disturb an estimated 15.76 acres of native soils, vegetation, and habitat used by wildlife. Post construction impacts will be much less because the pipeline will be almost entirely buried and vegetation will have been re-established over it. Because ofthe small area affected, the remoteness of the area, and abundance of undisturbed similar habitat within the surrounding refuge, habitat impacts are considered to be minimal. A VEC does not propose any mitigative measures beyond those described above to minimize vegetation losses. 2Recommended by stony Wright of the Alaska Plant Materials Center. April 22, 1999 Page 54 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 In addition to direct habitat loss, operation of the project may affect salmon numbers in Lagoon Creek and Mountain Creek. Salmon are important food sources for many wildlife species, including brown bear and bald eagles; consequently, any diminution in salmon numbers could adversely affect these species. Barling Creek is a significant salmon fishery that is heavily used by foraging bears and eagles. Mountain Creek, a tributary to Barling Creek, is a marginal salmon fishery because ofpoor habitat, and consequently, poor foraging habitat for brown bears and eagles. Reductions in flow to Mountain Creek are not expected to reduce salmon numbers, therefore, project operation should not affect bear and eagle foraging habitat in Mountain and Barling Creeks. Conversely, Lagoon Creek and several lateral streams feeding it are good salmon fisheries. Bears are frequently observed in this area. The addition of 13 cfs into the mid-section of Lagoon Creek from Mountain Creek water will likely improve salmon spawning habitat and possibly returning salmon numbers (see aquatic resources section for more details). This would improve foraging habitat for brown bears. Because of the dense canopy cover, Lagoon Creek does not represent good eagle foraging habitat, but foraging in the lagoon area and the adjoinil1g bay also are expected to improve. Mammal Disturbance. Affected Environment As stated in the report on mammals in the Project area (Appendix B) there is a relatively high density of bears in the Project area. The Project area is also utilized by Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goats, red foxes, land otters, beavers, weasels, snowshoe hares, tundra voles, and little brown bats. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Disturbances to wildlife would likely result from two sources: increased localized noise from helicopter (used to transport construction materials to the site) and machinery use during construction and increased subsistence hunting and recreation (all-terrain vehicle use) after construction as a result of additional/improved access afforded by the project access trail and 4 wheeler trail. Construction noise and associated human activity will be short-term (8 months). Brown bears, black-tailed deer and other wildlife sensitive to such disturbances are likely to be displaced from the area adjoining the pipeline and Lagoon Creek. Disturbance of mountain goats should be minimal because oftheir transient use ofthe project construction area; consequently, this species is not likely to be significantly affected by project construction or maintenance activities. Given the abundance of other foraging and denning (bear) habitat and the short-term effects of construction, we conclude that adverse effects on wildlife from construction related disturbances will be minimal. Conducting bald eagle surveys and implementing any needed protective measures would help limit impacts to bald eagles. Because there may be some enhancement ofthe Lagoon Creek fishery, there may be some associated increase in the numbers ofmammals that feed on salmon. The most notable would be bears feeding on spawning salmon. April 22, 1999 Page 55 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project. FERC #11690-000 Threatened or Endangered Species. Affected Environment Currently, Kodiak Island does not have any species listed as threatened or endangered (EPA, 1998). The presence of threatened or endangered species has been investigated using known habitat and documented sitings as well as field reconnaissance studies. Field studies found no sign of the presence of threatened or endangered species. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations No threatened and endangered species are expected to occur in the project area (U.S. Department of Interior February 22, 1996 letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). Therefore, no effects on threatened and endangered species are expected. Avian Affected Environment A total of 30 species of birds were observed in habitats adjacent to the project or nearby during site surveys conducted in August 1996 and June 1998. The most common birds observed were the fox sparrow, Wilson's sparrow, and savannah sparrow. Bald eagles, which are not federally threatened in Alaska, as they are in the conterminous United States, nest in the large cottonwoods adjacent to Lagoon Creek near the powerhouse. One active nest and three old nests have been recorded in this area. There approximate locations are shown on sheet F-l in exhibit F. The species of concern in the Project area is the Marbled murrelet, Kittliz's murrelet, and Harlequin duck. Investigations and field reconnaissance have not found any signs of the those species and concluded that the Project was not in the type of habitat utilized by them (Eskelin, 1998). Environmental Impacts and Recommendations The Marbled murrelet, Kittliz's murrelet, and harlequin duck are species of concern to the resource agencies. None of these species were observed during surveys conducted on June 15 and 16, 1998 (Eskelin 1998). Eskelin concluded that elevation and habitat conditions along Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek were not suitable for Kittliz's murrelet, and not typical of nesting habitat of the marbled murrelet. No harlequin ducks were observed in Lagoon Creek or in Sitkalidak Strait, suggesting that their use ofthe area is limited. The last 2000' feet ofLagoon Creek before it empties into the Salt Lagoon flows through small hummocks covered with tall grass scattered over a large area. A bear was observed foraging the edge of the this area as well as a duck nesting right near the edge of the creek in June 1998. Harlequin ducks may be utilizing this area but the Project will not impact this habitat with the exception of adding an additional baseflow of 13 cfs that is slightly cooler to Lagoon Creek. Construction of the Project will disturb birds near the access trails, pipeline route, intake and powerhouse sites, and along the transmission/access trail. This will only be temporary, as the post construction phase of the Project should not cause any disturbance to the birds in the Project area. The penstock construction will eliminate a narrow corridor of habitat but replanting of grass should April 22, 1999 Page 56 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 restore habitat. The access road will be covered with gravel which will be a permanent loss of habitat but it will prevent further disturbance of species because all vehicle traffic will be kept to that road. Further pioneering of trails for that stretch of distance should not occur. Birds will also avoid the open space of the gravel road thus they will be isolated from users of the road. The loss of habitat along the pipeline and access roads will affect all birds that use that area including neotropical migrant birds, ifany, that may be present. The overall loss of habitat will be very small compared with the many thousands of acres of similar habitat all around the Project. Agency Comments USDOI states that the three days of bird surveys are insufficient to conclude that the species of concern are not in the Project area and suggests that a discussion of habitat area that would support these species be included. USDOI concurred that habitat to support Marbled or Kittlitz's murrelets was not present in the Project area. However, they state that habitat which may support nesting harlequin ducks is present on Lagoon Creek and request further analysis of Projects impacts to this species. USDOI also requested a discussion ofimpacts to neotropical migrant birds as a result ofthe Project's pipeline and transmission corridor. Bald Eagles Affected Environment Construction may disturb bald eagles nesting along Lagoon Creek near the project access trail and powerhouse. The active eagles nest is about 380' from the access trail. The closest inactive nest to the powerhouse is about 600' away. The approximate locations of the eagle nests are shown in Figure F -1, Exhibit F. Construction of the Project during the rearing season for the eagles may disturb the eagles enough to cause harm to the young eagles. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations The most disturbing portion of the Project with respect to aggravating eagles will be the placement of material using a helicopter. Helicopter use is expected to occur during an 8 or 9 day period early in the construction phase and then for short durations later on. Helicopter use will not begin before May 15. Before construction begins on the powerhouse or the access trail, a survey will be conducted to locate active eagle nests. If any are found their position will be recorded and shown on a drawing with the Project features. This will be forwarded to the Fish and Wildlife Service with a request for guidelines regarding the construction as it relates to the presence of the Eagle nests. Ifeagle nests are found, they most likely will be on the east side ofLagoon Creek based on past nest locations. Helicopter flights can be directed close to the mountain on the west side of the creek so that there would be about a quarter ofa mile distance between the helicopter path and the eagle nests. April 22, 1999 Page 57 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690·000 Because there may be an enhancement of the Lagoon Creek fishery, eagle presence may be more prolific because of the increased food source. Agency Comments USDOI notes that eagles will readily abandon their nests when disturbed prior to May 15. Disturbance through July 1 may cause nest failure. After that period fledglings are not as susceptible to mininlal disturbance although direct helicopter flights would be excessive. Recreation and Other Land Uses Affected Environment Historically, the project area has been used for occasional subsistence and hiking purposes. All-terrain vehicles (ATV) have used a large part of the project area for many years; use has expanded into new areas during the course of project studies (Figure T -1, Appendix A). Existing access by ATV's is currently through a bog along the east side of Lagoon Creek. This trail is used quite frequently by local residents. The trails are shown on Figure T -1. The existing trail has two instream crossings in Lagoon Creek. Four wheelers cross just below the spring water confluence in Lagoon Creek and drive either on the bank or in the stream for about 300' before crossing again just above the confluence. There is no indication that there has been or currently is snowmobile use occurring in or around the Project area. During the course of this investigation, ATV use expanded into new areas around the Project on at least two occasions by local residents (see Figure T-l). This was reported to be the first time that anyone has accessed this portion of the Project area by A TV S3. Future access by A TV s beyond that shown as the "area of new usage" will probably not occur due to significant terrain and natural impediments. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Hiking and camping in the Project area occurs very infrequently. The Project will enhance the opportunities for hiking through an improved access trail to the intake. This will eliminate the need to hike through dense vegetation. Also, the truss bridge near the intake will be an attraction for residents also. Therefore, it is expected that hiking will increase. However, most local residents prefer A TV s as a means of access. It is not expected that hiking will increase to levels that would have a significant disturbance on the environment. Subsistence hunting by locals may see associated increases linked to increased A TV usage. Keeping A TV's off the access trail to the powerhouse is impractical. Even gates on the bridges would not be effective. A TV users would just look for, and find, other locations to cross Lagoon Creek so they could get on the access trail. Residents will want to use the improved access trail 3Community of Old Harbor, 1998. Discussions with local residents. April 22, 1999 Page 58 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 1 1690-000 because it is far easier and faster to get to their ultimate destination of lakes in the Big Creek basin. By allowing ATV users to freely get on the access trail, new damage to the creek banks and vegetation will be avoided. Also, the Project will the enable the damaged areas in the lowlands to recover and should eliminate all A TV use directly in Lagoon Creek and its banks. To control public access created by the trail to the intake, AVEC could construct a gate just uphill from the powerhouse. Also, an existing trail through a notch would be blocked using boulders or a gate. The existing access is through a notch which is only about 15 feet high that can be easily ascended even when muddy with sufficient speed to have momentum to go right over the hill. Once in the notch the rest of the climb up is not as steep and can be done fairly easily even when muddy. If the notch is blocked, A TV users will be forced to find another way around because the ascent everywhere else near the notch is very steep and long. An A TV user could not get up those hills as easily because no amount of speed is sufficient to reach the crest. Blocking off the existing access up the hill near the powerhouse will not be a popular move with local residents. A VEC would be taking away existing recreational access. Local residents have already expressed an interest to AVEC in having more easily accessible areas to ride A TV s in. Right now, the existing trail up from the powerhouse would be classified as very difficult and only experienced riders successfully negotiate it. Local residents would like to see a trail that is easier to ride so that less experienced users can enjoy the remote, and more scenic, areas of the Project. Another gate could be constructed at the top of a small steep hill 4450' along the pipeline from the powerhouse (station 5230). This location is on the other side an extremely large gully that runs from the north beginning at the divide between the Lagoon Creek basin and Big Creek basin down towards station 5230. Until recently, according to local residents, no one has been able to cross this gully. However, during the surveying done in May of 1998, just after the site visit and helicopter tours of the Project, local residents made a concerted effort to get across this gully and were successful. They used saws to cut alders and found a couple of notches to get up the sides of the gully. The notches are still very difficult to ascend. It would be simple to block off these notches. The Project access trail would be located near the pipeline and could be gated at the top of the hill climbing out of the gully. At this location the hill climbing out of the gully is too steep for an ATV to climb so going to either side ofthe trail will not be an option. Installing the gate and blocking the notches will be a very effective barrier to public access to the areas on the west side of the gully. If the gates prove ineffective and A TV users are using the Project area, then some sort of alternate plan needs to be developed. Monitoring for unauthorized access will be done by AVEC's maintenance personnel. Part of his job duties will be to notify AVEC when there is unauthorized access occurring. The maintenance person will also look for signs of damage to the gate and other physical barriers and look for vegetation that is tracked outside of the existing four wheeler trail. A VEC will then investigate why the gate is not effective and consult with the refuge manager on ways to prevent further access. This may involve improving the gate, adding additional barriers, or even assessing monetary penalties to violators. April 22, 1999 Page 59 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 AVEC proposes constructing one gate at station 5230 and blocking off the notch in and out of the gully at that location. This should eliminate further access in area that has not historically been a recreational use area for the local residents. I t is proposed to allow A TV traffic to utilize the access trail to the powerhouse. This will eliminate instream crossings and prevent further damage to the bog that is currently part of the trail. Agency Comments The USDOI has some potentially confusing wording regarding A TV use. The last paragraph in the General Comments section mentions" appropriate enhancement ofpublic recreational opportunities" and "community interest." Ifthis is limited to uses allowed by the management plan, as is referenced at the beginning of the paragraph, then A TV use is not included in their request for enhancement. This would be in line with their comment on unauthorized ATV use. They state that it is one oftheir most significant concerns. They state that A TV use can allow for increased take of wildlife, is destructive to alpine vegetation, compacts soil, eliminates vegetation, causes rutting and erosion of stream banks, and leaves long term scars on the land which in turn degrades fish and wildlife habitat. They recommend that the final EA discuss in more detail how access to Project lands will be prevented, outline steps needed to monitor compliance with access restrictions, and, in the event that access restrictions are ineffective, what additional measures could be taken to prevent access. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are those effects of the Project that have impacts to other potential projects or uses of the land. For this Project, recreational use is one ofthose effects. While the Project does not incorporate any form of recreational use intentionally in its design, it does, through various aspects of its design, enhance recreational use that shares those same aspects. The Project is currently affected by ATV use with A TV's pioneering trails through the area. Some residents may increase hiking in and around the Project due to curiosity about it's location and features. Once the Project is constructed, the scope ofthe cumulative impacts will be more substantial. There are three different recreational uses that are effected by the Project: • Hiking. • Subsistenceihunting activities. • ATVuse. Currently, hiking and camping in the Project area occurs infrequently. The Project will enhance the opportunities for hiking through an improved access trail to the intake. This will eliminate the need to hike through dense vegetation. Also, the truss bridge near the intake will be an attraction for residents also. Therefore, it is expected that hiking will increase. However, once the residents hike into the area and become familiar with the Project it is expected that hiking will return to pre-Project levels. April 22, 1999 Page 60 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Subsistence and hunting activities are mostly done by residents using boats and looking for animals that are close to the shore. The reason for this is that it is easy to cover a large area looking for animals and hunters only have to haul the carcass a short distance to the boat. This will continue to be the easiest method of hunting after the Project is built. ATV access of the Project area will not afford a hunter access to as large an area as one could cover on a boat. It is unlikely that residents will specifically ride A TV s into the Project area for hunting purposes. Once the Project is constructed, there will be a gravel access trail to the powerhouse and a trail to the intake. This gate is an effective barrier for four-wheelers and motorcylces. While motorcycles are actually capable of climbing steeper trails, they generally can only do so when there is a trail. Vegetation hampers their ability significantly. Also, there are not very many motorcycles in Old Harbor. Snowmobiles are much more capable at climbing trails and accessing remote ~ountry than both four wheelers and motorcycles. Gullies that are impossible to cross on four wheelers can easily be surmounted by snowmobiles in the winter time. Limiting access by snowmobiles would nearly be impossible using gates and other physical means of stopping them. However, snow covers the ground in Old Harbor for a much shorter time than in other parts of Alaska thereby making snowmobiles useless for most of the year. This is why there are few snowmobiles in Old Harbor. Land Ownership Affected Environment The majority ofthe Project is located within the boundaries ofthe Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Part of the lands that the Project would occupy were recently sold by the Old Harbor Native Corporation to the Unites States for inclusion as part ofthe Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, subject to a conservation easement held by the State ofAlaska. The balance ofthe Project is located on land owned by the Old Harbor Native Corporation and the City ofOld Harbor. The Project boundary and the land affected is shown in figures G-1 and G-2 in Exhibit G of the License Application. Past correspondence from the United States Department ofthe Interior (USDOI, 2/22/96) stated that section 12 of T34S (erroneously typed T35S in the letter), R26W was formally proposed for wilderness designation. Discussions with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service revealed that this is not the case. Section 12 has not been formally proposed for wilderness designation. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations AVEC will need to get permission from the land managers of the Refuge to construct this Project. A legal description of the property to be used for the Project is now complete and will be part of an application for rights ofway through the federal lands that must be obtained for this Project. AVEC will also need to get permission from the City ofOld Harbor and the Old Harbor Native Corporation for the use of their lands. In addition to authorization by the Refuge Manager and obtaining a right of way easement from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the parties to the Conservation Easement will have to modify that April 22, 1999 Page 61 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 agreement. This includes the State of Alaska (Exxon Valdez Trustee Council), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Old Harbor Native Corporation. Archaeological Concerns. Affected Environment Kodiak Island is thought to have been inhabited for 7,500 years. Past studies have found an archaeological site (designated as KOD-570) located about 200 meters to the south of the southernmost portion of the Project. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Disturbing archaeological sites during construction will likely cause valuable cultural information contained within that site to be lost forever. An archaeological report was completed for the Project. This report concludes that the Project will not impact known archaeological sites in the Project area. It also states that the likelihood of encountering undiscovered sites along the path ofthe Project is very small. It is concluded that the Project will not have any foreseeable impacts to archaeological/cultural resources. Socioeconomic Affected Environment Fishing provides income to the community. Many of the residents are commercial fishermen, and tourism is an increasing part of the economy. 34 residents hold commercial fishing permits. Most depend to some extent on subsistence activities for food sources, such as salmon, halibut, crab, deer, seal, rabbit, and bear. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations The initial impact of the Project for the people of Old Harbor will be limited to jobs during the construction of the Project. After some time, there may be some additional impacts. Because there will be significant amounts of excess power, individuals, businesses, and public entities will likely be able to use some of this excess power at discounted rates. This would include operation of the freezer plant, building and operating an ice plant, providing electrical energy to the harbor, and heating public buildings. An ice plant would increase the value offish harvested substantially. This would enable local fisherman to make the some amount of money by catching less fish. The overall impact to the socioeconomic structure of Old Harbor will be positive. However, any changes that do occur will happen gradually. The impacts are not expected to cause changes in the social structure but economically the community should see some positive impacts. Impacts of the No Action Alternative Under the no-action alternative the Project would not be constructed and power would continue to be produced solely by diesel generators. None of the changes listed in this analysis will occur. April 22, 1999 Page 62 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 Additionally, the community will not lessen its reliance on fossil fuel burning to meet its power needs. The cost of electricity for the people may also increase dramatically if the State's power subsidy is discontinued in the near future. April 22, 1999 Page 63 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 Developmental Analysis The economic details of the Project have been analyzed in two separate studies. The first, study titled "Old Harbor Hydroelectric Feasibility Study, Final Report" dated 6/29/95, prepared by Polarconsult outlined in detail the Project location, features, potential generation, and economics. The second report was the "Rural Hydroelectric Assessment and Development Study" Phase 1 & 2 reports prepared by Locher Interests LTD. The phase 2 report was completed in January 1998. This report re-analyzed the economics of the Project. There is a significant difference in the price ofthe Project between the two reports. It has generally been concluded that the higher force account price ($2,444,700) contained in the Locher report is a more realistic estimate of the construction cost. Also, to correlate between the two different models, Polarconsult calibrated it's model to the Locher model so that comparisons can be made between previous economic assumptions and current information. This calibration involved using the same inputs as the Locher model and comparing the results. Before calibration the following results were obtained using identical inputs. Table 10 -Economic Model Comparison Non Calibrated Model Comparison, Same Inputs Locher Model PCA Model Net Present Value (NPV) of Diesel Only $ 5,552,313 $ 5,079,531 NPV of Diesel & Hydro $ 4,646,777 $ 4,541,584 Net Benefit $ 905,536 $ 537,947 The results for the hydro and diesel are close but the total cost of the diesel differs significantly because the Polarconsult model does not include capital investments for new diesels. In order to get the same results as the Locher model, Polarconsult added a yearly capital investment cost and adjusted the yearly hydro plus diesel total cost. The following results were obtained using the changes noted. Table 11 -Calibrated Economic Model Comparison Calibrated Comparison, Same Inputs Locher Model PCAModel Total Yearly Hydro Cost $ 71,556 $ 75,500 NPV of Diesel Only $ 5,552,313 $ 5,552,511 NPV of Diesel & Hydro $ 4,646,777 $ 4,646,294 Net Benefit $ 905,536 $ 906,217 April 22, 1999 Page 64 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Using the calibrated model, revised inputs were used which reflect current, or soon to be current, conditions in economics. The results, compared with Locher's modeling, are summarized below. Table 12 -Economic Summary IItem Previous Economics Current Economics Hydro Price $2,444,700 $2,444,700 Hydro Loan Amount $1,444,700 • $1,444,700 Hydro Loan Interest Rate 5.00% 5.00% Hydro Loan Period (years) 30 30 Interest Rate 5.00% 5.00% Inflation Rate 3.00% 3.00% Length Of Analysis (years) 35 35 City Energy Needs (kWh per year) 713,000 664,000 Load Growth 2.00% 2.000/0 Diesel Fuel Cost ($ per gal) 1.27 0.9 Fuel Cost Growth 0.50% 0.00% Diesel Efficiency ($ per kWh) 13.3 13.5 NPV Of Diesel Only $5,552,313 $4,430,906 NPV Of Diesel & Hydro $4,646,777 $3,574,810 Net Benefit $905,537 $856,096 As stated above, the estimated Project cost is $2,444,700. Under the "current economics" scenario the cost is reduced to reflect current grants totaling $1,000,000. Diesel efficiency values used in the Locher report are 13.2 kWh/gal. Current values provided by AVEC are 13 .5 kWh/gal. Diesel fuel costs in the Locher report are $1.271 gal. Current AVEC costs are $1.161 gal. A new tank farm and fuel transfer facility are in the planning stages. This facility, if constructed, will allow fuel barges from Nikiski and other locations to directly deliver fuel to Old Harbor. The result will be that the price of fuel, given current prices, will drop to about $0.90/gal. Although not currently in effect, the lower fuel price may be in effect if this new fuel facility is constructed. It is possible that funding will be received for this facility so the lower fuel cost is used in the "current economics" analysis by Polarconsult. The 1996 energy requirements for Old Harbor were 713, 000 kWh with a 2.1 % load growth occurring from 1992-1996. In 1998 AVEC generated 751,000 kWh. This represents a load growth of about 2.5% since 1996. A continued load growth of20/0 is justified. This is especially true since AVEC is considering providing electrical energy to the harbor where there are about 30 to 50 boats stationed year round. Also, a freezer plant built in the village has never been used. The freezer plant can now be made operational using the excess power available from the hydro. The reason for the drop in load in the current economics scenario is the addition of a water line that will be built in conjunction with this Project. This water line will be connected to the penstock at the powerhouse and to the existing water system at the water treatment plant. Once this separate April 22, 1999 Page 65 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 project is completed and operational the City will obtain drinking water, under pressure, from the Project. This will eliminate the need for the City to pump water through it's filtration system and to the storage tanks since the water from the penstock will have considerably more pressure than is needed to perform these operations. If the Project is constructed, AVEC will lose a large electrical consumer. The "current conditions" analysis by Polarconsult includes the loss of this substantial load which is about 87,000 kWh per year according to AVEC. The Locher economic analysis indicates that the revenue requirements for the first year of operation will need to increase by 1.6%. For an electrical rate of 22 centslkWh this would be equivalent to charging an extra 0.4 cents. In conclusion, the economic gains afforded by the grant money are offset by the decrease in the price of fuel, the improved generation efficiency, and the loss of the City's water supply load. The community may see a slight initial drop in electrical rates using diesel only, as opposed to a possible slight initial increase in rates using the hydro option. This trend will reverse itself in about 12 years with diesel costing more and hydro less. The Project will produce an estimated 3,400,000 kWh annually. Clearly the Project provides much more energy than the community currently needs. Additional revenue from excess energy sales is not taken into account in any of the economic analyses. Revenue from sales of excess electricity, for analyses purposes, is expected to be offset by lower rates. The environmental measures outlined have not been included in the previous cost estimates and economic analysis. The following table summarizes the environmental measures proposed along with their associated costs. Table 13 -Cost of Mitigative Measures Environmental Measure Cost Tailrace Construction $2,300 Erosion Prevention Measures $3,500 Control of Flow Fluctuations $18,000 Monitoring Plan $1,600 Eagle Nest LocationlReporting $1,600 Access Gates $6,000 Total $33,000 Percent Of Project Cost 1.4% As can be seen, the overall impact of the mitigation measures to the cost of the Project is small. Also, none of the measures will have any notable operational costs. It is concluded that the impact to the economics is negligible compared with the uncertainties in assumptions used in the economic analysis. April 22, 1999 Page 66 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternatives Sections4(e) and lO(a)(l) ofthe FPA require the Commission to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. During review of a proposed project, equal consideration is given to the environmental, recreational, fish and wildlife, and other non-developmental values ofthe project, as well as power and developmental values. Accordingly, any license issued shall be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses. April 22, 1999 Page 67 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Under the provisions ofthe FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on the recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement offish and wildlife resources affected by the proj ect. Section 100) of the FP A states that whenever the Commission believes that any fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the requirements ofthe FP A or other applicable law, the commission and the agency shall attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency_ April 22, 1999 Page 68 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 1 1690-000 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA requires the commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. The comprehensive plan covering the Project area is the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Consistency Plan. The Project area is classified in the "minimal management" category. This designation does not allow hydroplants to be constructed. The refuge manager can direct changes to the plan as necessary to allow the construction of the Project. April 22, 1999 Page 69 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 Finding Of No Significant Impact This environmental assessment for A VEe has been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Implementing the enhancement measures described in this environmental assessment would ensure that the environmental effects of the project would be insignificant. Based on this analysis, issuing an original license for the project would not be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. April 22, 1999 Page 70 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 Literature Cited The following list of literature was cited or was used in the preparation of this document. • Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. 1998. Alaska Community Database, http://www.comregaf.state.ak.us/CF BLOCK.cfm. Anchorage, AK. December 1998. • Alaska Department ofCommunity and Regional Affairs. 1996. Old Harbor Stream Gauging Report, Final Report. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs -Division of Energy, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, AK. October, 1996. • Eskelin, Todd. 1998. A Census of Birds Breeding in the Area of a Proposed Hydroelectric Project Near Old Harbor. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK. June 1998. • Fitzhugh, J. Benjamin of the University of Michigan and Steffian, Amy F. of the Alutiiq Museum. 1997. Archaeological Survey for the Old Harbor Small Hydroelectric Project, Old Harbor, Alaska. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK. June 1997. • Kron Associates. 1998. May 14 1998 Scoping Meeting. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK. May 1998. • Locher Interest LTD. 1998. Rural Hydroelectric Assessment and Development Stud: Phase II Report. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs -Division of Energy, Anchorage, AK. March 1998. • MacIntosh, Richard A. 1996. Bird Observations on a 9 August, 1996 Visit to the Proposed Site of a Small Hydroelectric Development Near Old Harbor, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK. September 1996. • Maier, Julie. 1997. Mammals in the Old Harbor Project Area. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Anchorage AK. July 1997 • Polarconsult. 1996. September 3rd, 1996 Gauging. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK. September 1996. • Polarconsult. 1996. August 9th, 1996 Gauging and Water Quality. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK. August 1996. April 22, 1999 Page 71 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 • Polarconsult. 1995. Old harbor Hydroelectric Feasibility Study, Final Report. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK. June 1995. • Pollard, Dwight. 1998. Kodiak Rainfall Data. State Climatologist, Anchorage, AK. November, 1998. • White, Lome -White Fisheries. 1997. Botanical Survey. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK. September 5, 1997 • White, Lome -White Fisheries. 1996. October 8th, 1996 Fishery Report. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK. October 1996. • White, Lome -White Fisheries. 1998. 1998 Fishery Report. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK. November 1998. • White, Lome -White Fisheries. 1996. August 13th, 1996 Fishery Report. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK. August 1996. April 22, 1999 Page 72 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 List of Prepares Earle Ausman -Civil Engineer (AK P.E.), Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. Daniel Hertrich -Civil Engineer (AK P.E., B.S. Civil Engineering), Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. Brent Petrie, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. April 22, 1999 Page 73 Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC #11690-000 APPENDIX A ~ \ ~;\~ \ '''\ \ r~/ 1000 ~ " ',,-0 50 0 ~ ' E3 E3 J:L=======-_ ~ SCA LE IN FEET~ CJ ( ~ \ , -c:-"-_:..:"-~-,,=" ~__ ""'='~~ \ '~) \ '\~\-------. \ '\ \ NOTE THAT E SECTION OF LAGOON ~'\'\ CREEK FROM JION 1 TO 14 lYPICAllY RUNS D ING lOW WATER FLOWS. SPRING WA OM " \ , \ "- "./i'" /. ,,~ ........ THE OTHER TRIBUTARY KEEPS THE :;/f \; \ REST OF THE STREAM FROM DRYING -~/ ,;:;:;;:7 .~~ :~\" OUT. "". l\ ///'// ,~ _' ~JEXISTING ATV TRAILS THIS TRIBUTARY II ,-;7 \ ALWAYS FLOWING EXISTING ACCESS ) /' POWEIRHOUSE (NOT TO-SeALE) __ -, (SPRING WATER) ROAD / --.... / -\ f SALT LAGOON STREAM CROSS"-SECTION / /' \ { l STATIONS -'--'--/ \ } r //~ ./ \ I \ ff 9 rWATER TREATMENT BUILDING LAGOON CREEK J ?u # ~ -----t::\:JbI:iJ ON OF WATER R ~ iEMERGENCE IN EAM CROSS iijSECTION SURVEY 9/3/96 I' ............... " ~ v\ t ~ \ ~ "-~//~',,,-, /----------' '-----'''-'''' '-...../ ~ / ........ "~"-----/ , ~--...~/ ~ '-----------..,/. ---......... ,/' " ~ ............... -/ , ............. ~ DATE : J/5!98] NO , DATE REVISIONS DRAWING PROJECT 14 DESIG"ED ' ___D_H polarconsult alaska, inc. OLD HARBOR PROJECT, NO 11690-000DRAWN : DH ENERGY SYSTEMS • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • ENGINEERING DESIGN LAGOON CREEK CHECKED : ____EA FERC LICENSE APPLICATION BYFISH REACH AND A-1--~ ....... . ............ SCALE : " '500 ' 1503 WEST 33RD AVE, SU ITE 3 10 PHONE (907 J ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.;;:"tl -<;; 'l<;;V CROSS SECTION LOCATIONSFILE: l.IQOELO WG ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 FAX (907) 258-2419 Old Harbor. Alaska or 2 .......... / /r ~ ~ '''-. '" ~, ... ''-..'' ~ 28 ~ / /( / ! ~ ~ ~ (~ ~ ~/ i \/~~I/ / ~___ ) ,J ~~ /' I ) / ./ r0 \ :~\,.. ~ ) ~ \ \ / r ' \\\'----./ // ~/ STREAM GAUGE LOCATION -~ I -----22 24 \\ O\J 18 / 1317 12 16 15 o 500 1000 f------l f------l SCAL E IN FE ET polarconsult alaska, inc. I { 11 ,. ! 10 DRAWING \ I / 9 8 4 5 7 MOUNTAIN CREEK BARLING BAY CREEK PROJECT 14DATE NO . DATE REVISIOl':$0/5/9°1 DE SIGNED ___DH DRAWN : DH ENERGY SYST E MS • nNIRONMENTAL SERVI C ES • ENGINEERING DESIGN CHE CKED _ ___EA , ---............. ".SCALE: 1 ':~' 1503 WEST 33RD AVE . SU ITE 3 10 PHONE (907) <::oo-",,.,,,u riLE : ~OD[LDWG ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503 FAX (907) 258-24 1 9 .J , OLD HARBOR PROJECT, NO 11690-000MOUNTAIN CREEK FERC LICENSE APPLICATION BYFISH REACH AND ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS Old Harbor. Alaska /, I OF 2 A-2 /DU -I ESTIMATED AREA OF CURRE T AND OF CURRENT D PAST ATV USAGE AREA PAST ATV USAG \ SHEET ATV USAGE IN PROJECT AREA ) PROJECTpolarconsult alaska, inc. ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRICENERGY SYSTEMS • DfVIRONMENTAL SIRVICIS • ENGINIERING DESIGN T-1OLD HARBOR PROJECTSCALE. 1"=2000' F'ERC ,1 1 6901~03 WEST 33RD AVE, SUITE 310 PHONE (807) 2118-2420FILE. OLDHHCI-3.DWG OF 1 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 881103 FAX (807) 2118-2419 Old Harbor. AK I 11 " _ _ _m _ .) "'._-:=7 \ ---:::..--' ....C7 ~ c ::::::=:==--~ '" SECTION 1 SCALE: 1"=IO'HORIZ,I"=5'VERTISECTION9 SCALE: 1":= 1 0' HORIZ. 1 "=5' VERTI SECTION 16 SCALE: 1 ":=10' HORIZ, 1 "=5' VERT I SECTION 25 SCALE: 1"=10'HORIZ, 1"=5'VERT ~.. ... 1- I L--J / ~ ----====-----' \-~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ SECTION 2 SCALE: 1 "=10' HORIZ. ]":=5' VERT I SECTION 10 SCALE: 1"=10' HORlZ. 1"=5' VERT I SECTION 17 SCALE: ]"=10' HORIZ, I"=5'VERTISECTION 26 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ, 1"=5' VERT \ \ .. ~ "====::::::::::: ==--~ ~~ SECTION 3 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ. 1"=5' VERTISECTION 11 SCALE: 1"= 1 O' HORIZ. 1 "=5' VERTI SECTION 18 SCALE: 1 "=1 0' HORIZ. 1 ":;5' VERT I SECTION 27 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ, 1"=5' VERT 1 \ ) ~,,-____J ~ ~-j~'--===-===~ ~<::::::::::::? SECTION 4 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ. 1 "=5' VERT I SECTION 12 SCALE: 1"=10' HORlZ. 1"=5' VERTISECTION 19 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ. 1"=5' VERT I SECTION 28 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ, 1"::::5' VERT I SCALE: 1"=10' HORlZ, 1"=5' VERT I SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ, 1"==5' VERT '-.-~ ~~ " . J ~ C3 u L:;j SECTION 5 SCALE: 1 "=10' HORIZ. 1"=5' VERTISECTION 13 SCALE: 1 "=10' HORlZ. ]"=5' VERT I SECTION 20 SECTION 21 SECTION 29 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ, }"=5' VERT ~ .. \ ... -_. j '-<:::::::::7 .,---...... ~ 21 "~ "" 7~ ~ SECTION 6 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ. 1"=5' VERT I SECTION 14 SCA.LE: 1"=10' HORlZ. 1"=5' VERT I SECTION 22 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ, 1"=5' VERT I SECTION 30 SCALE: 1 "=1 0' HORIZ. 1 ":::::;' VERT \ -~ ( ~ /7 ~ ,/ \ - -:;:=:::l-<:::::::: :..;;;<'"~\-~----""..."'V7 V SECTION 7 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ. 1"=5' VERT I SECTION 15 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ. 1"=5' VERT I SECTION 23 SCALE: 1 "= 1 O' HORIZ. 1 "=5' VERT I SECTION 31 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ, 1"=05' VERT t _.. - ,~ -~====~~~- < ::::;;;::: C / i ~ <:::::::::=:::: ~ ~ECTION 8 SECTION 24 SCALE: 1 "=10' HORIZ, 1 "=5' VERT I SECTION 32 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ, 1"=5' VER1 rD.\T(· 9!U/9~ r NO. D.\l£! ~EVISIONS """ DRAWING PROJEC, SrEET DESIGN[O' ___()t<_ I polar consult alaska, inc. ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.CRAVvN lli' ; E:-IERGY SYSTEMS • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • ENGINEERING DESIGN STREAM CROSS SECTIONS CHEC~ED. ----I OLD HARBOR PROJECT X-1LAGOON CREEK SCALE. .IS NJTEO 1503 WEST 33RD AVE. SUITE 310 PHONE (907) 258-2420 FERC PROJECT #11561 fiLE: A!'ICHORAGE. ALASKA 99503 FAX (907) 258-2419 <), .5 .) ..) srCi!0"61 \.--T---'---------------------1 .... J" Old Harbor. AK ~ I ---- ----------- I ~ r ~ 7 ~ c ) SECTION 1 SCALE: 1 "=10' HORlZ. 1 "=5' VERT SECTION 9 SECTION 10 SCALE: 1 "=10' HORIZ, ] "=5' VERT ~ ~~ / ------SCALE: 1 ":::1 0' HORIZ. 1"=5' VERT· SECTION 2 -SCALE: 1 "=10' HORlZ. 1 "=5' VERT SECTION 11 ~ " '--:J~ SECTION 3 SCALE: 1"=10' HORlZ. 1 "=5' VERT SECTION 12 SCALE: 1":;::1 0' HORIZ. 1 "=5' VERT ~ /' 0 ~7 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ. 1"=5' VERT SECTION 4 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ, 1"=5' VERT SECTION 13 -~~ SCALE: 1 "=10' HORIZ. 1 "=5' VERTSECTION 5 SCALE: 1"=10'HORIZ, 1"=5'VERT SECTION 14 )~ ~ C SCALE: 1 "=1 0' HORlZ. 1"=5' VERTSECTION 6 SECTION 15' ~RT 7 -~ ~ ~ -----7 SCALE: 1";;:10' HORlZ. 1"=5' VERTSECTION 7 SCAl.E: 1 "=10' HORIZ, 1"=5' VERT SECTION 15 ~ ~ ---------:7 ~ECTI SCALE: 1"=10'HORIZ, ]"=5'VERT SECTION 16 SCALE: 1"=10' HORlZ. 1"=5' VERT: 9/U/9}DATL NO. I DATE I RE.VlSIONS PROJECT SHEET " DRAWINGpolarconsult alaska, inc.D~SICNED: __OH I I ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. DRAWN OH ENERGY SYSTEMS • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • ENGINEERING DESIGN STREAM CROSS SECTIONS! OLD HARBOR PROJECTCI1EC~ED: __ X-2I MOUNTAIN CREEK FERC PROJECT #11561SC~LE: AS hIOlED i 1503 WEST 33RD AVE. SUITE 310 PHONE (907) 258-2420 IfILE: srCTIOOS ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503 FAX (907) 258-2419 Old Harbor, AK or l ~'-..)'-..1'--' ' ----------~---~~----------~----------------------------------------~--~~---------------------------------------------------------------~ r~-:;:7 ~ :7 , SECTION 17 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ. 1 "=5' VERT I SECTION 26 SCALE: ]"=10' HORIZ. 1 "=5' VERT SECTION 18 SCALE: 1"=1 0' HORIZ. 1 "=5' VERTI SECTION 27 SCALE: ]"=10' HORIZ. 1"=5' VERT ~ / --~~ SECTION 19 SCALE: 1 "=10' HORlZ, ]"=5' VERTI SECTION 28 SCALE: 1 "=10' HORIZ. 1"=5' VERT SECTION :!o SCALE: 1n=IO' HORIZ, 1"=5' VERT 'C .~ SECTION :!2 SCALE: 1"=10' HORIZ, }"=5' VERT ~.- SECTION 23 SCALE: 1It=10' HORIZ. 1"=5' VERT " ------]~ -~~~-~~--~~ .. -~ .~ SECTION 24 SCALE: 1"= I0' HORlZ, 1 "=5' VERT ~.~~ ~ n) SECTION 25 SCALE: 1"=10' HORlZ, 1"=5' VERT ·"DUE . 91 141\\10j NO. DATE "TV:SIONS DRAWI'JG PROJEC7 ShEET DESIGNED: ___01-<_ polarconsult alaska, inc. ALASKA VilLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. DRAWN· 01-< ENERGY SYSTEMS • ENVIRONMENTAL SER\'1CES • ENGINEERING DESIGN STREAM CROSS SECTIONS OLD HARBOR PROJECTCH(C~fD ___ MOUNTAIN CREEK S:::AlE: AS N01£O 1503 WEST 33RD AVE. SUITE 310 PHONE (907) 258-2420 FERC PROJECT #11561 , I, E: seCflONS ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503 FAX (907) 258-2419 Old Harbor. AK Dr J ..) .-.J .-.J X-3 ---- 70 60 50 _40 -~ ~ u:: 30 20 10 o , 4/25 Summer 1998 Old Harbor Project Stream Flows Powerhouse Location I, II III Ii I i ,I"f , iiiI 5/9 5/23 6/6 6/20 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 Date Summer 1998 Old Harbor Project Stream Flows Canyon of Mountain Creek 250 ~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ 200 150 i ~ .2 LL 100 50 o , i i 6/13 6/20 6/27 7/4 7/11 7/18 7/25 8/1 8/8 8/15 8/22 Date Summer 1998 Old Harbor Project Stream Flows Mouth of Mountain Creek 300~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------, 250 200 -en.... CJ-150~ 0u: ----t 1----~100 50 . --~----~--. ~-... o ., 'I 'I 'i'r, A...ppo, I ' ,', I I I I I I • " I ~ I ' ii, I' i} I i 6/6 6/20 714 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 9/26 10/10 10/24 Date Summer 1998 Old Harbor Project Stream Flows Intake Location 80 70 60 50 ~ -40 ~ o u: 30 20 10 o , i I I " ii, ii, I, 6/6 6/13 6/20 6/27 7/4 7/11 7/18 7/25 8/1 8/8 8/15 8/22 8/29 9/5 9/12 9/19 9/26 10/3 10/10 10/17 Date Total Monthly and Average Monthly Rainfall for Kodiak, AK 16 14 12 c 'iii f:t: '0 ." CD .c u c 10 8 6 --1996 -0-1997 - - -1998 --MEAN 4 2 I I /\ ~---r \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1--------\ I \ ----.....-------""\\ I I I o ~,--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Month ID ITask Name FERC rl DEA and License Filed Licensing Decision Duration 200 days I o days I o days I Mon4126199 Mon 4/26/99 Fri 1/28/00 I Fri 1/28/00 @ 1128 283 days Mon 514198 Wed6f2199 " ~DE~N 5 Survey 20 days I Man 5/4/981 Fri 5/29/98 6 30% Design 40 days I Man 1/4/991 Fri 2/26/99 7 Final Design 60 days I Man 3/1/991 Fri 5/21/99 8 Material Take-off 5 days Man 5/24/99 Fri 5/28/99 I 9 Schedule 3 days Man 5/31/99 Wed 6/2/99 I . , ......_.". 10 ACCESS TRAIL Mon 4/10/00 Thu 5I11fOO 11 Stake Man 4/1 0/00 Fri 4/14/00 Fri 4/14/00 Fri 5/5/00 Wed 12115199 Wed 12/15/99 Man 1/31/00 Man 2/7/00 Thu 4/13/00 12 Construct Thu 5/11/00 13 Pipeline Thu 5/4/00 14 Power line Thu 5/l1/00 Mon 8114100 1~~TE~l 16 Bid Tue 1/25/00 17 Award Fri 2/4/00 Ship Fri Fri 6/2/00I4/28/00 , ~19 Spot 14 days Tue 5/16/00 I 20 I Turbine/gen/switch 136 days Man 2/7/00 Man 8/14/00 i ~EQUIPMENT 205 days Mon 6128199 Fri4rTlOO" \1 22 Define 4 days Man 6/28/99 Thu 7/1/99" -/ SJ bid 30 days Fri 7/2/99 Thu 8/12/99 I: 24 award 5 days Man 1/31/00 Fri 2/4/00 II 11 ~ ..;, ~ .• v!: ~25 ship 45 days Man 2/7/00 Fri 4/7/00 ~ _ _ .. _ .-'"J 2~POWERHOUSE SITE 2 days Fri 5/12/00 Man 5/1 5/00" II 27 INTAKE 14 days Thu 514100 Tue 5123/00 ,\~j Diversion 7 days Thu 5/4/00 Fri 5/12/0028~ III 29 Screen Box 7 days Man 5/15/00 Tue 5/23/00 III 83 days Wed 8123100Mon 511/00 I~PIPELINE 31 4-wheeler trail 18 days Tue 5/16/00 Thu 6/8/00 II. 32 Move Hoe 3 days Man 5/1/001 Wed 5/3/00 ~ Task ~ttl lJ t:~~ ~~::: ~:;~~ ~:~1 Milestone @ Rolled Up Split External Tasks ~_,-~~'.~' '~=~;~~2~il Project: DesignConstr Split Summary \ / Rolled Up Milestone Project Summary ..... .....Date: Thu 4/22/99 Progress Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Progress Page 1 10 Task Name 33 Cut Duration 4 days Start Finish E Wed 5/24/00 Mon 5/29/00 I Gully Crossing 7 days Tue 5/30/00 Wed 6/7/00 •35 HDPE 15 days Thu 6/8/00 Wed 6/28/00~36 Steel 40 days Thu 6/29/00 Wed 8/23/00 37 I POWERHOUSE 97 days Mon 511100 Tue 9112100 \/ \/ Building 20 days Mon 5/1/00 Fri 5/26/00 ~39 Piping 4 days Thu 8/24/00 Tue 8/29/00 40 Electrical, building 3 days Wed 8/30/00 Fri 9/1/00 41 Set equipment 7 days Mon 9/4/00 Tue 9/12/00 42 Electrical, gen~ration 5 days Tue 8/15/00 Mon 8/21/00 43 Controls 5 days Tue 8/22/00 Mon 8/28/00 44 I TESTING 5 days Tue 8/29/00 Mon 9/4/00 45 I TOWN HEATING 35 days Tue 9/5100 Mon 10123100 \/ SJ 46 Qualify 10 days Tue9/5/00 Mon 9/18/00 Install 20 days Tue 9/19/00 ###########; •~.48 Test 5 days Tue 10/17/00 ########### 49 I ASBUILT 6 days Tue 10/24/00 Tue 10/31/00 50 I OPERATIONS MANUAL 14 days Wed 11/1 /00 ########### 51 I NOTIFY DEC WATER DIVERTED 1 day Tue 11/21/00 Tue 11/21/00 ••-I '-;T:'~~ ·':"nm 1TIfl~Task ~1.~;;':.;:';i.lli;ij~U::ii Milestone @ Rolled Up Split External Tasks ;~::~~.:~;~:r ~ ~~ .~ ~~ Project: DesignConstr Split Summary \,1 \ / Rolled Up Milestone <> Project SummaryDate: Thu 4/22/99 ..... ..... Progress Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Progress Page 2 ----- Communications Log Old Harbor Project 4/22/99 Project No. 11690-000 TO ORGANIZATION ~avid Boer~~~,-Secre~ty __J Federal Commission Charles Walls TO Alaska Electric Inc. Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult ---_._-------- P~~~~a~~_____ ~ __ ~~___ _ Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult Lois Cashell, Pll:~ici~a!l~ -~--..---.----_t..----~-- Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult Participants fpartici~ts-~~-~=-~=-~=_-_-_ ------+- Pilrticpants I.... ~:.'_ __ -0.-__ FROM James Paul Gates Daniel Hertrich Stan Carrick __ j Daniel Hertrich FROM ORGANIZATION u.s. of the Interior __A_-_-_-_I_-_a_._s_k-a Department of Natural Resources Polarconsu-,I_t________ Daniel Hertrich -Polarconsult __________________ .. _ ..... _._._---t__c---__c-___.-tNational Marine Fisheries Service Daniel Hertrich Daniel Hertrich ----------.. _.. _._-_._.._. .__._______.______ -'1 Daniel.!l~rtrich ~ ___ ...__________._ ._._____-ifc::D_a_n-:-ie-:I-:H-:-e_rt_rich Daniel Hertrich --------------·--··----~-------·-------+Daniel Hertrich IDaniel Heitric~ ___ John Williams Dan Vos National Marine Fisheries Service Daniel Hertrich Daniel Hertrich .--!~~rconsult Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult I Earle Ausman ---_ .. -_ ....._. Polarconsult ~~!!i~el!!l!S -...--.-------------1--Daniel Hertrich --~~-----"~---- Participants Daniel Hertrich -- Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult Federal Polarconsult NO OF DATE PAGES 4/26/99 3/30/99 5 3/11/99 8 I 3/4199 3/1/99 2/26/99-r---9 .-----+--~.~---.- ................ --------------+ ..... . Polarconsu~!_ Polarconsult Polarconsult--~-- Polarconsult LASER Polarconsult 5/27/98 Marine Fisheries Service 5/15/98 I 5/1/98 _ .................... ---+--------_. 2/2/99 1127/~91___ 2/1/99 12/3119s 12/11/98 12/11/98 1 __ 4 1 Kod!~k Mirr~~__ . Fed.:!~~~~~~Reg~l~t()ry Commis~()!! ~olarcons_u--------... I--__t_ Polarconsult "---- Polarconsult ____ 4114/98 4/8/98 _____._+.___.__.____ .-+Dan!:~ Hertrich __.--1~0Ia.rconsult Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult -----~._._. Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult 3/6/98 I 2Participants DESCRIPTION license application and draft environmental assessment ~~~~~---- preliminary permit application acceptance letter comments on application and pdea FebruaryProgresslteport-~---------_~~_-= No comments fax from Alaska Hydrologic survey Preliminary Permit Applicatioll January Progresslte'p~!! ________________.__ Preliminary Comments and Recommendations on Draft License Ap.p!i~~tion~nj_~!>..~A 1998 Fishery Report __.____.___ ._ Notice of availability of DLA and PpEA Draft License Application ________._ Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (~DEA) ________ Study Results (bird survey, stream cross sections, pipeline biannual progress report Scoping Document I needs no revisions 7/1/98 Progress Report------.-- ~mmenton-proTect:-r~q~~siforsiudies __ Phone log regarding the stream gauge at the intake JCornm-en-t-s onScopil1gDocument lind Request 2 for Additional Studies __ ... ?! I~~~~'"-oj..':.es~~el?0rt _j A_fTadll\'it..<>!.~~bl ication of mee!i~g notice Notice of Intent to conduct environmental scoping meeting and a site visit Notlceof Scopillg'Meeiing with attaChed Scoe.~[Qocu_f!l~n!__ I.._ . ... t-4_1_1/~ Progr~~Rep~.rt__ _ Finalized Study Plans Based on ISCD Comments -"---,-"------ 3/1/~~!ro&~e.ss Repo_rt biannual progress report 4 Proposed StlldvPians-Sased on ISCD Comments Page I of4 ----- - -------- ----- Communications Log Old Harbor Project 4/22/99 Project No. 11690-000 NOOF TO FROMTO ORGANIZATION FROM ORGANIZATION DESCRIPTIONDATE PAGES ---------~--+------------~I=-~~----~ I . . Federal Energy Regu atory CommissIOn 2/25/98 Acceptance of APEA proces:;brXERC comments on iscd -request for lagoon creek Daniel Hertrich Wayne Dolezal Polarconsult 2Alas~a Dep~~..c:nt ~_Fish and Game I 211 7/98 stream gaug~~~~~~~~~~i~pacts comments on icsd -request for bird survey, continued fish surveys, lagoon creek flow Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult . Gary Wheeler U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey Loisc~She[~~ec~~aii~~-_~.tr~~eral ~n~~ Regulat0'2'~~missi~~_ Daniel HertriCh Polarconsult 2/98 progress r~~I"!_______ _ regarding the 40 I Water Quality Certification Daniel Hertrich Gary Saupe Polarconsult Departmen~ ~~nv!ronmental Conservation 1116/98 and Coastal/Consistency Appl~c~!ion~__ _1-- request for comments on intent to perform 118/98 APEAproces_s ______________________ _ Participants _ --t=--_:--:---c::-::-_:--:---___----t-:cF_e--:-d_er_a_I_E---:cnergy Regulatory Commission ~_f!i~ants __ _ 1 Daniel Hertrich IPolarconsult 111198 1/1198 Progre..s~~J>O_rt_______ _1------ Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult ----_._---__~ 1~~~eTHertriCt1 ~:I~~~~o~_u-------_±W~---'-=1ffi*~~~:~eus~'~~~;~!:~~~~!-in-~ noti~~Participants1---------------------- PolarconsultDaniel Hertrich Anch~r~~-,?a~lxNew~____________ -----HII124/97 j~__I ____-jAffadavit~!"~~l_i~-~-i()!1-__-_o-!.~-e_etil1-~_-_n()_ticeDaniel Hertrich Polarconsult 11113/97 I ISCD letter, notice of meeting~~~~!'~~!~ ~~~~~~~~~ ------==-___=~_~=~=~_~~~~~-Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult______ __l1" 3!97 -~~~_ I~CD ~Oflimil-=v~~rT1e2 ~i~_~9~est _ Polarconsult 11112/97 Additional Communication Acceptance Form Lois C_aSh_eli, Secretary l!"ederal Energy Regulatory Commission _JD_aniel Hertrich -t-----c-----------------------------------------Da.Oiel!!e~ch-----------IPolarconsult---------~------~!im R\.If11f~__ D~parimentOfEnvironmental Conservation lOll 7/97 1 sJgne~a~~ncy approval form Daniel Hemi~ IPol~cons\.llt A_d_d_!!i-()nal~()~In~n~~~~i~-!-cce~ance Form__________________ I!Q~/97+-~_ L~~ ~~shell,_~~eta£I ___ 1~d~~~ner~ Regulat~~Com_m~~on ~~!S ~a_-~hell__, ~.£f~a'2' ___~deral En_ergy _Regulatory comm_is~iol1_ Daniel Hertrich ---n>otarconsult 110/1/97 ~ J ~_______ __ ~~~ii-"e..!~911~~_ Acceptance of Communications Protocol and Lois Cashell, Secretary j~~ederal Energy Regulatory Commission Janiel Hertrich Polarconsult 1011/97 ~ iNEPA Consolidated Process ----------------------------_._---------~ Daniel Hertri~ ----POJarcorlStiit-------------Wayne DoleZa'--Alaska Department of Fish and Game DaniclHertrich-----Polarconsult---------RickBerns-------CityofOid-Hal-bOr----___ __ ~:_-~~_-~~ .. ---_._-_._-~~~-_~~_~~-_ ---_------1---~_:_:_-~~~ __ ;_~~_i~:~H~~_ ------------_._---- Danicl-Hertrkli ---Polarconsult--------Gary PrOkOsh----Alaska Depa~m~nt_-ofNatu~al Resour~es J/J..~[~7 _ _---'-_ . ~ig!1.~ ~~~ncy appr()~1 fOrm ~a£!ici~n!s_ tQa!1iel Hertrich. ___~!~~co~~~!t ~25/~_J __6_-J~e_v!s~d~_ll1m P~O!o8L~p~a for_comments sent comm proto & apea form & past letters Shirlet ~a~_ke_ _~u~S . D~p~rtm~.!1~ o~t~~n~~!ior t~a~iel H~~i~'!.___-J!()!arconsult 9/23/97 for review -t-------------------- comments regarding the comm protocol and Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult 0 waiver items _____________~__ o __________ _ _0_________0-0__ -_-.~~;I~~k:~~.===F.?'It~K~Jrtln~~~~F~s_~ ~d_~~rn~__._._The Se_cr_et~ry Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ___+ _~~: ~~{J--~ 1 !'!o~ress_!epo~~_ __ notice of progress report with title page and Parti~ie'lnts _ Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult 9/1 9/97 table of contents attached --1---------------------------- ----+------------ comments regarding the comm protocol and Earle Ausman Polarconsult Wayne Dolezal Alaska Department of Fish and Game 8113/97 3 waiver items Page 2 of4 Communications Log Old Harbor Project 4/22/99 Project No. 11690-000 NO OF TO ORGANIZATION FROMTO DESCRIPTIONFROM ORGANIZA TlON PAGESDATE._- Response to notice of Filing of Preliminary Alaska Inc. Environmental Prr,tel~tifmCharles Walls 7/2/97 5j~ermi!._._._ Wayne Dolezal Alaska Department ofFish and Game Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult 6/2/97 4 Inew sche~\Jle,strea"!. no~s during.~sh survey DanielHertrich' Polarconsult --Gary Wheeler U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5/27/97 signed agenc}' approva! form". ___._._ DanieIHertiich'--Polarconsult Kelly SimeonotT, Jr. Kodiak Area Native Association 5/2/97 -signed a~ncy ap~~~al f0l'!"l..._. ___ Federal Energy ~eg~l~toryS:~mission Daniel HertriCil-Polarconsult 4/10/97 pro~~~ reJXlr:!~___.____~_.__ ._ ----.-----~------ notice of progress report with title page and ~art~ipant~ , Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult 4/10/97 table of contents attached -_------>.--1-. --------_._---- response to mtg, mtg minutes, schedule, and Participants Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult 4/9/97 2 ferc process chart attached Daniel Hertrlch Polarconsuit'· Tim Smith Alaska nepartmentofNatural Resources-~~-317197 ---signedagency app ..o~al-form-' Daniel Hertrich - . -'--tPolarc-o-ns-uii--·--Molly McCammon i..-D-E-C-E-xX'on Valdez Trustee Council-'-'377'-97-deferrirlgto individuaiag-e-nc-ies Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult Linda Freed-Kodiak Island Borough 2/27/97 signed agency approva.i'form 1------_._---.-.-.--~-- Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult JoimMerrlck" KOnlag IllcorPorated--2/26/97 siglledagencyapproval form' ----._-_._----- Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult Tony Azuyak OldHafbOrTribaJCOunCi-)----2/24/97 signed agency approva.lform Daniel Hertrkh-----·---Polarconsult __-+E_m_·,-,i1Christiansen 2/24/97 signe(f~~~~y=appro~al fort1l~---- ---------_. comments regarding the comm protocol and Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult _,____t-W_alter Ebell Jamin, Ebell, Bolger, and Gentry 2/20/97 signed agency approval form :;::~m~~:"~,s.=: ~.~..~".:,-,;~:~~~.~~~~~~~~~::.~~~~-i~~~:~:~ :',::~V,~.,~-..~.~~,,',~,.,.eE,rl:)~.~!Io,,-,',rm,-2 ..a,i~e Daniel Hertrkil--Polarconsult Rick Berns----CitY-of oid Harbor'-.---------2120/97 siifiedagency approval fom. Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult Brad MeikieJOhn The COnservation Fund -------~ . -2/13/97 signedagencyappro~ar form ----·~----+Polarconsult ~-...Daniel Hertrich Charles waiis--AlaskaVillage Electric Inc. --2/12i97 signedagencyapprovalform ,--.~ --,---.--,~ ----- ----ApprovalofCommunicatiOns-Protocol requested. comm protocol, approval form, and Pa!1 icipants '_'~_.-I D__an_i_e!....Hert_ri_Ch~_jOI~C_O_n_su_lt_____._ 217197 ~_--l!i.S~~f p~~icipants_~ttached Barry Roth.,. Craig. US. Department of the Interior, Alaska WalterEbell __._..)~Illin, Ebe!I2.,!!olger, ~11!Qentry_ !!lIery ~. ___~ Depa~rn~nt of Law,__,~._,_,~_,_____ correction to comm protocol, copy of notice 0 f -I ?1?J96 1--__3_ '.I:.',a.._.I!~,. !ssue~_ Cha,-.l!g~s.", .req.~.ir_.e.. d,., i,n. ,CO•..',v~.n.'"antsACMP reviewers _-f~rlene MUf£~~__.~ IDivi~~()f Qovernmental Coordination 9/23/96 2 apea process to reviewers --.-- . draftcom'protoco!:liSt ofpariies, draft com ~articip~n~ Daniel Hertrich 9/1.2!9~ I ~ log, cover letter for prog~ess T.ep0,!tJ + notice of intent to do apea process, list of !~e ~ecrettlry Federal. RegulatoryCommission .1Daniel Hertrich Polarconsult ~~§~~~t~ry. . ~ -. !.'--·.t.p.·.-,8..•.rti.es..,d,T.aft" CO.!'l. ',P.!..o".tI:)COI'CC'd toparticipantslpoiarconsuit-.. 'l.~~9,6,'.'.'.i _~~____ Michael Strzelecki Federal Energy RegiJlatoryCommission~--Daniel Hel'triCh'--Polarconsult- Federal Energy R:egu. la.-ioryCommiSsion --.tDan.i.e.I Hertrich -.-~ .. --,--,-__~30/96 p~.g.!es~r~p():t_1 ___ _ 8/8/96 .__1__ ~s!~_i~te!ested_~~~e~. . ---~---,~----. --------~ ---Charles Walls ~~ Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, 'inc. AVEC Members 7/31/96 2 project info to old harbor 1 US Department of the Interior,U.S. Fish and . landstaius--conservatiOn easement not Charles Walls_,____l~laska ~~!l~e EI~~tric Inc. Wildlife Service 4/15196 i-_-tblocking project ACMP reviewers Arlene Murphy Division of Governmental Coordination [riel!~~urp~---~i\,isionOr Governm~ntai'COOrdintltion-=-~_~ I EarleAusman-__Jp()larconsult -~___ ______ . 3/20/96 LJ;~~;;i0;s~~m~~;~permit Charles Walls Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. John Clements Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 3/19/96 3 progress report requirements Page 3 of 4 ----- ------- Communications Log Old Harbor Project 4/22/99 Project No. 11690-000 l NOOF TO TO ORGANIZATION FROM FROM ORGANIZA nON DATE __ PAGES ______~~~IPTION Federal Ener~-R~gu]~~ori~~missi~n Ronald Morris U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 3/14/96 3 fish concerns Earle Ausman Polarconsult FederaTEilergy Regulatory Commission -----'--------,u.s. Department ofInterior, Office of the 3711i% 9 order issuing preliminary permit- regarding land issures: other comments to The Secre~~~__. ___ le_d_e_ra_I_E_ne_r_~.~e~~~ry_.~o_m_m_is_s_i_o_n__ -t ________~f!c-re-ta-ry------ US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 2/22/96 5 p~~~tnina_ry_p_e_rm_j~ ___________ acknowledge receipt of prel iminary Mark Robinson !_ed_e_ra_I_E_n~gyR~~~_I~~I')'C_o___m_m_is_s.I..·on 2/8/96 4 land status Earle Ausman Polarconsult .. ___1--__=--_________--/____E_nf!rgy Regulatory Commission 1It 9/96j __4 __ -!.time extension for cO~I1l~nts_~I1.perl'Tljtli!i~g acknowledge receipt of preliminary permit, The Secretary Ff!deral Ener~_~~~atory Commission _.J~~~_~lezal .jAlaska and Game 1/18/96 I 4 If~~concerns & wildlife concerns of Old Harbor 12/8/95 sUJl(J~rt~g PEoject--_.__.. _.-- Old Harbor Tribal Council f 121719U 1 reSOlution supporting project Polarconsult Secretary--Federal Energy-RegUlatory Commission-------1217195 ----3-----notice ofprelimlnarypermit filing Earle Ausman Earle Ausman --lf~:r~j~~~~~egUlaiOr)' commiSsi;;~ ~':-.E'sman=-~b:!:~:~~atOry Commission::-: Jio11~~5::-~f:::if~ffi~rf;mina;Y!,ermi'fjf;i;gThe Secretary Page 4 of 4 __ 0 List of Interested Parties Old Harbor Project 4122/99 Project No. 11690-000 First Nam~_I~: Last Name Organization Name DepartmentlDivision Address I City State Postal C~',.\'ork Phone _. J=,A.X NUr:!!~e Nan Allen Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington D.C. 20426 202-219-2938 202-219-2732 tTony Azuyak Old HarbOr Tribal Council P.O. Box 15 Old Harbor AK 99643 907-286-2215 Jay .... R. 'Bellinger --u.S.FTshand Wildlife Service ._--Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 1390 Buskin River Road Kodiak AK 99615 907-487-2600 907-487-2144 Rick Berns City of Old Harbor P.O. Box 109 Old Harbor AK 99643 907-286-2204 907-286-2278-. f---. .-_. David Boerges, SecriFedeml Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington D.C. 20426 202-219-2700 202-219-0125 Walt C. Boyle Fedeml Energy Regulatory Commission-Portland Regional Office 101 SW Main Street Suite 905 Portland OR-97204 503-326-5840 503-326~5857 -. -_.._-----::-----. . . -_. . ....._..... _.. -----. John ..._ ~~~_ Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6 A VEMAIL STOP ECO-08 Seattle WA 98101 206.:553-19~~-5~3-_~9~4 I.J~.!.._ ._..._._ ~hris~nsenl1.S. Fish and Wildlife Service _ I Division~Rea1t)' 1011 E Tudor Rd_An~hor~g~ ~!<~_~03 786-3388 __ 7~~~~01__ Emil Christiansen Old Harbor Native Corpomtion P.O. Box 71 Old Harbor AK 99643 907-286-2286 907-286-2287 ..-..-•.._.__. . . __..__ .... _-- Wayne Dolezal Alaska Department ofFish and Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage AK 99518-1599 267-2333 267-2464 Walter Ebell Jamin, Ebell, Bolger, and Gentry 605 First Ave Suite 300 Seattle WA .. 98104 206-622-7634 206 623-752 .-.--.=-....-...--.-. --.-----.... _. ---.............. '--c---" --'-... -.. --.. _ ..-- ~hris!~.E.~. Estes ~ka [)~partment ofFish and Game __ ~~-RTS_ 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage AK_f---~95182~~142.__ ?~-~~?_ Linda ._ Freed._ !~iakIsland Borough ......_ ..... 710 Mill Bay Road_ Kodiak AK 99615 907-486-9360 907-486-9376 ~~rcy ._. __ ._ .. Frisby Departlllent()f_<:ommunity &~~ional Affairs Division of Energy 333 W 4th Ave #220 Anchorage AK 99~~1-23i!. 0 __ ...___• _.___... U. . ):,.:...Qi"()ss _. Koniag Incorpomted 4300 B St Suite~Q~__ . Anchorll~e ~. 99503 561~2668 _.._ 56~__~~8 ~~~t:n _..~~...__ DepartmentofTtansporati<>tt _______R.ermitsOfficer .. _~1969OO _ Anchomge!tI( ._~9519-69oo 266-1508 __ ~~69~~ Don Kohle U.S. Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 898 Anchorage AK 99506-0898 753-2724 753-5567 ---·..···f·· .-..----...--.....-...---...-...... --··-.0--.-.".. --".--..---..~-.-t----... f---_ ..-. _ .... -. .-. Shirl~+-:-~~~k_e ___ ~Departm~,!,ofth~nterio.!...._ BureauofLan~Mana~~~!1~,A.ttn...?31 222W7AVE#13 __ ... _ Anchorage AK 99~}3-7599 ~~!-3266 271-5479 Bmd __. .o_. A. ~~~~!ejohn ~~onse~ation Fund ______ ...____.....____ .. 9850 Hiland Road Eagle River,A..!<......_r---_ 99~~694-9060 _ 694.:~~ Eric Meyers ADEC Exxon Valdez Trustee Council 645 G Street Anchorage AK 99501278-8012 276-7178 G~ry -,.--hOkosh---Alaska Department of Natuml Resources Division of Mining and Water Manageme '1360 I C Street Suite 800-'--Anchornge AK 99503-5936 269-8600---j62.:J 384 -..-... "'-r--'---.... -..... --._-.-. .-....--..-.---. . ---.-- Bennie N. Rinehart Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Co. POBOX 1625 IdahoFalls ID 83415-3830 208-526-1002 208-526-0969 -...---'-"r::-' . ......_.. ..... .._._---.--f---.._------... -...1l11'! ___ Rulll!elt_ Depart!'!!.~~_ofEnvironmental ~.E.servlltion ___1-_ _ __ ..___555 Cordova Street Anchorage AK~I 26~~564 __ . 269-750~ . Tjr.n .... _ Smith ______ ~~k~pepa!!.ment..()fNatuml Resour~~~_.____ . __ Historic Preservlltion Office .._ 360 I C Street Suite 1278_ Anchomge AK _~9503-59212~.2-872! 2~~~08 °Brad . _. §.mith U.S. Depa~_rnentofCommerce, NOA~__. _.. _f~ational Ma.r:i.n..eJ=isheri~s.Service_ 2~2 West 7th Avenue Suite 43 _ Anchorage AK_f~95J3-75~~ ~?I-5006 ____~71-~030--. Rita Stevens Kodiak Area Native Association 3449 E RezonoffDr Kodiak AK 99615 907-486-9800 907-486-9898 ~a~... _ ~--._=~.!>ePartlllent of Commerce~NOA~ .... t-lll!ional Maiiiie~i~heriei~e.rVice--~ ~2 West 7th AvenueSuite43-·=-.. ~nc~!~ge,A.~ ~~!~-7577 ~1~5OO6 ..=~ ~fl-3~.~ Charles Y. Walls Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage AK 99503-7497 561-1818 562-4086 --....------.-.............. . ---c-----.o ......- -.. ~~ry_.__ __ \Vhee~!___ .. .!:1.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . ___ ..._ _ 605 W 4th Ave, Room G-62.__ ~~or~!tK.___.2~5~ ~!:2780__.. __~!!~~786-- John Williams LASER 12770 SW Foothill Dr Portland OR 97225 503-626-5736 503-641-2093 Jennifer .-..-~ .. DiviSion of GOvemme-ntal Coordination ...__ ----360 I C Street, Suite 370 ---Anchorage AK··-99503-5930269-7475 .-561-6134 Page I of I APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710·003 (33CFR315) Expires October 1996 [Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimat~c to average 5 hours Pf:( response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, •gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection " of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0710·0003), Washington, DC 20503. Please DO NO RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws requi;e permits authorizing activities in, Dr affecting, navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged Dr fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued. One set of original drawings Dr good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and instructions' and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the propose~ activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned. MEMslmRu4roBEFnLmBYmECORP~ MEMS BELOtAI TO BE FILLED BY APPL/CANn 1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FielD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPlETED 5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE IM.,..lMItmpftdJ 6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS 7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. WIAREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. WIAREA CODE a. Residence b. Business a. Residence b. Business 11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in suppon of this permit app6cation. --------------------------------------- APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY 12. PROJECT NAME OR TITlE '-iIItructionsI 14. PROJECT STREET ADORESS (i/~13. NAME OF WATERBOOY, IF KNOWN P/~ 15. LOCATION OF PROJECT COUNTY STATE 16. OTHER LOCATION OESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN. /sftiMtnJctiDnsJ 17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE 18. Nature of Activity 1/J-rip""'/fIfIiIctitdJdul,..,.., 19. Project Purpose ID_IJUhlllllllt1lttlf'II1fP=ufrMpntjIf:t...~ _______________U=.::S::::;E.,.=B::::lO::::C::=,.KS10·22 IF DREDGED ANOIOR FIll MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED 20. Reason!s) for Discharge 21. Type!s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards 22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled flftittlttrlr:titll 23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No IE..IfS..DESCRIBE 1J:lE.C.QMPlETED WORK 24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, lessees, Etc•• Whose Propeny Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental Istl. ' 25. Ust of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other F!deral, State or local Ag::!l'lcies for Work Described in This Appication. AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL· IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DAT~DENIED ·Would include but is nOt restricted to zoning, builomg and flood plain permits 26. Application is hereby made for a pemit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the infofmation in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work descrmed herein or am acting as the . duly authorized agen! of the applicant. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 100' provides that: Whoever. in any mamer within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and wlllfuDy falsifies. canceals, or covers up any trick. scheme. or ol$guises a material fact or makes any false. fict''!ious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry. sbaII be fIRed not mwe than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. Coastal Project Questionnaire and Certification Statement Please answer all questions. To avoid a delay in processing, please call the department ifyou answer "yes" to any of the questions related to that department. Maps and plan drawings must be included with your packet. An incomplete packet will be returned. • APPLICANT INFORMATION 1. 2. Name ofApplicant Agent (or responsible pany if other than applicant) Address Address City State Zip Code City State Zip Code Daytime Phone Daytime Phone Fax Number FaxNumbcr • PROJECT INFORMATION Yes No 1. This activity is a: 0 new project 0 modification or addition to an existing project Ifa modification do you CWTently have any State, federal or local approvals related. to this activity? ........................................................... 0 o Note: Approval means any form o[authorization. If "yes," please list below: Approval Type Approval I/. Issuance Date Expiration Date 2. Has this project ever been reviewed by the State of Alaska per the ACMP? ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 o Previous State I.D. Number: AK Previous Project Name:___________ • PROJEer DESCRIPTION 1. Attach the following: • a detailed description of the project and all associated facilities; • a project timeline for completion of all major activities in the proposal; • a site plan depicting all proposed actions; • other suPportini documentation that would facilitate review of the project. Note: If the project is a modification, identify existing facilites as well as proposed activities on the site plan. Proposed starting date for project: Proposed ending date for project: ______ 2. Provide a brief description of your entire project and ALL associated facilities (access roads, caretaker facilities, waste disposal sites, etc.). Rcviacd 1119S Page 1 ------------------- --------------- ---------------------- • PROJECT LOCATION 1. Attach a copy of the topographical map with the project location marked on it. 2. Location of project (include nearest community or name of the land feature or body of water. Identify township, rangeandsection): ____________________________~--------~--~--~~----- T ownsbip Range Section Meridian LatirudeJLongitude __....;. ___ 3. The project is on: 0 State Land* 0 Federal Land 0 Private Land 0 Municipal Land ·State land can be uplands. tidelands, or submerged lands to 3 miles offihore. See Question # 1 in DNR section. 4. The project is located in which region (see attached map): 0 Northern 0 Southcentral 0 Southeast o State Pipeline Coordinator's Office Yes No 5. Is the project located in a coastal district? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 o Ifyes, please contact the district representative listed on the attached sheet. 6. Identify the communities closest to your project location: ______________________________ • FEDERAL APPROVALS 1. Is the proposed project on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land or will you need to cross Yes No USFS lands for access? ...................................................... 0 . 0 Does the cost of the project exceed $250,000? ....................................... 0 0 Ifyes, have you applied for a USFS permit or approval? ............................... 0 0 Date of submittal: 2. Is the proposed project on Bureau orLand Management (BLM) land or will you need to cross BLM lands for access? ............................................. , 0 . 0 Does the cost of the project exceed $250,000? ....................................... 0 o Ifyes, have you applied for a BLM permit or approval? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 o Date of submittal: 3. Will you be constructing a bridge over tidal (ocean) waters, or navigable rivers, streams or lakes? ................................................................. 0 o Ifyes, have you applied for a U.S. Coast Guard permit for a bridge? ............... 0 . 0 Date of submittal: 4. Will you be dredging or placing structures or fllls in any ofthe following: tidal (ocean) waters? streams? lakes? wetlands·? ........................................ 0 o Ifyes, have you applied for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit? ....... . ... 0 o Date of submittal: ~--~~-----~~----(Note: Your application for this activity to the Corps ofEngineers also serves as your application to DEC.) *lfyou are not certain whether your proposed project is in a wetlands. COnlactthe U.S. Corps ofEngineers, Regulatory Branch at (907) 753-2720 for a wetlands determination (outside the Anchorage ana call toll free 1-800-478-2712.) 5. Have you applied for a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Pollution Yes No Reviaed 11I9S Pagc2 ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 D~ofsubDrittU: __~__~~~~~~_ (Note: Forinf01"llUltion reganling the needforan NPDES permit. contactEPA at (907) 271-5083.) 6. Will you have a putrescible waste discharge within 5 miles of any public airport? ........ 0 . 0 Ifyes, please contact the Airports Division of the Federal Aviation Administration at (907) 271-5440. 7. Does the project include a nonfederal power project affecting any navigable body of water or located. on federal land? Or, is utilization of surplus water from any federal government dam proposed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 o (power projects consist of dams, water conduits, reservoirs, powerhouses, and transmission lines.) Ifyes, have you applied for a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commision (FERC)? ............................................................. 0 o D~of subDrittal: -----~~~~~~-------(Nole: For inf01"llUlti01l, conlact FERC. Office ofHydropower Licensing. at (202) 208-0200.) 7. Have you applied for permits from any other federal agency? .............................. 0 o AGENCY AWB.OVAl. TYPE DATE SUBMlTlED • DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) APPROVALS Yes No 1. Will a discharge of wastewater from industrial or commercial operations occur? ...... . .. 0 . 0 Will the discharge be connected to an already approved sewer system? . . . . . . . . .. 0 . 0 Will the project include a stormwater collection/discharge system? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 o 2. Do you intend to construct, install, modify, or use any part of a wastewater (sewage or greywater) disposal system? ..................................................... 0 o a) Ifso, will the discharge be 500 gpd or greater? .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 0 . 0 b) Ifconstructing a domestic wastewater treatment or disposal system, will the system be located within fill material requiring a COE perDrit? ................ 0 0 Ifyou answered yes to a or b, answer the following: 1) How deep is the bottom of the system to the top of the subsurface water table? 2) How far is any part of the wastewater disposal system from the nearest surface water? 3) Is the surrounding area inundated with water at any time of the year? .......... 0 0 4) How big is the fill area to be used for the absorption system ? ____ (Questions J &-2 will be IISt!d by DEC to determine whether separation distances are being met; Questions J &-4 re/QIe to the required size ofthefill ifwetlands ll1'fI involved) 3. Do you expect to request a mixing zone for your proposed project? ............ . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 o (Ifyour wastewater dischtuge will exceedAlasIca waler quIllity standards. you may applyfor a mixing zone. RcvUcd 11195 Pasc3 0 Ifso, please contact DEC 10 disCllSS information r-equir-ed under 18 MC 70.032.) Yes No 4. Do you plan to store or dispose of any type of solid waste resulting from this project? 0 . 0 (Nole: Solid wasle means drilling wastes, garbage, r-efuse. sludge. and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid. or conlained ga.semu malmal ruultingfrom indu.smal, cOmtnl!rr:ial, and agricultural operations, andfrom community activities.) 5. Will your project require the application of oil, pesticides, and/or any other broadcast chemicals to the surface of the land and/or the waters of the state? .......................... 0 6. a. Will you have a facility that will generate air emissions from processing greater thanfive tons per hour of material? ..................................... 0 o b. Will you have one or more units of fuel burning equipment, including flaring, with a heat input rating of 50 million Btu per hour or more? ........................ 0 o c. Will you have a facility containing incinerators with a total charging capacity of 1,000 pounds per hour or more? .................................... 0 o d Will you incinerate sludge? .................................................. 0 o e. Will you have any of the following processes: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 o o Asphalt plant 0 Coal preparation facility o Petroleum refinery 0 Portland cement plant o Petroleum Contaminated Soils Cleanup f. Will your facility use the following equipment? ............................ 0 . 0 o diesel internal combustion engines? (Total capacity equal to or greater than 1.750 kilowatts or total rated brake specific horsepower greater than 2,350 bhp) o gas fired boilers (Total heat input rating of 100 million Btu per hour) o oil fued boilers (Total heat input rating of 65 million Btu per hour) o combustion turbines (total rated power output of 8,000 Hp) g. Will your facility burn more than the following per year in stationary equip ment? ................................................................... 0 o o 1,000,000 gallons of fuel oil 0 35,000 tons of coal o 900 million cubic feet of natural gas h. Ifyou have answered "yes " to any of the above questions (6 a-g), have you installed, replaced or modified any fuel burning or processing equipment since 1977? . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 o 7. Will you be developing, constructing, installing, or altering a public water system? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 o 8. a. Will your project involve the operation of waterborne tank vessels or oil barges that cany crude or non-crude oil as bulk cargo, or the transfer of oil or other petroleum products to or from such a vessel or a pipeline system? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 o b. Will your project require or include onshore or offshore oil facilities with an effective aggregate storage capacity of greater than 5,000 barrels of crude oil or greater than 10,000 barrels of non-crude oil? ............................ 0 . 0 Revised 11195 Pap 4 ---------------------------------------- ------------------- c. Will you be operating facilities on the land or water for the exploration or pro duction of hydrocarbons? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 o If you answered NO to ALL questions in this section, continue to next section. If you answered YES to ANY of these questions, contact the DEC Regional office for information and application forms. Please be advised that all new DEC permits and approvals require a 30-day public notice period. Based on your discussion with DEC, please complete the following: Approval Type: Date Submitted: __________ Yes No 9. Does your project qualify for a general permit for wastewater or solid waste? ................. 0 o 10. Ifyou answered yes to any questions and are not applying for DEC permits, indicate reason below: o (DEC contact) told me on that no DEC approvals are required on this project. Reason: ___________________________ o Other: • DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME (DFG) APPROVALS 1. Will you be working in, or placing anything in, a stream, river or lake? (This includes Yes No work in running water or on ice, within the active flood plain, on islands, the face of the banks or the tidelands down to mean low tide.)(Note: lfthe proposedproject is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency Zone, a Floodplain Development Permit may be required. Contact the local municipal government for additional infor mation and a floodplain determination.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 . 0 Name of 0 stream, 0 river, or 0 lake: 2. Will you do any of the following? .................................................... 0 o Please indicate below: o Build a dam, river training structure or o Alter or stabilize the banks? instream impounciIp.ent? o Mine or dig in the beds or banks? o Use the water? o Use explosives? o Pwnp water out of the stream or lake? o Build a bridge (including an ice bridge)? o Divert or alter the natural stream channel? o Use the stream as a road (even when o Block or dam the stream (temporarily or frozen), or crossing the stream with permanently)? tracked or wheeled vehicles~ log o Change the water flow or the water dragging or excavation equipment (back hoes, bulldozers~ etc.)?channel? o Introduce silt, gravel, rock, petroleum o Install a culvert or other drainage products, debris, chemicals, or other structure? organic/inorganic waste of any type into o Construct a weir? the water? o Use an in-stream structure not mentioned here? 3. Is your project located in a designated State Game Refuge, Critical Habitat Area or Rc:viJcd 11I9S Page S ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- 0 State SanctuaI)'? .................................................................. 0 4. Does your project include the construction/operation of a salmon hatchery? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 o Yes No 5. Does your project affect, or is it related to, a previously permitted salmon hatchery? . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 o 6. Does your project include the construction of an aquatic farm? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 . 0 If you answered "No" to ALL questions in this section, continue to next section. If you answered "Yes" to ANY questions under 1-3, contact the Regional DFG Habitat Division Office for information and application forms. If you answered "Yes" to questions 4-6, contact the DFG at the CFMD division headquarters for information and application forms. Based on your discussion with DFG, please complete the following: Approval Type: Date Submitted: __________ 7. Ifyou answered yes to any questions and are not applying for DFG permits, indicate reason below: D (DFG contact) told me on that no DFG approvals are required. Reason: o Other: • DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) APPROVALS 1. Is the proposed project on State-owned land or will you need to cross State-owned land Yes No for access? ("access" includes temporary access for construction purposes) .............................. 0 o Note: In addilion 10 Slale-owned uplands, lhe Slate O'WPLS almost all land bt!low the ordinary high waler line ofnavigable streams, rivers and lakes, and below lhe mean high tide line seaward for lhree miles. 2. Do you plan to dredge or otherwise excavate/remove materials on State-owned land? ........... 0 o Location of dredging site if other than the project site: __________ Township Range Section Meridian ____ 3. Do you plan to place fill or dredged material on State-owned land? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 o Location of fill disposal site ifother than the project site: _________ Township Range _____ Section _____ Meridian _____ Source is on: 0 State Land 0 Federal Land o Private Land 0 Municipal Land 4. Do you plan to use any of the following State-owned resources: ...................... 0 . 0 D Timber: Will you be harvesting timber? Amount: ____________ D Materials such as rock, sand or gravel, peat, soil, overburden, etc.: Which material? Amount: Reviled 11I9S Pagc6 -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Location of source: D Project site D Other, describe:__________ Township Range Scc::tion ____ Meridian ____ 5. Are you planning to use or divert any fresh water? D D Amount (gallons per day): ________ Source: Intended Use: Yes No 6. Will you be building or altering a dam? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D . D 7. Do you plan to drill a geothermal well? . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. ... D . D 8. At anyone site (regardless of land ownership), do you plan to do any of the following? D.D D Mine five or more acres over a year's time? D Mine 50,000 cubic yards or more of materials (rock., sand or gravel, soil, peat, overburden, etc.) over a year's time? D Have a cumulative Wlreclaimed mined area offive or more acres? If you plan to mine less than the acreage/amount stated above and have a cwnulative unreclaimed mined area of less than five acres, do you intend to file a voluntary recla~ mation plan for approval? .......................................................... D D 9. Will you be exploring for or extracting coal? ........................................... D o 10. Will you be drilling for oil/gas? . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . ... D . 0 11. Will you be investigating or removing historical or archaeological resources on State- owned land? ..................................................................... D o 12. Is the proposed project located within a known geophysical hazard area? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 . D 13. Is the proposed project located in a unit of the Alaska State Park System? .................... 0 o If you answered "No" to ALL questions in this section, continue to certification statement. If you answered "Yes" to ANY questions in this section, contact DNR for information. Based on your discussion with DNR, please complete the following: Approval Type: Date Submitted: __________ 14. Ifyou answered yes to any questions and are not applying for DNR pennits, indicate reason below: D (DNR contact) told me on that no DNR approvals are requUed. ________________________________________~on: o Other: Please be advised that the CPQ identifies permits subject to a consistency review. You may need additional permits from other agencies or local governments to proceed with your activity. Revised 11/9S Page 7 Certification Statement The information contained herein is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I certify that the proposed activity complies wi~ and will be conducted in a manner consistent with, the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Signature of Applicant or Agent Date Note: Federal agencies conducting an activity that will affect the coastal zone are required to submit a federal consistency determination, per 15 CFR 930, Subpart C, rather than this certification statement. This certification statement will not be complete until all required State and federal authorization requests have been submitted to the a ro riate agencies. • To complete your packet, please attach your State permit applications and copies of your federal permit applications to this questionnaire. Revised 11/95 PageS Draft Environmental Assessment Old Harbor Project, FERC # 11690-000 APPENDIXB OLD HARBOR STREAM GAGING REPORT BY Stan Carrick and Roy Ireland Alaska Hydrologic Survey prepared for: State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining and Water Management Alaska Hydrologic Survey 3601 C Street, Suite 800 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 ©[L[Q) [}={]ffi\~~©~ ~u~~ffi\~ @ffi\@~~@ [P~©J~©u Final Report, October 1996 Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining and Water Management Alaska Hydrologic Survey INTRODUCTION In May 1993, the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining and Water Management, Alaska Hydrologic Survey (AHS) contracted with the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Energy (DOE) to gage an unnamed stream 2.7 mi (for clarity hereafter called, Hydro Creek) northwest of Old Harbor, Kodiak Island, Alaska (fig. 1). The purpose of the stream gaging is to characterize the flow of Hydro Creek for assessing its potential as a hydroelectric source for the City of Old Harbor. BACKGROUND Climate No long-term weather or streamflow records are available for the Old Harbor area. Weather information was collected in Old Harbor for a brief period of time from 1968 1971 (AEIDC, 1986) and the average precipitation was 45 in., with average temperatures ranging from 25-55 degrees F (table 1). Table 1. Old Harbor Climate Summary, Mean Monthly Totals Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sap Oct Nov Dec Tot Temp 26 32 32 38 44 50 57 56 51 43 38 29 41 ppt 1.5 9.0 2.6 3.2 3.5 4.7 1.5 1.2 6.0 4.1 3.8 4.0 45 Snow 6.4 4.5 6.0 4.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.7 19 Based on Kodiak long-term climate data, precipitation patterns on Kodiak Island are similar to other areas of maritime southcoastal Alaska: wetter in the fall and winter, -1 HYDRO CREEK DRAINAGE Kodiak Island, Alaska o 1 LEGEND - /\/ Basin Boundary /'V Stream5 ~ Gauge Site * Town Plo[ Dale: November 22, 1996 drier in spring and summer. Heavy rains can occur anytime of year, even in mid-winter. Snow normally does not persist throughout the winter at sea level, but above approximately 500-1000 ft snow does persist, and at higher elevations and protected north-facing slopes, the snowpack can last through most of the summer. These high elevation snowfields augment streamflow during the drier summer months. For the gaging project period-of-record from July 1993 to May 1996, no continuous precipitation data is available for the Old Harbor area. In Kodiak, where continuous weather data is collected, precipitation was generally above normal for the period. On average, each month had approximately 1.30 in. or 20-25% more precipitation than is normally recorded for Kodiak. Though total precipitation does vary between Kodiak and Old Harbor, it is assumed that precipitation in the Hydro Creek basin was also approximately 25°A, greater than normal for the gaging period-of-record. Precipitation isohytel maps indicate a mean annual precipitation of 60-80 in. for the Old Harbor area. Because of orographic effects, precipitation in the drainage basin above Hydro Creek would be higher, perhaps on the order of 90-110 in. annually. According to a U.S. Geological Survey report on the water resources of the Old Harbor area (Weeks, 1970), the estimated runoff for the hills on the north side of the community is approximately 70 in. annually. The higher, snowier mountains in the Hydro Creek basin would have more precipitation and more runoff, perhaps 80-90 in. per year. Drainage Basin Characteristics Hydro Creek flows south from a high elevation of 1800 ft to the AHS gaging site at 490 ft, and drains an area of 4.6 sq mi (to the gage she). Approximately 150 ft upstream of the Hydro Creek gage site, the stream splits int'? two tributaries, one to the east and one to the west. The west tributary has a drainage basin area of 2.64 sq mi, while the east tributary is 1.96 sq mi in area. On October 17, 1995, an additional stream gage was installed on the east tributary at an elevation of 800 ft, with a drainage area of 1.80 sq mi, or 40% of the Hydro Creek gaged basin. This gage will provide streamflow data for most of the east tributary at an alternative water withdrawal p,?int for the proposed small hydro facility. Using the east tributary would result in less streamflow, but greater head. The streamflow in the east fork will be better defined with data from the new gage. -3 The highest elevation in the Hydro Creek basin is 3500 ft, and snowfields exist at higher elevations into mid-summer. No glaciers or lakes exist in the Hydro Creek basin. Immediately downstream of the main gage site, the stream flows through a series of waterfalls and steep channel, dropping over 400 ft in just 2.5 mi. Approximately 3 mi downstream of the gage site, the stream flows into Barling Bay, 2 mi southwest of Old Harbor. The powerhouse for the proposed hydropower project is situated 1 mi northeast of Old Harbor at an elevation of nearly 100 ft, for a head drop of approximately 400 ft from the original gage site, or approximately 700 ft from the east fork gage site. HYDROLOGY The nearest long-term stream gage in the study area was located at the Upper Thumb River, 24 mi northwest of Old Harbor, and was operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, 1982). Streamflow data was collected at this site from 1974-1982, and the 18.8 sq mi basin experienced an average discharge of 92 cubic feet per second (cfs) or approximately 5 cfs per sq mi. The discharge per unit area can be used to estimate the streamflow for ungaged basins. However, precipitation in the Upper Thumb River basin should be less than that at Old Harbor, because the trend for Kodiak Island is for precipitation to decrease across the island from the southeast to northwest. Jones, et al (1978) report a mean annual runoff of 8-9 cfs/sq mi for the area around the Hydro Creek basin, which equates to a mean annual discharge of 37-41 cfs, or 14-16 cfs for the east fork of Hydro Creek. Stream stage and flow figures for Hydro Creek from July 14, 1993 to May 7, 1996, show an average flow of 47 cfs, or approximately 200k more than the estimated flow given above. There are three possible explanations for the discrepancy in average flow. First, the data collected from Hydro Creek was for a relatively short period of time that may not be indicative of long-term precipitation and streamflow conditions for the area. Second, the discharge rating curve used to generate the streamflow data from the recorded stream stages is based on nine discharge measurements. Nine discharge measurements is not adequate to define a streamflow rating curve that is used to derive long-term flow trends, especially for the higher flows. And third, precipitation during the gaging period was apparently higher than normal, based on Kodiak weather records, so mean streamflows would be similarly higher. -4 Until long term streamflow information is collected and analyzed, the attached streamflow data for Hydro Creek should be considered preliminary. In particular, flows below 10 cfs or above 150 cfs are suspect because of the lack of discharge data at the extreme ends of the discharge rating curve. Flows in the 15-100 cfs range are more consistent and reflect long-term conditions, with an estimated error of ± 10GA,. If the higher flows are adjusted down to a more realistic range, and the increased precipitation for the gaging period-of-record is taken into account, the mean annual streamflow would be an estimated 40-45 cfs, a discharge that approximates the runoff estimates given in Jones, et al (1978). Based on the Upper Thumb River data and information from other Alaska southcoastal areas, the year's highest flows occur in late May and June from snowmelt, or in September and October from rainstorms. Low flows most frequently take place from January through March. Large frontal systems can produce heavy rains and high flows at any time of the year, however, and a normal winter experiences occasional periods of brief warm, rainy weather with higher streamflows. Seasonal streamflow patterns for Hydro Creek are similar to those discussed above. SUMMARY Hydro Creek near Old Harbor is a typical Kodiak Island stream: short, steep, and exhibits a relatively rapid response to weather changes. Most of the stream flows over a 2-12 in. mantle of sand, gravel, and boulders on top of bedrock, and the channel is relatively straight throughout most of its length. Streamflow data for the July 1993 to May 1996 period-of-record show the following trends: -winter low flows typically range from 5-15 cfs; -summer low flows are 15-30 cfs; -high flows range from 200-400 cfs; -average flow equals 47 cfs; -all streamflows presented in the data are probably higher than long term normals, because preCipitation has been above normal for the period-of-record. Table 2 presents period-of-record stage and flow data for the Hydro Creek gage site, while figure 2 gives a graphical presentation of mean daily streamflow for the site. Tne flow data presented in this report show lowest flows below 1 cfs, and peak high flows of -5 600-1600 cfs, but it should be remembered that these extreme flows are derived from rating curve extensions based on flow estimates, not measured data. Figure 3 presents a flow duration curve for Hydro Creek that indicates the percent of time during the gaging period-of-record that flow levels were equaled or exceeded. The east fork of Hydro Creek was gaged for seven months, from October 1995 to May 1996. Two discharge measurements were taken at the east fork site, with the results compared to the Hydro Creek site shown below. ~ Oct 17, 1995 Oct 17, 1995 .silil Hydro Creek east fork Hydro Creek DiS~barg~ 60.6 cfs 22.6 cfs May 7,1996 May 7,1996 Hydro Creek east fork Hydro Creek 42.2 cfs 21.6 cfs From the limited amount of data collected, it appears as though the stream stages of the east fork mirror those of Hydro Creek downstream, as expected. The discharge of the east fork ranges from 40-50% of the discharge of Hydro Creek, which approximates the 40°A, east fork percentage of the Hydro Creek drainage basin area. Consequently, the estimated long term mean annual flow of the east fork would be 16-18 cfs. Figure 4 shows a graphical comparison of the stream stage at the Hydro Creek site compared to the east fork site, and table 3 gives stage data for the east fork site. REFERENCES AEIDC, 1986, Alaska climate summaries, Alaska Climate Center Technical Note Number 3, 1986, Alaska Environmental Information and Data Center. Jones, S.H., Madison, R.J., and Zenone, C., 1978, Water resources of the Kodiak Shelikof subregion, southcentral Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations, Atlas HA-612. USGS, 1982, Water resources data for Alaska, water year 1982, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report AK-82-1, p. 180. Weeks, John B., 1970, Water-resources reconnaissance of the Old Harbor area, Kodiak Island, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 1970. -6 TABLE 2: Old Harbor Streamflow Data, July 1993-May 1996 Department of Natural Resources. Division of Mining and Water Management ~Iaska Hydrologic SUNeY Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 07/14193 12:00 Stage (ft} 1.89 Stage (ft} 1.92 Stage (ft} 1.85 Flow ~CfSl 71. 3 1Sf~5.0 ~f~5.9 2200 1200 07/15/93 12:00 1.86 1.92 1.81 66.93 74.67 61.87 2100 1200 07/16193 12:00 1.78 1.85 1.73 58.25 65.99 52.96 2100 1400 07/17193 12:00 1.73 1.77 1.69 52.96 56.87 48.95 0000 1200 07/18/93 12:00 1.72 1.77 1.69 52.26 57.40 48.85 2300 1600 07/19193 12:00 1.66 1.68 1.63 45.97 48.10 43.56 2200 1100 07120/93 12:00 1.67 1.70 1.65 47.07 49.91 45.16 1900 0400 07121/93 12:00 1.65 1.72 1.60 45.16 51.76 40.98 2300 1600 07122193 12:00 1.56 1.62 1.53 38.12 42.60 35.31 2200 1400 07123193 12:00 1.52 1.55 1.49 34.56 37.01 32.73 2200 1600 07124/93 12:00 1.50 1.54 1.48 32.95 36.54 31.52 2000 1400 07125/93 12:00 1.62 1.68 1.55 43.12 47.82 37.24 1500 2100 07126193 12:00 1.52 1.64 1.46 34.86 44.09 30.49 2100 1400 07127/93 12:00 1.50 1.56 1.48 33.24 37.48 31.59 2000 1100 07128193 12:00 1.56 1.61 1.53 37.64 41.66 35.47 0100 1200 07129/93 12:00 1.56 1.60 1.53 37.56 40.82 35.77 1900 2100 07130193 12:00 1.54 1.60 1.50 36.15 41.24 32.87 2200 1500 07131193 12:00 1.45 1.50 1.43 30.01 33.16 28.55 2100 1200 08/01193 12:00 1.44 1.47 1.41 28.81 30.90 27.13 1900 0900 08/02193 12:00 1.40 1.46 1.35 26.32 30.21 23.64 2100 1900 f)8/03193 12:00 1.35 1.36 1.33 23.36 24.10 22.57 2100 1700 J8/04/93 12:00 1.32 1.35 1.30 21.75 23.41 20.69 2300 1400 08/05/93 12:00 1.33 1.39 1.30 22.13 26.08 20.84 2000 1000 08/06193 12:00 1.37 1.41 1.35 24.93 26.94 23.24 2300 1400 08/07193 12:00 1.41 1.47 1.37 27.39 31.18 24.63 1600 0200 08/08193 12:00 1.39 1.46 1.34 25.71 30.35 23.07 2100 1300 08/09193 12:00 1.33 1.39 1.29 22.63 25.83 20.37 2300 1500 08/10/93 12:00 1.31 1.34 1.29 21.43 23.07 20.17 2200 2000 08/11193 12:00 1.27 1.28 1.25 19.06 19.96 18.28 2100 1200 08/12193 12:00 1.26 1.28 1.25 18.72 19.71 18.04 2000 1100 08/13193 12:00 1.27 1.51 1.21 19.31 34.26 16.43 2000 1200 08/14193 12:00 1.63 1.99 1.44 43.39 84.38 28.81 2300 1600 08/15/93 12:00 1.57 1.69 1.50 38.84 48.67 32.87 2300 1900 08/16193 12:00 1.41 1.49 1.37 26.82 32.23 24.46 2100 1900 08/17193 12:00 1.37 1.37 1.36 24.51 24.87 24.16 1600 0500 08/18/93 12:00 1.95 3.40 1.35 78.96 485.74 23.53 1900 0200 08/19193 12:00 2.99 3.64 2.36 320.09 608.61 147.69 0000 2000 08120193 12:00 2.12 2.32 1.94 102.53 138.86 77.25 2200 2000 08121/93 12:00 1.82 1.93 1.73 62.77 75.69 52.86 2100 2000 08122193 12:00 1.65 1.72 1.59 45.70 52.06 40.07 2100 2000 08123193 12:00 1.54 1.59 1.48 35.85 39.90 32.02 2100 2000 08124193 12:00 1.49 1.60 1.46 32.16 40.73 30.55 2000 0800 08125/93 12:00 2.46 2.86 1.74 167.16 276.41 53.87 0700 2100 08126193 12:00 2.10 2.36 1.97 100.79 145.85 80.56 2100 2000 08127/93 12:00 1.88 1.96 1.82 69.69 80.02 63.00 2100 1609 "'8128193 12:00 1.79 1.89 1.73 59.55 70.30 53.26 2000 1400 8129193 12:00 2.18 2.35 1.95 112.38 145.65 78.82 0600 2100 08130193 12:00 2.45 2.94 2.17 165.82 302.22 111.37 0500 0000 08/31193 12:00 2.26 2.37 2.20 127.99 147.89 116.67 2100 1300 Alaska Hydrologic SUNeY, Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time Stage {ft} Stage {ft} Stage {ft} Flow fefs} {cfs} ~cfs109101/93 12:00 2.24 2.37 2.11 124.32 149.13 1 1. 4 0200 1900 09/02193 12:00 2.00 2.10 1.91 . 85.64 100.79 72.77 2200 2000 09/03/93 12:00 1.82 1.90 1.77 62.88 72.27 57.51 2100 1600 09/04193 12:00 1.95 2.02 1.80 78.69 87.90 60.65 0900 2300 09/05193 12:00 2.53 4.03 1.95 183.78 845.50 78.56 1500 2200 09/06/93 12:00 2.79 3.30 2.44 252.76 439.13 164.27 2100 1900 09/07193 12:00 2.36 2.48 2.20 146.06 172.12 116.67 0400 2000 09/08/93 12:00 2.10 2.19 2.00 99.85 115.11 84.80 2100 1900 09/09/93 12:00 1.93 2.00 1.85 75.56 85.64 65.52 2200 2000 09/10193 12:00 1.78 1.84 1.72 58.04 64.48 51.96 2200 2000 09/11193 12:00 1.79 2.09 1.69 59.44 98.61 49.24 1800 0700 09/12193 12:00 1.91 2.05 1.82 73.78 92.56 62.77 2100 1900 09/13193 12:00 1.76 1.82 1.73 56.34 62.21 52.86 2200 2000 09/14193 12:00 1.68 1.73 1.64 48.48 52.56 44.53 2100 2000 09/15/93 12:00 1.67 2.07 1.61 46.89 94.95 41.66 2000 0600 09/16193 12:00 1.88 2.09 1.77 69.32 98.15 56.87 2100 2000 09/17/93 12:00 1.74 1.76 1.71 53.66 56.55 50.97 0800 1900 09/18193 12:00 1.68 1.72 1.64 48.10 51.76 44.27 2100 2000 09/19193 12:00 1.60 1.64 1.57 41.32 44.09 38.76 2100 1800 09120193 12:00 2.08 2.28 1.65 96.77 131.55 45.79 1400 2100 09121/93 12:00 1.97 2.13 1.86 81.64 104.13 67.40 2100 2000 09122193 12:00 1.81 1.86 1.75 60.98 66.93 55.10 2100 2000 09123/93 12:00 1.69 1.75 1.64 49.33 55.10 44.35 2100 2000 09124/93 12:00 1.60 1.63 1.58 40.90 43.82 39.16 2100 1100 09125/93 12:00 1.59 1.66 1.55 40.32 46.52 37.01 0800 0400 '19126193 12:00 1.54 1.58 1.50 35.85 39.41 33.24 2200 2000 J9127193 12:00 1.47 1.50 1.45 30.90 33.09 29.81 2100 1500 09128193 12:00 1.57 1.61 1.49 38.36 41.83 32.23 0000 2100 09129193 12:00 1.52 1.53 1.51 34.86 35.69 34.12 2200 0500 09130193 12:00 2.03 2.32 1.53 89.63 138.86 35.69 0400 2100 10/01193 12:00 1.96 2.12 1.86 80.42 103.01 67.40 2100 2000 10/02193 12:00 1.82 1.86 1.76 62.09 67.76 55.82 2200 2000 10/03193 12:00 1.70 1.76 1.65 50.00 55.72 45.07 2100 2000 10/04193 12:00 1.59 1.65 1.55 40.32 45.07 36.93 2100 2000 10/05193 12:00 1.50 1.54 1.47 33.31 36.15 30.97 2100 2000 10/06193 12:00 1.74 2.44 1.47 53.56 163.61 30.76 1700 2200 10/07/93 12:00 2.85 3.72 2.20 272.94 652.99 117.37 0900 2200 10/08193 12:00 2.21 2.46 2.10 117.72 167.16 99.54 2100 1600 10/09193 12:00 3.28 3.98 2.13 430.02 817.58 105.58 0100 2100 10/10193 12:00 2.44 2.85 2.19 163.83 271.06 115.63 2100 1900 10/11/93 12:00 2.02 2.17 1.90 88.48 110.86 71.90 2100 2000 10/12193 12:00 1.89 . 1.96 1.81 70.30 80.42 61.31 0100 2000 10/13193 12:00 1.73 1.80 1.68 53.16 60.54 47.82 2100 2000 10/14/93 12:00 1.66 1.70 1.62 46.52 50.49 43.12 1700 0900 10/15/93 12:00 1.62 1.68 1.57 42.86 48.57 38.44 2100 1900 10/16/93 12:00 1.54 1.57 1.52 36.39 38.20 34.71 2100 1200 10/17193 12:00 1.48 1.52 1.45 31.95 34.56 29.41 2100 2000 10/18/93 12:00 1.42 1.45 1.40 27.77 29.81 26.76 2200 1000 10/19/93 12:00 1.44 1.51 1.39 28.81 33.89 25.77 1600 0400 10120193 12:00 1.43 1.48 1.41 28.22 31.88 27.13 2000 1400' 10121193 12:00 1.70 1.81 1.54 49.81 61.65 36.15 1300 2100 0/22/93 12:00 1.65 1.71 1.58 45.43 51.37 39.16 2200 2000 10123/93 12:00 1.53 1.58 1.49 35.24 39.16 32.52 2100 1900 10124193 12:00 1.47 1.49 1.44 30.76 32.73 29.01 2100 2000 Alaska Hydrologic Survey, Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 10/25193 12:00 Stage (ft} 1.42 Stage (ft} 1.44 Stage {ft} 1.39 Flow lefs} 27.64 ~Cf~8.8 ~Cf~5.9 2100 2000 10126193 12:00 1.35 1.39 1.31 23.24 25.83 21.16 2100 2000 10127/93 12:00 1.28 1.31 1.26 19.76 21.16 18.86 2200 1800 10128193 12:00 1.27 1.31 1.25 19.36 21.32 18.33 1200 0300 10129/93 12:00 1.24 1.26 1.22 17.62 18.62 16.84 2100 1500 10130/93 12:00 1.20 1.22 1.17 15.82 16.70 14.88 2100 2000 10131/93 12:00 1.16 1.18 1.15 14.15 14.92 13.79 2100 2000 11/01/93 12:00 1.13 1.14 1.12 13.13 13.67 12.72 2100 1000 11/02/93 12:00 1.10 1.12 1.09 11.99 12.60 11.67 2100 1100 11/03/93 12:00 1.08 1.09 1.08 11.35 11.63 11.15 2100 0900 11/04193 12:00 1.22 1.42 1.07 16.88 27.45 11.12 1300 0300 11/05/93 12:00 1.30 1.33 1.29 20.95 22.29 20.17 2100 1900 11/06193 12:00 1.40 1.50 1.28 26.69 33.09 19.81 0300 2300 11107/93 12:00 1.43 1.50 1.40 28.55 33.16 26.76 2000 0600 11/08/93 12:00 1.46 1.48 1.43 30.08 32.09 28.22 2100 1600 11/09/93 12:00 1.87 2.05 1.49 68.12 92.41 32.23 1500 2100 11/10193 12:00 1.82 1.98 1.70 62.66 82.59 50.39 2100 2000 11/11/93 12:00 1.83 2.14 1.65 64.25 106.07 45.70 0900 0500 11/12/93 12:00 1.80 1.86 1.71 59.99 67.64 51.47 2100 2000 11/13/93 12:00 1.69 1.72 1.63 48.85 52.26 43.47 0300 2000 11/14/93 12:00 1.58 1.63 1.52 39.08 43.56 35.01 0000 1900 11/15/93 12:00 1.47 1.52 1.44 31.38 34.56 28.81 0000 2000 11/16/93 12:00 1.41 1.43 1.38 26.82 28.16 25.29 2200 1800 11/17/93 12:00 1.34 1.37 1.32 23.07 24.81 21.80 2100 1500 11/18/93 12:00 1.44 1.45 1.43 29.14 30.01 28.42 1700 2000 11/19/93 12:00 1.36 1.43 1.32 24.10 28.22 21.80 2100 1200 11120/93 12:00 1.34 1.35 1.32 22.91 23.76 21.97 1300 0000 11121/93 12:00 1.32 1.33 1.31 21.97 22.40 21.48 0200 1300 11/22/93 12:00 1.68 1.93 1.33 47.72 76.34 22.40 0600 2100 11123/93 12:00 1.56 1.61 1.53 37.88 41.58 35.69 2200 1100 11124/93 12:00 1.55 1.60 1.51 37.17 41.32 33.67 2300 2000 11125193 12:00 1.47 1.51 1.44 31.18 34.12 28.74 2100 2000 11126193 12:00 1.40 1.44 1.37 26.76 28.74 24.63 2200 2000 11127193 12:00 1.33 1.37 1.31 22.63 24.63 21.11 2100 2000 11128/93 12:00 1.28 1.31 1.25 19.51 21.11 18.19 2300 1900 11129/93 12:00 1.26 1.41 1.21 18.57 27.13 16.57 2000 1200 11130/93 12:00 1.53 1.55 1.49 35.24 37.24 32.44 1100 2100 12101/93 12:00 1.46 1.50 1.41 30.08 33.16 26.94 2100 2000 12102193 12:00 1.36 1.41 1.32 24.10 26.94 21.64 2100 2000 12103/93 12:00 1.28 1.30 1.27 19.96 21.00 19.01 2100 2000 12104193 12:00 1.24 1.26 1.22 17.85 18.77 16.93 2100 2000 12105/93 12:00 1.34 1.45 1.22 22.74 29.87 16.79 1500 2300 12106/93 12:00 1.29 1.34 1.26 20.27 23.07 18.91 2100 2000 12107/93 12:00 1.25 1.27 1.23 18.04 19.06 17.11 2100 2000 12108193 12:00 1.20 1.23 1.18 15.99 17.25 15.05 2200 1800 12109/93 12:00 1.15 1.18 1.13 14.03 14.92 13.28 2100 1900 12110193 12:00 1.11 1.13 1.07 12.42 13.28 10.98 2300 1900 12111/93 12:00 1.08 1.10 1.06 11.32 11.99 10.68 1200 2200 12112/93 12:00 1.08 1.09 1.07 11.42 11.74 11.01 2100 0900 12113/93 12:00 1.04 1.07 1.01 9.94 11.01 9.03 2100 1300 12114/93 12:00 1.03 1.07 1.01 9.81 10.88 9.03 1500 0900 2115/93 12:00 1.01 1.03 1.00 9.00 9.57 8.65 2100 2000 12116193 12:00 1.01 1.04 0.98 9.06 10.10 8.12 1700 2000 12117/93 12:00 1.01 1.05 1.00 9.06 10.26 8.65 2100 1900 Alaska Hydrologic Surwy, Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 12118/93 12:00 Stage eft} 1.08 Stage eft} 1.16 Stage {ft} 1.01 Flow iCfS} 11. 2 {Cf~14.4 ~CfS~.1 0300 2100 12119193 12:00 1.02 1.04 1.01 9.24 9.91 8.94 2100 1900 12120/93 12:00 1.34 1.64 1.00 23.02 44.27 8.68 1200 2100 12121193 12:00 1.32 1.41 1.26 21.80 26.94 18.91 2100 2000 12122193 12:00 1.34 1.47 1.25 22.68 31.11 18.04 1300 0000 12123/93 12:00 1.54 1.62 1.43 36.31 42.60 28.22 0900 2100 12124193 12:00 1.42 1.51 1.35 27.71 33.67 23.24 2100 2000 12125/93 12:00 1.38 1.61 1.29 25.29 41.58 20.37 2000 0900 12126193 12:00 1.96 2.13 1.65 79.89 104.61 45.43 1800 2100 12127/93 12:00 2.26 2.44 2.06 126.88 162.95 93.45 0700 2000 12128193 12:00 1.92 2.04 1.82 74.41 90.79 63.11 2100 1300 12129/93 12:00 1.93 2.01 1.81 75.56 86.63 61.98 2100 2000 12130193 12:00 1.69 1.80 1.59 49.43 60.43 40.32 2100 2000 12131193 12:00 1.53 1.60 1.50 35.69 40.82 32.87 2100 1400 01/01194 12:00 1.53 1.54 1.52 35.39 36.15 34.86 2300 2200 01/01194 12:00 1.53 1.54 1.51 35.09 36.54 33.89 0200 0900 01/02194 12:00 1.50 1.52 1.49 33.53 34.49 32.73 2100 1200 01/03/94 12:00 1.47 1.50 1.43 30.97 33.24 28.22 2100 2000 01/04/94 12:00 1.38 1.42 1.34 25.47 27.83 23.02 2100 1900 01/05194 12:00 1.31 1.34 1.28 21.32 23.07 19.51 2100 1900 01/06194 12:00 1.23 1.27 1.21 17.43 19.11 16.43 2100 2000 01/07194 12:00 1.16 1.20 1.13 14.31 15.99 12.94 2100 2000 01/08194 12:00 1.10 1.13 1.08 11.95 12.94 11.42 2100 1100 01/09194 12:00 1.08 1.10 1.06 11.25 12.02 10.52 1500 0300 01/10/94 12:00 1.07 1.08 1.06 11.12 11.46 10.78 2100 2000 01/11194 12:00 1.11 1.20 1.06 12.38 15.82 10.58 1700 0300 01/12194 12:00 1.10 1.14 1.07 11.88 13.55 11.12 2100 1900 01/13/94 12:00 1.10 1.12 1.07 12.17 12.90 11.05 0900 0000 01/14/94 12:00 1.09 1.11 1.08 11.77 12.53 11.42 2100 1500 01/15/94 12:00 1.07 1.08 1.07 11.12 11.42 10.88 2100 1300 01/16194 12:00 1.16 1.24 1.06 14.11 17.71 10.71 1500 2200 01/17194 12:00 1.15 1.20 1.13 13.99 15.82 13.05 2100 2000 01/18194 12:00 1.12 1.12 1.11 12.57 12.90 12.31 2100 1900 01/19194 12:00 1.13 1.14 1.11 13.17 13.63 12.31 0500 2100 01120194 12:00 1.09 1.12· 1.08 11.67 12.57 11.15 2100 2000 01121194 12:00 1.07 1.08 1.06 10.88 11.22 10.52 2100 1900 01122194 12:00 1.05 1.06 1.04 10.35 10.68 9.97 1300 2000 01123194 12:00 1.02 1.04 0.97 9.30 9.97 7.83 2200 0200 01124194 12:00 1.00 1.03 0.97 8.85 9.72 7.96 1600 1000 01125194 12:00 1.00 1.01 0.99 8.68 8.94 8.48 2100 1300 01126/94 12:00 0.98 0.99 0.98 8.29 8.51 8.12 2300 1300 01127194 12:00 1.10 1.21 0.97 12.09 16.57 8.04 0400 2100 01128/94 12:00 1.09 1.19 1.05 11.49 15.47 10.29 2000 1300 01129194 12:00 2.14 2.83 1.22 106.89 266.40 17.02 1300 2100 01130/94 12:00 2.64 2.76 2.52 211.07 246.57 180.93 1600 0300 01131194 12:00 2.76 3.31 2.44 245.98 443.07 163.17 2000 0700 02101194 12:00 3.28 3.73 2.95 431.31 661.08 306.28 0100 1400 02102194 12:00 2.70 3.13 2.30 228.89 371.46 134.02 2300 2000 02103/94 12:00 2.14 2.30 2.00 106.89 134.21 84.94 2100 2000 02104194 12:00 1.85 1.97 1.74 65.99 80.56 53.97 2100 2000 02105/94 12:00 1.67 1.74 1.60 47.26 53.97 40.73 2100 2000 J2I06/94 12:00 1.57 1.62 1.54 38.60 42.86 35.92 2000 0800 02107/94 12:00 1.63 1.71 1.55 43.65 51.07 37.24 0100 2000 02108/94 12:00 1.50 1.56 1.44 33.24 37 ..96 29.21 2100 2000 Alaska Hydrologic Survey, Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time Stage (ttl Stage (ttl Stage {ttl Flow fefs} {cfsl {cfs} 02109194 12:00 1.39 1.43 1.36 25.83 28.55 23.99 2200 2000 02110/94 12:00 1.34 1.36 1.31 23.13 24.10 21.32 2300 2000 02111/94 12:00 1.27 1.30 1.24 19.46 21.00 17.95 2100 2000 02i12194 12:00 1.18 1.23 1.16 15.30 17.53 14.23 2100 0900 02113194 12:00 1.16 1.17 1.15 14.15 14.68 13.75 1700 2300 02114194 12:00 1.12 1.14 1.11 12.87 13.52 12.42 2100 1000 02115/94 12:00 1.10 1.12 1.09 11.99 12.60 11.56 2100 1000 02116194 12:00 1.07 1.08 1.06 10.91 11.25 10.48 2100 0900 02117/94 12:00 1.05 1.06 1.04 10.42 10.71 9.91 2100 2000 02118/94 12:00 1.02 1.03 1.01 9.33 9.81 8.94 2100 1000 02119194 12:00 0.99 1.01 0.98 8.51 9.03 8.12 2100 1000 02120/94 12:00 0.96 0.99 0.94 7.80 8.48 7.21 1400 0800 02121194 12:00 0.95 0.97 0.92 7.33 8.04 6.69 1500 1100 02122194 12:00 0.93 0.97 0.91 6.96 7.96 6.48 1500 0800 02123/94 12:00 0.93 0.96 0.91 6.84 7.62 6.55 1500 0700 02124/94 12:00 0.92 0.93 0.91 6.64 6.84 6.55 2100 0800 02125194 12:00 0.91 0.91 0.90 6.36 6.55 6.25 2100 2000 02126194 12:00 0.90 0.90 0.89 6.11 6.27 5.89 1800 1200 02127194 12:00 0.76 0.89 0.47 3.55 6.09 0.72 2200 2000 02128194 12:00 0.35 0.45 0.29 0.28 0.63 0.16 2100 0800 03/01194 12:00 0.58 0.62 0.45 1.45 1.82 0.66 1100 2100 03/02194 12:00 0.75 0.89 0.63 3.38 6.02 1.97 2000 2100 03/03194 12:00 1.11 1.32 0.92 12.46 21.97 6.76 2000 2100 03/04/94 12:00 1.49 1.91 1.24 32.23 73.02 17.67 2000 0200 03/05194 12:00 2.11 2.23 1.95 102.21 121.79 77.90 1200 2100 .,3/06194 12:00 1.61 1.93 1.33 42.00 76.08 22.29 2100 1700 03/07/94 12:00 1.48 1.63 1.32 32.09 43.56 21.97 1000 2200 03/08/94 12:00 1.18 1.32 1.09 15.05 21.69 11.56 2100 2000 03/09194 12:00 1.19 1.54 0.97 15.73 36.15 7.91 2000 0600 03/10/94 12:00 1.58 1.61 1.55 39.41 41.58 37.01 1300 2100 03/11/94 12:00 1.36 1.60 1.13 23.93 40.73 13.17 2100 1900 03/12194 12:00 1.20 1.36 1.13 16.03 24.10 13.13 2000 0400 03/13194 12:00 1.30 1.42 1.16 20.53 28.03 14.23 0000 1600 03/14194 12:00 1.48 1.58 1.26 31.66 39.16 18.77 1200 2100 03/15194 12:00 1.49 1.60 1.36 32.23 41.07 24.28 2300 1600 03/16194 12:00 1.30 1.38 1.19 20.74 25.47 15.69 1300 1700 03/17/94 12:00 1.55 1.77 1.28 37.24 57.19 19.86 1800 2100 03/18194 12:00 1.66 1.81 1.46 46.52 . 61.31 30.55 0100 2000 03/19194 12:00 1.45 1.51 1.40 29.47 33.67 26.26 2000 1000 03120194 12:00 1.71 1.94 1.54 51.07 76.73 36.15 2000 2100 06130194 12:00 1.71 2.24 1.58 51.37 124.50 39.49 1300 1600 07/01194 12:00 2.06 2.28 1.81 93.45 130.41 60.98 300 1600 07/02194 12:00 2.06 2.13 1.89 93.30 104.61 71.28 500 1500 07/03194 12:00 2.14 2.31 2.00 106.89 136.91 84.80 500 1400 07/04/94 12:00 1.84 2.06 1.55 65.06 93.30 37.24 0 1500 07/05194 12:00 1.90 1.98 1.80 72.02 83.14 59.88 600 1800 07/06194 12:00 1.87 1.99 1.70 67.88 83.97 49.91 800 1500 07/07194 12:00 1.86 2.13 1.41 66.69 104.61 27.20 300 1500 07/08194 12:00 1.87 2.09 1.50 68.00 98.61 33.16 0 1400 07/09/94 12:00 2.03 2.14 1.92 89.63 106.23 74.28 ' 200 2100 "'7/10194 12:00 2.24 2.42 2.03 124.50 159.69 89.34 1900 2100 .,7/11194 12:00 2.73 2.89 2.45 237.90 286.34 165.38 1000 2100 07/12194 12:00 2.68 2.87 2.47 223.66 278.31 169.63 100 1900 07/13/94 12:00 2.40 2.52 2.23 155.61 181.64 121.08 2300 1700 Alaska Hydrologic Survey, Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 01114194 12:00 Stage (ftl 2.32 Stage {ttl 2.38 Stage {ftl 2.27 Flow fets} 138.86 19~f~O 1~~~fo 500 1400 07/15194 12:00 2.33 2.42 2.24 139.85 159.04 123.41 300 1700 07/16194 12:00 2.34 2.77 2.11 142.83 246.86 101.27 2000 700 07/17/94 12:00 2.83 3.01 2.76 267.33 326.80 244.82 1900 1300 07/18/94 12:00 2.77 3.05 2.57 248.03 338.69 194.72 2300 1800 07/19194 12:00 2.36 2.53 2.21 145.85 183.78 117.89 2300 1300 07120194 12:00 2.11 2.23 1.98 101.42 121.61 82.18 2100 1600 07121194 12:00 3.46 3.94 2.21 516.87 787.04 118.60 700 2100 07122194 12:00 3.00 3.37 2.80 321.15 472.75 255.75 2100 1700 07123/94 12:00 2.58 2.80 2.36 195.72 257.56 147.28 100 2000 07124194 12:00 2.27 2.39 2.15 129.85 152.24 107.71 2100 1700 07125194 12:00 2.10 2.20 1.99 100.01 116.15 84.25 0 1800 07126194 12:00 1.98 2.06 1.87 82.18 93.60 68.60 200 1400 07127194 12:00 1.91 2.01 1.76 73.90 86.63 55.93 500 1400 07128194 12:00 1.81 1.91 1.69 61.09 73.27 49.24 500 1600 07i29/94 12:00 1.74 1.80 1.67 54.27 60.65 47.07 100 1500 07130194 12:00 1.71 1.77 1.65 50.78 57.51 45.70 2100 1400 07131194 12:00 1.71 1.80 1.57 51.37 60.65 38.52 300 1400 08101/94 12:00 1.73 1.82 1.67 52.66 62.66 47.07 2000 1500 08/02194 12:00 1.72 1.83 1.57 51.86 63.68 38.76 100 1800 08/03194 12:00 1.83 2.30 1.64 64.02 135.36 44.09 1900 2100 08/04194 12:00 2.18 2.32 2.03 113.57 139.45 90.06 2200 1800 08/05194 12:00 2.02 2.08 1.90 87.90 96.92 72.02 2100 1600 08/06/94 12:00 1.86 2.01 1.74 67.28 86.91 54.17 2200 1500 08/07194 12:00 1.73 1.79 1.68 53.26 59.44 48.10 0 1400 1)8/08194 12:00 1.68 1.76 1.60 48.57 56.13 41.24 2200 1700 \18/09/94 12:00 1.71 1.75 1.68 51.17 55.10 47.72 1000 1700 08/10/94 12:00 1.66 1.76 1.54 45.88 56.24 36.54 0 1600 08/11194 12:00 1.60 1.69 1.49 40.82 48.95 32.23 100 1300 08/12194 12:00 1.56 1.65 1.44 37.64 45.07 29.07 100 1500 08/13194 12:00 1.52 1.63 1.39 34.56 43.47 25.83 100 1600 08/14194 12:00 1.44 1.51 1.37 29.27 34.12 24.63 2300 1400 08/15194 12:00 1.42 1.52 1.30 28.03 34.34 20.53 0 1500 08/16194 12:00 1.40 1.47 1.27 26.38 31.31 19.36 0 1300 08/17194 12:00 1.37 1.46 1.24 24.75 30.21 17.95 2200 1400 08/18194 12:00 1.33 1.42 1.26 22.57 27.45 18.72 2100 1700 08/19194 12:00 1.30 1.34 1.22 20.53 23.19 16.84 2100 1600 08120/94 12:00 1.30 1.35 1.23 20.63 23.59 17.11 0 1500 08121194 12:00 1.28 1.32 1.24 19.71 21.97 17.71 100 1300 08122194 12:00 1.27 1.33 1.19 19.46 22.40 15.69 300 1600 08123/94 12:00 1.23 1.27 1.16 17.16 19.06 14.11 300 1400 08124/94 12:00 1.19 1.25 1.13 15.64 18.19 13.05 2100 1400 08125/94 12:00 1.17 1.20 1.12 14.84 16.17 12.72 600 1400 08126194 12:00 1.28 1.57 1.13 19.76 38.44 13.28 1700 400 08127194 12:00 1.31 1.51 1.17 21.43 34.12 14.80 2100 1700 08128194 12:00 1.18 1.23 1.10 14.97 17.25 11.99 2100 1400 08129194 12:00 1.13 1.18 1.07 13.25 14.92 10.88 2100 1300 08130/94 12:00 1.12 1.16 1.06 12.57 14.11 10.78 2100 1300 08131/94 12:00 1.12 1.15 1.06 12.83 13.87 10.71 100 1200 09/01194 12:00 1.10 1.10 1.09 11.91 12.09 11.74 2100 1900 "9102194 12:00 1.09 1.10 1.08 11.49 11.88 11.25 2100 1800 ;9/03194 12:00 1.07 1.08 1.07 10.98 11.32 10.81 2200 2000 09/04/94 12:00 1.06 1.07 1.06 10.68 10.88 10.58 1500 200 09/05194 12:00 1.06 1.06 1.05 10.55 10.68 10.39 2200 700 Alaska Hydrologic Survey. Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 09706194 12:00 Stage (ft} 1.05 Stage {ft} 1.06 Stage (ft} 1.05 Flow iefS} 10. 9 (efs) 10.61 {cfs~10.1 2100 1900 09/07194 12:00 1.04 1.05 1.03 9.94 10.29 9.78 2100 900 09/08194 12:00 1.03 1.03 1.02 9.57 9.72 9.39 2100 1400 09109194 12:00 1.03 1.03 1.02 9.57 9.78 9.42 100 1800 09/10194 12:00 1.08 1.17 1.02 11.15 14.55 9.39 1700 2100 09/11194 12:00 1.12 1.14 1.10 12.60 13.40 11.99 2300 1400 09/12194 12:00 1.08 1.11 1.06 11.35 12.20 10.68 2100 1900 09/13194 12:00 1.13 1.63 1.05 13.05 43.21 10.19 2000 1100 09/14194 12:00 1.43 1.58 1.37 28.48 39.49 24.93 2100 2000 09/15/94 12:00 1.33 1.39 1.28 22.18 25.77 19.51 2300 2000 09/16/94 12:00 1.29 1.61 1.22 20.22 41.58 16.70 2000 1200 09/17194 12:00 1.64 1.71 1.55 44.62 50.97 36.70 800 2300 09/18/94 12:00 1.65 1.81 1.60 45.25 61.98 40.82 1700 0 09/19/94 12:00 1.67 1.75 1.63 47.54 55.10 43.56 2100 2000 09120194 12:00 2.33 2.93 1.66 141.23 296.86 46.34 100 2100 09121/94 12:00 2.08 2.22 1.98 97.69 120.54 83.14 2100 2000 09122194 12:00 1.94 1.98 1.90 76.60 82.32 71.53 2100 2000 09123/94 12:00 1.96 2.29 1.85 79.22 132.87 65.87 2000 800 09124194 12:00 2.63 3.04 2.35 209.50 337.23 145.04 100 2000 09125194 12:00 2.14 2.32 1.98 106.89 139.06 82.59 2100 2000 09126/94 12:00 1.87 1.98 1.79 68.72 81.91 59.44 2200 2000 09127194 12:00 1.71 1.78 1.65 50.68 58.15 45.34 2300 2000 09128194 12:00 1.58 1.64 1.53 39.57 44.35 35.47 2200 2000 09129/94 12:00 1.49 1.53 1.45 32.16 35.47 29.81 2100 1900 09/30194 12:00 1.41 1.45 1.38 27.01 29.41 25.41 2100 2000 10/01194 12:00 2.24 4.68 1.37 123.77 1387.09 24.81 2000 300 10/02194 12:00 3.32 4.70 2.67 449.70 1405.64 220.12 2200 1600 10/03194 12:00 2.57 2.88 2.38 194.97 283.43 151.62 2100 2000 10/04194 12:00 2.23 2.38 2.12 121.79 150.37 103.01 2100 1600 10/05194 12:00 2.25 2.38 2.16 126.33 150.99 109.69 300 2200 10/06/94 12:00 2.10 2.13 2.07 100.48 105.58 95.40 900 1800 10/07194 12:00 2.02 2.09 1.95 87.90 98.77 78.43 2100 1700 10/08194 12:00 1.87 1.94 1.80 68.24 77.64 59.88 2100 2000 10109194 12:00 1.74 1.80 1.69 53.76 60.10 48.95 2200 1900 10/10/94 12:00 1.76 1.92 1.67 56.13 75.18 47.35 1600 700 10/11194 12:00 1.89 1.93 1.83 70.91 76.34 63.34 2300 1900 10/12194 12:00 1.79 1.84 1.76 59.44 64.48 56.55 2100 1700 10/13/94 12:00 1.78 1.83 1.73 57.93 63.68 52.96 200 2000 10/14194 12:00 1.68 1.73 1.63 48.01 53.26 43.82 2100 2000 10/15194 12:00 1.59 1.64 1.56 40.23 44.09 37.88 2200 1800 10/16194 12:00 1.52 1.56 1.47 34.34 37.72 30.97 0 2000 10/17194 12:00 1.44 . 1.46 1.41 28.81 30.69 27.13 2200 2000 10/18194 12:00 1.38 1.41 1.36 25.17 27.01 24.28 2100 1000 10/19/94 12:00 1.39 1.43 1.36 25.71 28.61 24.28 100 2000 10120194 12:00 1.33 1.37 1.30 22.40 24.46 21.00 2200 1900 10121/94 12:00 1.28 1.31 1.24 19.61 21.16 17.81 1300 800 10122194 12:00 1.25 1.27 1.25 18.47 19.06 18.04 2100 1000 10123194 12:00 1.32 1.40 1.26 22.07 26.57 18.91 200 2100 10124194 12:00 1.29 1.31 1.27 20.17 21.32 19.26 2100 2000 10125194 12:00 1.27 1.29 1.26 19.41 20.37 18.62 1400 500 "0126194 12:00 1.25 1.28 1.23 18.47 19.81 17.53 2100 2000 .0127/94 12:00 1.22 1.23 1.20 16.75 17.53 16.17 2100 1900 10128194 12:00 1.18 1.20 1.17 15.26 16.12 14.55 2100 1000 10129194 12:00 1.15 1.18 1.12 13.95 15.22 12.83 1600 1000 Alaska Hydrologic Surwy, Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 10730794 12:00 Stage {ttl 1.12 Stage {ttl 1.16 Stage {ttl 1.11 Flow {efs} 12.87 {efsl 14.11 {efsl 12.20 1500 300 10131/94 12:00 1.10 1.14 1.07 11.91 13.44 10.98 1500 1000 11101/94 12:00 1.16 1.20 1.10 14.15 16.03 11.91 800 2100 11/02194 12:00 1.48 1.99 1.16 31.95 83.55 14.23 1600 2100 11/03/94 12:00 1.69 1.89 1.57 48.67 70.91 38.92 2100 2000 11104/94 12:00 1.50 1.57 1.43 33.16 38.44 28.61 2200 1900 11/05/94 12:00 1.43 1.44 1.41 28.09 29.07 26.94 2200 2000 11/06/94 12:00 1.38 1.41 1.35 25.35 27.13 23.41 2100 1900 11/07/94 12:00 1.30 1.34 1.23 20.95 22.85 17.53 2100 2000 11/08/94 12:00 1.24 1.26 1.22 17.85 18.57 16.79 1500 2200 11/09/94 12:00 1.24 1.29 1.22 17.81 20.32 16.66 1500 1000 11/10/94 12:00 1.38 1.48 1.30 25.35 31.74 20.95 0 2000 11/11/94 12:00 1.30 1.35 1.27 20.95 23.24 19.41 1300 2100 11/12/94 12:00 1.27 1.29 1.24 19.06 20.37 18.00 2100 2000 11/13/94 12:00 1.21 1.25 1.19 16.43 18.04 15.34 2200 1200 11/14/94 12:00 1.20 1.21 1.18 15.95 16.57 15.05 600 2300 11/15194 12:00 1.20 1.26 1.18 16.17 18.62 15.05 2300 1600 11/16194 12:00 1.17 1.22 1.14 14.68 16.93 13.44 2000 400 11/17/94 12:00 1.49 1.68 1.24 32.30 47.82 17.95 1100 2100 11/18/94 12:00 1.46 1.51 1.40 30.21 34.12 26.57 2100 2000 11/19/94 12:00 1.37 1.40 1.34 24.40 26.57 23.02 2100 2000 11120194 12:00 1.32 1.35 1.31 22.07 23.24 21.16 2100 1700 11121/94 12:00 1.22 1.30 1.16 17.06 20.95 14.27 2100 1000 11122194 12:00 1.19 1.21 1.17 15.69 16.43 14.76 2000 0 11123/94 12:00 1.17 1.20 1.15 14.80 15.82 14.03 2100 2000 11124/94 12:00 1.14 1.15 1.13 13.55 14.03 13.28 2100 0 11125194 12:00 1.13 1.14 1.12 13.02 13.44 12.83 2100 1500 11126/94 12:00 1.11 1.13 1.09 12.24 12.94 11.56 2100 2000 11127/94 12:00 1.08 1.09 1.05 11.15 11.56 10.39 2300 2000 11128/94 12:00 1.05 1.06 1.03 10.16 10.58 9.81 2100 1900 11129194 12:00 1.02 1.03 1.01 9.48 9.81 9.21 2100 1700 11130/94 12:00 1.01 1.01 1.00 8.94 9.12 8.68 2100 1600 12101/94 12:00 0.99 1.00 0.99 8.48 8.68 8.37 2100 1400 12102194 12:00 0.98 0.99 0.97 8.20 8.40 8.07 2100 1100 12103194 12:00 1.09 1.36 0.98 11.67 23.82 8.29 1800 2100 12104194 12:00 1.11 1.30 1.04 12.42 20.53 9.91 2100 2000 12105/94 12:00 1.03 1.04 1.01 9.60 10.10 8.94 1600 1000 12106/94 12:00 1.01 1.04 1.00 9.18 9.91 8.68 0 2000 12107194 12:00 0.99 1.00 0.98 8.43 8.68 8.20 2100 2000 12108194 12:00 0.98 0.98 0.98 8.20 8.31 8.12 1100 1900 12109194 12:00 0.97 0.98 0.96 7.85 8.12 7.72 2100 1000 12110/94 12:00 0.96 0.98 0.96 7.77 8.20 7.56 500 1700 12111/94 12:00 0.95 0.96 0.95 7.41 7.56 7.31 2000 1500 12112194 12:00 1.04 1.10 0.96 10.07 12.09 7.72 500 2100 12113194 12:00 0.98 1.00 0.96 8.20 8.82 7.80 2100 2000 12114/94 12:00 0.96 0.97 0.95 7.59 7.83 7.41 2100 1800 12115/94 12:00 0.94 0.95 0.94 7.21 7.46 7.13 2100 900 12116194 12:00 0.93 0.94 0.93 6.98 7.13 6.84 2100 1200 12117/94 12:00 0.92 0.93 0.92 6.76 6.91 6.67 2100 1900 12118/94 12:00 0.92 0.92 0.91 6.57 6.69 6.41 2100 1900 "'2119/94 12:00 0.90 0.91 0.90 6.32 6.46 6.23 2200 1200 .2120194 12:00 0.90 0.90 0.89 6.11 6.23 5.98 2100 1900 12121194 12:00 0.89 0.89 0.88 5.91 6.02 5.83 2100 1700 12122/94 12:00 0.88 0.89 0.87 5.78 5.96 5.57 2300 1800 Alaska Hydrologic Survey, Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 12123194 12:00 Stage (ft} 0.86 Stage (ft} 0.90 Stage {ft} 0.84 Flow fefs} 5.41 ~Cf~.1 ~Cfs~.9 2000 500 12124194 12:00 0.88 0.89 0.87 5.74 5.89 5.55 2100 2000 12125/94 12:00 0.87 0.89 0.86 5.55 5.91 5.28 1300 1800 12126194 12:00 0.86 0.86 0.85 5.26 5.32 5.18 200 1900 12127194 12:00 0.87 0.94 0.83 5.47 7.21 4.70 1600 1200 12128/94 12:00 0.86 0.89 0.78 5.36 6.05 3.93 800 2200 12129194 12:00 0.85 0.86 0.84 5.14 5.36 4.99 2100 1800 12130/94 12:00 0.84 0.84 0.84 4.99 5.04 4.89 500 2300 12131194 12:00 0.89 0.97 0.83 5.98 7.91 4.81 2000 0 01101195 12:00 1.01 1.04 0.99 9.12 9.88 8.60 0 2100 01/01195 12:00 1.38 1.55 1.07 25.17 37.01 11.12 1900 100 01/02195 12:00 1.88 2.34 1.57 69.69 142.63 38.44 2000 2100 01/03/95 12:00 2.60 2.91 2.36 201.76 292.56 145.85 1500 0 01/04195 12:00 3.01 3.29 2.75 324.32 436.51 243.08 1000 2200 01/05/95 12:00 2.37 2.78 2.13 148.10 251.87 104.13 2100 2000 01/06195 12:00 1.94 2.10 1.80 76.86 100.64 59.88 2100 2000 01/07195 12:00 1.69 1.79 1.62 49.33 59.77 43.12 2100 1700 01/08/95 12:00 1.55 1.62 1.47 36.70 43.12 30.76 2100 1900 01109195 12:00 1.40 1.46 1.35 26.45 30.55 23.41 2100 1900 01/10195 12:00 1.30 1.35 1.26 20.74 23.24 18.62 2100 2000 01/11195 12:00 1.23 1.26 1.17 17.11 18.77 14.55 2200 2000 01/12195 12:00 1.15 1.16 1.13 13.83 14.43 13.28 2100 1300 01/13/95 12:00 1.13 1.14 1.12 13.05 13.63 12.60 1700 1000 01/14195 12:00 1.10 1.12 1.08 12.13 12.79 11.35 2100 2000 01/15/95 12:00 1.08 1.09 1.06 11.29 11.77 10.78 1800 200 1)1/16/95 12:00 1.11 1.16 1.08 12.46 14.31 11.46 1400 2300 J1/17195 12:00 1.09 1.14 1.06 11.81 13.52 10.61 2100 2000 01/18195 12:00 1.04 1.06 1.03 9.97 10.48 9.57 2100 1900 01/19195 12:00 1.01 1.03 1.00 9.03 9.57 8.68 2100 1900 01120195 12:00 0.99 1.00 0.99 8.60 8.77 8.40 400 2200 01121195 12:00 0.98 0.99 0.95 8.12 8.43 7.33 2100 2000 01122195 12:00 0.96 0.97 0.94 7.64 8.04 7.26 1600 2200 01123195 12:00 0.94 0.95 0.92 7.06 7.33 6.69 2100 1200 01124195 12:00 0.93 1.00 0.89 6.91 8.68 6.09 1700 1000 01125195 12:00 0.94 0.97 0.92 7.18 7.96 6.69 1500 800 01126195 12:00 0.91 0.94 0.89 6.53 7.13 6.02 1400 200 01127/95 12:00 0.91 0.95 0.89 6.53 7.41 5.96 1800 2300 01128195 12:00 1.11 1.31 0.95 12.46 21.16 7.41 1700 2200 01129195 12:00 1.17 1.29 1.09 14.76 20.22 11.67 2100 2000 01130/95 12:00 1.06 1.09 1.04 10.58 11.77 9.91 2100 1800 01131195 12:00 1.02 1.04 1.01 9.48 9.91 9.15 2100 1900 02101195 12:00 1.00. 1.01 0.99 8.82 9.12 8.60 2100 2000 02102195 12:00 1.01 1.07 0.99 9.06 11.01 8.37 1900 500 02103195 12:00 1.04 1.06 1.02 9.91 10.68 9.48 2100 1100 02104195 12:00 1.31 1.89 1.01 21.48 70.54 9.12 2000 100 02105195 12:00 2.26 2.42 1.96 128.17 159.47 79.36 1100 2100 02106195 12:00 1.78 2.07 1.59 58.36 95.40 39.99 2100 2000 02107195 12:00 1.47 1.58 1.39 31.31 39.49 26.01 2100 2000 02108195 12:00 1.34 1.39 1.30 22.85 26.01 20.84 2100 2000 02109195 12:00 1.32 1.39 1.27 21.75 26.01 19.36 1700 900 "2110195 12:00 1.29 1.35 1.25 20.17 23.76 18.33 2100 2000 ~2111/95 12:00 1.22 1.25 1.19 16.79 18.19 15.69 2100 2000 02112195 12:00 1.17 1.19 1.15 14.63 15.69 13.99 2100 1900 02113195 12:00 1.13 1.15 1.12 13.28 13.87 12.79 2100 1200 Alaska Hydrologic Survey, Hydro Creek Stream'How Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 02114795 12:00 Stage (ttl 1.09 Stage {ttl 1.12 Stage {ttl 1.01 Flow {efs) 11.67 (Cf~12.8 {Cf~10.8 2100 900 02115195 12:00 1.05 1.07 1.03 10.35 11.05 9.60 1500 1000 02116195 12:00 0.98 0.99 0.97 8.18 8.37 7.96 1700 2000 02117195 12:00 0.95 1.00 0.92 7.38 8.77 6.62 1500 0900 02118195 12:00 0.93 0.97 0.89 6.96 8.04 6.09 1600 1000 02119195 12:00 0.93 0.94 0.92 6.98 7.21 6.62 2100 2000 02120/95 12:00 0.89 0.93 0.87 6.09 6.84 5.51 1500 0600 02121/95 12:00 0.87 0.93 0.84 5.59 6.98 4.87 1500 0200 02122195 12:00 0.89 0.93 0.86 5.91 6.84 5.36 1600 2300 02123/95 12:00 0.88 0.91 0.87 5.76 6.34 5.55 2100 2000 02124195 12:00 0.86 0.87 0.85 5.38 5.51 5.22 2100 2000 02125195 12:00 0.85 0.85 0.84 5.08 5.22 4.99 2100 1600 02126195 12:00 0.88 0.96 0.84 5.85 7.72 4.99 1900 2100 02127/95 12:00 0.96 0.99 0.93 7.69 8.60 6.91 1700 0000 02128/95 12:00 0.93 0.98 0.91 7.03 8.31 6.53 2100 1300 03/01/95 12:00 0.95 1.01 0.90 7.38 9.03 6.32 1600 2300 03/02195 12:00 0.95 0.99 0.93 7.36 8.37 6.84 2100 1200 03/03/95 12:00 0.93 0.95 0.91 6.88 7.33 6.55 2100 1100 03/04/95 12:00 0.92 0.93 0.91 6.67 6.98 6.41 2100 1000 03/05195 12:00 0.91 0.92 0.91 6.53 6.79 6.34 2100 1000 03106195 12:00 0.90 0.92 0.90 6.29 6.62 6.11 2100 1100 03/07195 12:00 0.89 0.90 0.88 5.96 6.23 5.83 2100 0800 03/08195 12:00 0.88 0.89 0.87 5.70 5.89 5.55 2100 1100 03/09195 12:00 0.87 0.87 0.86 5.51 5.63 5.38 2100 0900 03/10195 12:00 0.85 0.86 0.85 5.24 5.43 5.12 2200 1000 fl3/11195 12:00 0.84 0.94 0.78 4.89 7.08 3.83 1400 0400 \)3/12195 12:00 0.83 0.88 0.77 4.70 5.70 3.78 1300 0300 03/13/95 12:00 0.80 0.91 0.74 4.30 6.55 3.21 1500 0000 03/14195 12:00 0.80 0.89 0.75 4.23 5.89 3.42 1500 0500 03/15/95 12:00 0.80 0.91 0.73 4.27 6.39 3.09 1400 0400 03/16/95 12:00 0.81 0.88 0.75 4.39 5.83 3.47 1500 0900 03/17195 12:00 0.82 0.87 0.79 4.53 5.57 4.03 1400 0400 03/18/95 12:00 0.83 0.84 0.81 4.68 4.93 4.44 2100 1800 03/19195 12:00 0.80 0.81 0.79 4.16 4.35 3.98 2100 1900 03120195 12:00 0.78 0.80 0.76 3.81 4.18 3.56 1400 2000 03121195 12:00 0.77 0.79 0.74 3.65 4.11 3.29 1500 0000 03122195 12:00 0.77 0.78 0.76 3.67 3.81 3.52 2300 2000 03123195 12:00 0.75 0.76 0.75 3.45 3.52 3.38 2100 0700 03124/95 12:00 0.74 0.75 0.74 3.32 3.42 3.23 2100 1900 03125195 12:00 0.74 0.74 0.73 3.22 3.32 3.15 0900 1000 03126195 12:00 0.73 0.74 0.73 3.16 3.34 3.09 2200 0400 03127195 12:00 0.73· 0.75 0.73 3.15 3.47 3.09 2000 1000 03128/95 12:00 0.82 0.84 0.76 4.55 4.93 3.56 1800 2100 03129/95 12:00 0.79 0.84 0.75 3.99 5.04 3.47 2000 1100 03130/95 12:00 0.98 1.18 0.86 8.15 15.05 5.32 2000 2100 03131195 12:00 1.09 1.20 1.02 11.67 16.17 9.39 2200 1300 04/01195 12:00 1.00 1.03 0.97 8.77 9.72 8.04 2100 1200 04/02195 12:00 1.00 1.04 0.98 8.88 10.00 8.15 1900 0900 04/03195 12:00 1.02 1.04 1.00 9.30 9.91 8.68 1800 0800 04/04195 12:00 1.05 1.16 1.01 10.39 14.11 9.21 1900 0400 '\4/05195 12:00 1.13 1.16 1.11 13.13 14.23 12.31 2100 1000 4/06195 12:00 1.20 1.27 1.14 16.03 19.06 13.52 2000 2100 04107195 12:00 1.22 1.26 1.20 16.79 18.77 15.82 2100 1300 04/08/95 12:00 1.37 1.52 1.21 24.75 34.79 16.57 1800 2100 Alaska Hydrologic Survey, Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 04/09/95 12:00 Stage {ftl 1.41 Stage {ftl 1.49 Stage {ftl 1.33 Flow lefs} 26.88 {cfs} 32.44 {cfs} 22.57 2100 2000 04/10/95 12:00 1.25 1.32 1.21 18.14 21.69 16.30 2100 2000 04/11/95 12:00 1.15 1.20 1.13 13.75 15.99 12.94 2100 1100 04/12195 12:00 1.10 1.13 1.07 11.91 13.25 10.88 1800 1100 04/13195 12:00 1.09 1.12 1.07 11.60 12.72 11.05 2100 1400 04/14195 12:00 1.06 1.09 1.04 10.55 11.67 9.91 1700 1100 04/15/95 12:00 1.06 1.10 1.03 10.58 11.88 9.66 2000 0400 04/16195 12:00 1.15 1.25 1.10 13.75 18.19 11.91 1600 2100 04/17195 12:00 1.11 1.16 1.09 12.53 14.31 11.81 2100 1000 04/18195 12:00 1.10 1.16 1.08 12.13 14.15 11.25 1700 0600 04/19195 12:00 1.10 1.20 1.06 11.91 15.82 10.58 1800 1000 04120195 12:00 1.16 1.19 1.14 14.11 15.69 13.52 2100 0900 04121195 12:00 1.12 1.15 1.11 12.87 13.79 12.35 2100 1100 04122195 12:00 1.14 1.18 1.11 13.44 15.05 12.53 2000 1000 04123195 12:00 1.15 1.18 1.14 14.03 15.01 13.40 2000 0800 04124195 12:00 1.28 1.37 1.18 19.96 24.46 15.30 2000 2100 04125195 12:00 1.45 1.56 1.37 29.67 37.48 24.81 2000 2100 04126195 12:00 1.57 1.67 1.53 38.36 47.07 35.47 2000 1000 04127195 12:00 1.67 1.81 1.60 47.26 61.31 41.24 2000 1100 04128195 12:00 1.73 1.81 1.67 52.76 61.98 47.07 2100 1300 04129195 12:00 1.68 1.79 1.62 48.29 59.22 43.12 2000 1100 04130195 12:00 1.75 1.79 1.70 54.68 59.77 49.91 2200 1100 05/01195 12:00 1.71 1.74 1.67 50.78 54.17 47.54 2000 1200 05/02195 12:00 1.69 1.73 1.64 49.14 52.96 44.89 2200 2000 05/03195 12:00 1.61 1.64 1.59 41.75 44.89 39.90 2100 1000 *)5/04195 12:00 1.58 1.61 1.56 39.41 42.09 37.48 2100 1100 05/05195 12:00 1.64 1.80 1.56 44.44 60.10 37.96 2000 2300 05/06195 12:00 2.12 2.54 1.73 103.01 187.62 52.96 2000 2100 05/07195 12:00 2.44 2.71 2.19 164.05 231.40 114.26 0000 1800 05/08195 12:00 2.18 2.23 2.12 113.57 122.33 103.49 1800 0100 05/09195 12:00 2.35 2.71 2.16 145.24 232.24 109.36 1700 0600 05/10195 12:00 2.69 2.76 2.63 226.13 246.28 209.76 1400 0800 05/11/95 12:00 2.39 2.63 2.27 153.29 208.97 129.48 2100 1800 05/12195 12:00 2.32 2.40 2.28 138.47 155.61 130.60 2000 1100 05/13195 12:00 2.33 2.38 2.26 140.44 150.16 128.17 0500 1600 05/14195 12:00 2.14 2.26 2.05 107.21 127.62 92.56 0100 1800 05/15/95 12:00 2.02 2.05 1.99 87.76 92.56 83.97 2100 2000 05/16195 12:00 1.94 2.00 1.90 77.64 84.80 72.65 2200 0900 05/17/95 12:00 1.88 1.93 1.84 69.20 75.69 65.29 2200 1800 05/18195 12:00 1.81 1.85 1.79 61.87 65.52 59.44 2100 1800 05/19195 12:00 2.07 2.57 1.77 94.95 193.73 57.51 2000 0100 05120195 12:00 2.79 2.89 2.63 254.85 284.08 208.45 2000 2100 05121195 12:00 2.93 3.06 2.74 298.53 343.82 239.04 0900 2000 05122195 12:00 2.51 2.73 2.35 180.46 235.63 144.44 2200 2000 05123195 12:00 2.52 2.70 2.31 183.06 229.45 137.69 1000 0100 05124195 12:00 2.37 2.53 2.27 149.13 183.78 128.73 2100 1800 05125/95 12:00 2.23 2.28 2.18 121.25 130.98 113.91 2100 1300 05126195 12:00 2.18 2.23 2.11 112.72 122.51 102.06 2300 1700 05127195 12:00 2.07 2.12 2.03 95.55 103.49 89.34 2100 1600 05128195 12:00 2.06 2.09 2.03 94.35 99.23 90.06 0300 1900 "5129195 12:00 2.02 2.07 1.96 87.90 94.95 79.62 2100 2000 .,,5130195 12:00 1.94 1.96 1.92 77.77 80.16 74.28 2100 0900 05131195 12:00 1.93 1.96 1.90 75.82 80.42 71.53 1000 1900 06/01195 12:00 1.88 1.91 1.86 69.56 73.02 66.93 2100 1900 Alaska Hydrologic Survey, Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 06/02195 12:00 Stage {ft} 1.86 Stage {ft} 1.88 Stage {ftl 1.84 Flow ~CfSl 67. 2 *f~0.0 ~fS~5.1 0100 1800 06/03195 12:00 1.83 1.85 1.81 63.34 66.22 61.20 2300 2000 06104195 12:00 1.88 1.99 1.82 70.05 83.97 62.54 1800 2100 06/05/95 12:00 1.98 2.01 1.95 81.91 86.48 78.03 2000 1000 06/06/95 12:00 2.07 2.12 2.02 95.55 103.65 88.48 1800 2100 06/07195 12:00 2.12 2.17 2.09 103.49 111.54 97.84 2000 1100 06/08195 12:00 2.22 2.25 2.19 120.36 125.41 115.29 0900 2100 06/09/95 12:00 2.15 2.21 2.10 108.37 118.95 99.54 2200 1300 06/10/95 12:00 2.31 2.50 2.18 135.94 176.72 112.89 1900 2100 06/11195 12:00 2.59 2.77 2.50 197.97 246.86 177.42 2000 1000 06/12195 12:00 2.61 2.76 2.47 204.32 245.40 170.76 2100 1600 06/13195 12:00 2.44 2.58 2.31 163.61 197.22 136.52 0100 1700 06/14195 12:00 2.27 2.33 2.19 128.36 141.43 115.63 2300 1900 06/15195 12:00 2.19 2.22 2.17 115.46 120.01 111.03 2100 0900 06/16195 12:00 2.17 2.23 2.12 112.04 121.08 103.65 0000 1000 06/17195 12:00 2.15 2.18 2.13 108.70 113.40 104.13 2200 1300 06/18/95 12:00 2.15 2.21 2.09 108.20 117.72 98.30 0000 2000 06/19/95 12:00 2.07 2.09 2.04 94.95 99.08 91.53 0600 1500 06120195 12:00 2.03 2.06 1.99 89.34 94.05 84.38 2300 1000 06121195 12:00 1.99 2.05 1.95 84.11 92.11 77.90 2100 1400 06122195 12:00 1.99 2.08 1.94 83.28 96.62 77.25 1900 0600 06123195 12:00 2.05 2.07 2.04 92.85 95.40 90.79 1500 2000 06124/95 12:00 1.99 2.05 1.95 84.25 92.11 78.30 2200 1800 06125195 12:00 1.92 1.95 1.90 75.05 78.56 71.53 2200 0800 06126/95 12:00 1.91 1.96 1.87 73.02 79.62 67.88 2300 1600 'l6127195 12:00 2.07 2.26 1.90 96.16 127.43 71.65 1400 0400 06128/95 12:00 2.13 2.18 2.08 104.45 113.40 96.77 2100 2000 06129195 12:00 2.07 2.10 2.04 95.55 100.79 90.79 0100 2000 06130/95 12:00 2.09 2.16 2.03 99.08 109.36 89.20 1400 2300 07/01195 12:00 2.12 2.15 2.07 102.53 108.37 95.70 1900 0700 07/02195 12:00 2.11 2.16 2.08 101.74 110.53 96.77 0000 1200 07/03/95 12:00 2.06 2.08 2.03 93.75 97.69 89.20 0200 1300 07/04195 12:00 2.09 2.11 2.07 98.61 102.21 95.85 1800 1000 07/05/95 12:00 2.09 2.13 2.06 98.92 104.61 93.60 1800 1400 07/06195 12:00 2.05 2.14 1.97 92.56 106.07 81.23 0000 1600 07/07195 12:00 2.02 2.08 1.97 88.76 96.92 81.23 0000 1700 07/08/95 12:00 1.94 1.99 1.91 77.51 83.83 72.77 2200 1300 07/09195 12:00 1.92 1.94 1.89 74.79 77.64 70.91 0100 1800 07/10195 12:00 2.05 2.13 1.98 91.97 105.26 82.32 0100 2100 07/11/95 12:00 1.94 2.00 1.91 77.77 84.94 72.77 2200 2000 07/12195 12:00 1.88 1.91 1.85 69.44 73.15 66.34 2200 1300 07/13/95 12:00 1.86 1.90 1.83 67.28 71.90 64.02 2000 0800 07/14/95 12:00 1.84 1.89 1.79 64.36 70.91 59.12 2100 1700 07/15195 12:00 1.89 1.94 1.81 70.42 76.86 61.31 2000 2300 07/16/95 12:00 1.93 1.96 1.91 75.95 79.22 72.77 2200 0800 07/17195 12:00 1.91 1.94 1.88 73.52 77.12 69.93 0000 1900 07/18/95 12:00 1.85 1.88 1.83 66.46 69.93 64.02 2200 1200 07/19195 12:00 1.82 1.85 1.79 62.54 65.99 59.44 0300 1200 07120195 12:00 1.81 1.85 1.79 61.98 65.64 59.12 2300 1500 07121195 12:00 1.78 1.81 1.76 58.58 61.65 56.55 2200 1400 '17122195 12:00 1.75 1.79 1.72 55.20 58.79 51.96 2100 1700 ,7123195 12:00 1.71 1.75 1.68 51.17 54.89 48.38 0000 1600 07124195 12:00 1.67 1.70 1.66 47.54 49.91 45.97 1900 1000 07125195 12:00 1.66 1.70 1.63 46.43 49.91 43.74 2300 1600 Alaska Hydrologic Survey, Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 07726/95 12:00 Stage {ft} 1.63 Stage {ft} 1.65 Stage {ft} 1.59 Flow ~CfS} 43. 0 tsf~5.7 *Cf~0.0 2300 2000 07127195 12:00 1.55 1.60 1.53 37.09 40.82 35.47 2100 1100 07128195 12:00 1.56 1.62 1.52 38.04 42.60 34.86 1300 0800 07129195 12:00 1.66 1.73 1.60 46.52 52.66 40.82 0200 2000 07130/95 12:00 1.55 1.59 1.52 36.70 40.57 34.56 2100 1900 07131/95 12:00 1.50 1.52 1.48 33.02 34.49 31.81 2100 1900 08/01195 12:00 1.52 1.57 1.48 34.86 38.44 31.88 1500 2100 08/02195 12:00 1.56 1.66 1.52 37.48 46.52 34.79 2000 0800 08103/95 12:00 1.67 1.71 1.64 47.17 50.68 44.35 2200 1900 08/04195 12:00 1.65 1.66 1.64 45.43 46.61 44.62 1700 0700 08/05195 12:00 1.60 1.66 1.55 40.73 46.52 36.77 2100 2000 08/06/95 12:00 1.53 1.55 1.50 35.09 37.24 32.95 2200 2000 08/07/95 12:00 1.49 1.50 1.48 32.16 32.87 31.52 2100 0500 08/08195 12:00 1.47 1.50 1.44 30.76 32.87 29.01 2300 2000 08/09195 12:00 1.49 1.55 1.43 32.73 36.77 28.22 1200 0200 08/10/95 12:00 1.51 1.55 1.47 33.60 36.70 30.76 2100 1900 08/11195 12:00 1.45 1.48 1.42 29.87 32.02 27.64 2000 0800 08/12195 12:00 1.53 1.61 1.47 35.16 41.58 31.31 0000 1900 08/13/95 12:00 1.45 1.48 1.42 29.41 31.59 27.64 2200 2000 08/14195 12:00 1.41 1.42 1.40 27.26 28.03 26.57 2000 1400 08/15195 12:00 1.42 1.45 1.40 27.77 29.41 26.38 0100 1500 08/16195 12:00 1.38 1.40 1.35 25.29 26.45 23.76 0200 2000 08/17/95 12:00 1.33 1.35 1.31 22.18 23.76 21.48 2100 1000 08/18/95 12:00 1.33 1.34 1.32 22.35 22.91 21.64 0500 2000 08/19195 12:00 1.31 1.33 1.30 21.27 22.13 20.53 0100 1900 08120195 12:00 1.28 1.29 1.27 19.56 20.22 19.11 2100 0800 08121195 12:00 1.29 1.31 1.28 20.32 21.48 19.51 0200 1500 08122195 12:00 1.28 1.31 1.26 19.81 21.16 18.86 0100 1500 08123/95 12:00 1.26 1.29 1.23 18.86 20.22 17.53 0000 2000 08124195 12:00 1.22 1.23 1.20 16.97 17.53 16.03 2100 2000 08125195 12:00 1.18 1.20 1.17 15.26 15.99 14.68 2100 2000 08126195 12:00 1.15 1.17 1.15 14.03 14.55 13.75 2100 2000 08127195 12:00 1.19 1.23 1.14 15.39 17.25 13.52 1300 0100 08128/95 12:00 1.20 1.22 1.18 15.90 16.84 14.92 2100 2000 08129/95 12:00 1.16 1.18 1.15 14.43 15.05 13.75 2100 1600 08130/95 12:00 1.15 1.17 1.15 14.03 14.68 13.75 0200 2000 08131/95 12:00 1.20 1.28 1.14 15.90 19.96 13.63 1600 2300 09/01195 12:00 1.21 1.26 1.17 16.25 18.77 14.80 2100 2000 09/02195 12:00 1.15 1.17 1.13 13.99 14.68 13.28 2100 2000 09/03/95 12:00 1.11 1.13 1.11 12.53 13.25 12.20 2100 2000 09/04195 12:00 1.13 1.34 1.10 13.05 23.07 12.02 2000 2300 09105195 12:00 1.88 2.02 1.56 70.17 88.05 37.48 0800 2100 09/06195 12:00 2.65 3.33 1.72 213.44 453.26 51.76 1000 2300 09107195 12:00 2.28 2.65 2.11 131.55 213.44 101.58 2100 1700 09/08/95 12:00 1.99 2.12 1.89 84.52 103.01 70.91 2100 1900 09/09/95 12:00 1.86 2.09 1.81 67.05 98.30 61.31 2000 1200 09/10195 12:00 1.95 2.08 1.88 78.16 97.38 70.05 2100 1600 09/11195 12:00 1.90 1.95 1.84 71.90 78.43 64.36 0400 2000 09/12195 12:00 1.79 1.83 1.76 59.12 63.45 55.72 2100 1400 09/13195 12:00 1.73 1.78 1.69 53.26 57.82 49.24 2100 2090 '19/14195 12:00 1.64 1.69 1.60 44.89 48.67 41.07 2200 2000 ,,9/15195 12:00 1.57 1.60 1.54 38.36 41.07 36.15 2100 1900 09/16195 12:00 1.57 2.04 1.52 38.76 91.09 34.34 2000 1100 09/17/95 12:00 3.23 3.67 2.19 411.37 623.53 114.60 1000 2100 Alaska Hydrologic Survey, Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 09118195 12:00 Stage {tt} 3.35 stage {tt} 3.75 stage {tt} 2.97 Flow fefs} 461.35 6g~~19 3~~~J9 0000 1900 09/19/95 12:00 3.00 3.94 2.55 321.50 789.66 190.29 2000 1100 09120195 12:00 3.91 4.43 3.56 769.48 1156.93 566.90 0100 0900 09121195 12:00 4.10 4.91 3.40 895.39 1616.83 484.34 0800 2000 09122195 12:00 2.79 3.41 2.47 255.45 489.03 169.40 2100 2000 09123/95 12:00 2.27 2.42 2.12 128.36 159.47 103.81 2200 1900 09124195 12:00 2.01 2.12 1.91 86.06 103.81 73.27 2100 2000 09125195 12:00 1.84 1.90 1.78 64.83 72.27 58.25 2100 1600 09126195 12:00 1.72 1.79 1.67 51.96 58.79 47.07 2100 2000 09127195 12:00 1.62 1.66 1.57 42.34 46.52 38.44 2100 2000 09128/95 12:00 2.01 2.37 1.59 87.05 148.51 40.57 0400 2100 09129/95 12:00 1.84 1.93 1.77 65.06 76.47 57.40 2100 2000 09130/95 12:00 1.90 2.31 1.75 72.52 137.11 55.10 2000 0200 10/01/95 12:00 2.52 2.64 2.42 182.11 213.17 159.47 1100 2000 10/02195 12:00 2.23 2.40 2.07 122.51 155.19 95.70 2100 2000 10/03195 12:00 1.95 2.07 1.87 79.09 95.25 68.12 2100 1900 10/04195 12:00 1.77 1.85 1.71 57.40 66.58 50.68 2100 2000 10/05195 12:00 1.64 1.70 1.60 44.80 50.20 41.32 2100 1700 10/06/95 12:00 1.60 1.65 1.55 40.73 45.43 36.77 2300 2000 10/07195 12:00 1.51 1.55 1.47 33.89 36.70 31.18 2100 2000 10/08195 12:00 1.44 1.47 1.42 29.21 30.97 27.45 2200 2000 10/09195 12:00 1.38 1.41 1.35 25.23 27.32 23.41 2100 2000 10/10195 12:00 1.32 1.35 1.30 21.80 23.24 20.53 2100 2000 10/11195 12:00 1.27 1.29 1.26 19.46 20.37 18.62 2200 1900 10/12195 12:00 1.24 1.26 1.22 17.57 18.62 16.84 2100 2000 10/13195 12:00 1.20 1.22 1.18 16.03 16.70 15.30 2100 2000 10/14195 12:00 1.24 1.31 1.18 17.62 21.32 15.30 0600 2300 10/15195 12:00 1.25 1.30 1.24 18.28 21.00 17.81 2000 2200 10/16195 12:00 1.78 2.13 1.35 58.15 104.29 23.24 1200 0000 10/17195 12:00 1.79 1.85 1.74 58.90 65.52 54.48 0900 2000 10/18195 12:00 1.79 2.05 1.71 58.90 91.97 50.68 2000 0800 10/19/95 12:00 2.30 2.40 2.07 135.17 155.83 95.70 0500 2100 10120195 12:00 2.11 2.26 1.98 102.37 128.17 82.32 2100 2000 10121195 12:00 2.02 2.30 1.90 87.48 135.17 71.90 2000 0700 10122195 12:00 2.39 2.58 2.21 152.87 196.22 117.72 0200 2000 10123195 12:00 2.03 2.19 1.91 89.49 115.63 73.02 2200 2000 10124195 12:00 1.87 1.94 1.81 68.60 76.86 61.20 0900 1900 10125195 12:00 1.72 1.79 1.64 51.56 59.77 44.62 2200 2000 10126195 12:00 1.57 1.63 1.52 38.52 43.47 34.34 2100 2000 10127195 12:00 1.47 1.51 1.42 30.83 34.12 28.03 2100 2000 10128195 12:00 1.44 1.58 1.39 28.87 39.41 25.59 2000 0900 10129195 12:00 1.56 1.73 1.52 37.56 53.26 34.49 2000 1000 10130195 12:00 2.47 2.74 1.80 169.63 239.33 60.21 1700 2100 10131195 12:00 2.76 2.95 2.47 246.57 304.24 169.40 1000 1900 11/01195 12:00 2.21 2.41 2.02 118.42 156.89 88.76 2100 2000 11/02195 12:00 1.91 2.02 1.82 73.15 88.33 62.32 2200 1900 11/03195 12:00 1.73 1.80 1.66 52.86 60.21 46.25 2200 2000 11/04195 12:00 1.59 1.67 1.54 40.40 46.80 35.92 2100 2000 11/05195 12:00 1.48 1.53 1.44 31.88 35.69 28.74 2100 2000 11/06195 12:00 1.39 1.43 1.35 25.77 28.61 23.53 2100 2000 "1/07195 12:00 1.32 1.35 1.29 21.91 23.41 20.37 2100 1900 .1/08/95 12:00 1.26 1.28 1.23 18.57 19.96 17.25 2100 2000 11/09195 12:00 1.20 1.23 1.18 16.12 17.16 15.18 2100 1000 11/10195 12:00 1.18 1.20 1.16 15.05 15.95 14.27 2200 2000 Alaska Hydrologic Survey. Hydro Creek streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 11111195 12:00 Stage (ftl 1.13 Stage (ft} 1.16 Stage eft} 1.09 Flow ~CfS} 13. 5 (cfs~14.2 {Cf~11.8 2100 1000 11/12195 12:00 1.07 1.09 1.05 10.95 11.74 10.29 2100 0600 11/13/95 12:00 1.06 1.07 1.04 10.55 11.05 10.10 2100 0800 11/14/95 12:00 1.06 1.08 1.04 10.58 11.25 9.88 1500 0100 11/15/95 12:00 1.06 1.08 1.03 10.52 11.15 9.66 2100 2000 11/16/95 12:00 1.02 1.03 1.01 9.30 9.66 8.94 2100 2000 11/17/95 12:00 0.99 1.00 0.97 8.51 8.91 8.04 2100 1100 11/18/95 12:00 0.98 0.99 0.97 8.12 8.37 7.96 2200 1100 11/19/95 12:00 0.97 0.98 0.97 7.99 8.15 7.83 1800 0700 11120/95 12:00 0.98 0.99 0.97 8.15 8.43 7.88 1600 0200 11121/95 12:00 1.15 1.42 0.98 13.99 28.03 8.20 2000 2100 11122195 12:00 1.38 1.53 1.27 25.35 35.77 19.36 0000 2000 11123/95 12:00 1.22 1.26 1.19 17.06 18.91 15.60 2100 1900 11124/95 12:00 1.16 1.19 1.14 14.35 15.43 13.52 2100 2000 11125/95 12:00 1.12 1.14 1.11 12.83 13.44 12.31 2100 1100 11126/95 12:00 1.10 1.11 1.09 11.91 12.31 11.56 0800 2000 11127/95 12:00 1.08 1.09 1.06 11.15 11.63 10.68 2100 2000 11128/95 12:00 1.03 1.07 1.00 9.72 10.98 8.85 0200 1100 11129/95 12:00 1.01 1.03 0.99 9.15 9.57 8.51 0400 2000 11/30/95 12:00 0.94 1.00 0.90 7.11 8.68 6.18 2200 1900 12101/95 12:00 0.92 0.94 0.91 6.79 7.26 6.48 1500 2200 12102195 12:00 0.94 0.96 0.94 7.23 7.56 7.06 1900 0000 12103/95 12:00 0.93 0.95 0.91 6.96 7.33 6.48 2100 0300 12104/95 12:00 0.93 0.95 0.92 7.03 7.41 6.62 0800 2000 12105/95 12:00 0.91 0.92 0.90 6.34 6.67 6.16 2100 2000 12106/95 12:00 0.90 0.91 0.89 6.14 6.55 5.89 1200 0500 12107/95 12:00 0.89 0.90 0.88 5.96 6.23 5.70 2100 2000 12108/95 12:00 0.88 0.89 0.87 5.74 5.89 5.57 2100 1900 12109/95 12:00 0.87 0.88 0.87 5.63 5.83 5.51 1700 0300 12110/95 12:00 0.87 0.88 0.86 5.61 5.78 5.38 0700 1400 12111/95 12:00 1.02 1.21 0.88 9.42 16.30 5.70 2000 2100 12112195 12:00 1.36 1.43 1.23 24.22 28.61 17.25 1100 2100 12113/95 12:00 1.31 1.33 1.29 21.48 22.18 20.22 2200 2000 12114/95 12:00 1.23 1.29 1.19 17.34 20.06 15.47 2100 2000 12115/95 12:00 1.19 1.24 1.17 15.60 17.67 14.80 1900 0800 12116/95 12:00 1.19 1.23 1.17 15.56 17.43 14.55 2100 1400 12117/95 12:00 1.20 1.26 1.16 16.08 18.72 14.43 2000 2200 12118/95 12:00 1.35 1.49 1.23 23.36 32.73 17.16 1200 0400 12119/95 12:00 1.34 1.43 1.27 22.74 28.61 19.21 2100 2000 12120/95 12:00 1.31 1.50 1.22 21.32 33.45 16.66 1500 0600 12121/95 12:00 1.29 1.39 1.23 20.06 25.65 17.11 2100 2000 12122195 12:00 1.21 1.23 1.18 16.25 17.39 15.30 1400 0800 12123/95 12:00 1.22 1.26 1.19 16.70 18.91 15.69 2000 0700 12124/95 12:00 1.43 1.64 1.29 28.48 44.09 20.37 1900 2100 12125/95 12:00 1.53 1.60 1.48 35.62 41.24 31.81 2100 2000 12126/95 12:00 1.60 1.73 1.45 40.65 52.66 29.67 0900 0100 12127/95 12:00 1.55 1.60 1.52 37.32 40.82 34.34 2100 1700 12128/95 12:00 2.01 2.38 1.65 86.63 151.20 45.16 2000 2100 12129/95 12:00 2.38 2.64 2.07 150.16 211.07 95.40 0200 2000 12130/95 12:00 1.93 2.05 1.82 75.95 93.00 62.66 2100 1900 12/31/95 12:00 1.70 1.81 1.61 50.29 61.31 42.09 2100 2000 JlI01/96 12:00 1.59 1.60 1.58 40.23 41.32 39.41 2100 0000 01/01/96 12:00 1.50 1.57 1.43 33.09 38.28 28.16 0100 2000 01102196 12:00 1.36 1.42 1.31 24.05 28.03 21.48 2100 2000 Alaska Hydrologic Survey, Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 01703/96 12:00 Stage {ttl 1.35 Stage {ttl 1.42 Stage {ttl 1.31 Flow lefs} 23.64 {cfs} 27.64 {cfs) 21.16 0900 2100 01/04196 12:00 1.28 1.32 1.24 19.56 21.80 17.95 2100 2000 01/05/96 12:00 1.21 1.24 1.18 16.34 17.81 15.30 2100 2000 01/06/96 12:00 1.15 1.18 1.09 13.87 15.09 11.77 2100 1900 01107196 12:00 1.07 1.09 1.03 10.81 11.56 9.57 2100 2000 01/08196 12:00 1.02 1.03 1.01 9.48 9.81 8.94 0600 1900 01/09196 12:00 0.99 1.01 0.98 8.60 9.15 8.29 2300 1300 01/10196 12:00 0.98 0.99 0.97 8.26 8.57 7.96 1600 2000 01/11/96 12:00 0.94 0.97 0.92 7.23 7.83 6.69 2100 2000 01/12196 12:00 0.91 0.92 0.90 6.50 6.74 6.23 0000 1100 01/13/96 12:00 0.92 0.95 0.91 6.67 7.31 6.39 1500 0000 01/14196 12:00 0.91 0.92 0.90 6.36 6.62 6.18 2100 2000 01/15/96 12:00 0.88 0.90 0.87 5.83 6.23 5.57 2100 2000 01/16/96 12:00 0.87 0.88 0.86 5.49 5.68 5.32 2200 1100 01/17/96 12:00 0.86 0.87 0.86 5.43 5.51 5.32 1500 0900 01/18196 12:00 0.86 0.86 0.85 5.28 5.43 5.10 2200 2000 01/19/96 12:00 0.85 0.85 0.84 5.06 5.16 4.95 2300 2000 01120196 12:00 0.83 0.84 0.82 4.77 4.93 4.64 2100 1800 01121196 12:00 0.83 0.84 0.82 4.68 4.89 4.53 0400 2000 01122196 12:00 1.01 1.19 0.82 9.21 15.56 4.52 1900 0000 01123196 12:00 1.30 1.42 1.17 20.58 27.45 14.80 2000 2100 01124196 12:00 1.40 1.47 1.32 26.20 30.76 21.80 0500 1900 01125196 12:00 1.31 1.37 1.22 21.05 24.87 16.70 0100 1900 01126196 12:00 1.25 1.30 1.21 18.09 20.69 16.43 1200 1700 01127/96 12:00 1.25 1.29 1.22 18.09 20.37 16.70 2000 0800 01128/96 12:00 1.36 1.45 1.28 23.99 29.87 19.66 2000 2100 01129196 12:00 1.70 2.05 1.45 50.10 92.41 30.01 2000 2100 01130196 12:00 2.10 2.24 1.98 99.39 123.95 81.91 0000 1900 01131196 12:00 1.85 1.97 1.67 65.52 81.23 47.54 2100 2000 02101196 12:00 1.48 1.69 1.25 31.66 49.52 18.14 2100 2000 02102/96 12:00 1.06 1.24 0.85 10.61 17.81 5.18 2200 2000 02103/96 12:00 0.61 0.83 0.23 1.69 4.79 0.07 0000 2000 02110196 12:00 0.60 0.80 0.14 1.65 4.20 0.01 2000 2100 02111196 12:00 1.08 1.26 0.82 11.29 18.77 4.64 2000 2100 02112196 12:00 1.26 1.33 1.19 18.86 22.40 15.56 0200 1700 02113196 12:00 1.40 1.67 1.25 26.45 47.07 18.33 1900 2100 02114196 12:00 1.26 1.67 0.86 18.91 47.35 5.45 0000 1600 02115196 12:00 0.87 0.99 0.74 5.59 8.37 3.34 1900 0800 02116/96 12:00 0.74 0.75 0.74 3.34 3.41 3.28 2100 1200 02117/96 12:00 0.74 0.77 0.74 3.32 3.75 3.21 2000 0400 02118196 12:00 0.88 0.94 0.80 5.72 7.21 4.15 1400 2100 02119/96 12:00 0.80 0.86 0.75 4.30 5.38 3.49 2100 2000 02120196 12:00 0.78 0.83 0.72 3.88 4.68 3.05 1500 2200 02121/96 12:00 0.78 0.79 0.77 3.83 4.03 3.70 0500 1700 02122196 12:00 0.77 0.85 0.75 3.73 5.06 3.44 0600 0700 02123196 12:00 0.77 0.79 0.74 3.65 3.98 3.29 1100 2200 02124196 12:00 0.83 1.26 0.75 4.81 18.77 3.42 2000 0400 02125196 12:00 1.39 1.58 1.15 25.65 39.00 13.75 0700 2000 02126/96 12:00 1.04 1.13 0.99 10.00 13.28 8.57 2100 2000 02127196 12:00 1.00 1.12 0.96 8.88 12.57 7.56 1700 0900 '12128196 12:00 1.24 1.32 1.09 17.85 21.69 11.77 1600 2200 12129/96 12:00 1.19 1.28 1.13 15.47 19.86 13.13 2100 2000 03/01196 12:00 1.08 1.13 1.06 11.39 13.05 10.58 2100 1200 03/02196 12:00 1.03 1.06 1.01 9.81 10.78 9.15 2100 1300 Alaska Hydrologic Surwy. Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 03703/96 12:00 Stage (tt} 1.01 Stage (tt} 1.03 Stage (tt} 0.99 Flow fefs} 9.00 ~CfS~.7 ~cfs1.5 2100 1300 03/04196 12:00 0.99 1.00 0.97 8.43 8.77 8.04 2100 1100 03/05/96 12:00 0.98 0.99 0.97 8.15 8.57 7.88 2100 1000 03/06196 12:00 0.95 0.97 0.94 7.49 7.96 7.23 2100 2000 03107/96 12:00 0.93 0.94 0.91 6.86 7.23 6.55 2100 1900 03/08/96 12:00 0.90 0.91 0.89 6.27 6.48 6.09 2100 2000 03/09196 12:00 0.88 0.89 0.87 5.76 6.02 5.51 2100 2000 03/10/96 12:00 0.86 0.87 0.85 5.32 5.51 5.16 2100 1900 03/11196 12:00 0.84 0.85 0.84 5.04 5.22 4.87 2100 1100 03/12196 12:00 0.85 0.87 0.84 5.08 5.49 4.93 1900 0700 03/13/96 12:00 0.85 0.87 0.84 5.16 5.57 4.99 2000 0700 03/14196 12:00 0.85 0.88 0.84 5.16 5.70 4.87 1800 0900 03/15/96 12:00 0.92 0.97 0.87 6.60 8.04 5.57 2000 2200 03/16196 12:00 0.94 1.02 0.90 7.21 9.24 6.23 2000 1000 03/17/96 12:00 0.99 1.05 0.96 8.48 10.16 7.62 2000 1100 03/18/96 12:00 0.98 1.05 0.94 8.29 10.26 7.26 2100 1100 03/19/96 12:00 0.96 1.00 0.94 7.67 8.74 7.13 2100 1200 03120196 12:00 0.93 0.96 0.92 6.98 7.62 6.62 2100 1000 03121196 12:00 0.93 0.96 0.91 6.86 7.72 6.48 1900 0800 03122196 12:00 0.92 0.96 0.90 6.79 7.64 6.27 2100 1000 03123196 12:00 0.91 0.93 0.89 6.39 6.91 6.09 1900 0900 03124196 12:00 0.90 0.92 0.89 6.20 6.69 5.89 2100 0900 03125/96 12:00 0.89 0.91 0.88 6.07 6.34 5.85 2100 0900 03126/96 12:00 0.91 0.99 0.88 6.36 8.37 5.76 1900 0900 03127/96 12:00 0.94 1.02 0.90 7.23 9.48 6.27 1900 1000 03128196 12:00 0.96 1.01 0.94 7.80 9.21 7.06 1900 0900 03129/96 12:00 0.98 1.05 0.95 8.26 10.16 7.41 1900 1000 03130/96 12:00 1.00 1.05 0.97 8.77 10.16 8.04 1900 0900 03131/96 12:00 0.99 1.03 0.98 8.54 9.72 8.12 2100 1400 04/01196 12:00 0.95 0.98 0.94 7.54 8.12 7.21 2100 1100 04/02196 12:00 0.92 0.95 0.91 6.72 7.31 6.41 2100 1000 04/03196 12:00 0.90 0.91 0.89 6.16 6.48 5.98 2100 1300 04/04196 12:00 0.94 1.04 0.88 7.13 9.91 5.83 1800 0300 04/05/96 12:00 0.96 1.02 0.93 7.72 9.30 6.84 2100 1100 04/06196 12:00 0.92 0.97 . 0.89 6.72 7.91 5.89 2100 0800 04/07/96 12:00 0.88 0.94 0.85 5.87 7.26 5.16 1100 0200 04/08/96 12:00 0.87 0.88 0.87 5.61 5.76 5.49 2100 0700 04/09/96 12:00 0.86 0.87 0.85 5.36 5.51 5.22 2100 0900 04/10/96 12:00 0.84 0.85 0.84 5.04 5.22 4.93 2100 0900 04/11196 12:00 0.85 0.90 0.83 5.16 6.23 4.81 2000 0500 04/12196 12:00 0.92 1.02 0.89 6.79 9.48 6.09 1900 1100 04/13196 12:00 1.00 1.06 0.96 8.88 10.78 7.72 1800 1100 04/14196 12:00 1.18 1.43 1.02 14.92 28.35 9.39 2000 0200 04/15196 12:00 1.49 1.63 1.44 32.73 43.82 29.01 2000 1000 04/16/96 12:00 1.55 1.63 1.48 36.62 43.56 32.02 2100 1200 04/17/96 12:00 1.40 1.50 1.35 26.76 33.16 23.59 2100 1500 04/18/96 12:00 1.40 1.56 1.33 26.26 37.48 22.40 1700 0700 04/19/96 12:00 1.52 1.58 1.49 34.94 39.41 32.44 0600 0100 04120196 12:00 1.59 1.69 1.46 39.99 48.67 30.69 1100 0000 04121/96 12:00 1.62 1.73 1.53 42.95 53.26 35.77 1400 0300 ')4122196 12:00 2.00 2.22 1.68 85.22 120.19 48.10 1700 2100 J4123/96 12:00 2.14 2.25 1.99 106.40 124.68 83.97 0200 2000 04124196 12:00 1.82 1.98 1.73 62.43 81.91 52.56 2100 2000 04125/96 12:00 1.65 1.72 1.61 45.16 51.66 41.58 2200 1300 Alaska Hydrologic Survey. Hydro Creek Streamflow Data Date Time Mean Daily Daily Max Daily Min Mean Daily Max Flow Min Flow Max Time Min Time 04126796 12:00 Stage {ftl 1.54 Stage {ftl 1.61 Stage {ftl 1.50 Flow ~CfS) 36. 5 ~Cf~1.5 ~f~3.2 2100 1200 04127/96 12:00 1.47 1.S2 1.43 30.90 34.34 28.22 2100 2000 04128/96 12:00 1.37 1.42 1.3S 24.75 27.S8 23.36 2100 2000 04129/96 12:00 1.29 1.34 1.28 20.48 23.07 19.51 2100 1100 04130/96 12:00 1.24 1.27 1.22 17.81 19.21 16.84 2100 2000 OSlO 1196 12:00 1.20 1.22 1.18 15.77 16.79 1S.01 2100 0900 OS/02l96 12:00 1.19 1.22 1.17 15.60 16.84 14.80 1900 0800 oS/O 3/96 12:00 1.22 1.26 1.20 16.79 18.77 16.03 2000 0800 OS/04/96 12:00 1.40 1.66 1.27 26.45 46.2S 19.06 2000 2100 oS/OS/96 12:00 1.S9 1.66 1.S2 39.90 4S.97 34.S6 2100 1200 OS/06/96 12:00 1.60 1.64 1.S6 41.24 44.3S 37.88 1900 1200 AVG 1.47 47.30 MAX 4.91 1616.83 MIN 0.14 0.01 Alaska Hydrologic Survey, Hydro Creek Streamflow Data -- Figure 2: Old Harbor Streamflow Flows < 150 cfs, 7/93-5/96In III -r -II! I: J .... IIIIII II: A'g 1"1<", II '\ IIIIII 5.Jcf'l 1 -ilillil I II . I1IIIili \ \ I III I: I' I Ilil II 1\ I I' 'I I II~r-II, I :: ! III1III 111 1 ' I \ I \ II 1111: il II, I \,1 1 II1'1 II \ I !Il/ \;1'ilill'! I,ll 'i ill I I, 1\ j11 f! Ilii1rl/II,11 I ' I '\ I ill (I, I I II ,1 1 11'1, ,II ~~, II !I i ' 1 I [II J\II Iii' ~ Ii til i .. t I -. \ . II 11,1 I' II I J i,! I I IIIIII 1\111 f il II II \ ! ! '\ I I' Ii [I, 'I I[ I I \1, 11\ 11,11 II, il l P .1 ~ 1\ II \1I [ . iii I l~li I I! I" i '[ , II~ ,I I I I )I 1\ ! I I !, i Ii'::1 ,i ~IIII il \ I'IH \, ,i !I\ i !111 11111 f' , I \ \~ I. I, i fl.! j\!~-: \, Itt I I \ 1/\ L 'iii I, , , I', I j ,'. II II , ~' jj •• \ ! -l / ~ , . l I\! II :1 II !, 1)1:' i • i 07/14/93 01/31/94 11/30/94 06/19/95 01/06/96 1 0/23/93 08/21/94 03/1 0/95 09/28/95 04/22/96 Alaska Hydrologic Survey Date 140 ~120 ~ ~100 Q)e> 80 co-5 60 (/) 40o 20 o Figure 3: FLOW-DURATION CURVE Hydro Creek, Old Harbor, 7/93-5/96 200~. 13f/)- -;100 o lJ... 50 o o 20 40 60 80 100 0/0 of Time Flow Equaled or Exceeded I I I I ------,----.-------------r-- 150 +--ii.-~ --+-. 1____ ---1-··-----1 • --I1__ • • 1--- • ... • ---• • • ___41;_. I"\IBSKB Hydrologic Survey Figure 4: Old Harbor Stage Comparison 3 Oct 1995-May 1996 2.5 Hydro Creek ,..-..... ~ 2 Q) en co CiS 1.5 1 East Forl( . - 0'10/17 12/30 03/13 11/23 02/05 04/19 Alaska Hydrologic Survey Date Date: August 13, 1996 To: Earl Ausman Polar Consult Alaska Inc. From: Lorne E. White A~VJ Fishery Biologist White Fisheries Subject: Old Harbor fishery work August 9, 1996. A fishery survey was conducted on Barling Creek (258-52-10020) and Lagoon Creek (258-52-10015). The purpose of the survey was to address concerns expressed by Wayne Dolezal, Habitat Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game letter of January 18, 1996 on preliminary permit for Old Harbor Hydropower. Specific concerns I investigated were: (1) determine fish habitat and use around the project site and (2) recommendations to provide unhindered upstream and downstream movement of fish past the diversion structure. I also made note of flora in the project impact area. Bill Donaldson and Richard MacIntosh surveyed the project site for birds during the same period. Initially, six sites in Barling Creek were surveyed with a Smith-Root Type VII POW backpack Electrofisher. Results are shown in Table 1. Site number 1 was at the proposed hydropower intake and site 2 was at a spring water pool upstream from site 1. Sites 3, 4 and 5 were located at a fork of Barling River approximately 1/2 mile downstream from the proposed intake site. Site number 6 was located below a series of rapids approximately one mile from Barling Bay. All sites are noted on Figure 1. After completing the electroshocking survey on site 6 it became apparent that the electroshocker was not providing the stimulus needed to capture fish. I could see that the electroshocker was only causing the fish to bolt and penetrate under rocks for cover. No fish were seen in the upper areas of the project site (sites 1-5). In the later part of the afternoon (1630 hrs-2030 hrs), I set 19 minnow traps in the sites 1, 3 and 6 and also in Lagoon Creek. The purpose of this final survey was to confirm or reject the negative results of the electroshocking. A total of 5 traps was set at Barling Creek sites 1, 3 and 6. Four traps were set in Lagoon Creek. The traps were baited with pink salmon parts from Barling Bay and fished for approximated 4 hours. Resul ts are shown on Table 2 and confirm the electroshocking results. The intake site and area just below the intake site appear to be poor fish habitats with no fish captured or observed on this survey. Fish were seen and captured in the lower Barling Creek and Lagoon creek areas. During this survey period the lower 3/4 mile of Barling and one mile of lower Lagoon Creek were completely dry. Adult Pink salmon and chum salmon were observed in the saltwater and intertidal areas of Barling and Lagoon Creeks. Once a significant 2 rain fall occurs and adult survey will need to be completed for these species. 3 ,Table Table of BarIng Creek, Kodiak Island, Alaska, electro..L • shocking site locations and areas fished in survey on August 9, 1996. Site GPS Location Area Fished Fish CaQtured v-Barling N 57'" 14.747' 144 m a Site 1 ttl 151 20.6'78' Barling N 57;; 15.051' 31 mt" 0 ~~"-..... t.T"') n 153' 20.594'tJ..L ...e II:.. 'l.' c:::: ..,t; , A ",)A,,)' v ..JI ..L-Z.JI..-Z..J 111 vBarling ''II 457 " Site 3 W 15 3~ 20. 472 ' mv-Barling N 57" 14.258' 140 0 Site 4 W 153" 2 0 • 4 7 6 ' Barling N 57(1 14.280' 144 mJ-a co.:"-.... 5 ttl 153" 20.384'tJ..&. ...e Barling N 57" 13.100' 216 mV 0 11 Site 6 W 153' 23.6241 1] Dolly varden and coho salmon juveniles were present but avoided capture by diving under rocks. 4: Table 2. Table of Barling and Lagoon Creek, Kodiak Island, Alaska, minnow trap fishing sites and species captured on Aug 9, 1996. Site Total Tral:!s L GPS ocation Number C C"_ u. a1 Species 2tured Total I.s1gth Range Barling Creek Site 1 5 N tv 5f'v 14.747' 153 20.678' 0 Barling Creek 5 N 57 J 14.243' 0 Site 3 W 153 20.472' Barling Creek 5 N 57': 13.100' Dolly Varden 1 87mm Site 6 W 153..J 23.624' Coho Salmon 8 51-6dun Lagoon Creek 4 N 57 :I Dolly Varden 26 78-138mm Site 7 W 153" Coho Salmon 9 4O-9ltm Slimy Sculpin 2 10O-102mm 5 Figure 1. Map of the Barling and Lagoon Creek Area near Old Harbor, Kodiak, Island, Alaska showing the approximate location of the 6 sampling sites. t.-...l/ ) 11 o ' <:>0 / I7 I a .( I S) f",':. ~"~,,," \ 1 ,,;: f • 11,-1 i / I I '. 1 ./1/'' D:;// . /:l . tI, i "r. Date; October 8, 1996 To: Earle Ausman Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. From; Lome E. White Fishery Biologist White Fisheries Subject: Old Harbor Fishery Work, 9/3/96 and 9/23/96, Brief Report Adult salmon surveys were made on the tributary stream to Barling Creek (258-52-1002 2002) and Lagoon Creek (258-52-10015) on September 3rd and 23 rd . The purpose of the 9/3 survey was to: • Conduct a stream count and • Measure and estimate potential spawning area that would be impacted by the proposed hydropower project as outlined by Wayne Dolezal's letter of 1118/96. The survey on 9/23 was made to conduct a stream count of adult salmon, with interest in the coho salmon range in the project area. The adult spawning area surveys were fairly non-conclusive due to the low (no) water conditions in the Barling Creek tributary (2002). No adults were seen in the system as there was no water in the lower end of the tributary to allow fish into the system. As there were juvenile coho seen above the dry section however, there must be periods when movement permits migration of adult/juveniles into this system. At best, this is a marginal tributary for salmon spawning. The main stem of Barling Creek had good numbers of pinks, chum, and coho salmon during the survey periods (Table 1). I would suggest a March (low water) physical survey of this system to document the low waterldry section. The Lagoon Creek adult salmon spawning was also impacted by the low water conditions this year. A total of 5,000 feet of the lower section of this stream had sufficient depth (6 inches) of water to support spawners. The dry section being 4,200 feet was paralleled for a ways by a spring fed stream that supports chum salmon. Chums were the main salmon in the system this year (Table 1). Table 1 Adult Salmon Surveys Barling Creek Tributary (258-52-1002-2002) Date Method Observer Species Number 8/9/96 Helicopter White All 0 9/3/96 Foot White All 0 9/23/96 Foot White All 0 Barling Creek (258-52-10020)1 Date Method Observer Species Number 8/9/96 Helicopter White Pinks 10,000 9/3/96 Foot White Pinks 1,000 9/23/96 Foot White Pinks 200 Coho 80 Lagoon Creek (258-52-10015) Date Method Observer Species Number 8/9/96 Helicopter White Chum 80 9/3/96 Foot White Chum 30 9/23/96 Foot White Chum 18 Pinks 2 Coho 02 The potential spawning areas that could be impacted by the project reveals about 22,244 and 17,141 adult pink salmon for Barling Creek (2002) tributary and Lagoon Creek respectively (Tables 2 and 3). In other words, there could possibly be an impact on the Barling Creek tributary, however, there could be a potential enhancement of Lagoon Creek where the water is diverted. 1 Lower 1/8 mile of creek. 2 Coho salmon were observed in the saltwater lagoon. Table 2 East Fork of Barling Creek Potential Spawning Area Survey of Dry and Wet SectionJ Section # Length Width Area Useful % Useful Area ft ft sqft sqft 1 300 40 12,000 50% 6,000 2 300 40 12,000 40% 4,800 3 300 33 9,750 50% 4,875 4 300 36 10,800 40% 4,320 5 300 57 17,100 20% 3,420 6 300 67 20,100 400/0 8,040 7 300 49 14,700 800/0 11,760 8 300 29 8,700 40% 3,480 9 300 19 5,700 40% 2,280 10 300 17 5,100 800/0 4,080 11 300 17 5,100 50% 2,550 12 300 23 6,900 800/0 5,520 13 300 36 10,800 1000/0 10,800 14 300 42 12,600 80% 10,080 15 300 44 13,200 400/0 5,280 16 300 63 18,900 20% 3,780 17 300 62 18,600 10% 1,860 18 300 42 12,600 10% 1,260 19 300 43 12,900 100/0 1,290 20 300 70 21,000 200/0 4,200 21 300 25 7,500 50% 3,750 22 300 25 7,500 50% 3,750 23 300 24 7,200 30% 2,160 24 300 36 10,800 60% 6,480 25 300 50 15,000 10% 1,500 26 300 45 13,500 10% 1,350 27 300 35 10,500 10% 1,050 Total 119,715 At one meter square per female pink salmon, total females potential is 11,122 or 22,244 males and females. 3 Shaded portion indicates wet section of stream. Table 3 Lagoon Creek Potential Spawning Area Survey of Dry Section Section # Length Width Area Useful % Useful Area ft ft sqft sqft 1 300 31.5 9,450 100% 9,450 2 300 25.0 7,500 60% 4,500 3 300 25.0 7,500 50% 3,750 4 300 25.0 7,500 30% 2,250 5 300 32.5 9,750 80% 7,800 6 300 30.0 9,000 600/0 5,400 7 300 22.5 6,750 80% 5,400 8 300 30.0 9,000 100% 9,000 9 300 35.0 10,500 100% 10,500 10 300 27.5 8,250 80% 6,600 11 300 25.0 7,500 100% 7,500 12 300 32.5 9,750 80% 7,800 13 300 30.0 9,000 700/0 6,300 14 300 20.0 6,000 100% 6,000 Total 4200 92,250 At one meter square per female pink salmon, total females potential is 8,750 or 17,141 males and females. It needs to be noted that the water levels were low all around due to low rain falls through the spring and summer. September precipitation, however, was near normal. Attached photos 1 through 6 depict stream bed size and character for Lagoon Creek and Barling Creek Tributary. PHOTO No. t Lagoon Creek at powerhouse site and location of 9/3/96 stream gauging. Old Harhor. Alaska. PHOTO No.2 Lagoon (reek at heginning of dl~l' sectio11 (approximale~v 100 . dOH'Jlstream o/j}()wer/7ouse). Old Harhor, A laskl1. PHOTO No.3 Barling ( 'reek Irihwary. l)/3/W:' stream gauging sile. Old Harhor...Huska. ©Cv pyright J CJ<)~, Pnlarcol7sull o o o .... I (0 U)... ... # I U 11J., o 0: D U a: lLJ LL I I U 1LI ., o a:: a. 0:: o OJ a:: -( J: C .J o PHOTO No.4 Approximate(v 5,500' upstream from mouth ofBarling Creek tributary. Old Harbor, Alaska. PHOTO No.5 Approximatezl' 2.5{){)· IIpstream from mouth of Barli11K ('reek tribulary. Old Harhor, Alaska. PHOTO No.6 .Wouth (l Bar/iliK ('reek 11'11>11 Ia/T. Old Harh()I'. Alaska. ©Copyright 19CJ -, P()/lIn:onsull o o o I ..... to It)... ... # I U 1J.I., o a:: a. u 0:: lJJ I.L. • ~ U L1J., o 0:: a.. o ~ ma:: <C :r: C .J o BIRD OBSERVATIONS ON A 9 AUGUST, 1996 VISIT TO THE PROPOSED SITE OF A SMALL HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT NEAR OLD HARBOR, KODIAK ISLAND, ALASKA Richard A. MacIntosh 909 Mission Rd. Kodiak, Alaska 99615 September 5, 1996 BIRD OBSERVATIONS ON A 9 AUGUST, 1996 VISIT TO THE PROPOSED SITE OF A SMALL HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT NEAR OLD HARBOR, KODIAK ISLAND, ALASKA INTRODUCTION AND METHODS On 9 August, 1996, William E. Donaldson and Richard A. MacIntosh visited the site of a proposed small hydroelectric development near the village of Old Harbor, Kodiak Island, Alaska, to catalog the birds present in the project area. For the purposes of this report, the project area consists of the source water catchment basin including the intake structure site, the slopes over which the water pipe would run to the Powerhouse, and the creek bottom along which the transmission line would run to the existing Pumphouse. We were dropped by helicopter at about 550 m above sea level (asl) on the ridge on the east side of the project's catchment basin. We walked back to the village of Old Harbor, and observed birds in most of the habitat types in the project area. Figure 1 shows the project area and the route we walked on our survey. We were ferried by helicopter over the only segment not walked. This was between the Intake site and a point 1.7 km downhill towards the Powerhouse site. The habitat skipped over appeared similar to the habitat encountered at either end of this section. While the proposed pipeline would go down the west side of the creek that flows past the Powerhouse site, we walked down the east side of the creek to avoid numerous gullies that would have made progress very difficult in this otherwise similar habitat. No observations were made in the Barling Bay creek drainage below the Falls. We also flew in the helicopter over all cottonwood trees in the project area (exclusive of the Barling Bay creek drainage below the Falls) looking for Bald Eagle nests. We observed one small cottonwood near the Intake site; a few scattered cottonwoods in the canyon along which the pipeline would run, and many cottonwoods along the creek bed between the Powerhouse site and the Pumphouse. Ground observations were made with 10x40 (MacIntosh) and 7x35 (Donaldson) binoculars. All birds seen or heard were recorded in a notebook. The weather during the day was warm and sunny, with light and variable winds. The route walked was divided into four segments, based on vegetative habitat types and location within the project area. The number of birds of each species seen or heard in each segment is tallied below. Appendix 1 is a list birds we recorded outside of the project area while walking from the pumphouse to the Old Harbor boat harbor. Photographs were taken in all four survey segments. Both prints and slides are attached. These are numbered sequentially and photo captions are listed in Appendix 2. RESULTS Segment 1 -Alpine ridge above catchment basin. Time of day in area: 1145 -1330 hrs. Description of area: We walked down the ridge that flanks the catchment basin to the east, starting at an elevation of about 550 m asl, downhill to dense alder at about 425 m asl. At these elevations, this ridge is almost entirely vegetated with grasses and dwarf shrub mat, with only a few small rock outcroppings. From our vantage point on the ridge, we scanned the higher elevations of the ridge we were on, and the ridge across the catchment basin, about 1.5 km away. That ridge rises to 1060 m asl and is mostly bare rock above 425 m asl. Birds seen: Common Raven 1 flying over catchment basin 2 Savannah Sparrow 1 Rosy Finch 1 Segment 2 -Shrub thicket in vicinity of intake structure. Time of day in area: 1331 -1445 hrs. Description of area: Steep slope above creek is closed alder stand; narrow creek valley is closed to open stand of alder/willow. Birds seen: Merlin 1 probable immature flying over alder slope at 425 m asl Wilson's Warbler 1 Savannah Sparrow 1 Fox Sparrow 2 Segment 3 -Slope below intake structure to valley floor. Time of day in area: 1446 -1640 hrs. Description of area: Gradual slope of medium to tall shrub thicket. Shrub on slope is alder with few birch. Willow and alder are mixed along creek. Shrub cover varies; most of slope east of creek bed (where we walk) is < 50% shrub cover while slope west of creek is > 50% shrub cover. Birds seen: Winter Wren 6 Hermit Thrush 1 Yellow Warbler 2 Wilson's Warbler 2 Savannah Sparrow 4 Fox Sparrow 19 Golden-crowned Sparrow 2 Common Redpoll 6 Segment 4 -Valley along creek bed between Powerhouse and Pumphouse. Time of day in area: 1641 -1830 hrs. Description of area: Low gradient gravel creek bed bordered by large cottonwoods and tall shrub thicket. Most of bottomland adjacent to creek bed is also shrub thicket. Creek flow at powerhouse site is ~ 1 cubic foot per second but surface flow becomes intermittent just below this point and there is no surface water in the lower section of the creek. About 0.9 kID below the Powerhouse site, the dry creek bed joins a second stream with surface water that flows into the lagoon. Birds seen: Bald Eagle 3 A helicopter overflight of cottonwoods in the valley located three abandoned nests and one active nest (Figure I), The three abandoned nests located just below the Powerhouse site had tall grass and fireweed growing in them. The active nest contained two full sized young. It was in a cottonwood about mid way between the Powerhouse and Pumphouse sites (about 0.7 kID below the Powerhouse site). The tree was about 30 m east of the creek bed. The nest was easily seen and photographed from the creek bed. No adult bird was seen until late in the day when we saw one adult flying upstream near the Pumphouse. Glaucous-winged Gull 1 Winter Wren 1 Common Raven 1 Black-capped Chickadee 6 Brown Creeper 1 Hermit Thrush 9 Orange-crowned Warbler 2 Wilson's Warbler 11 3 Savannah Sparrow 1 Fox Sparrow 21 Golden-crowned Sparrow 1 Pine Grosbeak 3 Common Redpoll 2 Other Observations Two mountain goats were seen on steep cliffs surrounding the catchment basin. One was about 610 m asl on the ridge on the west side ob the basin and the other was about 650 m asl, above us on the ridge to the east of the basin. DISCUSSION This survey was conducted after most birds had dispersed from their nesting areas. Near the town of Kodiak, many warblers and sparrows had formed large, wandering, post-breeding flocks by the first week of August. Within the study area, very few birds remained in segments one through three, and the individual birds we did see had not necessarily summered in those areas. Nevertheless, all the species seen, with the exception of the Glaucous-winged Gull, and the possible exception of the Merlin and Brown Creeper, probably nest in the project area. While we were in segment 1, we scanned the ridge above us and the ridge on the opposite side of the catchment basin for raptors or fecal (white-wash) stained cliffs that would indicate raptor use. We saw no signs of raptor use of the area, although the distances were fairly great (up to 1.5 km). Appendix 3 is a listing of the species that might be expected to breed and/or winter in the project area. It is a purely speculative account, but is based on the habitat types observed in the project area on 9 August and the author's familiarity with: 1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sponsored Breeding Bird Surveys conducted in similar habitats near Kodiak, Alaska; 2) 23 years of winter Christmas Bird Counts conducted near Kodiak, Alaska; and 3) the author's collection of 23 years of Kodiak Archipelago bird field notes. Completed on 9/5/96 Richard A. MacIntosh 909 Mission Rd. Kodiak, AK 99615 4 APPENDIX 1 -Birds seen in the vicinity of the lagoon between the Pumphouse and the Old Harbor boat harbor on 9 August, 1996. After leaving the project area at the Pumphouse at 1831 hrs, we walked back to the boat harbor via the road around the east side of the Old Harbor lagoon. The birds seen and their approximate numbers are listed below: Mallard 40 on lagoon Green-winged Teal 10 on lagoon Semipalmated Plover 6 on flats in lagoon Greater Yellowlegs 6 on flats in lagoon Lesser Yellowlegs 5 on flats in lagoon Wandering Tattler 29 most are inside lagoon at low tide near where culverts pass water under causeway. A few are along shoreline of Sitkalidak Strait Western Sandpiper 30 on flats in lagoon Least Sandpiper lIon flats in lagoon Mew Gull 20 on shoreline of Sitkalidak Strait Glaucous-winged Gull 110 on shoreline of Sitkalidak Strait Arctic Tern 4 perched on rock in lagoon Black-billed Magpie 2 Savannah Sparrow 4 Golden-crowned Sparrow 2 5 APPENDIX 2 -Photo captions for photographs taken during 9 August 1996 bird observations in the project area of a proposed small hydroelectric development near Old Harbor, Kodiak Island, Alaska. 1. View along ridge on east side of catchment basin. Segment 1 2. View from ridge on east side of catchment basin looking west to ridge on west side of catchment basin. Segment 1. 3. View from ridge on east side of catchment basin looking down into lower half of catchment basin. Segment 1. 4. View from ridge on east side of catchment basin looking southeast towards the lower portion of segment 3, and segment 4, the cottonwood valley. The Old Harbor lagoon is in the background. 5. Creek valley in the vicinity of the intake structure. Segment 2. 6. Photo taken in segment 3 looking northwest back towards the intake structure site. 7. Photo taken in segment 3 looking southwest across creek at slope along which pipeline would run towards Powerhouse. 8. Photo taken at lower end of segment 3 looking southeast into segment 4. One inactive Bald Eagle nest is visible as' a light spot near the top of a cottonwood tree. 9. Inactive Bald Eagle nest in segment 4 with fireweed and grasses growing in it. 10. Active Bald Eagle nest in segment 4 with one of two full size young of the year visible. 6 APPENDIX 3 -Species that might be expected to breed and/or winter in the project area of a proposed small hydroelectric development near Old Harbor, Kodiak Island, Alaska. C common uncommon R -rare U SPECIES Bald Eagle Northern Goshawk Golden Eagle Merlin Willow Ptarmigan Rock Ptarmigan Downy Woodpecker Tree Swallow Violet-green Swallow Black-billed Magpie Common Raven Black-capped Chickadee Brown Creeper Winter Wren American Dipper Gray-cheeked Thrush Hermit Thrush American Pipit Northern Shrike Orange-crowned Warbler Yellow Warbler Wilson's Warbler American Tree Sparrow Savannah Sparrow Fox Sparrow Golden-crowned Sparrow Lapland Longspur Snow Bunting Rosy Finch Pine Grosbeak Common Redpoll BREEDING U R R R U U U U U U U C R C R U C U R U C C C C C U R U U C WINTERING U R R R U U U U U C R C R R R R U C 7 I , / __f ~ :..~. . ;;.•.r;.•... "'-t·~.. '. O:~j~ ~\ ..... );; o /:~ ! '. I I ~ Figure 1. Project area of proposed small hydroelectric development near Old Harbor, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Dotted line shows route taken by bird observers on 9 August, 1996. Bird observations are grouped by four route segments as shown. , -+-- Old Harbor Project FERC #11561-000 PHOTO NO.1 View along ridge on east side of catchment basin. Segment 1. PHOTO NO.2 View from ridge on east side of catchment basin looking \yest to ridge on west side of catchment basin. Segnlenl 1. Old Harbor Project FERC #11561-000 PHOTONO.3 V iew from ridge on east side of catchment basin looking down into lower half of catchment basin. Segment 1. PHOTONO.4 View from ridge on east side of CalChmenI basl11 looking south east towards the lower portion of .~ segment 3. and segment 4. the cottonwood valley. The Old Harbor lagoon is~~~-~--:::~--:,~-~~>:~ ~ .~-~~-in the back~~~~ii ground. Old Harbor Project FERC #11561-000 PHOTO NO. 5 Creek valley in the vicinity of the intake structure. Segment 2. PHOTO NO.6 Photo taken in segment 3 look ing northwest back (o\vards the intake structure site. Old Harbor Project FERC #11561-000 PHOTO NO. 7 Photo taken In segment 3 look ing southwest across creek at slope along which pipeline would run to\vards powerhouse. PHOTO NO.8 Photo taken at lo,,'er end of segment 3 looking southeast IOto segillent 4. One inacti \'e Bald Eagle nest is visible as a light spot near the top of a cotton\vood tree. Old Harbor Project FERC #11561-000 PHOTO NO.9 Inactive Bald Eagle nest in segment 4 with fire weed and grasses growing in it. PHOTO NO. 10 Active Bald Eagle nest in segment 4 \vith one of two full size young of the year visible. CT&E Environmental Services Inc. 200 W. Potter Drive Anchorage, AK 99518-1605 Tel: (907) 562-2343 Fax: (907) 561-5301 August 23, 1996 Daniel Hertrich Polar Consult 1503 W. 33RD Suite 310 Anchorage, AK 99503 Client Name Polar Consulting Project ID Old Harbor Hydro. [963802] Printed August 23, 1996 Enclosed are the analytical results associated with the above project. As required by the state of Alaska and the USEPA, a formal Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program i~ maintained by CT &E. A copy of our Quality Control Manual that outlines this program is available your request. Except as specifically noted, all statements and data in this report are in conformance to the provisions set forth in our Quality Assurance Program Plan. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of any other assistance, please call your CT&E Project Manager at (907) 562-2343. The following descriptors may be found on your report which will serve to further qualify the data. l) -Indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected. Tnrlic-:lte(' -:In P('ti-rn'ltpd \'alu p tlh"lt +'a11t: hp1ru.., DQT hut;,. n-r,...,t""r +'h", ... t"h,.. -'''DL J -.:. ......... .;..c. .. ~ ..... l ...... ..., ..................'-" ...... u.... .a. ... 1..., ,-,.a.V~• .I. L..t, U ,,1.:1 IS \w.t"'L\,...r \,11411 ..1i"" J.•.l • B -Indicates the analyte is found in the blank associated with the sample. * -The analyte has exceeded allowable limits. GT -Greater Than D -Secondary Dilution L T -Less Than ¥ a:;s Member of the SGS Group (Societe Generale de Surveillance) ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES IN ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, ILLINOIS, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN. MISSOURI. NEW JERSEY, OHIO. WEST VIRGINIA -- CT&E Environmental Services Inc. CT&E Ref.# Client Name Project Name/# Client Sample ID Matrix Ordered By PWSID 963802001 Polar Consulting Old Harbor Hydro. Intake Water (Surface, Eff., Ground) 200 W. Potter Drive Anchorage. AK 9951 8-1 605 Tel: (907) 562-2343 Fax: (907) 561-5301 Client PO# Printed Date/Time 08/23/96 16: 19 Collected Date/Time 08/13/96 13:30 Received Date/Time 08/15/96 14:50 Technical Director Released By :'---.___ ' Sample Remarks: Samples were received past hold time for BOD & Nitrite. Run as per client request. Parameter Results PQL Un;ts Method Allowable Um;ts Prep Date Analys;s Date In;t Metals by ICP Alum;num --<;;en; C ;um Beryll ;um Cadm;um Caldum Chrom;um Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnes;um MClnganese Mol·;bcer...,;. N;ckel Potass;um Selen;um S;l;con S;lver Sod;um Stront;um Vanad;um Z;nc Z;rcon;um B;ochem;cal Oxygen Demand N;trHe-N N;trate-N ::Il Kjeldahl N;trogen 'lotal Phosphorous 0.100U 0.100U 0.0200U 0.0100U 0.0400U 1.95 0.0500U 0.0500U 0.0500U 0.0500U 0.100U 0.499 0.0200U C.~50CU 0.0500U 2.78 0.0500U 2.09 0.0200U 1.61 0.0300U 0.0500U 0.0500U 0.0500U 2.00U 0.100U 0.100U 0.312 0.0200 0.100 mg/L 0.100 mg/L 0.0200 mg/L 0.0100 mg/L 0.0400 mg/L 0.200 mg/L 0.0500 mg/L 0.0500 mg/L 0.0500 mg/L 0.0500 mg/L 0.100 mg/L 0.200 mg/L 0.0200 mg/L c.oseo mg/~ 0.0500 mg/L mg/L 0.0500 mg/L 0.500 mg/L 0.0200 mg/L 0.500 mg/L 0.0300 mg/L 0.0500 mg/L 0.0500 mg/L 0.0500 mg/L 2.00 mg/L 0.100 mg/L 0.100 mg/L 0.200 mg/L 0.0100 mg/L SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 ~~346-t,C1C SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 EPA 405.1 EPA 353.2 EPA 353.2 EPA 351.3 EPA 365.2 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP ~8/2C/96 08;22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/15/96 TAV 08/15/96 ESC 08/16/96 ESC 08/22196 ESC 08/20/96 WEP - ,-, • eGa Member of the SGS Group (Societe Generale de Surveillance) ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES IN ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA. ILLINOIS, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, MISSOURI. NEW JERSEY, OHIO, WEST VIRGINIA CT&E Environmental Services Inc. CT&ERef.# Client Name Project Name/# Client Sample ID Matrix Ordered By PWSID 963802002 Polar Consulting Old Harbor Hydro. Power House Water (Surface, Eff., Ground) Sample Remarks: Sample received past hoM time for BOD & NiL-tite. Run as per client request. Parameter Resul ts PQl Units Metals by ICP Aluminum 0.10OU -~c:;enic 0.100U ium 0.0200U Beryll ium 0.0100U Caanium 0.0400U Calcium 1.48 Chromium 0.0500U Cobalt 0.0500U Copper 0.0500U Iron 0.0500U Lead 0.100U Magnesium 0.295 Manganese 0.0200U Mot ybdenl.l1! o.osee!.! Nickel 0.0500U Potassium 2.35 Selenium 0.0500U Si l icon 1.84 Silver 0.0200U Sodium 2.13 Strontium 0.0300U Vanadium 0.0500U Zinc 0.0500U Zirconium 0.0500U Biochemical Oxygen Demand 2.0OU Nitrite-N 0.100U Nitrate-N 0.119 ~l Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.485 '"I ota l Phosphorous 0.0160 0.100 mg/l 0.100 mg/L 0.0200 mg/l 0.0100 mg/L 0.0400 mg/L 0.200 mg/l 0.0500 mg/L 0.0500 mg/l 0.0500 mg/L 0.0500 mg/L 0.100 mg/L 0.200 mg/L 0.0200 mg/L 0.1)51)0 1!l::i/L 0.0500 mg/L mg/L 0.0500 mg/l 0.500 mg/L 0.0200 mg/l 0.500 mg/L 0.0300 mg/L 0.0500 mg/L 0.0500 mg/L 0.0500 mg/L 2.00 mg/L 0.100 mg/l 0.100 mg/L 0.200 mg/L 0.0100 mg/L 200 W. Potter Drive Anchorage, AK 9951 8-1605 Tel: (907) 562-2343 Fax: (907) 561-5301 Client PON Printed Date/Time 08/23/96 16:20 Collected Date/Time 08/13/96 15:30 Received Date/Time 08/15/96 14:50 Technical Director Allowable Method limits SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 St/846·6C10 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 SW846-6010 EPA 405.1 EPA 353.2 EPA 353.2 EPA 351.3 EPA 365.2 Prep Analysh Date Date InH 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22!9~ r.cp 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/20/96 08/22/96 GCP 08/15/96 lAV 08/15/96 ESC 08/16/96 ESC 08/22196 ESC 08/20/96 WEP ~ ::... .eGS Member of the 50S Group (Societe Generale de Surveillance) ,.. ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES IN ALASKA. CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, ILLINOIS. MARYLAND, MICHIGAN. MISSOURI. NEW JERSEY. OHIO. WEST VIRGINIA 'U ~11I:a EnvjrO"~ontDI l~boratorv Services ~"u. t'f'''' CI-IAIN Ol~ CUSrrODYPOll: Reports to: Illvoice to: POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. ·---1503-W:--s3Fto-AVe:;sHUMIT-T!E.....:l10..-----rT1 ___t-AN.CHOflAOe. AI ASK' 9g503 TEL. (907) 258-2420, TELEFf\..'( ~5a-2419 Phonc: fax: COlltact person for questions concerning Ihcse samplcs: ~0 Hi:l211ilcH Phonc: Special Instructions: Ple:A'5r A lJ1Ly2:C bA,Mftes. ,oJl<f tf/JL/) 17Me. (f:;cIJ + Nli~rrc-"') 96.3802 CT& Laboratory: '. Page _I 01 Commcrcial Tcsting & Engirtcmig Co. 5633 "n" Strcct Anchorngc, AK Phonc (907) 502 99518 -2343 'fax: (907) 501-)301 <;AJ/1C" trDCi \ Fax: ~AJV1r J - I',ojcd N3111cINIII1Ihcr OL-O t\f\~~ t\1.I:.fO, / (I' &.. ~? I~ S:lIlIp\c,1 By: bAN He:tl.,T R ) L.\-\ 'r oS< ~ vl"' ~? l{'\ Ila'cfl'illlc " or ~l1l11plc ~Q .> ~ ;9 If l.nh " Snm{,lc" S:unrlccJ Conll1incn Ma.dx "~ ~(-Qj ~ COIlImcnl!'; 11) \ NTAKE" 'i/t -',1(0,6.11)P 4 \J:zD X X X 'f.. nul POWc(L HOIJ~ '1/1~f:J6?!~ Ll (.\~ X X X X :-l:UUlllc ncecipl: 3Zi!!: ..r~~~~~~I!'ishccl Jly: nclin!1l/i~hcd n~: NlIIl1hcr nr Cnulnincr~ "ir.m.'ure lIiir,n.h'le lim, :r;i~.""e fllne -, -.' ',,"r. 1. :YS'p .. --.-.. C(}C :)clIl::;lIl1lncl Y/N/NI\ "11'11'"'' ~""II:JOB:.-D. CiR(J.JeS .,.•,; KII~/96 l'tin,,.,I,.,_,,,,. ,.)'I'!i,,',... "'o,,"e' 'hIe Tcmpcralnrc Itcccivcci Ily: Ih:l:civClllly: TUlllllrollltd Itcquircd ";"..olllle· 'I, ~·lIn.hlle T ~:"e:/\ ... .I./~A. f3~a.fJ12I Time: _LtI0 rrinl~I"'.",e 11.,It' l'rinteoi "'."~ Ibl,. I IIceci vetl III l."hol .Iory By: ! D:llo Dclivcrnhlcll Itc'lnircd ::r.inirtl rJ.llle , nile: -K--!J5"') I:-_~ 'A:vclll lA:vcllU XC4 VZt' f;eJ{3(a.. . - FIELD TRIP REpORT 8/9/96-8/15/96 Introduction Earle Ausman and Daniel Hertrich of Polarconsult met with Lonnie White, Bill Donaldson, and Rich McIntosh in Old Harbor. Bill and Rich went to an area above the intake. They conducted wildlife surveys for the remainder of the day. Earle went to the intake area where he staked out a preliminary route for the pipeline. Lonnie and Dan conducted the fish survey beginning with the intake area. Fish Data Attached is the fish report from Lonnie White which outlines the fish data gathered during the field trip. Biology Biological data collected during the field trip is attached. Stream Gauging Below are the stream gauge results from stream gauging near the intake. Station (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Flow (ft"3/s) 5.5 0.00 0.00 0.05 6 1.30 0.67 0.65 7 1.30 1.00 1.30 8 1.42 0.85 1.21 9 1.02 0.86 0.88 10 0.90 0.90 0.81 11 0.60 0.91 0.55 12 0.10 0.50 0.05 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 total 5.50 Water Sampling . Water samples were collected from the intake (Barling Bay Tributary) and from the powerhouse location (Lagoon Creek). Below are results of onsite analysis. Attached are the lab analysis results. Location Parameter Intake Powerhouse Temp Conductivity Dissolved Oxygen 43 OF 24 J,lmhos 6.8 ppm 53.3 OF 36.5 J,lmhos 7.5 ppm SurveYing Topographical surveying of the intake area was done to establish the required location for the intake and the initial pipeline route. STREAM GAUGING 9/3/96-9/7/96 Barling Bay above last transect (8000') Station (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Flow (ft"3/s) 26 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 49 0.00 0.30 0.45 0.50 0.60 0.83 1.08 1.10 1.30 1.42 1.65 1.70 1.70 1.10 0.85 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.50 0.84 0.88 0.99 1.22 0.93 0.86 0.83 0.78 0.61 0.63 0.35 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.25 0.50 0.73 1.07 1.34 1.21 1.22 1.37 1.33 1.04 1.04 0.45 0.26 1.51 Total 13.67 lagoon creek, powerhouse location Station (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Flo,,' (ft" 3/s) 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.01 3.0 0.38 0.30 0.09 3.5 0.40 0.90 0.18 4.0 0.40 1.08 0.22 4.5 0.40 0.80 0.16 5.0 0.40 1.96 0.39 5.5 0.41 0.70 0.14 6.0 0.32 1.17 0.28 7.0 0.20 0.55 0.11 8.0 0.00 0.00 0.07 Total 1.65 Archaeological Survey for the Old Harbor Small Hydroelectric Project Old Harbor, Alaska Prepared By: J. Benjamin Fitzhugh University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079 Edited By: Amy F. Steffian Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository 215 Mission Rd., Suite 101 Kodiak, AK 99615 Prepared for: Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310 Anchorage, AK 99503-3661 June 1997 SUMMARY This report presents the results of an archaeological survey in the vicinity of a proposed hydroelectric plant in the rural Alutiiq community of Old Harbor, in Alaska's Kodiak Archipelago. The survey was conducted by the Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository at the request of Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. (PCA) prior to development of the hydroelectric facility by the Alaska Village Electrical Corporation (A VEe). The central objective of this survey was to investigate project areas for the presence of cultural resources as required by National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (36 CFR 800). On April 26 and 27, 1997, archaeologists under contract \vith the Alutiiq Museum conducted a reconnaissance level survey in proposed project areas. Visual inspection and limited subsurface testing of these areas produced no evidence of significant past cultural activity. This report summarizes survey field methods and fmd, and recommends that no further archaeological research be required in the project area prior to construction. However, as there is one potentially significant prehistoric site 200 m from the southern terminus of the hydroelectric project construction corridor (KOD 570), the report recommends close adherence to the proposed construction footprint to avoid any impact to this site. TABLE OF CONTENTS SUl\1l\1ARY ......................................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGtJRES .......................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ iii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 GEOGRAPIDC SETTING ................................................................................................ 1 REGIONAL CUL TIJRAL mSTORY ............................................................................... 4 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH .......................................................... 11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 12 SURVEY METHODS ...................................................................................................... 15 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 18 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 19 REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................... 22 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 26 Appendix A. Survey Permit from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service ................ 27 Appendix B. Photograph Log ...................................................................................... 29 11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Kodiak Archipelago ...................................................................................... 2 Figure :. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Area & Proposed Facilities ................. 13 Figure 3. Survey Area from Head of Corridor. .......................................................... 17 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Cultural Traditions of the Kodiak Archipelago ............................................. 6 iii INTRODUCTION The Alaska Village Electric Corporation (AVEC) is currently developing a small hydroelectric facility in the Kodiak Archipelago community of Old Harbor. To complete the pennitting process for this project, AVEC hired Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. (PCA), an Anchorage based environmental services flrm. One of the permitting requirement for this project is an assessment of potential archaeological resources in construction areas. To complete this assessment PC.A hired the Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository, a Kodiak based institution with experience in archaeological consulting. This report swnmarizes the results of a reconnaissance level archaeological survey undertaken in the proj ect area on April 26 and 27, 1997. It provides background information on Kodiak history and archaeology, describes the proposed project" details survey methods and results, and ends with a set of recommendations for the proposed construction activities. GEOGRAPHICSET1lNG The proposed Hydroelectric project will be built in the rural community of Old Harbor, Alaska. Located on the southeastern coast of Kodiak Island, this community is one of si.'( Native villages in the Kodiak Archipelago. It lies on the inner shores of Sitkalidak Strait facing Sitkalidak Island and is backed by rouged mountains of the Kodiak Range. The community is accessible only by boat or air taxi from the City of Kodiak. It is home to roughly 300 residents who make their living principally from seasonal commercial fishing and tourism, supplemented by subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering. Kodiak Island is an extension of the mountainous Kenai Peninsula to the northeast and a product of a violent tectonic history. It is built ofnwnerous folded and tilted layers of sedimentary and igneous rocks at various stages of metamorphosis. The axis of the archipelago runs roughly northeast to southwest and is buttressed by an intrusive Figure 1. The Kodiak Archipelago ALASKA PENINSULA Alilak Bay ShelikofStrait ~CJl!5~land U<gi~Island 0 10 20 30 40 50km l~larnlot Bay OMarmot Island GulfofAlaska 2 plutonic granite and rhyolite formation that has resisted erosion. Other parts of the island are formed from schist, shale, slate, argillite, turbidites, volcanics, siltstone, and conglomerates (Gilpin 1995). These deposits hold rock resources, including slate, sandstone, argillite, coal, granite, rhyolite, and several varieties of chert, used by the archipelago's prehistoric residents. Other materials such as obsidian, basalt, high grade coal (Steffian 1992b), and exotic cherts were most likely imported from the nearby mainland or farther afield (cf. Knecht 1995:73). Kodiak Island is punctuated by deep bays and fjord systems carved by massive glaciers that once flowed from the mountainous spine of the archipelago and around the archipelago from Cook Inlet to the north. A single glacier still resides high in the Kodiak mountains north of Old Harbor, a remnant of the more extensive Pleistocene ice flows responsible for the current Kodiak landscape. (This glacier is only a fe\v miles north o( the planned 'intake location for the proposed hydroelectric diversion pipe and is visible from the village of Old Harbor). Kodiak deglaciation was complete well before initial colonization about 7,500 years ago. Kodiak is composed of three ecological provinces: terrestrial, marine, and riverine. The terrestrial ecosystem is dominated by subarctic dry and wet tundra habitats interspersed with dense patches of alder, birch and willow. The northern half of the archipelago supports dense stands of spruce forest at low elevations, and the southern half hosts less prolific and more patchy groves of balsam popular. The terrestrial environment surrounding Old Harbor, and in which this survey was conducted, is a mix of dry subalpine tundra broken by alder, willow, and birch stands. Both of these terrestrial environments hosts a sparse assortment of wildlife, which was even less diverse prior to European contact (Rausch 1953, 1969; Haggarty et al. 1991 :63). The Kodiak brown bear, river otter, and arctic fox are the largest indigenouS species followed by marmot, vole, and brown bat. Domesticated dogs were introduced by prehistoric inhabitants as evidenced by the presence of dog bones and teeth in some 3 archaeological sites (Amorosi 1986). During the historic period, Sitka deer, beaver, mountain goat, caribou, elk, muskrat, snowshoe hare, and squirrels were introduced. By all estimations, there was little incentive for prehistoric people to focus subsistence pursuits in interior parts of the island such as the survey area While bear and fox are represented in prehistoric archaeological middens, their frequency is generally low and they were probably hunted most frequently close to shore (see Clark 1974). Compared to the terrestrial environment, marine and riverine environments produce the greatest abundance and diversity of foods and raw materials. Seals, sea lions, sea otters, porpoise, whales, and a variety of marine fish thrive in the nearshore waters, as do shellfish and other intertidal species. Large colonies of marine birds live off the maritime productivity and waterfowl overwinter in many protected waterways. High concentrations of nutrients supplied by vertical mixing (e.g., coastal currents, wave action, river runoff, weak summer upwelling) support one of the highest seasonal concentrations of animal biomass in the world (Hood 1986). The annual period of high productivity extends from approximately late April until October or November. Throughout the winter months, resources are considerably more scarce. Prehistoric foraging would have been made even more difficult by harsh winter storms that make water travel unpredictable and hazardous (Steffian in prep). Rivers are the primary means by which marine productivity reaches the interior. Dolly varden, steelhead trout, and five species of pacific salmon populate Kodiak's streams during the summer months. Some of the larger streams support fish colonies year round (Knecht, personal communication, 1993). Bears, foxes, otters, and eagles others also frequent riverine habitats. REGIONAL CULTURAL mSTORY Culturally, Old Harbor falls within the traditional territory of the Koniag, one of three regional groups of the Alutiiq people. At historic contact, the Koniag inhabited 4 coastal environments of the Kodiak Archipelago and the Alaska Peninsula. Other Alutiiq peoples, the Chugach and the Unegkunniut, inhabited Prince William Sound and the outer coast of the Kenai Peninsula. Although the cultural and biological origins of the Alutiiq are still a subject of debate (Clark 1992; Dumond 1991; Jordan and Knecht 1988), anthropologists recognize that the Alutiiq are the southernmost group of Eskimo people in Alaska. Their traditional language is Alutiiq, one of five Yup'ik Eskimo languages, and they share many cultural traditions with the Eskimo people of the Bering Sea coast. In the Kodiak Archipelago, the cultural history of the Alutiiq is preserved in a multitude of archaeological sites. There are more than 840 known historic and prehistoric sites (Alaska Office of History and Archaeology 1997), and many remote areas remain to be systematically surveyed. Additionally, many of these sites are exceptionally preserved. Dense prehistoric populations left large accumulations of cultural debris that have resisted decay in the region's persistently cool, wet environment. In addition to the stone tools that are commonly found in Alaskan archaeological sites, many of Kodiak's cultural deposits contain shell. bone, antler, and ivory objects. A few have even produced spectacular assemblages of wood and fiber artifacts (Knecht 1995). This rich archaeological record documents at least 7,500 years of human occupation and chronicles the adaptation of Kodiak's Native population to the region's productive marine environments. Archaeologists traditionally divide the history of Kodiak into four cultural traditions (Table 1), each reflecting a different way of living. These traditions are briefly summarized below. Kodiak's cultural history begins at least 7,500 years ago, following the colonization of the archipelago probably from the mainland coast of the southern Alaska Peninsula and the Eastern Aleutian islands (Fitzhugh 1996). The archipelago's earliest colonists must have been competent boatspeople well equipped to harvest marine resources such as sea manunals, fish, shellfish, and sea birds. As with subsequent inhabitants they probably also took advantage of seasonally available plant foods, 5 including edible roots, greens, and berries, and hunted the limited terrestrial game available, including the fox, otter, and the fonnidable brown bear. Table 1. Cultural Traditions of the Kodiak Archipelago Tradition Phase Calendar Age Ocean Bay Ocean Bay II 2500 -1500 BC Ocean Bay I 5500?-2500 Be Kachemak Lake Kachemakl Three Saints 500 BC-AD 1200 Early Kachemakl Old Kiavak 1200 -500 Be Koniag Developed AD 1400-1764 Early Koniag AD 1200-1400 Historic/ Alutiiq American AD 1867-present Russian AD 1784-1867 The earliest archaeologically defined tradition is known as Ocean Bay. It extends from the date of human colonization, approximately 5500 Be, until about 1500 BC . .Archaeological evidence suggests that this was a period of slow population gro\Vth. Small and relatively mobile groups colonized different parts of the archipelago, opportunistically targeting seasonally available resources. Archaeological evidence from Southeast Kodiak, including the Old Harbor area (the type site for Ocean Bay lies a short distance east of Old Harbor on Sitkalidak Island), indicates that Ocean Bay tradition people maintained residences in strategic locations that allowed them to take advantage of ecological variability. Residential sites of this period have been found mostly on mid-bay coastal locations where marine oriented hunter-gatherers could have move efficiently between outer and inner bay environments in response to resource availability and traveling conditions. Ocean Bay habitation sites are generally small, rarely exceeding 1,000 m 2• The Ocean Bay tradition is subdivided into two phases on the basis of changes in tool manufacturing techniques. The earliest phase, Ocean Bay I, is characterized by stone 6 tools produced by percussion flaking or flint-knapping. These include core and blade tools and bifacially flaked projectiles. Over the course of the tradition, ground-slate tools gradually supplement flaked stone tools, until about 2500 Be when ground slate tools predominate and core and blade tools disappear altogether. This technological shift marks the beginning of the Ocean Bay II phase. Ocean Bay II stone tools include long ground slate lance blades with notched blades, notched handled knives, and long flensing knives. The Rice Ridge site is the only Ocean Bay period site so far discovered with preserved organic materials (Hausler-Knecht 1993). Bone tools and faunal material recovered from this site, and currently under analysis, include composite fish hooks~ non-toggling harpoons, and clam diggers. During the Ocean Bay I phase, people are believed to have lived in portable shelters made of hides treated with red pigment (Fitzhugh 1996). There has been some speculation that these habitations were set into shallow artificial depressions. Early in the Ocean Bay II phase, the first substantial semisubterranean sod houses were built. This change marks a reduction in residential mobility following increases in popUlation densities and a deteriorating climate at the onset of the Neoglacial. The Kachemak tradition follows the Ocean Bay II phase, beginning about 1500 Be. The Early Kachemak phase of this tradition witnessed the first aggregated settlements or villages. Early in this phase, the first intensive fish harvesting strategies (such as nets and weirs) were developed in tandem with more significant storage techniques. It is not currently knO\V whether Kachemak culture evolved from Ocean Bay culture, or if the Kachemak traditions marks the arrival of a new group to the archipelago. Archaeological sites are rare from the five hundred year period between 2000 and 1500 Be, and it is possible that Ocean Bay populations abandoned the archipelago at this time. Under this scenario, the Early Kachemak phase would have been initiated by a new or transformed population recolonizing the archipelago about 3500 years ago. Alternatively, cultural continuity is suggested by similarities in artifact forms between the Ocean Bay II 7 and Early Kachemak phases and the presence of a few known sites dating to this interval. In particular, a form of ground slate knife with a serrated stem is found on both sides of the transition. Notched stones, believed to have been used as netsinkers, are found occasionally in late Ocean Bay II phase deposits but become ubiquitous during the Early Kachemak and Late Kachemak phases. New tool forms introduced in the Early Kachemak phase include elongated plummet stones with pecked grooves encircling their smaller end (believed to have been line weights), the ulu or semi-lunar ground slate knife, and the toggling harpoon. The Late Kachemak phase dates from about 500 Be to AD 1200. It is characterized by a dramatic increase in Kodiak population, paralleled by an explosion of artistic elaborations on durable artifacts, such as stone lamps. Lance points take on a distinctive form and are often engraved with individualized designs. Personal decoration appears to have become particularly important at this time based on the presence of various bodily ornaments such as labrets (lip plugs; Steffian and Saltonstall 1995). These items were often made from high grade bituminous coal and other exotic materials brought from the Alaska Peninsula and elsewhere (Steffian 1992b). Burial practices also suggest highly elaborate ceremonialism and social competition (Simon 1992; Simon and Steffian 1994). By the 1000 AD, small scale military conflicts had led to the necessity for several small defensive sites in the Old Harbor area (Fitzhugh 1996). These were situated on the tops of small cliff-faced islets and promontories. Kachemak houses are usually small and rectangular one room semisubterranean "I structures averaging 15 m-in surface measurements (Fitzhugh 1996). In excavations, Kachemak houses have been found to be rectangular with stmken • cold-trap' entrances, raised benches, clay-lined storage pits, and small central hearths (Steffian 1992a). Although there remains some controversy about the continuity of the Kachemak tradition with the following Koniag tradition, most archaeologists now agree that the evidence strongly supports cultural continuity (Fitzhugh 1996; Jordan and Knecht 1988; 8 Knecht 1995). The Koniag tradition is distinguished by a gradual expansion of house sizes and the incorporation of new tools and techniques. Early Koniag houses are considerably larger than typical Kachemak houses. By the later Koniag tradition houses have almost quadrupled in size (average 47 m 2, Fitzhugh 1996) and contain multiple side rooms extending off a central room. This change is thought to reflect changes in social structure and residence patterns with extended families sharing the same house. This pattern is very similar to that practiced by the ranked lineage-based societies of the nearby Northwest Coast. People of the Koniag tradition developed several new tools and techniques, including a long lance blade with a diamond shaped cross-section and incised pebbles (both diagnostic of the early Koniag), coarse tempered pottery, and the practice of hot rock steam bathing. Often one of the side rooms in a multi-roomed house was used as ~ bathing charnber. Wooden artifact types diagnostic of the Koniag phase, too numerous to list here, have been found at the well preserved Karluk One site (Knecht 1995). These implements indicate that ceremonialism, artistic expression, social competition and warfare were common elements of Koniag life (Donta 1993; Knecht 1995). In southeastern Kodiak, whaling became a significant social and economic pursuit early during the Koniag tradition (Fitzhugh 1996), although there is some evidence of whale use at the Kachemak Crag Point site (Yarborough 1995) and even in the Ocean Bay Period at the Rice Ridge site (Knecht 1995). Koniag military competition expanded considerably in scale and intensity over that of the Kachemak period. Large defensive villages were established on major islets around the archipelago to be used during raiding season (Fitzhugh 1996; Knecht 1995). In the late 1700's, Kodiak was contacted for the fIrst time by European fur prospectors looking for lucrative new territory from \vhich to acquire valuable sea otter pelts. Following the conquest of the .AJ.eutians, these afur traders" moved east into the Gulf of Alaska. Several attempts at the Kodiak . .6uchipelago resulted in successful 9 defense on the part of the Kodiak inhabitants, and the Russians chose to bypass the uncooperative archipelago for 20 years. In AD 1784, however, Gregorii Shelikov launched a campaign against the Alutiiq. His conquest of the archipelago and the subsequent ten year reign of terror is well docwnented in Black (1992). The first Russian colony in America is located only a few miles south of Old Harbor in Three Saints Bay (Crowell 1996) and the site of a decisive battle between the Russians and Alutiiq, is only a few miles to the northeast (Knecht 1995). The Russian phase of the Historic period was ushered in by Shelikov's campaign. Following 1784, the population of Alutiiq people plummeted to disease and mistreatment. Population reduction was further amplified by the removal of young males to hunt sea otters as far away as Kamchatka and the California Channel Islands. Villages were consolidated around Russian settlements for access to trade goods and indentured relatives. Historic Alutiiq sites are usually identified by the presence of European trade goods such as trade beads, iron, and tablewares accompanying more traditional tools like ground slate knives and lance points. Russian settlements themselves are distinct from Alutiiq villages by the remains of above ground houses and outbuildings. While the Russian phase changed traditional Alutiiq subsistence patterns to a degree, the American phase, beginning in 1867, initiated qualitative economic changes. The growth of commercial salmon fishing and the cannery industry in the late nineteenth century led to an entirely new political and economic structure with large corporate interests moving into the productive fishing waters of Kodiak (Roppel 1986). Local people found jobs in canneries or on fishing boats, bringing cash income and with it greater dependence on store bought goods and the whims of external markets. In the early to mid 20th century, Native villages were further consolidated and new industries were developed, including sheep fanning and cattle ranching. Today, Kodiak's population is concentrated in six villages and the city of Kodiak. Land use outside of these centers is limited to occasional subsistence and sports hunting and fishing. 10 In total, the Kodiak Archipelago has witnessed several dramatic changes over the past 7,500 years. Many of these changes are documented exclusively in the archaeological remnants of past activities and habitations. The Old Harbor area is rich with such sites. 'While archaeological research has revealed much about this past, there remains great potential for new discoveries. One of the least archaeologically known sectors of the archipelago is the interior, areas away from the coast and major streams. Archaeologists have been justified in neglecting this sector given the considerable amount of work needed on the coast and the apparent underutilization of the interior by past occupants. As such, contract generated research, is one of the only sources of current investigation with the potential to identify significant interior deposits. Such fmds could dramatically modify the picrure of prehistoric life in the archipelago. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH Archaeological research in the Kodiak Archipelago began in earnest in the early 1930s. Anthropologist Ales fIrdlicka excavated a large prehistoric village site in Larsen Bay on the western side of Kodiak and conducted a cursory boat survey of the archipelago (Hrdlicka 1944). While his methods were less than professional (Steffian 1992a), Hrdlicka's work attracted considerable attention to the region. In the early 1960s, the Uni versi ty of Wisconsin initiated the first major excavations designed to define Kodiak's prehistoric sequence. Much of their research was conducted along the southeastern coast of the archipelago in areas adjacent to Old Harbor. Here they found archaeological remains diagnostic of all four cultural traditions. This led to the development of a culrural chronology which is still used today (see Clark 1984; 1992). In the early 1980s, Richard Jordan of Bryn Mawr College initiated a decade long project to clarify the social and economic implications of Kodiak cultural history. He focused efforts on the Karluk drainage, Uyak Bay, and Anton Larsen Bay (Clark 1992; Crowell 1986; Jordan and Knecht 1988; Steffian 1992a). Jordan's regional perspective 11 contributed much to the understanding of Kodiak social evolution and inspired many graduate students to continue studying Kodiak prehistory (Crowell 1996; Donta 1993; Hausler-Knecht 1993; Fitzhugh 1996; Knecht 1995; Saltonstall 1996; Steffian in prep, Woodhouse-Beyer 1996). In the late 1980s, archaeology was incorporated into an Alutiiq cultural revitalization movement (pullar 1992). Since that time, archaeology has been encouraged and supported by a number of local and regional corporations, the Kodiak Area Native Association, and numerous members of the Kodiak community. In particular, the Old Harbor Native Corporation has been an active sponsor of archaeological research in areas surrounding their community. A multi-year survey of Sitkalidak Island by Fitzhugh (1996) led to the discovery of more than 100 previously unknown sites and several small excavations that produced important artifact assemblages~ giving Old Harbor residents an opportunity to participate in unearthing their heritage. In 1995, an Alutiiq owned museum and archaeological repository opened to provide local storage for the assemblage from many of these projects. This museum is funded and governed by representatives of eight Kodiak Native corporation, including the Old Harbor Native Corporation. Managed by a professional staff, this institution cares for Alutiiq cultural materials in a fully modern facility, promotes public education, and sponsors Alutiiq research. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The hydroelectric project area lies north\vest of Old Harbor behind a large lagoon that separate the older and younger parts of the village (Figure 2). In total, the facility will extend roughly 2.75 miles along a narrow corridor (not to exceed 60 m in width). 12 / I I 0 112 Imi r \ I ,I \\ ' Trans~i~~~:~j~~',' -\ r\(\ --"-' ~Road (staked) ,_ ~ ~ ".~reek 500' / ,~2()()()~ , " , ""-_..........'" ~1500'~ / /( , " lOOO~ ---'/ ~ \ ". /'Transmlssi-on Line ~ '\ "', r:?' -& Road (on maps) ~~,~", ,( " ""\ / , ""'( ,~1500' cre~k (~-' I 1--___ ~" (J Powerhouse ~f!!):-.:::.... , ?t .' ' : Existing : Road ::/Old Harbor SitkalidakStrait. Figure 2. Hydroelectric Project Area & Proposed Facilities \ ( / Primary Drainage Area$ 13 This corridor will originate in the primary drainage area, a mountains area to the north northwest of Old Harbor, and run toward the village in a southeastly direction. It will terminate at an existing water treatment building a few hundred meters inland from the northwest side of the lagoon located between the !\V0 halves of the village (henceforth Old Harbor Lagoon). The pipeline (penstock) \\111 be used to divert stream water approximately two miles from its source at about 310m above sea level down to the powerhouse where the diverted \vater will power a hydroelectric generator. The transmission line will then carry the generated electricity to a point where it can be linked to the existing power grid and road system at the site of an existing infiltration gallery and water treatment plant. Dan Hertrich, an engineer for Polarconsult Alaska, indicated that segments of the pipeline will probably be carried into place by helicopter and assembled to lie either above ground or in a shallow subsurface trench. This plan will prevent the need for an access road to haul materials up and down the steep pipeline section. Excavation for the buried pipeline will be made by ·'one round trip of a backhoe" (correspondence from Earle Ausman, PCA, to the Alutiiq Museum, 7/18/96). The powerhouse will be constructed in a clearing approximately 15 m:! on the shore of the stream feeding into Old Harbor lagoon. The transmission line segment from the powerhouse to the existing water treatment plant will be accompanied by a 10ft wide 1 ft thick gravel access road (ibid). The power line and accompanying telephone cable may be suspended or buried (not indicated by PCA). Dan Hertrich and a coworker surveyed the transmission line/access road during the few days prior to and on the frrst day of the archaeological survey reported here (4/24/97 to 4/27/97). They marked the line with flagging tape. The penstock (pipeline) segment was loosely surveyed in September 1996 by Hertrich and his co\vorkers. This line was marked more extensively by Hertrich when he showed the route to the Alutiiq Museum archaeologists. It is important to note that the pipeline route deviates considerably from the hypothetical route indicated in earlier versions of the project map (see Figure 2). 14 Currently the route is surveyed to follow the eastern side of a southerly flowing stream course from the 500 ft elevation contour down to the powerhouse. The original line was plotted to cross the stream and run along its western side. In a few cases, Hertrich also modified the previously marked route (see below). SURVEY METHODS The archaeological research for this project was led by Ben Fitzhugh~ a Ph.D. m Kodiak Archaeology, with assistance from Alutiiq Museum Lab Manager Elizabeth Pontti. Field work was conducted on April 26 and 27th following a research design written by Alutiiq Museum Curator Amy Steffian. As the survey area falls on lands within the Kodiak National Wildlife refuge, a permit for field reCOl1l1aissance was obtained from the United State Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (pennit number R7(KOD)-97·001; Appendix A). All of the field notes and photographs from the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Archaeological Survey were accessioned to the Alutiiq Museum under museum number AM 316 (Appendix B). The archaeological survey was designed to locate surficial and subsurface remains of past human occupation or activity. Visual inspection of a sixty meter corridor (30 meters to each side of the line marked with flagging tape) was used to locate any surficial remains, \vhile subsurface sediments were sampled for cultural materials \vith 1.5 inch soil probes and occasional shovel tests. Throughout the survey area, substrate was often frozen approximately 1 and 3 inches below the surface. Usually the soil probes could penetrate this frozen layer. Where it could not, shovel tests were made. In the more or less level terrain of the transmission line segment. subsurface testing was conducted at regular intervals of approximately 25 m by the two investigators spaced roughly 30 m apart and straddling the flagged center line. This spacing and interval were regularly modified to accommodate dense thickets of alder or other obstructions, and more intensive testing was done in more likely locations, such as along a 15 terrace edge overlooking the stream floodplain. The po\verhouse footprint and surrounding area were tested in the same fashion as the transmission line. The penstock (pipeline) section was surveyed in a more discretionary fashion. This section is located on steeply sloping terrain (Figure 3)~ and subsurface testing 'was limited to areas considered to be the most probable locations for archaeological deposits. These \.vere inevitably limited to more or less level, well drained areas. usually the tops of ridges. knobs, and terraces located every 30 to 75 m along the corridor. Near the top and the base of this pipeline route. the route flagged in 1997 diverged somewhat from the route flagged in 1996. Near the pipeline intake, the original route ran closer to the source stream canyon for several hundred meters. The modified route ran about 75 m fanher east before meeting up with the original route. Also at the base of the hills~ there was some confusion about which ridge or valley the pipeline would descend for the last 150 m prior to entering the Po\verhouse. To avoid possible confusion or the need for an additional archaeological survey, all flagged routes ""'ere investigated for cultural remains. The strategy used for subsurface testing is predicated on the expectation that significant archaeological deposits ""ill include noticeable quantities of anthropogenic charcoal, ash, cultural fill. artifacts or other cultural debris that could be recovered and identified in soil core tests. Certain types of deposits are more likely to be identified in this fashion. These include occupation sites of moderate to long duration \vhere food processing, cooking, and tool preparation activities occurred. Single use camps, look outs, kill sites, or butchery sites are less likely to have the kind or density of materials to be identified according to the subsurface methods described here. However, the more intensive altematives~ such as systematic shovel tests at short intervals with 114 inch mesh screening of all removed sediment, was deemed unnecessary in this instance given the 10""-archaeological potential of the Kodiak interior. 16 Figure 3. Survey Area from Head of Corridor -view SE (AA1316 :9, photo b.v J B. Fit=illlgh) 17 Elders in Old Harbor report using the interior earlier in this century for bear hunting and travel between villages (Matfay, personal communication, 1997). Larry Matfay indicated that the old timers used to build temporary shelters in the interior from alder, birch, or willow bushes and sod. These shelters would have left residual earth depressions and a modified land-surface. Our surface reconnaissance did not identify the remains of any such structures. Finally, the only other ethnographically documented type of interior sites are burial caves located on steep mountain sides and furnished with the paraphernalia and remains of shamans and successful whale hunters (e.g., Holmberg 1985). The pipeline route does not pass through landscape with cave potential. RESULTS The archaeological survey did not locate any prehistoric cultural deposits, and the only historic remains identified include two modem rope swings hanging from poplar trees on the terrace edge in the transmission line corridor, as well as an occasional aluminum can on the ground surface. Numerous pit features were seen dug into the gravel substrate of the transmission line corridor. These features averaged about 75 cm in diameter and 20 cm deep. Several of these were tested by soil probe and/or shovel test. One contained decomposed fur. The frequency, location, and absence of diagnostic cultural material led the investigators to conclude that these depressions were naturally produced. Bear are known to cache kills in shallow pits, and these might have been bear caches. Alternatively, fox or even deer might be responsible for these depressions. In general, the transmission line segment lies in a low probability area for archaeological sites. Most of this corridor runs over an apron of talus and outwash gravel from the hillside flanking the survey area to the southwest (Figure 3). Water runoff and the potential for landslides make this an unlikely place for habitation. As a result of these processes, very little soil has developed over the gravel substrate making this area a difficult place to build a sod house. From a hunting and gathering perspective, this area 18 would have offered few strategic advantages for a camp, lookout, or other activity that could have left a durable archaeological signature. The area has undoubtedly been used for hunting and resource collection throughout Kodiak's cultural history. Despite the invisibility and unlikely presence of cultural remains in this area, it must be noted that the gravel substrate that prevented our soil probes from penetrating more than a few inches could be relatively recent in origin. It is conceivable that cultural deposits exist buried within or beneath these gravel deposits. Such remains are more likely to be found by earth moving machinery than soil probes. Along the penstock (pipeline) section, surveying also produced no positively identified cultural remains. One soil probe on a knob half way down the upper hill section~ at about 600 ft above sea level, revealed a few tiny charcoal flecks. These occurred ca. 70 cm below the ground surface under a thin layer of weathered volcanic ash. A 50 by 50 cm shovel test failed to produce anything suggesting a cultural origin, and it was concluded that the charcoal was probably produced by a wild grassfire. RECOMMENDATIONS No significant prehistoric or historic cultural remains were docmnented by this archaeological reconnaissance. and it is considered unlikely that such remains exist in the construction corridor as surveyed. As such, the proposed construction activities are unlikely to disturb or destroy significant cultural materials and no additional archaeological research is recommended at this time. However, PCA and AVEC should be aware that no archaeological survey is guaranteed to locate all evidence of past hmnan activity. Archaeological sites often contain ephemeral scatters of cultural materials that can be missed by even the most rigorous testing program. In the unlikely event that Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project construction reveals additional archaeological remains, ground disturbing activities should be immediately halted and the State Historic Preservation Officer notified. 19 One archaeological deposit does exist downstream of the proposed transmission line. This site, designated as KOD-S70 on the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS), is located about 200 m SSE from the existing infiltration gallery and water treatment facility, and the southern terminus of the Hydroelectric construction corridor. This site is described as follows (Alaska Office of History and Archaeology 1997): This site [KOD 570] was identified during a rapid lagoon survey and was nOl tested or mapped. Additional investigation is needed to identify its size, complexity, function, and occupation period. It can be inferred that this was a seasonal salmon fishing settlement of the late prehistoric period (Late Kachemak/early Koniag) based on the small but distinct house pits and its geographic location on a salmon stream on the inland side of a lagoon system. away from other resources. Furthermore, under the heading "Danger of Destruction" the report notes: Moderate: this site is currently not eroding heavily and has not been impacted by development or vandalism. It is possible that Old Harbor development (especially regarding expansion or renovation of utilities such as water supply) and vandalism could destroy this site in the future, even though it is on the opposite side of the lagoon from the village. While this site was not visited during this reconnaissance survey, its proximity to the construction of the hydroelectric facility and its sensitivity to erosion should be taken into consideration when planning both the construction and operation of the facility. Construction equipment and personnel should be limited to the existing road leading to the water treatment plant and the 60 m wide survey corridor. Furthermore, if construction plans call for realignment or additional facilities in this area an archaeologist should be consulted to insure that KOD-S70 is not inadvenently damaged. Finally, it is recommended that consideration be given to the potential for site erosion manifest in 20 increasing the volume of water flo'Wing through the stream and past KOD-570. Dan Hertrich of peA indicated that the pipeline would add only modestly to the existing output of the stream. It would be unfortunate if this outflow was sufficient to increase erosion of the bluff supporting KOD-570. It should also be pointed out that no area outside of the survey corridor has been tested. Should it become necessary to utilize the existing four-wheel "Honda" trail that runs parallel to the transmission line and part way up the hill parallel to the penstock, additional archaeological survey may be necessary. This may also true for any additional trails or access roads that may later be. deemed necessary to construction or maintenance of the facility. 21 REFERENCES CITED Alaska Office of History and Archaeology 1997 Alaska Heritage Resources Survey. On File, Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, Anchorage. Amorosi, Thomas 1986 First Preliminary Report of an Archaeofauna from Uyak Bay and Karluk., Kodiak Island, Alaska. Ms on file at the Hunter Bioarchaeology Facility, Department of Anthropology, Hunter College, CUNY. Black, Lvdia T. 1992 The Russian conquest of Kodiak. In, Contributions to the Anthropology of Southcentral and Southwestern Alaska, edited by Richard H. Jordan, Frederica de Laguna and Amy F. Steffian. Anthropological Papers ofthe University ofAlaska 24(1-2):165-182. Clark, Donald W. 1974a Koniag Prehistory: Archaeological investigations at late prehistoric sites on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Tubinger Monographien 2ur Urgeschischte, vol. 1, Tubingen. 1984b Prehistory of the Pacific Eskimo region. In, Handbook ofAmerican Indians, vol. 5, Arctic, David Damas (ed.). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Pp. 136-148. 1992 Archaeology on Kodiak: the quest for prehistory and its implications for North Pacific prehistory. In Contributions to the Anthropology of Southcentral and Southwestern Alaska, Richard H. Jordan, Frederica de Laguna, and Amy F. Steffian (eds.). Anthropological Papers ofthe University ofAlaska 24(1-2): 1 09-126. Crowell, Aron C. 1986 An archaeological survey of Uyak Bay, Kodiak Island~ Alaska, fmal report. Typescript. Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 1996 World System Archaeology at Three Saints Harbor: An Eighteenth Century Russian Fur Trade Site on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 22 Donta, Christopher 1993 Koniag Ceremonialism: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Analysis of Sociopolitical Complexity and Ritual Among the Pacific Eskimo. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. Dumond, Don 1991 The Uyak Site in Regional Prehistory: The Cultural Evidence. In, The Uyak Site on Kodiak Island: Its Place in Alaskan Prehistory, Don E. Dumond and G. Richard Scott, Pp. 57-114. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers, Volume 44.· University of Oregon Press, Eugene. Fitzhugh, J. Benjamin 1996 The Evolution of Complex Hunter-Gat:q.erers in the North Pacific: an Archaeological Case Study from Kodiak Island, Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. Gilpin, Lou M. 1995 Holocene Paleoseismicity and Coastal Tectonics of Kodiak Islands~ Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz, Ca. Haggarty, James C., Christopher B. Wooley, Jon M. Erlandson, and Aron Crowell 1991 The 1990 Exxon Cultural Resource Program: Site Protection and J.\1aritime Cultural Ecology in Prince William Sound and the GulfofAlaska. Exxon Shipping Company and Exxon Company: Anchorage. Hausler-Knecht, Philomena 1993 Early Prehistory of the Kodiak Archipelago. Paper presented at the International Seminar on the Origins, Development and Spread of North Pacific-Bering Sea Maritime Cultures. Honolulu. Holmberg, Heinrich 1. 1985 Holmberg's Ethnographic Sketches. Marvin W. Falk (ed.), Fritz Jaensch (trans.). University of Alaska Press: Fairbanks. Hood, D. W. 1986 Physical setting and scientific history. In The GulfofAlaska: Physical Environment and Biological Resources, D. W. Hood and S. T. Zimmennan (eds.). Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S. Dept. of Commerce) and Minerals Management Service (U.S. Dept. of Interior). Pp.5-27. 23 Hrdlicka, Ales. 1944. The Anthropology ofKodiak Island. Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology. Jordan, Richard H. and Richard A. Knecht 1988 Archaeological research on western Kodiak Island, Alaska: the development of Koniag culture. In Late Prehistoric Development of Alaska's Native People, R. D. Shaw, R. K. Harritt, and D. E. Dwnond (eds.). Aurora IV, Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage. Knecht, Richard A. 1995 The Late Prehistory of the Alutiiq People: Culture Change on the Kodiak Archipelago from 1200-1750 AD. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA. Pullar, Gordon L. 1992 Introduction. In Contributions to the Anthropology ofSouthcentral and Southwestern Alaska, Richard H. Jordan, Frederica de Laguna. and Amy Steffian (eds.). Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks 24. Pp. 1-2. Rausch, R. L. 1953 On the status of some arctic mammals. Arctic 6:91-148. 1969 Origin of the terrestrial mammalian fauna of the Kodiak Archipelago. In The Kodiak Island refugium: Its Geology, Flora, Fauna, and History, T.N.V. Karlstrom and G.E. Ball (eds.). Edmonton: Boreal Institute, University of Alberta. Pp. 216-235. Roppel, Patricia 1986 Salmon from Alaska. Anchorage: Alaska Historical Commission. Simon, James J. K. 1992 Mortuary practices of the Late Kachemak tradition in Southcentral Alaska: a perspective from the Crag Point Site, Kodiak Island. Arctic Anthropology 29(2):130-149. Simon, James J. K. and Amy F. Steffian 1994 Cannibalism or complex mortuary behavior? An analysis of patterned variability in the treattnent of human remains from the Kachemak Tradition of Kodiak Island. In Reckoning with the Dead: The Larsen Bay Repatriation and the Smithsonian Institution, Tamara L. Bray and Thomas W. Killion (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Pp. 75-100. 24 Steffian, Amy F. 1992a Fifty years after Hrdlicka: further excavation of the Uyak Site, Kodiak Island, Alaska. In, Contributions to the Anlhropology of Southcentral and Southwestern Alaska, edited by Richard H. Jordan, Frederica de Laguna, and Amy F. Steffian. Anthropological Papers ofthe University ofAlaska 24:141-164. 1992b Archaeological coal in the Gulf of Alaska: a view from Kodiak Island. Arctic Anthropology 29(2):111 .. 129. (inprep) Economic and Social Organization Among the Kachemak Tradition Foragers of Kodiak Island, Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Univer'sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Steffian, Amy F. and Patrick Saltonstall 1995 Markers of identity: labrets and social evolution on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis. Yarborough, Linda Finn 1995 Prehistoric Use of Cetacean Species in the Northern Gulf of Alaska. In, Hunting the Largest Animals, edited by Allen P. McCartney, Pp. 63 ..81. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton. 25 APPENDICES 26 Appendix 1. USDI Federal Archaeological Resources Protection Act Pennit P'•••• i.'. t............... OJ Form 1927 (June 1988) wtwn ntfen1ng to tta penni OMa No. 10204-0037 No.: R7 (ROD) -97-001 Approved through 8I3Oli1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION ACf PERMIT To conduct work upon public and Indian lands owned. controlled cr held in trust by the Department of the Inlerior under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (P.L. 96·95; 93 StaL 721, 16 U.S.C. 470....&1) and its regulations (4.3 CFR 7). 1. Permit issued to: 2 Under application daIed: lutiiq Museum & Archaeological Rep:>sitory 6~1arch 1997 3. Name. address and official swus of person: L In general charge: kcrj Steffian, Curator b. In actual direct cNqc: Dr. Ben Fitzhugh Alutiiq Museum & Archaeological Rep:>si tory (sam: address) 215 Mission Rd., Suite 101 Kodiak, AI< 99615 4. Activityaudlorized: Surveys and lin"ited testing/li.Iri ted collections of lands described in 5, l:elow. s. On Ia.nd3 described as foUows: Lands of the Kcxliak National ~.vildlife Refuge in sections 17, 18, and 20, T34S, R25~\', Seward Meridian, Alaska, as describe:1 in the application, and all adjacent :tions. Conuol No.: 97-1 6. For period: to Date of signature 30 September 1997 7. University. museum or ocher scientific or educational institution in which Lhe rna&eria1s coJ1ected under this permit will be dcposiled Cor permanent preserva1ioa: (A copy of a CUJTt!Dt, vaJicl curatloa a(fftlllelit must be kept oa nle wl1k the land manaliDI8Ieacy(Its).) Alutiiq Museum & Archaeological Repository 8. Special conditicm: , This permit is subject 10 the provisions or the Archaeological Resources Protection Ad. of 1979, its regulations (43 CFR 7) and special coadidoas (see revene side). 10. Slpaf.Urc and " 11. Dale: , r*),1 ::.' ' , ~~ :....;.-~~2-APl!'il·';';"1'99*1~ .;.;:~~~... :."\ ::..~:: Paperwork Reduc:b Act Stateraeat This infamation is bemg collected 10 repoct oa the results d archeological studies conducted oa lands under the jUJisdjcLion of the Depalanent of the Interior. This iDfonnaUoo will be used to ensure tha1 the' wort was conducted in acconiance with statutory and n:gulalOl"y requirementS and any t.erm.s and condition!! stipulated in the permit. Response to this request is required to abeam a benefit., The public n:pon.ing burden for &.be preliminary and final reporu is estima&ed 10 average ODe hour pet rc3pOI1Se, including lhc time for reviewing insuuctions, searching existing c.1aIa SOtI:'CeS. plberiDl amd maintaining daIa. aDd compIetin& and reviewing eM repcxu. Din:d COIDIDCU1S Tegarding the bun:Ieft e:Jtimaae or uy ocbet' aspect eX r.hJs form 10 the In.formatioa ColIectia1 Clearance OrrlCet. '" .' _. ----------------------------------------------------------- 8. (CONTINUED) speciaJ c:onditions are checked (X) as appropriate to this pennit a. x Th,i., penn~t shall not be exclusive in character. and there is hereby l"e3etVed unto the landownen the right to usc. lease or pennil the use ol said land or any pan thereof for any pu!"P03e. b. x Other instiwdoal may be engaged in archeological re3e8l'Ch in the general area covered by this penniL In case there should be confJict with respect 10 a site not specifacalJy designated in a penni... the parties conce.med shall reach agreement between tbem:Jelves as to which ~work the site. c. x The Depanment of the Inter1C1'. inclLXli.ng its bureaus and employ~ and die landowners and their grantees. shall be held blameless for any and all events, deeds CI' mishaps. regardless of whether or not they arise fran operations under this penniL d. x Such guidance and protection as is consistent with duties of the Deparune.-of the InlCrior offICial in charge of lhc area will be afforded the pennit holder and his party. e. x Tr3I1SpXWion in Department of the Intt:ricr vehicles cannot be furnished. except in cases where no extra expense to the Department is involved. C. x All costs shall be borne by die penniuce. g . ..!. The exploration or excavation of any Indian grave CI' burial ground oa Indian lands and reservaUon.s under the jurisdiction of the Department of Lhe Interior is resuic&cd solely 10 qualifJed 1tclJeak)gisu. No grave or burial ground abandoned less than 200 yean may be investigaled wilhoul pennissica of &be governing council of die Indians concerned. which supplemental authority must be promptly recaded with die superi.DtaIdeDl cr ocher ofncial in charge of the designated area. h. x All excavated areas shall be re.slOred by filling in the excavatioos and otherwise leaving the area in as near to original condition as is practicable. i. x The penniuee shall concitl:t all operatioos in sax:h a manner as 10 prevent the erosion oC the land. pollution of lhe warer resources. and damage 10 the ~and to do all things necessary to prevent or reduce to Lhe rullest exleI1l the scarring of the lands. j. ..!. Any fmdings of mined or processed pecious meta1s 01' othet ~or trea.1Ure trove in the area covered by this permit are the exclU'Sive plopefty of abe landowners, and shall DOt be c:liswrbed cr removed from me site without specific wriucn pennission from the Deparanent of the Interior. k. Two copies of the fmal repon.. accompanied by a completed NTIS report documenwion fcxm (optional fonn 212), will be submiued to me t. Before undenaking any wort 011 lands adminiSleted by the Bureau of Reclanwion. clearance should be oblained from the offacia1 in charge of me II'eI. m. Before undertakiDc.IIlY wart OIIlaDds administered by the National Park Scnice, c~should be -obtained from me lUpCI'iDlerIdeaiact.pc:iIboma. ': .. "'""':T.:~ .:.;"> -·r!""..::: ... n. .!. Wore undenaldqlllY wort 011 Iaods administered by the Bureau of land Ma.nqement. clearance s.bouJd be obWned f'rom the OffICe of the S.~and f'roJn the BLM Disaic& Offacer in direct cbarp aCdic area ~,_..._-. -_. . ::::7:: .• :-1:;'1'1iV<D:f:l ~.. ; ~~l" 1:.!.· ~ -.... ' o. Before undertaking any wort 011 lands administered by the FISh and Wildlife Service. cle.ttance should be obtained from Lhe OfTace of the Regional Dim:Ur and from the Refuge Manager in ctuqe at me appiopdatc FISh and Wildlife Refuge.. Pcuession (J." use of fueanns in such areas is JXOhibittd. .. . p. _ Before undenaking any wort 011 Indian tribal lands or on individually owned trust CX' resuicled Indian lands. clearance should be obtained from die Bareaa of Indian AffairJ official having immediate jurisdictioli Over the propeny. q. ..!. Otbet special conditions continued 011 'lIacbed sheet(s) • . "-28 ."~l!·. ~;•.::.;., ..•:= ~n;:::·!!l· .:) . -.'. r"; ~,r.! Appendix B. Archaeological Survey Photo Log for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project _._..... _._...... _._.......... _._....... N \0 I Photo Number Type Taken By Ilate Subject AM316:1 Color photo JBF 4/26/97 EBP coring in lower portion of corridor-view SE of lagoon AM316:2 Color photo JAF 4/26/97 EBP coring in lower portion of corridor-view SE of lagoon AM316:3 Color Ehoto JBF 4/26/97 EBP wI probe in lower portion of corridor-view SE of lagoon AM316:4 Color photo JAF 4/26/97 Soil profile in stream bank detailing matrix in [~ump house are~ AM316:5 Color photo JBF 4/26/97 Soil profile in stream bank detailing matrix in pump house are~ AM316:6 Color photo JBF 4/26/97 View SE of lagoon from area above ~ump_house AM316:7 Color photo JBF 4/26/97 View SE of lagoon from area above pump house AM316:8 Color photo JBF 4/26/97 EBP & 01-1 ascending head of corridor -view N AM316:9 Color photo JBF 4/26/97 Big Creek & lagoon from area above pump house -view SE AM316:10 Color photo JBF 4/26/97 Big Creek & lagoon from area above pump house -view SE AM316:11 Color photo JBF 4/26/97 OH near head of corridor AM316: 12 Color photo DII 4/26/97 JBF & EAP near head of corridor -view SE AM316:13 Color photo JBF 4/26/97 EBP over looking stream below primary drainage area AM316:14 Color photo JBF 4/26/97 EBP & 011 at head of corridor AM316:15 Color photo JAF 4/26/97 stream exiting primary drainage area -view S AM316:16 Color photo JAF 4/26/97 EBP near head of corridor -view SE AM316:17 Color photo JAF 4/26/97 Big Creek from head of corridor -view SE AM316:18 Color photo JAF 4/26/97 ESP using soil probe AM316:19 Color photo JBF 4/26/97 EBP with bear track in 4.-wheeler trail AM316:20 Color photo JBF 4/27/97 EBP immediately above pump house area -view S AM316:21 Color photo JBF 4/27/97 EBP immediately above pump house area -view SE I I AM316:22 Color photo Jnf 4/27/97 EBP immediately above pump house area -view S Manmlals in the Old Harbor hydropower project area: A list of mammals located in the region affected by the Old Harbor hydroelectric power project was compiled during a visit to the site (July 1997), through conversations with wildlife professionals from the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and a hunting guide who has extensive experience in the Old Harbor area. Mammals in the area include the Kodiak brown bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goat, red fox, land otter, beaver, weasel, snowshoe hare, tundra vole, and little brown bat (Table 1). A literature search was conducted to ascertain current knowledge regarding the effects of disturbance on these species. The issue of improved access is critical and must be considered when detennining the impact of human development. The Old Harbor hydropower project will result in somewhat improved access to the area as they will extend a pre-existing 4-wheeler road by about 2000 feet. HoweveL the increase in hunting and trapping pressure resulting from improved access likely will be inconsequential. Kodiak bro\vn bear: Surveys have not been conducted in the study area, however, intensive aerial surveys perfonned in the adjoining area denote a relatively high density of brown bears (270 bears/ 1 000 km 2 : Barnes & Smith 1997). Bear density in the Old Harbor hydropower project area is probably similar (V. Barnes, personal communication). The midslope habitat, through which most of the pipeline will traverse, contains bear dens at or. near 10(X) ft. elevation (Fig. 1: R. Holt, personal communication) and is habitat prevalently used for denning by brown bears on the southwest side of Kodiak Island (Van Daele et al. 1990). Bears feed on alpine and subalpine vegetation within the proposed construction zone and fish in Lagoon Creek during an autumn silver salmon run (R. Holt, personal communication). The Big Creek tributary, northeast of Lagoon Creek and within 1 mile of construction activities. is a good tributary for salmon spawning and, thus, is prime habitat for brown bears (R. Holt, personal communication). Sitka black-tailed deer: Surveys have not been conducted in the study area. Three adult female deer and 1 fawn were observed using the midslope habitat in the study area during the site visit (Fig. 2). The area adjacent to the proposed pipeline apparently is impo11ant summer habitat for females and fawns. Male deer move into the midslope area during the rutting season (October: R. Holt, personal communication) and deer of both sexes probably use the area through the winter (M. Hawkes, personal communication). Mountain goat: Surveys have not been conducted in the study area. Mountain goats are found in the surrounding peaks (Fig. 3) in summer and cross through the study area when traveling among peaks (R. Holt, personal communication). In winters of sparse snow, goats feed on ferns located in the lower slopes of the mountains, otherwise they remain at high elevations. Red fox: Surveys have not been conducted in the study area but fox scat was noted during the site visit. Land otter: Surveys have not been conducted in the study area. However. there are otter present in the Barling Creek and Lagoon Creek tributaries (R. Holt, personal communication). Rivers, tidal lagoons, and coastal areas are the most significant otter habitat. Otter feed primarily on fish and invertebrates, both freshwater and marine. Dens often are located near tidal lagoons. Tidal lagoons, particularly those connected with a stream containing significant salmon runs are probably the most critical habitat. Beaver: Surveys have not been conducted in the study area. Beaver are common throughout Kodiak Island, particularly in areas containing free-flowing streams and ponds with willow thickets; although they also use alder, spruce. and other trees. Beaver are common in the Barling Creek tributary (R. Holt, personal communication). \Veasel: Surveys have not been conducted in the study area. Weasels feed primarily on tundra voles and nestling birds and are, thus, probably found throughout the study area. Snowshoe hare: Surveys have not been conducted in the study area. Snowshoe hare are present throughout the study area. Tundra vole: Surveys have not been conducted in the study area. A large number of voles were evident in the midslope meadow and subalpine areas. Little brown bat: Surveys have not been conducted in the study area but there almost certainly are little brown baL~ in the area though probably not within the pipeline corridor. Impacts of the Old Harbor hydropower project on mammals: Kodiak bro\vn bear: An important potential long-term impact of the project on hrown bears is the diminution of salmon in the Barling Creek tributary. Notwithstanding. the Barling Creek tributary has been characterized as a "'marginal tributary [or salmon spawning" (L. White, report to E. Ausman 10/08/96). Additionally, salmon numbers may increase in Lagoon Creek because of the increased flow due to the project (L. White. report to E. Ausman 10/08/96). Ultimately, brown bears should not be affected as long as there is no net effect on salmon (Barnes 1990). Other impacts on brown bears can vary significantly depending upon the timing of construction activities. Possible direct impacts on brown bears are the disturbance of feeding bears during the salmon spawning season (August-October: Barnes & Smith 1997); disturbance of denning bears during winter construction activities: increased energy expenditure of bears subjected to disturbance by low-flying helicopters, blasting, and/or drilling; and temporary alteration of movement patterns during construction activities. A helicopter will be used to transport construction materials to the site and brown bears are particularly sensitive to low-flying helicopters (Smith & Van Daele 1990). Impact may be reduced by scheduling construction activities such that they. do not come into direct conflict with bear feeding or denning. Improved access to the area should be minimal but may lead to increased bear-human conflicts and in some bears being killed in defense of life or property (Smith et al. 1990). However, brown bears in the Old Harbor area are relatively successful in maintaining spatial and/or temporal separation from village inhabitants (R. Holt, personal communication) so any increase in bear deaths may be negligible. Long-term impacts on the bear population are unlikely. Sitka black-tailed deer: Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline may disturb and displace deer for short durations. Disturbance to deer during fawning (late tvlay/early June) can be minimized by scheduling construction activities later in the summer, fall, or winter. Helicopter use during construction and operation also should be scheduled to avoid peak fawning periods as deer will likely be most sensitive to overflights during this period (Maier 1996). Since access should not be improved markedly by the project there should be no long-term impacts of the hydropower project on deer. l\lountain goat: Mountain sheep are sensitive to the presence of humans. particularly to overflights by helicopters (Bleich et al. 1990, 1994). Mountain goats would likely respond similarly and avoid areas in which helicopters are in use,. Mountain goat use of the midslope habitat is transitory so this species should not be influenced by construction and consequent maintenance activities. Red fox: There is some potential to temporarily disturb fox during construction activities, bUl this is not expected to adversely affect fox populations. Habitat loss resulting from clearing and flooding should impact fox only inasmuch as it affects their primary prey, tundra voles and snowshoe hare. There should be only minor improvement of access to the area afforded by a 4-wheeler road and, hence, no major increase in hunting and/or trapping pressure. Land otter: Any diminution of fish or invertebrate production in streams or lagoon areas would be detrimental to the otter. The hydropower project should not result in major fluctuations in water levels and. thus. should not affect the salmon run in Barling Creek. Regardless, the Barling Creek tributary has been characterized as a "marginal tributary for salmon spawning" (L. White. report to E. Ausman 10/08/96). Water levels may increase somewhat in Lagoon Creek potentially yielding a positive net effect on salmon nUlnbcrs in that stream. The lower portion of Lagoon Creek, which is often dry for a portion of the summer, likely will contain water year-round (E. Ausman, personal communication). Some loss of dens could occur with road construction and other activities requiring removal of vegetation. Access to otter habitat should not be improved by the hydropower project, hence, trapping pressure and malicious shooting should not increase as a consequence of this development. The species as a whole should not be adversely affected by the project. Beaver: Beaver are relatively tolerant to human presence. Barring large scale fluctuations in water levels associated with the hydropower project or destruction of willow vegetation, impact on beaver habitat should be relatively low. Access to beaver habitat should not be improved by the hydropower project, hence, trapping pressure and malicious shooting should not increase as a consequence of this development. The species as a whole should not be adversely affected by the project. Weasel: Weasels are very tolerant of human presence. They should be affected only inasmuch as their primary prey species are affected by vegetation removal and road building. Effects should be localized and small-scale. Snowshoe hare: Hares are relatively tolerant of human presence and should he affected only in areas where their habitat is destroyed through road construction and other construction activities. The pipe is small enough (~ 16 in.) such that the ahoveground portion of the pipeline should not impede the movement of hares. The hare population as a whole should be unaffected. Tundra vole: Voles are tolerant of humans and should be affected only in areas where their habitat is destroyed through road building and construction activities. The population as a whole should be unaffected. Little brown bat: The brown bat population should be unaffected hy the hydropower project. Literature Cited: Barnes, V.G., Jr. 1990. The influence of salmon availability on movements and range of brown bears on southwest Kodiak Island. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:305-313. Barnes, V.G., Jr. & R.B. Smith. 1997. Brown bear population assessment on the Shearwater Peninsula and Kiliuda Bay Areas, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Final report, U.S.F.W.S. 35 pp. Bleich, V.C., R.T. Bowyee A.M. Pauli, R.L. Vernoy, & R.W. Anthes. 1990. Responses of mountain sheep to helicopter surveys. Calif. Fish and Game 76:197-204. Bleich, V.C., R.T. Bowyer, A.M. Pauli, M.C. Nicholson, & R.W. Anthes. 1994. Mountain sheep Ovis canadensis and helicopter.surveys: ramifications for the conservation of large mammals. BioI. Cons. 70: 1-7. Maier, J.A.K. 1996. Ecological and physiological aspects of caribou activity and responses to aircraft overflights. Ph. D. Thesis 139 pp. Smith, R.B., V.G. Barnes, Jr., & L.1. Van Daele. 1989. Brown bear-humi.Ul conflicts in the Kodiak Archipelago. Alaska. Pages 111-119 in M. Bromley (cd.) Bear-pcople conflicts: proc. of symposium on management strategies. Northwest Terril. Dept. Rencwable Resour., Yellowknife, Canada. Smith, R.B. & L.1. Van Daele. 1990. Impacts of hydroelectlic development on brown bears. Kodiak Island, Alaska. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:93-103. Van Daele, L.1., V.G. Barnes. Je, & R.B. Smith. 1990. Denning characteristics of brown bears on Kodiak Is~and, Alaska. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:257-267. Table 1. Terrestrial mammals in the Old Harbor hydropower project area. Commercial Recreational Common Name Scientific N arne Importance Importance Kodiak brown bear Urslis orctos X X Sitka black-tailed deer Odocoileus hel11ionlls X X Mountain goat Oreal1U10S anlericanlls X X Red fox VlIlpes vulpes X X Land otter Lutra canadensis X X Beaver Castor fiber X X Weasel Mustela ennina X Snowshoe hare Lepus tilnidus X Tundra vole Microtlls oeCOnOI111IS Little brown bat Mrotis lucifugus X Date: September 5, 1997 To: Earl Ausman JPolar Consult Alaska Inc. .~ {i(~ I From: Lorne E. White, Fishery Biologist White Fisheries POB 476 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Subject: Field Trip report-July 21, 1997 The botanical survey of the Old Harbor Hydropower pipeline site was made on July 21, 1997. The area was surveyed by foot along the route from the proposed hydro plant uphill to the intake site. Dan suggested breaking the area into sections: 1) Lower power plant area, 2) Last Down Hill section, 3) Undulating area, 4) First Down Hill section 5) Top section and, 6) access road. 1./ Lower power plant section is dominated by open fields of sedges, grasses, fireweed, yellow rattle, ferns, wild roses, elderberry and cow parsnip. It is open fields surrounded by cotton woods and Kenai birch. 2./ Last down hill section is basically the same as the power plant site except the trees are replaced by alder thickets. 3./ The undulating area still remained open and the same as above wi th the inclusion of some wetted areas containing iris, marsh-five-finger, dwarf birch, and cloudberry. 4./ The first downhill section was still open fields as described above with shorter (less than 5 foot alder) and thinner grasses, more ferns, wetted areas contained sundew, dogwood and alpine blueberry. 5./ The top section is defined as sub alpine with a thinning of grasses, more dogwood, crowberry and Lingonberry. There were willow shrubs and a cottonwood tree noted at the intake site. 6./ The proposed access road to the power plant dominated by cottonwood, alder thickets and, elderberry patches with a few small open fields. The grade in this area is relatively mild which should facilitate construction. I have surveyed the literature and project site for plants that are endangered, threatened and species of concern on Kodiak Island. There are no plant species that are threatened, endangered, or concern on Kodiak Island or seen on the project site. Please see the attached USF&W list and refer to Hulten (1968) for reference of plant species distribution. The following is a list of all species and their botanical and common names observed on thi s survey. All names are from Er i c Hulten, Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. 1968. Common Name False Hellebore Jacob's Ladder Paint brush Labrador Tea Lingonberry Lupin Marsh Fivefinger Spring Beauty Rose Salmonberry Sedges Alaska Spirea Sundew Violet Iris Wild Celery Wormwood Wintergreen Yellow Rattle Cow Parsnip Arctic daisy Fireweed Alaska Cotton Sitka Alder Kenai Birch Dwarf Birch Black Cottonwood Alaska Willow Sitka Willow Elderberry Honkshood Botanical Name Veratrum Viride Polemonium Acutiflorum Castilleja unalaschcensis Ledum palustre Vaccinium vitis-idaea Lupinus nootkatensis Potentilla palustris Claytonia sibirica Rosa nukana Rubus spectabilis Cyperaceae family Spiraea Beauverdiana drosera rotundifolia Viola Langsdoriffi Iris Angelica lucida Artemisia arctica Pyrola Rhinanthus minor Heracleum lanatum Chrysanthemum acticum Epilobium angustifolium Eriphorum (sp.) Alnus Betula kenaica Betula nana Populus balsamifera Salix alaxensis Salix sitchensis Sambrucus racemosa Aconitum delphinifolium Occurance A C A F F F F F C A A F F C F C F F A A F A F A C F C C C C C C Geranium erianthumWild Geranium Bane Berry Actea rubra F Alpine Blueberry Vaccinium uliginosum F Burnet Sanguisorba stibulata C Cloudberry Rubus chamaemorus F Coltsfoot Petasites frigidus F Composit, yellow Senecio triangularis F Coastal Fleabane Erigeron 12 eregrinus F Viburnum Viburnum edule F Crowberry EmQetrum nigrum F Dogwood, Dwarf Cornus suecica F Fern GymnocarEium dryoEteris C Fern, Lady Athyrium filix-femina Gentian Gentiana QlatY12e tala F Swertia Goldenrod Grasses Purple Celery Swertia Eerennis Soligago TeQida Gramineae family Angelica genuflexa C C A C A= C= F= Abundant Common Few C ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN ALASKA' u.s. FISH AND WILDUFE SERVICE Ju..". l.996 LISTED SPECIES STArns BiaY. AJa.a:iau Caaac:ia IOOIC (JInJauJ ~UII&DpDTliD) T A.mcrican pen:griDe f.tJcoo (Falt:D pnlf"'l'lU 1DIJIIIIm) E Eai:imo curiew (NIIIfIIaiIu btwaUiJ) E Shon:-cailcd a.IbaImu (D~1JibGIn&.r) E SpocacJ.cd ci.dcr (~.fi,IcIaIri) T .&m! AJa.a:iau Ihicld (c:m (Polystidulln GlIIllicIllPl) E PROPOSED SPECIES Stc1k:r'1 cider (PoIySIit:uJ mUln"'f PT DEUSI'EI) SPECIES Araic pen:griDe iak:oo (FtJk:o pnl,..,vuu tIDIIiriIu~ 0 SPECIES OF CONCERN MIJIUJJI.l! A·cz'odct Archipc1ago wolf (C4W.s iMp'" lirom) Amai: WDcira vole (AlicrolaJ D«D1IDIfUIS arnai::6IUU) GIM:ic:r Bay wuc:r I~(Sorg ~) Momaguc twIdra vOU:: (Microuu 0ICD1fDtftIIS Ilymocltes) NanD Amc:ricua lynx (F,li.J Iyg ClI1IlJtiIIU'is) Pribilof laluKil ah.rew (Sorg n,tirodrotruu) Biml BrilrJe..t.highed curlew (~II.IIailim.ris) EY'CmIaDIl t • roc:k pcumipn a.";,,OPIU IIUIlJU nlr7PI.CIMI) HarU:quiD duck (HisIrioIIi&lU JU.r:triDllil:u) K.iWit:z'1 murrck:t (Brat:lryrtllllpiuu brrviro.ftris) Marbled murrc:lct (Brt»:lryram.piuu IfIIZT7fIDrtUu) Nonhcm (Qua:a Chariacze) goshawk (Accipuer ge1UilU L::iIIgl) OliVCHidcd fiyc:all:be:r (CoIIIDpIU bo"tJJis) Red-legged ~(RLs.m brrvrrosms) Yunaaka roc:k pcannip.o UAroplU m.IIllU )'1UI4.SU1ISIS) Amphibians Spoat:d frog (RDIIIJ p',liDsQ) Fishes Bull trout (St:Uvelilaas cDI'IjIMnuU) EI!m! Anani.rilI rlobllituiD. vu. lMIIQ Ann yllkDMIUU lJDtrychiMm lUCel'llinu CQrg ullli,clll.ari.J WIT. tlolill Cryplllllliu:l ~1U1I1I4 DoM,lAria bnilafnui.r Dr. ".",.,.",i EriorOl'llllJl j1I:nnIIII var. Q/{IIiJiIuIm MnrelUia drwrrmollliii Ozyrropu tD'CIicQ VU. btI.ru~1JII/J PDll.irurQ yllkDMlLfi..J RIIIftIIf% krtJ.ll.Jei SlulowskilJpyrtjormil TlIrG%oClCIlm CIZI"IIIDCDlortJDllft LEAD OmCE RANGE IN AK Ak::uI:ian and Sc:midi 1J. latc:nor No looger' ocean in AK Gulf of AK. AJcutian 11. and Bering Sea Wesu:rn aDd Nonhcm ccoua:aJ) Adak U. SouthWClU:n1. Wesu:rn and Nonhcm Nonhcm and Wea.cm Sout.hcut Amak 11. Glacier Bay MolUaguc b. AJui:a-wide PribiJo C1.a. Wau:m AIDa u. AJaab-wide SoUlbcm aDd SouLhcut Soutbc:m and SoUlbcut SoULhcut CaunJ. SoUl.bc:m and Sour.bc:ut Pribilafa. Buld.ir and BogotaaC 11. YUII&Ii:a b. So&Ahc:a.ll SoUl.hc:ut St. PaW &ad St. MaDhcw u. Beab an:a Sol.llhcul aDd SoUl.iac:c:mD.1 Sour..tv::ut Eqjc an:a Seward Pa:ainaula Ea&iean:a EacJc area A1quuklUmIaL &rea Kotzdnac an:a Eagle an:a Point Hope an:a and Wcstcm Seward Pcrun.Iula Upper Kuakai:.wi.m River SouUw::aun.l and ALub PcniDaula ANC PAl PAl ANC ANC ANC PAl FAI JUN ANC JUN ANC ANC ANC ANC ANC JUN JUN JUN JUN FAl ANC ANC JUN JUN ANC FAI ANC JUN FAI ANC FAI FAl FAl FAl PAl FA! ANC ANC I Pad au...... ~W'iWIilc ......... ,...... 10. 1994. 5() C"F'I 17.11 .t 17.12 J AAa&l NcIa= rtfl.lmllw. NCMaIiIa' l5. 1994. "fa 51912/ rs.. NCIIIC:e rtf ..... Sc:; .30. 1993 ••n PI. 511"t J Tbc S&c.I.Ir::r' .....WIll "....... for bII:.III .......... CIS JIIJv 14, 1994 (S9 PI. ].5196). I The A..n:Qc ~h.k:aa wu ~CIS 0csaDcr ~. 1994 (S9 FR ~). I...IS":'ED SPI!CIES MANAGED BY mE NAnOHAL MAKlNE FlSHEJUES SERVICE .uDder the E.Ddaqcn:d Spocia AJS of 1973. u &IIICIKicd. t.bc N&tional MariDc FIIhc:rir::II Service it rapoDliblc for lilted &IWiromo\ll and mariDc fia.ba ADd ra&rinc mammala oUK:r I.b.an ICIl oacn, 1DILIIoIIC:Ca. &Dd dugongs. Mamrna1J 1I4d.urt.a , lAc:i.I:J.lis Non.bem right wbaJc 8cJwtM=ad wtWc~""'-Itu ~'nG bor.Gli.s Sci~!C 1I4d.urt.aptmllfll&l'l:llJ.vs Blue wbaJc ~plrylUlilu Fm wbalc 1rI"lIpfnG IIDl'GIUIIIllitu Humpback wb&k: P#ry$lIn rIIIJl:I"DelpiuUM,s Sperm wtWc E.ItIMlDpiAr jabGnu S&d.lcr lea lion Fuhes OIIcorhyllduu IVr/c,Q Saakc River sockeye Wmon OIIcorhy"dllu l.Shawyudla Snake River spring/lummer chinook aalmon Snake River Call chinook &a.1mon Reptiles CMIoIlila myd4r (inc1. qa.s:.ri:.J) Gn:cft ICIl lUrtlc DntI'IDCh'iy$ coriDt:.G Lc:atb.r:rback ICIl a.an.lc Car••CDr•• Logcrbca.d ICIl a.an.lc upidoch.ly$ OUVIIC.G Olive (Pacific) ridley ICI turtle DELISTED Mammab Escitricht:i.Ju roblUllIS Graywhalc Effective June 16. 1994 ADDRESSES National Marine FllhericI Se:rvice Nanonal Oc:c&n.ic and A1molphc:ne Ad.mini.ma.aon ~Weal 7lh Avenue. Box 43 Anchorage. Ala.aka 99513-7577 TEL: 907-271-5006 NlJlOnal Marine FilbericI Semce National Occ:an.ic and Atmol'pnenc Ad.minim1r:lon Protected Rcaouroca Divilion P.O. Box 21668 Juneau. AK 99802-1668 TEL: 907-586-7'..35 E E E E E E E T E T T T E T T o KEY AND DEPINTI10NS E A I'pCIC'ia which iI in danger of cmDCtinn t.broughout all or a aigDi6c:ant ponion ita range. T A Ipccia which illikdy to become c:ndaagered wit.bin the foraecablc futu.re throughout all or a ,ipificam portion of ita range. p PropolCd: A I'pCIC'ia formally proposed for lilting u CDCiangcn::d or thrc:au:.ncd in the Fc:dcnJ. R.cgiJtcr. D A I'pCIC'ia tbal hal bccu removed fmm c.hc lilt of thrc:aIc:Ded and cnd&ngcn:ci 1'pCCica. The Fuh and W"aldli.fc Service will mawr lhcIe apccica for a period of at !cut 5 yean following dclisting. and. during the Scc:r.ion 7 procca. trca.t them u Spccica of Conccm. Canciid&tc Spccia: A I'pCIC'ia for which tbc Service baa on file c:aough auber'urial iDiormation on bioJogic&l vuJ.Dc:n.bility and thn::aI(a) to WUDJ1t lilting u &hrc&tc:Dcd or c:rK1&Dgcn::d. (formerly Category 1 Ca,acijd··c Spccia) Spccica of Concc:m: A I'pCIC'ia for which the Service hal available KicDtific iDiorrnation which indicatcl populations rna y be dcc1iDiDg or lacing lhrc:a&I. The Senicc cnc:ourapa lurveyl &ad J'acarch OD UlCIC I'pCCica and impJa.uc:maljon of ma.nagcmc:m pnai.cca tbar. would ItDp population dcclinca and/or al.ltvWc threats in order to preclude c.hc DCcd for lilting. (Formerly CaIcgory 2 CaDdid"c Spccia) ADDRESSES: Regional Ofii.cc: F'uh and Wddlilc Serrice Divilion of Endangcraf Spccica 1011 £. Tudor Road A.nchongc. AJaaD 99503-6199 TEL: 907-786-3520 FAX: 907-786-3350 Field Officca: Ecological Senicca. Juneau Ecologic&1 Scrvicca. Fairbankl F'uh and WUdliIc Service F'ub and Wdc:Wic Service 3000 ViDtagc Blvd .• Suilc 201 1412 Airport Way JUDcaU. A1aaka 99801 Fairbub. Al.u.Ir::a 99701 TEL: 907-586-7240 TEL: 907-456-0427 FAX: 907-586-7154 PAX: 907-456-0346 Ecological Servica. Anchorage F'Jlh and WUdlifc Service 605 We.t 4th Avc:auc. Room G-62 Anchonge. A1uka 99501 TEL: 907-271-2888 PAX: 907-171-2786 February 27, 1996 Ken Burton 202-208-5634 Megan Durham 202-208-4685 PR96-l5 U.S. PXSH AND WILPLXFE SERVICE ISSUES REVISED MIST OF "CANDXDATES" POR ENDANGERED SPECXES MXST The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se~ice has issued a notice of review for plant and animal soecies that are candidates for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Ac~. The revised list of "candidate species"--part of the Administ:::-ation1s commitment to improve implementation of the Endangered Species Act--is the result of a thorough review of the scientific information available on the species. In its notice of review, published in the February 28 Federal Register, the Se~ice is asking for any new information on the status of the candidate species. "The revisions to the candidate species list strengthen the scientific basis of the endangered species program," said Se~ice Deputy Director John Rogers. "The new candidate species list clearly identifies those species with strong scientific evidence indicating they are likely to be in need of listing as endangered or threatened. This will enable the Service, other agencies, and private partners to focus attention and resources on the species that most need help and will therefore, ultimately reduce the costs and increase the e£fec':iveness of species conservation." The revised candidate notice identifies 182 species as ucandidates" for listing. "Candidate species" are species for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has enough scientific information to warrant proposing them for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Ac':. Identification of candidate species helps resource managers alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Conse~ation actions for candidate species are often the most e£fec~ive and least expensive means for restoring species. The revised candidate list replaces an old system that listed nearly 4... aQ.Q.__'!.c:and; da te.!~...s.pe.c.ies.._u:c.de.:t:...t:.hJ:ee ~sep.arate categories. The old system led many people to the mistaken conclusion chat the addition of thousands of species to the endangered list was imminent. Under the revised list, only those soecies :0:::-whic:: there is enough ir.formation to support a listingproposa~ will be called "candidates." These we:!:'e forme:!:'ly known as "Cacego:::",{ : Candidate Species." -2 Wit~ tcdayts announcement, :~e Service will no longe~ mai~tain a list of s'Cecies forme~ly known as "Category 2 Candidates. II These are species :or whic~ the Se~Tice does not ~ave enough scient:"fic information :0 sucoor= a list:"~g proposal. The Fish and Wildlife Service is working with Federal and state agencies, private conservation groups, and the scientific community to develop data sharing arrangemenes and cont:'::ue co assess the .st:at..us· of ...these species. "The Fish and Wildlife Service remains concerned about many of the species formerly on the I Category 2 Candidates I list,. and will continue working with states and others to gather information about these and other species that may be at risk, fI Rogers said. "However, we currently do not have the t1'Pe of information needed to warrant a candidate designation for these species." In the 22-year history of the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Se!:"V'ice has listed 960 U. s. soecies as endangered or threatened but has determined that 2,400 othe!:'s do not warrant protection at this time. Ove!:' 70 percent of all species reviewed were found noe to warrant listing. None of the current candidate species is likely to be listed as endangered or threatened in the near future because of an April 1995 Congressional moratorium on adding new species to the offic:"al list:. Proposals to lise species also have been delayed by reductions i~ the Se!:"V'ice's endangered species budget. The Service is continuina efforts to stabilize the st:atus of candidate species through conse!:"V'ation par~nerships but Congress has also cut funding for this prcgram. Also in the February 28 Fede~al Register is a notice explaining the changes in the status of 96 candidate species under the terms of a settlement agreement in a lawsuit filed by the Fund for Animals. This notice exclains that scientific review has indicated these 88 plants and 8 -animals do not warrant proposal for listing as endangered or threatened. Most of the species were removed for taxonomic reasons, because of a lack of scientific information to support a proposal, or because they are more abundant or less threatened than previously believed. Several of the species were removed .frOIn-_"!! cand; da t e "._ ..s.t.atu5. .... as._ a ..... resul t .of successful conservation actions that have reduced threats and stabilized their populations. Two species, both Hawaiian plants, were removed because they are believed to be extinct. -FWS A CENSUS OF BIRDS BREEDING IN THE AREA OF A PROPOSED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NEAR OLD HARBO~KODIAK, ALASKA, 15-16 JUNE,1998. Todd Eskelin 2619 La Touche St. Anchorage, Ak 99508 June 20, 1998 A Census of Birds Breeding in the Area of a Proposed Hydroelectric Development Project Near Old Harbor, Kodiak, Alaska 1998 Objectives: This census project is designed to determine species composition and relative abundance of birds utilizing an area ofa proposed hydroelectric project near Old Harbor, Kodiak, Alaska. Special emphasis will also be made to determine the presence of Marbled Murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus), IGttlitz's Murrelets (Brachyramphus brevirostris), Surlbirds (Aphriza virgata), and Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus). Methods. The primary method of sampling birds breeding in the project area was otT-road points. These point counts follow the same methodology establish as a state-wide standard by the Alaska Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group and Ralph (et. a1. 1993). The point count survey began at 6: 12am on June 16, 1998. This was slightly later than the published sunrise for this latitude, but heavy clouds and mountains contributed to a later sunrise. The survey was completed at 9:29am. Points were established in the area of the proposed pipeline at a distance of 250m in the lower forested section and 350m in the upper more open section (Fig 1). The location of each point was recorded on a schematic of the proposed pipeline route. Surveyed distances were present and were used to locate individual points. This should allow for easy replication of the route in subsequent years~ Each point consisted of recording all birds heard or seen for a period of 5 minutes. Species and identification method, recorded within or beyond 50m, and within the first 3 minutes or last 2 in the sampling period were recorded for each bird. Additionally, birds flying over were recorded for presence absence information though they can not be directly linked to the habitat type in the study area. General habitat types were recorded for each point following the vegetation classifications established by Viereck (et. aI. 1992). In addition to the point count surveys, all species encountered between points or after the survey period were recorded and summarized in an avian sighting list by species, general location, number, and habitat type. This list also includes all species seen or heard outside of the proposed project area to identify the presence of birds with larger territories, which may be indirectly affected by the proposed project. Marbled and Kittlitz's Murrletes are species of special concern that may breed in the area. These species are not easily sampled using standard landbird monitoring techniques and may not be effectively recorded using the standard off-road point count census technique. To determine their presence in the area and potential breeding status, a survey was conducted near the beach in the area of the proposed project on the evening of June 15, 1998. The survey was conducted from 22:00 to 23:30 near the outlet of Old Harbor Lagoon. Recorded nests for IGttlitz' s Murrelets are in unvegetated taIus slopes, which are only present at elevations well above the study area. Results. Murrelet Survey. The evening survey for murrelets produced no evidence that Kittlitz' s or Marbled Murrelets are breeding in the drainage that would be impacted by the hydroelectric project. Table 1 is a summary of all birds identified during the survey as well as information relating to numbers seen and area observed. The weather on the evening was ideal with temperatures around 48 F, a cloud layer at approximately 1700m, and a slight SW wind from 0-5 mph. Point count survey. A total of 14 species were recorded during the point count survey_ Of those species, 4 were only recorded as flyovers. Table 2 is a summary of species diversity and total relative abundance of birds at each point along the survey_Point 3, which represented a transition from the Open Black Cottonwood Forest to the Tall AlderIWillow Scrub had the highest species diversity with 12 species. Point 1 had the highest total number of birds recorded with 28. This was the only point in the Open Black Cottonwood Forest habitat type. When the data was sorted by species, we found that, the highest density of birds per point was represented by Fox Sparrow, Wilson's Warbler, and Savannah Sparrow (Table 3). Additionally, we also looked at the frequency of points in which each species was recorded and found that the top 3 were represented by Fox Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow, and Wilson's Warbler (Table 4). Miscellaneous Bird Observations. A total of30 species of birds were identified in the area of Old Harbor on June 15 and 16, 1998 (Appendix A). This includes miscellaneous sightings as well as species recorded during the murrelet survey and otT-road point count. Discussion _ Based on our observations there did not appear to be any evidence of murrelets utilizing the area to be impacted by the hydroelectric development. From previous experiences with these species, the project did not reach an elevation or habitat type that is typically required for Kittlitz's Murrelets and was very different than the habitat in which Marbled Murrelets typically nest. We also did not see evidence of Harlequin Ducks or Surfbirds. Again, we did not reach an elevation where Surfbird nests are typically found. We did not follow the entire stream that is to be impacted by the hydroelectric project and did not inspect Barling Bay Creek, which may also be impacted by this project, in search of Harlequin Ducks. However, no birds were observed in the sections of the creek we did inspect and no birds were seen in Sitkalidak Strait despite intensive shore-based observation. From bird species and abundance along the off-road point count, this site appears to be quite typical of that found along the SE side of Kodiak as well as many other areas of the North Gulf Coast of Alaska. Black Cottonwood dominates the riparian areas with an understory of Willow and Alder. With increasing elevation, the Willow/ Alder habitat starts off quite dense and gradually thins to the elevational tree line where it is lost and becomes a grass/moss/lichen dominated habitat. Literature Cited. MacIntosh, R. A. 1996. Bird observations on a 9 August, 1996 visit to the proposed site of a small hydroelectric development near Old Harbor, Kodiak, Alaska. Unpubl. Report. 909 Mission Rd., Kodiak, Alaska. 7pp. Ralph, CJ., G.R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PWS-GTR-144. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 41p. Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dryness, A.R. Batten, and KJ. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska vegetation classification. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 188p. Table 1. Birds observed during an evening Murrelet survey near Old Harbor, Kodiak, Alaska, June 15, 1998. Species Number Notes Mallard 2 Males at NW end of lagoon Gadwall 2 Pair feeding in middle of lagoon American Wigeon 7 6 males and one female SW end of lagoon Eurasian Wigeon 1 male feeding with American Wigeons Greater Scaup 6 3 pair feeding in center of lagoon Red-breasted Merganser 2 1 pair flying over lagoon Bald Eagle 7 5 flying over ridge behind town and 2 feeding on beach Common Snipe 2 2 winnowing over lagoon Glaucous-winged Gull 24 Roosting on spit in front of lagoon Mew Gull 3 feeding near culvert at outlet of lagoon Black-legged Kittiwake 2 single birds flying in Sitkalidak Strait Arctic Tem 4 2 pair roosting on beach near boat harbor Black-billed Magpie 1 flying over lagoon Hermit Thrush 5 singing on back side of lagoon Wilson's Warbler 2 singing on back side of lagoon Common Redpoll 1 flying over lagoon Golden-crowned Sparrow 3 singing on back side of lagoon Fox Sparrow 2 singing near boat harbor Song Sparrow 1 singing near boat harbor Table 2. Summary of avian species diversity and relative abundance along an off-road point count conducted near Old Harbor, AK June 16, 1998. All values represent the number of individual birds seen or heard at each point. Point # Num. Of Species First 3 minutes 3-S minutes Flyover Habitat TOTALS Within SOm SOm+ CombinedWithin SOm SOm + Within SOm SOm+ TOTAL 1 8 3 17 4 4 0 Open Black Cottonwood Forest 7 21 28 TOTAL 2 7 4 11 1 1 0 Open Tall AlderlWiliow Scrub S 12 17 TOTAL 3 12 4 9 2 3 3 Open Tall AlderlWiliow Scrub 6 12 18 TOTAL 4 9 S 13 0 0 2 Open Tall AlderlWiliow Scrub S 13 18 TOTALS 8 3 9 0 0 2 Open Tall AlderlWiliow Scrub 3 9 12 TOTAL 6 9 2 10 0 1 2 Open Tall AlderlWiliow Scrub 2 11 13 TOTAL 7 8 S 7 0 0 2 Open Tall AlderlWiliow Scrub S 7 12 TOTAL 8 9 4 7 0 1 4 Open TaU AlderlWiliow Scrub 4 8 12 TOTAL 9 7 6 6 2 1 2 Open Tall AlderlWiliow Scrub 8 7 1S TOTAL 10 S 7 9 1 0 0 Open Tall AlderlWillow Scrub 8 9 17 TOTAL 11 7 9 9 0 1 2 Open Tall AlderlWillow Scrub 9 10 19 Mean 8.1 4.7 9.7 0.9 1.1 1.7 S.6 10.8 16.S Table 3. Average number of birds identified per paint where species was present. Average number per point flyoverstotal heard Species SOm or less 1.0Black-billed Magpie 1.0Common Raven 1.2Common Redpoll 1.3Common Snipe 4.SFox Sparrow 2.1 1.90.2Golden-crowned Sparrow 1.40.2Gray-cheeked Thrush 2.20.2Hermit Thrush 1.30.0Orange-crowned Warbler 1.00.0Pine Grosbeak 2.61.3Savannah Sparrow 2.71.3Wilson's Warbler 2.01.0Winter Wren 1.9Yellow Warbler 0.7 Table 4. Percentage of paints that species was present on an off-road point count near Old Harbor, Alaska, June 16, 1998. Species SOm or less total heard flyovers Black-billed Magpie 0.2 Common Raven 0.1 Common Redpoll O.S Common Snipe 0.6 Fox Sparrow 1.0 1.0 Golden-crowned Sparrow 0.2 1.0 Gray-cheeked Thrush 0.1 O.S Hennit Thrush 0.2 1.0 Orange-crowned Warbler 0.0 0.3 Pine Grosbeak 0.0 0.3 Savannah Sparrow 0.8 0.8 Wilson's Warbler 0.7 1.0 Winter Wren 0.3 0.3 Yellow Warbler O.S 0.6 Appendix A. An annotated list of bird species observations around Old Harbor, Kodi~ Alaska 15-16 June. 1998. This list also includes any species only recorded during the survey periods. Unidentified Swan (Cygnus sp.)-one pair, approximately I mile north of Old Harbor on a small pond 6-16. American Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca)-one pair, Old Harbor Lagoon 6-15. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)-one pair, Old Harbor Lagoon 6-15. Eurasian Wigeon (Anas penelope)-one drake, Old Harbor Lagoon 6-15. American Wigeon (Anas americana)-one drake and 6 hens, Old Harbor Lagoon 6-15. Greater Scaup (Aythya marila)-3 pair, Old Harbor Lagoon 6-15. Common Merganser (Mergus merganser) .. I drake, Old Harbor Lagoon 6-15. Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator) .. 6 pair, Old Harbor Lagoon 6-15and 6-16. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)-IO-15 birds seen daily in and around Old Harbor 6-15 and 6-16. No active nests were observed during our census activities. Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca)-one adult feeding in Old Harbor Lagoon on the evening of6-15. Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago)-birds were heard winnowing around Old Harbor Lagoon on 6-15, and along the length of the proposed pipeline route throughout the day on 6-16. Mew Gull (Larus conus)-a total of 9 birds were roosting on a small spit in front of Old Harbor Lagoon on the evening of 6-15. Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens)-a total of 78 birds were observed roosting on a small spit in front of Old Harbor Lagoon on the evening of 6-15. This was the largest number counted during the two days in Old Harbor and it in~luded 2myear, 3rd year, and adult aged birds:. Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla)-a high count of 6 adult birds were seen flying through Sitkalidik Strait on 6-15 and 6-16. Arctic Tern (Stema paradisaea)-5 birds were seen flying a feeding near the outlet of the boat harbor on 6-15 and 6-16. Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens)-one bird was heard drumming in the large cottonwoods near the head of Old Harbor Lagoon just prior to the beginning of the point count survey on 6-16. Black-billed Magpie (Pica pica)-seen regularly on both the 15 th and 16 th with a total of 13 observed throughout the day of6-16. Northwestern Crow (Corvus caurinus)-one bird observed on the beach just south of the boat harbor on the afternoon of 6-16. Common Raven (Corvus corax)-several birds were observed on 6-15 and 6-16 around old Harbor. Most were observed feeding along the beach and a few were observed soaring in thermals above town. Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes)-heard singing on 6-15 near Old Harbor Lagoon and then on the 16th they were quite common in the riparian zone along the lower stretches of Old Harbor Creek. Gray-cheeked Thrush (Catharus minimus)-heard singing in alder scrub along the pipeline route. The first bird was heard at the 130 foot elevation. The highest bird singing was found at 370 feet. Hennit Thrush (Catharus guttatus)-one of the most abundant songbirds in the area. Heard singing along the length of the pipeline route as well as all shrubby areas around town and behind Old Harbor Lagoon. Orange-crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata)-heard singing on the road to the Old Harbor Dump on 6-15 and then heard along the pipeline route between 300 and 400 feet in elevation. Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia)-males were common singing on territory around to\\n and along the pipeline route on 6-15 and 6-16. Wilson's Warbler (Wi/sonia canadensis)-found singing commonly around town and along the length of the pipeline route on 6-15 and 6-16. Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)-heard singing around Old Harbor Lagoon and along the pipeline route on 6-15 and 6-16. Fox Sparrow (Passerella i/iaca)-males on territory heard singing in all areas we visited on 6-15 and 6-16. Song SParrow (Melospiza melodia)-several birds seen and heard near the boat harbor and the dock at the south end of town on6-15 and 6-16. Golden-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla)-heard singing on the hills above town on 6-15 and then along the length of the pipeline route on 6-16. Pine Grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator)-one male observed near Old Harbor Lagoon and then on the lower stretches of the pipeline route. Common R.eclp;1U (Carduelis flammea)-one pair observed on the edge of Old Harbor Lagoon on 6 ..15 and then heard calling several times on 6-16. " Figure 1. Location of individual points of an off-road point count survey conducted along Lagoon Creek, Kodiak, Alaska 16 June, 1998. The following table lists the point number and distance from intake site in feet along the proposed pipeline route. Point 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Distance 0+00 10+00 20+00 30+00 40+00 50+00 58+00 64+50 80+50 88+00 96+50 ' \ \ KODIAK NATIONAL Jr WtL~L~[ REFUGE " R£ViSlONS , \ I I \ 1 S\ \ ( \ I -- \ \ ) I \ ) Q , \ . , I : ~ '" '-i \ polarconsult alaska, inc. i I / /' -. i I ""/ J . -' ! I--r 'LAGOON --I I _--'J- i ,---t ' \ ,,-1 ' .J - .-- --~ .. ----~--\---,'-'--i /I----J._' :..' I i .- \ . -- r ---~... ./ DRAWING + . OLD HARBOR NATIVE CORPORATION "" ~" > "~" ---. -t-- ,~ ~~~~~_'--r" .-_'_,-L. -:--. ! ~. : I l~ -·J\ -l, I /1 \ ---\ -\-.-' , i ,r" :... / / / PROJECT ", """ " , ~ " ' " I ' ) , I" i ~ "'-.", ", ~ C ' y SHEE'T ENERGY SYSTEMS ENGINEERING DESIGN OLD HARBOR PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FERC #' 1561 -000BIRD SURVEY LOCATIONS ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE1503 WES T 33RD AVE. SUITE 310 PHONE (907) 258-2420~::;Ill I ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503 FAX (907) 258-2419 Ofl I 8-1 Date: October, 1998 To: Earle Ausman Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. From: Lome E. White Fishery Biologist White Fisheries Subject: Old Harbor Fishery Work Over the past sf~veral seasons I have been contracted by your firm to collect specific biological information surrounding the Old Harbor Hydropower project (11561-000). Both the state of Alaska and several federal authorities have expressed the usual concerns surrounding wildlife use and community needs for the water resource. The adult salmon surveys into mountain creek (258-52-1002-2002), which is a tributary of Barling creek (258-52-10020), have resulted in no observed carcasses or live adult salmon in this system (Table 1). Although there are periods when flash floods do occur in the lower portion of this stream, it is usually a dry streambed, with only subterranean flows. If floods occur during the adult spawning period, adults could migrate and spawn in this creek. However, it is my opinion that there would be a major loss of eggs due to the unstable nature of the streambed and low (no) flow periods over the winter incubation months. The juvenile coho salmon observed in isolated pools are probably migrants from the main system of Barling Creek. The adult salmon surveys into lagoon creek (258-5210015) are also shown on Table 1. There are several spring water lateral tributaries to this creek, and the adult salmon appear keyed into these more stable systems. All adult salmon were either in the spring water or downstream from them in the lagoon area. No adult salmon were observed in the main stem creek from the proposed powerhouse to the main spring water tributary. This area has also been dry in the periods that I conducted the spawning surveys. Based on the surveys, I have concluded that drawing water out of mountain creek will not have a measurable impact on the significant Barling creek salmon population or the wildlife that use that area. It appears that no adult salmon use mountain creek, as it is dry except for high water events. Lagoon creek, which will receive mountain creek water from the powerhouse downstream, will probably draw more salmon into the main stem system that is currently under utilized because it is dry in the mid-section area. Coho and chum salmon could also benefit from the deeper water in Lagoon Creek's downstream areas. Table 1 LOCATION: Mountain Creek LOCATION: Lagoon Creek DATE METHOD SPECIES NUMBER DATE METHOD SPECIES NUMBER 8/9/96 helicopter all 0 819196 helicopter chum 80 9/3/96 foot all 0 9/3/96 foot chum 30 9/23/96 foot all 0 9/23/96 foot chum 18 8/13/98 10/6/98 foot foot all all 0 0 9/23/96 9/23/96 foot foot pink coho 20 01 8/14/98 foot pink o 8/14/98 foot chum 2 10/6/98 foot chum 2 10/6/98 foot pink 30 I One found in salt lagoon