u CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project...

!

i i~~! ft~ I!i ..

i

, I . I

r ' u

~

~

u ~ ~

~

CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

FERC Project No. 11599

INITIAL CONSUL TA.l"ION DOCUMENT

Ketchikan Public Utilities

December 1998

~ Table o/Contents T~

''''itS CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT' U -ell"INITIAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

Cf4"TABLE OF CONTENTS L Iq9t

1.0 INTRODUCTION~ 2.0 GENERAL ENGINEERING DESIGN

2.1 Alternative Project Arrangements ~ 2.2 Alternative A - Powerhouse Located at Ketchikan Pulp Mill 2.3 Alternative B - Powerhouse at Upper End of Ward Cove

U 2.4 Diversion from White River

3.0 OPERATIONAL MODE ~ 3.1 Energy Generation Model

3.2 Average Annual Energy

L 3.3 Instream Flow Release 3.4 Diversion for Industrial Use 3.5 Reservoir Operation

~ 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES 4.1 Environmental Issues

4.1.1 Topography~ 4.1.2 Climate 4.1.3 Water Quality/Quantity 4.1.4 Fishery Resources U 4.1.5 Wildlife Resources 4.1.6 Botanical Resources

L 4.1.7 Aesthetic Resources 4.1.8 Cultural Resources 4.1.9 Recreation and Other Land Uses

~ 4.2 Regulatory Issues

L 5.0 STREAMFLOW AND WATER REGIME 5.1 Representative Time Period for Hydrologic Analysis 5.2 Development ofAverage Monthly Flow Values

L 5.3 Average Monthly Flows - Connell Lake 5.4 Divertable Flow From White River 5.5 Flow-Duration Curve Data

U . 6.0 PURP A BENEFITS r--. It)

~ a co

, !..,... 7.0 LICENSING STUDY PLANS

7.1 Water Quality and Quantity ..,...

7.2 Fisheries It)U 8 It) December 1998 Alaska Resources e~nfonnatiOOSeMces Initial Consultation DocumentI;; library Building, Suite 111 Connel/lAke Hydroelectric Project ('I) 3211 Providence Drive

Anchorage, AK 9950846t4 L

i

~ Table o/Contents

r1. ~ 7.3 Wildlife 7.4 Vegetation

U 7.5 Aesthetics 7.6 Cultural Resources 7.7 Recreation and Land Use

~ 8.0 REFERENCES

9.0 CONSULTATION DOCUMENT MAILING LIST ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

U

~ ~.

U U December 1998 Initial Consultation Document

Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project

~

~ Introduction

~. 1.0 INTRODUCfION

L The Connell Lake Project is located approximately five miles north of the City ofKetchikan, Alaska (Figure 1-1). The Project would utilize the water supply and head developed by the existing Connell Lake Dam. Connell Lake Dam was constructed by the Ketchikan Pulp U

L Company and began storing water in 1952. The water supply was developed for the recently closed Ketchikan Pulp Company mill located on Ward Cove. The hydroelectric Project would utilize the existing water supply pipeline to deliver water to the hydroelectric plant constructed at one of two locations on the shore ofWard Cove. The Project is located on lands owned by the United States Forest Service (USFS), Ketchikan Gateway Borough, and Ketchikan Pulp

~ Company (alternative powerhouse location).

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or PERC) issued a three-year ~ Preliminary Permit tor the Connell.Lake Hydroelectric Project on July 24, 1997. The permit gives Ketchikan Public Utility District (KPU) priority for filing a development application while conductlDg engineering and environmental feasibility studies. KPU intends to file an~ application for a "Major Project-Existing Dam" with a total installed capacity of5 MW or less (18 Code ofFederal Regulations [CPR] Subpart G, Section 4.60).

~ The FERC regulations require the Applicant to follow a three-stage consultation process in the preparation ofa hydropower license application for the Project. The Applicant is combining the

L Applicant Prepared EA (APEA) process with the three-stage consultation process. This Initial Co~ultation Document (lCD) begins tJ:le fltSt stage ofthe process. The attached Scoping Document 1 (SDl) begins NEPA scoping as part ofthe APEA process.

~ The purpose of this ICD is to obtain input from federa1lstate/local agencies, native groups, and public citiz~ns ~ho are interested in the Project. The applicant wishes to receive input on L concerns about the proposed Project, to identify environmental or other issues surrounding the Project development,.and to provide clear communication about the proposal and its possible impacts to all interested parties. . ~ This ICD has been prepared to provide a general overview ofthe proposed Project design, operation, and potential impacts. A description ofstudies proposed in order to gain moreU detailed information about potential impacts is included in the ICD. After review ofthis document, public and agency meetings will be held in Ketchikan, Alaska Following these

L meetings, agencies and the public are invited to submit written comments about the proposed Project and the proposed study plans. The plans will then be revised to incorporate comments received~ A final version ofthe Consultation Document will be issued that contains finalized study plans and copies ofconsultation correspondence. This three-stage consultation process will lead to the submittal to the FERC of a license application and draft environmental assessment that have been developed utilizing the results ofthe agreed-to studies.

December 1998 . Initial Consultation Document Page 1 Connell Lalee HydroelectriC Project

.-= "'~"""'"

GRAVINA ISLAND

LOCA110N

ALASKA \ (I:)

~ c 2/fJ

(pc£!> <L "'" •

PA CIFIC OCEAN

p "-.::-:";;:~--=-=-~~

.':'

o

SCAtE IN MILES

KETCHIKAN PUBIJC UTILITIES CONNEll LAKE 11YOROELECTRIC PROJECT

FERC PRO.IECT NO. 11599

MAP FIGURE 1-1

General Engineering Design

2.0 GENERAL ENGINEERING DESIGN

The Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project would be located approximately 5 miles north of Ketchikan and would utilize the water supply and head developed by the existing Connell Lake Dam. The water supply was developed in the early 1950's for the recently closed Ketchikan Pulp Company mill located on Ward Cove. The hydroelectric project would utilize the existing water supply pipeline to deliver water to a hydroelectric plant constructed at one oftwo locations on the shore ofWard Cove.

Figures 2-1 through 2-3 show the arrangement ofthe proposed project. Connell Lake Dam was constructed by the Ketchikan Pulp Company and began storing water in 1952. Since that time, the lake has supplied approximately 45 mgd (70 cfs) to the mill on a continuous basis. The existing dam is approximately 78 feet high and impounds approximately 8,370 acre-feet of stored water. Water from the dam is transferred to the mill through approximately 3 miles ofwood stave and steel pipe and two sections of concrete lined tunnel. However, due to a decrease in demands for pulp, the plant was closed in early 1997 and its water supply is being considered as a water source for the proposed hydroelectric plant.

2.1 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT ARRANGEMENTS "

The project includes two alternative powerhouse locations and one additional source of water to supplement water available in Connell Lake. The supplemental water source can be used with either of the powerhouse locations.

• Alternative A - This alternative utilizes the existing water supply pipeline to furnish water to a powerhouse located on the existing pulp mill site with discharge to Ward Cove downstream ofNorth Tongass Highway.

• Alternative B - This alternative also utilizes the existing water supply pipeline but the powerhouse would be located near the head ofWard Cove, upstream of North Tongass Highway.

• Added Water Source - Water from the upper reaches ofWhite River would be diverted into upper Ward Creek and provide an additional supply ofwater for either ofthe above alternatives.

2.2 ALTERNATIVE A - POWERHOUSE LOCATED AT KETCHIKAN PULP :MILL

This alteinative involves using the existing Connell Lake as the water supply source for the hydroelectric project, a penstock which utilizes the existing pipeline plus 2 new sections of steel pipe, a powerhouse located at the pulp mill, and a discharge tube which leads to Ward Cove. Pertinent statistics on the project are presented in Table 2-1.

December 1998. Initial Consultation Document Page 2 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project

M

'U ~'

~

~

~

~

~

~

L U L

General Engineering Design

Table 2-1 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Project Description - Alternative A

Existing Reservoir Normal Maximum Operating Level . 254 feet Surface Area at Elev. 254 400 acres Reservoir Storage at Elev. 254 8370 acre-feet Reservoir Storage at Min. Pool (Elev. 210) 970 acre-feet

Existing Dam .Type Concrete gravity Structural Height 76 feet Crest Length 600 feet Dam Crest Elevation 263.5 feet Spillway Crest Elevation 250.0 feet Top of Spillway Crest Gates 254.0 feet

Penstock Length ofexisting 60-inch wood stave pipe 12,750 feet Length ofexisting 48-inch wood stave pipe 1,780 feet Length ofexisting tunnels 1,675 feet Length ofexisting 48-inch steel pipe 375 feet Length ofnew 48-inch steel pipe (@ dam) 77 feet Length ofnew 48-inch steel pipe (@ p. h. 600 feet

Powerhouse Size 2,400 square feet Type Concrete substructure with steel

frame Number ofUnits . 1 Capacity 1.9MW Type ofUnit Horizontal Francis wI

synchronous bypass

Switchyard Location Adjacent to powerhouse Intertie To KPU 34.5 kV line along N.

Tongass

December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 3 Connell lAke Hydroelectric Project

General Engineering Design• w Connell Lake

The lake can be operated between the crest ofthe spillway gates, elevation 254, andu approximatelyelevation'210. The existing outlet works on the dam discharge to a concrete forebay which then discharges to the 60-inch wood stave pipe. This section will be modified and a 77-foot section of 48-inch steel pipe will be added to fully pressurize the entire pipeline and ~ take advantage ofapproximately 44 feet of additional head.

Penstockw The existing pipeline will be used to convey up to 130 cfs to the powerhouse. Since the pipeline "

~ will be pressurized to the reservoir elevation, an increase ofabout 50 feet, the 1,780 feet of 48inch wood stave pipe will require additional bands to withstand the additional pressure.

u The penstock to the powerhouse will take off ofthe existing 48-inch steel pipe approximately 100 feet north of the filtration plant and run approximately 600 feet to the powerhouse. Several alternative sizes for the penstock were investigated (42:-, 48-, and 54-inch) and the 48-inch was ~ found to be the most cost effective.

u Powerhouse. Turbine. and Generator

There are several potential locations for the powerhouse on the site ofthe closed pulp mill. The preliminary selected site is located adjacent to the silos, within 200 feet ofthe shore ofWard~ Cove. The powerhouse is planned to be rectangular steel and concrete building with approximately 2400 square feet offloor space. The building will house the turbine, generator, u and controls as weil as a small office and storage space. The turbine will be a horizontal Francis type unit with maximum output of approximately 1.9 MW at 195 feet ofnet head. Theturbine runner elevation will be approximately 5 feet above the tailwater elevation of 18 feet. The

.~ generator will be a horizontal synchronous type with a nominal output of 1.9 MW at 4160 volts.

Switchyard

The switchyard will be located just east of the powerhouse and will include the transformers, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches and will transform the generator output to 34.5 kV. An overhead line will connect to KPU's existing34.5 kV line along North Tongass Avenue.,

2.3 ALTERNATIVEB-POWERHOUSEATUPPERENDOFWARDCOVE

This alternative is similar to the plan described above with the only major difference being the location ofthe powerhouse. The pertinent statistics on the project are shown in Table 2-2.

December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 4 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project

General Engineering J:?eslgn

Table 2-2 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Project Description - Alternative B

Existing Reservoir Normal Maximum Operating Level Surface Area at Elev. 254 Reservoir Storage at Elev. 254 Reservoir Storage at Min. Pool (Elev. 210)

Existing Dam Type Structural Height Crest Length Dam Crest Elevation Spillway Crest Elevation Top ofSpillway Crest Oates

Penstock Length ofexisting 60-inch wood stave pipe Length ofexisting tunnels Length ofnew 48-inch steel pipe (@ dam) Length ofnew 48-inch steel pipe (@ p. h.

Powerhouse Size Type

Number ofUnits Capacity Type ofUnit

Switchyard Location Connection

254 feet 400 acres

8370 acre-feet 970 acre-feet

Concrete gravity 76 feet

··600 feet 263.5 feet 250.0 feet 254.0 feet

12,750 feet 1,150 feet

77 feet 1800 feet

2,400 square feet Concrete substructure

wI steel frame 1

1.9MW Horizontal Francis with

Synchronous bypass

~djacenttopowerhouse To KPU 34.5 kV line along N.

Tongass~ve

December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 5 Connell LaJce. Hydroelectric Project

w General Engineering Design

~ The Connell Lake facilities (lake, outlet, and connecting pipeline) are exactly the same as Alternative A. The major difference in the configuration is that the'penstock takes off at the L upstream end ofthe last tunnel section and a 1,800-foot penstock leads to the powerhouse which will be located adjacent to the upper end ofWard Cove. The 48-inch steel penstock leads to the powerhouse which will be similar to the one described earlier. ~ The powerhouse, turbine and generator will be the same as described above for Alternative A.

U Since the powerhouse will be located adjacent to Ward Cove, the draft tube will be about 50 foot long and will discharge directly to the cove. The switch yard will be locate just west ofthe powerhouse and the transmission line will run westward about 1,400 feet to the existing 34.5 kVo KPU line along North Tongass Avenue.

2.4 DIVERSION FROM WIDTE RIVER W

The upper reach ofthe White River is located about 2,000 feet east ofupper Ward Creek and a portion of its water could be diverted into Ward Creek and Connell Lake to increase the amount C ofpower generated in either Alternative A or B. A simple, 5-foot high, concrete diversion structure would be used to divert flows in excess ofthose needed in the White River below the diversion. A 24-inch pipeline, approximately a mile long, will be used to deliver water to WardU Creek upstream ofTalbot Lake. .

~

W

W

December /998 Initial Consultation Document Page 6 ConnellLaIt:e Hydroelectric Project

§ t ~

0 a F

Z

a N

I

U

W

W, 0 !flO

Cw

Q..m

~

W

(!;) Z

Eu~

« 0 0 0 0

F

w

w

"~

w

-'

« u <Il

~rg;:::>

u 0

u wo

::Jd z caO

t::JO

CU

[L

OW

>-,

z:c

O

:;2w8:

5::'::(.)

u:Jfr::

I

W

Il': Q

;: ~

-.J 4

: 0

:: W

z W

c;l

..., N

W

!l: ::l ('J i.'i:

0 a

w...J~

:><:d z z 0 U

i'0 W

~

0 a

Il:: CL

l_~__

\_--~-

'

;o;:f~; 11:'1 ., ~., ;" ~

""

,/

",,--- ,

/"------~

~o 0 500

r SCALE IN FEET

-~

KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UllUllES CONNElL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

FERC PROJECT NO. 11599

PENSTOCK PLAN FIGURE 2-2

4'0 STEEL PENSTOCK

~--~~~~----==~

113" SYNCHRONOUS BYPASS VALVE~

48" 8UTTERFLY VALVE

GENERATOR flOOR EL 23

- 2100 klJA GENERATOR

ROLL-UP DOOR

~ DOOR

STOPtOG (NORMAL'-Y WllHORAWN)

EL 40

/~

/'

THRUST BLOCK

" ----i

-_._-.....1.;:1,;,------'

2

I

TAILWATER CONTROl EL 18 (APPROX.

""'.....

COVER fL 23

DRAFT ruBE

_." .. J

L_ ____ ~_~ NEW TAIlRACE CONNECTED TO EXISTING UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE CHANNEL

CONTROL AND RELAY PANEL

2 SWITCHGEAR AND STATION SERVICE POWER

3 MOTOR CONTROL CENTER

BATTERY BANK AND CHARGER 5 HYDRAULIC PRt:SSURE

5 SUMP AND SUMP PUMP

._." ..".----lL-___---I

KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTlllllES CONNEll. LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

FERC PROJECT NO. 11597 CENTER

FiGURE 2-3

WESCORP

Operational Mode

3.0 OPERATIONAL MODE

The project configuration and operation for this study were developed based on maximizing average annual energy generation at the least cost. In order to achieve this goal it was assumed that reservoir level sensors will be installed to provide real·time control over reservoir releases for hydropower, fishery and other uses. It was further assumed that plant operation will have dispatch priority over all other KPU.awned generating resources.

3.1 . ENERGY GENERATION MODEL

An energy generation model was developed to estimate average monthly and annual energy generation for the two project alternatives and to evaluate various operational strategies· The model takes into consideration natural inflow to Connell Lake, diversion flows from the adjacent White River, assumed minimum instream releases below the dam, excess spill, conveyance losses, turbine and generator efficiencies, and assumed reservoir operating criteria Inflow used in the energy generation model was based on the 10 years ofmonthly streamflow data presented in Section 5.0, which we consider a representative hydrologic period ofrecord

3~ AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY

The annual amount ofenergy generated from a hydroelectric project is dependent on the amount ofannual precipitation that falls in the project drainage basin. Wet years result in above average amounts ofgeneration and dry years result in lower than average expectations. Based on the 10 years ofanalysis for Alternative A, the lowest energy production year was 9,350 MWH, which is 80 percent ofthe ten·year average. The highest single year was 14,548 MWH, or 125 percent above the average. A summary ofaverage monthly energy generation for Project Alternative A is shown below.

Average M!onthly Energy Generation, MWH Ip . tAlt ti A .! rOJec erna ve Ii I

Jan Feb Mar Apr ~ay . Jun Jul Aug Spt Oct Nov Dec IAnnual

783 739 1,103 1.068 ~~24 f

977 1,068 597 902 1,117 1,093 971 11,643

I !

I

3.3 INSTREAM FLOW RELEASE II .. I

Developing the hydroelectric JrOjJ will require negotiatiotd With state and federal agencies responsible for managing the state's water resources and activities related to these resources.

December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 7 Connell Lalce Hydroelectric Project

Operational Mode

Since completion ofthe existing dam in the early 1950'~, the minimum required release from the dam has been about 4 cfs when such flow has been physically available.

In order to detennine preliminary estimates ofthe average annual energy generation from the project, an estimate ofinstream flow releases was required. Determining instream flow releases normally requires rigorous field work in cooperation with the responsible resource agencies. Because such studies have yet to be accomplished, it was necessary to develop instream flows based on a less rigorous methodology. For earlier studies, the USGS Toe-Width method was used, and based on this method the following monthly instream flows were assumed.

Assumed Monthly Instream Flows, cfs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Spt Oct Nov Dec 15 15 15 40 50 50 30 30 30 60 60 10

3.4 DIVERSION FOR INDUSTRIAL USE

The hydroelectric project can be designed to allow a small amount ofwater to be diverted for industrial use at the pulp mill site. Such water would bypasss the turbine resulting in a loss of potential generation capability. Assuming diversion of 100,000 gallons per day for industrial purposes, the hydroelectric project would generate about 20,000 kWh less per year, or less than 0.2 percent ofthe average annual generation.

3.5 RESERVOIR OPERATIONS

The storage available in Connell Lake can be used to regulate inflows to the lake to maximize the amount ofpower generated and to insUre that minimum instream flow goals for Ward Creek can

"

be met. Although the amount ofstorage available is relatively small when compared to the inflow, the storage can be fluctuated on a monthly basis to the benefit of the project and instream 'I:

"

~ i flows. The energy generation model described above was used to establish target operating I:i

levels for Connell Lake for each month ofthe year. The target elevations range from 230 feet in I(j March to 254 feet in May, June, and December.

In a typical month, the priority ofoperations are: (I) meet the minimum flow requirements; (2)

L fill the reservoir to the target elevation; (3) release water into the penstock for power generation up to the capacity ofthe turbine; and (4) spill the excess into Ward Creek.

Q ~.

~

u December /998 Initial Consultation Document

Page 8 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project

Environmental andRegulatory Issues

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES

This section discusses the environmental setting, preliminary identification of environmental impacts and possible agency concerns, and pennitting requirements to the extent known at this time

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

4.1.1 Topography

The Project site is located on Revillagigedo Island in southeast Alaska. The Project is approximately 5 miles northwest ofKetchikan within the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Ketchikan Gateway Borough is characterized by steep mountains and high mountain lakes, deeply incised tributaries, and saltwater shorelines with steep slopes descending to narrow, rocky beaches. The Connell Lake Dam crest elevation is 263.5 feel The powerhouse would be located near sea level.

4.1.2 Climate

The climate in the Project area is typical ofa temperate rain forest with mild winters and summers, and plentiful rainfall. Yearly average rainfall is approximately 162 inches per year and snowfall is approximately 32 inches. The heaviest rainfall is from October to December .

. Average monthly temperature ranges from 34°F in January to 58.7°F in August. Prevailing winds in the Ketchikan area are from the southeast.

4.1.3 Water Quality/Quantity

Existing Conditions

The Ward Creek drainage consists of Ward Creek and four lakes which interconnect: 1) Perseverance Lake, the highest ofthe four, which drains into Connell Lake via Pe~severance Creek; 2) Talbot Lake, which drains into the north end ofConnell Lake via upper Ward Creek; 3) Connell Lake, the location ofthe existing Ketchikan Pulp Company dam and diversion structure; and 4) Ward Lake, situated downstream ofConnell Lake and upstream ofWard Cove. Ward Creek drains Connell Lak-e and flows through Ward Lake before emptying into Ward Cove.

Existing water quaiity information for Connell Lake indicates that conditions are good. Alaska Department ofFish and Game (ADFG) ~9nducted limited studies in Connell Lake in 1989 to evaluate fishery resources and results ofthis study are listed below on Table 4-1. These data are similar to data collected from seven other lakes in the Ketchikan area as'part ofthose studies.


~ . Environmental andRegulatory Issues

u u u ~

D U ~

·U ~

U ~

Table 4-1

Water Quality Data for Connell Lake

(Source: Hubartt, 1990)

LAKE DATE TEMP

(DC)

DISSOLVED OXYGEN

(mgll)

CONDUCTIVITY

(p.mhos)

ALKALINITY

(mgll)

pH

Connell; I Surface

Middle Bottom

9120/89 14.0 9.5 5.5

8.41

10.02

20 20 23

23

23

6.5 6.5 6.5

The quantity ofprecipitation combined with steep slopes and shallow soils allow surface water to drain quickly into the lakes and reduces the time for water to concentrate dissolved ions and minerals (Dames and Moore 1990). Though the existing information does not include chemical analysis of the water samples, it is likely that chemical conditions ofthese lakes are consistent with federal and state water quality standards.

Median monthly (50% exceedence) inflows to Connell Lake range from a low of 42 cfs in August to a bigh of 193 cfs in October. Average annual runoffhas been estimated to be 143 cfs, approximately 103,000 acre-feet per year.

Currently, Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) holds a water right for 45 MGD (approximately 10 cfs) for pulp processing. KPU would need to revise the purpose of this water right and obtain additional water rights. In the event that KPU does not secure the Pulp Mill's water right, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough has expressed an interest in obtaining the water right. KPC provided a minimum instream flow release of4 cfs.

In late 1989, the ADFG submitted an applicaticm for instream flow releases to Alaska Department ofNatural Resources (ADNR). The requested instream flows vary from 56 cfs up to 141 cfs. The application is pending. Refer to "Fisheries, Instream Flow Requirements", section for further discussion regarding the ADFG instream flow application.

Potential Water IssueS/Concerns/Mitigation

Water quality issues that have been identified by ADFG are temperature, gas saturation and water quantity. These concerns can be managed with project design features and monitoring of water quality.

The proposed Connell Lake Project will not likely to have long-term impact on water quality of Ward Lake or the bypass reaches. Project construction may cause short-teIm. impacts such as increased turbidity and suspended solids. An erosion and se~ent control plan will need to be

December J998 Initial Consultation Document Page 10 ConnellLake Hydroelectric Project

~ Environmental andRegulatory Iss:ues

D developed ~d strict adherence to best-management practices (BMPs) will need to be followed to avoid excessive impacts to the waterbodies during the construction phase.

L Water quantity concerns relate to minimum instream flows released at the dam needed to improve and enhanc~ Ward Creek fisheries resources .

. ~ 4.1.4 Fishery Resources

The Ward Creek watershed supports populations ofboth resident and anadromous salmonids that "U are ofeconomic and recreational importance. The populations include those that reside within several of the lake systems in the watershed (e.g. Perserverance Lake, Talbot Lake, Connell

C Lake; and Ward Lake), as well as those that utilize primarily the streams and tributaries within

u

the basin. Several of the anadromous species will utilize both lake and stream systems during part of their life history; e.g. adult spawning in streams and juvenile rearing in lakes. The discussion that follows provides a general overview ofexisting conditions ofthe fish populations within the Ward Creek watershed, based on an initial review ofthe literature and discussions with agency personnel. The discUssion has been organized by major water body including lakes and streams.

U Existing Conditions !1

I I ,

D Anadromous salmonid fish species that utilize portions ofthe Ward Creek drainage include; steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coho salmon (0. kisutch), sockeye salmon (0. nerka), pink salmon (0. gorbuscha) and occasionally, chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha). According to S. Hoffman (ADFG personal communication), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) have also recently

U been found in Ward Creek, presumably a result ofnet-pen escapements in British Columbia. The four major resident sports fish found in the drainage include rainbow trout and cutthroat ' trout (0. clarki), Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma; possibly resident and anadromous forms), and eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). ~ Perseverance Lake and Creek:~'

Perseverance Lake currently has populations ofrainbow and eastem brook trout (Dames and Moore, 1990; Denton, 1997).· Both ofthese species are believed to spawn in

L U Perseverance Creek, the lake outlet (Hoffman 1990 as cited in Dames and Moore, 1990;

Denton, 1997). Brook trout were planted in the 1950l s (Dames and Moore, 1990); the origin ofthe rainbow trout is not knovYn. Surveys conducted by ADFG in 1989 indicate the presence ofonly brook trout in the lake (Hubartt, 1990). ~

Rainbow trout are thought to spawn from mid-April to late June, while brook trout U Ispawn from the late summer throughtbe fall (August through December) (Dames and IMoore, 1990).

C I IU December J998 Initial ConsuItation Document

Page 11 Connell Lalee Hydroelecll'ic Project

C

'M Environmental andRegulatory Issues

~ Talbot Lake:

Hubartt (1990) sampled Talbot Lake and found resident cutthroat trout and DoUy Varden

U

U in 1989 during June, July, and August. The timing ofspawning for cutthroat trout is considered to be from April through mid-May. Dolly Varden are thought to spawn from late August through November.

Connell Lake:

~ A dam which forms Connell Lake prevents upstream migration ofanadromous fish from Ward Creek (Hubartt, 1990). The 'dam prevents passage ofanadromous fish into the o upper Ward Creek watershed, reportedly resulting in the loss ofabout 7 miles of spawning and rearing habitat (Letter from B. Hanson - ADFG to 1(. Keeley - EPA; dated September 29, 1998). However, the local topography and channel morphology of Ward

U Creek that existed prior to the construction ofConnell Dam are presently not known, and hence it is not possible (at this time), to determine the extent to which the upper watershed was utilized by anadromous fish stocks. A series offalls within Ward Creek

L G exists between the dam and Ward Lake and presently, under most flow conditions,

prevents the passage ofcertain anadromous fish species (Le. chum salmon and pink salmon) to the base of the dam. Studies are underway to assess the passage characteristics of the different sets offalls under different flow conditions. '

As a result of the dam, only resident fish are found in Connell Lake and upstream. ~ Cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden (Denton, 1997; Hubartt and Bingham, 1990), as well as rainbow and eastern brook trout (Dames and Moore, 1990) are found in Connell Lake. Sculpins (Cottus sp.) and stickleback (Gasterostus sp.) also inhabit the lake (Dames and ~ Moore, 1990).

C Cutthroat trout reportedly spawn from April through mid-May; Dolly Varden from late August through November. Rainbow and eastern brook trout spawning is thought to be the same as for Perseverance Lake (Dames and Moore, 1990).

Ward Lake:

Ward Lake is accessible to anadromous salmonids moving upstream from Ward Cove. The lake supports anadromous runs ofsteelhead trout, as well as sockeye, coho, chum, r: an4 pink salmon. EXamination ofexisting data does not explicitly indicate the presence

U

U ofresident salmonids, but it is assumed that the four species mentioned above (i.e., cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, eastern brook trout, and Dolly Varden) likely inhabit Ward Lake as well. The lake levels ofWard Lake are influenced by inflows from several tributaries, the major one being Ward Creek. Lake level- tributary inflow relationships are presently undefined for Ward Lake. The USFS maintains several day-use picnic and

L recreational sites around Ward Lake; the system receives high recreational use, including fishing by local residents.

u December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 12 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project

L

Environmental and Regulatory Issues

Ward Creek:

Ward Creek below Connell Lake Dam. is accessible to anadromous salmonids moving upstream from Ward Cove. The creek supports anadromous runs ofsteelhead trout (spring and summer runs), as well as sockeye, coho (summer and fall runs), chum and pink salmon. However, as noted above, a series offalls located between the dam. and Ward Lake appears to effectively (under most flow conditions) prevent the passage of chum and pink salmon into the upper reach ofthe stream. below the dam.. Coho'and sockeye salmon, and steelhead trout reportedly are able to pass the series offalls and migrate as far as the base ofthe dam. (S. Hoffman - ADFG, personal communication with D. Reiser - R2 Resource Consultants). Coho and some sockeye salmon adults were observed in the upper reaches of the stream. during a recent (September 22, 1998) habitat mapping survey ofthe system.

Steelhead ofhatchery origin have ,been planted in Ward Creek since 1981'both as mitigation and enhancement to provide for angler harvest while reducing pressure on wild stocks. Several stocks ofsteelhead have been planted in Ward Creek; however, those hatchery fish originating from Klawock River were comprised ofboth fall-run and spring-run steelhead. ,Some of these steelhead plants have been known to residualize (i.e., remain in the system and not migrate out to sea) (Freeman, 1995). Examination of existing data does not explicitly indicate the presence ofresident salmonids, but it is assumed that the four species mentioned above (i.e., cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, eastern brook trout, and Dolly Varden) inhabit Ward Creek as well. The agencies stated at an informal meeting held at KPU's office on October 8, 1997 thatWard Creek has all of the anadromous and resident fish (found in the watershed), has a high fisheries value, and has great potential for improvement and enhancement.

Potential Fisheries Issues/Concerns/Mitigation'

1) Ward Creek Instream. Flows - As mentioned above, Ward Creek has a highly valuable fishery (--. that has an active enhancement program.. KPC has a water right for approximately 70 cfs, ~ and volitionally released a minimum flow of4 cfs at the dam. into Ward Creek. ADFG has a

pen.ding streamflow reservation for Ward Creek; however, it has not yet been adjudicated by the ADNR. Agencies have stated they would consider additional information and dataU collected specifically on Ward Creek to define its instream. flow needs. An instream flow study, using the Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) component ofthe Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) has recently been conducted to address these issues.

..G

2) Fish Passage at Natural Falls in Ward Creek Between Ward Lake and Connell Dam. - ThereS-! are 5-6 sets of falls within the reach ofWard Creek extending from Ward Lake to ConnellU Dam. that can, under certain flow conditions impact (i.e. delay) andlor prevent adult fish ' .-, passage into the upper portions ofthe stream. It is assumed that the efficacy ofpassage is

influenced at anyone time, primarily by the quantity ofstreamflow in Ward Creek. An~ analysis has been conducted to evaluate thebanier potential of these sets of falls under different flow conditions. n

t.l- December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 13 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project


3) Fish Passage above Connell Dam - The ADFG, in a recent letter to the EPA (see letter from

L

B. Hanson referenced above) expressed an interest in providing upstream and downstream anadromous fish passage above and below Connell Dam as part of the clean-up and restoration actions associated with the closing ofthe pulp mill at Ward Cove. However, questions remain as to the overall benefits, costs, and potential impacts (related to resident fish populations in Connell Lake and upper Ward Creek) associated with the provision of' passage facilities at the dam. This will be addressed as part ofthe licensing studies.

~' 4) Ward Lake Water Levels - The level ofWard Lake is influenced by the amount oftributary

inflow, hlcluding that from Ward Creek. There is a range oflake levels which allow

U

U~ unimpaired use ofthe recreational sites and trails associated with Ward Lake, as well as provide fishing opportunities. The relationship ofinflow to lake elevation has not been detennined and will need to be evaluated as part oflicensing studies. The evaluation will integrate/consider the results ofthe instream flow investigations on Ward Creek .

4.1.5 Wildlife Resources .~

Existing Conditions

W Wildlife habitat in the vicinity ofthe Project area can be divided into seven broad categories: alpine, subalpine, estuary, riparian forest, upland forest, open water, and wetland. The alpine

D category encompasses lands above the timberline, including cliff and talus slopes. The subalpine category includes forested and scrub covered areas, with some unvegetated terrain lying between the alpine zone and the upland forest. The upland forest includes all forested and non-forested

C habitat below the subalpine zone and outside ofriparian and wetland areas. Open water habitat includes a11lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters. Riparian and wetland habitats include

, .

those lands adjacent to streams, lakes, and estuaries that support plant and animal species

L requiring more mesic habitat conditions. Estuaries are comprised ofall lands lying within the zone oftidal influence.

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife: 'j :.;; .

There are noendangered i

or thteatened wildlife Spe~~~ known to'occur in the vicinity of the Project (USFWS, 1997; U~FS, pet's. comm.19~~a; ADFG, pers. comm. 1997).

· ' iilli ' , Birds:' , • Iii ii i

Peregrine Falcon (Falco 'pe,retn !I~ species with the poten~ to,:,' '!/us peal..) is ~J occur in the vicinity ofthe PrR~e¢t. This specie$ ml,i ~ur as a tr,ansient in Southeast Alaska, primarily duringiseas~k1 migration. N? habitat has been designed for I' ',".

this species and there have ~n no historical recol' ,bfPeregrine falcons in the Project area. Preliminary revie~ ofpb.ot~graphs and topographlc maps did not reveal suitable nesting habitat (cliff eyries) and relatively low usage ofwaterfowl in the Project area indicates that there may not be much ofa prey base to support peregrine falcons.

Decemher 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 14 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project

i . I


Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): Although the bald eagle is not a threatened or . endangered species in Alaska, it is protected by the state and therefore surveys will likely be requested by the various state and federal agencies in the area.

The marbled murrelet (Branchyramphus mamrmoratus) and the Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingl) are both species ofspecial interest to the USFS and the USFWS due to their association with old growth and mature conifer forest habitats. It is possible that marbled murrelets and northern goshawks are nesting in the vicinity of the Project area (ADFG, pers, comm. 1997; USFS, pers. comm. 1997a).

Complete raptor and marbled murrelet surveys will need to be conducted in·order to document the presence or absence ofthese birds within the Project area. \, .

. W Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) was also mentioned as a species ofspecial interest and might warrant surveys due to its close association with open water and ~ riparian habitats (ADFG, pers, comm. 1997) Surveys for this species can be combined with stream habitat inventories.

IJ Mammals:

.~ The Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus iigom) is a high profile species known and/or suspected to occur in the vicinity ofthe Project area (ADFG, pers, comm. 1997).

U The Connell Lake area is expected to have moderate usage by wolves. Studies ofwolf . populations and range are good indicators of the overall deer population and habitat sustainability. The USFS and USFWS have both identified the Alexander wolfas a

D possible species for federal listing, which also makes surveying for this species impOrtant.

Revillagigedo Island red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi solus) is a subspecies of the red-backed vole and is only found on Revillagigedo Island. There is a mapped record for this vole in Ketchikan (Natural Heritage Database 1997) and therefore may occur within the Project area. These voles appear to prefer mesic areas in coniferous, deciduous and lilixed forests with dense cover and abundant litter, stumps, rotting logs, exposed roots, and a dense leaf litter .. Habitat availability does not appear to be a limiting factor . ~ for this species and there ~ no mention ofdeclining popQ1ation status in the literature ... Therefore, surveys for red-bicked vole may not be warranted in the Project area. Opportunistic sightings and ~with good habitat suitability could be documented in conjunction with other studies.

Although Ketchikan is not classified as a subsistence community, many residents rely on hunting in the surrounding Tongass National Forest to provide food for their families. Sitka black-tailed deer and black bear are two primary game species with importance to


~ Environmental and Regulatory Issues

D local residents ofKetchikan. Habitat mapping and field reconnaissance surveys would be useful for identifying baseline conditions and providing an analysis tool for managing deer and bear habitat within the Project area (ADFG, pers. comma 1997).

~ Amphibians:

L The Spotted Frog is a species ofspecial interest to the agencies (USFWS, ADFG, USFS). . Opportunistic searches and dip-netting ofselected areas will identify presence ofthe

f'

species and project related effects. ~ Potential Wildlifo Issues/Concerns/Mitigation

U Connell Lake and Ward Creek system have been identified as having a high fisheries value. j

Ward Creek contains anadromous fish runs throughout the year and the area in general receives a great deal of recreational use from residents and visitors alike. The USFS is planning trail,~ campground, and parking improvements around the lake, which may in turn lead to increased pressure on area wildlife. Right-of-way land clearing and construction ofthe penstock and

U powerhouse may also effect wildlife through possible loss ofhabitat, depending upon the fmal powerhouse site selected. .

"U Agencies are concerned about the Project's aerial transmission lines and their impacts on birds .. I

. I

U The status of threatened and endangered species is a concern for natural resource agencies and will be addressed.

Protecting high wildlife use areas such as emergent vegetation wetlands, riparian corridors and

D C old growth forests will help maintain good biodiversity and species richness within the Project

area. New transmission line construction should be built using state of the art practices to avoid and minimize avian collisions with powerlines as well as providing nesting platforms, territorial boundaries, and hunting perches for rapto~ (Avian Powerline Interaction Committee, 1992).

r Proper designing ofroads can also reduce the amount ofhabitat fragmentation which could

Q

J.i. -. occur. Gating new and existing roads coupled with·seasonal access restrictions may help prevent over-hUnting and protect rearing habitats for deer, bear, mountain goat, waterfowl, and other game species.

4.1.6 Botanical Resources '"

i\ ~ Existing Conditions

:-; The Connell Project area includes a variety ofconifer forest types ranging from mature and oldl growth stands to managed stands ofyounger generation trees. Old growth stands are generally

characterized by multiaged trees ofvarious sizes, large dead standing and fallen logs, a range in the degree ofcanopy closure, and variation in the composition and density ofunderstory. InU contrast, managed stands typically have even-age trees, a high density oftrees until thinned, and a relatively depauperate understory. The most common native species ofconifer trees in the area

II December 1998 Initial Consultation Document . Page 16 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project

'C

W Environmental and Regulatory Issues

D include Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and Alaska-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), with western red cedar (Thuja plicata), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), sUbalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), Pacific silverflr (Abies amabalis), and

~ shorepine (Pinus contorta var. contorta) occurring in lesser amounts. Deciduous tree species include red alder (Alnus rubra) and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa).

~, The dominant forest type in the Project area is western hemlock-Sitka spruce, which extends ,, from sea level to treeline. Common understory shrub species in this forest type include i huckleberry and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), devil's club (Oplopanix horridus), rusty menziesia~ f(Menziesiaferruginea), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), western thimbleberry (Rubus parvijlorus), and bunchberry (Comus canadensis). Common herbaceous species include skunk

U cabbage (Lysichiton americanum), fem-Ieaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia) and a variety of fems, mosses, grasses and sedges.

Acidic bog areas known as muskeg are also common in the Project area. Muskeg occurs in wet ~ poorly drained areas, is typically dominated by sphagnum moss, and has deep accumulations of organic matter. Common muskeg species incluc:ie small shrubs such as crowberry (Empetrum

L , nigrum), mountain cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea), bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum), Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), and bog kalmia (Kalmia polifolia). Herbaceous species in muskegs include sundews (Drosera spp.), a variety oforchids (e.g., Habenaria spp.),~' deercabbage (Fauria crista-galll), buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliata); and numerous types of sedges (Carex spp, Eleocharis spp., Eriophorum spp.). A few stunted shorepine, western hemlock, and Alaska-cedar are also common in muskeg areas. ~ Intermediateplant communities that combine elements offorest and muskeg habitat grow near

f,'). the forest edge and along the shorelines ofConnell Lake. Wetlands in the area include both

U

~ acidic muskeg and wetlands with flowing water and emergent vegetation (commonly referred to as fens). Fens generally support greater wildlife diversity and richness than muskeg. However, muskeg is the more common wetland type found near the Project area.

Potential Botanical Issues/Concerns/Mitigation

Some vegetation will likely be lost to due to construction activities associated with building the powerhouse. Revegetation of disturbed areas will occur as soon as construction activities are r:.. completed .

Threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species could potentially be a concern. Table 4-2 details sensitive plants known to occur or potentially occurring within the vicinity ofthe Connell Project area

The majority ofsensitive plant species listed above are found in wet, moist habitats such as muskeg and other wetlands, riparian areas, and shoreiines. Since these areas typically also have high wildlife value, an emphasis is placed on avoiding them when planning project facilities. However, in cases where the project development can not avoid a sensitive area, steps will be

I ) tJ December 1998 Initial Consul/ation Document

Page 17 Connelllake Hydroelectric Project


taken to minimize impacts to that area and on-site or near-site mitigation will need to be provided.

Table 4-2

Sensitive Plants Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Connell Project Area

Choris bog orchid (Platanthera chorisiana) Circumpolar starwort (Stellaria ruscifolia ssp. Aleutica)u Bog orchid (Platanthera gracilis) Calder lovage (Ligusticum calderi)

Goose-grass sedge (Carex lenticularis var. Pale poppy (Papaver alboroseum)~ dolia) .

L Edible thistle (Cirsium edule) Loose-flowered bluegrass (Poa laxiflora)

Davy mannagrass (Glyceria leptostaehya) Northern bog clubmoss (Lycopodium inundatum)

U Two-flowered marsh marigold (Caltha Watershield (Brasenia schreben) biflora)

Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasii) Poverty oat-grass (Danthonia spicata)~ Western paper birch (Betula papyrifora var ..

U orthorhynchus var. alaschensis) Straight-beak buttercup (Ranunculus

commutata)

Water lobelia (Lobelia dortmanna) Cassiope lycopodioides

~ Small cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos) Prairie lupine (Lupinus lepidus) II liNorthern bugleweed (Lycopus uniflorus) Mexican hedge-nettle (Stachys mexicana) II~ Kamchatka spike-rush (Eleocharis Water bulrush (Scirpus subterminalis)

kamtschatica)

~ Bog bluegrass (Poa leptocoma)False solomon's-seal (Smilacina racemosa)

U Alaska holly fern (Poiystichum setigerum)Spleenwort (Asplenium viride)

Lewis monkeyflower (Mimulus lewisii)Boreal bedstraw (Galium kamtschaticum)

L Cascade beardtongue (Penstemon serrulatus)Saxifraga occidentalis

Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia)Subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa)

U Black hawthorn (Crateagus douglasil var Wright filmy fern (Hymenophyllum wrightii) douglasil)

L Unalaska mist-maid (RomanzoffiaQueen Charlotte butterweed (Senecio unalaschcensis)moresbiensis)

U December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 18 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project

~


4.1.7 Aesthetic Resources

Existing Conditions

Connell Lake is composed ofhemlock-spruce forest which extends to the edge of the water. The dam is located on the western side ofthe lake and there is a parking lot near the dam. During times when water is drawn down from the lake, tree stumps usually inundated by the reservoir are exposed. In the driest months of the year the level ofthe lake may lower by as much as 20 to 30 ~eet During the rainy season, when the water level is high, the tree stumps are not exposed. Ward Creek is a gently meandering creek that passes several campgrounds and picnic areas, and . can be seen from Ward Lake Road at several locations. The existing wood stave pipe traverses gently sloping terrain surrounded by forests. The upper portion of the pipeline is near Ward Lake Road.

The USFS has assigned the Visual Quality Objective ofRetention to the Project area, except in . the developed recreation facilities around Ward Lake. In the Ward Lake area, the Visual Quality Objective of Modification in the foreground and Partial Retention in the middlegroUnd and background is applied. Under the Retention designation, design activities should not be visually . evident to the casual observer. Exceptions for small areas ofnon-conforming developments may be made on a case by case basis. Developments must use designs and materials that are . compatible with fonns, colors, and textures found in the characteristic landscape. Under the Modification designation, activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, but will borrow from existing form, line, color and texture. Alterations appear to be natural when viewed as foreground or middleground. Under the Partial Retention designation, activities may be evident, but will remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape (USFS, 1997b).

Potential Visual IssueS/Concerns/Mitigation

The proposed Project would use the existing dam and pipe, therefore, impacts to the visual resources would be minimal. The new powerhouse for both alternatives would be visible. Both alternative powerhouse sites may be visible from Tongass Avenue and from Ward Cove. Additional draw downs to Connell Lake would change the appearance ofthe Lake during those periods .. Changes to instream flows in Ward Creek would change the appearance ofWard Creek and Ward Lake.

Revegetation following any clearing activities would be required to reduce any visual impacts resulting from construction ofthe Project Vegetative plantings could also be used to screen the powerhouse from adjacent areas ..

Decemher J998 Initial Consultation Document Page 19 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project

I

Environmental andRegulatory Issues

4.1.8 Cultural Resources

Existing Conditions

Little is recorded regarding the prehistoric period for southeast Alaska, although it is known that the Tlingit Indians for years had fish camps near the present City ofKetchikan and that they had

. a village at Ketchikan Creek. White settlements fonned around canneries and mines in early Alaska. Ketchikan was founded near the salmon saltery at the mouth ofKetchikan Creek and canneries gradually relocated to Ketchikan because ofits convenience for shipping.

The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was contacted regarding reported historic and prehistoric sites within the Project area.. A review ofthe Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) database and maps by the SHPO revealed three historic sites associated with the National Recreation Area. Since the project features are outside ofthe National Recreation Area boundary, it is not expected that the proposed Project would impact the reported historic sites.

Potential Cultural Issues/Concerns/Mitigation

No cultural resources issues or agency concerns are anticipated unless additional eligible cultural resources sites are identified during field surveys.

If cultural resources are identified during surveys, compliance under Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act would be required. The site's eligibility under the National Register and the effects ofactivities on the property would need to be determined. If the property is found eligible, avoidance or mitigation measures would need to be developed in consultation with the State ofAlaska Department ofNatural Resources office ofHistory and Archaeology. If during construction, it is determined that the Project will have an effect on a previously unidentified but eligible property, work would be suspended and the responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would need to be followed.

4.1.9 Recreation and Other Land Uses

Existing Corwitions

~ Activities such as hiking, fishing, boating, hunting, camping, and picnicking are popular among residents and tourists ofKetchikan. The USFS Tongass National Forest, which surrounds Ketchikan, has constructed many hiking trails and cabins for public use in southeast Alaska.

Dispersed recreation activities including hiking, hunting, fishing, and canoeinglkayaldng occur throughout the Project area. The area has several developed campgrounds, picnic areas, and hiking trails and is a very popular recreation destination for locals and visitors.

Connell Lake is used for bOating, fishing, hiking and flI'ewood gathering. Connell Lake Trail, which starts at the parking area near Connell Lake Dam, is a 2 mile trail that skirts the north edge

December /998 Initial Consultation Document Page 20 Connell Lalee Hydroelectric Project

M Environmental and Regulalory Issues

U. ofthe Lake. Last Chance CampgroUnd is located less than a mile down Ward Lake Road from the Connell Lake Dam. It has 19 camp sites.

U U Within the Ward Lake Recreation Area, located less than 3 miles down Ward Lake Road from

the dam, there are 2 campgrounds (Signal Creek with 24 campsites, and Three C'S with 4 campsites). The Ward Lake Group Day Use Area and Grassy Point Picnic Area are also located within the Ward Lake Recreation Area. Ward Lake Nature Trail is a 1.3 mile trail around Ward Lake that connects all ofthe facilities around the Lake including the campgrounds, picnic areas, and fishing sites. The trail starts at the Ward Lake Day Use parking area. It is a heavily used U trail with signs interpreting old-growth forests. Perseverance Trail is a 2.3 mile trail to Perseverance Lake. The Perseverance Trail starts near the entrance to the TbreeC's Campground. An old trail built during the CCC era eXtends from the Perseverance Trail to L Connell Lake. The.4 mile CCC Trail has fallen into disrepair and has low use.

The Ward Creek Recreation Area provides one ofonly a few opportunities for recreation in the ~ area that is accessible by car. It is the primary recreation area for the community ofKetchikan. Ward Creek provides some of the best stream fishing in the Ketchikan area.

~ The USFS is planning to upgrade the Connell Lake trail and parking lot at the dam. They are also pursuing public access along the wood stave pipeline route and are looking at building aU ramp into Connell Lake and cleaning up the Lake by removing the tree stumps (USFS, pers. comm.1997c).

~ The KetchikaJ;l Trails Plan has also identified several projects for the area. Development ofa new paved multiple use (biking/walking) trail parallel to the new Ward Lake Bypass from Ward Cove to Last Chance Campground was identified during the Ketchikan Trails Coalition planning ~ process as one ofthe "Top Ten" actions. Improvements to Ward Lake Nature Trail to make it "barrier-free" was also identified as a top ten action in the Ketchikan Trails Plan. Development ofa new Ward Creek fishing access trail off ofthe Perseverance trailhead is listed as a "Second ~ Ten Actions" item in the Plan (Ketchikan Trails Coalition, 1995).

L The USFS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) designation around Connell Lake is Semi

L Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM), and Roaded Natural (RN) doWnstream of Connell Lake. Under the SPNM designation, alterations are few and subordinate to the landscape, trails and lakes are closed to motorized use, and human use is noticeable but not degrading to the resources elements. Under the RN designation, alterations to the landscape are subordinate, all methods of

I: . access and travel may occur when compatible with intended activities, recreation structures and ~ facilities are allowed for site protection and user convenience, and interactions with others may

be moderate to high.

Recreation is the dominant land use in the Project area. Other industrial land uses are in the vicinity ofthe Alternative A powerhouse site occupied by the Ketchikan Pulp Company Mill.

. Connell Lake, the dam, and the upper half ofthe existing wood stave pipe are on lands owned by the USFS. The lower portion ofthe existing pipe and the Alternative B powerhouse site are



located on lands that were recently transfe~d from the state to Ketchikan Gateway Borough (north and west of Ward Lake).

The Connell Lake Project area has been designated as a Special Interest Area by the USFS. The primary goal ofthe Special Interest Area is to preserve areas with unique archaeological, historical, scenic, geologic, botanical, or zoological values (USFS, 1997b). Only facilities and recreation developments that contribute to the interpretation ofnatural features or provide for compatible public uses and that blend with the natural setting are allowed. Special Interest Areas are characterized by generally unmodified enVironments, and remain largely undisturbed by u human uses or activities, except for localized interpretive purposes and recreation developments.

u The existing 440-acre Ward Lake Recreation Area, that includes only the immediate area surrounding Ward Lake, is recommended for expansion to 7,535 acres in the USFS Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 1997b). The expansion would include all National Forest lands that drain into the Ward CreeklWard Lake watershed. The Ward Lake Recreation .. ~ Area currently does not include any ofthe project features (dam, pipeline, powerhouse). The I dam and upper portion of the existing pipeline would be included in the Ward Lake Recreation

['u Area with the expansion. .1 Ii

The majority of the Project is located on Future Development Zone lands as designated by. II~ Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Under this designation hydroelectric generation is considered a permitted uses. Alternative A is located in an area zoned as heavy industrial. This zone is

"

II . reserved for industrial development; hydroelectric development should be a permitted use within ~ this zoning designation.

;11

The Ward Lake area has been designated as an environmentally sensitive area in the Ketchikan ."IIIu District Coastal Management Program (Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 1983). According to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map, the Ward Lake area consists of Ward Lake and Ward u IIICreek, downstream of Ward Lake, to Ward Cove. The Ward Lake area is considered an !!i

environmentally sensitive area because the entire Ward CreeklLake system offers salmon IIspawning habitat, and because Ward Lake is a popular sportfishing and picnicking area with .1

developed recreation facilities. Development is not precluded in environmentally sensitive areas. i'i

However, special consideration must be given to the identified concerns.

No National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, National Trails Systems or Wilderness Areas are currently located within the Connell Lake Project area Ward Creek, including Ward Lake was reviewed, however, by the USFS for inclusion as a component ofthe W'lld and Scenic Rivers System (USFS, I 997b).

Potential Recreation and Land Use Issues/Concerns/Mitigation

Since the existing dam and pipe ~uld be used for the proposed hydroelectric Project, no significant impacts to recreation activities in the area are expected. Construction activities at the dam and pipeline may temporarily disrupt recreation visitors for short periods oftime.

December J998 Initial Consultation Document Page 22 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project


4.2 REGULATORY ISSUES

In addition to the FERC License, other environmental and regulatory permits that may be required for the Project are described below.

• A U.S. Forest Service Special Use/Study Permit will be obtained prior to conducting studies on USFS lands and for construction on USFS lands.

• An Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (ADGC) questionnaire has been submitted along with a water rights application. A request for Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMAj consistency and for Section 401 Water Quality Certification will also be submitted to the ADGC during the early stages of the licensing process.

• If the Project requires dredging or filling within tidewaters, a U.S..Army Corps ofEngineers Sections 404 Permit will be required

• Local building permits may be required prior to construction. J

~.

w

~ f;liI


Environmental andRegulatory Issues I I

I

5.0 STREAMFLOW AND WATER REGIME I I

r, The hydrology for the Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project is based upon recorded runoff at. gaging stations which are, or were, located within the Ward Creek Basin. The stations which were used in the analysis are shown in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Stream Gaging Stations in the Vicinity ofConnell Lake

2.81 13.337.2

Pulp Company Pnor to were to diversion, average nmoffwas 133 cfs. After diversion, average flow was 64 cfs. Difference in flows is 69 cfs which is approximately equal to average diversion to pulp mill of 70 cfs (45

Oct-1958 Oct. 1931Sept.1939; Oct. 1946Oct. 1969

5.1 REPRESENTATIVE TIME PERIOD FOR HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS u For purposes ofhydrologic analysis and the computation ofpower production, it is desirable to identify a period oftime that is representative ofthe long-term runoff, has both high and low

L U runoff years, and is short enough to simplify the computational analysis. The Perseverance

Creek gage, with approximately 31 years ofrecord and a major tributary ofWard Creek, was reviewed with the objective of identifying ab'out a 10 year time period that was representative of the entire 31 years. The period between 1948 and 1958 was found to have an average runoff of 36.6 cfs whereas the long term average was~7.2, or 98.4 percent of the long term. average. This time period included the two highest runoff years (1949 and 1955) and the second lowest low U flow year (1957).

~

L December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 24 Connell Lalce Hydroelectric Project

U

I

I I

I

I I

I

I

~

u. ! '

L

Streamflow and WaleI' Regime

In addition, this time period also includes the time period when flows were recorded at the dam site (1948 to 1951) and the time period when flows were collected on Ward Creek downstream of the damsite before the dam began to fill (1952 and 1953).

Consequently, the 10 year time period between October 1948 and September 1958 was selected as a representative period to use in the power analysis.

5.2 DEVELOPMENT OF AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW VALUES

October 1948 to September 1951 - A gaging station was established at the proposed site of the Connell Lake Dam in September 1948 and continued until September 1951. These flows, therefore. are exact representations of the inflow into Connell Lake and will be used unaltered.

October 1951 to September 1953 - The gaging station on Ward Creek downstream of Connell Lake existed during the same time period that the gage at the dam site was being maintained as well as for several years later. Therefore, a regression analysis was performed on the two gaging station records for the overlapping period (1948 to 1951) on a monthly and annual basis. The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 5-2. The analysis shows an excellent correlation as the coefficient of correlation R was equal to 0.99 for the annual values.

Table 5-2 Correlation of Ward Creek Flows to Connell Dam Flows

(Connell Dam Flow = X coefficient times Ward Creek Flow plus Y)

October 1953 to September 1958 - Since the Ward Creek gage after September 1953 does not include flows diverted to the pulp mill, it cannot be used as a source of natural flow data for inflow to Connell Lake and the Perseverance Creek gage must be used. This gage, Perseverance

December 1998 Page 25

InlJial Consultation Document Connell LaksHydroeledrtc Project

• Streamflow and Water Regime

u Cree~ was analyzed using a regression analysis against the wahl Creek gage for the period

u between 1948 and 1953. This analysis also produced excellent results as the correlation coefficient R equals 0.923 on the annual flow values. The results ofthis analysis are presented in Table 5-3.

u Table

Correlation of Perseverance Creek Flows to Connell Dam Flows~ (Connell Dam Flows = X coefficient times Perseverance Creek Flow plus Y)

L 3.44

~

U

~

L ~

5.3 AVERAGE MONT1fl, Y FLOWS - CONNEtL LAKE ~ Inflow into Connell Lake has been computed following the methodology described in the . previous paragraphs. Consequently, 1948 to 1951 flows are baSed upon flows recorded at the~ dam site, 1952 and 1953 flows are based upon a correla:pon with Ward Creek near Wacker, and 1954 to 1958 flows are based upon a con:elation with Perseverance Creek near Wacker. (Wacker is now called Ward Cove). These flows are presented in Table 5-4. The average annual flow isU 143 cfs, or 11.5 cfs per square mile. This represents a total annual volume of approximately 103,000 acre-feet per year.

L 5.4 DIVERTABLE FLOWS FROM wmTE RIVER

L There are no gaging stations in the White River drainage upon which to estimate runoff. However, since the White River lies just east ofthe Ward Creek drainage, it is reasonable to estimate its runoff based upon flows in Ward Creek. The upper reach ofthe White River has a

U slightly higher average elevation than Ward Creek above Connell Lake (1320 feet vs. 1033) and a smaller drainage area (2.0 square miles versus 12.4 square miles). Consequently, it is

U December J998 Initial Consultation Document Page 26 Connell Lake Hydraelectric Project

~

-1

Streamjlow and Water Regime

reasonable to estimate runoff at the diversion site as being approximately 21_percent ofthe runoff into Connell Lake.

However, not all of the runoff at the diversion site can be diverted since some flows should remain for fish and aesthetic purposes. For purposes of this study, it is assumed that 33 percent of the average annual runoff will be left in the stream. Since the average annual runoff into Connell Lake is 143 cfs, the estimated average annual runoff in the White River at the diversion site is 30 cfs and the minimum stream flow below the diversion site is 10 cfs. C;onsequently, the divertable flows are estimated to be 21 percent ofthe Ward Creek flow into Connell Lake (Table 5-4) minus 10 cfs. The divertable flows are shown in Table 5-5.

5.5 FLOW-DURATION CURVE DATA

Data which relates streamflow to frequency of occurrence is used in hydropower investigations in selecting the sizes for turbines and generators and in estimating minimum streamflow below the points of diversion. Since only a couple years of .streamflow data is available from Ward Creek prior to the construction of Connell Dam, long term flow data from Perseverance Creek has been used to develop flow-duration data and curves for the Connell Lake Project.

The 33-years offlow data on Perseverance Creek was arranged in ascending order, by month, and multiplied by 3.92 (the approximate ratio ofthe flows in Perseverance Creek and Ward Creek at the Connell dam site). The flows for various exceedence frequencies are shown in Table 5-6.

Table 5-4 Ward Creek at Connell Dam Site (cfs)

209 166 230 214 197 168 214 67 217 . IS8

214. IS8 225 179 213 96 212 36

u u W

L December J998 initial Consultation Document Page 27 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project

L

Streamflow and Water Regime

TableS-S Divertable Flows From White River (cfs)

5 10 15 2 .0 0 3 20 35 26 16 22

37 9 1 4 18 40 37 0 0 19 18 16 6 38 33 27 6 7 19 4 29 17 17 36 5 3 0 52 6 92 0 18 37 24 5 . 0 74 28 17 3 25 36 24 2 28 0 0 3 0 35 39 29 . 1 28

61 0 0 0 29 36 11 O· 16 11 1 32 36 0

Table 5-6 Flow-Duration Data for Ward Creek at Connell Lake Dam

(Flows in cfs)

Percent Exceedence

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

100 7 3 8 4 7 5 5 . 29 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.7 90 42 34 21 11 14 19 38 76 31 16 7 19 80 75 55 38 23 26 28 55 93 55 27 15 30 70 113 76 51 36 34 37 72 114 80 36 21 38 60 147 97 67 46 38 46 84 135 97 46 32 59 50 193 126 93 55 51 5S 105 156 114 59 42 84 40 244 168 126 84 63 72 131 185 131 76 63 126 30 307 211 177 122 97 97 152 211 160 lOS 110 177 20 412 299 253 202 160 . 147 190 253 211 143 168 257 10 564 459 408 312 278 240 295 328 299 244 328 366 0 2012 1423 1410 1793 1735 1979 1415 1086 1398 1162 1415 1372

December 1998 Initial Conntltation Document Page 28 Connell !aU Hydroelectric p,.oject

~ PURPA Benefits

L. 6.0 PURP A BENEFITS

L PURPA benefits will not be sought for this Project

~'

~

II

W

~

~

i W

W

December 1998 Initial Consultation Document I Page 29 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project

I

Licensing Study Plans

7.0 LICENSING STUDY PLANS

t ' " 7.1 WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY

Purpose

The purpose ofthe water quality and quantity studies is to refine information developed during the feasibility study ofthe project and to develop final operating criteria for the project. A newgauging station will be constructed and maintained and the data developed will be used to determine if the flow relationships described earlier are still valid. The water quality study will evaluate the impact that reservoir elevation will have on downstream flow releases.

Agencies to be Consulted

State and federal agencies and non-governmental agencies that will be contacted as part ofthe water quality and quantity investigations will include, but not limited to, the following:

Alaska Department ofNatura1 Resources (ADNR) U. S. Geological Survey (USGS)

. Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC)

Methodology

Stream Gauging Station

A stream gauging station will be developed on Ward Creek below the dam, calibrated and a rating curve developed, and the station maintained for the life ofthe FERC license. Data developed for the site during the life ofthe license application phase ofthe project will be evaluated to determine ifthe data developed previously was still valid.

Revised Hydrologic Data

L

Ifnewly collected data or data developed by the stream gauging station indicates that flow estimates should be revised, then the flow data developed previously will be re-worked and a new set ofdata developed. The new data will be presented to the consulted agencies before proceeding to the revised energy studies.

Operations Studies. and Energy Estimates

U The operations studies· from earlier studies will be revised utilizing any new flow data that becomes available and agreed-upon minimum flow from the fishery studies. The purpose ofthe revised studies is to determine ifa revision and modification of the operations studies will resultL in increases in energy and an optimization ofthe minimum instream flows to better meet fishery needs. An optimum operating procedure for the project will be developed. The revised studies

U Decembe1' 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 30 Connell Lake Hydroelectric P1'oject

U


will also reflect other operating criteria which may develop out ofother ongoing studies of~e project.

Water Temperature Study

The results of the operations studies will be reviewed and used to predict water temperatures for the water that is released from Connell Lake. The results ofthe temperature analysis will be furnished to the biologist conducting the instream flow studies to determine ifthe revised flows and temperature are detrimental to the fishery.~ 7.2 FISHERIES u Purpose

The purpose ofthe fisheries studies is to describe the fishery reSources existing within and reliant . ~ upon the streams and lakes within the Connell Hydroelectric Project area, and to evaluate potential impacts resulting from pt~ject construction and operation. For this, fisheries u literature/data and information pertaining to the Ward Creek watershed shall be identified, compiled and reviewed. In addition, pedestrian habitat and fisheries surveys shall be completed of Ward creeks (and adjoining tributaries) to collect qualitative physical habitat and biological u information needed to address project impacts. Site surveys shall also be completed on each of . the lakes that may be influenced by the project, including, Talbot, Connell, Ward. Please note· that some field studies were initiated in September 1998 in consultation with key agencies. The u processes and objectives of these studies are described in the following paragraphs.

u Agencies to be Consulted

State and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations that will be consulted as part of the fishery investigations will include but not be limited to the following:~

. .

• Alaska Department ofFish and Game (ADF&G) • Alaska Department ofNatural Resources (ADNR) • Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation'(ADEC) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) • U.S. Forest Service (USFS) • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

Methodology

Literature Review

Sources and types of information that will be collected and reviewed shall likely include but not be limited to:

·December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 31 Connell Lalre Hydroelectric Project

L

u Licensing Study Plans

U ADF&G: stocking records, fish population data, management plans; State listed T & E species

ADNR: water quantity information and flow records

ADEC: water quality information, NPDES permits ~ USFWS: general fisheries data; ESA listed species

~ NMFS: anadromous fisheries data; escapement estimates; ESA listed species

USFS: habitat information, species presence/absence data ~ KPU: technical reports prepared by consultants, anecdotal information

U Uriiversity ofAlaska: thesis, technical reports

~ USGS: streamflow statistics, regional hydrology data

Supplemental information shall be provided via personal contacts made with local and regional ~ biologists within the ADF&G (e.g. Steve Hoffman, Jack Gustafson, Ricardo Sainz) to discuss " individual species distributions and management goals for the Ward Creek watersheds.

~ Qualitative Habitat and Fish Surveys

The qualitative habitat and fish surveys shall be conducted nia downstream direction; from~ Connell Laketo Ward Lake to the Ward Creek outlet. The surveys shall be completed by a two person field crew experienced in habitat assessments and fisheries surveys. The surVeys shall be

U completed following protocols specified by the USFS using a modified Hankin - Reeves approach, and shall include the mapping ofhabitats (classified as tQ riftle, pool, run, cascade, glide, ripple) throughout the stream length, as well as fish species composition. Fish species composition shall be determined via electrofishing using a Smith - Root POW backpack shocker. Fish sampling (to determine species composition and relative abundance) shall be conducted at selected intervals throughout the length ofthe each stream. All salmonids captured during the surveys shall identified, measure9, (length and weight) .~ released unharmed withiil the general vicinity ofcapture. Scale samples shall ~ collected from aiepresentative number of salmonids (> 200 mm in length) to ena1;>le age: growth analysis, should it be "deemed necessary . at some later time. Non-salmonid fishes shall be identified, enumerated and released. In addition, qualitative fish sampling shall be completed within the first SO ft (depending on access) ofeach ofthe tributaries entering Ward Creek.

Ward Creek Instream Flow Study

Based on a review ofthe Feasibility study for the Connell Project, and preliminary discussions with ADF&G personnel (C. Estes and S. Hoffman), an instream flow study will be completed in

December] 998 initial Consultation Document Page 32 Connell Lake HydroelectriC Project

w Licensing Study Plans

u Ward C~ek. The ADF&G has already applied for a flow reservation for the section ofWard Creek extending from Connell Dam to its outlet in Ward Cove (ADF&G 1990; amended 1996). That application was based on a determination by the ADF&G biologists that four species ofu salmon utilize Ward Creek, including coho, sockeye, chum and pink (Haddix, Hoffman 1988). In addition, the stream apparently maintains runs ofsteelhead trout, Dolly Varden, as well as resident rainbow trout. Therefore, the ADF&G developed instream. flow recommendations

u ~ designed to protect important fishery resources in the basin. Those recommendations were based

on the application of the Tennant Method (Tennant 1975) and resulted in the development ofan instream flow reservation for Ward Creek that includes specific monthly flow amounts to meet important biological functions in the basin. Specific flow amounts requested are as follows:

MONTH FLOW (cfs)~ January S6 February S6u March S6 April 129 May 141u June 141 July 71 August 71u September 141 October 141 November 141~ December 8S

The ADF&G routinely utilizes the Tennant Method for developing instream. flow~ recommendations and evaluating effects ofwater developments on important fishery resources. The method is hydrologically based and is premised on protecting a certain percentage ofthe average annual flow (Qaa) within a basin for a given month to protect fish populations, under the ~ assumption that the populations have evolved within a given basin around its "signature" hydrology. The percentages considered protective ofthe fishery resource range from around 10% ofthe Qaa (considered as severely pegradhtg) to around 200% ofthe Qaa, which is~ considered sufficient for flushing fine sediments from streams. There is a range ofpercentages intermediate to these values which have been applied by the ADF&G and other researchers that L are considered to provide protection levels ranging from Good to Outstanding. The selection ofa given level ofprotection can be made based on a variety of technical and institutional considerations, including but not limited to management objectives ofthe basin, the importance L ofthe fishery resources, the existing condition ofa system (pristine~ regulated, degraded, etc.), and availability ofempirical data. Because site specific data are generally lacking, this latter consideration often dictates that instream flow recommendations based on the Tennant Method L invoke a conservative approach to protecting ~e resource. As a result, the ADF&G appropriately tends to use the higher protection levels of the Tennant Method, generally reserving flows that represent the "excellent" or "outstanding" categories ofprotection. This was ~ apparently the case for the Ward Creek reservation, as suggested in the ADF&G application,

U December /998 Initial Consultation Document Page 33 Connelluke Hydroelectric Project

U

l. '

LicensingStudy Plans

dated February 2, 1990. The flows noted above and contained in the instream flow application represent from 40% (56 cfs) to 100% (141 cfs) of the Qaa. .

Although the Tennant Method has been used and applied by the ADF&G in developing the majority of instream flow recommendations in Alaska, it is not the only viable method for evaluating instream flow needs of fish. Indeed, there are other, more scientifically rigorous methods that can be used for developing instream flow recommendations, methods that generally require the collection ofsite/stream-specific data from which to base flow needs. Ofthe field based methods available, the USFWS IFIM and its associated software, PHABSIM is the most widely utilized throughout the United States (Reiser et al. 19.89). Application ofthe IFIM requires the collection ofsite specific data and the integration ofbiological infonnation concerning fish species and life history stage utilization ofvarious habitat components, including water depth, water velocity and substrate. These latter parameters are integrated into what are tenned Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) curves, which provide the biological foundation for developing habitat:flow relationships. In the case ofPHABSIM, the habitat units calculated from the method are tenned weighted usable area (WUA), so named because the habitats are weighted based on the probability that a given habitat will be utilized, as defined by the HSI curves. Because the IFIMIPHABSIM method is considered the most scientifically defensible (Reiser et al. 1989) and biologically rationale, it has been widely used by the FERC for deriving instream flow regimes below hydroelectric projects that are both protective of the aquatic resources, and yet provide for power generation. The method is especially useful since it is incremental, and therefore, tradeoff's in flow (and hence po~r production) can be readily " compared with habitat gainsllosses for specific species·and·-life history stages. For these reasons, the Ward Creek instream flow study will be completed using the IFIMIPHABSIM method.

Scoping oflnstream Flow Study:

Because there are a number of components within the IFIMIPHABSIM method that are sensitive detenninants ofthe resulting habitat:flow relationship, it is important that all phases ofthe mstream flow study be closely coordinated with state and federal resource agencies, in particular, the ADF&G. This coordination will begin with the initial scoping ofthe study in which the overall objectives and methods will be reviewed, and a schedule ofboth field activities and data 8naIysis developed. The major components ofthe study . .

which shall be described in the study plan include target species and life history stage identification, habitat mapping and transect selection, field data collection, development ofHSI curves, PHABSIM modeling, and derivation ofhabitat:flowrelationships. For this, R2 shall attend an initial scoping meeting with personnel from the ADF&G, USFWS, and NMFS. Subsequent to this meeting, a Draft Study Plan shall be developed and transmitted to the agencies for review and comment

Habitat Mapping and Transect Selection:

The initial step in the completion ofthe instream flow study is the habitat mapping ofthe reaches of Ward Creek deemed biologically important The entire length ofeach ofthe

December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 34 Connell Lake HydroelectriC Project


segments shall be surveyed and habitats mapped (linear distances determined). A habitat map shall subsequently be prepared ofeach ofthe reaches of Ward Creek; the habitat map shall depict locations ofmajor habitat types (classified into rifile, run, pool, cascade) throughout the stream.

Candidate transect locations shall subsequently be selected and depicted for each ofthe reaches. The transects shall include those habitats which represent at least 10% ofthe habitats noted from the surveys. The candidate transect locations shall be discussed with the agencies, and modifications in location and number oftransects integrated into the final study plan. Transects representing critical habitats may be identified during the habitat surveys or as noted by agency personnel. Final transect selection and placement in the field shall be made with agency personnel participation .. The rationale used in selecting each of the transects shall be documented; photographs ofeach transect shall be taken during the transect selection process.

Field Data Collection:

the collection offield data from each transect shall follow procedures as outlined in Triheyand Wegner (1984), Bovee (1982), and Bovee and Milhous (1978). R2 is assuming that three separate flows shall be measured to enable as wide an extrapolation range in flow conditions as possible. Based on a review of existing hydrology, R2 has identified the following three target flows - . low flow (20 cfs), mid -flow (40 cfs) and high flow (100 cfs). In general, field measurements shall include the following:

Headpins (HP) shall be established at each transect marking the right and left end points ofeach transect The headpins shall consist of 18-inch sections of0.75inch rebar; an IS-inch wood survey stake comprised of a working pin (WP) shall be placed on the right bank to enable tape anchoring and tie-off. The HP and WP shall be marked with fluorescent survey flagging and labeled· according to location downstream from Talbot Lake (transect 1 located closest to Talbot Lake, transect 27 representing the most downstream. location). Survey ofHP Elevations and Completion ofLevel Loops - subsequent to installation ofHPs, a level loop ~l be completed for all adjacent transects to establish pin elevations and ensure survey accuracy. Elevations shall be determined for all transects relative to either an established datum (benchmark) or an arbitrary, yet permanent datum. StaffGages - during measurement ofdepths and velocities, a temporary staff gage shall be installed adjacent to each transect to monitor flow stability during the field measurements. Transect Measurements shall include the following: channel width (ftXmeasured from HP to WP), water depths (measured with a top setting rod), mean column velocities measured at 0.6 depth or 0.2 and 0.8 depth for water depths over 2.5 ft (using a Swoffer Model 2100 current meter), substrates (visually characterized into dominant and subdominant types - silt, sand, fme gravel, coarse gravel,

" cobble, boulder, bedrock, and vegetation), and embeddedness (%) (defined as "the


Licensing Shuiy Plans

relative degree to which the largest-sized bottom materials ofa stream segment are surrounded by smaller size particles). Measurements shall be made across each transect at intervals which capture the. changes in channel morphology across the width of the stream; a minimum often measurements shall be made for each transect. Photographs shall be taken across each transect as well as upstream and downstream ofeach transect; photographs shall be taken during each of the three flow conditions.

A crew oftwo individuals experienced in PHABSIM field data collection and modeling shall complete the fieldwork. All data shall be recorded in ''write in the rain" waterproof survey books. After each field effort, all data shall be photocopied, checked, and entered into computer data files. Field data collection activities are scheduled to occur in September/October, depending on flow availability.

Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Curves:

HSI curves reflect species and life stage use and preference for selected habitat parameters (depth, velocity, substrate)(Bovee 1982) . Depending on the extent ofdata available, HSI curves can be developed from the literature (Category 1 curves), or from physical and hydraulic measurements made in the field over species microhabitats (Category 2 curves). When adjusted for availability, these latter curves may more accurately reflect species preference (Category 3 curves)(Bovee 1986).

For the Ward Creek watershed, R2 does not believe site specific HSI data are available, and because of its already regulated nature, such data collected in Ward Creek would not be representative ofthe overall habitat conditions utilized by fish given a wide range of . flows. Therefore, R2 is proposing to compile and review existing curves reported in the literature (coho, pink, chum, steelhead, Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout) for possible use in the PHA.J3SIM modeling. R2 has an extensive library ofcurve sets for these species, which will be supplemented with any new information obtained during the initial scoping of the study.

Based on this review, R2 shall select a set ofcandidate HSI curves for each species and life stage of concern. These curve sets shall be transmitted to the agencies for review and comment. Upon receipt ofcomments, and subsequent discussions via teleconference, R2 shall finalize a set ofHSI curves considered appropriate for and endorsed by the agencies, for application in Ward Creek. It should be noted that a separate meeting with the agencies to present, discuss and fmalize the HSI curves might be necessary. However, costs are not included for such a meeting.u

PHABSIMModeling:

u R2 shall utilize the latest version ofthe USFWS microcomputer software ofPHABSIM. Based on anticipated channel morphologies, R2 will likely employ the IFG4 computer

u December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 36 Connell Lolce Hydroelectric Project

u


models to develop stage-discharge relationships for the various transects. This model will be supplemented with additional programs such as MANSQ and WSP as necessary to obtain the best possible calibrated hydraulic model. Details ofall calibration steps shall be recorded and submitted as an appendix in the final report.

Once the models are calibrated, habitat:flow relationships shall be computed using the· HABTAT or HABTAV programs, depending on appropriateness for given hydraulic conditions. Based on the range offlows measured in the field, habitat (WUA) values shall be calculated for each of the target species and life history stages for discharges ranging from 8 cfs to 250 efs at increments of 10 efs. This range offlow brackets the entire range offlows that the ADF&G has recommended for Ward Creek, and therefore will be useful in evaluating gains in habitat resulting from incremental increases in flow.

R2 will also estimate the total quantity ofhabitat within the entire segment of Ward Creek that occurs under varying flow conditions for the different species and life stages. For this, the habitat:flow relationships representative ofthe different habitat types shall be expanded to include other habitats as identified during the habitat mapping surveys. A habitat time series will also be computed to identify differences in habitat duration between existing, proposed, and natural flow conditions. This will be useful for evaluating the temporal percentage increases/decreases in habitat availability that may

. result from different operating regimens.

Impacts Assessment

Based on the infonnation and data obtained and reviewed, and the results ofthe habitat and fishery surveys, an assessment ofthe effects ofthe proposed project construction and operations on the existing fishery resources shall be made. This shall include potential habitat loss, habitat alteration/degradation (e.g. water quality changes - temperature), effects on resident fish and aquatic biota, and modifications in streamflow and lake level regime. The assessment shall also focus on the effects of lake level fluctuations on littoral margin habitats and productivity.

u The impacts on fish shall focus on determining to what extent project operations will directly or indirectly impact existing fish populations within the watershed. Examples ofdirect impacts include habitat loss (due to passage barriers, loss ofstream length, fluctuations in lake levels),

G false attraction to powerhouse outfalls resulting in delay ofadult migrations, and mortality

L occurring during construction. Indirect impacts include loss of food production within a given reach which could influence fish population abundance, reduction in spawning gravel recruitment below the dam, changes in water quality (e.g. temperature alterations) that co'iild alter

L the timing of certain life history components (e.g. spawning, egg incubation and fry emergence), and changes in flow availability and quantity that could likewise impart ehanges in fish life history patterns (upstream and downstream p~age ofsalmonids). This latter component shall be evaluated in detail for the Connell Project cased on the results ofa detailed instream flow study conducted in selected reaches ofWard Creek (see below). The discussion ofimpacts shall L be made on a species and life history stage· specific basis (to the extent information is available).

fi ~ December 1998 Initial Consultation Document

Page 37 ConnellLake Hydroelectric Project

1i ~


lnstream Flow Report - Assessment ofProposed Project Operations:

R2 shall utilize the habitat:flow relationships and resulting time series and habitat duration curves to evaluate the effects ofthe proposed project operations on the fishery resources in Ward Creek. The results of this anaIysis shall be presented in a Draft Report that shall be submitted to KPU and state and federal agencies for review and comment. A subsequent meeting with the agencies shall occur, during which time the overall results of the instrea.m flow study shall be presented.

Identification ofMitigation Measures

For each ofthe impacts identified, mitigation.measures shall be described and discussed that serve to reduce or eliininate project impacts. Such measures may include the provision of instream flows in Ward Creek and other streams to maintain existing fishery resources, development and funding ofa lake stocking program (if deemed desirable by the ADF&G), development of lake level and flow operation rule curves that are compatible with salmonid life history requirements and periodicities, and other measUres as "agreed-to" during agency consultations. Emphasis shall be placed on identifying those measures which substantially reduce or eliminate project impacts, and which in some cases may actually provide an enhancement ofexisting conditions.

7.3 WILDLIFE

Purpose

The purpose of the wildlife study is to describe and quantify habitats and confirm presence or absence wildlife species. The potential impact of the Project on wildlife resources will be evaluated and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts will be developed.


USFWS USFS ADFG

.NMFS

Methodology

Studies will include agency consultation, literature reviews, field studies, interpretation offield data, analysis ofaerial photographs, and documentation.


~ Licensing Study Plans

Tasks~ All existing data on wildlife species and habitat in or near the Project area will be reviewed. This u will include lists, survey data, aerial photographs, and reports from with USFWS, USFS, ADFG andNMFS.

~ Field Surveys

A field survey will be conducted to confirm existing project data. Areas to be surveyed will~. include the dam, penstock route, power house location, and access roadltransmission route. The field survey"will confirm presence/absence ofcommon wildlife species, as well as species of concern (i.e., threatened and endangered species). ~ The field survey will consist of: a) qualitative survey ofwildlife habitats; b) general inventory of wildlife species will be conducted for mammals and birds. Ancillary observations will include ~ identification of calls, tracks, scat, and reptor pellet analysis. Surveys ofthe Project area will be conducted while walking to and from fixed points. If individuals of an animal species ofconcern u are located, the pertinent officials will be informed

The appropriate extent ofthe analysis area for other potential animal species will be determined in consultation with the agencies.~ 7.4, VEGETATIONu Purpose

~ The purpose ofthe vegetation studies is to characterize the plant communities in and around the Project area and to identify any populations ofthreatened, endangered, or sensitive (TES) plant species that will be potentially impacted by the Project. Any potential impacts to botanicalu resources will be evaluated and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts will be developed.

u Agencies to be Consulted

~ USFS USFWS ANHP

Methodology

Plant Community Classification and Identification

Characterization ofbotanical resources shall include a classification and description ofplant communities in and around existing and proposed facilities (lakeshores, dams, penstocks,

December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 39 Connell LaJce Hydroelectric Project

L

~ Licensing Study Plans

powerhouses, and access roads). The vegetation in the area around the existing and proposed ~ facilities will be described in terms ofdominant tree species, component understory shrubs, and understory herbaceous species. Successional stage and evidence ofpast disturbance will also be

U characterized. A list of species observed in the Project area will be developed and included in the Environmental Assessment The regional and local importance ofplant communities occurring in the Project area will be discussed to proVide a basis for assessing impacts to plant

, communities as a result ofthe proposed Project. Coordination ofwildlife studies with plant community classification and identification will ensure consistency between the two resource studies and how they are addressed in the Environmental Assessment. ~, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Surveys

U A survey for threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant species occurring in areas to be impacted by the Connell Lake Project will be conducted. An up-to-date list ofTES will be . determined from information requests to the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) and U.S.U Forest Service (USFS). Surveys will consist of two individuals walking the pipeline corridors and examining areas to be affected by ground disturbance, shoreline effects, or indirect impacts

U from changes in hydrology. Consultation with USFS and ANHP botanists will be conducted to ensure that local knowledge and all available information is being incorporated into the study.

Any individuals or populations ofTES plant species found will be thoroughly documented with ~

U photographs, maps, and notes. An ANHP form will be completed for each population/individual found and submitted to the ANHP.

Results

~ The project alternatives will be evaluated for potential impacts to both plant communities and TES plant species. Loss orconversion ofnative plant communities will be assessed in terms of their relative sensitivity and rarity in the region, as well as their importance to hydrology and U wildlife habitat. Special attention will be given to wetland plant communities. Areal extent of disturbance to each community ~ will be estimated and the nature and degree ofdisturbance described. Any individuals/populations ofTES plant species that are potentially impacted by the Connell Lake Project will be identified.

Where high value plant communities or TES plant species occur in areas to be impacted, possible mitigation measures will be developed. Avoidance ofimpacts will be the highest priority, and the project botanist will work with the project engineers to determine possible design or route

~ ! ~. changes to avoid impacts to important botanical resources.

The botanist will also help develop revegetation/reclamation plans to identify ways to mitigate for loss ofbotanical resources.· Use ofnative species, establishment or relocation ofTES species, and design ofrevegetated natural communities are possible'mitigation measures that can be incorporated into revegetation/reclamation plans.

December /998 Initial Consultation Document Page 40 Connell Lalee Hydroelectric Project


7.5 AESTHETICS

Purpose

The primaty purpose ofthe aesthetics study is to evaluate aesthetic impacts from the proposed Project and describe measures proposed by the AppliCant to reduce impacts.


• USFS • City and Borough ofKetchikan

• ADNR

Methodology

The aesthetic study will evaluate existing visual conditions, assess project effects, and identify potential mitigation measures.

Existing Visual Conditions

A summary ofexisting visual conditions that addresses both project facilities and the adjacent landscape will be addressed. Existing visual resource data related to the Project area, including the USFS Visual Management System, will be reviewed. Landscape character of the Project area will also be described. Approximate seen areas from selected viewpoints at and near the Project will be identified.

Project Effects Assessment

The effects ofthe proposed project facilities on visual quality will be determined. The visibility ofproject ~eatures imd changes in instream flows from selected viewpoints will be evaluated. .

Proposed Aesthetic Measures

Potential measures that will reduce the visual contrast ofproject features with the surrounding environment will be identified and their feasibility will be reviewed.

7.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Purpose

The purposeis to develop information on the nature and distribution ofcultural resources within the Project area that have not been previously surveyed. This information, together with professional opinions and consultations with affected native groups and agencies will be presented in a written cultural resources report.

rr ! I'-J December J998 Initial Consultation Document

Page 41 Connell LoJ:e Hydroelectric Project



Native Groups U.S. Forest Service SHPO

Methodology

Historical/Archeological studies will be conducted to comply with FERC's regulations and requirements ofthe NEPA EA. A literature search and surficial investigation ofthe existing and proposed structures will be performed to determine ifthere are any cultural remains that might be impacted. This will include a pedestrian survey ofthe Project area. Subsurface testing will be conducted in areas judged to have archeological potential. The search will be for indications of prehisto~c as well as proto-historic materials.

7.7 RECREATION AND LAND USE

Purpose

The purpose ofthe recreational resources study is to identify information regarding existing recreation use, future demand and opportunities, and the potential impacts on recreation resulting from development ofthe Project The pmpose ofstudying other land uses is to provide updated information on existing land use and ownership in the Project area and evaluate the project's consistency with relevant comprehensive and land management plans.


Agencies who are responsible for recreation and land use planning and management within the Project area will be consulted.

Methodology

Evaluation of Existing Recreation and Land Uses

Existing information will be collected including maps, recreation guides, USFS plans and policies, assessors information and local and regional planning documents.

From data collected, existing recreation facilities in the Project area will be described and mapped. Land use and ownership in the Project area will described and ownership information will also be mapped.

December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 42 Connell LaJce Hydroelectric Project


Evaluate Recreation Demand

Existing recreation facilities in terms ofactivity type, physical setting, experience required, economic costs, and current demand will be evaluated. Future recreation use within the Project area will be identified and evaluated.

Anticipated recreation demand with and without the proposed Project will be estimated using demographic data, the Alaska State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, USFS and other local and regional planning documents.

Consistency with Comprehensive and Land Management Plans

Project facilities will be examined for consistency with existing federal, state, and local comprehensive and land management plans.

Evaluate Project Impacts of Existing and Future Recreation and Other Land Uses

Potential environmental, social and economic impacts created by the Project regarding existing and future recreation and other land uses in the Project area will be identified. Ifappropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended if it is determined that the Project will produce adverse effects on existing and proposed future recreation and other land uses.

-~

December J998 Initial Consultation Document Page 43 Connell !.aU Hydroelectric Project

References

8.0 REFERENCES

Alaska Department ofFish and Game. 1997. Personal Communication with S. Brockman and 1. Gustafson. November 18, 1997.

Alaska Department ofNatural Resources. 1997. Letter from 1. Bittner. October 7,1997.

Alaska Department ofNatural Resources. 1993. Alaska's Outdoor Legacy. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.

Alaska Natural Heritage Proiram. 1997. Letter from 1. Lenz. October 3, 1997.

Avian Powerline Interaction Committee. 1992. State ofthe Art Powerline Designs.

Dames and Moore. 1990. Ketchikan Pulp Company Environmental Analysis of Supplemental Water Supply. Prepared for the Forest Service. August 9, 1990.

Denton, C. 1997. Alaska Department ofFish and Game. Personal communication October 17, 1997 and meeting minutes from October 8, 1997.

Freeman, G.M. 1995. An evaluation ofsteelhead enhancement in the Ward Creek drainage, Ketchikan, Alaska, 1991-1994. Alaska Department ofFish and Game Division ofSport Fish. Fishery Manuscript NO. 95-2. December 1995.

Hubbart, D.1. 1990. Evaluation oflake characteristics and fish population size and status for three lakes in the vicinity ofKetchikan, Alaska during 1989. Alaska Department ofFish and Game Division of Sport Fish. Fishery Data Series No. 90-39. September 1990.

Hubbart, D.l., and A. E. Bingham. 1989. Evaluation ofpopulation size, status Qffish populations, and the lake characteristics for three lakes in the vicinity of Ketchikan, Alaska during 1988. Alaska Department ofFish and Game Division ofSport Fish. Fishery Data Series No. 110. September 1989.

Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Department. 1993. Ketchikan District Coastal Management Program.

Ketchikan Gateway Borough. 1994. Parks and Recreation Plan.

Ketchikan Trails Coalition. 1995. Ketchikan Trails Plan. A cooperative effort to improve Ketchikan's Trail System.

Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association. 1997. Personal Communication with 1. Creasy. November 21, }997.


~ References

o Swift, C.H. 1976. Estimation ofstream discharges preferred by steelhead trout for spawning and rearing in Western Washington. Open File Report 75-155. United States Department ofthe

u Interior Geological Survey. Tacoma, WA.

Swift, C.H. 1979. Preferred stream discharges for salrilon spawning and rearing in Washington.

o Open File Report 77-422. United States Department ofthe Interior Geological Survey. Tacoma, WA.

~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Letter from J. Lindell. September 18, 1997.

U.S. Forest Service, Ketchikan Ranger District. 19978, Personal Communication with K.

~ Burnds. November 18,1997.

L U.S. Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. 1997b. Land and Resources Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement.

u· U.S. Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. 1997c. Personal Communication with T. Trulock. October 8, 1997.

D 'WESCORP, 1998. Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study, Ketchikan Public Utilities, August 1998. Final Report.

~

~

~ !

~

u ,. ~

~ ~'


's

c ~. Consultation Document Mailing List

9.0 CONSULTATION DOCUMENT MAILING LIST

u

L C U ~'

Federal Agencies:

Mr. David P. Boergers Acting Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington" DC 20426

Mr. Vincent Yearick Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE . .

Washington, DC 20426

. Mr. Mike Henry Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 101 SW Main Street, Suite 905 Portland, OR 97204

Mr. Paul D. Gates U.S. Dept. of the Interior Office ofEnvironmental Policy & Compliance Regional Environmental officer 1689 C. Street, Room 119

, IAnchorage,AJC 99501-5126

Mr. 10hn Lindell; Regional Endangered Species Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Alaska Ecological Services 3000 Vintage Blvd. Suite 201 Juneau, AJC 99801-7100

Steve Brockmann U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 624 Mill St. Ketchikan, Alaska 9990 I

Mr. Andy Grossman, Fisheries Biologist U.S. Department ofCommerce National Marine Fisheries Service Resources Management Division P.O. 21668 Juneau, AJC 99802-1668

Mr. Pete Griffin, Acting District Ranger Ms. Theresa Trulock, Recreation Contact U.S. Forest Service Ketchikan Ranger District Tongass National Forest 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AJC 99901

Mr. Brad Powell, Forest Supervisor Mr. Tom Somrak, Lands Forester U.S. Forest Service Tongass National Forest Federal Building Ketchikan, AJC 99901

Mr. Stan Burst U.S. Anny Corps ofEngineers Civil Works - Public Facilities C-ENPA-EN-CW-PF P.O. Box 898 Anchorage,AJC 99506-0898

Ms. Victoria Taylor U.S. AnnyCorps ofEngineers

.\' .Permit Processing Section /:.~.: Regulatory Branch . C-ENPA-CO-R P.O. Box 898 . Anchorage, AJC 99506-0898


Mr. Ralph Thompson U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers Juneau COE Office Suite 106B, Jordan Ck Center

1; - 8800 Glacier Highway W Juneau, AK 99801

Mr. Bruce Bigelow U.S. Geological Survey P.O. Box 21568

! I Juneau, AK 99802tJ Mr. MarkJen U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Scientist EPA - Alaska Operations Office 222 W. Seventh Ave #19 Anchorage, AK 99513

Mr. John Bregar U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MS-ECO-088 1200 (Jh Avenue Seattle, WA 98101

Mr. Robert L. Lloyd Assistant District Manager, Lands U.S. Bureau ofLand Management Anchorage District Office 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage,AK 99507

Mr. Larry Wright U.S. National Park Service Alaska Regional Office 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99503-2892

Consultation Document Mailing List

State Agencies and Native Groups:

Ms. Lorraine Marshall Project Review Coordinator Alaska Division ofGovernmental Coordination Office ofManagement and Budget P.O. Box 110030 Juneau, AK 99811-0030

Mr. Jack Gustafson, Habitat Division Ms. Carol Denton, Commercial Fisheries Mr. Steve Hoffman, Sport Fish Division Alaska Department ofFish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901

Mr. Clayton Hawkes Alaska Department ofFish and Game Habitat And Restoration Division P.O. Box 240020 Douglas, AK 99824-0020

Mr. Kevin Brownlee Alaska Department ofFish and Game Division of Sport FishIRTS Region 1 P.O.Box 240020 Douglas, AK 99824-0020

Mr. Christopher Estes Statewide Instream Flow Coordinator Sport Fish Division Alaska Department ofFish and Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage,AK 99518-1599

Mr. John Dunker, Water Resources Division ofMining and Water Management Department ofNatural Resources Southeast Regional Office Water Resources Section 400 West Will~ughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801 ..1795


Mi. Chris Landis, Natural Resource Manager, Ms. Elizaveta Shadura, Regional ACMP Coordinator Department ofNatural Resources Southeast Regional Office Division ofLands 400 West Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1795

Mr. Bill Garry, Superintendent Department ofNatural Resources Southeast Regional Office Division ofParks and Outdoor Recreation 400 West Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 998()1-1795

Ms. Mary Kowalczyk Ranger Department ofNatural Resources Alaska State Parks 9983 North Tongass Highway Ketchikan, AK 99901

Mr. Gary Prokosch ChiefofWater Resources Department ofNatural Resources Division ofMining and Water Management 3601 C. Street #800 Anchorage,AK 99503-5935

Mr. Steve Planchon Executive Director Trust Land Office Department ofNatural Resources 3601 C. Street #1122 Anchorage,AK 99503-5935

Mr. Dave Sturdevant Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801


Ms. Judith E. Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer Office ofHistory and Archaeology 3601 C Street, Suite 1278 Anchorage, AK 98503.;8921

Mr. Dick Emennan State ofAlaska . Dept. ofCommunity and Regional Affairs Division ofEnergy 333 W. Fourth Avenue Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341

Mr. Stanley Sieczkowski, Operations Mgr. Alaska Energy Authority . 480 West Tudor Rd. Anchorage, AK 99503

Mr. Dennis McCrohan Maintenance and Operations Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Rd. Anchorage,AK 99503

Mr. Andy Hughes Department ofTransportation 6860 Glacier Avenue Juneau,AK 99801-7999

Mr. Percy Frisby, Division Director Alaska Department ofCommunity and Regional Affairs Division ofEnergy 333 West4tb Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501-2341

Mr. Paul Morrison Alaska Public Utilities Commission Chief Utility Engineer 1016 West Sixth #400 Anchorage, AK 99501-1963


L

~ .~

u u u .~

u ~

~

U ~

IiJ ,

i

...

Ms. Corrine Garza, General Manager Ketchikan Indian Corporation 429 Deennount Ketchikan, AK 99901

Mr. Charles W. White Ketchikan Indian COIporation 429 Deennount Ketchikan, AK 99901

Mr. Rick Harris Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza #400 Juneau, AK 99801

Ms. Beatrice Watson Chairman, Tongass Tribe Tongass Tribe P.O. Box 23116 Ketchikan, AK 99901

General Manager Cape Fox COIpOration P.O. Box 8558 Ketchikan, AK 99901

Local Governments:

Mr. Bob Weinstein, Mayor Mr. Jim Wingren, Council Member Mr. Tom Coyne, Council Member Mr. Tom Friesen, Council Member Ms. Judy Jerikinson, Council Member Mr. Robert Norton, Council Member Mr. Lew Williams III, Council Member Ms. Kay Suiter, City Clerk City ofKetchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901


Ms. Joy Butler Council Member City ofKetchlkan P.O. Box 6013 Ketchikan, AK 99901

Ms. Theresa Garland Executive Director -Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 5957 Ketchikan, AK 99901

Mr. TomFitzgerald Ketchikan City Administrator Route 2, Box 1 - Saxman Ketchikan, AK 99901

Ms. Georgiana Zimmerle, Borough Manager Mr. Jack Shay, Borough Mayor Mr. John Hill, Coastal Coordinator Susan Dickinson, Planning Director Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901

Mr. Craig Moore KlN Area State Parks Advisory Board 9883 N. Tongass Highway Ketchikan, AK 99901

Other Interested Parties:

Mr. William 1. Halloran, Operations Mgr. Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association 2721 N. Tongass Ave Ketchikan, AK 99901

Mr. Ron Wolfe Klukwan Forest Products, Inc. P.O. Box 34659 Juneau, AK 99803


~ Consultation Document Mailing List

i Mr. Allyn Hayes Ketchikan Pulp Company P.O.Box 6600L Ketchikan, AK 99901

U

Mr. Paul BerkshireL Ketchikan Electric Company 2727 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901

Mr. Ron Settje, Administrative Manager Ketchikan Public Utilities~ 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901

W Mr. Rich Trimble Power Projects Manager

U Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901

~ Mr. Don Thompson WESCORP ~ 3035 Island Crest Way Suite 200 Mercer Island, WA 98040~ Mr. Dudley Reiser R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.~ 15250 NE 95th Street R~ond, W~ 98052

U

t. , " ~

~

~

U December 1998 Initial Consultation Document Page 50 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project

U

u CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project...

Documents

Transcript of u CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project...