The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFall Creek Draft Environmental Assessment 2001PRELIMINARY DRAFT APPLICANT -PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Review Draft) Falls Creek (Kahtaheena River) Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11659 Submitted for preliminary review to The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. and the The U.S. Department of the Interior Anchorage, Alaska by Icy Strait Environmental Services For Gustavus Electric Company Gustavus, Alaska March 1, 2001 Note: Electronis Versions are Available upon Request. PRELIMINARY DRAFT APPLICANT-PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Review Draft) Falls Creek (Kahtaheena River) Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11659 Submitted for preliminary review to The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. and the The U.S. Department of the Interior Anchorage, Alaska Prepared by: Gustavus Electric Company Gustavus, Alaska March 1, 2001 Table of Contents TITLE PAGE OUTLINE I. APPLICATION, PURPOSE AND NEED II. PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES A. Alternative 1: Proposal by Gustavus Electric Company B. Alternative 2: Socio-environmentally optimal Falls Creek Hydro III. NO ACTION (Status Quo Diesel Generation) IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED V. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Description of Study and Project Areas B. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives C. Cumulative Impacts D. Analysis of No Action Alternative VII. LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS VIII. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS IX. LITERATURE X. APPENDICES Outline I. APPLICATION, PURPOSE AND NEED A. Application B. Purpose of the Action C. Need for the Project II. PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES A. Alternative 1: proposal by Gustavus Electric 1. Relationship to Public Lands 2. Access 3. Development Plan 4. Construction 5. Operation B. Alternative 2: Socio-environmentally optimal Falls Creek Hydro 1. Relationship to Public Lands 2. Access 3. Development Plan 4. Construction 5. Operation III. NO ACTION (Status Quo Diesel Generation) A. Physical Plant B. Service Area C. Present and Future Power Needs IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED A. Powerhouse at Base of Excursion Ridge between Allotments 1. Access route 2. Water return B. Powerhouse in Falls Creek Canyon per GEC Proposal 1. Access route 2. Access type 3. Intake design 4. Powerhouse design 5. Penstock route I Intake location 2 c. Other Hydropower Options D. Solar Power Option E. Wind Power Option F. Tidal Power Option G. Fuel Cell Power Option H. Coal I. Microturbine J. Biomass K. Power Intertie V. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE A. List of Consulted Agencies & Other Parties B. Applicant Prepared EA Process; Iterative Consultation C. Coastal Zone Consistency Determination D. Compliance with Corps of Engineers Wetland Permitting E. Compliance with Endangered Species Act F. Compliance with NPS & ADF&G permitting G. Compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Description of Study and Project Areas 1. Gustavus Flats 2. Excursion Ridge B. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives I. Geology and Soils a. Affected Environment b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations 1. Slope and soil stability Construction-related Effects Long-tenn Effects 3 Erosion and Sediment control Plan 11. Bedload throughput Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects iii. Earthquakes 2. Aquatic Resources a. Affected Environment b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations i. Instream Flows and Resident Fish, Bypass Reaches Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects ii. lnstream Flows and Anadromous Fish, Reach I Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects 111. Invertebrates Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects iv. Water Quality Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects v. Other Streams of the Study Area Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects 3. Terrestrial Resources a. Affected Environment b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations 1. Raptorial Birds Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects 11. Aquatic Birds Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects 111. Marbled Murrelets Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects iv. Bears Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects v. Riparian Mammals Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects 4. Plants and Wetlands a. Affected Environment b. Corps of Engineers Compliance c. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations 1. Rare and Sensitive Species 4 Construction-related and Long-term Effects 11. Wetlands Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects 111. Rich Forests Construction-related and Long-term Effects v. Introduction of Exotic Species Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects 5. Threatened & Endangered Species a. Affected Environment 6. Archaeological and Cultural/Historical Resources a. Affected Environment b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations i. Archaeological Resources Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects 11. Cultural/Historical Resources Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects iii. Use of Mills Cabin Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects 7. Aesthetic, Recreational and Wilderness Resources a. Affected Environment b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations i. Aesthetic Resources and Recreational Resources Construction-related Effects Long-term Effects ii. Wilderness Resources 8. Socio-economic factors a. Affected Environment b. Impacts and Recommendations i. Construction-related Effects 11. Long-term Effects C. Cumulative Impacts I. Geographic and Temporal Scope 2. Related Projects and Trends a. Gustavus Growth and Economy b. NPS Facilities Expansion c. Native Allotments d. Power generation for the park 3. Effects on Remaining Park Lands a. Wetlands 5 b. Wildlife c. Fish d. Human Visitation to Park 4. Effects on Icy Strait Region a. Murrelets D. Analysis of No Action Alternative I. Fuel consumption 2. Fuel storage and transportation 3. Air Quality 4. Effects on Falls Creek project area VII. LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS VIII. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS IX. LITERATURE X. APPENDICES A. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan B. Traditional Cultural Properties Analysis C. Technical Specifications D. USF&WS and NMFS Letters on Threatened and Endangered Species E. Enabling Legislation F. Participant List 6 I. APPLICATION, PURPOSE AND NEED A. Application The unincorporated community of Gustavus, with a population of I ,000 in the summer and 400 in the winter, is located 45 miles west of Juneau in Southeast Alaska. The land area is approximately 22 square miles. It is bounded by Glacier Bay National Park (GBNP) on the west, north, and east and by Icy Passage on the south. The headquarters for GBNP is located approximately eight miles by road from Gustavus. The lands proposed to be developed for hydroelectric purposes are presently located within GBNP, all no further than two miles east from the National Park Service/Gustavus boundary. Legislation was introduced in Congress to allow the study of this hydroelectric project and to allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to process a license application for the project. Should the project be determined to be feasible by FERC and a license is granted to Gustavus Electric Co. (GEC), the Dept. of Interior and the State of Alaska will consummate a land trade and the State of Alaska will take title to land necessary to build the hydroelectric facility. Part of this study process will be to determine the minimum amount of land necessary to do this. Over a period of four years, hearings were held by the House Resources Committee, the House Commerce Committee and the Senate energy and Natural Resources Committee. The House of Representatives passes this legislation on September 16, 1998 and the Senate followed on October 3, 1998. GEC has three years from that date to submit a hydropower license to the FERC. A copy ofthis legislation is part of Applicant Prepared Environmental Analysis (APEA). The applicant will not seek renewable resource benefits under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act. Financing for the project has not been determined yet, but must be in place before a license is issued. Rates for electricity produced by this project will be regulated by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission. An Initial Consultation Document for the project was issued on December I, 1998. First stage consultation meetings including a site visit, were held on January 19 and 20, 1999 in Gustavus and Juneau. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the FERC and the Dept. of Interior (DOl) to address concerns regarding the role of the DOl as a joint lead agency in the NEPA process. By letter of January 13, 2000, the FERC approved GEC's request to use the alternative licensing process, by which GEC would prepare an APEA in lieu of an Exhibit E, the environmental Report, which is traditionally filed with an Application for License. Scoping Document I was issued in March of 1999. Scoping meetings, including a site visit, were held in Gustavus and Juneau on May 6 and 7, 1999 and July 2, 1999. A "Walkabout" site visit of the footprint of the project was conducted on July 27 through July 30 for all interested participants. All researchers and engineers involved were in attendance. Scoping Document 2 was issued in November of 2000. Drafts of the Application for License and Preliminary Draft Environmental Analysis (PDEA) will be distributed for comment in May 2001 and the Application for License will be filed in October 200 I. 7 B. Purpose of Action The Commissions must decide whether of not to issue a hydropower license to GEC for the project, and what conditions should be placed on any license issued. Issuing a license would allow GEC to generate electricity at the project for the term of the license. The State of Alaska must decide what license conditions are necessary for the adequate protection of National Forest System lands, and whether to issue a special use authorization. The environmental and economic effects of construction and operation of the project, as proposed by GEC are assessed in this PDEA. The effects ofthe no-action alternative are also considered. C. Need for Power The project would be located in the service area ofGEC. GEC provides electrical service to all of the Gustavus community. GEC is an isolated electrical network with no interconnection to any other utility, electric generation system or transmission system outside their service territory. National Park Service (NPS) facilities at Bartlett Cove are served by a NPS owned and operated generating and distributing system at Bartlett Cove. This system is approximately 4-1/2 miles from the end of GEC's distribution system. It is expected that the NPS will want to intertie with the GEC distribution system once hydroelectric power is available, although they have not committed to this yet. Generation Resources of GEC and the NPS consist of all diesel electric generators. G EC has 1.1 MW of diesel generation capacity and the NPS has 500 kW of diesel generation capacity. Diesel fuel is purchased in bulk and barged to tank farms near the Gustavus dock and the dock at Bartlett Cove. In the case of GEC, the fuel is then trucked two miles to holding tanks at the generator building. Since all energy is currently being generated using diesel fuel fired generators, a clean need for the project power output to offset this fuel generation does exist at this time. GEC's historical loads grew from 43,000 kWhr per year in 1985 to 174,000 kWhr per year in 1998. A load growth forecast prepared by Southeast Strategies (see the power output study) projects the future load growth. Studies to determine the instream flow requirements for habitat purposes are still in progress. Until these studies are completed and instream flow negotiations finalized, we will not know how many kWhr will be available from the project. The project can provide up to 94% of the areas electricity needs, but instream flow requirements will lower that to an unknown figure. Final costs for the project will also not be known until the instream flow negotiations are complete. At this time we do not know the location or type of intake structure or details of the powerhouse. Finalizing instream flow requirements and the project design will be accomplished in communication and collaboration with all interested agencies and parties. 8 Power from the proposed Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project would be useful in meeting a large percentage of the Gustavus area's power needs. The project would displace diesel- fueled electric power generation and, thereby, conserve nonrenewable fossil fuels and reduce the emission of noxious byproducts caused by combustion of fossil fuels. Displacing fossil fuels would also reduce production of "greenhouse'' gases and reduce risk of oil spills associated with the handling and storage of these fuels. This is particularly important in the pristine environment of southeast Alaska and Glacier Bay where the project would be located. If the project license is denied, the power needs of the area would probably have to continue to be diesel generation. II. PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES The project area is located in northern Southeast Alaska, along Icy Strait and east of Glacier Bay (Figure I -see end pages). All place names used in this document are displayed on Figure 2 (end pages). A. Alternative 1: Gustavus Electric Proposal I. Relationship to public lands a. lands transferred to state ownership The act of Congress allowing GEC to submit an application for hydropower permit to FERC also designated a pool of Federal park lands in the Falls Creek area from which "the minimum amount of land necessary for the construction and operation of a hydro- electric project" could be selected by the State of Alaska. These lands, shown on Figure 3 (end pages) are: COPPER RIVER MERIDIAN T.6S., R. 12E., partially surveyed, Sec. 5, lots I, 2and 3, NEI/4, SI/4NWI/4, and SI/2. Containing 617.68 acres, as shown on the plat ofthe survey accepted June 9, 1922. T.6S., R. liE., partially surveyed, Sec. II, lots I and 2, NEI/4, SWI/2NWI/4, SWI/4, and NI/2SEI/4; Sec. 12; Sec. 14, lots I and 2, NWI/4NWI/4. Containing 836.66 acres, as shown on the plat ofthe survey accepted June 9, 1922. T.6 S., R. 12E., partially surveyed, Sec. 2, NW I /4NE I /4 and NW I /4. Containing 200.00 acres, as shown on the plat ofthe survey accepted June 9, 1922. T. 6S,. R. 12E., partially surveyed, Sec. 6 lots I through 10, El/2SWI/4 and SEI/4. Containing approximately 529.94 acres, as shown on the plat of survey accepted June 9, 1922. GEC's proposal is to convey all these lands to the state, with the exception of all lands E of the E lip of the Falls Creek Canyon (Figure 3). Not including accreted lands this amounts to about 1300 acres. 9 The effect of this proposal is to: • remove from the park all lands down-gradient from the project, and those lands surrounding the Native allotments; • establish a new park boundary that is easily described; and • provide both the state and the park with reasonable management units. b. Powerline across airport property GEC will request a permit from the State of Alaska Department of Transportation for emplacement of a buried powerline and unimproved Off-Road Vehicle(ORV) access trail from theSE corner of the main Gustavus airport runway access road thence NE to the NE corner of Sec. 9 (Figure 4 -end pages). 2. Access GEC proposes to access the project area as follows (Figure 4): • In Gustavus, use the existing Rink Creek road to its terminus, thence construct a new one-lane extension N & E through private property to the park boundary at a point above the lower flats. • Serve all portions of the hydro development within the (present) park via one lane gravel road, consisting of these segments: -An access road that angles WNW across-slope to a point just W ofthe strip fen - A service road that begins at the intake site; thence follows a grade S along the W wall of Falls Creek canyon (road segment a, see Figure 5) through the horseshoe area and to the head of the strip fen, at which point the Falls creek watershed is exited; thence SW along the brow of riser #3, through the old clearcut; thence back within the Falls Creek watershed roughly parallel with E boundary of Mills allotment to a point approximately opposite the lower falls; thence via a steep grade along the canyon wall to the powerhouse (road segment b, see Figure 6). This road will generally have a 14' drivable surface with a drainage ditch on its uphill side and cross drains at frequent intervals as appropriate to maintain present drainage patterns (Figure 7). The base will be constructed with woody debris and gravel or shot rock; the surface will be shot rock. Where the road runs within the Falls Creek canyon, it will be constructed in a full cut blasted into bedrock. Total cleared width will vary from 45' to 91 ',depending on the steepness ofthe slope to be traversed. • Acquire gravel or shot rock from private or state lands in Gustavus for the lower end of the access road (prior to riser #2); place an approximately 0.7 acre borrow pit at the base of riser # 2 (Figure 4) along access road for shot rock; plan for optional additional small pits in the horseshoe and old clearcut vicinities (but these are not expected to be needed, given the volume of shot rock expected to be produced in making full rock cuts along the road). 10 • Salvage all saw logs from road and facilities clearing. A void side-casting along all portions of roads inside the Falls Creek canyon (segments a & b), and on other slopes considered slide-prone; back-haul all waste material from these segments to a 0.5 acre disposal site (Figure 4) in poor forest S of the strip fen. On other road segments, dispose of all waste materials in roadbed construction or by side-casting. II Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project (Figure 5) .: Alternative 1 -Road Segment A Borrow Pit Fall6 Creek Hydroelectric Project (Figure 6) Alternative 1 ~ Road Segment B 200 0 200 400 Tyeical "Full bench'' bedrock cut Ditch width 3.5' Ditch depth 2' /_ Buried penstock Typical clearing road e;ection Variable clearing limit ~-------45' min. -------- 14' Roadbed width ,·· ' . Typical through cut e;ection Back haul overburden and ue;e as cru hed rock source Buried Penstock Minimum 24" of shot rock over debris suitable excavation excess. Fails Creek Hydroelectric Project (Figure 7) Typical Road Profiles Notes Theee road proflles are based on the US Forest Service Standards and Guidelines. See text for complete descriptions. The /:1aclcground /r;; an aerial/mage from 1999. ALASKA ~. ,. . ~~ ··~ ..... ....- 1000 .---.. I Feet 0 1000 Legend Project Area Access Road Service Road and Penstock 2000 . . . . · . Buried Power Line . .. ~ /\/ ~ / , / ' / N I I Penstock Falls Creek N Tributary Other Creek Contour Survey Line Section Line Borrow Pit site Disposal site • Restrict vehicular access to that necessary to construct, operate and maintain the hydro project; except, after construction, allow public vehicles up to a parking lot at the top of riser #2 (Figure 4). Seek a lease agreement with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources that restricts public access to the sorts described above. 3. Development plan (See Figure 4, and Appendix D for further design details) • Select a penstock intake site just below the islands, with an impoundment that would flood the islands. • Use an intake structure that employs an impoundment a maximum of 12 feet deep; a fish screen capable of excluding Dolly Varden fry from the penstock intake; and an automatically operated "bladder valve" arrangement to allow throughput of bedload during high flows. • Conduct water to the powerhouse site in a high density polyethylene pipe varying in nominal diameter from 30" at the intake to 20" at the powerhouse, with an automatic pressure activated check-valve at its upper end to interrupt the flow in the event of a pipe rupture. • Run the penstock from the intake to the powerhouse site generally following the service road route, except in places where the road will follow a grade inappropriate for the penstock; these include: a) at final approach to the powerhouse, b) down through the old clearcut, and c) just N of the strip fen. Bury the penstock in a 30 foot wide clearing away from the road; along the road, bury the penstock at edge of roadbed in areas where windthrow or rockfall might damage it, or where it crosses major mammal trails. • Construct the powerhouse on the toe of a stabilized colluvial lobe creekside 75' NE of Mills allotment boundary & three hundred yards downstream from lower falls; construct house as a two-story structure on pilings sunk to bedrock; build a vehicle turnaround pad partially atop pilings and partially incised into the colluvial lobe. • Pipe the tailrace into Falls Creek just below powerhouse; employ a structure that slows velocity to that of the ambient creek, reduces attraction to spawning fish, and precludes entry of juvenile fish. • Run the main powerline underground along an undeveloped ORV trail from the SE tip of the Gustavus runway to the NE corner of Sec. 9, thence along the south boundaries of Sees 3&4, crossing under Rink Creek, thence to Rink Creek road; thence buried in the access road and service road to the powerhouse. Fill in ruts in ORV trail as they develop to avoid any drainage alteration. Run a secondary power line in the road from the powerhouse to the intake site to operate equipment there. 15 3. Construction • Construct the project over a 24 to 36 month period. Stagger construction projects to keep the labor demand at any one time within the capacities of the local Gustavus labor force and existing housing opportunities. Maintain a labor force on the order of 15 persons. • The project avoids the shore area from the park boundary to Falls Creek during spring bear grazing on sedges (late April-early June). • Avoid earth work in the anadromous reach of Falls Creek during salmon runs ( late July early October). • Avoid felling live trees and snags during murrelet and passerine nesting season (June- august), and large diameter snags during the owl nesting season as well (March April). • Road construction: a) minimize root disturbance of adjacent trees in areas of moderate gradient by building roadbed atop intact root mat; b) minimize potential for slope failure in steep areas by employing full-rock roadcuts, cutting some ofthe trees along roadsides to reduce loading on the soil mat; and minimizing siltation potential where the road lies above Falls Creek by avoiding all sidecasting of spoil material there. • Salvage topsoil and vegetation as construction proceeds and use immediately for revegetation of road cuts and sidecasting slopes. Supplement with native grass seed as necessary to ensure quick establishment of a complete ground cover. • A void roading through wetlands to extent possible; where not possible, minimize changes in wetland hydrology by frequent cross drains. • Minimize cutting of large trees with high murrelet nesting potential, and removal of large snags and large woody debris. • During construction, have biologists in field with construction crew to suggest minor route and construction alterations to optimize tradeoffs between such environmental variables as wetlands, murrelet trees, snags, large woody debris, and animal trails. • During construction, notify nearby residents and users of schedule for machinery operation and blasting to minimize conflict with other uses and values. 4. Operation • Service the intake and powerhouse sites approximately weekly via road vehicle, or snowmachine during deep snow times. Roads will not be plowed. • Use road vehicles for access to all installations other than the powerline during summer, and snowmachines during snow periods. 16 • Use ORV's for powerline surveillance inside Gustavus. • Disallow the discharge of firearms along the service road, powerhouse and intake vicinities. • Retain status quo diesel as backup (see no action alternative for elaboration). • lnstream flow placeholder (instream flow constraints on project?) • Monitor these aspects of Falls Creek: Water quality (at powerhouse, yearly) Streamflow (continuous from gauging station at powerhouse) Bedload throughput a) past intake structure, b) to delta Bottom sediment composition in a) bypass reach and b) upper portion of anadromous reach (frequency?) Benthic invertebrates (every 5 years, in bypass and anadromous reaches) Anadromous fish escapement (each July-October) Resident Dolly Varden population index (bypass reach compared to upstream of intake site, yearly) • Develop a termination plan in cooperation with state and federal agencies and the community of Gustavus for the disposition of lands and facilities should the hydroelectric facility cease to operate or fail to be re-permitted. B. Alternative 2: Minimal socio-environmental impact hydro alternative (with diesel backup) 1. Relationship to public lands a. lands transferred to state ownership At variance with the GEC proposal, exclude from park an area comprising approximately 200 acres, defined as follows (Figure 8): • A corridor extending 250' (two tree lengths) on either side of the access and service road centerline, widened as necessary to include the penstock where it deviates from the road route; • An area of the Falls Creek canyon extending from the crest of one wall to the other, extending downstream 250' beyond the penstock intake structure and upstream 250' beyond the upper limit of the impoundment; • An area extending 250' in all directions from a point centered on the borrow pit at the base of riser #2. • Areas extending 250' in all directions from the center of all soil/woody debris disposal sites. 17 . . " . . " . . .. ~ /V ~ .. · /' v /. ~ Lt:gend Project Area Acce55 Road Service Road and Pen5tock Buried Power Line Pen5tock Fall5 Creek Tributary Other Creek Contour Survey Line Section Line Wetland5 Border Parle Land Private Land State/GEC Land 6000 • An area extending 250" in all directions from a point centered on the powerhouse structure. b. Powerline across airport property • Per the GEC proposal: request a permit from the State of Alaska Department of Transportation for emplacement of a buried powerline and unimproved Off-road vehicle access trail from the SE corner of the main Gustavus airport runway access road thence NE to the NE corner of Sec. 9. 2. Access (Figure 9) • Per the GEC proposal, in Gustavus, use the existing Rink Creek road to its terminus, thence construct a new one-lane extension N & E through private property to the park boundary at a point above lower flats. • Per the GEC proposal, serve most of the hydro development within the (present) park via one lane gravel road, consisting of these segments: An access road that angles WNW across-slope to a point just W of the strip fen; A service road that follows a grade through the horseshoe area and to the head of the strip fen; thence proceeds along the brow of riser #3, through the old clearcut; thence roughly parallel with E boundary of Mills allotment to a point at the canyon lip directly above the powerhouse. This road will generally have a 14' drivable surface with a drainage ditch on its uphill side and cross drains at frequent intervals as appropriate to maintain present drainage patterns. The base will be constructed with woody debris and gravel or shot rock; the surface will be shot rock. At variance with the GEC proposal, place all portions of the service road outside the Falls Creek canyon. This would be accomplished, first of all, by routing the initial portion of the service road [segment a]from the intake structure along a relatively gentle grade following a curved route to a holding tank on the canyon lip above the intake site, thence proceeding S through poor forest along the bog edge, crossing the culverted Greg Creek ravine to join the GEC proposed route at the horseshoe. This would be accomplished, secondly, by constructing a tunnel from the canyon lip directly down to an excavated cavern housing generators I 0' above creek level in lieu of that road segment [segment b]. • Per the GEC proposal, establish a borrow pit in base of riser# 2 along the access road for shot rock. At variance with the GEC proposal, acquire gravel only from the already- established state borrow pit in Gustavus for the lower end of the access road (prior to riser #2); if more material is needed, obtain from the above-mentioned pit or from state & private land. 19 Falls Crt:t:k Hydrot:ft:ctric Projt:ct .. (Figurt: 9) Altt:rnativt: 2 Projt:ct Layout Project Area Acce66 Road Service Road and Pen6tock Buried Power Line Pen6tock Fall6 Creek Tributary Other Creek Contour Survey Line Section Line Wetland6 Border Borrow Pit site Disposal site • Per GEC proposal, salvage all sawlogs. At variance with the GEC proposal, road segments a & b are eliminated; thus, almost all waste materials will be disposed of in the roadbed or by side-casting. The few remaining road segments located on steep terrain (access road up riser #2, service road ascending riser #3 S of strip fen) require much less back-haul of rock, soil and woody debris than does the GEC proposal, and thus requires a much smaller disposal siteS ofthe strip fen. • At variance with the GEC proposal, restrict vehicular access to that necessary to construct, operate and maintain the hydro project; allow no public vehicles onto project area either during or after construction. 3. Development plan (See Figures 4, 9 and Appendix D for comparison between alternatives 1 & 2) • At variance with the GEC proposal, emplace the penstock intake about 400' downstream and 12' lower in elevation than the proposed site, with an impoundment that would not flood the islands. • Per the GEC proposal, use an intake structure that employs an impoundment 8 to 12 feet deep; a fish screen capable of excluding Dolly Varden fry from the penstock intake; and an automatically operated "bladder valve" arrangement to allow throughput of bedload during high flows (Appendix D) At variance with the GEC proposal, construct a fish ladder to facilitate passage of Dolly Varden movement past the intake structure. • Per the GEC proposal, conduct water to the powerhouse site in a high density polyethylene pipe varying in nominal diameter from 30" at the intake to 20" at the powerhouse, with an automatic pressure activated check-valve at its upper end to interrupt the flow in the event of a pipe rupture. • Per the GEC proposal, generally run the penstock from the intake to the powerhouse site along route as described on Figure 4. At variance with the GEC Proposal, pump water from the intake structure straight up to a holding tank at the canyon lip, (Figure 1 0) from whence a penstock would be routed along an alternative road route (see description under "access", above) that avoids construction along the wall of the Falls Creek canyon. • At variance with the GEC proposal, construct the control building on bedrock at the canyon lip (Figure 11) overlooking the lower falls, from which a tunnel would extend to a cavern near creek level where the generator would be located. • Per the GEC proposal, employ a tailrace design that slows the returned water velocity to that of ambient creek, reduces attraction to spawning fish, and precludes entry of juvenile fish. 21 Fall6 Creek Hydroelectric Project (Figure 10) Alternative 2 .... Road Segment A Borrow Pit Fall!!; Creek Hydroelectric Project (Figure 11) Alternative 2---Road Segment B 200 0 Feet 200 400 At variance with the GEC proposal, pipe the tailrace into the plunge pool at the base of the lower falls, above the uppermost spawning bed for anadromous fish (Appendix D). • Per the GEC proposal, run the main powerline underground along an undeveloped ORV trail from the SE tip of the Gustavus runway to the NE corner of Sec. 9, thence along the south boundaries of sections 3&4, crossing under Rink Creek, thence to Rink Creek road; thence buried in the access road and service road to the powerhouse. Run a secondary line in the road from the powerhouse to the intake site to operate equipment there. 4. Construction • Per the GEC proposal, construct the project over a 24 to 36 month period. Stagger construction projects to keep the labor demand at any one time within the capacities of the local Gustavus labor force and existing housing opportunities. Maintain a labor force on the order of 15 persons. • Per the GEC proposal, avoid the shore area from the park boundary to Falls Creek during spring bear grazing on sedges (late April-early June); avoid felling live trees and snags during murrelet and passerine nesting season (June-august), and large diameter snags during the owl nesting season as well (March-April). At variance with the GEC proposal, avoid Falls Creek mouth entirely during salmon runs (late July-early October). • Per the GEC proposal regarding road construction: a) minimize root disturbance of adjacent trees in areas of moderate gradient by building roadbed atop intact root mat; b) minimize potential for slope failure in steep areas by employing full-rock roadcuts, cutting some of the trees along roadsides to reduce loading on the soil mat. At variance with the GEC proposal, further minimize the potential for siltation of Falls Creek by routing the service road entirely outside the canyon. • Per the GEC proposal, salvage topsoil and vegetation as construction proceeds and use immediately for revegetation of roadcuts and side-casting slopes. Supplement with native grass seed as necessary to ensure quick establishment of a complete ground cover. A void roading through wetlands to extent possible; where not possible, minimize changes in wetland hydrology by frequent cross drains. • More strictly than the GEC proposal, avoid rather than minimize cutting of large trees with high murrelet nesting potential, and avoid removal of large snags and large woody debris on all development sites and routes other than those of the above- ground portions of the penstock. In the case of the penstock, a grade must be held that precludes jogs to avoid specific spots, and above-ground portions thereof must be protected from falling trees. 24 • Per the GEC proposal, during construction, have biologists in field with the construction crew to suggest minor route and construction alterations to optimize tradeoffs between such environmental variables as wetlands, murrelet trees, snags, large woody debris, and animal trails. • Per the GEC proposal, during construction, notify nearby residents and users of schedule for machinery operation and blasting to minimize conflict with other uses and values. 5. Operation • Per the GEC proposal, service the intake and powerhouse sites approximately weekly. Transport by road vehicle or snowmachine. Road will not be plowed. • Per the GEC proposal, use road vehicles or ORV's for access to all installations except the powerhouse during summer, and snowmachines during snow periods. At variance with the GEC proposal, use tunnel to access the generator site. • Per the GEC proposal, disallow the discharge of firearms along the service road or in the powerhouse and intake vicinities. • Per GEC proposal, retain status quo diesel backup (see no action alternative for elaboration). However, upgrade storage and handling facilities to decrease the likelihood of spills. • lnstream flow placeholder • Per GEC proposal, monitor these aspects of Falls Creek, per se: Water quality (at powerhouse, yearly) Streamflow (continuous from gauging station at powerhouse) Bedload throughput a) past intake structure, b) to delta (at intake, frequency?) Bottom sediment composition in a) bypass reach and b) upper portion of anadromous reach (frequency?) Benthic invertebrates (yearly, in bypass and anadromous reaches) Anadromous fish escapement (each July-October) Resident Dolly Varden population index (bypass reach compared to upstream of intake site, yearly) At variance with the GEC proposal, add this monitoring of subjects potentially indirectly affected by the project: Human visitation to the project area Black bear spring usage of the shore fringe • Per the GEC proposal, develop a termination plan in cooperation with the state and the community of Gustavus for the disposition of lands and facilities should the hydroelectric facility cease to operate or fail to be re-permitted. GEC removes all facilities, and advocates that roads be reduced by natural revegetation to hiking trails, and that a land use designation compatible with adjacent park lands be adopted by the state. 25 L HI. NO ACTION (Status Quo Diesel Generation) A. Physical Plant The GEC installation is the only public power facility in Gustavus. Present power generation is via a diesel power installation situated near the Gustavus airport in buildings fonnerly housing generating facilities operated by the State of Alaska, and before that, by the Civil Aeronautics Administration. Prior to the GEC purchase in 1983, these facilities powered the airport complex and did not serve the community at large. Power is generated by one_Caterpillar & one Cummins unit with peak capacities of 300 & 250KW respectively. Fuel for these plants is received approximately 6 times/year by barge from Seattle, transferred ashore through a steel line attached to the Gustavus dock, and stored in two 20,000 gallon tanks in an above-ground tank farm near the dock. From there it is trucked to two 1500 gallon tanks at the generator facility. Fuel spill protective measures include: a retaining buffer around the tank farm & generator tanks response vehicle with retaining boom, and absorbent materials a complete facility response plan, filed with the US Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. GEC has replaced all former suspended powerlines, and now installs only buried lines. The present grid consists of 30 miles of main trunk and 15 miles of secondary lines. B. Service Area Power service now extends to all portions of Gustavus. Approximately four permanent residences are off the GEC power grid. About 430 businesses and private parties are presently served by GEC. Glacier Bay National Park has its own power installation at Bartlett Cove. The NPS grid, separated from that of GEC by about 5 miles, could be linked via the Gustavus-Bartlett Cove road. C. Present and Future Power Needs and Costs Power sales during 2000 averaged 5078 KW/day. Peak loads of280KW occurred during summer and winter. Peak power demands were least during spring and fall (about 220KW). Average cost to the consumer is $0.16/KWH up to 500KWH per month for residences. The state Power Cost Equalization program subsidizes the remaining cost of electricity for residential use. Power generation by GEC from (Table I) show a regular increase from about 42,000 KWH/Yr in 1985 to about 174,000 KWH/Yr in 1998. Despite a slight decline since then, power needs for the Gustavus area are projected to increase by about 45% over the next Decade (Coupe 2000a). National Park Service power generation has shown no clear trend, varying from 729,00 KWH/Yr to 865,000 KWH/Yr in 1999, and averaging about halfofthat ofGEC in recent years. 26 TABLE I Kilowatt Hours/Year generated by Gustavus Electric (Gustavus) and NPS (Glacier Bay National Park headquarters & Glacier Bay Lodge) Gustavus Electric National Park Service lli!~ 437,000 No data 502,000 No data 1987 589,000 No data 1988 687,000 No data 1989 734,000 No data 1990 892,000 No data 1991 I ,090,000 No data 1992 1,124,000 No data 1993 I, 188,000 730,000 1994 I ,457,000 825,000 1995 1,414,000 857,000 1996 1,625,000 854,000 1997 1,677,000 818,000 1998 1,734,000 756,000 1999 1, 713,000 865,000 2000 I ,694,000 No data IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED A. Powerhouse at Base of Excursion Ridge Between Allotments (Greg) Early in planning for the project, a design was considered that positioned the powerhouse at the base of the Excursion ridge between the two Native allotments. This first set of alternatives relates to that early plan. I. Access routes (Figure 12-end pages) a. Run the access road from the end of Rink Creek road SE across the flats to park boundary, thence E to the powerhouse; run the penstock and service road as straight as possible uphill from the powerhouse to the intake site. Run the powerline across the flats from SE end of the airport, thence ENE to Rink Creek behind the beach margin {S of the preferred route), thence NE to right-of-way between sections 3 & 10 (joining the preferred route just E of Rink Creek), thence across the flats to powerhouse. (Alt. A in Scoping Doc #I). This option was abandoned when the decision was made to move the proposed powerhouse to Falls Creek. That decision allowed rerouting of access to totally avoid the Gustavus flats with their environmental, aesthetic and engineering problems. It also allowed tailrace water to be returned directly to Falls Creek (see 2.a., below) 27 b. Route the access road along an old logging road route starting behind Beartrack Inn and proceeding along the base of the Excursion Ridge to the powerhouse (a partial permutation of A It A, above). This option would allow reuse of a route disturbed in the early 1970' --one that with minimal clearing and roadbed construction would take one right to the formerly considered powerhouse site. This option became moot with the repositioning of the proposed powerhouse at Falls Creek. It had the further disadvantage of requiring the permission of owners of both allotments, some of whom do not favor the project. 2. Water return (Figure 12) a. Run the tailrace water to a slough which enters Falls Creek in lower intertidal zone, bypassing anadromous reach. The earliest conception of the Falls Creek project involved return of tailrace water to Falls Creek via a slough that entered the creek low in the intertidal zone. This had the grave disadvantages of: potentially dewatering the anadromous portion of the creek during low flows, and confusing returning fish with Falls Creek water that could divert them into an unsuitable spawning channel. These problems and those accruing to access (see I.a., above) caused the reevaluation that resulted in the preferred alternative. B. Powerhouse in Falls Creek canyon, per GEC proposal Under this heading are grouped various ideas considered after the decision was made by GEC to place the powerhouse at Falls Creek. I. Access route (Figure 12) a. Run the access road from the SE end of the airport along the preferred powerline route to the park boundary, thence E across the flats then angling up the Excursion ridge to join the preferred service road about y; mile uphill from the powerhouse (portion of Alt. B in Scoping Doc # 1 ). This routing would result in the shortest and most direct access road. It was rejected early in planning because of: the large amount of wetlands it would traverse; the aesthetic detractions of crossing the open flats in the viewshed of Beartrack Inn, the Mills cabin, and the most-used hiker route along the beach; the access it would provide through important spring bear foraging habitat, water bird migratory habitat, and across a major mammal thoroughfare route; the engineering problems posed by the deep silts of the Gustavus shore. It was also predicated on reaching an agreement with Native allotment owners, which was not attempted. 28 b. Reroute the segment of the preferred access road route from Rink Creek road to the park boundary so that it runs across E across the flats. This route crossing a portion of the Gustavus flats has most of the flaws mentioned under "a", above. It was considered as an option by GEC because it utilizes only existing right- of-ways, and therefore became a last resort option the event that it became impossible to negotiate the preferred route with upland landowners. c. Run the powerline independent of road routes across the Gustavus flats from the park boundary, thence angling up the Excursion ridge to join the preferred service road about Y2 mile uphill from the powerhouse (portion of Alt. D in Scoping Doc # 1 ). This alternative would allow the shortest and most direct routing of the powerline, and therefore was considered early in planning. It was rejected because, unless the road followed the same route (per "a", above), it would require pioneering a separate route, with the attendant impacts and costs that would entail. 2. Access type a. Use a cable tram instead of access and service roads in all portions ofthe project E of the park boundary. Economic analysis showed this option to be far more expensive than a road based access system. b. Service the powerhouse with a short rail tram from the lip of the Falls Creek canyon in lieu of a road segment. This option was considered (Appendix D) as an alternative to a road and its potentials for landscape disturbance in this geomorphically and biologically sensitive locality. It was rejected when analysis showed that a tram would be much more costly than a road, and would still require a significant amount of landscape disturbance. 3. Intake design a. Employ an intake structure with a mechanical sluice-gate that allows bedload throughput only when opened by operator. An intake structure design was considered (Appendix D) that employed a simpler mechanically operated sluice gate. This avoids the added complexity of the automatically operated bladder gate and the need for an electrical power line to the intake site. It does not, however, allow a substantially natural throughput of bedload, and was rejected for that reason. 4. Powerhouse design 29 a. Run the tailrace from the preferred powerhouse site upstream to a position above all significant anadromous fish spawning areas. This would remove nearly all potential effects of the project on water flow to anadromous spawning and incubation portions of lower Falls Creek, and thus is an environmentally attractive option. It was rejected because of the difticulty and cost of routing the tailrace through this portion of the canyon, and the potential for causing further slope destabilization there. 5. Penstock route /Intake location a. Place intake just above horseshoe. Run penstock through tunnel to vicinity of strip fen, whence the penstock would continue per GEC's proposal. This routing would remove a problematic stretch of the planned penstock route. It was rejected for economic reasons, and because the resulting relatively low-elevation intake location would result in lost head. C. Other Hydropower Options To be reported in the next draft. D. Solar Power Option To be reported in the next draft. E. Wind Power Option To be reported in the next draft. F. Tidal Power Option To be reported in the next draft. G. Fuel Cell Power Option To be reported in the next draft. H. Coal To be reported in the next draft. I. Microturbine To be reported in the next draft. 30 J. Biomass To be reported in the next drafi. K. Intertie A bill was recently passed by the U.S. Congress to authorize (but not fund) electrically connecting various load and generation centers in Southeast Alaska. It has been suggested that, as an alternative to developing Falls Creek and perhaps present diesel generation as well, Gustavus could be added to the intertie network. This alternative was considered, but rejected for the following reasons: 1) Gustavus is not currently a part ofthe Southeast Alaska lntertie Plan. 2) The intertie is to be constructed over a thirty year period. Construction will begin in southern Southeast Alaska and is not scheduled for the northern portion until the last decade of this period. Thus, even if Gustavus were added to the plan, it would receive electric power from the intertie no sooner than 2021. 3) No funding has been appropriated for the intertie, and there is no guarantee that funding will be appropriated. 4) Conservation groups including the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council and the Sierra Club oppose the intertie. 5) A number of studies have found that under certain assumptions there may be some economic benefits to interconnect the larger load centers in Southeast Alaska (Coupe 2000a). However, small utilities such as GEC do not warrant the large capital investments required for transmission line; interconnection would be cost-effective only if the primary line was relatively close by. Though all aspects of the intertie remain speculative, a reasonable very preliminary estimate for a Hoonah Gustavus intertie is $15 million. For the above reasons, this alternative would not achieve the purpose and need that the GEC proposal is designed to address. V. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE A. List of Consulted Agencies & Other Parties To be provided in the next draft. B. Applicant Prepared EA Process; Iterative Consultation To be supplied with the next draft. C. Coastal Zone Consistency Determination The consistency determination process is underway, and will be reported upon fully in the next draft. 31 D. Compliance with Corps of Engineers Wetland Permitting The permitting process is undenvay, and will be reported upon fully in the next drqfi. E. Compliance with Endangered Species Act On February 14, 1999, Icy Strait Environmental Services wrote the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau Alaska, requesting information regarding species protected under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and subject to Section 7 consultation (50 CFR 402 et seq.). NMFS responded on March 18, 1999, (Appendix E) that two listed species, the Steller sea lion and the humpback whale, occur in the general vicinity of the project. It was determined by GEC that since the project has no marine component, no significant impact could accrue directly or indirectly to these species as a result of the proposed action. UDF&WS responded on March I, 1999, (Appendix E) that one listed species, the American peregrine falcon, occurs in the general vicinity of the project. However, subsequent to that time, the American Peregrine falcon has been delisted, and therefore is no longer of concern in the context of the Endangered Species Act. F. Compliance with NPS and ADF&G permitting Icy Strait Environmental Services (ISES) obtained annual permits from the National Park Service for research on the various disciplines for which it was responsible during the years 1998-2000. The 1999 permit also allowed an exception from NPS regulations on helicopter landings for the purpose of establishing and dismantling a field camp at the 500' level to support upland studies in the project area. Additional permits were received on 6/6&7/00, respectively, to remove wood and shell samples from the study area for radiocarbon dating, and to operate motorized drilling machinery for assaying gravel deposits. The latter permit was not used. Aquatic sciences, Inc. received a NPS permit for 2000 to pursue fish and invertebrate studies. R2 Consultants, Inc. has received research permits for instream flow studies for 1999 and 2000. The US Geological Survey received a NPS permit to install a stream gauge at the 600' foot level along Falls Creek, and to service it by helicopter during 1999 and 2000. GEC received a permit in 1999 for cutting of brush and trees of diameter less than 6" in the process of surveying. Aquatic Sciences and ISES received permits from ADF&G for the collecting of fish during 1999 and 2000. 32 G. Compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (Dick) A confirmatory letter from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has been requested. VII. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Description of the Study Area An area encompassing the likely effects of the project has been chosen for study in consultation with overseeing agencies and here termed the "Study Area" (Figure 13). Studies have been focused principally on a subset of the study area termed the "Project Area". The project area encompasses national park territory plus the adjacent portion of state and private lands in Gustavus between the airport and the park boundary (Figure 14). Figure 2 locates features named in the following description. The approximately 18 mi 2 study area lies within the wilderness boundaries of Glacier Bay National Park, except for two 160 acre native allotments that exist as inholdings within the park, and a 3 mi 2 portion of private and state land that extends from the Gustavus airport to the park boundary. This area encompasses portions of two very different landscapes, the easternmost margin of the Gustavus flats, and portions of the Excursion Ridge (Figure 13). 1. Gustavus Flats The Gustavus flats are a nearly level plain comprised of sandy glacial outwash sediments related to the most recent advance of ice in Glacier Bay that culminated about 250 years ago. These glacial outwash sediments were built into a former marine embayment, whose wave-etched edge today forms the western margin of the Excursion Ridge. The sands interfinger with a wedge of glacio-marine silts deposited by higher sea levels during the glacial maximum as nearby ice depressed the land. Rebound from these higher sea levels is ongoing, progressively baring the silts to colonization by terrestrial plant communities. These silts underlie supratidal portions of the project area from the mouth of airport slough, past lower Rink & Homesteader Creeks, to the mouth of Falls Creek. At low tide, they can be seen to extend as a huge mudflat I Y2 miles S of Falls Creek's mouth. The proposed powerline route is underlain by sand except along the Rink Creek estuary. The water table is often at or near the surface during wet months, except for the immediate vicinities of creeks and sloughs, which are progressively entrenching themselves in response to post-glacial uplift. An existing man-made ditch cutting across the flats along the proposed powerline route has somewhat lowered the water table in that locality, and intercepts surface flows during the wettest times. 33 LEGEND N ElcGur!Jion ~ area Gue~e Fl~ area N Faile Creek In-take Power-houee N. Road and Ponetock 5urb1Une New Road ~nk Crllllt Ji:oad Fa/1!5 Creek Hydroelectric Project (Figure 13) Study Area, Project Area, and Propo!5ed Hydro-Project Layout .25 0 Mlle5 -.5 Fem; 1.0 2,500 0 --2!)00 5,000 ALASKA .. •' ! • '• ... ., .. , ~ ... j - .... .... : "" , . ~ . r . • . ···: : : .; •• _.. .. .. ... 0 •. ' .. ·-..... . . ,; ..... . .. 1, ••• -6 . ,• . ' ~ . . -. ... ~ •• -... !.• . ' . . ... ~ ... . . • • " ~ • 0 • -.. -.... • : --•• ~ ·-.... "· :·. ;·_.... .. . ..... •J • • ' ~ ' • I .. •• I • ~ I • --~ :.: : _:. .- -· .. .· ... , .. .. •• 0. -, . ' •·' : . . . \ ··.·- ... -. ·' .. ·" -. ·"'·~.::. ' ..... '. .. ' ·. . ;_.· .'-;. ... :: ··: ·~ ·.'··' ·,. ..... 0 • ..._ -• • .. ·---.~~-;,.,. . '. ..-\ .. :· -"' .. 0 • ,, ... Falls Creek Hydro Project (Figure 14) Land Status Map Notes Thi5 map 15 l:la5~ on work dont: l;ly HDR Ala5ka, Inc., tht: Ala5ka Mt:ntal Ht:alth Tru5t and G. Strevt:lt:r for Gu5tavu5 Electric. The l:lackeround 15 from a USGS 1:63,360 topo map ALASKA Project Location 0.25 0 0 ~ 0.25 0.5 2000 LEGEND ~1 1 0: Project area 0.75 Creeks N ~Faile; Creek ~ Un-named Creek ~ Homee;teader Creek ~Rink Creek "'./'\:/ Airport Slough Land Statue; (State )Airport Mental Health Land True;t Native Allotment Other Private Plant communities on the Gustavus flats are in a state of rapid successional change. Their boundaries are in flux as they respond to marine regression and changing water tables. Soils are uniformly thin, generally poorly drained, and immature. The best drained sites along Rink and Homesteader Creeks are occupied by first-generation spruce forest that varies from a few decades old near the marine shore to about I 00 years old at the study area's northern boundary. Ditching near the airport has allowed the development of open cottonwood/spruce forest nearby. Elsewhere, the flats are occupied almost entirely by open fen and willow/sweetgale shrubland communities which are generally poor in upland localities but more luxuriant toward the shore. Above high tide, these communities interfinger with a mosaic of generally lush meadows that vary from sparse sandy barrens on a few dry bars, through lush umbel/lupine meadows on mesic sites, to grass/sedge/iris marshes on the wettest ones. These communities merge into sedge meadows or open flats below high tide. The most open wetlands are generally poor wildlife habitat. Mammal sign within them is sparse except on years of high vole abundance, when marten, weasel and coyote use can be substantial. Geese and, occasionally, cranes may stop over in the open areas during migration, but little nesting occurs in them. Certain places host significant crops of strawberries and nagoon berries on certain years, at which time black bears may frequent them. By contrast, shrub and lush herb communities within liz mile of the shore host considerable concentrations of wildlife, notably black bears and moose. Black bears are extremely abundant along the shore between Falls Creek and Rink Creek during spring, grazing on sedges and umbels arrayed in close proximity to excellent cover provided by the immediately adjacent Excursion Ridge. Black bears disperse to a degree through summer and fall, but remain common throughout shore communities. Moderate use is made of the summer/fall salmon resource in the creek and slough mouths. Moose now occur in significant numbers throughout Gustavus. Luxuriant willow thickets near the shore have become critical winter habitat during the last several years; very high densities can occur within them during peak snow times. A portion of the proposed powerline route east of Rink creek traverses this habitat type. Wolves, coyotes and brown bears are of occasional occurrence, mostly as transient individuals along the shore. Wolf predation on moose is extremely light. Marten can be common in the forests and forest margins; squirrels are generally abundant there. Otter family groups have occurred along the shore in past years, but only single individuals have been noted recently. Tidelands are heavily used by ducks, geese, brant, and shorebirds during migration. The low tide margin, the mouth of Falls Creek and the algae-carpeted flats behind the Falls Creek bar are especially heavily used. Resident Canada geese frequent the mouth of Rink and Homesteader Creeks, and graze the seaward margin of the sedge meadow along its entire length. 36 The settlement of Gustavus is spread diffusely across the outwash plain and uplifted tidal sediments, its eastern fringe extending into the study area. On the order of two dozen residences and summer cabins exist along and near lower Rink Creek road, which terminates at the only commercial facility in the project area, Beartrack Inn. Intensive human use of the portion of the flats within the project area began with homesteaders in the 1950's. No archaeological remains are known. Recreational opportunities are restricted by the brushy wetland terrain, but are most substantial along the shore. 2. Excursion Ridge By contrast to the Gustavus Flats, the Excursion Ridge portion of the study area is a relatively old landscape whose major features were last subject to alteration during the late Wisconsin ice age that ended approximately 14,000 years ago. Also unlike the alluvial flats, the Excursion Ridge is bedrock-controlled, being composed of late Silurian- early Devonian calcareous mudstone, moderately folded and locally mildly metamorphosed to slate and phyllite. Fold structures and related jointing appear to control gross topographic features, including the location and morphology of watercourses. All bedrock features have been abraded by intense glacial erosion, and in most cases stripped of unconsolidated sediment. Much of the topography within the project area has been sculpted into a series of gently rolling terraces delimited to seaward by steep risers, the lowermost of which has been incised by wave action into cliffs partially buried today by the recent construction of the Gustavus flats. Within the project area, Falls Creek flows mainly over bedrock and its course is structurally controlled. The creek follows the axis of a syncline in the reach that includes potential penstock inlet sites; below there, the creek jogs abruptly across the bedrock's structural grain and then occupies a deep canyon probably eroded along a fault-weakened crest of a bedrock anticline. Prior to the log jam, the creek once again abruptly turns across-grain and descends through the lower falls to the reach encompassing the potential powerhouse and penstock outlet sites. Sediments within the present creek canyon suggest that to some degree it was cut before the Wisconsin stage. Little unconsolidated sediment is present in the Falls Creek valley and gorge. Though erosion of the friable mudstone is rapid and coarse sediment transport by the creek consequently considerable, only a few places along the upper creek have accumulated significant deposits. Small but biologically important accumulations of sediment occur at places along upper Falls Creek, notably at the log jam, near the islands and within the big woods. By far the most voluminous accumulations are near the stream mouth. The uppermost of these is a weathered gravel deposit of possible pre-Holocene age in the vicinity of the log jam. Remnants of a large early post-glacial deltaic structure exist seaward of the lower falls. Still further seaward, the modern wave-modified delta is built over Neoglacial intertidal silts. Beginning about at the proposed powerhouse site, the stream flows through gravels which thin progressively until in the present upper intertidal zone, they form a veneer over the silts before lensing out altogether at about the 14' tidal level. Continued bedload throughput is probably critical to maintaining a spawning gravel carpet in the intertidal creek bottom. 37 Small-scale karst features, lime-rich resurgences, and high levels of bicarbonate in Falls Creek water all attest to the pervasiveness of calcium carbonate in the watershed. Consequently, Falls Creek water is highly buffered against the considerable acidic input from the peats and podzols in its watershed. Turbidity is low, even during high water stages. Water quality indices are high. There is no indication of human influence on the water quality of Falls Creek at present. Flow rates vary from 4 to 1500 cubic feet per second, the normal range being between I 0 and 100 cfs. The invertebrate and algal biota of Falls Creek are not abundant, perhaps due to the mobility of the bedload. A small number of Dolly Varden char occupy the creek from above the lower falls to an elevation of at least 900 ft, being concentrated in the occasional low-gradient, sediment-rich reaches. Work to date suggests that the reaches potentially affected by the project may host two or more small, self-sustaining populations. The reaches of Falls Creek seaward of the lower falls maintain dense spawning aggregations of pink salmon, plus smaller numbers of spawning chum salmon, coho salmon, cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden Char. The best spawning habitat for the pinks is in the intertidal reach. Spawning habitat above the proposed powerhouse site contains areas important for chum and especially coho salmon. Coastrange sculpins are resident. Rearing trout, char and especially cohos are present, but rearing habitat has been judged scarce and mostly restricted to the reach below the proposed powerhouse site. Soils are far deeper and better developed than on the Gustavus flats. The most prevalent soil-forming processes are organic accumulation and podzolization. Most soils are wetland types except on the steepest slopes, and peat accumulations can be in excess of six feet. The mudstone bedrock weathers readily to clay. This, in combination with the deep organics and steeply-dipping, thinly-bedded bedrock, makes mass movement a major concern for road building and facilities construction. Below the alpine/subalpine meadow and shrub communities, the study area is cloaked in hemlock/spruce forest wherever drainage is sufficient and mass wasting is not too severe. Forests on the relatively steep slopes of terrace risers, canyon sides and riparian alluvium tend to be the most luxuriant, dominant trees attaining maximum girths of 4-7 feet. These forests also tend to have the greatest percentage of spruce, though hardly ever does that species predominate. Mortality possibly related to spruce bark beetle attack over the last two decades has resulted in the considerable reduction of large spruces in many localities. Luxuriant forests tend to have a rich but patchy understory of blueberries, menziesia, devil's club, other shrubs and forbs. Windthrown trees are common, mostly as broken- off rather than uprooted individuals. Thus the root mat is seldom disrupted, which probably explains the apparent stability of slope soils despite their potential lability due to the underlying clay layer. 38 Less luxuriant hemlock forests are prevalent on the more moderate slopes at the brows and feet of risers, and may form extensive mosaics with fens (less often bogs) at their margins. These forests are comprised of smaller, generally more widely spaced trees less subject to windthrow. Some occur on well-drained soils, but generally are forested wetlands. The trees are typically surrounded by a dense and lush substratum of shrubs, often interlaced with skunk cabbage swales and fens rich in crabapple and alder. Berry crops, especially blueberries, can be abundant. Fens are common in gently sloping localities where groundwater wells up, typically in a mosaic with poor forests and bogs. They are the study area's most aesthetically pleasing community, comprised of a wide variety of trees and shrubs with diverse physiognomies scattered through a grass/sedge understory rich in flowering forbs. Fens contains more species of floristic interest than other communities in the project area. Berries such as highbush cranberry and nagoon berry can be abundant, and herbs such as sedge, deer cabbage and buckbean may be used extensively by grazers. Loose, deep fen peats are extremely susceptible to damage and drainage alteration by foot or vehicular traffic. Bogs occur on sites most remote from sources of groundwater in contact with bedrock. Thus they tend to be found on the centers of terraces remote from runoffthrough shallow soils, and are extensive only on the third and largest terrace. There are two phases: one dominated by a turf of moss and heath family subshrubs; the other by wiry sedges and clubrush. In both phases, trees and shrubs are widely spaced and typically stunted. Pine is the predominant tree. Compared to fens, bogs are unproductive of berries or herbaceous forage, but crops of crowberry, bog blueberry, cloudberry and buckbean in the moss/heath phase are used on occasion by the local fauna. Bog peats are typically deep, and in the case of the sedge/clubrush phase, extremely fragile. Excursion Ridge habitats maintain a wide variety of larger mammals, the most abundant of which are black bears and moose. Black bears range through all plant communities. Their sign is most frequently encountered in fens and along forested riparian and shore margins, but can be frequent in upland forest margins during the berry season. They have established a network of well-used trails in a pattern often dictated by the topography These trails are used in part to move through upland habitats to access shore and lowland riparian communities. Only a few individuals appear to regularly exploit the spawning salmon resource. Moose have become common in Excursion Ridge plant communities in the last couple of years, and now range widely. The most concentrated use of the area is by cows with calves during early summer in riparian corridors. A wide variety of forage species is utilized. Marten sign is abundant in forests and fen margins. Mink and otter occur along lower Falls Creek, but appear to be scarce or absent in the uplands. Brown bears, wolves and coyotes occur as occasional transient individuals. Porcupines are locally common, especially along watercourses. Squirrels are surprisingly uncommon at present, as are voles. 39 Among resident birds, the most significant may be marbled murrelets, which nest in similar forests in other parts of southeast Alaska. Ravens are scarce. Homed owls and red-tailed hawks apparently nest in the project area on some years. Mergansers and dippers raise young along Falls Creek's middle elevations, but there is no evidence that harlequin ducks do. Kingfishers nest along the lowest reach. Paired Canada geese visited upland sites during early summer, and one old nest was found in luxuriant forest, but no nesting was noted this year. Present human use of the Excursion Ridge portion of the study area is minimal, being mostly restricted to occasional hikers visiting the shore and the lower falls. The only structure is an occasionally occupied cabin at the mouth of Falls Creek. Past use of the area includes two episodes of logging. The first of these, from about 191 0-14, resulted in several dozen acres of horse-assisted clear-cutting at far point. The second, from about 1969-73, resulted in clear-cutting of more than 50 acres on the lower terrace in the two native allotments. The latter episode of logging resulted in a primitive (now abandoned) road linked to the Gustavus road system. The only identified indication of pre-Caucasian use of the area is several culturally modified hemlock trees in the vicinity of the proposed powerhouse site. Recreational use of the area consists mostly of beach hiking and occasional visits to the lower Falls Creek falls. Visits to the uplands are rare; hiking opportunities there are substantial, but made difficult by intervening brush in the lowlands. B. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives I. Geology and Soils a. Affected Environment Elements are not in place for evaluation of the seismic hazard for the general region; however, these things can be said (Homer 1988): • An area of intense seismicity is associated with the Fairweather fault system 50 miles to the west; • One moderate earthquake (magnitude >6) had its epicenter 30 miles SW from the project area during the last century. • The east Glacier Bay -Lynn Canal region, including the study area, shows relatively low seismicity compared to the region to westward. Gustavus flats in the project area, a sand/silt plain sloping gently seaward, has little or no potential for destabilization by minor construction activities (Mann and Streveler 1999), except perhaps along the banks of entrenched streams like Rink Creek. Excursion ridge bedrock weathers to clay under study area soils, forming a layer along which slope failure can occur (Mann and Streveler 1999). The predominant histosol soils contain generally moderate to deep organic horizons, except on the steepest slopes (Mann and Streveler 1999) such as those along the walls of the Falls Creek canyon (Mann 2000). 40 Soils are underlain in places by unconsolidated sediments ranging from clayey tills to sandy alluvial gravels. The potential instability of sediments and soils is counteracted on most slopes by a continuous fabric of living tree roots (Mann 2000). This fabric has seldom been interrupted under existing natural conditions in the study area: windthrows generally involve trunk breakage rather than uprooting. However, windthrow has been more extensive along the margins of recently clearcut areas on the Mills native allotment. Bedrock fabric dips steeply into the slope along Falls Creek canyon at and downstream from the proposed intake structure, making it a relatively stable roadcut host in this area (Mann 2000). However, five mass movement deposits have been identified in unconsolidated materials along the portion of the canyon slope likely to be traversed by the proposed service road and penstock. One of these deposits has failed in the last 2-5 years (Mann 2000), illustrating the labile nature of unconsolidated deposits and soils atop the bedrock here. Bedrock fabric dips in the direction of the slope along the steep canyon wall along proposed road segment b (Figure 2 of Mann 2000) where the proposed service road descends to the powerhouse, making this bedrock segment conducive to instability (Mann 2000). Several debris lobes in the proposed powerhouse vicinity, directly adjacent to the anadromous reach of Falls Creek, attest to past instability but presently appear inactive (Mann 2000). Other segments of the proposed service and access roads traverse steep faces of risers # 2&3. Bedrock fabric is unknown there, but soils and underlying unconsolidated materials are subject to the constraints discussed above (Mann and Streveler 1999). Bedload throughput in Falls Creek appears to be considerable (Mann and Streveler 1999). This may be crucial in replenishing aquatic habitats (Flory 2001 ). Copious input may be critical to the delta, where the tendency of the creek to cut into silts is apparently counteracted by input of coarser materials from upstream. It is not yet clear what proportion of materials reaching the delta originate from as far upstream as the proposed intake structure (Mann 2000). However, a large source of gravel occurs above the I Okm falls, where avalanches have removed surface vegetation and pushed underlying material into the stream (Flory 200 I). Smaller gravel sources exist both above and below the proposed intake site. The stream gradient through the bypass reach ·is relatively steep with a substrate composed primarily of cobble/boulder and bedrock. This reach is probably "supply limited" for sediment sizes up to and including coarse gravel. Thus, the ability of the bypass reach to convey sediment appears to exceed the quantity of sediment supplied at the upstream end of the reach (Beck 200 I). In contrast to these conditions, Falls Creek has a milder gradient averaging 0.7% for the 2.5 miles upstream from the proposed bypass reach, and is more substantially gravel bedded. The substrate characteristics within this reach are likely more indicative of the characteristics of the sediment actually transported through the bypass reach. Within this reach with the milder gradient, there will likely be a portion that is "transport limited" 41 where the quantity of sediment supplied matches or exceeds the ability of the reach to convey the sediment (Beck 200 I). b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations i. Slope and soil stability Construction-related Effects Buried powerline construction across the Gustavus flats will have no destabilizing effect on soils, nor will the ORV trail associated with it. Road construction on steep slopes of the Excursion ridge, especially segments on the preferred route a) traversing the canyon wall down-gradient from the intake site and b) descending to the powerhouse, will expose fines (gravel, sand, silt and clay) in the subsoil to mass wasting and runoff. Probabilities are high in the cases of the segments a and b that some of the fines will enter Falls Creek, especially before revegetation stabilizes open soils. Movement of fines would be greatest during storms, and could be catastrophic if major mass wasting events are triggered. An earthquake occurring at a time of heavy precipitation could exacerbate this potential. Mitigations: see the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Alternative 2 avoids construction of road segments a and b, the only segments within the Falls Creek canyon, thus greatly lowering the risk that the project would negatively impact Falls Creek. Construction associated with the intake structure will cause minor soil disturbance, which could lead to some input of fines to the creek, especially if high-water events coincide with construction. Mitigations: see the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Construction associated with the proposed powerhouse on pilings should not destabilize the colluvial lobe on which it is situated, so long as the root mat is not disturbed, but the vehicle tum-around will be deeply incised and may destabilize the uphill portions of the lobe. Mitigations: see the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. All impacts to this site would be avoided by Alternative 2, which places a control building on bedrock at the canyon lip and connects to a creekside generator via tunnel. Long-term Effects No problems are anticipated on the Gustavus flats. On road segment "a", the bedrock structure is conducive to stability, but at least five bodies of overlying sediment have failed at various past and recent times. The present continuous tree root carpet will be cut by road construction. Any rock, sediment, soil or 42 woody debris mobilized on this steep slope is very likely to end up in the creek. A second impact potential arises from the possibility of penstock rupture. The penstock routed as proposed by GEC could, if ruptured, cause a large rush of water downslope with considerable erosive effect. Materials entrained by this water could drain into Falls Creek if the rupture occurred either at the Greg Creek crossing or at the crossing of the unnamed ravine just downslope of the old clearcut. Mitigations: Felling certain trees within 45-91 feet of the right-of-way centerline and leaving their root masses intact is expected to lessen but not eliminate the potential of road-building for mass wasting. This mitigative tool must be balanced against the competing imperative to leave as many high-potential murrelet nesting trees as possible (see IV.B.3.b.iii.) and maximizing the wind-firmness of forest openings (see IV.B.4.c.iii.). A check valve installed at the upper end of the penstock will restrict the potential volume of any spill to the amount of water contained by the pipe up-gradient from the rupture. Along road segment b and associated vehicle turnaround, bedrock bedding planes are not conducive to stability, and several lobes of unconsolidated debris on the footslope above the creek indicate former episodes mass wasting (Mann 2000). Felling trees along the right-of-way margins to reduce loading on the slopes is not feasible at the road segment terminus or turnaround due to murrelet nesting considerations. The risk that the proposed roadcut & turnaround will destabilize the slope they transect is therefore considerable. Any rock, sediment, soil or woody debris mobilized on this steep slope is very likely to end up in the anadromous reach ofFalls Creek. Mitigation: The vehicle turnaround pad will be placed partially on pilings or fill to minimize the size of the incision into the slope. The proposed powerhouse itself is not expected to have major destabilizing effects. Minor soil disturbance associated with the intake structure is not expected to be long- term. No stability problems will be associated with the borrow pit. Tree root mats on the site chosen for soil and woody debris disposal would not be interrupted by disposal activities, nor is this site's moderate slope conducive to failure. Thus, no increase in slope stability is anticipated from either the GEC proposal or alternative 2. Access routes and modes in Alternative 2 avoid construction of the two most problematic road segments and thus greatly diminish the likelihood of slope failure or sedimentation into Falls Creek as a consequence of the project. Erosion and Sediment control Plan Plan under preparation; will be included in next draft. 11. Bedload throughput (Figure 15) Construction-related Effects 43 Alternative 1 Impoundment site Fall5 Creek Hydroelectric Project (Figure 15) Alternative 1 and 2 Impoundment Pond Footprint5 Legend D Spawn lne eravel D Cobb lee; and Bouldere; 112] Bedrock Qrool fill GraveiBar Q Flooding Zone 0 The Islands Alternative 2 Impoundment site 200 400 Under either alternative, bedload could be interrupted for a month during construction, which should have minimal effect on throughput, given that construction would occur during summer when bedload transport is generally minimal. Long-term Effects The intake design for both alternatives would be programmed to automatically allow unimpeded bedload throughput at all flows predicted to naturally entrain bedload materials. However, the proposed diversion dam intake structure might impact the transport of sediment through the bypass reach in the following two ways: I. Temporary disruption of sediment supply to the bypass reach caused by deposition upstream from the diversion dam intake structure. 2. Potential reduction of transport capacity through the bypass reach caused by partial diversion of flow to the powerhouse. These two effects may temporarily halt or slow down the supply of sediment through the bypass reach and to the anadromous reach downstream from the Lower Falls and may impact the quality of spawning habitat. Mitigation: GEC proposes to mitigate for the first effect by supplementing the bypass reach with gravels similar in quantity and grain size composition to those trapped upstream from the diversion dam intake structure. The second effect is considered to be insignificant because GEC proposes to divert little or no flow around the bypass reach when flood conditions prevail on Falls Creek. A sediment monitoring and management plan is in place to monitor the volume and grain size characteristics of sediment trapped upstream from the diversion dam intake structure and to supplement the bypass reach with gravels similar in grain size composition and quantity to those trapped upstream. Key elements of this plan include a Pre-Construction Survey, followed by Post- Construction Monitoring and Gravel Supplementation (Beck 200 I). iii. Earthquakes Given the amount of debris along the Falls Creek canyon at or near the maximum angle of repose, any major earthquake is likely to mobilize sediment into the creek. Steep areas along road segments a & b are likely to be among those prone to slide under these conditions. Mitigation: All side-casting will be avoided along these road segments and trees will be cleared out to a width of up to 90 feet to minimize loading and consequent destabilization of the steep slopes these segments traverse. 2. Aquatic Resources This crucial section is incomplete at this time pending finalization of the instreamjlow analysis. a. Affected environment Falls Creek water quality data from various seasons and flow stages at the approximate locations of the proposed intake and powerhouse sites depict a stream in pristine 45 condition(Streveler 200 I). Of 23 measured parameters including hydrocarbons, heavy metals, suspended & dissolved solids, nutrients and physical properties, only two --pH and total nitrogen --showed noteworthy values. The pH range of 6.8 to 8.2 reflects the pervasive carbonate-bearing rocks of the watershed and suggests relatively minor influence of acidic soils on the creek's water chemistry. Total nitrogen was considerably higher during high flow than at other stages, suggesting greater influence of runoff through soils at that time. During 2000, water temperatures recorded at the upper and lower stream gauges operated by the USGS were very similar (Table 2): Table 2 upper gauge lower gauge DAILY MEAN TEMPERATURES, FALLS CREEK USGS data (Oct 1999-Jan 2001) highest mean= I O.OC Lowest mean= 0.1 C Highest max = ll.l C Lowest min= OC 9.7 O.OC 10.7 OC Resident Dolly Varden, the only fish species above the lower falls of Falls Creek, may comprise two or more discrete populations. Genetic analyses based on four loci suggest that fish sampled at the big woods (well upstream of either alternative intake site) and the log jam (in the bypassed portion of the creek) may be genetically differentiated, and therefore that two reproductively distinct resident populations may exist (Leder 2001 ). Since resident Dolly Varden habitat is segmented into four pieces by barriers (above the Lower Falls) presumably impassible to upstream fish movement (Figure 3 of Flory 2001 ), the possibility that more than two distinct resident populations exist cannot be excluded. The considerable variation in average growth rates, condition indices and body proportions from reach to reach (Flory 2001) may thus in part be genotypic. The proposed intake sites are bracketed by the 2m falls and the upper falls. The best fish habitat in this segment lies within the impoundment area of the proposed intake site and upstream of the alternate intake site; below either site in that segment, trap results indicate far sparser fish concentrations (Flory 2001 ). Above the 2m falls, there are no barriers in 6km of stream up to the 1 Okm falls, which apparently sets the upstream limit of fish in Falls Creek. Resident Dolly Varden are distinguished by their slow growth rate, short lives (up to about 8 years) and small adult size (up to about 20cm total length). Genetic analysis indicates that Falls Creek resident fish are reproductively distinct from two sampled anadromous stocks from nearby streams at Gustavus and Sitka respectively(Leder 2001 ). Successful reproduction requires the availability of suitable spawning habitat. Spawning substrate for the small-bodied Dolly Varden in Falls Creek is thought to consist of I to 4 em gravel. No observations of spawning or redds have been made in Falls Creek, but individuals were observed in spawning colors on October 3-4 and 25-26, 2000. The probable time of spawning is late October to mid-November. This concurs with timing of spawning observed for resident Dolly Varden on Admiralty Island, southeast Alaska (Blackett 1968). Little is known about the preferred spawning depths and velocities of 46 resident Dolly Varden. Sixteen female Dolly Varden of similar body size to Falls Creek residents were observed spawning in a Japanese stream, largely where water depths were 5 to 15cm (2 to 6 inches) and velocities were 10 to 20cm/s (0.33 to 0.66ft/s) (Kitano & Shimazaki 1995). Although this provides an example of the conditions under which spawning is possible for small-bodied individuals, other conditions should not be ruled out as being unsuitable or less preferable. Appropriate spawning habitat appears to be mostly confined to deeper pools or behind obstructions. Given the potential for siltation atop these gravels on the one hand and their apparent lability on the other, relatively few patches may allow successful incubation and fry emergence. The proportion of substrate suitable for spawning varied from around 2% in Reach 3 to around 15% in Reach 4 and 30% in Reach 7. Periodic high flows may be critical for flushing silts from these deposits to allow sufficient oxygenation of eggs and to ease fry emergence (Flory 2001 ). Resident fry have rarely been observed in Falls Creek, but two individuals observed in 2000 were each located at the stream margins at depths of around two inches and velocity of zero. Fry are protected from predation by older fish in these areas since there is insufficient depth for larger fish to enter. Rainbow trout fry have been found to prefer shallow, sheltered areas (Bray 1996). Payne & Lapointe (1997) noted that shallow, low- velocity edge areas, prevalent at the inner sides of stream bends, were preferred by brown trout fry. Habitat utilization by juvenile and adult resident Dolly Varden (ages 2-7) was examined in Falls Creek at low and high stream flow. Day and night observations were made of depths and velocities occupied by fish. The small-bodied residents were found to occupy lower velocities than has been reported for larger Dolly Varden in other streams (R2 Resource Consultants 2000). Pool habitats are well buffered against low flow events; riffle environments that dominate the bypass reaches will be most affected by water extraction, especially if accompanied by winter ice. Access to habitats is just as important as the presence of suitable habitat within a system. Some over-wintering areas may become inaccessible due to freezing of connecting riffles, requiring fish to migrate to suitable areas prior to the onset of winter low flows. High flows in spring and fall may be necessary for migration between spawning, over- wintering and rearing grounds. However, recapture of marked fish at the point of original capture and the continuous range of size classes noted during winter trapping suggests that little large-scale seasonal movement occurs (Flory 2001 ). Low temperatures reduce the swimming ability and critical holding velocity for fish, which affect their ability to avoid predators and adverse physical conditions of ice, low oxygen, winter freshets and dewatering of stream sections. Energy expenditure is minimized at low temperatures in winter by selection of positions in low-flow microhabitats with suitable cover from adverse conditions (Cunjak 1996). Resident Dolly Varden in Falls Creek were captured in minnow traps placed in deep pools with large woody debris in February 2000. Other salmonids (brown trout, brook trout, cutthroats and rainbows) have been found sheltering amongst boulders sometimes 15-30cm below substrate surface, and beneath undercut banks and shelf ice (Cunjak 1996). 47 Low winter flows and ice accumulation can reduce the area of suitable habitat. Frazil ice may partially fill pools and leave the remainder of the pool unsuitable by concentrating the water flow. Limited winter habitat space together with more restricted habitat requirements of fish may result in severe competition among fish in winter. Winter conditions may therefore, ultimately limit fish population size. A combination of very low discharge and high ice accumulation was found to contribute significantly to substantial mortality of juvenile Atlantic salmon in eastern Canada (Cunjak & Randall 1993). lvfore to come on resident fish instream flow analysis here soon. Fish of Falls Creek's anadromous reach below the lower falls include coho, pink and chum salmon, cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden char and coastrange sculpins (Armstrong and Streveler 1998). Pink salmon, the most abundant salmonid species, spawn from late July to late September. Escapement estimates for the last two years range from over 8000 ( 1999) to about 900 (2000). During 1999, they were observed along the entire reach up to the falls; during 2000, 89% of pink salmon were counted below the old log bridge in the intertidal zone (Flory 2001 ), where previous research showed a very high density of eggs to exist (Cantillon 1969). Chum salmon spawn from mid-July to mid-August in much lower numbers than pinks, varying from about 100 in 1999 to about 700 in 2000. In 2000, 34% of chum salmon were observed below the log bridge and 36% were observed upstream of the proposed powerhouse site. A run of cohos, estimated to be less than 100 individuals, spawn from mid-September to early November; 76% were observed above the powerhouse site in 2000. Of all the salmon spawning habitat between the old log bridge and the lower falls, 40% upstream of the proposed powerhouse site (Figure 1 Ob of Flory 2001 ). Adult Dolly Varden and cutthroat trout have been observed in Falls Creek during salmon spawning. apparently foraging on salmon eggs. Spawning has not been observed (Flory 2001). Salmon eggs overwinter in the substrate. Fry hatch in early spring with pink and chum leaving the stream before summer. Juvenile cohos, Dolly Varden and cutthroats, and sculpins, are known to occupy the entirety of reach 1 during summer. Limited trapping during winter has demonstrated the presence of juvenile cohos and sculpins only. Falls Creek is connected at low tide to Rink & Homesteader Creeks, as are several small sloughs that meander across the flats then head on slopes of the Excursion ridge. All are crossed by the proposed access road. Species occupying these streams are shown in Table 3. Rink Creek salmonid escapement has not been enumerated, but small numbers of coho, pink, and chum have been observed. Cutthroat trout and coastrange sculpin were found in minnow traps near the road crossing point in July 1999 (Flory 2001). 48 TABLE 3 Species Presence in Potentially Impacted Streams Species Pink Chum Coho Dolly Varden Cutthroat Sculpin Homesteader p p p p p p Rink p p p L p p Sloughs L L p I I p P =presence confinned by observation; L =presence likely; I intennittent use likely ------···---·--· ----~·--------------- Homesteader Creek has a high density of adult coho, pink and chum salmon during the spawning season, but escapement has not been monitored. Minnow trapping in July 1999, confirmed the presence of Dolly Varden, cutthroat trout, coastrange sculpin and juvenile coho. The sloughs are short (< lf:z km), narrow (< 2m), winding streams that branch off from the two larger creeks or drain the first riser west of Falls Creek. Depth varies by more than I m during the tidal cycle, and substrate varies from fine, silty mud to 3cm gravel. Sculpin have frequently been observed in all sloughs, while coho were observed attempting to spawn in the slough nearest to Falls Creek in 1999. Synopsis of anadromous fish instream flow studies here. Benthic invertebrates are sensitive indicators of stream productivity, water quality and habitat characteristics. Rapid bioassessment techniques have been applied to the benthic invertebrate fauna of Falls Creek at four sites, below and above the proposed intake and powerhouse sites, respectively (Flory 2001 ). Samples collected in 1999 and 2000 will allow determination of individual species densities and total biomass or biovolume per unit area. Gross examination determined the prevalence of mayfly and stone fly larvae. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations i. lnstream flows and Resident Fish, Bypass Reach The extraction of water to Generate hydropower per the GEC proposal would place 2875 m of resident fish habitat (above the Lower Falls) in the "bypass reach". By comparison, alternative 2 reduces this figure to 2775 m. However, the I 00 m left out of the bypass reach in this way contains some of the most productive fish habitat in the system (the islands). More instream flow discussion to come here soon. 49 Construction-related Effects Road building and tree removal produce fine material that can accumulate in the bed substrate and reduce spawning success (Flory 200 I). Effects of road construction at Falls Creek could lead to transport of fines into the stream. However, input of fine material does not necessarily lead to significant fines enrichment of gravel if there are sufficient hydraulic forces (high flows) to transport fine material away. High flows in Fall may remove some or all fines introduced into the stream during summer. Construction should be avoided after the fall high flow period and during incubation of embryos (October to April). Mitigation: See Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Long-term Effects Assessment of the impacts on the fish populations residing in the bypass reach entails evaluation of the different requirements of the fish at different life stages and at different times of the year. Table 4 summarizes the potential impacts to each life stage or state of resident Dolly Varden. Reproduction Conditions appropriate for spawning of these small-bodied fish are probably tightly constrained by the size of substrate they can move and the scarcity of sites where such sediments are both stable and not subject to siltation. The project and Alternative 2 both have potential for altering conditions under which these types of substrate can occur. Mitigation: Considerable latitude for protection of other possible spawning conditions has been built into the PHABSIM instream flow model as applied to Falls Creek. Successful completion of recruitment requires maintenance of suitable conditions throughout the incubation period. The inundation of spawning gravels with fine sediments can occur when flow is greatly reduced leading to limited oxygen availability for developing embryos and reduced survival to emergence (Chapman I988). The emergence of salmon fry from the gravel bed can also be mechanically blocked if gravel substrate is not sufficiently coarse (Payne & Lapointe I997). Sufficient interflow of water through gravel with near saturated oxygen levels is necessary throughout incubation (Imhof et al I996). The greatest concern in this regard is siltation. Mitigation: See Erosion and Sediment Control Plan In Falls Creek, spawning habitat is mostly confined to deeper pools where the likelihood of redd stranding is minimal, but reduction in velocities, while perhaps not discouraging spawning activity, could lead to increased deposition of fine material. In a western Colorado river, high flows were required at least every 3 years to remove undesirable accumulations of sediment in gravels and maintain suitable spawning habitat (Milhous I998). Given that water extraction at Falls Creek will have a proportionately small impact on high flows, since the amount of water deflected will represent a smaller percentage of the total flow, then it is conceivable that there will still be sufficient hydraulic power at high flow to keep spawning grounds free from fine material. 50 Mitigation: Monitoring of sediment distribution and abundance is part of the sediment monitoring and management plan. TABLE 4 Potential Impacts of Instream Flow Reductions on Resident Dolly Varden (Flory 2001) Life Stage or State Requirements/Preferences Potential Impacts Reproduction: Substrate l-4cm, low % fines Reduced velocity at low flow may Spawning, incubation, Sufficient depth, velocity to spawn cause deposition of fine material in emergence. (depth> 2in, velocity 0.3-0.7ft/s) gravel leading to low oxygen for Interflow of water through gravel, eggs, but high flows may provide high 0 2 cone. Throughout incubation. sufficient hydraulic power to scour gravel; abandonment of sites behind impoundment due to low flow. Fry rearing/ Nursery Very low velocities, shallow areas: Possible loss of edge habitat at low 1-2 inches; protection from predation flow, but expansion of edge habitat by older fish. Edge habitat. at high flows. Juvenile rearing Pool, riffle combination, complex Velocities may drop below preferred habitat structure, L WD. Velocities up range; dewatering of usable habitat; to 2.7 ftls, deep pools for cover. High flows needed for channel and habitat formation not affected. Adult holding/shelter Stable depths, low velocity for As above. Increase in rearing/shelter shelter, L WD for cover, possible use and over-wintering habitat behind of velocities > 2.7 ft!s if available impoundment by creation of large during high temperatures + abundant pool. food supply. Over-wintering Stable, low velocities; deep pools; Habitat already limited by low Structural complexity of habitat, winter flow and ice formation may LWD. be lost through water extraction. Extraction at high flows could increase amount of winter habitat. Migration High flows may be required at Access to different habitats may be specific times for movement between prevented by reduction in flow at spawning, over-wintering, rearing critical times. Impact minimal due habitats. to high flows typically present at times of migration. Nursery If very shallow-water habitat is required by Dolly Varden fry, then the impacts of water extraction on stream edge habitats need to be considered. At low flow, shallow, edge habitats could be dewatered in reaches where the channel is deeply incised. At high flows, however, suitable fry habitat could be expanded through reduction in depths and velocities on stream edges. Mitigation: Evaluation of PHABSIM data for Falls Creek may provide more detailed information on impacts to edge habitat. 51 Rearing Care should be taken in evaluating habitat preferences from utilization data, as the two are not necessarily equivalent (Rabeni & Sowa 1996). Collection of Falls Creek utilization data at low flow coincided with relatively high water temperatures (up to 9.8°C), whereas the high flow sampling coincided with water temperatures of only around 4-5°C. Fish are likely to be more active at temperatures over 8°C and thus more likely to use higher velocities, but the range of velocities available during data collection was restricted by low flow. When high velocities were available, the low temperatures likely diminished fish activity (Cunjak 1996). Low flow and low temperatures could each result in utilization of a lower range of velocities being utilized than might be occupied under conditions of simultaneous high flow and high temperature. However, examination of daily discharge and temperature data for Falls Creek shows that periods of sustained high discharge seldom coincide with high temperatures. High flows in April and May from snowmelt and in Fall from high rainfall, coincide with water temperatures below 6°C. In summer, maximum temperatures reach only 11 °C and high flows are brief, dependent on more sporadic summer rainfall. Indeed, flows are often so high that shelter from high velocities would seem the more likely behavior offish. The small body size of the resident fish in Falls Creek would also concur with their utilization of lower velocities than those used by their larger-bodied counterparts elsewhere. However, in evaluating impacts of water extraction, some margin should be allowed for the use of higher velocities than those recorded to account for periods of active feeding at moderately high flow. Mitigation: Considerable latitude for protection of rearing conditions has been built into the PHABSIM instream flow model as applied to Falls Creek. Responses of fish to altered hydrology depend on the structure of the reach in question. The resilience of Atlantic salmon and brown trout in a regulated Norwegian river towards reduced water flows was found to be much greater in pool-dominated reaches than in riffle areas (Heggenes et al 1996). In Falls Creek, fish inhabiting the large, deep pools of Reach 3 may experience less change in hydraulic habitat than those in the lower end of Reach 4. This is important considering that Reach 3 occupies the greater part of the extraction zone of the creek. Although fish may exhibit avoidance of the highest velocities present in the short-term, high flows may be essential for channel formation or habitat maintenance in the long- term through the scouring of pools and undercut banks and otherwise promoting habitat diversity (Rabeni and Sowa 1996). Mitigation: Such flows should not be impacted noticeably since water extraction at high flow will divert only a small proportion of water relative to that remaining in the stream channel. Extraction may in fact increase the duration of usable velocities and decrease the time spent avoiding excessive velocities. Over-wintering The need to minimize energy expenditure at low temperatures in winter is accomplished by selection of positions in low-flow microhabitats with suitable cover from adverse conditions. Low winter flows and ice accumulation can reduce the area of suitable 52 habitat. Frazil ice may partially fill pools and leave the remainder of the pool unsuitable by concentrating the water flow. Winter conditions may ultimately limit fish population size. The potential for habitat loss through water extraction may be greater in winter than at any other time of year and any loss may have a severe impact. There are likely to be periods in winter at Falls Creek where there is no margin for the extraction of water for hydropower if fish populations are to be protected. Mitigation: The PHABSIM model is a relatively poor predictor of critical conditions during winter low flows with ice. GEC expects to cease water extraction at such times, per the outcome of PHABSIM modeling. Migration In Falls Creek, spawning, over-wintering and rearing habitat can be found at the same location, for example, at the islands and at the log jam. Individuals in such areas have no need to migrate seasonally. Marking experiments found fish remained at the islands and log jam from summer to winter. In other reaches, typical high flows in spring and fall may be sufficient for migration needs even after water extraction, but consideration should be given to this requirement. Mitigation: Per alternative 2, a fish ladder associated with the impoundment would facilitate movement of fish past the impoundment structure. Impoundment Effects An 8-12 foot high impoundment structure proposed by GEC for Reach 4 would have major local impacts on the stream. The back-up of flow behind the impoundment will lead to complete inundation ofthe Islands area by the pond and sediments deposited into it (Beck 2001 ). The reduced velocities and greatly increased depths here will likely render spawning gravels unsuitable, either by discouraging spawning activity or by reducing survival of eggs through siltation. On the other hand, the creation of a large pool behind the impoundment will offer extensive rearing and over-wintering habitat. However, the value of this must be weighed against the loss of spawning habitat and the physical barrier imposed by the impoundment structure. Fish downstream of the impoundment would be prevented from accessing the area, while the limited spawning habitat remaining upstream of the inundated zone would probably be insufficient to maintain current population levels (Figure 15). The Islands currently represent a structurally complex habitat offering spawning, rearing and over-wintering space within a horizontal distance of 300m. Careful consideration should be given to the protection of the area from inundation. Location of the impoundment structure approximately 85m downstream at a narrow, bedrock-controlled cataract (per alternative 2) would prevent inundation of the islands. Rearing and over-wintering habitat would be extended downstream of the islands. The cataract may already act as a barrier to fish migration, particularly in winter when ice increases barrier height and low flow impedes access. However, any potential benefits to fish of this reach would not accrue to the population within the park remainder, as they are almost certainly separated by the barrier of 2m falls. 53 The impoundment may also have impacts further downstream. The creation of a large pool provides a large surface area that is prone to warming. Increased stream temperature could have impacts on growth and production both locally and in downstream reaches. However, the impoundment pool may not be large enough to produce any appreciable change in water temperature. The damming effect of the impoundment may buffer high and low flows to some extent, but the highest, channel- forming flows should not be interrupted. ii. lnstream Flows and Anadromous Fish Construction-related Effects Significant effects of construction seem restricted to the possibility of sediment discharge from road cuts and development sites. Mitigation: See Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. Long-term Effects Add ins/ream flow stuff here Impact potentials for anadromous fish in the lower reach of Falls Creek are summarized in Table 5. Water extracted for hydropower will be returned to the stream approximately 300m below the Lower Falls. Water velocities and wetted area of the channel downstream of the return site should therefore not be affected by water extraction. Salmon spawning habitat in this reach could be impacted if the transport of gravel from areas upstream is interrupted. The impoundment structure could interrupt the passage of bedload from areas upstream ofthe Islands. Mitigation: See section on bedload (VI.b.1.b.ii.) Above the powerhouse return site, there is the potential for impacts on spawning, rearing and over-wintering habitat. Reduced flow here in winter might lead to deposition of fines in the spawning gravel and entombment of alevins, resulting in substantial reduction in egg to fry survival (Scrivener & Brownlee 1989). Regular high flows are typically required to maintain healthy spawning habitat (Payne & Lapointe 1997). Stream flows are typically high in fall when cohos migrate to spawning grounds. There is a danger that extraction of water could discourage cohos from entering this reach, but high flows seem common at this time, and should permit both coho migration and water extraction. Consideration should be made ofthe need salmon may have for higher flows at this time. Higher flows in spring (April/May) may be also desirable to aid migration of emerging pink and chum fry to ocean rearing areas. Mitigation: At high flows, diversions for the project will constitute a very small fraction of total flows. At all flows modeled to be involved with sediment mobilization, the sluice gate on the diversion structure will be open to allow unimpeded bedload throughput. 54 Prior to infilling of the pond, any sediment deficit will be made up by supplementation. See section on bedload (VI.b.l.b.ii.) TABLE 5 Impact Potentials on Anadromous Fish, Falls Creek Life Sta~e or State Requirements/Preferences Potential Impacts Reproduction: Medium to coarse gravel, Depth <3in Reduced velocity above powerhouse Spawning, incubation, Chum, velocity 0.5-2.7ft/s, would affect coho most. 76% of emergence. coho velocity 0.5-2.5ft/s, cohos and 36% chum spawn above pink, velocity 0.4-2.75ft/s (R2 HSls) powerhouse. Pinks utilize this reach lnterflow of water through gravel, in high years. high 0 2 cone. throughout incubation. Fry rearing/ Nursery Cohos: Velocities <I ft/s, shallow Possible loss of edge habitat at low edge habitat. flow above powerhouse. Juvenile rearing Cohos remain in stream 1-2 years. Above powerhouse: lowered Pool, riffle combination, complex velocities may increase habitat habitat structure, L WD. Velocities up suitability; High flows needed for to 2ft/s, deep pools for cover. channel and habitat formation not affected. Over-wintering Juvenile cohos over-winter; stable, Habitat already limited by low low velocities; deep pools; Structural winter flow and ice formation may complexity ofhabitat, LWD. be altered above powerhouse through water extraction. Extraction at high flows could increase amount of winter habitat. Migration Minimum flow required for access to Access may be prevented by spawning areas and for migration of reduction in flow at critical times. fry/juveniles to ocean. Impact minimal due to high flows typically present at times of migration. Daily temperature data for 1999-2000 at the upper and lower stream gauges show some small differences in temperature regimes between sites (Table 2, Flory 2001). The lower site exhibited slightly greater variability in daily temperature with higher maximum temperatures and lower minimum temperatures than the upper site. Diversion of water from the upper site could result in reduction of the highest mean daily temperature at the lower site by 0.3°C, with maximum summer temperature reduced by 0.4°C, and minimum winter temperature raised by 0.1 °C. Thermal effects of transit through the penstock per either alternative are expected to be minimal. Any increase in temperature in winter should be positive, however, as it would combat the formation of ice in the anadromous reach during winter low flows. Summer creek temperatures at present are very unlikely to approach critical levels for fish in this well-shaded stream. Nonetheless, water temperatures should continue to be monitored, as they are critical to fish growth rates in summer and the rate of salmon embryo development over winter. 55 A breach in the pipe during low flow might significantly reduce total flows to the 300m of anadromous reach upstream of the tailrace per the GEC proposal. The result could be problematic for fish above the proposed tailrace, especially if instream flow predictions are too optimistic during winter low flow icing conditions. Alternative 2 diminishes impact potentials of this sort, as the tailrace is above all anadromous habitat. Mitigation: A check valve will be installed at the intake to immediately shunt flows to the creek until pipe repairs are effected. 111. Invertebrates, Falls Creek Construction-related Effects Temporary changes in the composition and abundance of bottom invertebrates of Falls Creek may occur as a consequence of silt influx due to construction-related soil disturbance of the GEC proposal, notably along road segments a & b, to a secondary degree at the powerhouse, and conceivably at the intake. Mitigations: All these potential impacts are mitigated by the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan. Alternative 2 would eliminate these road segments and greatly lessen the potential effects of powerhouse construction. It may, however, slightly increase the potentials associated with the intake site, as the service road would trend down-slope more or less directly to it, and drainage of that road segment might run silt into the creek during construction. Long-term Effects Chronic input of silt from disturbed areas could prolong the above-mentioned effects, but these are expected to attenuate as revegetation is completed. However, periodically severe impacts could occur ifthe project-related mass wasting events occur in association with road segments a) orb), or with destabilization of the powerhouse site. Mitigation: Since stream invertebrates are sensitive indices of stream habitat and water quality, GEC has instituted a program to monitor their abundance and species composition in locations bracketing these sites. Alternative 2, by moving most disturbance either out of the Falls Creek canyon or (in the case of the powerhouse) employ a design and location that nearly avoids slope disturbance, would greatly diminish these potential impacts. IV. Water Quality Construction-related Effects An environmental review by a panel of experts consulted by the US Forest Service concluded that in logging areas of the Tongass National Forest, "the greatest risk to the 56 fish resource is from roads'" due to "increased sediment yields, including yields from roads during construction"' (USFS 1997, p. 3-64). Failure to completely intercept mobilized fines during construction and completion of revegetation of proposed roads facilities could result in raised turbidity levels in Falls Creek. This potential is far more substantial in the GEC proposal than in alternative 2, due to the former's routing of the service road & penstock through the upper Falls Creek canyon between the intake site and the horseshoe. Mitigation: see the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Vl.B.I.b.i.). Concentrations of nutrients and suspended/dissolved organics may also be temporarily elevated in Falls Creek due to input of Jeachates from open soil profiles along roads and facilities. Similar effects are expected in wetlands down-gradient from soil/woody debris disposal sites a), b) and c). Mitigation: Water quality will be monitored repetitively during the life of the project. See also the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (VI.B.J.b.i.) for further discussion of erosion mitigations. Long-term Effects To the extent that the project results in increased mass wasting along the Falls Creek canyon, the effects mentioned above could be prolonged into the future. v. Other Streams ofthe Study Area Construction-related Effects Homesteader and Rink Creeks and small sloughs to the west of Falls Creek will be crossed by the access road under either alternative. Assuming road construction will not impede fish passage, potential impacts are restricted to reaches downstream of crossing points. There is some risk of spawning gravels becoming filled with fine material dislodged by the removal of vegetation cover. The powerline crossing of Rink Creek would involve minimal disturbance to the channel or banks. Bridge construction across Homesteader Creek for the access road will upgrade a crossing previously permitted by ADF&G after minimal temporary disturbance of creek banks. No significant effects on water quality or fish habitat are anticipated from either crossing. Since spawning is known to occur in these streams, construction of road crossings should be avoided during incubation periods (October to April). Mitigations: The impact of additional silt input is expected to be slight, for three reasons. First, Homesteader Creek is already bridged where the access road would cross it. Second, the fish-bearing reaches of the sloughs are already extensively carpeted by silt due to their entrenchment into old mudflats. And third, construction would occur after fry emergence in spring and before return of spawning adults in fall. Long-term Effects No significant long-term impact potentials have been identified. 57 3. Terrestrial Resources a. Affected Environment Concentrations of shorebirds and ducks ranging into the thousands, and hundreds of geese and gulls occasionally occur on the intertidal portion of the Gustavus flats, especially during migration (Streveler 1998, Lentfer and Streveler 1999b, Streveler et al. 1999). Attractants appear to be intertidal invertebrates and plants (spring and fall), salmonid smolt outmigrants (spring), and salmonid carcasses (late summer/fall), and general remoteness. Water bird use of upland portions ofthe Gustavus flats is sparse. One to several pairs of dippers, kingfishers and spotted sandpipers rear along the anadromous reach of Falls Creek; the former two species and red-breasted mergansers rear along the upper creek as well in small numbers (Lentfer and Streveler 1999b, Lentfer 2000). The mergansers and kingfishers probably forage on resident Dolly Varden in the proposed bypass reach. Several pairs of yellowlegs nest in the bog (yellowlegs savanna) paralleling the intake site locality and the portion of the bypass reach immediately downstream thereof. Eagles are scarce in the study area; a pair nested SE of Falls Creek some years ago but apparently not recently. One or more pairs of red-tailed hawks occur during some years on the Gustavus flats and on the Excursion ridge, respectively, but nest sites have not been found. Goshawks are uncommon transients along the shore. Sonic surveys have detected no evidence of goshawk nesting. Peregrine falcons have been occasionally observed along project area shores, but have never been noted in potential breeding habitat (along the Falls Creek canyon), nor has this species' characteristic territorial behavior ever been elicited. A pair of horned owls fledge young on some years. (Lentfer and Streveler 1999b, Lentfer 2000) The Icy Strait -Glacier Bay region (Figure 1) contains one of the three largest concentrations of marbled murrelets in Alaska (DeGange 1996); Alaska in turn is home to an estimated 67 to 90% of this species' worldwide population (Piatt and Ford 1993). Nesting habitat along the eastern half of Icy Strait is being reduced by intensive logging and pathogen-induced mortality of large spruces (Lentfer and Streveler 1999b ); in the study area, several hundred acres were clearcut in logging episodes during the 1910's and 1960-70's (Brake! 2001 ). An apparent ongoing bark beetle infestation has resulted in an estimated 10% mortality of large spruces (high potential nesting trees) along the proposed road route, and even higher mortality in some riparian margins (Lentfer and Streveler 1999b). Marbled murrelets occur widely in the study area. They showed apparent nesting behavior at all six listening stations established during 1999 and 2000. Potential nest trees occur in many localities along the proposed road route. Concentrations of high potential nesting trees occur on steep slopes of the study area. Along the proposed development, particular concentrations are found where the access route climbs riser #2 and especially in the powerhouse vicinity. (Lentfer and Streveler 1999b, Lentfer 2000) 58 Project area upper intertidal and supratidal habitats of the Gustavus flats provide thoroughfare and foraging opportunities for a number of large mammal species, notably black & brow bears, wolves, coyotes, river otters and moose (Streveler 1997, 1998; Lentfer and Streveler 1999a). Willow shrublands fringing the Gustavus shore are excellent winter moose habitat (Streveler et al. 1999), and upland localities near the SE end of the airport have a good berry crop for bears on some years; otherwise, large mammal usage of the Gustavus portion of the study area is generally sparse (Lentfer and Streveler 1999a). Shore habitats in proximity to the Excursion ridge are densely utilized by black bears, especially during May and early June; a minimum of 9-16 bears were noted during three years of study. Black bears use all portions of the Excursion ridge uplands, but are in smaller concentrations than along the shore. Fens and margins of shrubby forests appear to be most utilized upland habitats. High bear (and other mammal) use occurs along several major trails, including ones that cross the proposed access and service road routes, as well as on minor trails and diffusely through the country. (Streveler 1997, 1 998; Lentfer and Streveler 1999a). Bear sign is especially abundant in the proposed powerhouse vicinity and some fishing for salmon by bears occurs there, but scat analysis suggests that most foraging in that vicinity and along lower Falls Creek is generally for berries and vegetation (Lentfer and Streveler 1999a). Several brown bears passed through the study area during the last several years; one frequented lower Falls Creek late last summer and fall (Lentfer 2000). Otter sign is common (Lentfer and Streveler 1999a, Lentfer 2000) but not associated with dens. Otter den concentrations near the creek mouth, occupied in the early 1990's (Streveler et al. 1994), show no recent occupation . Large mammal sign in riparian areas of Falls Creek above the limit of salmon spawning is notably less common than along the anadromous reach and about as common as in upland habitats generally. Within the proposed bypass reach, bear sign was noted occasionally. Riparian mustelid records in this reach were limited to one set of otter tracks, and tracks & sighting of a mink near the proposed intake. During two consecutive summers, a moose cow & calf frequented the islands area. Porcupine sign was common along heavily forested parts of the canyon (Lentfer and Streveler 1999a, Lentfer 2000). No instances of mammal foraging on resident Dolly Varden have been found, but the transient mink and otter are likely to do so. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations i. Raptorial birds Construction-related Effects No known nesting or foraging sites for large raptors occur along the proposed road routes or development sites, so impacts of construction are expected to be minimal. 59 Long-term Effects No long term impact potentials to raptors have been identified. 11. Aquatic/riparian birds Construction-related Effects Construction acttvtty at the intake site and along the service road from there to the horseshoe under either alternative could displace one family of mergansers and one or more pairs of dippers for that rearing season. A pair of dippers could also be temporarily displaced from the powerhouse site. Road rerouting from he holding tank to the horseshoe under alternative 2 could result in temporary displacement of nesting yellowlegs from the bog whose edge would be traversed by this road segment. On the Gustavus flats, construction of the Rink Creek powerline crossing may temporarily displace the few mallards and geese that occasionally feed along its banks during summer. Mitigation: All proposed construction activity has been kept away from Falls Creek riparian habitat except at the intake and powerhouse sites and road segments leading to/from them. All proposed construction related to the project on the Gustavus flats is routed away from intertidal, supratidal and estuarine habitats except for a short segment of the buried powerline route where it crosses Rink Creek. Construction under alternative 2 would interface with riparian habitat only at the generator and intake sites, which would reduce the already small potential for displacement of riparian birds under the preferred alternative. Long-term Effects Long-term impacts to aquatic birds are expected to be minimal. It is possible that some minor reduction in habitat quality or quantity might occur in the bypass reach during low flows as a result of water withdrawal by the project. During winter low flows, such impacts would accrue only to dippers. The impoundment associated with the intake structure may provide additional positive foraging opportunities for piscivorous species. iii. Marbled Murrelets Construction-related Effects Some displacement of murre lets may occur along road routes and at building sites during construction. The effects of blasting and heavy equipment operation during road construction are unknown. Mitigation: No felling oftrees is proposed during the June-August nesting season. Long-term Effects 60 The GEC proposal would result in loss of potential murre let nesting trees along nearly all of the access and service road routes (Figure I of Lentfer 2000). High potential nesting trees are concentrated where the access route ascends riser #2; where it traverses the head of a ravine prior to its junction with the service road; along the access route just before the old clearcut; and especially in the powerhouse vicinity. More trees would very likely be lost over time as windthrow and slope failures increase along forest openings created by the project. The eventual total of lost potential nesting trees cannot be estimated, but is very likely to be in the hundreds. Though this is a very small proportion of the hundreds of thousands of such trees in the Icy Strait region, it is additive to ongoing losses of nesting habitat due to logging and pathogen attack of large spruces (see cumulative impacts section). The high potential nesting trees are generally several centuries old and cannot be replaced quickly. Mitigation: Road routes have been designed to avoid concentrations of potential murre let trees, except in the powerhouse vicinity where this could not be avoided. Some of additional trees can be avoided by fine-tuning the road route during final layout, but other imperatives (maintaining a continuous penstock grade, avoiding wetlands, cutting trees to reduce mass wasting potential) will limit this. Alternative 2 will reduce the potential for murrelet habitat loss by shifting road segment a) away from murre let nesting habitat, and by replacing segment b) with a tunnel that would result in little or no loss of murre let trees. Few potential murrelet nesting trees would be lost as a result of soil/woody debris disposal in the chosen poor forest site, as trees there are generally too small to be hosts for murrelet nests. The marbled murrelet's reproductive strategy appears to include minimizing predation on eggs and nestlings by dispersed nesting in large forest tracts (DeGange 1996). Linear clearings opened into the forest by the project is likely to encourage use of these "edges" by predaceous birds like ravens and Steller's jays, which are now scarce in the undeveloped portions of the study area. Murrelet sensitivity to human disturbance is unclear. It is possible that human use of the road will result in long-term displacement of some birds. iv. Bears Construction-related Effects Construction acttvtty, including blasting, is likely to temporarily displace some bears from the vicinities of the road corridors and development sites under either the GEC proposal or alternative 2. Long-term Effects 61 The ORV trail along the proposed powerline route would traverse lands near the airport that harbor good berry crops and therefore good bear foraging ori some years; public use of this trail may displace bears to some degree. Mitigation: Both alternatives would avoid all direct impacts to the principal identified value of the study area to black bears: spring foraging areas along the shore. Proposed road routes under either alternative on the Excursion ridge lie across the path of bears diffusing altitudinally through the study area, and transect paths of concentrated movement in two places, N of the strip fen and opposite the horseshoe (Figure 2 of Lentfer 2000). Occasional project-related vehicular traffic and public pedestrian & dog presence have the potential for seasonal alteration of bear use patterns. Should GEC fail to obtain permission from the state to prohibit public vehicular traffic in the project area and discharge of firearms near project facilities, the potential for displacement of bears becomes much greater. Mitigation: Burying the pipe along much of its length including where it intersects major trails would eliminate it as a physical barrier. The powerhouse and access to it (road segment b) in the GEC proposal lie within a concentration of perennial bear sign (Figure 16), associated in part with fishing the Falls Creek salmon run. The landscape modification, increased pedestrian/dog access, and maintenance of the facility would likely diminish this use by bears. Proposed soil and woody debris disposal in poor forest habitat would bury approximately 0.5 acres of an excellent blueberry patch used by bears, but this sort of habitat is widespread in the study area. Mitigation: Revegetation is expected to be rapid and should provide a renewed, perhaps even greater, berry crop for up to 25 years after disturbance. However, by analogy with clearcut areas, forest closure after that time should greatly reduce the wildlife habitat value of this area for at least one century thereafter (AI aback, 1982). Alternative 2 would displace the impact to sites within present park lands to already-disturbed private lands near the base of the access road. Since no refuse or food will be stored or disposed of onsite under either alternative, habituation is not expected to be a significant problem. Bear hunting would probably be allowed on at least some project area lands once they were transferred to state ownership. (See section C.3.: "Effects on Remaining Park Lands" for discussion) v. Riparian Mammals Construction-related Effects Under either alternative, construction at the intake and powerhouse sites would probably displace the small number of moose with new calves during early summer. 62 Bear Trail Use Level N High Medium Low Long-term Effects Continuing human presence at the proposed intake and powerhouse sites may continue to displace moose with young calves. The power generation site under alternative 2 is not in moose habitat. The few transient otter and mink along upper Falls Creek are not likely to be affected by the project during operation; if anything, the pond associated with the intake structure may provide additional fishing opportunities for these species. No concentration of mink and otter sign have been found near the proposed powerhouse site or the generation site of Alternative 2. 4. Plants and Wetlands a. Affected Environment The Gustavus flats in the project area are comprised of thin-soiled, young plant communities either persistently below high tide or raised above the tide over the last century by post-glacial rebound (Bosworth and Streveler 1999). Intertidal communities (Figure I of Bosworth 200 I) are largely dominated by Lyngbeyae sedge and goosetongue (extremely important bear and waterfowl forage plants). Along wetter parts of the shore, sedge meadow merges into a variety of fen communities; rich grass/umbel meadow occupies the drier sites. Localities well above the tide are carpeted by a mosaic of plant communities responsive to small differences in hydrology: young spruce forest, spruce/pine/cottonwood parkland, willow shrubland and poor fen, in order of increasing wetness. Drainage variations are related to incised streams, man-made ditches and lateral changes in distribution of surficial sand vs. silt. Gustavus flats wetland vegetation (Figure 2 of Bosworth 200 I) is thus very susceptible to drainage alteration. Vegetation of the Excursion ridge portion of the project area is closely linked to its stair- stepped topography, with the steep risers being almost completely forested and the intervening flatter areas being dominated by bog, fen and forested wetlands. Fens, bogs and forested wetlands have poor drainage, deep organic soils and obligate wetland species. These communities are vulnerable to mechanical disturbance and drainage alteration. Fens are the most susceptible to change because groundwater flow, which controls community structure, is near the surface. (Bosworth and Streveler 1999, Bosworth 200 I) Wetlands, about 56% of the total project area acreage, interface directly with the proposed project design along much of the powerline route, and along portions of the access and service roads. (Figure 2 of Bosworth 200 I). Rich forests on the risers and other steep sites are dominated by tall trees particularly susceptible to windthrow. However, under present natural conditions most recent 64 windthrown patches are small, generally involving one to several trees, and windthrown individuals are normally broken off, leaving the root mat intact. To the extent that construction activities interrupt this root mat, they have the potential to initiate windthrow events involving tearing of the rootmass out of ground, which could then lead to sequential or catastrophic "unraveling" of the forest to windward over substantial acreages (Bosworth and Streveler 1999). Susceptibility to windthrow is very site-specific and difficult to predict, being dependent on such factors as forest type and condition, slope, aspect, elevation soils and prevailing winds (Harris 1989). However, very significant amounts of windthrow that have occurred along the margins of the recent and old clearcuts in the project area illustrate that the consideration is real. The integrity of the forest root mat appears to be instrumental in maintammg slope stability (Mann and Streveler 1999, Mann 2000). As a consequence, project area slopes have experienced little recent mass wasting except for the very steepest, incompletely forested walls of Falls Creek canyon. Two plants listed as rare (by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program)or sensitive (by the U.S. Forest Service) have been found in the project area. Carex bebbii occurs in a Gustavus flats fen community near Homesteader Creek not far above high tide. This community lies well away from any proposed construction. Eriophorum viridecarinatum was found along bog pond edges at 700-800' elevations, above all areas potentially altered by the project. (Bosworth and Streveler 1999) However, an additional occurrence of E. viridecarinatum was found in fens along an alternate access road route E of Rink Creek to the park boundary along the N margin of section 10 (Bosworth 2001 ). (see IV.B.l.). No non-native species have been noted in Excursion ridge plant communities of the project area (Bosworth and Streveler 1999). A few non-natives have been found on the Gustavus flats portion of the study area, in association with roads and trails, but only one has been noted in undisturbed areas: timothy grass (Phleum commutatum) a presumed escapee from hayfields, has been found in Gustavus supratidal fens but shows no indication of aggressive expansion. A pernicious new arrival to the region, Japanese knotweed (Polygonum saxalinense), has not been recorded in the project area or its environs. b. Corps of Engineers Compliance The pennitting process required for the project by the U.S. Corps of Engineers is m progress. c. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations t. Rare and Sensitive Species Construction-related and Long-term Effects 65 Neither of two rare and sensitive species documented from the project area ( C arex bebbii and Eriophorum viridecarinatum) have been found near the proposed road routes or development sites. 11. Wetlands Construction-related Effects The buried powerline under either the proposed action or alternative 2 would be laid by a "ditch witch" tractor that leaves no open trench or berm behind, and thus has no significant potential to alter drainage. Ditching and construction of the access and service roads would mobilize clay, silt, and organic materials from disturbed soils during high runoff periods, especially before revegetation is complete. Some of these mobilized materials will probably be broadcast into fens and forested wetlands down-gradient of cross-drains in the road, which will add nutrients to these systems and, if sufficiently voluminous to carpet the ambient vegetation, provide colonization sites for pioneer species not normally found in these plant communities. The same effect is expected down-gradient from soil/woody debris disposal sites until they are completely revegatated. Mitigation: see the erosion and sediment control plan (VI.B.I.b.i.). Long-term Effects The estimated amounts of wetland acreage that would be directly disturbed by the project are as follows: a) powerline route (no effect) b) access road ( 0.3 acres of fen; 0.4 acres of forested wetland) c) service road (0.05 acres of fen; 0.2 acres of forested wetland) d) intake and powerhouse sites (no effect) e) waste disposal site (0.5 acres of forested wetland) a) The ORV service trail along the powerline will be an unimproved track next to the buried power line, running at approximately 45 degrees to the direction of water table flow. Experience shows that such trails in time become entrenched. However, a shallow ditch already exists along this route. Mitigation: The plan is to fill in ruts as they develop so as to avoid additional drainage. b) The access road cuts obliquely across approximately five ravines, all of which will be culverted. Likewise, it transects several narrow stringers of fen [an aggregate distance on the order of 500 feet] which extend down-drainage in swales through the forest. Ground water from these will be collected in a ditch up-gradient from the road, conducted through one or more culverts, and then rebroadcast onto the fen on the other side of the road into rip rap that will keep it from entrenching a channel. Since the water will be initially confined by the culvert(s) it may result in very local dewatering of the fen immediately adjacent to the road. A small bog adjacent to the road has no surface flow 66 source from across the proposed road route. Since bogs normally are fed predominantly by direct rainwater, this one is not likely to be affected by the proposed road. Mitigation: Surface and groundwater flows will be collected from forested wetlands along the road route by an up-gradient ditch and conducted across the road by cross drains placed sufficiently frequently to preserve ambient flow patterns. It is anticipated that an approximately normal throughput of ground water will result. c) The service road would cross the strip fen at its head and is thus likely to have a very minor effect on its hydrology. The road would cross forested wetland on a bench just before entering the canyon at the powerhouse site. Mitigation: The proposed service roads would avoid all bogs. Surface and groundwater flows in forested wetlands will be dealt with by an up-gradient ditch and conducted across the road by cross-drains as necessary. It is anticipated that an approximately normal throughput of ground water will result. The alternative service road route between the intake and the horseshoe per alternative 2 will result in additional forested wetland being transected by the road, but a similar amount will be saved from roading near the powerhouse. e) The waste disposal site will cover approximately .5 acre of forested wetland with a prism of debris averaging 10 feet in depth. (Table 3)This is anticipated to rapidly revegetate into a shrubland, which will give rise over several centuries to a well-drained luxuriant forest. TABLE 3 SOIL AND WASTE-WOOD DISPOSAL SPECIFICATIONS Assumptions • Backhaul on all road segments traversing slopes >30% • Overburden/refuse on average sums to a layer 2' deep • Based on contour map, the proposed disposal site has a slope of~ 15%. • Refuse will be laid in a prism averaging I 0 ft deep. Calculations • About 54 cu.ft. of material generated/lineal foot of roadbed • A total of 4100 ft of road require back-haul: service road, intake to horseshoe: 1600 ft service road, canyon lip to powerhouse: I500 ft access road up riser# 2: I 000 ft Dimensions of Disposal site S of strip fen [216,000 cu.ft./44,000 sq.ftlacre] I 10'deep = .49 acre of area needed for disposal. 67 iii. Rich Forests Construction-related and Long-term Effects To the extent that construction activities interrupt the root mat on steep slopes, they have the potential to initiate windthrow events involving tearing of the rootmass out of ground, which could then lead to sequential or catastrophic "unraveling" of the forest to windward over acreages which, worst case, could become considerable. Susceptibility to windthrow is very site-specific and difficult to predict, but presently on riser #3 there are patches of recent wind throw on the order of an acre. (see IV .B. I. for further discussion) tv. Introduction of Exotic Species Construction-related and Long-term Effects Although only native seed or plants will be used in revegetation, some inadvertent introduction of non-native roadside plant species is expected. However, these species are not likely to spread into natural communities, with the possible exception of timothy grass. A careful watch should be kept for giant knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense), which appears to have the potential to spread aggressively into native shrublands. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) can aggressively spread into fens. It can be a component of grass seed mixes used for revegetation. Mitigation: A seed mix free of red canary grass will be used for revegetation. Use of native plants stockpiled during construction will be maximized during revegetation to minimize the chance of successful invasion by exotics. 5. Threatened & Endangered Species a. Affected Environment According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Appendix E), species listed under terms of the Endangered Species Act as of 1999 as either threatened or endangered for the region including the study area include the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). However, since then the peregrine has been delisted. Thus, no species listed under USF&WS jurisdiction are of concern for the project. According to National marine Fisheries Service (Appendix E), species listed under terms of the Endangered Species Act as either threatened or endangered for the region including the study area include the humpback whale (Megastar novae-Ang/ia) and the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubata). Neither of these species is of possible concern, as the project has no marine component. The Glacier Bay water shrew, a poorly known taxon provisionally given species rank (Sorex alascanus ) by some authors but very closely related to the common water shrew (S. palustris), has no official status under the Endangered Species Act, but is considered 68 of potential concern by the USF&WS (Enriquez 1999). Water shrews are known from nearby Point Gustavus and Bartlett Cove. No attempt to trap this elusive species was made in the project area. A study in Montana found the species to be associated with "cold, fast mountain streams banks which offer favorable cover. Such banks were composed of large stones, boulders and tree roots forming many crevices and overhanging ledges"' (Conaway 1952). Gould (200 I) found water shrews frequently associated with vegetated stream banks in Montana and central Canada. In interior Alaska, Demboski (1999) found them most often associated with vegetated cut-banks. Considering all of the above, the rocky generally unvegetated banks of the Falls Creek bypass reaches may host a population of water shrews, but they are likely to find it optimum habitat. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Water shrews are most commonly trapped within inches of the water's edge (Conaway 1952, Demboski 1999, Kinsella 200 I) and therefore could, if present, be affected by water draw-down during low flow periods. Mitigation: This species is difficult to trap, and negative results of a trapping program would not be considered good evidence of absence. Therefore, no trapping was attempted. It is assumed that if conditions suitable for resident Dolly Varden are maintained in the bypass reach, any water shrews present will be protected as well. 6. Archaeological and Cultural/Historical Resources a. Affected Environment An investigation of the history of the project area was undertaken to determine whether all or portions of these areas constitute a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (Brake) 2001, Brake) and Yarborough 200 I). Primary focus was on the Tlingit campsite on and near the Mills Native allotment (Figure I of Brake I 200 I) near where the Falls Creek stream reaches the beach meadows, a site for which the Tlingit name Kathlaheena (slightly different from the project name and report title) was provisionally accepted. Additional aspects of the area's history were investigated: early 201h century timber harvests, the remains of a commercial fish trap, agricultural homesteads on the eastern Gustavus plain, changes in Glacier Bay National Park boundaries in the area, and World War II military facilities in the area. No historic structures were identified in the near vicinity of the proposed hydro development. However, a group of culturally modified trees occur on the wall of the Falls Creek canyon just upstream of the proposed powerhouse site (Yarborough 1999), along or very near the route of proposed road segment b) descending to that site. Based on the results of the investigation, the Tlingit campsite at Kathlaheena is not recommended for inclusion in the National Register because it does not fulfill the criteria set out in 36 CFR 60.4 (Brake I and Yarborough 200 I). It is a typical subsistence site that is not associated with any rare or unusual subsistence resources. No important events or 69 people in Tlingit history and no stories, songs or crest designs are associated with the site. However, -it appears to be a Tlingit property whose integrity has been largely maintained, - a cabin is periodically used by descendents of the original Mills allottee, and -use of many other similar sites in the Icy Strait region have been removed from the subsistence use of the Tlingit people by various causes over the previous century. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations i. Archaeological Resources Construction-related and long-term Effects No archaeological resources have been identified (Yarborough 1999, Brake) and Yarborough 200 I). However, the culturally modified tree site would be partially obliterated by the proposed road segment b. ii. Cultural/Historical Resources Construction-related Effects Segment b) of the proposed access road will directly remove some culturally modified trees in the vicinity of the powerhouse. Others may then be destroyed by wind-throw or slope failure as a result of the road. Siting of the powerhouse and serving it by tram per alternative 2 would avoid all impact to the area of culturally modified trees. No historical structures are in question. However, a co-owner of the Mills Native allotment has stated that the peace, tranquility and undisturbed wildlife of the cabin site at the mouth of Falls Creek is important to him. Helicopter-based servicing of the lower stream gauge has already been a disturbance. Mitigation: The project has been planned to keep considerably away from the creek mouth; however, machinery noise and blasting of proposed construction would detract from peace and tranquility at the cabin site during the 24-26 month construction period. Long-term Effects Operation of the project should result in little or no disturbance to the creek mouth area. Once the service road is built to the powerhouse, there will be no need for access from the Mills cabin vicinity. 7. Aesthetic, Recreational and Wilderness Resources a. Affected Environment The landscape of the project area can be divided for the purposes of aesthetic description into the nearly level, generally open Gustavus flats and the stair-stepped, densely forested 70 Excursion ridge (Baker in prep.). For many observers, Gustavus flats' aesthetic values derive primarily from the mosaic of fens, meadows, shrub lands and young forests, nearly all of which are pleasant to walk or ski through and provide long vistas to surrounding mountains. Aesthetic values are easily compromised: sound travels readily across the flats and vegetation tends not to screen human activity, though the flatness of the terrain assists in attenuating both visual and auditory intrusions. Development has substantially preempted solitude in the Rink Creek vicinity by airport activity. The open flats between Rink Creek and the airport are ditched along the right-of-way that the powerline route would follow. The stair-stepped, canyoned topography and generally dense vegetation of the Excursion ridge provides more opportunity for obscuring visual & auditory impacts of developments (except from aircraft) than does Gustavus. Except for the Miils cabin at the mouth of Falls Creek, there are no man made structures. Clearcuts of two ages in the study area are the major human intrusion on the ridge. They are now sufficiently revegetated to obscure visual effects of logging. The younger ones on Native allotments are still in a stage of near-impassibility, while the old one on public lands is now very traversable. An old logging road along the shore is largely obscured, and a major preexisting wildlife trail is reestablished on it. Proposed access and service road routes and facilities would not be visible from the shore. Recreational values of the study area are primarily related to the shore and the lower falls of Falls Creek (Baker in prep.). Recreational use appears to be principally by locals, though visitors to the Beartrack Inn visit the Excursion ridge shore as well (about 25 this year). An interviewed sample of residents suggests that a majority of residents have visited the study area. Attractions include easy hiking in a remote setting, wildlife and spawning salmon, the falls, the old fish trap, beachcombing, and fishing. The highest frequency of use appears to be in spring. About 1.3 persons/day were estimated to walk the Falls Creek shore during late April-late May, 1997 & 1998 (Streveler, 1998). By contrast, few people choose to bush-whack up the ridge to access the beautiful fens, bogs, occasional open forests, and canyons of the ridge. Many respondents opined that a road into the uplands would considerably expand use there (Baker in prep.). Construction of the proposed roads and facilities would leave scars for a few years, especially along road segments that involve side-casting of waste materials, and on slopes where trees are felled to enhance slope stability. Adjustment of national park Wilderness boundaries to exclude the project area has ramifications from the local to the national level (Baker in prep.). Locally, about half of interviewees considered the project area to be of wilderness quality, but less than half considered the formal Wilderness status of the area to be highly important. Five interviewed Beartrack Inn guests all expressed some degree of reservation about removing the project area's Wilderness status. The local conservation group (Friends of Glacier Bay) has assumed a "wait and see" attitude pending outcome of the Environmental Assessment process. Local National Park Service management has declined to take a position. National conservation groups express strong concern, particularly as regards the precedent of tampering with wilderness boundaries; they have 71 varying opinions on the relative potential value of the project compared to loss of Wilderness status. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations i. Aesthetic and Recreational Resources Construction-related Effects Emplacement of the powerline, a brief and small-scale operation, may disrupt an occasional hiker or berry-picker walking the line route. Construction of facilities on the Excursion ridge would have a greater potential impact. Heavy equipment and blasting noise related to road and facilities construction over a 2-3 year period will be audible and disruptive of solitude for users of the project area, easternmost Gustavus and the surrounding park lands for the construction period. Construction at the powerhouse site will directly interfere with visitors to the lower falls during spring and early summer. Noise associated with tree felling in winter may interfere with the few people who ski the shore and uplands; if the Beartrack Inn succeeds in inaugurating winter operations, their guests may be impacted as well. Mitigation: construction activities at the powerhouse site would be suspended during the salmon spawning season for wildlife protection reasons, which would allow a respite for recreational visitors. Construction schedules would be posted in Gustavus public places. Blasting would be clumped into short periods, and nearby locals & visitors will be alerted. Long-term Effects Infrequent ORV-supported surveillance of the powerline crossing Gustavus would add slightly to ongoing vehicular use along this already-established vehicle route. On the Excursion ridge, motorized public access to the second riser per the GEC proposal would extend vehicular noise into an otherwise motorless area, while at the same time facilitating access to other large, pristine areas (such as the yellowlegs savanna and the upper Falls Creek canyon), now very little visited. Visitation would be greater per the GEC proposal, which allows public vehicular traffic up to riser #2, than per alternative 2, which would preclude all public vehicular traffic. Approximately weekly maintenance visits to the intake and powerhouse sites would periodically and briefly extend this vehicular intrusion into the heart of the project area. 45-91 foot swaths of cleared forest along road rights-of-way would detract aesthetically from an otherwise visually pristine area. Access, intake and powerhouse facilities (plus in the case of alternative 2, the holding tank) will intrude into what is now a visually pristine area. Over time, windthrow and mass wasting associated with new clearings may create unattractive visual disruptions. Mitigation: GEC's proposal has been greatly modified over time to eliminate all visual intrusion in the shore zone except the short access road segment from Rink Creek to the 72 park boundary. Other portions of the roads would be routed almost entirely through forested country where their at-a-distance visual impact would be nil (except from the air). Clearing sizes would be held to the minimum consistent with good road construction practices. Waste woody materials would be employed in roadbed construction to the degree possible, minimizing the size and visual intrusiveness of the waste disposal site. Within a decade, planned revegetation and rapid rates of vegetative growth are expected to heal roadsides and facilities sites, restoring them to visual attractiveness. Intake and powerhouse structures per either alternative would be down in the canyon, designed and painted to be minimally visible, and thus not evident to anyone more than a few yards away. Except for the pond and containment structure associated with the intake, they would be nearly invisible from the air as well. ii. Wilderness Resources Wilderness, defined non-formally as the opportunity for solitude and the experience of pristine ecosystems, would be diminished by construction of the project per either alternative. Impacts on solitude and would be as described specifically above (VI. B.7.b.i.). Even if the facilities are avoided by wilderness seekers, the knowledge that the area is now roaded and bent to a technological purpose will reduce the feeling of solitude for some. Wilderness as formally designated by the Wilderness Act is a legal concept that, in the minds of many, provides the final inviolable refuge for the human spirit from the pervasive works of modern mankind. Correspondingly, established boundaries are sacred; adjustments to them, especially to accommodate the very works they were designed to exclude, is to dilute not only that place's meaning, but the meaning of all other formally designated Wilderness areas. In this respect, the project under either the GEC proposal or alternative 2 has major and irreducible impacts. Mitigation: The NPS has selected lands of presumably equivalent park value for receipt from the state in return for lands to be excluded from the park under the GEC proposal, and they have agreed to place other non-wilderness lands within the boundaries of Glacier Bay National Park into Wilderness status. It thus can be argued that, save for the precedent of the transaction itself, the result of the transaction would be no net loss of wilderness value to the National Park System. 8. Socio-economic factors a. Affected Environment Gustavus is a small, isolated community with an estimated 377 year-round residents as of 1999 (AK Dep't of Labor statistics). Due to the seasonal nature of the economy, the summer population is considerably higher. Glacier Bay National Park, one of Alaska's most-visited attractions, has its headquarters near Gustavus, and the National park Service is the largest single employer in the community. The Park Service, many small recreational and tourism businesses, and commercial fishing ventures are the main 73 economic activities in Gustavus, and lend the community its seasonal nature. In addition, many residents are retired persons who live the summer months in Gustavus and head to warmer (and drier) climates in the winter. The annual population growth rate for Southeast Alaska is expected to slow dramatically over the next five years. However, Gustavus is one of the few communities in the Icy Strait region that has had continuous strong population growth in the recent past, even as other communities have experienced no or negative growth. Reasons for this growth include little reliance on the timber and mining industries and only secondary reliance on commercial fisheries, which are causes for slower growth in the region, and a large presence of the recreation and tourism industry which support visitors to Glacier Bay National Park. In addition, Gustavus has a large portion of flat land available for development a rarity in Southeast Alaska and the promise of a rural lifestyle, which draws many people to the area. These conditions are expected to lead to positive population and economic growth in Gustavus' future. b. Impacts and Recommendations Construction-related Effects During the 24 to 36 month construction period, additional traffic would be generated on the Gustavus road system (Snow 1999). This will be especially problematic on the Wilson/Rink Creek road from which the project's road system continues, because this gravel road is maintained at residents' expense and often is in bad condition already. Heavy truck traffic from the state gravel pits to the project area would be especially problematic in that regard. Mitigation: GEC will contribute to the maintenance fund for these roads during the construction period. No local business establishments would displaced; to the contrary, GEC's policy would be to maximize local hire and purchase from local vendors. The estimated 15 or fewer construction workers needed at any given time should be drawn about half from the local labor force. Because of some specific skills needed, an estimated half of the workers would be out of town; they should be within the capacity of local rental units, B&B's and inns to house. (Snow 1999) Mitigation: No workers or their families are expected to relocate permanently to Gustavus as a consequence of the project. Short-term benefits to the local economy would include reducing unemployment, generating local spending at retail and service establishments, and purchase of supplies & materials from local suppliers. 74 Long-term Effects The personnel who currently operate the diesel generation facility will be trained to operate the hydro plant. Capacity will be increased from the current 650 KW to a peak capacity of 800 K W. Though backup diesel will by required during low water flows in Falls Creek, for most of the year, diesel noise and air pollution will cease. Mitigation: Costs for producing power from the hydro facility are anticipated to be lower than the current diesel generation costs. Rates will continue to be regulated by Alaska Public Utilities Commission. The price of electricity will depend on the cost effectiveness of project, but will be less than it would be, given diesel generation. Part of the savings will be realized by the state of Alaska, in the form of a lessened Power Cost Equalization burden; if present state energy subsidization policies continue, part of the savings will accrue to customers whose consumption levels exceed the amount subsidized by PCE. If the NPS opts to utilize Falls Creek power, they will realize cheaper rates as well. C. Cumulative Impacts According to the Council of Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (1508.7), an action may cause cumulative impacts on the environment if its impacts overlap in space and/or time with the impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions. I. Geographic and Temporal Scope The geographic scope of the analysis will include the study area, portions of Glacier Bay National Park on the Excursion ridge contiguous with the study area, Gustavus (here defined as all lands lying in the I 955 Gustavus exclusion from the park), and the Bartlett Cove developed area within Glacier Bay National Park. For marbled murrelets, the scope will include the entire Icy Strait region (Figure I). The temporal Scope will encompass: -The period from 1909 (the date of applications for native allotments and prior to Caucasian settlement of Gustavus) to present (for the historical retrospective); and -1980 (onset of Corps of Engineers interest in Falls Creek hydro) to 2050 (5 decades from now) for impacts analysis. 2. Related Projects and Trends Though many phenomena could arguably be included in a cumulative impacts analysis of the Falls Creek hydro project, we choose to focus on three closely intermeshed with the project. 75 a. Gustavus Growth and Economy Being the "gateway to Glacier Bay", Gustavus is already expected to grow steadily (see IV.b.8. above). The project would add impetus to this expectation, for reasons explained in the above-cited section. Two additional factors need elaboration in the present context. First, about 1300 acres of park lands formerly under wilderness status and transferred to the state would be added to Gustavus per the GEC proposal. Several hundred acres of these lands lie outside the direct vicinity of the project. Though it is GEC's intent that these lands remain undeveloped, the state of Alaska will probably make the final determination. The question of project lands disposition becomes even more open should the hydro project be built and then cease to operate in the future for some unforeseen reason. If some or all these lands become open for development, they would very significantly add to Gustavus' land base, and thus to its growth potential. It is difficult to anticipate what forms this growth could take, but land disposal, borrow pit development and logging are among the possibilities. Being beyond the present eastern extremity of Gustavus, this addition of developable land will have the effect of erasing the "end of the road" character of the Rink Creek neighborhood, with particular impact on the Beartrack Inn. A second effect would be to increase the amount of electrical power, and perhaps, decrease its price to the consumer. The scarcity and cost of power is frequently cited as a key impediment to growth of Southeast Alaskan economies, and is a major rationale behind the power intertie recently authorized by Congress (see IV. H.). b. NPS Facilities Upgrades and Expansions The National Park Service first began development at Bartlett Cove in the 1950's. Development accelerated in the early 60's with construction of a major lodge and associated facilities. A major pulse of facilities upgrade and expansion began in the mid 90's and continues. Recent activities include: a major dock expansion replacement and elaboration of fuel storage and transfer facilities additional park housing improvements to the sewage treatment facilities relocation and elaboration of refuse treatment, storage and disposal facilities These steps are in various stages of planning: widening and paving the access road from Gustavus to Bartlett Cove rerouting of portions ofthe Bartlett Cove road system construction of a visitor center complex construction of a Tlingit heritage center 76 Despite disclaimers in various environmental documents associated with these actions (e.g. NPS 1998, p.54) recent and planned NPS projects in sum have significant cumulative effect on the rate of development in the area. GEC's proposed development will add to that development impetus. c. Native Allotments The George and Mills native allotments (Figure 2 ) lying within the project area are now remote and undeveloped except for former logging and one extant cabin. They were conveyed to messrs. George and Mills in the first place based on their subsistence value (Brake) 2000). The numerous heirs to these properties have divergent aspirations for them. Allottees who uses the Mills cabin values the property for its remote, undeveloped nature and opposes the project. Others support the project and would welcome the impetus it brings for development. Residential and commercial development, borrow pits and logging are among the possibilities. Though the project has been designed to stay away from the lowlands, it will certainly reduce the degree of solitude afforded Mills cabin occupants, especially during construction. On the other hand, there is a possibility that the proposed access road, which comes very close to the George allotment, may eventually link these properties to Gustavus, despite their being no present provision to allow that in the GEC proposal. This would add another 264 acres to the developable land base of eastern Gustavus. Effects of the project on the biota of the allottments are not well known, as researchers associated with the project did not have permission to enter these lands. d. Power Generation for the Park At present, the Bartlett Cove development of Glacier Bay National Park is powered by its own diesel plant and related fuel facilities. Underground tanks associated with this facility in the past have failed and contaminated a large volume of soil, resulting in a costly cleanup and long-term potential for seepage into park waters. The NPS has the option to link up with the Gustavus power grid, once the project is on-line. This could remove the necessity for the NPS power plant and with it some potential for local pollution. 3. Effects on Remaining Park Lands a. Wetlands and Surface Flows Land re-designations according to the GEC proposal would remove all park lands down- gradient from development. Therefore, no impacts to park wetland hydrology are anticipated. By the same token, no stream would reenter the park after transiting the project area or adjacent native allotments. 77 Alternative 2 could have a greater potential effect. Portions of forested wetlands, fens, and ravines tributary to Homesteader Creek sandwiched between proposed developments and the Native allotments would remain in the park (Figure 8). Being down-gradient from the access road, borrow pit, and soil/woody debris disposal sites, their hydrology or nutrient input could be affected. Such effects are anticipated to be minor (see IV.B.4.c.ii). A few small ravines cross the corridors as envisioned in Alternative 2 and reenter the park before eventually flowing out onto the Gustavus flats in what are now or probably will become native allotment lands. The effects of the projects on the waters conducted by these ravines is anticipated to be very small. b. Wildlife The project and any additional development it catalyzes in the immediate vicinity would drive a wedge of development and increased human use into what is now a complete altitudinal transect extending from the alpine to an especially rich mosaic of shore habitats. The native allottments, especially as they are expected to eventually be expanded down to present mean high tide, contain a very large proportion of shore and lowland habitats. Otherwise, this transect is presently encompassed within Glacier Bay National Park boundaries. Effects of the project are potentially significant for black bears. Elements ofthis potential include interruption of movements, direct mortality, and loss of habitat. While none of these potentials are thought to be major in themselves, they could be significant in concert and in the long run: Interruption of movement: Major bear trails transit the project area (Figure 2 of Lentfer 2000), two of which cross the proposed roads. Trails also transit the allottments, and bears generally diffuse through upland habitats. It is unclear what amount of disturbance of these traditional movement patterns bears will tolerate. Direct mortality: Hunting may be allowed on project area lands transferred to the state. Eventual residential development would lead to bear habituation and subsequent "defense of life and property" kills. Increased mortality in this relatively small area is unlikely to reduce the overall population of the Gustavus-Excursion ridge area. However, temporary local depletion could occur, which could draw individual bears in from adjoining park lands. Loss of habitat: The project is unlikely to directly preempt a significant amount of bear habitat. However, eventual development of the coastal zone in the project area, if catalyzed by the project, could preempt a very heavily used bear foraging area. This may have a negative effect on the population of black bears, most of whose remaining habitat will be in the park. If development of the shore occurs as an indirect effect of the project, it will almost certainly diminish or end coastwise thoroughfare by such sensitive species as wolves, brown bears and coyotes, all of which would have the majority of their remaining range in the park. 78 If trapping is allowed on state lands, it would result in mortality to furbearers and some incidentally caught animals that range out of the park, as happens at present in Gustavus. This would add to the ongoing effect of trapping in Gustavus, which has a long joint boundary with the park. There is no reason at present to suspect that trapping has a significant impact on park mammals, nor is it likely that trapping, a declining industry, will increase in the near future. The smaller, "spaghetti" exclusion of lands from the park envisioned in alternative 2 (Figure 8) would leave considerably more acreage in a highly protected status. This alternative minimizes the potential effects of development that might occur on state lands in the long-term future by, for instance, providing a mosaic of refugia for birds and mammals. This scenario has the grave disadvantage, however, of establishing poor management units: too small to contain anything approaching populations, and likely to experience almost total faunal interchange between state and federal jurisdictions. c. Fish Three fish populations would remain in the park after the land transfer, as envisioned either by the GEC proposal or alternative 2. Lower Rink Creek: According to alternative 2, and a small portion of the intertidal estuary of Rink Creek would remain in the park. The only interface of the project with Rink Creek is the powerline crossing, which is anticipated to have no impact potential on fish (Figure 4). Homesteader Creek: According to alternative 2, a portion of the intertidal estuary of Homesteader Creek would remain in the park. The size of this portion depends on whether the George native allotment is expanded down to present mean high tide. Several upland tributaries would remain in the park under either alternative. The proposed access road would cross Homesteader Creek via a bridge at the uppermost margin of the Gustavus flats (above the estuary); the road would also cross several small tributary ravines in the uplands, which would be culverted. There is a negligible to very minor potential for siltation during construction (see IV.B.2&4). Falls Creek: The small portion ofthe anadromous reach now in the park would be excised from the park per the GEC proposal and alternative 2. In both cases, however, all of the creek's watershed upstream of the project would remain in the park. The 2m falls, 400 m upstream of the islands is believed to provide a barrier to upstream movement. Therefore, fish potentially affected by the project probably cannot move upstream into the remainder of the park, nor can fish from the park remainder, if washed downstream, make it back to park waters even under natural conditions. There are no additional barriers between the 2m falls and I Okm falls. The latter is believed to be the limit of Dolly Varden distribution (Figure 3 of Flory 2001 ). Thus, a 6km stretch of occupied stream in the park remainder, including several nodes of excellent habitat including the big woods area, will be left in pristine condition. This is the uppermost, and therefore seminal population of resident Dolly Varden in Falls Creek. 79 According to the land exchange per alternative 2, the major portion of the bypass reaches of Falls Creek would remain in the park. Genetic analyses based on four and three loci, respectively (Leder 200 I) suggest that fish sampled at the big woods (well upstream of either alternative intake site) and the logjam (in the bypassed portion of the creek) are genetically differentiated, and therefore that the two resident populations may be distinct from each other. The logjam population is almost certainly delimited upstream from the big woods population by several barriers: falls and cataracts in the inner canyon, the major falls just upstream of the strip fen, and probably by the 2m falls upstream of the intake sites. Separate populations may exist between these barriers as well. Compared to the GEC alternative, placement of the intake site downstream of the islands per alternative 2 would remove additional important Dolly Varden habitat at the islands from direct effects of the project. However, any potential benefits to fish of this reach (reach 4) would not accrue to the population within the park remainder. In sum, one or more possibly distinct population of Dolly Varden in the bypass reach would exist entirely or in part in the park, after land exchange per alternative 2. If they are distinct, impacts to them cannot be mitigated by protection of the population upstream of the intake site. If they are in part maintained by down-washed individuals, then persistence of upstream fish is a mitigating factor. d. Human Visitation to Park The highest frequency of recreational use of the Falls Creek area appears to be in spring. About 1.3 persons/day were estimated to walk the Falls Creek shore during late April-late May, 1997 & 1998 (Streveler, 1998). By contrast, few people choose to access the ridge. Access created by the project would considerably increase visitation to the project area, and encourage visitation to adjacent areas of remaining park lands. Since Excursion ridge plant communities for the most part are very brushy and difficult to traverse, general dissemination is not expected from the road system. It will, however, provide easy access to two places remaining in the park under Alternative 2: the yellowlegs savanna (Figure 2), a vast area of easy to traverse wetlands above riser #3, and the lower falls at the end of the road per alternative 2. Per the GEC proposal, the falls would no longer be in the park. Most recent recreational use occurs along the shore between the end of Rink Creek road and thence SE to or past the mouth of Falls Creek (Baker in prep). The project intersects the shore only at the Rink Creek crossing, outside this principal use zone, and is expected to have a very minor effect on shore use. 4. Effects on Icy Strait Region a. Murrelets Loss of marbled murrelet nesting habitat related to the project may add stress to this species, which is already declining in Icy Strait, Alaska, and throughout its range 80 generally (see IV.B.3.a&b.iii.). Loss of potential murrelet nesting trees is an unavoidable consequence of the project. In part, this is due to an earlier GEC decision to avoid major impacts of many sorts by moving all proposed development away from the shore. Once located in the uplands, these developments meet further conflicting imperatives, notably wetland avoidance, mitigation of potential windthrow and slope destabilization, and avoidance of high potential murrelet nesting tree concentrations. The presently chosen road routes are a compromise between these imperatives. All possible deference will be given to further avoidance of murre let trees in the course of final layout and construction. Alternative 2 goes a step farther than the GEC proposal in protecting murrelet habitat by removing the entire powerhouse development from one of the prime pieces of murrelet habitat in the project area to a spot with minimal potential in that regard. D. Analysis of No Action Alternative 1. Fuel consumption Diesel oil consumption by the present GEC power plant was 141,000 gallons in 2000, and is projected to reach 172,000 gallons by 2005 (draft, GEC power supply study, 6/19/00). 2. Fuel storage and transportation Fuel now is shipped in by barge, transferred ashore by pipeline, stored in bulk tanks near the beach, trucked from there to a tank at the generation building and then piped to the power plants. Each step involves some risk of spill, as follows: The fuel barge originates in Seattle and travels the entire Inside Passage to get here. It traverses many hazards to navigation. Several vessels each year are damaged or lost on this route as a result of bad weather or navigation mistakes. The fuel pipe appended to an old dock. It or the dock could be easily damaged by weather or vessel collision. Handling by truck can result in small spills during filling or unloading. The holding tank could be emptied onto the ground by operator error (as recently happened in Gustavus on a similar installation) or by breaching of the fuel line. 3. Air Quality The fuel consumption projection of 172,000 gallons by 2005 would result in gaseous emission: 560 tons of Nitrous Oxides; 15 tons of Carbon Monoxide; 1, 730 tons of Carbon Dioxide, all of which are "greenhouse gasses" associated with global warming. 4. Effects on Falls Creek project area Continuation of diesel generation would obviate any need for developing the Falls Creek area for hydroelectric power. 81 VII. LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS Dick Levitt Greg Streveler Bob Christensen Brady Scott Koren Bosworth Hank Lentfer Dan Mann Affiliation Gustavus Electric Co. Icy Strait Environ. Svcs. Responsibility General direction; co-responsibility for drafting and oversight Co-responsibility for drafting and oversight; principal preparer Document assembly; figures Research of selected items Review of botanical and wetlands questions Review of mammal and bird questions Review of soils and geological questions Kelley Baker Judy Brake) ISES ISES ISES ISES ISES ISES ISES Review of aesthetic, recreational and wilderness questions Liz Flory Mike Gagner Mike Yarborough Aquatic Resources R2 Consultants Cultural Res. VIII. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS Review of historical questions Review of fish and aquatic questions Review of instream flow questions Review ofTraditional Cultural Properties This will be provided in the next draft after there has been an opportunity to reflect on the instreamflow analysis. IX. LITERATURE Ackerman, R. E. 1965 Archeological Survey, Glacier Bay National Monument, Southeastern Alaska (Part II). Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology, Report of Investigations No. 44. Pullman. Ackerman, R. 1972. Report to the National Park Service on the Preservation of Archeological Sites in the Icy Strait Region, S. E. Alaska. Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Alaback, P. 1982. Dynamics of Understory Biomass in Sitka Spruce Western Hemlock Forests of Southeast Alaska. Ecology 63(6): 1932-1 948. Alaska Department of Fish & Game. Stream Catalog. Falls Creek: Stream# 114-23-022. Alaska Power Authority. 1982. Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives (Gustavus). Anchorage, AK. 23. Armstrong, R. and G. Streveler. 1998. An Evaluation of Anadromous and Resident Fish in Falls Creek, with an Emphasis on Coho and Dolly Varden. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus AK. 12p. 82 Baker, K. in prep. Aesthetic, Recreational and Wilderness Values of the Falls Creek Area. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus AK. Beck. S. 2001. Kahtaheena River (Falls Creek) Hydroelectric Project, Proposed Sediment Monitoring and Management Plan. R2 Resource Consultants Report to Gustavus Electric Co. Gustavus, AK. 7p. Blackett, R.F., 1968. Spawning behavior, fecundity and early life history of anadromous Dolly Varden in southeast Alaska. Research Report No. 6. Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Juneau, Alaska, 85p. Brakel, J. 2001. Historical and Cultural Aspects of the Falls Creek (Kahtaheena River) proposed Hydroelectric Project Area. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus AK. 35 p. Brakel, J. and M. Yarborough. 2001. Traditional Cultural Property Analysis for the Proposed Falls Creek (Kahtaheena) Hydroelectric Project. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus AK. 22p. Bosworth, K. 2001. Plant Communities, Rare and Sensitive Plant Species, and Wetlands of the Falls Creek Area: progress report for the 2000 field season. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. 3p. Bosworth, K. and G. Streveler. 1999. Plant Communities, Rare and Sensitive Plant Species, and Wetlands of the Falls Creek Area. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. 19p. Bray, K.E., 1996. Habitat models as tools for evaluating historic change in the St. Marys River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 (Supplement 1): 88-98. Brew, D. 1978. Mineral Resources of Glacier Bay National Monument Wilderness Study Area, Alaska. USGS Open-file Rept. 78-498. ~150p. Brew. D. et al. 1991. A Northern Cordilleran Ocean-Continent Transect, Sitka Sound, Alaska, to Atlin Lake, British Columbia. Can J. Earth Sci. 28(6):840-853. Brew, D. et al. 1992. The study of Undiscovered Mineral Resources of the Tongass National Forest and Adjacent Lands, SE Alaska. Renewable Resources 1(4):303-322. Cantillon, D. 1969. Kahtaheena Creek Egg Deposition Sampling. 10/10/69 Memo to Reg. Supervisor. ADF&G, Juneau. 2p. Chapman, D. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of large salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117 (1 ): 1-21. Conaway, C. 1952. Life History of the Water Shrew (Sorex palustris navigator). Amer. Midi. Nat. 48(1): 219-248. Coupe, L. 2000a. Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project, Technical Memorandum No.1, Power Supply Study. HDR, Engineering, Inc. Seattle, WA. 60p. Coupe, L. 2000b. Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project, Technical Memorandum No.2, Power Conduit Sizing and Alignment. HDR, Engineering, Inc. Seattle, WA. 11 p. 83 Coupe, L. 2000c. Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project, Technical Memorandum No. 3, Diversion/ Intake Structure Location and Preliminary Design. HDR, Engineering, Inc. Seattle, WA. 28p. Coupe, L. 2000d. Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project, Technical Memorandum No. 4, Powerhouse Preliminary Design. HDR, Engineering, Inc. Seattle, W A. 7p. Coupe, L. 2000e. Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project, Technical Memorandum No. 5, Power Output Studies. HDR, Engineering, Inc. Seattle, WA. t3p. Coupe, L. 2000f. Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project, Technical Memorandum No. 6, Powerhouse Preliminary Design, Continued. HDR, Engineering, Inc. Seattle, WA. 28p. Cunjak, R.A. 1996. Winter habitat of selected stream fishes and potential impacts from land-use activity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 (Supplement 1): 267-282. Cunjak, R.A. and R.G. Randall, 1993. In-stream movements of young Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) during winter and early spring. In: Production of juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, in natural waters. Edited by R.J. Gibson and R.E. Cutting. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 118: 43-51 DeGange, A. 1996. A Conservation Assessment for the Marbled Murrelet in Southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-388. US Forest Service, Pac. NW Res. Station. 310p. Demboski, J. 1999. Personal Communication. Ph.D. Candidate , Dep't of Biological Sciences, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Enriquez, Richard. 1999. Personal Communication. USF&WS biologist, Juneau Alaska. Flory, E. 1999. Fisheries Investigations of the Falls Creek Area, 1999. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus AK. 46p. Flory, E. 2001. In prep Gagner, M. 1999. Final Study Plan, Falls Creek (FERC No. 11659) Instream Flow Study. R2 Resource Consultants Report to Gustavus Electric Co. Gustavus, AK. 28p. Gagner, M. 2001. In prep Gould, Edward. 2001. Personal Communication. Curator of Mammals, Emeritus, Smithsonian Institution. Harris, A. 1989. Wind in the Forests of Southeast Alaska and Guides for Reducing Damage. U.S. Forest Service, PNW Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-244. HDR, Inc. 1999. Kahtaheena River (Falls Creek) Hydrologic Analysis. Report to GEC, September 1999. HDR Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. 12p. HDR, Inc. 2000a. Falls Creek Hydrologic Analysis. Report to GEC, February 2000. HDR Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. 29p. 84 HDR, Inc. 2000b. Falls Creek Hydrologic Analysis. Report to GEC, December 2000. HDR Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. 29p. Hinton, R. and D. Schoephorster. 1966. Soils of the Gustavus area. U.S. soils Conservation Service, Palmer, AK. 13p. Hoch, D. M. 1991. Initial Hydrologic Analysis of Falls Creek, Gustavus, Alaska. Letter from Peratrovitch, Nottingham & Drage, Inc., Juneau, AK, to Gustavus Electric Co. 7p. Horner, R. 1988. Seismicity in the Glacier Bay Region of Southeast Alaska and Adjacent Areas of British Columbia. Proceedings of the 2"d Glacier Bay Science Symposium, Sept19-22, 1988. Glacier Bay. Humphries, P. and P.S. Lake, 2000. Fish larvae and the management of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 16(5): 421-432. Imhof, J.G., J. Fitzgibbon and W.K. Annable, 1996. A hierarchical evaluation system for characterizing watershed ecosystems for fish habitat. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 (Supplement 1): 312-326. Kinsella, Mike. 2001. Personal Communication. Montana mammologist with experience in water shrew ecology. Kitano, S. 1995. Spawning Habitat and Nest Depth of Female Dolly Varden Sa/velinus malma of Different Body Size. Fisheries Science 6(5): 776-779. Kurtz, R. S. 1995. Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Historic Resource Study. National Park Service, Alaska System Support Office, Anchorage. Leder, E. 2001. Genetics of Dolly Vardens, in prep Lentfer, H., et al. 1991. Falls Creek Biological Survey-1991. National Park Service, Gustavus AK. 13p. Lentfer, H., 2000. Birds and Mammals of the Falls Creek Area; an Addendum to the 1999 Reports on these Subjects. Icy Strait Environmental Services report toGustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. 6p. Lentfer, H. and G. Streveler. 1999a. Mammals of the Falls Creek Area, Spring-Fall, 1999. Icy Strait Environmental Services report toGustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. 29p. Lentfer, H. and G. Streveler. 1999b. Birds of the Falls Creek Study area, with Special Reference to Marbled Murrelets, Raptors and Riparian Species: May-September, 1999. Icy Strait Environmental Services report toGustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. 12p. Mackovjak, J. 1988. Hope and Hard Work; the Early Settlers at Gustavus. Goose Cove Press, Berkeley, CA. 85p. Mann, D. and G. Streveler. 1999. Reconnaissance Survey of Soils and Geology of the Falls Creek Area. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. 17p. Mann, D. 2000. Observations on Soils and Bedrock made in the Falls Creek Study Area in July, 2000. Icy Strait Environmental Services report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. 7p. 85 Milhous, R.T.,I998. Modeling of in stream flow needs: the link between sediment and aquatic h abitat. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 14(1): 79-94. National Park Service. 1998. Bartlett Cove Dock Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment. Glacier Bay N.P. and P. Bartlett Cove, AK. 90p. Paige, Bruce B. 2000. Personal Communication. Retired Chief Naturalist, Glacier Bay National Park, and prominent local Natural Historian. Payne, B.A. and M.F. Lapointe, 1997. Channel morphology and lateral stability: effects on distribution of spawning and rearing habitat for Atlantic salmon in a wandering cobble-bed river. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 2627-2636. Piatt, J. and G. Ford. 1993. Distribution and Abundance of Marbled Murrelets in Alaska. Condor 95: 662-669. Quinn, T.P. and N.P. Peterson, 1996. The influence of habitat complexity and fish size on over-winter survival and growth of individually marked juvenile coho salmon (Onocorhynchus kisutch) in Big Beef Creek, Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 (Supplement 1 ): 1555-1564. Rabeni, C.F. and S.P. Sowa, 1996. Integrating biological realism into habitat restoration and conservation strategies for small streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 (Supplement I): 252-259. R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 2000. Summary of Hydraulic Calibration Results of the Falls Creek lnstream Flow Study. December 2000 Report to Gustavus Electric Co. R2, Redmond WA. 27p. R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 2001. Master Library of Habitat Suitability Curves. January 2001 Report to Gustavus Electric Co. R2, Redmond W A. 21 p Sealaska Corporation. 1975. Native Cemetery & Historic Sites of Southeast Alaska. Submitted to Sealaska Corporation by Wilsey & Ham, Seattle. Scrivener, J.C. and M.J. Brownlee, 1989. Effects of forest harvesting on spawning and incubation of chum salmon (Onocorhynchus keta) and coho salmon (0. kisutch) in Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 681-696. Snow, L. 1999. Socio-Economic Impact of the Falls Creek Hydroelectric Facility at Gustavus, Alaska. Report to Gustavus Electric. 2p. Soiseth, C. 1998. Relative Importance of Kahtaheena (Falls) Creek. Memorandum to Resource Mgt. Supervisor. 7/31/98. NPS. 2p. Soiseth, C. 1998. Falls Creek Salmonid Diversity and Run Strength, June 1998. Report to Resource Mgt. Supervisor. NPS. 2p. Streveler, K. 2001. Falls Creek Water Quality. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. 6p. Streveler, G., et al. 1994. Potentials for Impacts on Natural Values of the Kahtaheena River (Falls Creek) Area. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus AK. 19p. 86 Streveler, G., B. Paige and K. Bosworth. 1995. Biological Inventory of Selected Portions of the Bartlett Cove, Gustavus and Indian Point Areas, Southeast Alaska. Icy Strait Env. Svcs. Rept to Denver Service Ctr., USNPS, Denver, CO. 47 p. Streveler, G. 1997. Bear and Other Wildlife Usage of the Falls Creek Vicinity, Spring 1997. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus AK. 27p. Streveler, G. 1998. Fish Investigations of Falls Creek. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. Sp. Streveler, G. 1998. Bear and Other Wildlife Usage of the Falls Creek Vicinity. A Second Look during Spring and Early Summer, 1998. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus AK. 18 p. Streveler, G.P., H.P. Lentfer and J.T. Brakel. 1999. Observations on Winter Mammals and Birds of The Falls Creek/Eastern Gustavus Area. Icy Strait Environmental Services Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. 17p. Waldman, R. 1982. Archeological Inventory, Seven Native Allotments, Glacier Bay Area, Alaska. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Anchorage. AK. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1974. Small Scale Hydropower for Gustavus, Alaska. Letter Report, June 1984. USCOE, Alaska District, Anchorage. 35p. US Forest Service. 1997. Tongass Land Management Plan, Final Impact Statement, part 1. Us Department of Agriculture, Forest Service R10-MB-338b. 250p. US National Park Service. 1998. Bartlett Cove Dock Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment. Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve, Alaska. 61p. Yarborough, M. 1999. Archaeological Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Kahtaheena Hydroelectric Project Near Gustavus. Cultural Resources Consultants' Report to Gustavus Electric Co., Gustavus, AK. 21p. X. APPENDICES Other appendices will be supplied with the next draft. A. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan B. Traditional Cultural Properties Analysis C. Technical Specifications D. USF&WS and NMFS Letters on Threatened and Endangered Species E. Enabling Legislation F. Participant List 87 Federal Agencies Mr. David P. Boergers, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Mr. Bob Easton Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Mr. Vince Yearick Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Ms. Carol Sampson Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Pamela Bergmann U.S. Dept. of Interior Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance Regional Environmental Officer 1689 C. Street, Room 119 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-5126 Ms. Teresa Woods, Field Supervisor U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Alaska Ecological Services 3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 20 I Juneau, AK 99801-7100 Mr. Richard Enriquez U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801-7100 Mr. Steve Cummins Bureau of Land Management Alaska State Office Branch of 964 Adjudication 222 W. 7'h Ave. #13 Anchorage, AK 99513-7599 Tomie Lee, Superintendent Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve PO Box 140 Gustavus, Alaska 99826 APPENDIXF 88 Chad Soiseth Glacier Bay Nat'l. Park & Preserve PO Box 140 Gustavus, AK 99826 Mary Kralovek Glacier Bay Nat'l. Park & Preserve PO Box 140 Gustavus, AK 99826 Mr. Andy Grossman, Acting Chief U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service Resource Management Division PO Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99802-1668 Mr. John Morrell Hydropower Assistance Team Leader USFS Alaska Region P.O. Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628 Mr. Randy Steen U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Permit Processing Section Regulatory Branch C-ENPA-CO-R PO Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Mr. Mark Jen, Environmental Scientist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Alaskan Operations Office 222 W. Seventh Ave #19 Anchorage, AK 99513 Mr. John Bregar U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Ave. Mail Stop EC0-088 Seattle, WA 98101 Mr. Bruce Bigelow U.S. Geological Survey P.O. Box 21568 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Robert L. Lloyd, Assistant District Manager, Lands U. S. Bureau of Land Management Anchorage, District Office 6881 Abbott Loop Rd. Anchorage, AK 99507 Canada Pacific Ocean Faile Creek Hydroelectric Project (Figure 1) Northern Southeaet Alaeka Thl5 focu5 ar.,a of thl5 map 15 north.,m 5outh.,a5t Alaeka. ,., r~lona l c:lllln~tlon 15 not hlstcrlca l. It 15 arbitrary forth., purp~5 ofthl5 ~port. The uaclcgrountl w•s constructed from USFS elev.tlon models. ALASKA 25 · Project Location 0 25 50 Southeast Alaska N Yellow lcgs' SavaMGh Fall~ Cr~~k Hydro~lectric Proj~ct (Figur~ 2) Plac~ Nam~~ This map le 11ae&t on field work performed durin~ the summer of 1999. Place name o~l ne and explanations can l1e found In the text .. The uackground le aM aerllll llflllge from 1999. ~- ALASKA . '• Project Location Mile5 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 Feet 1000 0 1000 2000 LEGEND ••••••• I I :Project Area ....... ·' ~ Falls Creek ~Tributary ~ Access Road '~ v / Service Road / '/" (and Penstock) ~ Penstock ~ . .. . . . Buried Power ~~· · ... ·· Line .. , ,, , , ' Survey Line , ,, /V Section Line Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project (Figure 3) Alternative 1 Land Disposition 1 Notee Note the: red border area 16 referred In the: text a& the: "Eaet of the: Eaet Lip" area. See fl9ure: 8 for alternative: 2 di&P,O&Itlone. Complete explanation& of land dlepoeltlone c:an be: found In the: text. ALASKA 1000 r---• ·---.. .. . . . . . /)?/ ~ /"'"v / / / .. ,. / ' / N 0 0.25 Feet 0 1000 Legend Project Area Access Road Service Road and Penstock 2000 Buried Power Line Penstock 0.5 Falls Creek N Tributary Other Creek Contour Survey Line Section Line Park Land Private Land State/GEC Land Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project (Figure 4) Alternative 1 Project Layout No~s Thl& map I& 11a&et::l on current t::le61el1 propo6al6. See flerul'l! 9 for altematlve 2 layout ant:! fig ure 12 for altematlve6 con61t::leret::l 11ut eli minated. ALASKA 1000 ,---_. I I ___ .. 0 0.25 Feet 0 1000 Legend Project Area Access Road Service Road and Penstock 0.5 2000 .. . . . . · Buried Power Line . .. ~ /V ~ /' v • / ' / N I I Penstock Falls Creek Tributary Other Creek Contour Survey Line Section Line Borrow Pit site Disposal site N Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project (Figure 12) Alternatives Considered But Eliminated Plea&e eee Scop lng Document 1 for complete de5Crlptlone of the vartoue alternatlvee. The 17•clrground 16 •n MeriMII11111ge from 1999. ALASKA 0 0.25 Feet 1000 0 1000 Legend 2000 Project Area Alternative A (a and b) Alternative B (a and b) 0.5 Alternative B (c) N Falls Creek Tributary Other Creek Contour Survey Line Section Line