Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBradley Lake Hydroelectric Project 1985I I I I I ,- I I ' r • I I I I I I I I I I ' BRA 086 Alaska Power Authority LIBRARY COPY BRADi.d RIVER •. KENAI PENINSULA. AlASKA BRA 086 o.t.TE ISSUED TO BL-D-123 BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TERRESTRIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Prepared by: ENTRIX, Inc. Anchorage. Alaska and Stone & Webster Engineering Corpon>.tion 800 A Street Anchorage, Alaska PROJECT NO. 8221 BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Section 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.0 5.0 4. 1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 BL-D-123 TERRESTRIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Description INTRODUCTION General Project Description Background Objectives Approach to Impact Analysis Approach to Mitigation METHODS Study Area Attribute Mapping Derivation of Species Models Digitizing Habitat Use Analysis Habitat Evaluation Procedures Mitigation RESULTS Introduction Baseline Conditions Project Costruction Project Operation DISCUSSION Purpose Vegetation Moose Black Bear Brown Bear Mountain Goats Waterfowl LITERATURE CITED i Page No. 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-7 1-10 1-10 1-11 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-3 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-8 3-17 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-4 4-4 4-5 4-6 5-1 PROJECT NO. 8221 BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY TERRESTRIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX SUBJECT A SPECIES MODELS ii BL-D-123 PROJECT NO. 8221 BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY TABLE 1 2 TERRESTRIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT LIST OF TABLES TITLE HABITAT ATTRIBUTES CONSIDERED FOR EACH INDICATOR SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS • ACREAGES, PERCENT COVER, AND CODES FOR VEGETATIONS TYPES FOUND IN THE BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT STUDY AREA 3 DENSITY AND SUITABILITY INDICES FOR MOOSE IN THE BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT STUDY AREA 4 DENSITY AND SUITABILITY INDICES FOR BLACK BEAR IN THE BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT STUDY AREA 5 DENSITY AND SUITABILITY INDICES FOR MOUNTAIN GOATS IN THE BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT STUDY AREA 6 DENSITY AND SUITABILITY INDICES FOR TRUMPETER SWANS IN THE BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT STUDY AREA 7 ACREAGE AND VEGETATION TYPES OCCUPIED BY EACH FACILITY 8 ACREAGE OF VEGETATION TYPES AFFECTED BY FACILITIES iii BL-D-123 PROJECT NO. 8221 BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY TABLE 9 TERRESTRIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT LIST OF TABLES (CONT.) TITLE SUMMARY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT LOSSES OF MOOSE HABITAT AND SUBSEQUENT DISPLACEMENT OF MOOSE DUE TO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 10 SUMMARY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT LOSSES OF BLACK BEAR HABITAT AND SUBSEQUENT DISPLACEMENT OF MOOSE DUE TO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 11 SUMMARY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT LOSSES OF MOUNTAIN GOAT HABITAT AND SUBSEQUENT DISPLACEMENT OF MOOSE DUE TO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 12 SUMMARY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT LOSSES OF TRUMPETER SWAN HABITAT AND SUBSEQUENT DISPLACEMENT OF MOOSE DUE TO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 13 INFLUENCE OF MITIGATION ON MOOSE 14 INFLUENCE OF MITIGATION ON BLACK BEARS 15 INFLUENCE OF MITIGATION ON MOUNTAIN GOATS 16 INFLUENCE OF MITIGATION ON TRUMPETER SWANS 17 DENSITY OF WATERFOWL AND SHOREBIRDS REPORTED FOR THE STUDY AREA iv BL-D-123 PROJECT NO. 8221 BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY TERRESTRIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT LIST OF TABLES (CONT.) TABLE TITLE 18 SUMMARY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT LOSSES OF WATERFOWL AND SHOREBIRD HABITAT AND SUBSEQUENT DISPLACEMENT OF BIRDS DUE TO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION. 19 INFLUENCE OF MITIGATION ON WATERFOWL. 20 INFLUENCE OF MITIGATION ON SHOREBIRDS. v BL-D-123 PROJECT NO. 8221 BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY TERRESTRIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE 1 STUDY AREA MAP 2 VEGETATION MAP 3 MOOSE 4 BLACK BEARS 5 MOUNTAIN GOATS 6 TRUMPETER SWANS 7 GENERAL PROJECT SITE MAP 8 ESTIMATED LOSS OF AVAILABLE MOOSE HABITAT OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT 9 ESTIMATED DISPLACEMENT OR LOSS MOOSE HABITAT OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT 10 ESTIMATED LOSS OF AVAILABLE BLACK BEAR HABITAT OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT 11 ESTIMATED DISPLACEMENT OR LOSS OF BLACK BEAR OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT 12 ESTIMATED LOSS OF AVAILABLE MOUNTAIN GOAT HABITAT OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT 13 ESTIMATED DISPLACEMENT OR LOSS OF MOUNTAIN GOATS OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT 14 ESTIMATED LOSS OF AVAILABLE TRUMPETER SWAN HABITAT OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT 15 ESTIMATED DISPLACEMENT OR LOSS OF TRUMPETER SWANS OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT vi BL-D-123 z 0 E= u- ::l c 0 a: E-z C! ,.... 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General This report presents the results of the Quantification Study conducted for the Bradley Project. The study was originally performed for Terrestrial Impact Lake Hydroelectric Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation in support of the Project licensing effort on behalf of the Alaska Power Authority, State of Alaska. The original Terrestrial Impact Assessment Report (TIAR} was issued in February 1985. This revision updates the February TIAR to include (1) Agency Consultation requirements presented in the Alaska Power Authority Responses to Agency Comments on the Terrestrial Impact Assessment Report, June 1985, (2) the elimination of a dredged access channel for barge access to the project, and (3) establishment of a brackish marsh for waterfowl nesting. The report provides predictions of losses, including direct and indirect, for habitats and animals resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed Project. These predicted losses are based on models of habitat suitability and habitat use by animals that are present on Project lands. Full implementation of the models allow accurate prediction of direct and indirect losses, and changes in total loss, as mitigative measures are applied. The results from this study will be used by the Alaska Power Authority and local resource agencies to establish: 0 0 0 The level of project impacts; Whether selected mitigation accurately addresses predicted losses; Whether further mitigative measures are required. 1.2 Project Description The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project proposed by the Alaska Power Authority is located on the Kenai Peninsula, about 105 miles south of Anchorage, and 27 miles northeast of Homer, Alaska. Bradley Lake is BL-D-123 1-l located in the Kenai Mountain Range in a glacial U-shaped valley and has a maximum depth of about 270 feet below the existing lake level of approximately elevation 1,080. The proposed development includes raising the existing Bradley Lake level 100 feet to a normal maximum surface elevation 1,180, by constructing a dam, spillway and outlet facility at the lake outlet. An 18,820 feet long, 11 feet diameter, concrete lined power tunnel will connect the reservoir intake works with a two-45 MW unit powerhouse located just above sea level on the northeast shore of Kachemak Bay. The proposed powerhouse is located near sea level on the southeastern shore of Kachemak Bay. The terrain immediately surrounding the powerhouse site rises from the tidal flats near elevation 10 to elevation 1,400. A tailrace channel will be excavated downstream of the powerhouse into the tidal flats to allow free discharge of generating flows onto the tidal flats and into Kachemak Bay. The tailrace will be approximately 200 feet long and will be rip-rap lined. The proposed Middle Fork Diversion is located approximately one mile north of Bradley Lake in an adjacent drainage at elevation 2,200 on the Middle Fork stream. The Middle Fork Diversion facilities consist of a small dam, spillway, and two diversion lines. One line will be provided for initial construction efforts to bypass natural streamflows and subsequently to serve as a permanent low level outlet for downstream releases. The other main diversion line conveys water to Marmot Creek, a tributary to Bradley Lake. The interbasin diversion facility will be operational from May through October. The proposed Nuka River Diversion is located southeast of Bradley Lake below the Nuka Glacier at about elevation 1,300. The Nuka River Diversion consists of constructing a small dike across the Upper Nuka River near the Nuka Pool, excavation of the outlet weir at the Nuka Pool oulet into the Upper Bradley River, and increasing the width of the Upper Bradley River Channel immediately downstream of the outlet. The outlet will be a rock cut with an inlet at about elevation 1,286 and BL-D-123 l-2 with a minimum channel width of 65 feet. The material excavated from the outlet will be locally graded in the vicinity of the outlet to maintain local aesthetic values. The dike and outlet excavation will divert the Nuka Glacier flow into the Upper Bradley River and into Bradley Lake. The proposed transmission of power from the Bradley Lake power plant is over two parallel, wood pole, 115 kV lines, about 20 miles long. These lines will tap into a new transmission line scheduled to be built by Homer Electric Association between Fritz Creek and Soldotna in 1985 - 1986. The proposed Project requires the development of facilities for access to and within the Project area during construction. Also, facilities for housing of personnel and for storage of construction and operational equipment are provided. Whenever possible, facilities required during construction will be so located and designed that they may be used as permanent facilities to serve the long term needs of the Project. Facilities not needed for long term project use will be removed and the affected grounds will be rehabilitated. The proposed construction facilities include the development of staging areas and camp sites; concrete batch plants; borrow and waste areas; domestic water supply and sewage disposal and/or treatment plants; housing for permanent plant operations personnel and construction manager and engineering support staffs; field laboratory testing, warehousing, and garaging structures; and the essential services to these facilities including heating, water, sanitary disposal systems, and electricity. The key facilities and services to be provided are described in greater detail in the following paragraphs. Two staging areas are planned for the Project. A small staging area approximately 150 feet by 350 feet will be provided as part of the barge dock development. This area is located at the terminus of the barge dock and will serve as a temporary laydown area for off-loading personnel, equipment, and supplies needed for project development. BL-D-123 l-3 the outlet will be locally graded in the vicinity of the outlet to maintain local aesthetic values. The dike and outlet excavation will divert the Nuka Glacier flow into the Upper Bradley River and into Bradley Lake. The proposed transmission of power from the Bradley Lake power plant is over two parallel, wood pole, 115 kV lines, about 20 miles long. These lines will tap into a new transmission line scheduled to be built by Homer Electric Association between Fritz Creek and Soldotna in 1985 - 1986. The proposed Project requires the development of facilities for access to and w.ithin the Project area during construction. Also, facilities for housing of personnel and for storage of construction and operational equipment are provided. Whenever possible, facilities required during construction will be so located and designed that they may be used as permanent facilities to serve the long term needs of the Project. Facilities not needed for long term project use will be removed and the affected grounds will be rehabilitated. The proposed construction facilities include the development of staging areas and camp sites; concrete batch plants; borrow and waste areas; domestic water supply and sewage disposal and/or treatment plants; housing for permanent plant operations personnel and construction manager and engineering support staffs; field laboratory testing, warehousing, and garaging structures; and the essential services to these facilities including heating, water, sanitary disposal systems, and electricity. The key facilities and services to be provided are described in greater detail in the following paragraphs. Two staging areas are planned for the Project. A small staging area approximately 150 feet by 350 feet will be provided as part of the barge dock development. This area is located at the terminus of the barge dock and will serve as a temporary laydown area for off-loading personnel, equipment, and supplies needed for project development. BL-D-123 1-3 Following Project Construction, this location will become the permanent staging area. The second and main staging area for construction needs will be located near the lower camp area. This area, which is presently sized as 600 feet by 1,000 feet, will be provided as laydown and storage space for each of the contractors on the Project, and for the construction manager's needs in storing of equipment and supplies. Temporary warehousing and garaging facilities, as well as diesel electric power facilities and fuel supplies also will be located in this area. In addition, laboratory testing facilities may be located in this area. The lower camp site will be located adjacent to the active floodplain of Battle Creek, approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the main staging area and near the propsed access road serving the upper dam site. Unvegetated overflow channels are found throughout the east end of the camp site. The access road and dike will be constructed prior to camp construction with a 20 feet wide bench between the dike and the creek bank to minimize impacts on Battle Creek. This embankment will be armored on the creek and Kachemak Bay side. This site is planned for development to accommodate about 240 beds. All lower camp site facilities can be mobilized by landing craft or barge, then skidded in or driven in by truck. The proposed upper camp site has been located about 1.2 miles due west of the dam near the proposed access road. The site has 4. 6 acres of land at an average of 20 percent slope, with a nearby pond to act as a water supply. Because of difficult early accessibility to the site, all mobilization ~ust be by helicopter for site development and early use, until the access road has been completed. The upper camp site is planned for up to 210 bed capacity. At project completion, the upper camp facilities will be removed and the area rehabilitated. The major borrow areas are the Martin River delta area and the dam site rock quarry. In addition, a small quarry will be located near the access road between the lower camp and dam site. Waste areas will be BL-D-123 1-4 located as close as possible to the work, so as to minimize their impact and the need for access roads. The Martin River borrow material consists of clean, well-drained gravel, although some screening and/or washing may be required for concrete aggregate. The total estimated quantity of borrow is about 704,000 cubic yards. A dike will be constructe.ci in the ~lartin River delta prior to site development to avoid causing siltation to the Martin River. The dike will be located allowing a 50 feet wide bench between the toe of the embankment and the nearest 4ctive Martin River channel. This buffer will prevent construction material from falling into the river. The dike embankment will be armored with rip-rap on the Martin River side in order to prevent soil erosion. The dike will be designed for a flood with a recurrence interval of 50 years, based on hydraulic analyses made during the Project final design. Subsequent to its need, the borrow site area will be rehabilitated and developed in compliance with the Project Mitigation Plan. A small quarry area will be located near the access road between the lower camp and dam site for rip-rap material. It is anticipated that over 30,000 cubic yards will be excavated. The permanent access facilities include the access channel and barge basin, airstrip, and Project roads. Roads will extend from the: o Airstrip to powerhouse o Powerhouse to lower camp (also serving the barge basin and staging area o Lower camp to upper camp o Upper camp to dam (also serving the intake gate shaft, spillway, and construction diversion tunnel) BL-D-123 1-5 A temporary road will also be constructed between the lower camp and the Martin River borrow site. The road between the lower camp and Martin River borrow site is not depicted on the maps included with the report since it is not a permanent facility. However, the road was included in the impact calculations for construction activities. At the conc~usion of the construction phase of the project, the road will be removed and the site revegetated. This will eliminate further indirect impacts during the operation phase and will substantially reduce the direct impacts as revegetation progresses. Movements of heavy or bulky equipment, construction material, and parts to the project can be accomplished economically by waterborne transportation which will have minimum social and environmental impacts. To accommodate the use of sea-going barges to support the project construction, a barge dock will be required at the project site. Homer, strategically located at the mouth of Kachemak Bay, is approximately 27 miles from the project site and would serve to refuel and provide shelter and services to sea-going barges and tugs enroute to and from the project site. From Homer, Kachemak Bay is characterized by "deep water" for 15.5 miles, shallow conditions for three miles, and tidal mud flats for the final 1.5 miles to the project site. To accommodate barge traffic, a facility located off-shore in the tidal flat area approaching the project is proposed. Construction of this facility may include dredging to remove high spots in the barge access area to a depth sufficient to allow sea-going barge and tug traffic during extended portions of the tide cycle. Construction will also include barge docking and off-loading facilities; and a laydown area. A maximum of 40,000 cubic yards of material is anticipated to be dredged for the barge docking facility. The dredged material will be transported and disposed of in the waterfowl nesting area which is approximately 30 acres in size. BL-D-123 l-6 The barge docking facility proposed will have a bottom elevation of -7.0 and a top elevation of 18 project datum. It is estimated that approximatley 100,000 cubic yards of clean fill material will be required to construct the facility along with an additional 25,000 cubic yards of rip-rap for slope protection. The barge dock and staging or laydown area and dock access roads will be constructed of well compacted, graded, granular borrow material placed upon the tidal mud flats, north of Sheep Point. These soil pads are to be built north of the slough oriented east to west at Sheep Point. A 100 feet long, single lane bridge will cross over the slough to connect the barge basin facilities with the lower camp to powerhouse access road. An airstrip will be located adjacent to the powerhouse site to allow fixed wing access to the project. A parking apron has been located on the southern one-third of the landing strip. The airstrip will be 2,200 feet long by 50 feet wide, with a 175 feet wide landing area, and with the centerline grade at elevation 16, project datum. The runway will be gravel surfaced and will accommodate helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Development of the airfield will require about 275,000 cubic yards of material for fill, surfacing, and slope protection. It is anticipated that about 156,000 cubic yards of material will come from the Martin River borrow area and the remaining volume from the powerhouse and tunnel excavation. Rip-rap material will come from the small quarry above the lower camp. 1.3 Background The quantification of terrestrial impacts due to the construction and operation of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project is required to develop a mitigation plan. During 1980 and 1981, an interagency study team, comprised of personnel from Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Corps of Engineers (COE), quantified Project impacts using the USFWS BL-D-123 1-7 Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) (Rappoport et al. 1981). Following the transfer of the Project from the Corps of Engineers to the Alaska Power Authority, changes were made in the design and location of some Project features. Due to these changes, the results of the HEP Analysis were no longer valid and the terrestrial impacts were reanalyzed.. The terrestrial impacts and associated mitigation measures were described in the Draft Mitigation Plan, January 1985 and Terrestrial Impact Assessment Report, February 1985. During late 1984 and early 1985, an investigation of available terrestrial impact techniques was completed and reviewed with the resource agencies for concurrence on the study approach. Four classes of impact assessment techniques were evaluated by the Alaska Power Authority and resource agencies. Ad Hoc. These methodologies provide minimal guidance for impact assessment beyond suggesting broad areas of possible impacts (e.g., impact upon flora and fauna, impacts on lakes, forests), rather than defining specific parameters to be investigated. Checklists. These methodologies present a list of environmental parameters to be investigated for possible impacts; they do not require establishing direct cause-effect links to Project activities. They may or may not include guidelines about how parameter data are to be measured and interpreted. Matrices. These methodologies incorporate a list of Project activities with a checklist of potentially impacted environmental characteristics. The two lists are related in a matrix which identifies cause-effect relationships between specific activities and impacts. Matrix methodologies may either specify which actions impact which environmental characteristics, or may simply list the range of possible actions and characteristics in an open matrix to be completed by the analyst. BL-D-123 1-8 Networks. These methodologies work from a list of Project activities to establish cause-condition-effect relationships. They are an attempt to recognize that a series of impacts may be triggered by a Project action. Their approaches generally define a set of possible networks and allow the user to identify impa~ts by selecting and tracing out the appropriate Project actions. Each of the techniques was evaluated for its ability to quantify impacts. Important considerations included whether models were available for Alaskan species, and whether the technique met the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Of the four methodologies, the network analyses were judged to be most suitable by the resource agencies. The network assessment techniques quantify impacts through the use of wildlife species models. The models are comprised of a series of equations that utilize habitat attributes to predict either habitat quality or species abundance. Depending upon the design of the model, changes in habitat attributes can be used to predict future habitat quality or species abundance. Six network analyses were evaluated by the Alaska Power Authority and the resource agencies. species models were not Three were judged not to be suitable because available for Alaska. The fourth network technique, the Carrying Capaeity Approach, was also deemed unsuitable since this technique requires that the study area encompass the entire range of each indicator species. The two techniques that were selected to quantify the Project terrestrial impacts, the Habitat Evaluation Procedures and Habitat Use approach were judged to be suitable to quantify impacts due to the Project. BL-D-123 1-9 1.4 Objectives The goal of this assessment was to quantify the terrestrial impacts of the Project for the chosen indicator species. Specific objectives were to: o Assess the availability of habitats and the abundance of each species prior to construction to establish baseline conditions; o Establish the quantity and type of habitat that will be lost due to placement of facilities; o Quantify the decrease in potential use by wildlife of habitats affected by noise and disturbance; o Assess the Project impacts to wildlife, other than the indicator species, through extrapolation of the models; and o Predict the influence from mitigation on habitat loss throughout the life of the Project. 1.5 Approach to Impact Analysis Through consultation with the resource agencies, it was agreed that both the HEP analysis and Habitat Use analysis would be conducted. Each methodology requires that impacts be evaluated for indicator species. An advantage in simultaneously conducting both programs is the resulting ability to compare predicted losses in terms of habitat units (HEP), as well as the estimated number of animals being displaced (Habitat Use). Following additional agency consultation, it was decided that four indicator species would be evaluated, moose, mountain goat, black bear, and trumpeter swan. In addition, Project influences on brown bear and other species of waterfowl were to be evaluated through extrapolation of results from the black bear and trumpeter swan models, respectively. BL-D-123 1-10 1.6 Approach to Mitigation Mitigation planning is required by State and Federal regulations. In addition, Stace and Federal mitigation policies have been establis~ed to define the procedures that should be followed during mitigation planning. Following are the major regulations that require the consideration and eventual implementation of mitigative efforts. Protection of Fish and Game (AS 16.05.870) The Alaska State laws pertaining to the disturbance of streams important to anadromous fish address the need to mitigate impacts on fish and game· that may result from such action. The pertinent portion of item (c) from Section 16.05.870 reads as follows: If the Commissioner determines to do so, he shall, in the letter of acknowledgement, require the person or governmental agency to submit to him full plans and specifications of the proposed construction or work, complete plans and specifications for the proper protection of fish and game in connection with the construction work, or in connection with the use, and the approximate date the construction, work or use will begin, and shall require the person or governmental agency to obtain written approval from him as to the sufficiency of the plans or specifications before the proposed construction or use is begun. National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321-4347) was designed to encourage the consideration of environmental concerns in the planning of federally controlled projects. Regulations pertaining to the implementation of NEPA have been issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-1508; 43 FR 55990; corrected by 44 FR 873 Title 40, Chapter V, Part 1500). Items (e) and (f) under Section 1500.2 (Policy) of these regulations describe the responsibilities of federal agencies in regard to mitigation. BL-D-123 1-11 Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible: (e) Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment. (f) Use of practicable means, consistent with the requirements of the Act and other essential considerations of national policy, to restore and enhance the quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize and possible adverse effects of their actions upon the quality of the human environment. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations also refer directly to the need for mitigation actions on the part of the developers of hydroelectric projects (18 CFR Part 4). The following reference is quoted from Section 4.41 of the Notice of Final Rulemaking as it appears in the November 13, 1981, issue of the Federal Register (46 FR 55926-55963) and adopted. Exhibit E of the proposed FERC regulations should include, among other information, ••• a description of any measures or facilities recommended by State or federal agencies for the mitigation of impacts on fish, wildlife, and botanical resources, or for the protection or enhancement of these resources •.• The regulations go on to require details concerning mitigation including a description of measures and facilities, schedule, costs, and funding sources. BL-D-123 1-12 Environmental Protection Agency The Environmental Protection Agency Mitigation Policy is established with the following major authorities: A. Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) 1. Section 1251: "The objective of this chapter is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In order to achieve this objective, it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this chapter ••• (1) It is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985 ••.• " B. The §404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230) developed pursuant to §1344(b)(l) of the Clean Water Act. 1. 40 CFR §230.1 (c): "Fundamental to these Guidelines is the precept that dredged or fill material should not be discharged into the aquatic ecosystem, unless it can be demonstrated that such a discharge will not have an acceptable adverse impact either individually or in combination with known and/or probable impacts of other activities affecting the ecosystems of concern." 2. BL-D-123 40 CFR §230.10(a): " . no material shall be permitted discharge o:f dredged or fill if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem ••• " 1-13 3. 40 CFR §230.10 (b): "No discharge of dredged or fill material 4. 5. shall be. permitted if it. • causes or contributes. .to violations of any applicable state water quality standard; ••• violates any applicable toxic effluent standards. Jeopardizes the continued existence of species list,ed as endangered or threatened, or results in likelihood of the destruction or adverse modification of a habitat which is determined. to be critical habitat. 40 CFR §230.10(c): ". • no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted which will cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of the United States." 40 CFR §230.10(d): ". • no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted unless appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem ••• " C. The National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.) states, in part, "The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible all agencies of the Federal Government shall • . • Identify and develop methods and procedures • • • which will ensure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and technical considerations " D. Environmental Protection Agency Statement of Policy on Protection of Nation's Wetlands (38 FR 10834; March 10, 1973): BL-D-123 1-14 "Policy (b) It shall be the Agency's policy to minimize alterations in the quantity or quality of the natural flow of water that nourishes wetlands and to protect wetlands from adverse dredging or filling practices, solid waste management practices, siltation or the addition of pesticides, salts, or toxic materials arising, and to prevent violation of applicable water quality standards from such environmental insults." Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (915 USC 661-667) Item (a) of Section 662 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) describes the role of the federal agencies in reviewing federally licensed water projects: ••• such department or agency first shall consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, and with the head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resourc~s of the particular State wherein the impoundment, diversion, or other control facility is to be constructed, with a view to conservation of wildlife resources by preventing loss of and damage to such resources as well as providing for the development and improvement thereof in connection with such water-resource development. FERC will comply with the consultation provisions of the FWCA. The conceptual mitigative measures outlined in this assessment have been developed in accordance with the sequence of steps defined by 40 CFR 1508.20, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq.) The mitigation planning sequence includes, in priority order of implementation, the following steps: o Avoid impacts through changes in design of features or scheduling to eliminate loss of resources; o Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action or its implementation; BL-D-123 1-15 o Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; o Reduce the impact over time through monitoring, maintenance, and proper training of project personnel; and o Compensate for impacts by conduc.ting habitat construction activities that rehabilitate altered habitats. This sequential strategy for mitigation option analysis and implementation is shared by both mitigation policies applied to the Project. The first type of mitigation measure was Project-specific and emphasized the avoidance, minimization, rectification, or reduction of adverse impacts, as ranked by the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy and coordinating agencies (ADF&G 1982, USFWS 1981). These measures were implemented to keep adverse impacts to the minimum consistent with Project requirements. They involved adjusting or adding Project features during conceptual design and planning so that mitigation became a built-in component of Project actions. Additional mitigative measures will be incorporated during the final design phase of the Project and therefore are not quantified in this report. Several of the mitigative measures used to offset Project impacts will include revegetation. The time required for revegetation will depend upon the type of disturbance at the site, the species that are used, and the site specific conditions (i.e., depth of organic layer, soil moisture, nutrients). In general, sites will be reestablished as shrub communities. In areas where significant disturbance has occurred to the organic layer and root zones, more than 10 years may be required to establish a viable shrub community. Less disturbed areas will likely revegetate to an early seral stage in less than 10 years. The concept:ual Project designs and the. Mitigation Plan have established a goal of 10 years to revegetate all disturbed sites. BL-D-123 1-16 The Alaska Power Authority, in consultation with the resource agencies, will prepare a revegetation and rehabilitation plan (RRP) for those areas affected by the project construction activity. In order to attain the desired timing of vegetation recovery, area specific goals will be established in the RRP. The area specific goals will be based upon the desired vegetation and sera! stage as identified in the Terrestrial Impact Assessment Report and during resource agency consultation. The RRP will state vegetation species composition and propagation method. Preliminary revegetation and rehabilitation plans presented in the Interim Final Mitigation Plan (IFMP) and the Terrestrial Impact Assessment Report (TIAR) are based upon discussions of preferred species composition and estimate on the timing of recovery. Investigations of vegetation recovery rates have been conducted in the Susitna drainage and on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. During the Susitna project studies, it was estimated that shrub zones provided optimal browse habitat, seven years after being hydro-axed. Burn recovery rates on the Kenai Peninsula and in the Susitna drainage were considerably shorter. During the Bradley Lake project, it was assumed that most clearing will be by cutting, not burning. In these areas, it would be conceiveable to have optimal browse conditions within five to seven years. Revegetation of pads and roads would progress more slowly. Depending upon the species selected and the propagation method, 10 to 15 years may elapse before optimal browse conditions are obtained. For the purposes of this report, an average recovery period of 10 years was used. The temporary Martin River access road will be rehabilitated at the end of Project Construction. Provisions for sand, gravel and concrete aggregate requirements during project operation will be provided from the Martin River borrow area and access road removal. The material can be stockpiled at the lower camp site. required from the amount stockpiled, designated lower camp area. BL-D-123 1-17 Should additional material be it can be extracted from the til c 0 ::E:- E- LJJ ~ 0 N 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Study Area During studies conducted by the Corps of Engineers interagency team prior to 1982, terrestrial impacts were quantified for an area that encompassed 54,245 acres. The boundaries of the study area were posi- tioned so that all direct and indirect influences on habitats from construction and operation of the Project were included. Due to the transmission line proposed by the Alaska Power Authority, a portion of the study area boundary had to be altered. The area considered in this evaluation encompassed 52,722 acres. The study area boundary is not coincident with the formal Project boundary. Instead, the-study area is defined to include all major impact zones and a half mile wide buffer around the outer edge of these zones (Figure 1). 2.2 Attribute Mapping The physical and biological attributes of the study area were mapped by the Corps of Engineers interagency team in 1980 and 1981. These attri- butes included vegetation types, snow depth, location of waterbodies, elevation, and slope. Maps were compiled from information obtained through ground-level inspection of 87 sample sites during summer 1980 and through the evaluation of existing sources of information (Rappoport et al. 1981). Within each sample site, an initial point was selected by walking a random number of minutes along a random compass heading from a feasible access area. From this initial point, a 100-foot transect was extended in a randomly determined direction. The transect length was increased to 200 feet in the freshwater and saltwater herbaceous sedge-grass habitats to increase the reliability of the sample data. BL-D-123 2-1 Five 1.6 x 3.3-foot plots were systematically located at 25-foot in- tervals along the random transects (nine plots in freshwater and saltwater herbaceous sedge-grass types). Where a majority of the transect included more than one vegetation type, the transect was relocated 90° or 270° to ensure that each sample site was of one.vege- tation type. The occurrence of vegetation "mosaics", where two or more vegetation types are closely interspersed, was accounted for in the type mapping and later data summations. Site sampling involved the measl!rement of several features of the vegetation. Within each plot the percent ground cover of herbs and woody plants less than 1.5 feet was visually estimated. Shrub and tree canopy intercepts greater than 1. 5 feet in height were measured along the 100-foot transect to establish percent cover values in the tall shrub and forest sample sites. Tree-related parameters, such as height, diameter at breast height (DBH) , and species, were measured by the point-centered quadrant method (Cottam and Curtis 1956). In measuring "plotless" parameters (e.g. the interspersion of tall shrubs and vege- tation less than one foot), the entire area visible throughout the sample site was considered. Upon completion of plot~ transect, and plotless measurements, a list was made of all vegetation species at the site and the aerial cover of each species was estimated by Daubenmire's cover classes (0-5 percent, 6-25 percent, 26-50 percent, 51-75 percent, 76-100 percent) (Daubenmire 1974). The final information collected at each sampling location was a site description. This description included topography, soil drainage, interspersion, dominant overstory, dominant understory, ground cover, and litter characteristics, as well as unusual features which might not be evident from the established habitat parameters. Vegetation types followed Viereck and Dyrness (1980) and are classified to Level III. Habitat information that could not be adequately assessed during the ground surveys was extracted from topographic maps, aerial photographs, and historical records. The location of waterbodies and stream courses were initially established from USGS topographic maps and were updated BL-D-123 2-2 through examination of 1979 aerial photographs. Slope, aspect, and elevation were also calculated from USGS topographic maps and were updated, based upon the topographic maps produced by the Alaska Power Authority. Snow depth was established from U.S. Soil Conservation Service precipitation records from gauges located at Bradley Lake and the city of Homer. Data from the Homer gauge was exr;rapclated to comparable elevations and vegetation types in portions of the adjacent study area. Additional habitat information was required for the transmission line corridor since the Corps of Engineers interagency team had not mapped the current alignment. Vegetation was mapped from 1979, true color and recent infrared aerial photography, and was ground verified during September 1984. Information on slope, aspect, and s~ow depth was calculated from the same sources used by the Corps of Engineers inter- agency team to map the remainder of the study area. 2.3 Derivation of Species Models During the development of the Habitat Evaluation Procedures, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) produced a series of species habitat models. Each model rates the value of specific habitat attributes (e.g., snow depth, vegetation types) according to the importance of that item to the species. The lists of habitat attributes for the USFWS habitat models are presented in USFWS (1980a) and Rappoport et al. (1981). The initial task in preparing the species models for this study involved a detailed review of the USFWS habitat attribute lists for the four indicator species. The applicability of each attribute was assessed for its relevance to the species on a regional basis and for its relevance to the Bradley Lake study area. In addition, current literature was reviewed and discussions were held with experts on each species. The results of this review were that several habitat attributes for each species model were deleted and new attributes were added. The list of habitat attributes considered for each model is presented in Table 1. BL-D-123 2-3 Based upon the lists compiled through the review process, the habitat attribute maps were revised to reflect the units of measurement and vegetative classification specifically needed to describe habitat parameters for the indica tor species. For example, vegetation types were grouped differently to describe individual food preferences of moose and black bear. The next task in deriving the models was to prepare a series of maps depicting the relative abundance of each indicator species within the study area. Distribution and abundance information for each species ... were taken from the reports describing the Corps of Engineers interagen- cy team studies conducted in 1980 and 1981 (USFWS 1982; Rappoport et al. 1981; Holdermann 1983; Krasnow and Halpin 1981). This information was supplemented by ob-servations conducted by the Alaska Power Authority (WCC 1983, 1984). The actual derivation of the model involved the mathematical comparison of the habitat attribute values with the relative abundance of each species. This process was conducted by examining 350 points within the study area. At each point, the relative species abundance, and habitat value for each attribute were read from the maps. These values were then entered in tabular from on standardized data sheets. A step-wise, discriminant function analysis was then conducted on the values, using the relative abundance of each species as the dependent variable and the habitat attribute values as the independent variables. The final output from this analysis was a regression equation that described how the habitat attribute variables should be mathematically combined to de- scribe the relative abundance of the species. The analysis also listed each habitat attribute and rated the attribute as to whether it made a significant contribution to the model. the equations and habitat attributes that were found to be significant for each indicator species are presented in Appendix A. BL-D-123 2-4 The final task in deriving the models was to review how well the model predicts the distribution of animals and birds within the study area. A Chi-square Goodness of Fit test was initially used to establish whether the model accurately predicted species distribution and abundance. In addition, a linear correlation coefficient was calculated between observed and predicted species distribution. Finally, a visual compari- son was made to establish whether significant deviation between observed and predicted distributions could be rationally explained. When the models failed any one of the three tests, a full reevaluation of the model was conducted, variables were changed or added, and the model derivation process was repeated. This testing process was repeated until the models accurately predicted the distribution and abundance of each species. The models were then presented to the source agencies to receive concurrence on the accuracy of the models and the practicality of using the models to predict Project impacts and influences of mitiga- tion. 2.4 Digitizing After the models were finalized, a series of maps were produced that depicted the modeled density of each indicator species for each habitat type within the study area. These maps and the vegetation map were digitized using a Geographic Information System computer program. The computer then calculated the area of each habitat type, multiplied the area by the density of animals and produced a map that depicted the expected number of animals in each section of the study area. In addition to the species maps, a map depicting Project facilities, and a map depicting noise produced by construction and operation activities were produced and digitized. The digitizing equipment used for this study allowed for a minimum recognizable distance of 0.0003 map inches or approximately eight inches on the ground. This level of accuracy allows precise calculation of areas occupied by facilities. BL-D-123 2-5 2.5 Habitat Use Analysis The Habitat Use Analysis assessed impacts by comparing the number of animals that could potentially occur in an area "with" and "without" the influences of the Project. A minimum of three points in time were needed to assess the "with Project" scenario: conditions prior to construction; conditions during the construction period; and conditions at the conclusion of the life of the Project. Intermediate points were added if it was assumed that a significant change in conditions was to occur in Project features, habitats, or in a mitigative feature. For the Bradley Lake impact assessment, six points in time were selected: 1. Year 0 -No Project Activities occurring; 2. Year 4 Point of maximum habitat loss or alteration due to construction of facilities and associated noise; 3. Year 6 -Conclusion of all indirect influences including helicopter traffic, heavy road traffic, and blasting; 4. Year 17 -Mitigative measures reach maximum habitat value; and 5. Year 50 -Conclusion of the life of the Project. The predicted impacts were calculated based upon the difference in the anticipated abundance of animals in the area with and without the Project. To predict the future abundance of animals in the study area, it was necessary to predict the future habitat attribute values. Several assumptions were made in predicting future habitat conditions including: BL-D-123 2-6 0 0 0 0 All physical habitat attributes, including slope, aspect, elevation, snow depth, ice cover, location of waterbodies, and stream courses will remain unchanged. Vegetative succession will continue at the same rate over the next 30 years as it has for the past 30 years. No natural or man-made disasters will occur, including large scale forest fires or oil spills. No additional human development of the study area will occur. These assumptions were reviewed with the resource agencies and concur- rence was obtained prior to initiating the impact assessment. 2.6 Habitat Evaluation Procedures The Habitat Evaluation Procedures can be used to document the quality and quantity of available habitat for selected wildlife species. HEP provides information for two general types of wildlife habitat compari- sons, the relative value of different areas at the same point in time, and the relative value of the same area at different points in time. By combining the two comparisons, HEP can quantify the impact of changes to wildlife habitats. Knowledge of existing and anticipated habitat characteristics, in conjunction with proposed Project plans, can then be used to recommend measures for mitigating those impacts. Baseline conditions and expected changes are described in terms of Habitat Units (HU's). The number of HU"s is defined as the product of the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI), i.e. quality, and the total area of available habitat, i.e. quantity. The theory and methodology behind HSI values is detailed in USFWS (1980 a, b, c, d). The basic criteria for the development of HSI values is that they range from 0 to 1 and that they are proportionately accurate (i.e., that an HSI of 0.4 is twice as important as an HSI of 0.2). For his study, HSI BL-D-123 2-7 values were based upon the density of animals that are predicted to occur in each habitat. Therefore, for each set of unique habitat characteristics, the species model estimated the suitability of that area for use by a particular bird or mammal. The value of that habitat was then multiplied by the acreage occupied by that habitat to obtain the number of habitat units. This procedure was repeated for each habitat in the study area. Final- ly, the habitat units for each vegetation type were summed to indicate the total number of habitat units for each species in the study area. These calculations were repeated for the six time intervals used in the Habitat Use Analysis, for the "with" and "without" Project scenarios. The difference in habitat units between the "with" and "without" Project scenarios is then described as the impact of the Project on each spe- cies. 2.7 Mitigation During the development of the Project Federal Energy Regulatory Commis- sion license and subsequent licensing support, specific mitigative measures were incorporated in the Project plan. These measures includ- ed: o Rehabilitation of the Martin River borrow site. o Rehabilitation of the dredge disposal site. o Revegetation of the lower camp. o Revegetation of the upper camp, the road to the Martin River delta, and the lower quarry site. o Allowing the transmission line corridor to revegetate to an early seral stage. These mitigative measures will be initiated during the construction phase of the Project and will attain their maximum value to wildlife during the first 10 years of Project operations. The habitats will then BL-D-123 2-8 be maintained at or near the optimal stage throughout the life of the Project. The influence of instituting these measures was quantified for each indicator species using the models derived for this study. BL-D-123 2-9 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Introduction As stated, the formal impact quantification process, as developed for the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) and Habitat Use procedures, allows for the separation of impacts between short-term and long-term effects. This provides the Alaska Power Authority and local resource agencies with the ability to design m~tigative measures that specifical- ly address each type of impact. Following a discussion of baseline conditions (Section 3.2), the impact quantifications are presented in discussions that focus separately on construction (Section 3.3) and operation (Section 3.4) phases of the Project. The influences of the mitigative measures included in the conceptual Project designs are presented in Section 3.4. The impacts of the Project on brown bear and other species of waterfowl are presented in Chapter 4.0 since these discussions are based on extrapolation of the models derived for other species. 3.2 Baseline Conditions The abundance and distribution of vegetation and wildlife was assessed by the Corps of Engineers interagency team during 1980 and 1981. This information was supplemented by data collected by the Alaska Power Authority in 1983 and 1984. The combined data sets were used to quanti- fy the baseline conditions. 3.2.1 Vegetation During the investigation of vegetative communities, 114 plant species were identified. No species were found that are currently listed or that are being reviewed for inclusion on the threatened or endangered plant list. Fifty-six types, both vegetated and unvegetated, were mapped. BL-D-123 3-1 The two most common vegetated types were sedge-grass communities and closed coniferous forest communities, occupying 16.6 and 16.9 percent of the study area, respectively (Table 2). The least abundant types were closed deciduous forests (0.2 percent) and mixed deciduous conifer forests (0.8 percent). Vegetation diversity varied for different sections of the study area. Vegetation in the Fox River Valley was principally composed of a mosaic of woodlands, shrub thickets, and sedge-grass meadows (Figure 2). In the upper Fox River Valley, conifer forest was the predominant type, with balsam poplar groves and alder thickets abundant in the middle portions of the valley, and freshwater and saltwater marshes dominant in the lower valley. The forest on the east slope of the Fox River Valley was composed of closed spruce forest that extended from 150 ft to 1500 ft elevation. The tree canopy cover was 60-75 percent, and the shrub understory was alder, rusty menziesia, and devil' s club. The slopes were less than 45°, and the organic layer was moderately well-drained. A gradually-sloping bench ranging from 1250 ft to 2500 ft elevation occurred above the spruce zone. Vegetation on this bench consisted of tall alder on the lower slopes and shrub tundra at the higher ele- vations. Vegetation on the north-facing slopes above Bradley Lake was composed of alder stands that graded into shrub tundra at the higher elevations. The south-facing slope of Bradley Lake was similar, but the lower elevations has a low shrub understory. Low willows occurred in the shrub tundra at higher elevations north of the lake. The vegetation north and south of the Bradley River Canyon was a mosaic of tall alder, mesic herbaceous sedge-grass, shrub tundra, and open coniferous forest. The lower portion of the Kachemak Creek Valley and its tributary (ele- vation 1100-1300 ft.) contained nine shrub and herbaceous vegetation types. Vegetation in this area was composed of low willow mixed with BL-D-123 3-2 mesic, herbaceous sedge-grass. The lower valley was partially divided by a knoll with mesic, herbaceous sedge-grass/tall alder on the south-facing slope, and mesic, herbaceous sedge-grass/tall alder/tall willow on the north-facing slope (elevation 1200-2000 ft.). The Martin River delta was comprised of a sparsely-vegetated floodplain with stands of open balsam poplar and mixed, balsam poplar and spruce trees. Tall willow and alder occur in the understory as shrub thickets. Forests on the slopes adjacent to the floodplain were primarily vegetated by closed coniferous forests. That portion of the transmission line corridor located west of the Fox River valley was principally vegetated by open and closed coniferous forests. Shrub habitats, bogs and sedge-grass meadows were also present. 3.2.2 Moose During the period October 1983 to June 1984, the seasonal distribution of moose in the study area was monitored. The data that was collected on moose movements was presented in the Moose Survey Report prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1984). The number of moose observed in the area ranged from a low of 8 moose on June 7 to a high of 110 moose on December 13. The total number of moose observed in the area remained relatively constant between October 12 and November 14, ranging from 11 to 39 moose. Beginning on November 19, the number of moose began increasing during each survey and reached a high count of 110 moose on December 13. Through the following two weeks, the number observed declined to 61 moose. During February and March, the number observed was within the range that had been observed during October (18 to 25). On April 25, the number of moose observed increased to 44 animals. On June 7, the lowest count for the survey period occurred (8 moose). In general, the total number of moose observed in the study area was directly related to the number of moose counted in the Fox River valley. BL-D-123 3-3 It was noted that Clearwater Slough and Sheep Creek were heavily utilized by moose during the rut, during winter, and in the spring. The 2 density of moose in the Fox River valley averaged 1. 3 moose/mi and 2 ranged from 0.04 to 3.78 moose/mi • The influx of moose into the Fox River valley between November 14 and December 13 did not result in a corresponding decrease in the number of moose observed in other portions of the study area. Bailey et al. (1976) related the increase of moose in the Fox River valley to movement of animals from the Caribou and Boxcar Hills areas. Ballard et al. (1982) noted that moose populations are often comprised of resident and migratory individuals. Therefore, it is likely that a large proportion of the moose that occurred in the Fox River valley in late November and early December were migrants from outside the study area and that the moose within the area do not comprise a distinct population but instead are a subgroup of a larger population. Observations of movements within the study area were also recorded during the surveys. This information included observations of tracks and sightings of unique groups or individuals. During the surveys it was apparent that moose were moving between the Fox River valley and the Caribou and Boxcar Hills areas. On February 28, tracks were observed leading from Clearwater Slough, northwest to the Boxcar Hills area. In addition, tracks and observations of unique groups and individuals indicated that movement does occur between the Fox River valley and Kachemak Creek. Observations included the presence of tracks and unique individuals. Specifically, on November 19, 1984, a bull was observed in Kachemak Creek valley that was missing the left antler. On November 26, 1984, no bulls were observed in Kachemak Creek valley and a bull missing the left antler was observed on the bench area above Bradley River. During the December 3, 1984 survey, no moose were observed on the bench and bulls were not observed in Kachemak Creek; however, a bull missing the left antler was observed on the south side of Clearwater Slough. These observations of animals were supplemented by scattered observations of tracks between Kachemak Creek and the Fox River valley. The route that was observed led from the northwest portion of Kachemak BL-D-123 3-4 flats, along the northern edge of the lake, then across the bench, and into the Fox River valley. During the survey period, there was no evidence that moose moved from Kachemak flats to the Nuka River valley. Based upon these survey results, and the additional survey data obtained by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) (Holdermann 1983) and the Corps of Engineers interagency team (USFWS 1982), it was concluded that three sections of the study area support resident moose, and two sections of the area seasonally support migratory moose. The three resident groups occur in the Fox River valley (18 to 25 moose), Kachemak Creek flats (4 to 13 moose), and the Nuka River valley (4 to 11 moose). The migratory moose occur in the Fox River valley and the area adjacent to Caribou Lake and the Boxcar Hills (at least 70 moose), and in the bench north of Bradley Lake (0 to 12 moose observed). Within the entire study area, a maximum of 110 moose were observed. The model derived for this study predicts the distribution and abundance of moose within the study area using a combination of physical and biological attributes (Figure 3). The model predicted that the study area could support 106.5 moose. Moose distribution, as predicted by the model accurately estimates the observed distribution of moose. Using the density of moose to calculate the Habitat Suitability Indices, the study area consists of 32,264.2 habitat units (Table 3). 3.2.3 Black Bear Evidence of black bears has been found in most sections of the st:uciy area. During the Corps of Engineers interagency studies, Rappoport et al. (1981) considered black bears to be a commonly occurring species. During summer 1980, the Corps of Engineers interagency team recorded the cumulative number of black bear sightings in most sections of the study area. Observations of bear were made in the transmission line corridor during fall 1984 by the Alaska Power Authority. BL-D-123 3-5 Through these investigations, a total of 32 black bear sightings were made. The largest percentage of observations were made along the transmission line corridor, in the Fox River valley, and along the sedge flats between the Bradley and Martin Rivers. Based upon this information as well as additional ADF&G Surveys, it is estimated that between three and six bears occur along the transmission line corridor, eight to twelve bears occur between the Fox River valley and the Martin River, and seven to ten bears are present in the shrub habitats at the higher elevations. Bear abundance in the study area can also be approximated from home 2 range sizes. Females with cubs have the smallest home ranges (3.5 mi ); however, home range size usually increases after the cubs become 2 yearlings (10 mi ). Adult males have the largest home ranges, averaging 2 52 mi (Schwartz and Franzman 1980). The model derived to predict the abundance and distribution of black bear estimated that 24.0 bears occur in the study area (Figure 4). This predicted abundance is within the range of bears observed and the number predicted based upon home range size. Using predicted bear density to calculate Habitat Suitability Indices, the study area consists of 27,869.7 habitat units (Table 4). 3.2.4 Mountain Goat Within the study area, mountain goats are widely dispersed during the summer, but concentrate on a smaller range during winter. Goats reportedly move to summer range in late May or early June and return to winter range in late October to early November. BL-D-123 3-6 Winter surveys conducted by ADF&G within the study area from 1979 to 1982 have shown that mountain goats were concentrated in the vicinity of the Bradley River, within a 2.5 mile radius of the Bradley Lake outlet (Holdermann 1983). The largest number of goats observed was 27 in late March 1980 in the Bradley River Canyon. Of these animals 19 wer;e 1.5 miles from the lake outlet and 1. 5 miles east of the Bradley River, eight goats were on the west side of the river near the lake outlet. Goats move from one side of the Bradley River Canyon to the other on a trail and shallow crossing at the lake outlet (Holdermann 1983). The summer range of mountain goats in the Bradley Lake area encompasses the area from Sheep Creek, through the mountains around Bradley Lake to the Nuka Glacier. During summer surveys conducted by ADF&G from 1979 to 1981, goats occurred in groups ranging from 1 to 17 animals (Holdermann 1983). The model which predicts mountain goat abundance and distribution estimated that 36.6 goats occur in the study area (Figure 5). The same model adjusted to habitat suitability predicted that 5,238.4 habitat units occur in the study area (Table 5). 3.2.5 Trumpeter Swan Trumpeter swans are common in the study area during the spring and fall migrations, and are occasionally present during other seasons, including winter. During the spring, swans are most frequently observed in the wetlands adjacent to the Bradley River-Sheep Creek estuary. The number of swans observed and the timing of their occurrence suggest that their use of the study area is primarily for feeding during migration. Nesting has been confirmed on only one occasion on a lake near Clearwater Slough. During spring most swans have been observed at Goose Point near the confluence of the Bradley River and Sheep Creek. Significantly fewer birds have been observed near Fox Farm Creek. BL-D-123 3-7 During mid-August, swans begin to stage in the Fox River valley. The density of swans present during this season averaged 2.6 birds/mi2 . This was similar to the density of swans found during the spring. The distribution of swans during the fall was also similar to that observed during the spring migration. The model derived to predict the density and distribution of swans estimated that 34.1 swans could occur in the area and that 8, 730.9 habitat units are present in the study area (Figure 6; Table 6). 3.3 Project Construction The amount of habitat available to wildlife will decrease during the construction phase of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. Habitat availability will be affected directly through the construction of facilities and indirectly through the effects of noise and disturbance associated with construction. The effects associated with facility placement (direct impacts) are quantified separately from the effects of noise (indirect impacts) due to the extent and duration of the habitat loss. The facilities considered in this evaluation are depicted in Figure 7. Indirect impacts from the project included the effects of noise and disturbance on the indicator species. Based upon the existing project design, it is anticipated that three types of activities will produce noise that could disturb wildlife. These were blasting, aircraft, and construction vehicles. Blasting will occur at the lower quarry, the powerhouse, the Middle Fork Diversion, the dam site, the dam site quarry, and the Nuka River Diversion. Aircraft flights will occur between the major project facilities, and vehicle noise will occur on the roads and staging areas. BL-D-123 3-8 The noise levels for each of these three sources was obtained from the current literature. Blasting noise was estimated to be 120 to 135 dB at the source. This estimate was derived from a blasting study conducted by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC)(1982) on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge using 36 pound charges. Aircraft and heavy trucks and equ~pment noise was estimated to range from 70 to 85 dB (Kerbec 1972). Noise radiates from the source as waves, whose energy is a function of distance from the source. Initially the wave front is spherical. When the sound waves encounter a planar surface, such as the ground or water-air interface, the wave is reflected so that the wave front is approximately hemispherical. As the wave continues to expand, its geometry approaches the configuration of a vertical, planar surface; however, as the wave expands, its energy is dissipated. dissipation of sound energy is referred to as attenuation. This The sound attenuation rate is a function of many variables, including frequencies. Other factors that contribute to the dissipation of sound energy are atmospheric condition, type and density of vegetation, soil and ground condition, and topography. Attenuation rates for the Terrestrial Impact Quantification Program were derived from WCC (1982) and Kerbec (1972). It was estimated that vehicle noise would attenuate to a noise level of approximately 60 to 65 dB at a distance of 600 ft from the noise source. A noise of 60 to 65 dB is equivalent to the noise of normal speech (Kerbec 1972). Within 200 ft of an aircraft, the noise level was estimated to be 70 to 75 dB and within 600 ft, the noise would be attenuated to approximately 60 to 65 dB. The noise from blasting is louder than other noises associated with construction activities. for this reason, noise levels were estimated for several distances from the source. The distance and estimated noise levels are presented below. BL-D-123 3-9 Distance from Source (ft) dB 0 120-135 BOO 120-135 1400 115-130 2200 105-115 2600 105-115 3300 100-110 4700 100-110 6700 90-95 For each distance interval away from the source, it was necessary to estimate the decreased use of the areas by the indicator species. Information on the effects of noise on wildlife were compiled from a variety of sources. Many of these sources are presented in Chapter 11 of Exhibit E (List of Literature) of the Bradley Lake FERC License Application. Based upon this information, a number between 0 and 1 was assigned to each distance interval. In accordance the the HEP guide- lines, a habitat score of zero implies no value, while a score of 1 indicates the best quality habitat available within the study area. This number was then multiplied by the number of habitat units and animals estimated to occur within each distance interval from the noise source. The resulting numbers represented the estimated number of habitat units and animals that would occur in the area while the noise was present. Since no information is available on blasting, aircraft, or vehicle schedules during the construction period, it was assumed that these activities would occur throughout the construction phase. The multipliers for each distance interval are presented below: BL-D-123 3-10 Noise Type Distance from Source (ft) Multiplier Blasting 0-800 0 800-1400 0.1 1400-2200 0.2 2200-2600 0.3 2600-3300 0.3 3300-4700 0.4 4700-6700 0.5 Aircraft 0-200 0.3 200-600 0.5 Vehicles 0-600 0.5 3.3.1 Vegetation During the construction period, the principal effects on vegetation will be the direct loss of habitat through facility placement. In total, 5,224 acres will be utilized for Project facilities (Table 7); however, this total includes the 1, 568 acres occupied by Bradley Lake. In addition, 304.2 acres that will be occupied by facilities are currently comprised of small lakes and unvegetated mud flats. Therefore, 3,351.8 acres of vegetation will be directly affected by facility construction. The greatest loss in acreage from a single facility will be due to the inundation of shrub and sedge habitats by the reservoir. The reservoir will affect 2,577.4 acres comprised of 12 vegetation types. The predominant vegetation types that will be affected are low shrub/low willow habitats (801.5 acres) and mesic herbaceous sedge-grass/tall alder/tall willow habitats (595.8 acres). This loss will significantly reduce the amount of these types available within the study area. Low shrub/low willow habitats will be reduced by 56.4 percent, while mesic herbaceous sedge-grass communities will be reduced by 43.4 percent. Of the remaining ten vegetation types that will be affected by the reservoir, the availability of two types (tall alder /low shrub and freshwater herbaceous sedge) will be reduced by 20 to 30 percent. All other types will be reduced by only 0.2 to 15 percent (Table 8). BL-D-123 3-11 Construction of the transmission line will affect the largest number of vegetation types. The transmission line corridor will occupy 762.4 acres and will affect 22 vegetation types. The predominant vegetation that will be affected is closed coniferous forest. In total, 352.4 acres of this type will be cut, representing 4.0 percent of the closed coniferous forest in the study area. In general, the quantity of vegetation affected by facilities does not represent a significant proportion of the amount of most types in the study area. Of the 45 vegetation types identified in the area, 16 types will be unaffected by facilities, and 20 types will be decreased by less than 10 percent. The three vegetation types that will be affected the most are low shrub/low willow, mesic herbaceous sedge-grass/tall alder/tall willow, and closed balsam poplar forest, which will decrease by 57.0, 43.4 and 55.6 percent respectively. 3.3.2 Moose Moose abundance and distribution will be altered during the construction phase of the Project. Construction of Project facilities will result in the direct loss of 2,922.1 habitat units and the likely displacement of approximately 10 moose. Impacts associated with the development of the reservoir result in the majority of these losses (Table 9). Inundation of shrub and sedge habitats at the east end of Bradley Lake will result in the loss of 2, 224.0 habitat units and the likely displacement of seven moose. Reservoir losses represent 76.1 percent of the total reduction in habitat units. The second most substantial loss will be due to the construction of the transmission line. This facility eliminates 569.8 habitat units and results in the displacement of approximately two moose. In combination, the reservoir and transmission line account for 95.6 percent of the direct habitat impacts. BL-D-123 3-12 Indirect impacts due to blasting, aircraft flights, and vehicle noise will also affect the abundance and distribution of moose. Based upon the response of moose to noise and disturbance, it was estimated that 4,156.4 habitat units would be unavailable to moose due to blasting. This equates to a displacement of approximately 14 moose (Table 9). Aircraft disturbance will result in an additional decrease of 497.8 habitat units, and displace two moose. It is estimated that vehicle noise will have a negligible effect, decreasing available habitat by 11.9 habitat units. In combination, direct and indirect influences will result in a decrease of 7,588.2 habitat units and the displacement of 25 moose. This represents a 23.5 percent decrease in the habitat units currently available to moose in the study area. The duration of the indirect component of this impact is expected to be short, persisting only through the construction period. Based upon the results of the Terrestrial Impact Quantification Program, it is likely that the moose will be lost from the Kachemak Creek valley. However, at this time, data is insufficient to establish whether the moose will remain in the lower Kachemak Creek valley and die, or whether they will attempt to find other suitable range above and adjacent to the reservoir rim. As indicated in other project documents, the Alaska Power Authority proposes to monitor the movements of the moose while the reservoir is filling to establish whether the moose are making an attempt to leave the lower valley. 3.3.3 Black Bear Adverse impacts to black bears due to Project construction will be substantially less than the projected impacts on moose. Construction activities will result in the direct loss of 1,681.1 habitat units, and the displacement of two bears. This loss represents 6.0 percent of the habitat units available to black bear within the study area. BL-D-123 3-13 As with moose, the largest habitat losses result from construction of the reservoir and transmission line. The reservoir will inundate 896.1 habitat units and will result in the partial displacement of one bear. The transmission line will occupy 623.7 habitat units and will also result in the partial displacement of one bear. In combination,· these two facilities account for 90.4 percent of the direct black bear habitat losses (Table 10). Construction noise and disturbance and associated aircraft traffic will also affect bear distribution. Noise from blasting will result in the loss of 3,641.8 habitat units and the displacement of three black bears. Aircraft disturbance will decrease the number of available habitat units by an additional 1,074.2 habitat units and will result in the partial displacement of one bear. Noise produced by vehicles will have a negligible effect, resulting in the loss of only 167.9 habitat units. In total, construction activities will result in the loss of 6,565.0 habitat units and the displacement of six bears. This loss represents 23.6 percent of the habitat available to black bears in the study area. Because the duration of most of these effects is short-term, it is expected that bears will be temporarily displaced, but not permanently lost from the local community. The Terrestrial Impact Quantification Program was designed to establish the effects of the project on wildlife habitat and use of that habitat. Mortality of animals due to direct means, such as hunting, road kills, or destruction of problem animals was not included in the models. The current project designs include measures to discourage the attraction of bears to the camps. Putrescible Wastes will be incinerated and buried. The landfill will be fenced to prevent bears from entering the area. In addition, an employee education program will be conducted to familiarize personnel with sensitive environmental features of the Project area, including wildlife. BL-D-123 3-14 Specific procedures that deal with problem animals will be developed in conjunction with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 3.3.4 Mountain Goat The adverse effects of construction are greater for mountain goats than for the other indicator species. Facility construction will result in the direct loss of 740.5 habitat units. This represents 14.1 percent of the habitat units available to mountain goats. Reservoir development creates the largest habitat loss with 729.1 habitat units eliminated, and five goats displaced. Losses due to the reservoir represent 98.5 percent of the total number of habitat units directly affected by facility construction (Table 11). Additional indirect habitat losses will occur due to the noise associated with blasting, aircraft, and vehicles. Noise produced by blasting will reduce the number of available habitat units by 1,063.0 and will result in the displacement of approximately seven goats. Aircraft and vehicles will have a smaller effect, resulting in the loss of 116.0 habitat units and the displacement of one goat. In combination, direct and indirect losses will result in a decrease of 1,919.5 habitat units, and approximately 13 goats being displaced to adjacent ranges. This represents a loss of approximately 36 percent of the habitat units available to mountain goats within the study area. Habitat losses do not account for isolation of goats from alternate ranges. Since the construction period is relatively short in the vicinity of the lake outlet, it is assumed that displaced goats will not be permanently lost from the local goat community. The Moose Survey Report (WCC 1984) describes general availability of additional goat winter range about 1.5 miles north of the Project dam site. Based upon the present baseline data, it is not possible to establish the population-level effects on mountain goats which may be associated with the Bradley Lake Project. During construction, it is anticipated that the goats will be displaced near Project facilities BL-D-123 3-15 from portions of their summer and winter range into adjacent ranges. Based upon current information on mountain goat behavior and distribution, it is anticipated that mountain goats will return to the area around the Bradley Lake outlet after construction has ended. As discussed in the Mitigation Plan, a mountain goat monitoring program will be established during Project construction and operation to verify the impact analyses presented in Exhibit E of the License Application. The HEP analyses results would also be verified. The findings of the monitoring program can be used to more accurately assess the influences of the Project on goats occurring in the Project area. Monitoring of mountain goats will be conducted or done under the field supervision of the Environmental Field Officer (EFO) making periodic observations of the goats. 3.3.5 Trumpeter Swan Trumpeter swan abundance and distribution will also be reduced during Project construction. Direct losses from facility construction total 658.7 habitat units, which represents the displacement of approximately three swans. The principal cause for this loss is the development of the reservoir. Currently, emergent vegetation at the east end of Bradley Lake provides unutilized feeding habitat for swans. During reservoir filling, emergent vegetation will not be available, thus resulting in the loss of 603.7 habitat units (Table 12). Additional direct habitat losses will occur along the sedge-grass flats adjacent to Kachemak Bay. Construction of the airstrip, dredged material disposal site, and barge dock will result in the loss of 2.1, 11.0, and 0.9 habitat units, respectively. Indirect impacts due to blasting, aircraft flights, and vehicle noise will also affect the abundance and distribution of swans. Based upon the response of swans to noise and disturbance, it was estimated that during construction 627.0 habitat units would be unavailable to swans due to blasting. This equates to a displacement of approximately two BL-D-123 3-16 swans. The use of aircraft within the study area will decrease the number of available habitat units by 30.8, which will result in the partial displacement of one swan. will have a negligible effect, habitat units by 3.8. It is estimated that vehicle noise decreasing the number of available In combination, the direct and indirect influences will result in a decrease of 1,320.3 habitat units and the displacement of five swans. This represents a 15.1 percent decrease in the habitat units currently available to swans in the study area. 3.4 Project Operation During Project operation, impacts resulting from Project construction on vegetation and wildlife will be reduced. At the completion of construction, several temporary facilities, including most of the lower camp, the upper camp, and the road between the lower camp and the Martin River delta will be removed and the sites revegetated. Revegetation will also be conducted at the lower quarry site, the Middle Fork diversion, and the Nuka River diversion. In addition, the dredged material disposal area and the Martin River borrow site will be rehabilitated, and the area under the transmission line right-of-way will be allowed to naturally revegetate to an early seral stage and then maintained in that state. All other facilities will remain in place through the life of the Project. In accordance with the mitigation policies of the USFWS and ADF&G, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project design. These measures and the influences that they have on the indicator species are described in this section. In some cases, additional mitigation may be required; some measures have been discussed in the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Draft Mitigation Plan (APA 1985). These options have not been formalized. BL-D-123 3-17 3.4.1 Vegetation Project construction will result in a total of 3,352 acres of vegetation lost through the placement of facilities and the creation of the reservoir. However, at the end of the construction phase of the Project, 1,000 acres of vegetative communities will be replaced through site rehabilitation. The lower camp facilities will occupy approximately 43 acres during the three year construction period. At the end of construction, 29 acres of this site will be revegetated. The objective of the revegetation program at the lower camp will be to produce an area that provides habitat for moose and bear, and is comprised of birch, balsam poplar, and willow with an understory of fruiting shrubs, grasses, and forbes. Optimally, the overstory would have a canopy coverage of approximately 50 percent, with the understory having a canopy coverage of approximately 75 percent. Once this composition was achieved, the understory would be maintained at a height of five feet or less. The revegetation program for the lower quarry site (currently closed coniferous forest and shrubs) would have the same objective as the plan designed for the lower camp. This program will replace 7.6 acres of vegetation and also provide moose and bear habitat. Revegetation will also occur at the upper camp, Middle Fork diversion, and the Nuka River diversion. However, the objective at these sites will be to allow them to naturally return to their current vegetation types. This portion of the program will replace 9.2 acres of vegetation. The road between the lower camp and the Martin River delta will also be allowed to return its current vegetation type, replacing 2.4 acres of habitat. The Martin River borrow site and the dredged material disposal site will be rehabilitated according to the conceptual plans outlined in the Interim Final Mitigation Plan. The Martin River site will become a series of three ponds, each with islands, a littoral zone, and emergent BL-D-123 3-18 vegetation. The dredged material disposal site will be rehabilitated to accommodate waterfowl. It will consist of a shallow pond with islands and emergent vegetation. These two areas will replace 127.7 acres of habitat. The largest revegetation effort will occur in the transmission line corridor. All areas that currently support conifer or deciduous forest will be revegetated under the same objectives used for the lower camp, i.e., provide moose and bear habitat. Currently, forest stands occupy 578.0 acres along the right-of-way. An additional 181.6 acres that currently supports shrub and grass habitats will be revegetated with a higher proportion of fruiting shrubs and grasses, and will be generally maintained at a height of less than ten feet. The remaining 2.2 acres of the transmission line includes unvegetated ponds and streams. No revegetation program is planned for these areas. It is anticipated that all revegetation efforts will reach their desired objective within the first ten years of Project operation. This is viewed as an appropriate period of time since the objective of the revegetation efforts are to produce habitats representative of an early seral stage. 3.4.2 Moose The influence on moose during Project operation will be significantly less than during construction. At the peak of the construction period, 7, 588 habitat units, representing 23.5 percent of the moose habitat, will be unavailable. Following construction, indirect impacts will be substantially reduced. No blasting will occur and vehicle and aircraft traffic will not be at a level that would preclude the use of habitats by moose. Therefore, at the beginning of operations and prior to habitat rehabilitation, 29,342 habitat units will be available within the Project study area to support approximately 96 moose. This represents a reduction of 2,922 habitat units and a displacement of ten moose from original conditions. BL-D-123 3-19 Through the revegetation program planned to begin at the start of operations, 998.7 habitat units, capable of supporting three moose, will be replaced (Table 13). Revegetation of the lower camp site will replace 29.6 habitat units, resulting in a new loss from original conditions of 4.6 habitat units. The lower quarry site and the transmission line corridor will be revegetated to produce a net gain of 387.1 habitat units. The upper camp, Middle Fork diversion, and Nuka River diversion will all provide the same number of habitat units following revegetation as they did prior to construction. Due to the time required for revegetated sites to reach their optimal habitat vaiue, the total increases in habitat units are not expected to occur until ten years after operations begin. After the revegetation efforts are complete, there will remain a net loss of 1, 923.4 habitat units (Figure 8) and the displacement of approximately six moose (Figure 9). Without further mitigation, this deficit would be expected to remain for the life of the Project, since succession of unaffected vegetation types would not produce a gain or loss in the amount of habitat units available to moose. 3.4.3 Black Bear Prior to Project construction, 27,869 habitat units supporting 24 black bear are available within the study area. During the construction period, it is anticipated that 6,564.9 habitat units will be made unavailable to black bears due to direct and indirect Project influences. At the conclusion of the construction phase, indirect impacts will become negligible, leaving a loss of 1,681.1 habitat units and the displacement of one bear due to direct habitat disturbance. This will result in 26,189 habitat units, capable of supporting 23 black bears, available within the study area prior to mitigation. Through the revegetation of the temporary facility sites and maintaining shrub habitats in the transmission line corridor, 643.1 black bear habitat units will be replaced (Table 14). Revegetation of the lower quarry site as a shrub habitat rather than a spruce forest will produce BL-D-123 3-20 a gain of 0.5 habitat units. The upper camp, Middle Fork diversion, and Nuka River diversion will be allowed to revegetate to the same type that existed prior to construction, which will collectively replace 6. 2 habitat units. Although the transmission line will be revegetated to include fruiting shrubs, the available habitat units will be reduced from current conditions by 16.4 habitat units. As described earlier, it is expected that the shrub habitats will attain their optimal value within ten years after the start of operations. Without further mitigation, 1,038 habitat units for black bear would be lost (Figure 10) and one bear would be partially displaced (Figure 11). The magnitude of this loss is expected to decrease over the life of the Project. As the shrub habitats that are not affected by the Project continue through succession, the total number of habitat units in the study area will decline from 27,870 prior to construction to 27,350 at the conclusion of the life of the Project. This reduces the average annual habitat loss for black bear to 778 habitat units, or the partial displacement of one bear. 3.4.4 Mountain Goats Prior to the start of construction, 5, 238 habitat units supporting 37 mountain goats are available within the study area. At the peak of the construction period, the number of available habitat units will be reduced to 3,319 due to direct and indirect influences. After construction, the indirect influences will be negligible, since no blasting will occur and helicopter and vehicle traffic will be substantially reduced. The elimination of indirect impacts will increase the number of available habitat units to 4,498. Therefore, prior to mitigation, there will be a loss of 740.5 habitat units (Table 15; Figure 12), capable of supporting five goats (Figure 13). Of this total, 729.1 habitat units will be lost due to the creation of the reservoir. Therefore a relatively small proportion of the total habitat units lost will be available for revegetation ( 11.4 habitat units). Facility sites that will be revegetated are the Nuka diversion, Middle BL-D-123 3-21 Fork diversion, and upper camp. Following revegetation of these sites, they will provide the same number of habitat units that they provided prior to construction. The principal loss of habitat will be due to the creation of the reservoir (729.1 habitat units). Since only small areas at the Nuka River diversion, Middle Fork diversion and upper camp are planned for revegetation, a relatively small proportion of the lost habitat will be replaced. 3.4.5 Trumpeter Swan Prior to Project construction, 8,731 habitat units supporting 34 swans are available within the study area. The influences of Project operation on trumpeter swans will be substantially less than during construction. Direct and indirect influences during construction will result in the loss of 1,320 habitat units, representing 15.1 percent of the swan habitat available in the study area. As with other indicator species, following construction, indirect impacts will be negligible. At the beginning of operations, 8,604 habitat units will be available to support approximately 33 swans. This is a reduction of 127 habitat units and the displacement of one swan from original site conditions. Through the rehabilitation programs planned for the Martin River borrow pit and the dredged material disposal site, as well as the revegetation efforts at other facility sites, 175.1 habitat units capable of supporting one swan will be replaced. The principal mitigative action is the rehabilitation of the borrow pit and disposal site. After the revegetation efforts at these sites are complete, the Martin River borrow pit will provide 42.6 habitat units and the dredged material disposal site will replace 90.5 habitat units (Table 16). The revegetation of other Project facilities will provide 42.0 habitat units. It is anticipated that these habitats will attain their optimal value within ten years of the start of operations. These efforts will completely replace the lost habitat value for trumpeter swans (Figures 14 and 15). BL-D-123 3-22 The trumpeter swan model used three independent variables to predict the presence of swan habitat in the study area. The three variables were: Shoreline Development Index; presence of open water; and presence of emergent vegetation. These variables accounted for 89 percent of the observed variation in swan distribution within the study area. · Other variables that were tested in the modeling process and that were deleted are: proximity to human activity, size of adjacent waterbodies, altitude, presence of terrestrial vegetation, and water depth. Although these variables have been found to be important aspects of swan habitat in other areas, they did not improve the accuracy of the model for the Bradley Lake area. When the model was applied to the entire study area, the model predicted that swan habitat was present in areas where swans have not been ob- served. These areas included the Martin River delta, the high altitude lakes above the Bradley River, and Bradley Lake. A visual assessment of the habitat attributes of these areas confirmed the models predictions that they are of low habitat quality. During the impact assessment phase of the program, direct and indirect impacts were quantified for all areas in which swan habitat was predicted. Therefore, a loss of habitat units and birds was projected for Bradley Lake, the upper camp, and a segment of the road between the lower camp and dam site. This loss was included in the total project impacts even though swans do not occur in these areas. A realistic view of the total project impacts would be to eliminate impact and mitigation values for the upper camp, reservoir, and Bradley Lake since swans do not occur in these areas. If this was done, the net result after mitigation is a gain of 120.1 habitat units over current conditions. This mitigation includes rehabilitation of the Martin River borrow site according to existing designs. If the completed pit varies considerably from the conceptual design and it is not used by swans, the net result after mitigation would be a gain of 77.5 habitat units. There£ ore, whether the unutilized habitats are included or excluded, there is a small gain in total habitat units for swans after mitigation. BL-D-123 3-23 The current design of the Martin River borrow pit would allow it to serve as shorebird, waterfowl, and swan habitat. The final pit configuration will include a littoral zone with organic debris and irregular shoreline. These shallow water zones should provide feeding habitat for ducks and shorebirds. The lower pit will be close 'to the high tide line which may entice waterfowl and shorebirds to use the rehabilitated pits. If ducks and geese are present it is possible that swans will also use the area. In reviewing the accuracy of the model's prediction of available swan habitat at the Martin River borrow pit, it was judged that the model's prediction of 42.6 habitat units being available following site reha- bilitation was probably realistic. The presence of these ponds with shallow-water littoral zones and emergent vegetation near the Battle Creek tidal wetland should provide suitable feeding and cover habitat for migrating birds. The physical location of these ponds in the braided floodplain of the Martin River, or the abrupt change between floodplain, marine, tidal flat, and lacustrine habitats should not preclude swans from using the newly created habitats. Also, since the road to the borrow site will be removed following the construction period it was not felt that project disturbance related to human activ- ities or air traffic during the operation phase would substantially disturb any birds that were utilizing the ponds. BL-D-123 3-24 z 0 Vi ~ u til a 4.0 DISCUSSION 4.1 Purpose The terrestrial impact quantification study was conducted to evaluate the direct and indirect influences of the Project on four indicator species. The results of this study were also used to evaluate the impacts of the Project on other species with similar habitat requirements and to evaluate the effects of proposed mitigative measures. 4.2 Vegetation The direct influences of the Project on vegetation become most important when they are described as impacts to wildlife habitat. The most significant losses of vegetation are the elimination of 57 percent of the low shrub/low willow habitats and 43 percent of the mesic herbaceous sedge-grass/tall alder/tall willow habitats that exist within the study area. The majority of these losses will occur during the creation of the reservoir. These vegetation types provide habitat for moose, black bear, brown bear, mountain goats, wolverine, beaver, and a variety of small birds and mammals. Although the loss of 56 percent of the closed balsam poplar forest may appear to be significant, only two stands of this type exist within the study area, and in combination total 67.1 acres. One of these stands is located along the Fox River, and the second stand is located adjacent to Battle Creek where the lower camp facilities will be sited. This vegetation type is relatively unimportant for most species of wildlife, although moose, bear, and bald eagles are occasionally observed using this habitat. In general, a relatively small proportion of the vegetation types will be significantly affected. While 16 types will be unaffected by the Project, 19 types will have less than ten percent of their total area affected. Six vegetation types will be moderately affected through the BL-D-123 4-1 elimination of between 10 and 20 percent of their total acreage within the study area, and four vegetation types will have more than 20 percent of their acreage affected. The influences of indirect impacts resulting from Project constru~tion, including dust deposition, altered drainage patterns, and erosion have not been quantified. These impacts should be negligible since measures will be instituted to minimize these effects. Descriptions of methods to minimize indirect impacts are outlined in the Alaska Power Authority's Best Management Practices manuals. 4.3 Moose During the construction and operation of the Project, moose will be adversely affected. The noise and disturbance associated with construction will likely result in 4,666 habitat units being unavailable to moose. In addition, 2,922 habitat units will be lost due to facility placement and the creation of the reservoir. The total of 7,588 habitat units that will not be available to moose during construction represents 23.5 percent of the moose habitat within the study area. At the start of operations, the impact to moose will be less substantial, with only 2, 922 habitat units being unavailable. This impact will be further reduced by the mitigative measures provided for in the conceptual designs of the Project. Without further mitigation, it is estimated that 1,923 habitat units will be unavailable to moose. This loss represents 6.0 percent of the available moose habitat. The loss of six percent of available moose habitat is a relatively small proportion of the total amount of habitat within the study area. However, 76 percent of this loss will occur at the east end of Bradley Lake due to inundation by the reservoir. This portion of the study area seasonally supports between 4 and 13 moose. Due to the extent of the habitat loss, it is anticipated that these moose will be displaced from BL-D-123 4-2 Kachemak Creek for the life of the Project. Limited use of the area may be made by migratory moose; however, the majority of the animals will likely be displaced to adjacent ranges. Based upon the habitat quality in the Fox River valley and in the .Boxcar Hills area, sufficient range most likely exists to support the displaced animals. Because movement of moose has been documented between the Fox River valley and Kachemak Creek, it is reasonable to assume that the displaced animals will move to the Fox River valley. Additional mitigation of direct and indirect influences of the Project will be based on habitat with consideration given to the number of animals affected. For habitats in the Bradley Lake study area, 303 habitat units are required to support one moose. Therefore, the unmitigated loss of 1,923 habitat units equated to a displacement of 6.3 moose. The results of the Terrestrial Impact Quantification Program predicted that the moose will not be present in Kachemak Creek valley after the reservoir was full. A monitoring program has been proposed in the Mitigation Plan. The objective of this program will be to observe the moose in Kachemak Creek valley to establish whether the moose, if present, are attempting to leave the valley as the reservoir fills. It is likely that moose will be displaced rather than lost. The concept of self preservation, and the time required for the reservoir to fill (over two months), and the land available above Elevation .1180 would favor displacement. BL-D-123 4-3 4.4 Black Bear The influences on bears from Project construction and operation are expected to be relatively minor. During the construction period, 1,681 habitat units will be lost due to direct impacts, and 4, 884 h.abitat units will be made unavailable to bears due to noise and disturbance. The total reduction in habitat units (6 ,565) during the construction period represents 23.6 percent of the black bear habitat within the study area. At the conclusion of the construction phase, the impact will be reduced to a loss of 1,681 habitat units. Revegetation and other mitigative measures will reduce the average annual loss to 778 habitat units through the life of the Project. This decrease in habitat units represents 2.8 percent of the black bear habitat within the study area. Due to the low density of black bears within the study area, this unmitigated loss of habitat will have a negligible effect on the local black bear population. Based upon the habitat quality in the study area, approximately 1,161 habitat units are required to support one black bear. Therefore, the unmitigated loss of 778 habitat units equates to the partial displacement of 0.67 black bears. This effect will most likely be noted as a shift in the boundaries of black bear territories and not the total displacement of one animal. 4.5 Brown Bear On a regional basis, black bears and brown bears have notable dissimilarities in their habitat requirements. Brown bears are often associated with high altitude shrub habitats during the spring and summer and are also known to den in high altitude areas. During the seasons when anadromous fish are present, brown bears will often feed on migrating fish, or fish carcasses along streams. Black bears are more often associated with woodlands and lower elevation shrub habitats. They may also forage on anadromous fish and other carrion. BL-D-123 4-4 Within the Bradley Lake area, the use of habitats by the two species is more similar. Both species make use of high altitude shrub habitats and low elevation woodland habitats. No denning has been documented within the study area by either species. Typically, anadromous fish carcasses are not present along streams occurring within the Project area,since the tide removes them before they can be consumed by the bears. Due to the similarity between the two species with respect to habitat use in the study area, and the similarity of their responses to noise, including aircraft, vehicles, and blasting, the quantified black bear impacts can be extrapolated to brown bears. Based upon the number of brown bears observed in the study area and estimates from the Kenai Peninsula on home range size, it is estimated that less than five brown bears reside in the study area. Using this density, the influences of the Project on brown bears can be extrapolated from the black bear analysis by dividing the available and affected number of affected animals by four. This equates to a loss of 778 habitat units and the partial displacement of 0.2 brown bears. Similar to the black bears, this effect will most likely be noted as a shift in the boundaries of territories and not the displacement of an animal. 4.6 Mountain Goats Although mountain goats are limited to the higher elevation sites within the Project area, they will likely be affected by habitat loss and by noise and disturbance. During the construction period, 740.5 habitat units will be lost due to facility placement and the creation of the reservoir. In addition, 1,179.0 habitat units will be unavailable to goats due to noise and disturbance. The total reduction of 1,919.5 habitat units during this period represents a loss of 36.6 percent of the available goat habitat. BL-D-123 4-5 Towards the end of the construction phase of the Project, the loss will be reduced to 740.5 habitat units. Mitigative efforts will further reduce this loss to 738.1 habitat units through the life of the Project. This unmitigated loss will likely result in the displacement of five goats. The effect of displacing goats from their range cannot be predicted based upon the existing goat survey data. However, because the facilities (including the dam) will not constitute physical barriers to the goats, it is assumed that goats will have access to alternate ranges as well as historic winter range along the Bradley River. 4.7 Waterfowl Ducks, geese, and swans will be impacted adversely by construction activities; however, impacts associated with habitat losses will be fully offset during the operation phase of the Project. The principal waterfowl of concern in the Project area are the migratory birds that stage and nest in the lower Fox River valley. Nesting success is only moderate in the upper and middle portions of the Fox River valley and is poor in the lower valley because spring tides destroy the nests. The proposed Project will not have a significant impact on waterfowl nesting. However, the Project will remove a comparatively small area (approximately 1,320 habitat units) of lightly to moderately used intertidal sedge-grass waterfowl staging and feeding habitat on the Fox River flats and upper Kachemak Bay. This loss represents 15.1 percent of the waterfowl habitat within the study area. Impacts from the Sheep Point disposal areas and the barge dock on waterfowl will be mitigated by rehabilitating the disposal area to create waterfowl nesting habitat. This effort, combined with the rehabilitation of the Martin River borrow site, will replace all waterfowl habitat. BL-D-l23 4-6 The waterfowl model derived for this study predicted the occurrence of trumpeter swans within the project area. High densities of migrating 2 swans (1.8 to 2.5 birds/mi ) were predicted to occur near ponds and along the tidal flats in Kachemak Bay. These predicted occurrences paralleled the observations made by the Corps of Engineers Interagency Study Team. The observed distribution of shorebirds and other waterfowl was similar, with birds generally distributed along upper bay tidal flats, higher. however, densities for Krasnow and Halpin the latter groups were considerably (1981) reported that shorebirds and waterfowl were most abundant between Swift Creek and the Bradley River with most birds being associated with ponds or the tide line. In general, the swan model can be used to estimate the distribution of all waterfowl and shorebirds. However at a species specific level considerable variation exists in both distribution and density. While dabbling ducks, sandpipers, and phalaropes have a distribution that conforms well to the swan model, sea ducks and upland shorebirds have a distribution that is not accurately predicted by the model. Since most af the shorebirds, dabbling ducks, and gees~ are associated with water (ponds or the tide line) and few diving ducks or sea ducks are presented in these location, the swan model only approximates the general dis- tribution of shorebirds, geese, and dabbling ducks. To extrapolate the swan model to other species of shorebirds and waterfowl, a multiplier is applied to the model. The multiplier adjusts the density of birds to conform to observed densities for the bird group being evaluated. Currently, the model is based on a bird density of 2.6 2 swans/mi • Table 17 presents the density of waterfowl and shorebirds that were observed by Krasnow and Halpin (1981). After adjusting the model to conform to the higher densities for shorebirds and other waterfowl, summaries of direct and indirect losses (Table 18) and the influences of mitigation (Tables 19 and 20) are presented. The net result after mitigation would be an increase in the number of birds. The model predicts that after mitigation there will be BL-D-123 4-7 an increase in available habitat, capable of supporting an additional 16 to 22 waterfowl. Shorebird habitat would also increase, providing habitat for an additional 630 birds during the spring migration. During the operation phase of the project, disturbance will be substantially reduced. Blasting will not occur, aircraft flights will be infrequent and vehicles use of the roads will be substantially less than during construction. During the times that aircraft are landing or taking off from the airstrip, waterfowl will likely be disturbed, particularly during spring and fall migrations and early winter when birds are abundant in Kachemak Bay. However, the type of aircraft and frequency of use have not been established. ·The presence of vehicles on the road between the lower camp and the airstrip may also result in disturbance to birds on the adjacent tidal flats during high tides when more birds are closer to these facilities. BL-D-123 4-8 5.0 LITERATURE CITED ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME. 1982. Statement of Policy on mitigation of fish and game habitat disruptions. BAILEY, T. N., A. W. FRANZMAN, P. D. ARNESON, J. L. DAVIS, AND R. E. LERUSCHE. 1976. Kenai Peninsula moose population identity study, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. Final Report. P-r Proj. W-17-2, W-17-3, W-17-4, W-17-5, W-17-6, W-17-7. Job No. 1.7R. BALLARD, W. G., C. L. GARDNER, J. H. WESTLUND, AND J. R. DAU. 1982. Moose upstream. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Phase 1, Final Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. COTTAM, G. AND J. T. CURTIS. 1956. The use of distance measures in phytosociological sampling. Ecology 37:451-460. DAUBENMIRE, R. 1974. Plants and environment: a textbook of plant autecology. Harper and Row, New York. HOLDERMANN, D. A. 1983. An assessment of the impact of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project on selected wildlife populations. Unpublished Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Homer, Alaska. KRANSNOW, L. D. AND M. A. HALPIN. 1981. Potential impacts of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project on birds: a preconstruction study, National Fisheries Research Center, Marine Bird Section, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage. RAPPOPORT, A., L. SHEA, AND L. HALPIN. 1981. Application of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Evaluation Procedures to the proposed Bradley Lake Project, Alaska. USFWS Western Alaska Ecological Services, Anchorage, Alaska. BL-D-123 5-l SCHWARTZ, C. C. AND A. W. FRANZMANN. 1980. Population ecology of the Kenai Peninsula black bear. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Fed. Aid. Wildlife Restor. Project Progress Report. Project W-17-11. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1980a. Terrestrial habitat evaluation criteria handbook -Alaska. Division of Ecological Services, USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1980b. Habitat Evaluation Procedures. ESM 102. Division of Ecological Services, USFWS, Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1980c. Evaluation Procedures, Chapter 1, Washington, D. C. Implementation of Habitat General. 100 ESM 1, USFWS, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1980d. Habitat as a basis for environmental assessment. 101 ESM, USFWS, Washington, D. C. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy, Part III, Federal Register, Vol. 46 (15). U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1982. Appendix B: Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, Homer, Alaska. Final Coordination Report. USFWS Western Alaska Ecological Services, Anchorage, Alaska. In: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, Alaska. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. VIERECK, L. A. AND C. T. DYRNESS. 1980. A preliminary classification system for vegetation of Alaska. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. BL-D-123 5-2 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS. 1983. Bradley River instream flow studies. In: Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, 1983. Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Power Project Feasib:tli ty Study, Vol. 3. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS. 1984. Moose survey report. Prepared for Stone and Webster ET.lgineering Corporation and the Alaska Power Authority. BL-D-123 S-3 Table 1. Habitat attributes considered for each indicator species. 1 Terrestrial or aquatic habitat Percent cover by alder Percent cover by browse species Percent cover by forbes Percent cover by Salix spp. Percent cover by ~us spp. Percent cover by Betula spp. Percent cover by shrubs and trees Percent cover by intermediate height browse species Percent cover by conifer species Percent cover by Calamagrostis spp. Percent cover by Athyrium spp. Percent cover by low evergreen spp. Percent cover by gramminoids Percent cover by small fruiting shrubs Percent cover by tall fruiting shrubs Mean browse height Distance to cover Terrain type Snow depth Distance to escape habitat Elevation Presence of open water in winter Presence of emergent vegetation Shoreline Index of lakes Diversity of fall forage Distance to shrub habitats Hunter access Distance to anadromous fish Aspect Diversity of spring food Den site availability 1 + used in final model Moose + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + + + 0 Black Bear + + + + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 considered but not used in final model not considered BL-D-123 SPECIES Mountain TrUmpeter Goat Swan + 0 0 + 0 + ~ + 0 0 + + + Table 2. Descriptions, acreages, percent cover, and codes for vegetation types found in the Bradley Lake hydroelectric project area, 1980 (after Rappoport et al. 1981) Code Description Acres Percent Cover Subtotal Total Subtota'l Total CONIFEROUS FORESTS 10 Closed coniferous forest 8913.9 16.9 Open coniferous forest 6234.7 11.8 20 open coniferous forest 1628.9 3.1 22 open coniferous forest/tall alder 1970.5 3.7 23 open coniferous forest/tall alder/low willow/mesic herbaceous sedge grass 427.6 0.8 25 open coniferous forest/low alder 119.9 0.2 26 open coniferous forest/bog 651.1 1.2 27 open coniferous forest/low willow 935.3 1.8 28 open coniferous low shrub/low willow 486.8 0.9 39 open coniferous forest/tall grass on flats 14.6 0.03 DECIDUOUS FORESTS Closed deciduous forest 82.8 0.16 41 closed paper birch forest 15.7 0.03 42 closed balsam poplar forest 67.1 0.13 Open deciduous forest 922.6 1.7 51 open balsam poplar forest 300.2 0.6 52 open balsam poplar forest/ tall willow-131.5 0.3 53 open deciduous/tall grass -flats 3.8 0.01 55 open balsam poplar forest/ tall alder 35.0 0.07 66 open balsam poplar forest/ fresh water herbaceous sedge grass 72.2 0.1 67 open balsam poplar forest/tall grass on flats 22.0 0.04 64 open paper birch forest 12.9 0.02 62 open birch forest/tall alder 332.8 0.6 65 open birch forest/tall grass on flats 12.2 0.02 BL-D-123 Table 2. continued Code Description Acres Percent Cover Subtotal Total Subtotal Total MIXED FORESTS 434.7 0.8 71 Mixed spruce-balsam poplar forest, closed and open 340.4 0.6 72 -Mixed spruce-birch forest, closed and open 94.3 0.2 TALL GRASS TYPES 1377.7 2.6 81 tall grass on slopes 25.7 0.05 84 tall grass on flats 716.7 1.4 85 tall grass on flats/tall alder 184.6 0.3 88 tall grass on flats/tall alder/ fresh water herbaceous sedge grass 428.0 0.8 86 tall lyme grass 22.7 0.04 SHRUB TYPES Shrub tundra 5145.7 9.8 90 shrub tundra 2847.2 5.4 92 shrub tundra/tall alder/ low willow 1420.1 2.7 94 shrub tundra/low shrub 878.4 1.7 Tall alder 7769.2 14.7 101 tall alder 7116.5 13.5 102 tall alder/low willow 23.8 0.04 103 tall alder/fresh water herbaceous sedge grass 220.8 0.4 104 tall alder/low shrub 395.9 0.7 105 Tall willow -no pure type 12.2 0.02 Low shrub 3247.1 6.2 110 low shrub 233.4 0.4 111 low alder 9.2 0.02 112 low willow 1421.8 2.7 113 low shrub bog 1582.7 3.0 BL-D-123 Table 2. continued Code 121 122 123 124 125 126 131 132 141 151 142 152 143 153 170 180 190 Total Description SEDGE-GRASS TYPES mesic herbaceous sedge grass mesic herbaceous sedge grass/ tall alder mesic herbaceous sedge grass/ tall alder/tall willow mesic herbaceous sedge grass/ tall alder/low willow fresh water herbaceous sedge grass saltwater herbaceous sedge grass UNVEGETATED AREAS Water bodies pond lake tidal river or stream tidal river or stream/floodplain low gradient perennial river or stream low gradient perennial river or stream/floodplain high gradient perennial river or stream high gradient perennial river or stream/floodplain Bare ground/disturbed bare rock snow field, glacier culturally influenced land BL-D-123 Acres Subtotal Total 155.0 1483.9 1372.8 731.2 1152.4 3847.3 9596.9 109.2 1785.4 3248.9 3626.9 346.5 301.4 53.0 44.6 254.5 1.1 188.2 65.2 8742.6 9851.4 52722.4 Percent Cover Subtotal Total 0.3 2.8 2.6 1.4 2.2 7.3 18.2 0.4 3.4 6.2 6.9 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.08 0.5 o.o 0.4 0.1 16.6 18.7 Table 3. Density and suitability indices for moose in the Bradley Lake study Total area. Modeled Density (moose/mi 2 ) 0 1.28 1.34 1.41 1.47 1.54 1.60 1.66 1. 73 1.86 1.92 1.98 2.11 BL-D-123 Acreage 9174.1 5568.9 3555.4 4711.0 7586.1 1501.3 9615.4 1638.0 623.9 2550.7 4474.0 237.7 1485.3 52721.8 Number of Moose 0 11.14 7.47 10.36 17.45 3.60 24.04 4.26 1.68 7.40 13.42 0.74 4.90 106.46 HSI Acreage 0 9174.1 0.606 5568.9 0.636 3555.4 0.667 4711.0 0.697 7586.1 0.727 1501.3 0.758 9615.4 0.788 1638.0 0.818 623.9 0.879 2550.7 0.909 4474.0 0.939 237.7 1.000 1485.3 52721.8 Habitat Units 0 3374.76 2261.21 3142.22 5287.54 1091.47 7288.47 1290.78 510.35 2242.03 4066.88 223.18 1485.26 32264.15 Table 4. Density and suitability indices for black bear in the Bradley Lake study area. Total Modeled Density (bear/mi 2 ) 0 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.22 0.23 0.28 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.42 0.44 0.48 0.54 0.55 BL-D-123 Acreage 8464.9 2718.5 511.2 5035.6 1565.9 836.6 3465.8 582.5 1666.7 744.1 8311.5 1443.5 10703.8 3654.6 1372.5 1644.0 52721.8 Number of HSI Bear 0 0 0.22 0.093 0.08 0.163 1.22 0.282 0.54 0.395 0.30 0.419 1. 52 0.512 0.30 0.581 0.86 0.605 0.42 0.651 4.98 0.698 0.96 0.767 7.28 0.791 2.74 0.870 1.16 0.977 1.42 1.000 24.00 Acreage 8464.9 2718.5 511.2 5035.6 1565.9 836.6 3465.8 582.5 1666.7 744.1 8311.5 1443.5 10703.8 3654.6 1372.5 1644.0 52721.8 Habitat Units 0 252.82 83.33 1419.06 618.52 350.52 1774.51 338.43 1008.37 484.40 5801.43 1107. 16 8466.68 3179.42 1340.97 1644.04 27869.66 Table 5. Density and suitability indices for mountain goats in the Bradley Lake study area. Total Modeled Density (goats/mi2 ) 0 0.64 1.28 3.84 4.48 BL-D-123 Acreage 37654.7 544.1 13054.7 289.9 1178.4 52721.8 Number of Goats 0 0.54 26.11 1. 74 8.25 36.64 HSI 0 0.143 0.286 0.857 1.000 Acreage 37654.7 544.1 13054.7 289.9 1178.4 52721.8 Habitat Units 0 77.81 3733.64 248.48 1178.44 5238.36 Table 6. Density and suitability indices for trumpeter swans in the Bradley Lake study area. Total Modeled Density (swans/mi2 ) 0 0.32 0.64 0.70 0.96 1.28 1.47 1.66 1.79 2.04 2.37 2.50 BL-D-123 Acreage 33190.8 5490.8 3486.3 619.5 2035.5 204.8 790.8 1807.5 521.6 2844.0 785.6 945.1 52721.8 Number of Swans 0 2.75 3.49 0.68 3.05 0.41 1.82 4.70 1.46 9.10 2.91 3.69 34.05 HSI Acreage 0 33190.8 0.128 5490.5 0.256 3486.3 0.282 619.5 0.385 2035.5 0.513 204.8 0.590 790.8 0.667 1807.5 o. 718 521.6 0.821 2844.0 0.949 785.6 1.000 945.1 52721.8 Habitat Units 0 702.78 892.48 174.69 783.67 105.07 466.56 1205.57 374.47 2334.92 745.56 945.09 8730.86 Table 7. Acreage occupied by each facility. Facility Code Facility Name Acreage 1 Lower camp staging area 19.3 2 Lower camp solid waste disposal area 5.3 3 Lower camp organic stockpile 3.9 4 Lower camp buildings 14.9 .5 Upper camp 5.8 6 Lower quarry site 7.6 7 Powerhouse 5.0 8 Airstrip 8.9 9 Martin River borrow site 86.2 10 Barge Dock 3.8 14 Waste area at dam 5.0 15 Upper quarry site at dam 4.6 16 Dam 8.6 17 Middle Fork diversion 2.0 18 Reservoir 2577.4 19 Bradley Lake 1568.0 20 Nuka River diversion 0.4 21 Sheep Point dredged material disposal area 34.7 23 Transmission Line 761.8 25 Roads 46.2 TOTAL 5169.4 BL-D-123 Table 8. Acreage of vegetation types affected by facilities. Vegetation Code Acres Available Acres Occupied Percent Facilities in Study Area by facilities Occupied Involved 10 8913.9 402.8 4.5 3,4,6,7,8, 9,21,21,25 20 1628.9 57.6 3.5 23 22 1970.5 8.5 0.4 23, 25 23 427.6 14.7 3.4 5, 23, 25 25 119.9 0 0 26 651.1 13.7 2.1 23 27 935.3 62.9 6.7 23 28 486.8 41.8 8.6 23 39 14.6 0 0 41 15.7 0.3 1.9 25 42 67.1 37.3 55.6 1,2,3,4,25 51 300.2 0 0 52 131.5 0 0 53 3.8 0 0 55 35.0 0.1 0.3 25 62 332.8 18.7 5.6 64 12.9 0 0 65 12.2 0 0 66 72.2 0 0 67 22.0 0 0 71 340.4 26.0 7.6 23 72 94.3 0.8 0.8 25 81 25.7 0 0 84 716.7 21.2 3.0 23 85 184.6 0 0 86 22.7 2.5 11.0 1' 2, 25 88 428.0 0 0 90 2847.2 4.7 0.2 16.18,25 92 1420.1 1.2 0. 1 17 94 878.4 0 0 101 7116.5 343.2 4.8 9,14,15,16 17,18,23,25 102 23.8 0 0 103 220.8 7.0 3.2 23 104 395.9 77.6 19.6 18 105 12.2 1.8 14.8 23 110 233.4 0 0 111 9.2 0 0 BL-D-123 Table 8. (continued) Vegetation Code 112 113 121 122 123 124 125 126 131 132 141 142 143 151 152 153 170 180 190 TOTAL BL-D-123 Acres Available in Study Area 1421.8 1582.7 155.0 1483.9 1372.8 731.2 1152.4 3847.3 190.2 1785.4 3248.9 346.5 53.0 3626.9 301.4 44.6 1.1 188.2 65.2 52722.4 Acres Occupied by facilities 810.7 79.9 15.5 211.2 595.8 90.2 343.4 61.2 5.0 1568.8 27.1 84.1 2.5 87.0 97.5 0 0 0.2 0 5224.5 Percent Occupied 57.0 5.0 10.0 14.2 43.4 12.3 29.8 1.6 2.6 87.9 0.8 24.3 4.7 2.4 32.3 0 0 0.1 0 9.9 Facilities Involved 18,19,20,23 6,23,25 23 16. 18 18 18, 25 18. 23 7, 8, 21, 23, 25 18, 23 5, 19, 25 10,23 18, 23 15, 16, 18 9,10,21,25 4,18,23,25 20 Table 9. Summary of direct and indirect losses of habitat and subsequent displacement of moose during the construction period. Direct Loss Facility Lower camp staging area Lower ca~p solid waste disposal area Lower camp organic stockpile Lower camp buildings Upper camp Lower quarry site Powerhouse Airstrip Martin River borrow site Barge Dock Waste area at dam Upper quarry site at dam Dam Middle Fork diversion Reservoir Bradley Lake Nuka River diversion Sheep Point dredged material disposal area Transmission Line Roads Total Direct Loss Indirect Loss Blasting Aircraft noise Vehicle noise Total Indirect Loss TOTAL LOSS BL-D-123 Number of Habitat Number of Units Lost Animals Displaced 16.8 0.06 3.2 0.01 2.4 0.01 11.8 0.04 3.7 0.01 4.6 0.02 3.7 0.01 6.5 0.02 10.8 0.04 0 0 3.8 0.01 3.5 0.01 6.5 0.02 1.4 0 2224.0 7.34 0 0 0.4 0 20.4 0.07 569.8 1.88 28.8 0.09 2922.1 9.64 4156.4 13.71 497.8 1.64 11.9 0.04 4666.1 25.03 7588.2 25.03 Table 10. Summary of direct and indirect losses of black bear habitat and subsequent displacement of bear during the construction period. Facility Direct Loss Lower camp staging area Lower camp solid waste disposal area Lower camp organic stockpile Lower camp buildings Upper camp Lower quarry site Powerhouse Airstrip Martin River borrow site Barge Dock Waste area at dam Upper quarry site at dam Dam Middle Fork diversion Reservoir Bradley Lake Nuka River diversion Sheep Point dredged material disposal area Transmission Line Roads Total Direct Loss Indirect Loss Blasting Aircraft noise Vehicle noise Total Indirect Loss TOTAL LOSS BL-D-123 Number of Habitat Number of Units Lost Animals D~splaced 14.8 4.1 3.0 11.4 5.1 5.3 3.1 5.7 34.6 0 3.9 3.7 6.8 1.0 896.1 0 0.1 26.0 623.7 32.7 1681.1 3641.8 1074.2 167.9 4883.9 6565.0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0.78 0 0 0.02 0.54 0.02 1. 44 3.14 0.92 0.14 4.20 5.64 Table 11. Summary of direct and indirect losses of mountain goat habitat and subsequent displacement of goats during the construction period. Facility Direct Loss Lower camp staging area Lower camp solid waste disposal area Lower camp organic stockpile Lower camp buildings Upper camp Lower quarry site Powerhouse Airstrip Martin River borrow site Barge Dock Waste area at dam Upper quarry site at dam Dam Middle Fork diversion Reservoir Bradley Lake Nuka River diversion Sheep Point dredged material disposal area Transmission Line Roads Total Direct Loss Indirect Loss Blasting Aircraft noise Vehicle noise Total Indirect Loss TOTAL LOSS BL-D-123 Number of Habitat Units Lost 0 0 0 0 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 1.3 2.5 0.6 729.1 0 0.1 0 0 3.8 740.5 1063.0 113.9 2.1 1179.0 1919.5 Number of Animals Displaced 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 5.10 0 0 0 0 0.03 5.18 7.43 0.80 0.02 8.25 13.43 Table 12. Summary of direct and indirect losses of trumpeter swan habitat and subsequent displacement of swans during the construction period. Facility Direct Loss Lower camp staging area Lower camp solid waste disposal area Lower camp organic stockpile Lower camp buildings Upper camp Lower quarry site Powerhouse Airstrip Martin River borrow site Barge Dock Waste area at dam Upper quarry site at dam Dam Middle Fork diversion Reservoir Bradley Lake Nuka River diversion Sheep Point dredged material disposal area Transmission Line Roads Total Direct Loss Indireet Loss Blasting Aircraft noise Vehicle noise Total Indirect Loss TOTAL LOSS BL-D-123 Number of Habitat Number of Units Lost Animals D~splaced 0 0 0 0 2.3 0 1.3 2.1 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 603.7 0 8.9 35.9 3.5 658.7 627.0 30.8 3.8 661.6 1320.3 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 2.35 0 0.04 0.14 0.01 2.58 2.45 0.12 0.03 2.60 5.18 Table 13. Influence of mitigation on moose. Facility Habitat Units Number of Animals Direct Loss Mitigation Direct Loss Mitigation Lower camp staging area 16.8 20.0 0.06 0.06 Lower camp solid waste disposal area 3.2 5.5 0.01 0.02 Lower camp organic stockpile 2.4 4.1 0.01 0.01 Lower camp buildings 11.8 0 0.04 0 Upper camp 3.7 3.7 0.01 0.01 Lower quarry site 4.6 7.9 0.02 0.03 Powerhouse 3.7 0 0.01 0 Airstrip 6.5 0 0.02 0 Martin River borrow site 10.8 0 0.04 0 Barge Dock 0 0 0 0 Waste area at dam 3.8 0 0.01 0 Upper quarry site at dam 3.5 0 0.01 0 Dam 6.5 0 0.02 0 Middle Fork diversion 1.4 1.4 0 0 Reservoir 2224.0 0 7.34 0 Bradley Lake 0 0 0 0 Nuka River diversion 0.4 0.4 0 0 Sheep Point dredged material disposal area 20.4 0 0.07 0 Transmission Line 569.8 953.6 3.16 Roads 28.8 2.1 1.88 0.01 Total 2922.1 998.7 0.09 3.30 Net Loss 1923.4 6.34 BL-D-123 Table 14. Influence of mitigation on black bears Facility Habitat Units Number of Animals Direct Loss Mitigation Direct Loss Mitigation Lower camp staging area 14.8 14.6 0.04 0.02 Lower camp solid waste disposal 4.1 4.0 0 0 Lower camp organic stockpile 3.0 3.0 0 0 Lower camp buildings 11.4 0 0 0 Upper camp 5. 1 5.1 0 0 Lower quarry site 5.3 5.8 0 0 Powerhouse 3.1 0 0 0 Airstrip 5.7 0 0 0 Martin River borrow site 34.6 0 0.04 0 Barge Dock 0 0 0 0 Waste area at dam 3.9 0 0 0 Upper quarry site at dam 3.7 0 0 0 Dam 6.8 0 0 0 Middle Fork diversion 1.0 1.0 0 0 Reservoir 896.1 0 0.78 0 Bradley Lake 0 0 0 0 Nuka River diversion 0.1 0.1 0 0 Sheep Point dredged material 26.0 0 0.02 0 disposal area Transmission Line 623.7 607.3 0.54 0.48 Roads 32.7 2.4 0.02 0 Total 1681.1 643.1 1.44 0.50 Net Loss 1038 0.94 BL-D-123 Table 15. Influence of mitigation on mountain goats. Facility Habitat Units Number of Animals Direct Loss Mitigation Direct Loss Mitigation Lower camp staging area 0 0 0 0 Lower camp solid waste disposa 0 0 0 0 Lower camp organic stockpile 0 0 0 0 Lower camp buildings 0 0 0 0 Upper camp 1.7 1.7 0.01 0.01 Lower quarry site 0 0 0 0 Powerhouse 0 0 0 0 Airstrip 0 0 0 0 Martin River borrow site 0 0 0 0 Barge Dock 0 0 0 0 Waste area at dam 1.4 0 0.01 0 Upper quarry site at dam 1.3 0 0.01 0 Dam 2.5 0 0.02 0 Middle Fork diversion 0.6 0.6 0 0 Reservoir 729.1 0 5.10 0 Bradley Lake 0 0 0 0 Nuka River diversion 0.1 0.1 0 0 Sheep Point dredged material 0 0 0 0 disposal area Transmission Line 0 0 0 0 Roads 3.8 0 0.03 0 Total 740.5 2.4 5.18 0.01 Net Loss 738.1 5.17 BL-D-123 Table 16. Influence of mitigation on trumpeter swans. Facility Habitat Units Number of Birds Direct Loss Mitigation Direct Loss Mit~gation Lower camp staging area 0 0 0 0 Lower camp solid waste disposa 0 0 0 0 Lower camp organic stockpile 0 0 0 0 Lower camp buildings 0 0 0 0 Upper camp 2.3 2.3 0.01 0.01 Lower quarry site 0 0 0 0 Powerhouse 1.3 0 0.01 0 Airstrip 2.1 0 0.01 0 Martin River borrow site 0 42.6 0 0.16 Barge Dock 0.9 0.3 0.01 0 Waste area at dam 0 0 0 0 Upper quarry site at dam 0 0 0 0 Dam 0 0 0 0 Middle Fork diversion 0 0 0 0 Reservoir 0 330.7 0 1.29 Bradley Lake 603.7 201.2 2.35 0.78 Nuka River diversion 0 0 0 0 Sheep Point dredged material 8.9 90.5 0.04 0.35 disposal area Transmission Line 35.9 35.9 0.14 0.14 Roads 3.5 3.5 0.01 0.01 Total 658.7 707.0 2.58 2.74 Net Gain 48.3 0.16 BL-D-123 Table 17 Density of waterfowl and shorebirds reported for the study area (adapted from Krasnow and Halpin 1981). Swans Geese Dabbling Ducks Diving Ducks Total Waterfowl Total Shorebirds BL-D-132 Spring 2.6 15.5 212.4 36.3 266.8 10207.2 2 Density (birds/mi ) Fall 2.6 82.9 146.8 96.2 328.5 32.0 Table 18 Summary of direct and indirect losses of waterfowl and shorebird habitat and subsequent displacement of birds due to Project construction. Number Number of Birds Dis2laced of Habitat Waterfowl Shorebirds Facility Units Lost Spring Fall Spring Fall Direct Loss Lower camp staging area 0 0 0 0 0 Lower camp solid waste disposal area 0 0 0 0 0 Lower camp organic stockpile 0 0 0 0 0 Lower camp buildings 0 0 0 0 0 Upper camp 2.3 1.0 1.3 39.3 0.1 Lower quarry site 0 0 0 0 0 Powerhouse 1.3 1.0 1.3 39.3 0.1 Airstrip 2.1 1.0 1.3 39.3 0.1 Martin R. borrow site 0 0 0 0 0 Barge Dock 0.9 1.0 1.3 39.3 0.1 Waste area at dam 0 0 0 0 0 Upper quarry site at dam 0 0 0 0 0 Dam 0 0 0 0 0 Middle Ford diversion 0 0 0 0 0 Reservoir 0 0 0 0 0 Bradley Lake 603.7 235.0 296.1 9226.1 28.9 Nuka River diversion 0 0 0 0 0 BL-D-132 Table 18, Continued Number Number of Birds Diselaced of Habitat Waterfowl Shorebirds Facility Units Lost Spring Fall Spring Fall Sheep Point dredged material disposal area 8.9 4.0 5.0 157.0 0.5 Transmission Line 35.9 14.0 17.6 549.6 1.7 Roads 3.5 1.0 1.3 39.3 0.1 Total Direct Loss 658.7 258.0 325.2 10129.2 31.6 Indirect Loss Blasting 627.0 245.0 308.7 9618.7 30.2 Aircraft Noise 30.8 12.0 15.1 471.1 1.5 Vehicle Noise 3.8 3.0 3.8 117.8 0.4 Total Indirect Loss 661.6 260.0 327.6 10207.6 32.1 Total Loss 1320.3 518.0 652.8 20336.6 63.7 BL-D-132 Table 19 Influence of Mitigation on waterfowl. Number of Birds Habitat Units SEring Fall Direct Miti-Direct Miti-Direct Miti- Facility Loss gat ion Loss gat ion Loss ga.tion Lower camp staging area 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lower camp solid waste disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lower camp organic stockpile 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lower camp buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upper camp 2.3 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 Lower quarry site 0 0 0 0 0 0 Powerhouse 1.3 0 1.0 0 1.3 1.3 Airstrip 2.1 0 1.0 0 1.3 0 Martin River borrow site 0 42.6 0 16.0 0 20.2 Barge Dock 0.9 0.3 1.0 0.1 1.3 0.1 Waste area at dam 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upper quarry site at dam 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dam 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle Fork Diversion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reservoir 0 330.7 o· 129.0 0 162.5 BL-D-132 Table 19, Continued Number of Birds Habitat Units Direct Miti- Spring Fall Direct Mi ti-=-D~i r_e_c_t--~M:-:-1-:--t~i:---- Facility Loss gat ion Loss gat ion Loss gat ion Bradley Lake 603.7 201.2 235.0 78.0 296.1 98.3 Nuka Glacier Diversion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheep Point dredged mater- ial disposal area 8.9 90.5 4.0 35.0 5.0 44.2 Transmission Line 35.9 35.9 14.0 14.0 17.6 17.6 Roads 3.5 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 Total 658.7 707.0 258.0 274.1 325.2 346.8 Net Gain 48.3 16.1 21.6 BL-D-132 Table 20 Influence of Mitigation on shorebirds. Number of Birds Habitat Units S2ring Fall Direct Miti-Direct Miti-Direct Miti- Facility Loss gat ion Loss gat ion Loss ga.tion Lower camp staging. area 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lower camp solid waste disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lower camp organic stockpile 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lower camp buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upper camp 2.3 2.3 39.3 39.3 0.1 0.1 Lower quarry site 0 0 0 0 0 0 Powerhouse 1.3 0 39.3 0 0.1 0 Airstrip 2.1 0 39.3 0 0. 1 0 Martin River borrow site 0 42.6 0 628.2 0 2.0 Barge Dock 0.9 0.3 39.3 2.0 0.1 0.1 Waste area at dam 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upper quarry site at dam 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dam 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle Fork Diversion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reservoir 0 330.7 0 5064.9 0 15.9 BL-D-132 Table 20, continued Number of Birds Habitat Units Direct Miti- Spring ~---F_a_l_l~~~--- Direct Miti-Direct Miti- Facility Loss gat ion Loss gat ion Loss Bradley Lake 603.7 201.2 9226.1 3062.3 28.9 9.6 Nuka Glacier Diversion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheep Point dredged mater- ial disposal area 8.9 90.5 157.0 1374.0 0.5 4.3 Transmission Line 35.9 35.9 549.6 549.6 1.7 1.7 Roads 3.5 3.5 39.3 39.3 0.1 0.1 Total 658.7 707.0 10129.2 10759.6 31.6 33.8 Net Gain 48.3 630.4 2.2 BL-D-132 U) o-l I:LI :><: ~ H 0 --< !@ ):: I:LI U) p.. I:LI ~ ea H u I:LI p.. U) MOOSE DENSITY 1 [[3.6991 + (0.0203X 1) + (-0.3705X2 ) + (0.0096X 3) + (-0.1233X4 ) + (-0.0076X5) + (0.000451X6 )]X7 ] * 125] VARIABLES x 1 percent canopy cover by conifers. measured in Daubenmire cover classes. x2 terrain type. measured as undaulating (X 2 = 1) or flat (X 2 = 2) x3 percent browse measured as the combined Daubenmire cover class for Betula paperifera, Populus balsamifera, and Salix Spp. x4 browe height. measured in feet. percent canopy coverage by shrubs and trees. Daubenmire cover classes. x6 distance to cover. measured in yards. terrestrial versus aquatic. terrestrial 1, aquatic SIGNIFICANCE OF VARIABLES PARTIAL F VALUES DF 13/336 F 27.20 p 0.01 F 12.56 p 0.01 F 6.16 p 0.01 BL-D-132 A - 2 measured in 0 x4 F = 16.96 p 0.01 x5 F 4.43 p 0.01 x6 F = 16.03 p 0.01 MULTIPLE REGRESSION COEFFICIENT R = 57.73 DF = 336 p 0.01 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL TOTAL BL-D-132 DF 13 336 349 ss 43.37 86.75 130.13 MS 3.33 0.26 A - 3 F 12.90 p 0.01 BLACK BEAR DENSITY [[2.92 + (0.0203X 1) + (0.012SX 2) + (-0.0025SX3 ) + (0.0134X4 ) + (-0.0009X5))]X7 ]/5000 VARIABLES X1 percent cover by Equisetum, gramminoids, forbes, and ferns. measured in Daubenmire cover class means. x2 percent cover by small fruiting shrubs. measured in Daubenmire cover class means. x3 distance to cover (areas with trees greater than eight inches DBH). measured in yards. x4 percent cover by tall fruiting shrubs. measured in Daubenmire cover class means. x5 distance to tall shrubs. measured in yards. terrestrial versus aquatic. terrestrial 1, aquatic = 0. SIGNIFICANCE OF VARIABLES PARTIAL F VALUES DF = 10/339 x1 F 35.36 p 0.01 x2 F 8.90 p 0.01 x3 F 164.79 p 0.01 x4 F 12.14 p 0.01 BL-D-132 A-4 x5 F = 26.98 p 0.01 x6 F 7.95 p 0.01 MULTIPLE REGRESSION COEFFICIENT R = 85.26 DF = 339 p 0.01 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL TOTAL BL-D-132 DF 10 339 349 ss 434.88 163.32 598.20 MS 43.49 0.48 A - 5 F 90.27 p 0.01 MOUNTAIN GOAT DENSITY VARIABLES snow distribution. wind swept areas (XI =I), and all other areas (XI= 0). x2 elevation. measured in feet. 2), collection areas (X 1 x3 percent cover by low evergreen plants. measured in Daubenmire cover class means. terrestrial versus aquatic. terrestrial 1, aquatic 0 SIGNIFICANCE OF VARIABLES PARTIAL F VALUES DF = 8/34I XI F = 202.94 p O.OI x2 F = 23.3I p O.OI x3 F = 13.53 p O.OI MULTIPLE REGRESSION R = 70.06 DF 34I p 0.01 BL-D-132 A - 6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL TOTAL BL-D-132 DF 8 341 349 ss 21.86 22.68 44.54 A - 7 MS 2.73 0.07 F 41.05 p 0.01 TRUMPETER SWAN DENSITY= [(1.0974X1) + (0.2869X 2 ) + (-0.554X3 )]/1000 VARIABLES shoreline development indes. = shoreline length/the circumference of a circle with the same area as the lake. x2 presence of open water (absence of ice). no water (X 2 =0) waterice-covered for more than two weeks of the year (x2 = 1) water ice-free all year (X 2 = 2) x 3 presence of emergent vegetation. note present (x3 = 0) present (X 3 = 1) SIGNIFICANCE OF VARIABLES PARTIAL F VALUES DF = 4/345 x1 F = 1113.47 p 0.01 x2 F 19.78 p 0.01 x3 F = 135. 11 p 0.01 MULTIPLE REGRESSION COEFICIENT R 94.54 DF = 345 p 0.01 BL-D-132 A-8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL TOTAL BL-D-132 DF 4 345 349 ss 422.67 50.25 472.91 A-9 MS 105.67 0.15 F 725.5 p 0.01 BRADLEY LAKE STUDY AREA 0 1 -----2 SCALE IN MILES DINGLE STADT GLACIER 3 / ''"'' .· STUDY AREA MAP \\' '·~··.. FIGURE 1 ~~·" -===~-==--- .. -- '. ,;/ OVERSIZED MAP NOT 'MICROFILMED MAP LOCATED IN ORIGINAL· REPORT VEGETATION MAP FIGURE 2 I ! -, \} '-. ... BRADLEY LAKE STUDY AREA , w .. K/".. /'.~ ACif t.. (\ : \ \ \ \, \ \ LEGEND Density and habitat suitability- animals J)er square mile/ habitat suitability index 0 2 3. lii;;;;;i§i5;~~5iii-~ SCALE IN MILES OINGLESTAOT GLACIER KACHEMAK GLAC!ER / MOOSE FIGURE 3 0.44/0.79 (\ l \ ': \ \ / NUKA .~ -'Gt.AC\fk;"' ! LEGEND Density and habitat suitability- animals per square mile/ habitat suitability index ,--· ·., I SOALE IN MILES DINGlfSTAOT 'GlACIER • •.t.t:Hf MM. GLACIER BLACK BEARS FIGURE 4 I /'; ... \ \ \"' BRADLEY LAKE STUDY AREA 'NUKA /,. / ..;: AC'~ ~.' LEGEND Density and habitat suitability- animals per square mile/ habitat suitability index 0 1 ..........._, I 8C~.LE IN MILES DINGLE STADT GLIICIER " . ··._·. ',' . ).· I I MOUNTAIN GOATS FIGURE 5 BRADLEY LAKE STUDY AREA a I LEGEND Density and habitat suitability- birds per square mile/ habitat suitability index ',_ ' ~--' 0 W'"'w4MiiiJ I SCALE IN MILES ' .... -·· OINGLESTADT GLACIER a KACHEMAK GLAS!ff.' 1 TRUMPETER SWANS FIGURE 6 t I~ HOME! I EI.ECTliiC I ASSOCIATION FNTZ a'&K _ IIOl.DOTKA TRAHIIMIS8ION LH;; I ;' ; ,\ ! \ ~, \ ~ ·-- NUKA RIVER DIVERSION 0 1 ....-....-- 2 SCALE IN MILES ·, ('-~ ~-_... i . ·~-~· '~~ -·~, ' DINGLfSTAOT GLACIER 3 NU!-C.t. ------------------------------------------------~~·v·='·":'[R~:--_}~~--------~-PROJECTMAP FIGURE 7 ___ __J 35000 •••ooo i. = t: ' % HOO 28000 •• 10 ao .40 T .... (YEARS) -WITHOUT II'IIOaCT ---WITH ltltO ... CT --MITIGATED L088 '//////, NET L088 OF HA81T~T UNITS NOTE: L0-8 OU. TO INDIRECT IMPACTS WIU. H III'YIMND 111111 PINAL Dalila. REMAIIMG L088U DUE TO DIRECT ... ACT8 W&L -atlM,_ 'htROU8ft ~ IIIITIGA,_ IIIUIUM8. ESTIMATED LOSS OF AVAILABLE MOOSE HABtT AT OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. FIGURE 8 ________________ ..... tO 1'0 ao 40 TIME (YEARS) -WITHOUT .. O .. OT ---WITH NO.aGT --...,....T.D L088 OR Dlefi'LACEMENT 'IIIII/ •T L_.., AIIIMALI 10 ~ .. ......... ~-·· ... Mi .. eo NOTE: LoeMI-~I!IDIRBOT .. ACT8 wa.L 8E MITteATED DURIIIe FINAL DE ..... ReMA-1101 .. DUE 10 -OT _.ACT8 WILL -MITKIATB) THROUGH OFF-SITE .rtlM1'10M MilA ..... ESTIMA TEO OISPLACEMENT OR LOSS OF MOOSE OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. FIGURE 9 i ... 4( t: • I 30000 -W1THOU1' MO.NECT ---WITH NOaCT --..... ATED L088 1////11 .-T &.ef8 OF tMefTAT UIIIT8 ltOTE: -tnlll I ESTIMAJiQ~LOSS OF AVAILABLE BLACK BEAR HABITAT OVER THE Llt=E OF THE PROJECT. FIGURE 10 ' J • .... ..: :I z c lA. 0 a: • II 0 ao 40 TIME (YEARS) WITHOUT PRO ... CT WITH PWO.MCT lllfT .. ATD L088 OR DJattLACEMENT 1////// ... T LMe Otr ANIMAL8 50 eo ESTIMATED DISPLACEMENT OR LOSS OF BLACK BEARS OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. FIGURE 11 ' ; ' J . ' 80001-------~----~~----------------------------- o 10 ao 80 •o eo TIME (YEARS) --WITHOUT PlltO.mCT ---WITH PROMCT --MITIGAT.D L088 1////// MT LOM OF HABITAT UNITS NOTE: L~ M Tt) ...,IRECT ... ACT8 -.a. 111! .. 118ATED DUll .. PINAL DE81M. REllA ..... Utel. DU. TO OIRIICT ~T8 W1.L BE MITIUT8D THROUGH <WF-811W wt't8ATION MeA ... S. ESTIMATED LOSS OF AVA.ILABLE MOUNTAIN GOAT HABITAT OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. FIGURE 12 • ·~ c :1 z < -~ I I 2. ORLOea .. 'TOIIID._, ... ACJa, 20~------~------~------~------~------~----~ 0 10 20 ao 40 10 eo TIME (YEARS) -WITHOUT PMMCT ---WITH PRO.IeOT --MITteAftD LM8 OR DI8PLACEMENT 'IIIII! -T LMe .. A ... AL8 NOTE: LOa•e DUI N _,IRECT _.ACTS .._L 8E lllfTHIAT.D DU-8 'INAL OE8 .... AEIIM··· ...... DUa TO etitKT IIIPACft-.&.-M11'18AftD THROUGH OFF-alTa .fJSA'hON MIIA .... a. ESTIMATED DISPLACEMENT OR LOSS OF MOUNTAIN GOATS OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. FIGURE 13 • !: z :::. ... c !: ID c z • 7 DI8PI..ACIDeiT OR L088 ·oue TO DMCT IMPA~T8 7000,1-------~------~----~~----~------~------~ 0 10 n ao 40 10 10 TIME (YEARS). -WITHOUT PRO.IECT ---WITH PRO..tECT --MITIGATED LOSS 111111/ N•T LO .. OF HABITAT UNITS NOTE: LO-S OtM TO INDIRECT tMPACT8 W&L aE IIITICIATED DUWIHCI FINAL DE ..... ......... L088&8 D .. lO DNCT ~T8 waL BE MITIUTED THROUGH OFF-Sm .-nctATION .. Aa~Rea. ESTIMA TEO LOSS OF AVAILABLE TRUMPETER SWAN HABITAT OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. FIGURE 14 I • .. 0 • i 38 ------------------ .18.~,-------T------~------~------,-------~----~ •• 10 WITHOUT NOoii!CT WITH PRO.IeCT 20 ,30 40 TIME (YEARS) IIHT .. ATU LO .. OR DISPLACEMENT 'IIIII/, _,. L ... OP HID8 so eo NOTE: a.oeaaa DUa TO INDIRECT IMPACT8 WtU. H MITIGATED DURING FINAL H ...... ---...... OW TO D ... CT ~ WILL BE MITIGATED THROUGH OPF-atn 1i11111'1GATION .. AeuRE8. ESTIMATED DISPLACEMENT OR LOSS OF TRUMPETER SWANS OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. FIGURE 15 \