Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPower Creek Hydro Envriomental 1997~ - FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ROUTING CODE ——_________ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 BILLING CODE 6717-01-M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Whitewater Engineering Corporation )Project No. 11243-002 Alaska NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (October 8, 1997) In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897), the Office of Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the application for an original license for the Power Creek Project, and has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the project. The project is located near Cordova, Alaska. The DEA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and has concluded that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Copies of the DEA are available for review in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. . Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice and should be addressed to Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. For further information, contact Michael Henry, Environmental Coordinator, at (503) 326- 5858 extension 224. Lois D. Cashell Secretary DC-A-69 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION To the Agency/Party Addressed: er 8 ar In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulatio: ns, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897), Office of . Hydropower Licensing staff have reviewed the application f. prepared the enclosed Draft Environmental Aaseseaantl (DEA) on 5 licensing of the Power Creek Project. The DEA contains staff's analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposal and concludes that approval, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. ; Please submit any comments within 30 days of the date of this letter. Comments should be addressed to Lois Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. Enclosure: Draft Environmental Assessment DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Power Creek Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 11243-002 Alaska Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing Division of Licensing and Compliance 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 OCT 98 MoT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SUMMARY . I. APPLICATION . II. PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER A. PURPOSE OF ACTION . tot B. NEED FOR POWER III. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. WHITEWATER'S PROPOSAL . Le Project Facilities and Operation 2. Proposed Environmental Measures B. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ae Staff's Preferred Alternative NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE . . ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED oa IV. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE AGENCY CONSULTATION . INTERVENTIONS SCOPING... WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT monwy V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS . . A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF “THE POWER CREEK BASIN. 1. Power Creek Basin . . 7 . B. SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS le Geographic Scope Sire 25 Temporal Scope Cc. PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION. ALTERNATIVES Geology and Soil Resources . Aquatic Resources Terrestrial Resources Aesthetic Resources Cultural Resources Recreation Resources Land Use Resources D. No- ACTION ALTERNATIVE . yoauewnr VI. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS . . A. ESTIMATE OF THE ECONOMIC” BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . ot : B. EFFECTS AND cosTs OF MITIGATION, " PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES Genterssiass w+ ts -5e 0 VII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE VIII.CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS iii 12 16 16 a7 17 aT 7 18 18 18 20 21 22 22 22 28 46 53 56 58 61 63 64 64 67 67 70 IX. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES ..... 72 xX. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. ........... 73 XI,|| LLPERATUORE; ‘CITED? 2 i |isi|ic; @ |i ||s:| 5) 8 os fo) ltl fey |Fst||-sl| oy) m a \let| 24 XII. LIST OF PREPARERS .. 2... 6 5 6 + 6 6 © ese @ © © © 677 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page q;| Project: area map « {5 ja||o: 4 |e as] « = os ls ie & \s|/si| a & lS lela 2 2. Project facilities o 3 3. Mean monthly temperature and precipitation recorded. at Cordova, 1949-1995 ..... a) aie Je lie || fs |i lai] wim Ie llr) 20 4;|| (Project jetream flows |<. @ isos 2 > & lee w lm |e) eo i |e 32 5. Power Creek stream reaches . . . -. 34 6. Pre and post-project stream flows upstream of the “powerhouse for dry, normal, and wet water years .......... 43 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Parent material and probable soil series in Power Creek Project area... [5 || 23 2. Expected erosion and sedimentation prevention and protection measures . . 26 3. Mean monthly and annual flow for Power Creek at “cordova, 1947-1994 .. 2. 29 4. Summary of Power Creek Project operation during wet, normal, and dry water years .. - 30 5. Coho salmon escapement and aerial indices for. selected reaches of Power Creek (1990 to 1995) .. «|| 6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game statewide sport fish harvest surveys for Dolly Varden in Power Creek .... 40 7.| |Cost| o£) power compariagon:. |. |.) .) 2. |. |.| 2 fee |e) <2 6 lie) 65 8. Summary of CEC rate impacts. . . 67 9. Analysis of fish and wildlife agencies’ recommendations | 72 ii SUMMARY Whitewater Engineering Corporation proposes to construct and operate the 6-megawatt Power Creek Project, which would be located on Power Creek, a tributary to Eyak Lake, near Cordova, Alaska. Except for the transmission line, the project would be located on lands owned by The Eyak Corporation, a native corporation. The transmission line would be located on lands owned by the state of Alaska and the city of Cordova. The proposed project would consist of a new 20-foot-high, 180-foot-long, concrete and earthfill diversion dam. Flows would be diverted through 5,900 feet of pipeline and tunnel to the powerhouse, located on Power Creek. About 1 mile of Power Creek would be bypassed. The project would be operated in a run-of- river mode. This environmental assessment analyzes the effects of constructing and operating the Power Creek Project, and recommends license conditions should the Commission decide to issue a license for the project. Based on our analysis, we are recommending licensing the project as proposed by Whitewater with one minor modification. We recommend that fish, wildlife, and water quality monitoring studies be conducted for 8 years rather than 7 years. This modification was recommended by the resource agencies. The measures we recommend be included in any license issued are: (1) release a minimum flow of 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the bypassed reach; (2) continuously monitor the instream flow release, and monitor the flows at a historic gaging station and accretion flows in the bypassed reach for 5 years; (3) conduct fish, wildlife, and water quality monitoring for eight years; (4) establish a $50,000 fish and wildlife mitigation fund; (5) coordinate construction activities with wildlife needs; (6) design and construct the project pipeline and penstock to avoid wildlife barriers; (7) develop a plan to employ an environmental compliance monitor during project construction; (8) prepare a final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; (9) revegetate areas impacted during project construction; (10) prepare a fuel and hazardous substances spills plan; (11) manage access to the Power Creek trail; and (12) reduce the visual impacts of the powerhouse and substation. Licensed with these measures, the Power Creek Project would be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for developing the Power Creek Basin. Based on our independent analysis, issuing a license with these recommended measures would not be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. iii DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF HYDROPOWER LICENSING Power Creek Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11243, Alaska I. APPLICATION On January 6, 1997, Whitewater Engineering Corporation (Whitewater) filed an application for an original license for construction and operation of the 6 MW Power Creek Project (FERC No. 11243-002). The Power Creek Project would be located on Power Creek, near Cordova, Alaska, about 4 miles upstream of Power Creek's confluence with Eyak Lake (figures 1 and 2). Except for the transmission line, the project would be located on lands owned by The Eyak Corporation, a native corporation. The transmission line would be located on lands owned by the state of Alaska and the city of Cordova. After issuance of the license, Whitewater would transfer the license to Cordova Electric Cooperative (CEC) of Cordova, Alaska, the local electric utility. After transferal of the license, CEC would assume responsibility for compliance with the terms and conditions of the license. Whitewater would then construct the project for CEC. II. PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER A. PURPOSE OF ACTION The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) must decide whether to license the project, and what, if any, conditions should be placed on any license issued. In this draft environmental assessment (EA), we assess the environmental and economic effects of: (1) constructing and operating the project as proposed by Whitewater, and (2) constructing and operating the project as proposed by Whitewater with alternative enhancement measures. We also consider a no-action alternative. PROJECT AREA , CORDOVA VICINITY MAP Figure 1 Project area map. a PROPOSED TUNNEL PORTAL ACCESS ROAD (ADJACENT TO DOWNSTREAM PIPELINE) Figure 2 Project features. B. NEED FOR POWER The need for power in Cordova is not so much for more power, but for cheaper and cleaner power. Cordova's electric rates are among the highest for Alaska's remote rural communities, even after application of subsidies, such as the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program, which seeks to levelize costs among areas with especially high electrical rates. Cordova's cost of living and economic foundation, fish processing, are currently threatened by high power costs. In addition, most of Cordova's electricity is produced by diesel generators, with attendant air quality impacts and fuel storage considerations. All electric power in the Cordova area is currently generated and distributed by CEC. The CEC system is completely isolated from any other electrical system, and currently supplies about 1,600 customers spread over an area of approximately 2.5 square miles. CEC's loads have in recent years remained relatively steady, with average annual energy sales of approximately 22 million kilowatt hours (kWh) and an average annual generation of approximately 23 million kWh. Differences between sales and generation are primarily due to transmission losses. Peak loads are approximately 4.7 MW, and occur in the summer due to seasonal operation by the fish processing industry. Winter peaks are approximately 75 percent of the summer peaks. The fish processing plants typically operate from May through September. In 1991, a number of fish processors ceased operation in Cordova, which caused a substantial decrease in the electric loads. The high cost of electricity in Cordova at the time was a major reason the canneries ceased operation. Unless a new industry develops in Cordova, CEC forecasts only a modest 1 percent annual growth rate in its electric loads. If electric rates could be reduced, Cordova might be viewed more favorably as a location for new industrial development, which could stimulate the economy and cause more rapid load growth. Existing Power Supply CEC currently generates electricity with two diesel plants and one hydroelectric plant. Generation from the diesel plants has averaged about 19 million kWh per year for the last several years, representing approximately 86 percent of CEC's generation. The Eyak diesel power plant was originally constructed in the 1960's, and has been expanded and modified over the years. It currently contains 4 units with a total installed capacity of 5,900 kilowatts (kW). Because of its age, the Eyak plant is exempt from air emission standards until 1997. CEC would decommission the Eyak power plant if the Power Creek project were constructed. The Orca diesel power plant was constructed in 1985 and contains 2 units with a total installed capacity of 4,901 kW. In order to meet air emissions standards exemption criteria, the Orca plant is limited to generating 15 million kWh/year, which requires CEC to operate the aging Eyak plant more than is desirable. With a fuel usage rate of 13.6 kWh/gal, the average cost of power from the diesel power plants is 13.9 ¢/kWh at current market rates for diesel fuel. The Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 8889) is a run-of-river facility located in the drainage basin just north of the Power Creek basin. The Humpback Creek Project began operation in 1991, and has an installed capacity of 1.25 MW. Annual generation since operation began has averaged 3.3 million kWh, approximately 14 percent of CEC's generation. About 66 percent of the Humpback Creek generation occurs in the May- September high load period. The average cost of power from the Humpback Creek Project has been approximately 10.2 ¢/kwh. The weighted average cost of power for 1995 from the three existing power plants is 13.4 ¢/kWh. CEC's average annual energy rate is approximately 20.1 ¢/kWh. These rates are among the highest in Alaska. Average annual energy rates in nearby towns are 13.7 ¢/kWh in Valdez, 11.2 ¢/kWh in Seward, and 9.1¢/kWh in Homer. Utilization of Power Creek Generation All generation by the project will be used to offset diesel generation. Although the project as proposed has the potential to generate as much as 25 million kWh annually, because of the variability of the loads and streamflows only 14.2 million kWh of the potential Power Creek generation will be usable to meet loads at the current load levels. III. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. WHITEWATER’S PROPOSAL 1. Proposed Facilities and Operation a. Project Facilities The proposed project would consist of: 1) a diversion dam and intake structure about 20 feet high located at stream mile (sM') 3.3; 2) a tunnel-and-pipeline power conduit conveying water about 5,900 feet; 3) a powerhouse at SM 2.2 containing three generating units with a total installed capacity of 6.0 MW; 4) a 7.2-mile-long buried transmission line; and 5) about 2.5 miles of access road. The locations and general layout of these project features are shown in figures 1 and 2. Stream mileage begins at Eyak Lake. 5 The diversion dam would be a concrete and earthfill structure about 20 feet high with a crest length of 180 feet. The dam would include concrete buttresses on both the right and left abutments, a gated overflow section 80 feet long, and earthfill sections on the left and right abutments. The gated overflow section would include two 10-feet high by 35-feet long inflatable crest gates, which would be opened during high flows to flush accumulated sediment downstream and maintain the forebay water level. The normal water surface would be at an elevation of 420 feet above mean sea level (msl), and the forebay created by the diversion dam would have a surface area of about 1 acre and a total storage of about 5 acre feet. The forebay water level would be nearly constant. The intake would be in a reinforced concrete structure on the right (north) abutment adjacent to the diversion dam. The intake structure would be about 60 feet long parallel to the creek, and would vary in height from about 20 feet at the diversion dam to 10 feet at the upstream end. The intake structure would include a trashrack and a sediment retention wall, the top of which would be 3 feet below the normal water surface to prevent bedload from entering the intake. At the downstream end of the intake, a gated inlet would direct water into the power conduit, which would pass through the gated overflow section of the dam. The intake would also include a sediment sluice to trap and remove sand and gravel not retained by the sediment retention wall. The power conduit would include four distinct sections: 1) the upstream pipeline; 2) the power tunnel; 3) the south downstream pipeline and 4) the north downstream pipeline. The upstream pipeline would be a 500-foot-long section of 72-inch- diameter steel pipeline from the diversion dam/intake structure to the upstream tunnel portal on the southeast side of Power Creek. Because this area is subject to snowslides and avalanches, the pipeline would be buried and encased in concrete. At the upstream tunnel portal, the rock would be excavated to provide a nearly vertical face to facilitate the tunneling, and would be bolted to prevent rock falls. The second section of the power conduit would be the power tunnel, which would be about 2,900 feet long. Based on Whitewater's assessment of the rock quality, the tunnel would be mostly unlined, with rock bolts and shotcrete in areas of poor quality rock. The tunnel would be mined by drill-and-blast techniques to a horseshoe diameter of 9 feet, and the invert would be concrete lined. The tunnel spoils would be used for road surfacing and backfill along the north downstream pipeline. At both ends of the tunnel, the pipeline would extend into the tunnel a sufficient distance to provide rock cover over the tunnel, equivalent to at least the maximum pressure in the tunnel. The space between the rock and the pipeline would be backfilled with concrete. A rock trap about 100 feet long would be located at the downstream end of the unlined tunnel. 6 The south downstream pipeline would be a 72-inch-diameter steel pipeline extending about 300 feet from the downstream tunnel portal, across a construction staging area, and over Power Creek. The construction staging area would provide a level area about 50 feet wide and 100 feet long at 210 feet msl, 20 feet above the normal river level. The size of the construction staging area has been reduced to the minimum size considered practical to support the tunnel construction. Fill in the construction staging area would be up to 20 feet deep, and would be obtained from excavation of the downstream tunnel portal. Riprap would be placed along the toe of the fill to prevent erosion. The pipeline would be supported by a concrete thrust block in the construction staging area. A roll-out section of pipeline would be located near the tunnel portal to provide inspection and maintenance access. The pipeline would cross Power Creek in two spans totaling 180 feet with reinforced concrete piers set near the normal high water level in Power Creek. Adjacent to the pipeline would be a steel and wood bridge deck for vehicular access to the tunnel portal. The fourth section of the power conduit, the north downstream pipeline, would be a buried steel pipeline varying in diameter from 72 to 66 inches and extending 2,250 feet from the bridge over Power Creek to the powerhouse. The horizontal and vertical alignment of the pipeline would provide positive grade for the entire length. This section of pipeline would be constructed from an adjacent access road leading from the powerhouse to the lower tunnel portal. At the powerhouse, a steel manifold would distribute flow to the multiple turbines. The powerhouse would be located at the downstream end of a relatively flat bench on the north bank of Power Creek and about 700 feet upstream from the end of the Power Creek Road. The powerhouse would include a reinforced concrete substructure and an insulated metal superstructure, and would be about 90 feet long and 50 feet wide. Floor level in the powerhouse would be at 114 feet msl. The top of the superstructure would be about 30 feet above the ground level, which is about at 110 feet msl. The tailrace would empty into Power Creek at 105 feet msl. The powerhouse would contain three generating units. Two units would be horizontal 3,400 horsepower (hp) Francis-type turbines connected to 2,400 kilowatt (kW), 900 revolution per minute (rpm), air-cooled generators. The third unit would include two horizontal Pelton-type turbines connected in a double-hung arrangement to a single 1,200 kW, 300 rpm, air-cooled generator. The Pelton turbines would each be rated at 1,700 hp, with two jets per turbine. The use of both Pelton and Francis turbines allows for a very wide range of operation with good efficiency and stability. The two Francis turbines would be equipped with flywheels for frequency stability and with 7 automatic pressure relief valves to limit adverse hydraulic transient conditions in the power conduit. It is expected that under normal operation, the load on the Francis units would be varied gradually, and the Pelton turbines would be used for load following. The tailrace would be an excavated channel leading from the powerhouse to the stream channel, about 30 feet downstream of the powerhouse. Average velocity of the tailrace discharge water would be about 4 feet per second. The tailrace would be lined with riprap to prevent streambed erosion. A switchyard would be located to the south of the powerhouse, and would contain the necessary pad-mounted transformers, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches. The switchyard would be gravel surfaced with a concrete containment basin and oil/water separator for transformer oil. The primary 12.47-kilovolt (kV) transmission line would be buried in the powerhouse access road to the Power Creek trailhead, and then in the right-of-way of the Power Creek Road for 7.2 miles to the Eyak substation in Cordova. The transmission line would be direct burial cable, with splice vaults located about every 2,000 feet. A control cable would also be placed in the transmission line trench. Three permanent access roads would be constructed: 1) the 850-foot-long powerhouse access road, 2) the 12,300-foot-long intake access road, and (3) the 1,860-foot-long tunnel portal access road. The powerhouse access road would connect the Power Creek Road to the powerhouse; the intake access road would connect the Power Creek Road to the diversion dam/power intake. The parking lot and trailhead would be located about 600 linear feet downstream of the proposed powerhouse. The Power Creek trail would be aligned along the access road for about 350 feet, then continue upslope away from the powerhouse access road. The intake access road would begin near an existing gravel pit at about mile 6 on the Power Creek Road and ascend for about 6,000 feet at a variable grade up to 15 percent to the top of the canyon where it would level out for about 2,800 feet, then descend at a variable grade up to 15 percent to the diversion dam/intake structure. b. Project Operation The project would be operated automatically with remote supervision in Cordova. The control system would limit the project's generation and maintain the headwater level in the diversion pond when inflows are less than the project's capacity -- 300 cubic feet per second (cfs) -- or when load demands are low. Diversion pond elevations would be slightly higher during project spill conditions. Operators would be located at the plant about 40 hours per week for routine operations and maintenance work. If unusual circumstances warrant greater supervision, then additional operations and maintenance personnel would be dispatched from Cordova. A 5-cfs minimum flow in the bypassed reach would be assured by installing a pipe in the diversion structure sized to pass at least that amount. Discharge from the pipe would be controlled either by an orifice plate or by a valve which would be automatically adjusted to pass a minimum of 5 cfs, regardless of stage in the forebay. This valve would be linked to a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, which would provide real time monitoring and, adjustment of the release at the intake to assure constant compliance with the required flow. The project would initially operate with a plant factor of about 27 percent, based on an average annual generation of 14,200 megawatt hours (MWh). The plant factor would vary with the inflows to the diversion dam and the magnitude of the loads being served. With an installed capacity of 6.0 MW, the potential average annual generation would be 25,000 MWh, equivalent to a plant factor of 48 percent. The project would operate as a run-of-river project. During summer months, the flows would usually be higher than required to meet loads, and the excess would be spilled at the diversion dam to supplement the instream flow requirements. During the winter months, the flows would generally be less than required to meet load, and all inflows to the diversion dam except seepage and instream flow release requirements would be diverted to the power plant for generation. During the low flow months (December through April) in dry water years, the project would operate continuously with the available streamflow, which would usually be less than required to meet the total load. During these periods, the Power Creek project generation would need to be supplemented by diesel generation. During the high flow months (June through October) during dry water years, there would frequently be more inflow to the diversion dam than could be utilized to meet load, allowing discontinuation of diesel generation. Operation during mean and high water years would be similar to that described above for dry water years, except that the project would operate at greater output during the low flow winter months and there would be more spills during the high flow summer months. The proportion of flows used for generation would also vary according to the magnitude of the loads being served. 2. Proposed Environmental Measures Whitewater proposes the following measures for the environmental resources that would be affected by the project. 2) Discharge a continuous minimum flow of 5 cfs through the bypassed reach, and monitor the minimum flow release at the intake. After monitoring the accretion flows between the project intake and powerhouse for a period of 5 years, the minimum flow and monitoring points would be re-negotiated with the agencies to optimize both generation and environmental factors. 2) Deposit $50,000 in an interest-bearing escrow account, to be made available to a resource agency trustee council. The escrow fund would be used by the council to provide mitigation for fishery and wildlife impacts directly associated with construction and operation of the project. 3) Leave as much vegetation as possible during project construction, and complete a revegetation plan using applicable revegetation guidelines. 4) Prepare a final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). This plan would address all areas of potential concern for erosion related to project construction and operation. 5) Prepare a fuel and hazardous substances spills plan to help prevent and minimize any impacts associated with the handling of hazardous substances during project construction and operation. 6) Employ a qualified environmental compliance monitor during project construction.’ 7) Coordinate construction activities with plans developed jointly by Whitewater and resource agencies to avoid disturbance of wildlife, including brown bears, bald eagles, mountain goats, and various species of waterfowl known to use Power Creek and the Eyak Lake delta. Whitewater would develop plans to avoid wildlife disturbance that specify: » construction time periods, with particular emphasis on blasting; Whitewater agrees in principle with the agencies' recommendation to have an environmental compliance monitor on site during construction of the project, but additional negotiations are needed to finalize how the position would be filled and how often the monitor would be needed at the project site. 10 > construction practices to reduce noise, dust, and visual disturbances; and > human activity practices relative to brown bear encounters with workers. 8) Design and construct the pipeline and penstock to avoid barriers to wildlife movements. 9) Reduce the visual impacts of the powerhouse and substation with vegetation, coloring and texturing. Whitewater would also use design, placement, texture, and color alternatives to reduce the visibility of the construction staging area near the downstream tunnel portal and at the bridge. 10) Manage access to the Power Creek trail: expand and improve the trailhead parking lot to facilitate recreational use; establish signage; restrict access to the powerhouse and intake access roads. 11) Fund and conduct fish, wildlife and water quality monitoring studies for a period of seven (7) years after commencement of project construction. Study scopes, objectives and methods for these resources would be similar to those of the baseline studies conducted by Whitewater during the pre- filing study period. Prior to March 1 of each monitoring year, Whitewater would provide copies of the monitoring study plans to the resource agencies. In addition, Whitewater would provide annual reports on their studies to the resource agencies and sponsor annual meetings to review the monitoring results. B. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Staff's Preferred Alternative In addition to Whitewater's proposed environmental measures for the project, we recommend the following measure be included as a licensing condition. a) Whitewater should fund and conduct fish, wildlife and water quality monitoring studies for a period of eight (8) years after commencement of project construction. c. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be built, and environmental and economic conditions would be those expected if present conditions continued. The energy that would be produced by Whitewater's proposed project would not be available, and CEC would have to rely on existing diesel generation to meet its energy needs. The no-action alternative a is the benchmark from which we compare the proposed action and all action alternatives assessed in this DEA. D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY Whitewater considered the following alternatives, which represent various configurations of the project features, but eliminated them from detailed study. The alternatives, and the reasons they were eliminated from more detailed evaluation, follow. 1. Storage Operation Storage operation was considered as an alternative, so that excess streamflows in the summer could be stored in a reservoir and used to supplement winter low flows. With this type of operation, the project could provide virtually all of Cordova's power needs in most years. The site topography is very favorable for a storage reservoir; however, the only reasonable storage dam site is in the gorge above Ohman Falls, and investigations into the site geology indicated very serious concerns regarding the stability of the right abutment and north reservoir. wall if a storage dam were built. In addition, storage operation would substantially modify the flow regime in Power Creek below both the dam and the powerhouse, with large potentially adverse impacts to the aquatic biology, particularly salmon and Dolly Varden spawning and rearing. Because of these geologic concerns and potential environmental impacts, construction of a storage reservoir was dropped from consideration. 2. Power Conduit Alignment Alternative alignments for the power conduit were a primary focus during the planning and licensing work. Initial plans considered tunneling through the ridge forming the northeast end of the upper Power Creek valley, and then a cut-and-cover conduit along the north side of the lower Power Creek valley. This northside alignment of the power conduit was dropped from consideration because geotechnical investigations revealed that the material forming the ridge and north valley wall is the toe of a very large landslide. This material would present many difficulties for tunneling and placing the cut-and-cover conduit, which would likely be very costly. In addition, the visual impacts of the cut-and-cover section would be very significant. Because of the cost and visual impacts, an alignment on the south side of the valley around Ohman Falls was considered to be necessary. Some consideration was also given to constructing a full- bench cut in rock along the streambed for the power conduit. This scheme was dropped from consideration because of visual 12 impacts and the likelihood of damage to the pipe from snow and rock avalanches in the gorge above Ohman Falls. Whitewater believes the only feasible means of conveying water around Ohman Falls is a power tunnel. The proposed project arrangement includes a 2,900-foot-long tunnel and a 2,500-foot- long pipeline. Whitewater also investigated the feasibility of an all-tunnel alignment. With the all-tunnel alternative, the tunnel would be 6,500 feet long, and would be entirely in bedrock on the south side of Power Creek. The powerhouse would also be located on the south side. Two core holes were drilled along this tunnel alignment. Shear zones containing very poor quality rock were encountered in both drill holes. Whitewater believes the rock quality along most of the tunnel would be better than indicated by the drill holes, based on examination of the bedrock outcrops along the tunnel alignment. Nevertheless, the two drill holes indicate there would be a significant risk of the tunnel encountering a substantial amount of poor rock. Therefore, Whitewater selected the proposed power conduit alignment, which decreases the tunneling risk by minimizing the tunnel length. 3. Diversion Dam Location Alternative sites for the diversion were investigated both upstream and downstream of the proposed location. The most suitable location downstream is in the gorge above Ohman Falls, where bedrock is exposed on both sides of the streambed. However, the gorge is at the base of several snow chutes, and ice bridges form in the gorge each winter and persist until late summer. Access to the diversion facilities would thus be difficult and dangerous during much of the year. Sites further downstream out of the ice bridge area would have about 60 feet less head, and therefore would not make efficient use of the resource. A location for the diversion dam, about 1,500 feet upstream of the proposed location, was also evaluated. At that location, the dam would consist of a concrete sill, concrete and rockfill abutments, and a 5-foot high inflatable dam. The power intake would be located at an existing pond about 1,100 feet from the diversion dam. Under natural conditions, drainage is from the pond to Power Creek through an existing channel. With the diversion dam, the flow would be reversed. This location for the diversion dam and power intake offered the advantages of slightly more head, less chance for sediment transport into the power conduit, and more pondage for short-term regulation of inflows. The disadvantages were the cost of extending the power conduit to the intake location and the environmental impacts associated with varying the water level in the lower part of Surprise Valley, which is an extensive wetland. Because of the cost and environmental issues, Whitewater dropped the upper diversion and intake location from further consideration. 13 4. Powerhouse Location Two alternative powerhouse locations on the north side of Power Creek were considered in addition to the selected location. One alternative was near the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage (SM 1.6) about 2,000 feet downstream of the selected location, and the other about 1,000 feet downstream. Both locations offer greater generating head (50 feet and 30 feet, respectively). The location near the USGS gage would be much more costly because of the additional length of high-pressure pipeline required, and would impact a considerable amount of high-value anadromous fish habitat. The location 1,000 feet downstream would not impact as much fish habitat as the USGS gage location, but still more than the selected location, and it would require much more excavation for the access road, powerhouse foundation, and switchyard. The proposed location was thus selected as a compromise between power generation, cost, and environmental impacts. An additional powerhouse location on the south side of Power Creek was considered in conjunction with an all-tunnel alignment of the power conduit. This location is directly across Power Creek from the proposed powerhouse location. The powerhouse would be set against the rock face of the canyon wall, and a 200- foot-long tailrace would be excavated to connect to Power Creek. A 1,600-foot-long access road, including a 140-foot-long bridge, would connect the powerhouse to the Power Creek Road. This powerhouse location was not selected because the all-tunnel power conduit arrangement was considered to be too risky. Also, the south side powerhouse location had a greater risk of avalanches interfering with access. 5. Lower Project Access During a March 26, 1997, consultation meeting with the U.S. Forest Service (FS), Whitewater presented two additional project design alternatives to address recreation and aesthetic issues in the lower portion of the project area. These alternatives would modify site placement of the lower project corridor, that includes the parking lot, powerhouse access road, and Power Creek trail (letter from Thom A. Fischer, President, Whitewater Engineering Corporation, Bellingham, Washington, to Rick Thompson, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Ancharage, Alaska, March 31, 1997; letter from Thom A. Fischer, President, Whitewater Engineering Corporation, Bellingham, Washington, to Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., May 16, 1997). Alternative 1 - The parking lot and trailhead would be along the access road, about 400 feet from the powerhouse; this alignment would eliminate about 1,100 feet of existing trail; construction of about 580 feet of new trail would be needed to join the new parking lot/trailhead with the existing trail. 14 Alternative 2 - The parking. lot and trailhead would be near the pipeline bridge at Power Creek, about 2,100 feet upstream of the proposed powerhouse thereby eliminating about 4,000 feet of the Power Creek trail; construction of about 610 feet of new trail would be needed to join the parking lot with the existing trail. Whitewater and the FS agreed that the proposed access design was preferred because it would: (1) not reduce the use of the existing Power Creek trail, as the other alternatives would, (2) result in relatively minimal adverse affects, and (3) be practical and cost effective. 6. Lower Tunnel Portal Access At a March 26, 1997, meeting, the FS requested Whitewater to evaluate the economic feasibility of constructing the downstream pipeline without including a proposed adjacent construction road, in order to minimize land disturbance (letter from Thom A. Fischer, President, Whitewater Engineering Corporation, Bellingham, Washington to Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., May 16, 1997). In their May 16, 1997, letter, Whitewater describes the proposed "normal pipeline construction process" versus the "minimal disturbance pipeline construction process." Accordingly, the following modifications were considered under the FS's suggestion: (1) haul the excavated trenched material to a stockpile site rather than place it adjacent to the pipeline trench, (2) construct the pipeline sequentially from the bridge downstream toward the powerhouse, and (3) construct the pipeline on a can-by-can basis to eliminate the need for access adjacent to the trench. We eliminated the option of constructing the downstream pipeline without an associated access because this construction alternative: (1) would cost at least $510,000 more than the normal construction process, (2) could delay project construction by a few months, and (3) would not decrease the environmental impacts significantly. 7. Turbine Type A combination of Pelton and Francis turbines was selected for the project, even though the head is somewhat less than ideal for Pelton turbines. Arrangements with only Pelton turbines and only Francis turbines were considered. With only Pelton turbines, four or five relatively low-speed generating units would be required, which would increase the size and cost of the power plant substantially. However, Pelton turbines have significant operational advantages, including a wide flow range and the ability to limit damaging hydraulic transient conditions by use of the jet deflectors for both load rejections and load- following regulation. Francis turbines are less expensive than Pelton turbines, and more efficient at higher flows. The use of 15 both Pelton and Francis turbines would provide the advantages of both types. Turgo turbines, which are a cross between a Pelton and a Francis turbine, were also considered. Turgo turbines offer some of the advantages of Pelton and Francis turbines; however, Whitewater's experience with Turgo turbines has not been favorable, and they do not have as high an efficiency as Pelton and Francis units. 8. Helicopter Access to the Diversion Dam The FS recommended that Whitewater compare the costs of constructing and maintaining the diversion dam using the proposed 2.3-mile-long diversion dam access road to not constructing the access road and using helicopter access instead (letters from Calvin O. Baker, District Ranger, Chugach National Forest, Cordova, Alaska, April 22, 1997 and August 5, 1997). Whitewater estimated that constructing the diversion dam with helicopter access would cost $850,000 compared to $475,000 for the access road alternative. Constructing the diversion dam using the road access alternative would cost $375,000 less than the helicopter access alternative (letter from Thom A. Fischer, President, Whitewater Engineering Corporation, Bellingham, Washington, May 16, 1997). In addition, the road access alternative would provide long-term, inexpensive access for project-related emergencies and maintenance activities. For these reasons we eliminated the helicopter access alternative from further detailed study. Iv. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE A. AGENCY CONSULTATION The Commission's regulations (18 CFR 4.38) require prospective applicants to consult with appropriate resource agencies before filing a license application. These agencies include state and federal agencies as well as local Native American tribes. After the Commission issued a public notice on June 5, 1997, stating the application was ready for environmental analysis, the following entities submitted comments and reply comments: 16 COMMENTING ENTITIES DATE OF LETTER National Marine Fisheries Service July 30, 1997 U.S. Department of the Interior | July 31, 1997 U.S. Forest Service August 5, 1997 Alaska Department of Fish and Game August 18, 1997 Whitewater Engir i Corporation _ September 11, 1997 B. INTERVENTIONS In addition to filing comments, organizations and individuals may petition to intervene and become a party to the licensing proceedings. The following entities filed for and were granted intervenor status. INTERVENOR DATE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE National Marine Fisheries Service May 5, 1997 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service May 12, 1997 c. SCOPING Scoping Document I, which asked for written comments on issues to be addressed in the EA, was issued on September 13, 1995. In addition to comments provided at the scoping meetings held in Cordova on October 10, 1995, and in Anchorage on October 12, 1995, written comments were received from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game on December 27, 1995. Scoping Document II, addressing these comments, was issued May 31, 1996. D. WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION By agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, application for a Department of the Army permit to discharge dredged or fill material into navigable waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act also may serve as application for state water quality certification. Public notice of Whitewater's 404 permit application was issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on August 15, 1997, and the comment period ended on September 12, 1997. E. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT By agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, application a7 for a Department of the Army permit to discharge dredged or fill material into navigable waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act also may serve as application for state Coast Management Program consistency certification. Public notice of Whitewater's 404 permit application was issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on August 15, 1997, and the comment period ended on September 12, 1997. In a letter dated September 15, 1997, Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination informed the Commission that the state had begun its consistency review process. Vv. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS’ In this section, we first describe the general environmental setting of the project area. We then discuss the site-specific and cumulative effects of the resources affected by the project, including the effects of the proposed action, action alternatives, and no action. Because only the affected resources are analyzed in detail in this DEA, we've excluded the following area from our detailed analysis: Threatened and Endangered Species: Interior stated that no listed threatened or endangered species occur in or near the project area (letter from Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. to Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1997). Ina letter issued September 17, 1997, we consulted NMFS about any concerns they might have concerning threatened and endangered species in the project area, and await their response. A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE POWER CREEK BASIN 1. Power Creek Basin Power Creek is located in south-central Alaska near the town of Cordova. Cordova is on the eastern edge of Prince William Sound, a large, diverse area in south-central Alaska whose land areas are characterized by mountains, glaciers and fiords, and which is noted for its scenic beauty and rich marine and terrestrial fish and wildlife resources. The drainage basin of Power Creek is located in the Chugach Mountains and has an area of about 22 square miles. It extends 8 miles from the basin rim to the shore of Eyak Lake (figure 1). The topography of the Power Creek drainage area varies from high relief in the upper drainage basin to low relief in the Unless otherwise indicated, the source of our information is Whitewater's January 6, 1997, Draft Environmental Assessment and license application. 18 delta area. Elevations in the headwater mountains reach 4,600 feet, and the elevation of Power Creek at its confluence with Eyak Lake is 20 feet. The vegetation of the basin is typical of south-central and southeast Alaska, composed primarily of such trees as Sitka spruce and western hemlock, and such shrubs as alder, blueberry, salmonberry and devil's club. Power Creek rises from an unnamed glacier at the head of the basin and flows through Surprise Valley, a broad alluvial plain. In this reach, Power Creek is a braided and meandering stream with a gradient which ranges from 30 to 80 feet per mile (ft/mi). About 5 miles downstream from its headwaters, Power Creek flows through a narrow rock-walled gorge which includes Ohman Falls, a 52-foot-high cataract over a substantial rock outcrop. This radical change from the very flat upstream Surprise Valley is the result of a large ancient landslide which dammed the valley and forced the stream onto a rock spur. Infilling behind the dam created the upstream valley. Ohman Falls is located 3.0 miles upstream from Power Creek's confluence with Eyak Lake. In this document, all stream features below Ohman Falls are described relative to their SM marker, or the stream centerline distance in miles upstream from its mouth at Eyak Lake. Downstream of Ohman Falls, Power Creek flows through a relatively steep canyon (stream gradient =300 ft/mi.), for about 0.6 mi. The toe of the ancient landslide forms the north wall of this canyon, and the stream is characterized by large boulders and cascades. Below this canyon, the stream gradient is about 75 ft/mi and the substrate is composed of smaller boulders, cobbles and gravel. At the USGS gage (SM 1.6) the gradient again lessens, and substrate is smaller cobbles and gravel, highly suitable for salmon and trout spawning. At SM 0.9, Power Creek begins to braid into the delta above Eyak Lake. The Power Creek delta is about 0.5 mile in length and width. Power Creek flows into Eyak Lake, a relatively shallow, 2,400-acre lake fed primarily by Power Creek, but also by several small inlet streams around its margin. Eyak Lake empties into the Eyak River, which flows five miles from the lake outlet to saltwater on the western edge of the Copper River delta lowlands (figure 1). The climate of the basin is characterized by cool to mild temperatures and extreme rain and snowfall. Average annual precipitation at the Cordova airport is about 100 inches per year, but precipitation in the Cordova-Power Creek area can be much greater, with estimates of nearly 200 inches per year. Average annual snowfall in Cordova is 13 feet, with observed snow depths in the Power Creek area of over 20 feet. The temperature in Cordova ranges from -30 degrees Fahrenheit (° F) to 86° F, with an annual average of 38.3° F. The wettest months are September and October and the driest month is June (figure 3). 19 Precip (Inches) Temp (degrees F) 16 — —— 60 14 ae oe 50 12 ae 46 A 40 8 a 30 _* 20 4 2 10 olla 1 L L : 1 1 1 1 -t 1 ie Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov D Months | |Precip. * Temp. Figure 3. Mean monthly temperature and precipitation recorded at Cordova, 1949-1995. The population in the project area is confined almost entirely to the town of Cordova, with small settlements along Eyak Lake. Cordova's population estimates vary relative to the source, from about 2,500 to 2,900 permanent residents (U.S. Census and Alaska Department of Labor, respectively). The city of Cordova estimates that as many as 2,000 temporary workers come to Cordova in the late spring to work in the canneries and on commercial fishing vessels. Cordova's primary employment is through the commercial fishing industry. B. SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS According to the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for implementing NEPA (§1508.7), an action may cause cumulative impacts on the environment if its impacts overlap in space and/or time with the impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities. . The primary development activity in the project area, in addition to the proposed Power Creek Project, is logging, which was conducted on lands owned by the Eyak Native Corporation. In April of 1996, the Eyak Corporation began logging in the Eyak Lake and Power Creek areas to harvest high-quality Sitka spruce trees. The objective of the logging was to harvest about 20 percent of the available spruce stands. The logging was carried 20 out using helicopters, in lieu of extensive road building. Logging was completed by about May 1, and reports of the impacts of the operation have indicated that watershed disturbance was minimal due to partial-cutting, the diffuse nature of the individual cuts, and the fact that no access roads were built. Whitewater reported that Eyak Corporation had informally stated that they do not intend to conduct any future logging on their land because of economic reasons. Because of the uncertainty of future logging activities in the area, we evaluated the cumulative impacts of constructing and operating the project with additional logging. Based on information gained from public and agency involvement and consultation, and from Whitewater's studies, we have identified four resources that have the potential to be cumulatively affected by the project and other foreseeable activities. These resources are: 1) aquatic, 2) wildlife, 3) aesthetics; and 4) recreation. 1. Geographic Scope The geographic scope of analysis for the resources that could be cumulatively affected is defined by the physical limits or boundaries of: 1) the proposed action's effect on the resource; and 2) contributing effects from other hydropower and non-hydropower activities. Since the actions affect the resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary. For aesthetic and recreational resources, the geographic scope of cumulative analysis is an area encompassing all Eyak Native Corporation land around Power Creek and Eyak Lake. This area is based on the potential for cumulative effects which might result from the recent or future Native Corporation logging or other land-use changes. The area is large because the exact extent of the logging is not available from the Corporation at this time. Based on recommendations from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), the geographic scope of cumulative analysis for aquatic resources is the area associated with the Copper River Management Unit, as defined by ADFG. This area was chosen because the sockeye and coho salmon that use Power Creek are considered parts of the Copper River stocks. The geographic scope of cumulative analysis for wildlife species is Game Management Unit 6C (GMU 6C), as defined by ADFG. GMU 6C includes drainages west of the west bank of the Copper River and west of a line from Flag Point to Cottonwood Point and drainages east of the west bank of Rude River and drainages into the eastern shore of Nelson Bay and Orca Inlet. This area was chosen for cumulative analysis because ADFG manages both goat and bear harvests within this management unit. 21 2. Temporal Scope Cumulative analyses would include past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and their effects on aquatic, wildlife, aesthetic, and recreational resources. For purposes of our analysis, the temporal scope will look 50 years into the future, concentrating on the effect on the resources from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical discussion will, by necessity, be limited to the amount of available information. c. PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES In this section we discuss the effects of project alternatives on environmental resources. For each resource we first describe the affected environment -- the existing condition and baseline against which we measure effects, and then discuss the environmental effects. 1. Geology and Soil Resources a. Affected Environment The project is located in the southern portion of the Chugach Mountains of the Pacific Border Range physiographic province. The topography of this region is characterized by the glacier-covered, high-relief Chugach Mountains (up to 13,000 feet in elevation), steep-walled glacially-modified valleys, and fjords. Pleistocene glacial recession has left typical post- glacial features such as U-shaped valleys, lateral and terminal moraines, and glacial outwash deltas. The project is located in Seismic Zone 4 of the Uniform Building Codes, a very seismically active area where several major earthquakes have occurred in the recent past (Uniform Building Codes 1993). A general description of geologic units and anticipated soil types at the project site is presented in table 1, in order of age, oldest to youngest. Although no recent soil survey has been completed within this region, a probable soil series within the project area was developed (Sheehey 1975) and is included in table 1. 22 Table 1. Parent material and probable soil series Project area. PARENT MATERIAL Alluvium, including terraces and older alluvium deposits Elevated terrace areas and flat lying valley floors Alder, willows with scattered spruce, hemlock with understory mosses and ferns in Power Creek PROBABLE SOIL SERIES Chenga, Coville, and Tonowek Talus deposits, including snow slide areas Steep slopes Shrubs, ferns, and moss Tebenkof Landslide debris Muskeg, including areas on landslide topography Moderately sloped with hummocky ground Shallow bedrock inclosed wet depressions Western hemlock, western red cedar, Sitka spruce with subordinate vegetation blueberry and salal Sedges, mosses, and crowfoot Hydaburg and Guluak Bedrock Steep slopes to convex slopes and moderate slopes Vegetation ranging from hemlock spruce to low shrubs, alders, willows, devil club, id moss b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Hydabrug and Guluak The three principle impacts of the project's effects on geology and soils follows. Earthquake Activity Since Power Creek lies within an active seismic zone, the potential for seismic-related damage at the project is considered to be moderate -- possible structure failure and safety risks could result from flooding. A major earthquake causing significant land surface elevation changes could have severe effects on the affected project features, including breaching of the diversion dam, disruption of the intake, rupture of the pipeline, tunnel collapse, and powerhouse damage. Since there 23 are no potentially affected permanent dwellings in the project area, the primary concern would be for public safety relative to flooding, landslides, avalanches and debris flows. The highest risk for flooding could occur in the summer months (figure 4), when inflow to the proposed dam would be highest and the water volume carried in the pipeline would be the greatest. A pipeline rupture at this time, depending on its location and magnitude, could cause local overland flooding in areas between the intake and powerhouse. Because of limited storage in the diversion pond, it isn't expected that there would be a large surge of water from a pipeline rupture, and the danger zone would be very localized. Another concern for earthquake-related project damage would be cracking of the rock in the tunnel, with resulting leakage. This leakage could cause overland flow into streams, with resulting sedimentation and turbidity. We believe that Whitewater's proposed structures would be designed and constructed to withstand moderate to severe ground shaking with minor or no resultant damage to the structures or resources. Construction-related Effects Excavation, tunneling, foundation preparation, and structure building would increase the risk of erosion, sedimentation, or slope instability at various project features. Construction is expected to occur over about a 20-month period, and would include clearing, grading, and excavation of foundations that would expose soils, talus, alluvium, and weathered bedrock to erosion. Activities and areas of particular concern would include excavating and constructing the intake and diversion structures, the upstream pipeline trench, the downstream pipeline trench, and the construction staging area. Although excavation and blasting to create the power tunnel would not cause direct surface alteration of soil or vegetative resources, stockpiling and deposition of the excavated tunnel spoil for construction of the proposed staging area and roads (totaling about 9.3 total acres would locally alter surface changes. About 10,000 cubic yards (cy) of tunnel spoils would be used as road surfacing or backfill along the downstream pipeline, and a minor amount of tunnel spoils would be used for construction of the staging area (teleconference between Mike Henry, Fishery Biologist, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Portland, Oregon, Carl Keller, Wildlife Biologist, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., and Larry Coupe, Engineer, Whitewater Engineering Corporation, Bellingham, Washington, August 13, 1997). Erosion of excavated slopes, stockpiled soils, and sloped topsoil from various project features could cause sedimentation and increased turbidity in Power Creek. Temporary cut slopes in the talus deposits in the area of the left abutment of the diversion dam and upstream tunnel portal present a moderate potential of slope failures and debris slides. Temporary 24 excavation in the older alluvium deposit for the diversion dam foundation presents a moderate risk for slope instability. The upstream tunnel portal would be excavated in sound bedrock, and would have low potential for slope instability such as rock falls and sloughing. Other areas of concern during construction would be to assure that the bridge abutments below the downstream portal would not settle, and any blasting or filling would not pose a sedimentation threat. Measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation are discussed below. Long-Term Operational Effects Long-term project operation effects would pose less risk to the geological and soil resources of Power Creek and its surroundings than would impacts during construction. After the initial construction period and implementation of erosion and sediment control measures (discussed below), the primary concerns would be settlement of project features, particularly those placed on alluvium or talus and left exposed, such as the diversion dam and intake structures, the bridge, and the powerhouse. The tunnel portals and tunnel would be constructed in sound bedrock, with any exposed bedrock surfaces treated to resist weathering, lowering potentials for long-term destabilization. The tunnel design calls for lining the tunnel in all areas where rock competency is suspected, but preliminary evaluation of the subsurface bedrock indicates that only short tunnel segments might need to be lined. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Construction disturbance would be most pronounced in areas where cleared or excavated material is least consolidated, and where these activities occur nearest to Power Creek. To protect, control, and stabilize against any project-caused erosion and sedimentation, Whitewater prepared a Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (DESCP). The proposed measures are summarized in table 2; the final ESCP would address remedial measures of excavation, tunneling, and road building. In addition, Whitewater proposes a filter-fabric-lined sedimentation basin during construction to minimize introduction of sediment from the tunneling operation in Power Creek. They also plan to use standard road building and stabilization practices during roadway construction and to secure all necessary dredging and fill permits prior to construction. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is unclear on several items of the DESCP that relate to possible effects on the fisheries resource of Power Creek, and recommends that the final 25 ESCP address the following concerns: (1) how dredged spoils from tunnel construction would be handled, (2) quantity and size of flushing material, and time of year for forebay flushing, (3) more detailed rip-rap design drawings, including set-backs, (4) sediment-retention design to effectively prevent effluent discharge into the creek, including oil and grease separator, volumetric capacity of the sedimentation basin, drainage flow, and treatment of concrete batch water, (5) location and slope/sediment control of the filter basin during operation of the tunnel and staging area, and (6) details on transformer oil, and potential of oil spills and toxicity to aquatic organisms. Table 2. Proposed erosion and sedimentation prevention and protection measures. Construction Phase Prevention of Control Measures § Applicable Project Features >» Limit ground and vegetation disturbance All » Avoid clearing during wet weather All » Construct ditches on cut slopes Pipeline trenches » Route stormwater to detention ponds Downstream tunnel portal >» Install silt fences or straw bales Pipeline trenches, staging area » Install temporary shoring Tunnel portals >» Limit cut slopes in talus for stability Upper pipeline trench >» Scale and/or bolt loose bedrock Tunnel, tunnel portals » Install link wire mesh Tunnel portals Long-Term Operations Preventive or Control Measures = Applicable Project Features » Reestablish native vegetation Pipeline routes » Regrade soil slopes Pipeline routes >» Install permanent drainage systems Tunnel portals, tunnel » Install rock bolts and wire mesh Tunnel, tunnel portals » Foundation compaction Powerhouse, intake diversion >» Install riprap Staging area, bridge abutments » Install footings to 100-year scour depth Bridge footings » Install drainage ditches and culverts Access roads 26 We agree that Whitewater's proposed measures in its DESCP would minimize erosion and sedimentation. We also concur with NMFS concerns that need be adequately addressed in the final ESCP because they are not proposed in the draft ESCP, and impacts from these construction and operation concerns could have direct and indirect adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem if unaddressed. Including these provisions in the ESCP would further preserve the existing aquatic conditions in Power Creek. Therefore, we believe that Whitewater, after consultation with the FS, Eyak Corporation, NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), should develop and implement a final ESCP to include: (1) measures from its DESCP, (2) the proposed filter-fabric-lined sedimentation basin for the tunneling operation, (3) the proposed standard road building and stabilization practices during roadway construction, (4) securing necessary dredging and fill permits prior to construction, (5) addressing the aforementioned NMFS' issues/concerns, and (6) revegetation techniques that we address in the Terrestrial Resources Section of this DEA. Environmental Compliance Monitor To ensure adherence to license conditions, mitigative measures, and other environmental aspects of project construction, including the ESCP, Interior and NMFS recommend that Whitewater provide a qualified environmental compliance monitor during project construction. NMFS recommends a full-time position be established -- during major construction activities - - through a third party contractor independent of Whitewater or through the NMFS, FWS, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), which should have the authority to stop work or change orders in the field (letters from Steven Pennoyer, Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service; Juneau, Alaska, July 30, 1997, and Barbara Mahoney, Acting Supervisor, National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, Alaska, September 2, 1997). Interior also recommends that the position description, qualifications, duties, and authority be approved by the FWS, NMFS, and ADFG. Whitewater agrees with the agencies' recommendation in principle, but believes that additional consultation is necessary to determine how the position would be filled and exactly when the monitor would be needed on site (letter from Thom A. Fisher, President, Whitewater Engineering Corporation, Bellingham, Washington, September 12, 1997). Because the Power Creek watershed provides excellent habitat for a large diversity of fish and wildlife resources, the FWS and NMFS believe this previously minimally-impacted habitat could be damaged during project construction through noncompliance with environmental permits and stipulated regulations. NMFS further states that since the project area is remote, it cannot be easily monitored. We believe that securing an environmental monitor during project construction would help protect the important resources of the area. Before any construction activity begins at a licensed project, a licensee would be required to comply with the Commission's Construction Quality Control Inspection Program (Program). The Program requires a plan for inspecting 27 and monitoring erosion control and other measures to protect the environment in the project area to include, where appropriate, an on-site monitor for particular construction activities. We discuss costs of the final ESCP, and the environmental compliance monitor in the Developmental Analysis section, and make our final recommendations in the Comprehensive Developmental and Recommended Alternative section. Review of Monitoring Activities Interior also recommends that the licensee and appropriate resources agencies meet at least once per year to review results of all monitoring activities and reports, and to decide on continuation of the monitoring program(s). Interior states that the annual meeting would allow the licensee and resource agencies to jointly adjust monitoring programs according to resource needs. We believe this measure, particularly as related to the ESCP, could allow adaptive changes for resource adjustments, minimize risk in attaining conservation objectives, and provide a demonstration of monitoring protocols. Therefore, we recommend that Whitewater meet at least once a year with the FS, FWS, NMFS, and Eyak Corporation, to collectively evaluate results from the previous year's resource monitoring. e. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Project construction could result in some unavoidable risk of slope failure, erosion, and sedimentation in the project area. However, because the project design avoids excavation or trenching in areas known to be particularly unstable, the risks of erosion and slope failure during construction would be minimal. There would be some long-term risk of increased erosion along both the powerhouse and intake access roads, but proper road maintenance and the fact that both roads are buffered from direct sediment input to any nearby waterways, reduces the concern for this impact. Project impacts to soil and geology resources should greatly be reduced over the life of the project because of our recommended final ESCP, that includes a revegetation plan. 2. Aquatic Resources a. Affected Environment Water Quantity Power Creek is the largest of the tributary streams entering Eyak Lake, and is one of the largest streams in the Copper River delta area. Only the Copper River itself and the Eyak River have greater stream flows in the delta region. Power Creek has been gaged at SM 1.6 since 1947 by the USGS (Table 3). Streamflow has ranged from a low of 14 cfs to a high 28 of over 5,000 cfs, with a yearly average of about 256 cfs. The Power Creek Basin below Ohman Falls is subject to frequent floods, which occur in the spring, summer and fall months. These floods have had dramatic effects on the physical character of the river and its delta. Table 3. Mean monthly and annual flow for Power Creek at Cordova, 1947-1994. bee | cea eee fs Def ee ee eee (™ LS fe? pete Ee be Pe be | Above the USGS gage there are numerous small tributaries which augment the flow of Power Creek. Most of the defined tributaries are on the south bank of Power Creek upstream from the end of the Power Creek Road. The area to the north of Power Creek has fewer visible tributaries, primarily springs at or near stream level. This area is composed largely of landslide debris which probably conveys considerable groundwater into Power Creek. Collectively, the surface and groundwater tributaries below Ohman Falls contribute significantly to the total flow in Power Creek. An analysis was conducted to- determine the amount of tributary contribution between the USGS gage and at Power Creek just upstream of the proposed forebay (ADW 1992). The analysis showed that the accretion below the diversion site is more significant during low flow periods than during high flow periods. There is no flow data available that shows how much of the accretion between the proposed diversion dam and the USGS gage is attributed to the bypassed reach. Based on drainage area, Whitewater estimates that 60 percent of this accretion is from the bypassed reach area. The existing stream flows at the diversion dam and the expected flows at various other project locations during dry, normal, and wet water years are presented in table 4. A graphic representation of a normal water year is shown in figure 4 (inflow to diversion dam). Corrections based on the results of the ADW (1992) flow analysis are applied to the bypassed reach flow values in table 4. 29 Table 4. Summary of Power Creek Project operation during wet, normal, and dry years. Siaicin nln SCMEGISISIIn ice wEISICcianic 88 52 88S°Seee ASR asss 88 g 98 43 g84° 3538 mlctotoluiere cmc alalehelonalamcreternicleieic a5 eee eggsgrergsgs esereege a8 R 6&8 Gg FS Sr ek SE mela lalaralalaiinretoraralalolancrotecnictensie gge°asgs essreres ese sega a8 §§ £8 23 Eserekag Ssielelaletm) jqrereiela siecle ile sien 2 ee ee S82 age"asss ggergege g& g 38 g 38 38 a oie ole laiatotcioiacie clomeiicinielersis a8 ene 84 ggg as 28 § 84 ¢ 38 a SASH AC TS [ree wie cna (algie mm inci 29 da #8 e4g as Qa8 Miele oialclalobercictoictonetelomerelotonororaiats 4g 22 88 28° °38 958 cyatcrnierer ae) injerelmielaie se) ein olnele| sre 29 a8 a8 e483 58 eae FROM DS EA BSS eW ace sigemecen aes ad 88 a55 8s gag Te TAPIcan EEC cence TTT ECan Tai oes a8 a2 a3 Sab ee agg 3 meciawinngle asm emas a cemeE so a3 582 85 Raa 8s 32% 3.0638 4 een ia ais) SS SBE Saal aleleia a e.e Z8 238 88 sce ggersege 33 2 28 g 88 88 an or an or PG oc aS S€__ 58 S8&__ 58 SE__ af ffs, sf ©5355 82 _f855 Bq 28 Sate Bgq_eé 4 a a a a a a a a 8 oe 8 oe Zz Zz 8 8 ro} oO age = ce eecice 4 i a Qo a Qa a & no @ ae 2G ge =B2G8 gs a6 & = 5 = a zH 2 ga & 2 aRRR a2 aktee a = a a a = a zo _ —_ - 283 gees 233 eggdeeea ges gs gs gs Q ao = a = a a = a a BS = = 3 = Zz. 4 = BRBSES &§ BRSESS BERS anH Hw anH AS&B iH 30 NOTES TO TABLE 4: NORMAL YEAR FLOWS AT DIVERSION DAM (1) Dry year monthly flows defined by 80% probability of flow FLOW, CFS exceedence. - (2) INFLOW TO DIVERSION DAM estimated from USGS gage data for Water Years 1946-1993 and correlation between USGS and ADW x0 gage data. : (3) DIVERSION TO POWER PLANT = INFLOW TO DIVERSION DAM - ™ INSTREAM FLOW - SPILL. ma (4) SPILL = Available flow (INFLOW TO DIVERSION DAM - INSTREAM FLOW RELEASE) in excess of power plant hydraulic capacity 200 (300 cfs). . 150 (5) INSTREAM FLOW RELEASE proposed as‘5 cfs at the diversion dam. (6) FLOW BELOW DIVERSION DAM = INSTREAM FLOW RELEASE + SPILL. (7) INFLOW TO BYPASSED REACH estimated as 60% of the total accretions between the diversion site and the USGS gage. (8) FLOW ABOVE POWER PLANT = FLOW BELOW DIVERSION DAM + INFLOW TO BYPASSED REACH. INFLOW TO DAM (2) / DIVERSION TO PLANT (3) 7 sprue INSTREAM FLOW RELEASE (5) (9) FLOW BELOW POWER PLANT = FLOW ABOVE POWER PLANT + DIVERSION TO POWER PLANT. NORMAL YEAR FLOWS AT POWERHOUSE (10) Normal year monthly flows defined by 50% probability of flow exceedence. FLOW, CFS (11) Wet year monthly flows defined by 20% probability of flow exceedence. zB 8 8 8 8 150 100 INFLOW.TO BYPASSED REACH FLOW BELOW DIVERSION DAM (6) See Notes to Table 2 for ‘expalnation of flow series. Figure 4 Project streamflows. 31 32 Water Quality The water quality of Power Creek is typical of similar sized streams in coastal Alaska which are fed by glacial melt water. The basic quality of the water is excellent, with little pollution and low levels of dissolved solids. This is probably due to the lack of development and habitation in the watershed. Water temperatures collected by Sea-Run Fisheries (1996a and 1996b) during the winter of 1995-96 were cool to cold, and dissolved oxygen concentrations were at the saturation level. Power Creek transports a significant amount of sediment. The glacial sediment clouds the water during the spring, summer and early fall months. Only in late fall and winter, and during cold periods in the spring and early fall, are the waters of Power Creek clear. Bedload transport has not been measured, but is thought to be the greatest during peak flood events. Studies conducted by Whitewater indicate that temperatures in the gravel in the Road-End (discussed below) reach during a particularly cold winter period were below freezing to a depth of about 2 inches (figure 5) (Sea-Run Fisheries 1996a and 1996b). Water Rights There are currently no state water allocations on Power Creek. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) has. not filed a state instream flow request for Power Creek, and will not consider it again until after a licensing decision for the Power Creek Project has been finalized. The required instream flow requirement for the project would become the basis for the state's water allocation. Fisheries Power Creek is a tributary to Eyak Lake (figure 1). The diversion dam would be located at SM 3.2, and the powerhouse would be located at SM 2.2 -- bypassing about 1 mile of Power Creek. Power Creek between its confluence with Eyak Lake and the diversion dam was divided into the following stream reaches to help determine project-related impacts (figure 5). . Delta Reach -- The downstream-most Delta Reach extends from the terminus of Power Creek at the northeast arm of Eyak Lake (SM 0.0) to SM 1.30, where Power Creek becomes single- channeled. This reach has been changed significantly in recent years due to flood activity. 33 2000 Figure 5 Power Creek stream reaches. 34 One significant feature of the Power Creek delta area is a tributary known as Hatchery Creek. This small waterway crosses the Power Creek Road about 7 miles from Cordova via two culverts. Hatchery Creek is an important salmon spawning and brown bear feeding area. Eagle Reach -- This reach extends from the upper end of the Power Creek delta at SM 1.30 to the USGS gage at SM1.6. It has a uniform stream gradient of 1 percent and is almost exclusively glide and riffle habitat. Substrate is a relatively clean and homogeneous mixture of small to medium gravel less than two inches in diameter. This reach is known to contain some of Power Creek's largest concentrations of spawning salmon and Dolly Varden (personal communication, Steve Morstad, Fisheries Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Cordova, Alaska, 1995). USGS Gage Reach -- This reach extends from the USGS gage to the end of the Power Creek Road. The stream gradient increases and substrate changes from gravel to predominately cobble, with some small boulders. In this reach the habitat is more heterogeneous, with more pools and pockets and less run and glide habitat. About 100 yards upstream from the USGS gage is a small tributary known as Fish Trib. Fish Trib enters Power Creek on the south bank and consists of a pool about 60 feet in diameter and a small groundwater- fed feeder stream. Fish Trib offers spawning habitat for a large number of sockeye salmon and fewer coho salmon. It is known as a congregation area for brown bears and bald eagles. Road-End Reach (contains the upstream limit of adult fish migration) -- This reach contains the proposed powerhouse at SM 2.2. It extends from the end of the Power Creek Road about one-half mile upstream to the base of a steep cascade at SM 2.45. In this reach stream gradient increases to an average of 5 percent and small pools, glides, and riffles are common. Interspersed among the generally large boulder and cobble substrate are a limited number of pockets of small to medium gravel. This reach appears to be the upstream limit of adult fish migration in Power Creek -- 0.25 miles upstream of the proposed powerhouse. Ohman Falls Reach -- This reach, from the base of the cascade at SM 2.45 to the top of Ohman Falls, is characterized by steep gradients (up to 15 percent) and a generally large boulder and cobble substrate. The only area within this reach that contains pockets of small to medium 35 . . gravel -- typical of other spawning beds in Power Creek -- is at the base of an active talus slope. The combination of substrate:configuration and flows appear to inhibit upstream migration of returning salmon and Dolly Varden. No adult fish were observed or identified upstream of the cascade at SM 2.45 during Whitewater's studies and literature reviews. » Above-the-Falls Reach -- This reach extends from the top of Ohman Falls to the upstream end of the proposed project forebay. Above Ohman Falls, the Power Creek valley widens significantly, and the stream flows in a braided pattern across a broad alluvial plain known as Surprise Valley. Surprise Valley extends more than five miles to Power Creek's headwaters. Immediately above the falls there is a semi-permanent ice-bridge, which spans Power Creek during most months of the year. Power Creek supports.a variety of salmonid fish species, including salmon and Dolly Varden char, which migrate upstream as far as the cascade (SM 2.45) -- at the upstream end of the Road- End Reach. Numbers of salmon produced in Power Creek are large enough to make Power Creek a regionally important base for commercial and sport salmon fisheries. Power Creek and Eyak Lake are part of the ADFG's Copper River District, a geographical unit defined for management of commercial fin and shellfish fisheries in the region. The Copper River District extends from the Martin Islands westward to Hinchenbrook Island. For management purposes, salmon stocks are divided into those that migrate past the Miles Lake Sonar facility (upriver stocks) and those that return to streams and rivers on the lower river delta (delta stocks). Power Creek and Eyak Lake stocks are included in the delta stocks. The upriver sockeye salmon stock are the largest in the Copper River District, and delta coho stocks are the second most abundant. Upriver chinook, delta sockeye, and other salmon species comprise the remainder of the salmon numbers in the Copper River District. Eyak Lake, including Power Creek and the Power Creek delta, is one of the larger producing areas in the Copper River delta. Coho salmon, sockeye salmon, pink salmon, Dolly Varden, and cutthroat trout are reported to utilize portions of Power Creek for spawning and rearing (ADFG 1993a and 1993b). During Whitewater's fisheries studies, the only fish species observed upstream of the proposed powerhouse location (Road-End Reach) were coho salmon and Dolly Varden. 36 Coho Salmon: ADFG (1993a and 1993b) reported that coho salmon utilize Power Creek from the Eyak Lake confluence to the base of Ohman Falls. During Whitewater's studies, coho salmon were observed in Hatchery Creek and throughout Power Creek to the base of the cascade at SM 2.45 (Kelly 1995 and 1996; Sea-Run Fisheries 1996a and 1996b). Eyak Lake coho stocks, which include those coho using Power Creek, have been the subject of fisheries index counts for several years (Table 5). These counts show that of the about 12,000 to 15,000 coho in the Eyak Lake system, about 40 percent (4,800 to 6,000) probably use Power Creek for spawning (personal communication, Steve Morstad, Fisheries Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Cordova, Alaska, 1995). Power Creek is noted to be the single greatest coho producing area in the Eyak Lake index area. Table 5. Coho salmon escapement and aerial indices for selected reaches of Power Creek (1990 to 1995). Year Survey ADFG™ Foot surveys’ date estimate” USGS Road-End Ohman Total 1990 30-Oct 720 1991 23-Oct 2700 1992 5-Oct 1000 1993 24-Sep 800 17-Nov 130 ns ns 130 1994 27-Sep 650 23-Nov 498 12 ns 510 22-Dec 333 0 ns 333 1995 10-Oct 1500 675 256 0 931 28-Oct 341 87 0 428 12-Nov ns ae 0 ad 24-Nov 212 2 oO 214 14-Dec ae °O ns 17 ’ ADFG estimates are system total escapement based upon peak aerial survey estimates. These indices are not intended to provide a true estimate of total escapement for Power Creek, but rather a relative index useful for in-season management and post-season assessment. Weather, streamflow, turbidity and the experience of the observer and pilot can affect the reliability of aerial estimates. ? See figure 5 for reach locations. 37 Coho salmon in Prince William Sound and the Copper River delta region begin their spawning migration in late July. Kelly (1995) found peak numbers of coho in Hatchery Creek in August, and peak numbers in the USGS Gage and Road-End reaches of Power Creek in late August. Coho spawning takes place over a relatively long period in Power Creek. Coho were seen spawning as late as December 1994 (Sea-Run Fisheries 1996a). They were also seen spawning in good numbers in November and December of 1995 (Sea-Run Fisheries 1996a) and November of 1996 (Sea-Run Fisheries 1996b). Coho prefer small to medium gravel as spawning habitat and are not known to travel long distances up rivers to spawn. They are also not noted as a species that ascends cascades or waterfalls greater than a few feet high. Coho fry emerge from the gravel in March and April, and tend to remain in the area they were spawned for a period of several weeks. Coho juveniles rear in suitable stream areas -- usually slow-moving sloughs or backwaters. They will also rear in a lake if it is accessible, contains few predators, and has suitable water clarity conditions. Kelly (1995 and 1996) and Sea-Run Fisheries (1996a and 1996b) found few juvenile coho in Power Creek. Kelly found only one juvenile coho in 1995, and none in 1996. Power Creek coho juveniles probably rear mostly in Eyak Lake because of limited rearing habitat in Power Creek, or because of competition in Power Creek with rearing Dolly Varden. Power Creek coho populations may be limited by poor rearing conditions in Eyak Lake. The lake has a maximum depth of only about 17 feet, and good light penetration promotes extensive aquatic vegetation growth in the summer months. In addition, the lake is covered with ice cover during the winter period. Pirtle and Groff (1984) documented these conditions and observed juvenile coho mortality. Coho rear for one or two years before moving downstream to saltwater. They spend one, two, or three years in the ocean before reaching maturity and returning to fresh water to spawn. Dolly Varden: Dolly Varden are known to utilize Power Creek throughout its length, including the reach above Ohman -Falls (ADFG, 1993 a and 1993b). Hanna and Bowker (1980) did not report significant numbers of Dolly Varden in the USGS Gage and Road-End reaches in 1979, but more recent studies have reported Dolly Varden as far upstream as Ohman Falls. Kelly (1995 and 1996) and Sea-Run Fisheries (1996a and 1996b) observed adult Dolly Varden as far upstream as the cascade at SM 2.45, but observed no adult Dolly Varden upstream from this feature. Both authors observed immature Dolly Varden as far upstream as the base of Ohman Falls. 38 Sea-Run Fisheriés (1996) found Dolly Varden eggs and try in the Road-End reach in the winter of 1994-95. Kelly (1995) reported as many as four distinct size classes of Dolly Varden in the upper USGS Gage and Road-End reaches, with the largest fish being only about 150 mm in length. Kelly (1995) found that Dolly Varden below SM 2.45 showed two different age and growth characteristics; one was probably a migratory fish and the other was either a resident or juvenile anadromous fish. Kelly (1996) found multiple size classes of smaller Dolly Varden, and confirmed their existence above Ohman Falls. His preliminary analysis of these fish showed that some fish were sexually mature. He also found that these fish were much more abundant in the proposed bypassed reach following a substantial rise in streamflow after a rain, suggesting that they might successfully ascend the cascade at SM 2.45 in higher flow conditions, and could be of anadromous origin. Dolly Varden numbers in Power Creek and Eyak Lake are not well known. Their numbers are not included in aerial index counts, and the Kelly (1995 and 1996) surveys only roughly quantified their numbers and distribution in Power Creek. Power Creek is believed to support an anadromous population of about one thousand Dolly Varden, distributed from the delta to the cascade at SM 2.45 (personal communication, Steve Morstad, Fisheries Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Cordova, Alaska, 1996). Adult anadromous Dolly Varden were noted by Kelly (1995) as being very concentrated from Fish Trib downstream. While their densities decrease above Fish Trib, they are common in October to the cascade at SM 2.45 (Kelly 1995 and 1996; Sea- Run Fisheries 1996a and 1996b). Dolly Varden in Prince William Sound and the Copper River delta region typically begin their spawning migrations in mid- July. Power Creek spawning migrations peaked in September and October 1995 (Kelly 1995). Sea-Run Fisheries (1996a) observed Dolly Varden spawning behavior above the end of the Power Creek Road in late October 1995, and as late as January the previous spawning season. The same author noted that Dolly Varden had completed spawning by November 1996 (Sea-Run Fisheries, 1996b). Dolly Varden prefer small to medium gravel and moderate flows for spawning, and appear to have less stringent spawning habitat requirements than coho or sockeye salmon. In Power Creek, they are often forced to spawn in marginal habitats by coho salmon which spawn simultaneously (Sea-Run Fisheries 1996a and 1996b). Incubation takes 5 to 6 months depending on water temperature. Dolly Varden fry emerge from the gravel in March and April and are very cover oriented, being found near and below stream objects, such as cobbles and boulders. 39 Juvenile Dolly Varden rear in their natal streams up to four years, then migrate to saltwater in the last spring of their freshwater residence. At sea, Dolly Varden forage in estuarine and near-shore habitats for several months and then return to their natal stream to spawn before reentering a lake to overwinter. Some Dolly Varden overwinter in saltwater. Their marine life history is not well known, nor is the extent to which they return to their native streams and the locations where they were spawned. Power Creek supports a popular and growing sport fishery for Dolly Varden (Table 6). Statewide sportfish harvest survey responses indicate that this fishery is primarily catch-and- release and that angler success is high. Table 6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game statewide sportfish harvest surveys for Dolly Varden in Power Creek. Year Angler Days Harvest Catch 1994 116 90 377 1993 76 58 857 1992 160 221 459 wR? . - : 19907 21 16 16 1989 174 310 Na’ 1988 91 36 Na* 1987° 109 0 Na* » No survey responses in 1991. ? One survey response each year. > Harvest data only. Aquatic Invertebrates Kelly (1996) reported on aquatic invertebrates collected at three sites (one each in the Road-End, Ohman Falls and Above the Falls reaches) in 1996. Invertebrates in these sites were generally representative of those found in other similar Alaskan streams, except that their overall abundance and diversity was relatively low. The most abundant invertebrates in the Power Creek samples were true flies, with the remainder being mayflies, stoneflies, and caddis flies. This low abundance and diversity 40 may indicate that feeding conditions for fish in the bypassed reach, with respect to aquatic invertebrates, are possibly less than optimal. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Fuel and Hazardous Substances Spills Spills of fuel and other hazardous substances during project construction and operation can adversely impact aquatic resources. Whitewater has agreed to develop a fuel and hazardous substances spills plan to help prevent and minimize any impacts associated with the handling of hazardous substances during project construction and operation. We agree, and recommend that Whitewater develop the plan in consultation with the agencies. Run-of-River Project Operations Changing the volume of flow released from the proposed powerhouse -- as could be done for load following purposes -- would affect downstream fish habitat conditions. The project's small storage capacity severely limits its load-following capability; the forebay would have a surface area of about 1 acre and a total storage of about 5 acre feet. Whitewater proposes to operate the project in a run-of-river mode, maintaining a constant forebay elevation. Inflows in excess of the project's capacity would be spilled. We agree, and recommend that Whitewater operate the project in a run-of-river mode. Minimum Instream Flows The primary effects of the project on the Power Creek aquatic resources are related to changes in instream fisheries habitat caused by flow reductions in the project bypassed reach. Providing a minimum flow at the project diversion dam is necessary to protect the fishery resources in the project bypassed reach. Whitewater proposes to release a minimum flow of 5 cfs at the proposed diversion dam, and establish a $50,000 mitigation fund for any project-related fish and wildlife impacts (letter from C. Mike Prewitt, Environmental and Licensing Manager, Whitewater Engineering Corporation, Bellingham, Washington, June 27, 1997). An instream flow study was not conducted in the project's bypassed reach because of winter safety concerns. The $50,000 mitigation fund is designed to mitigate for any unexpected or unavoidable losses of fish and/or wildlife habitat directly associated with construction and operation of the 41 project. In addition, Whitewater proposes to continously monitor and record their minimum flow releases, project spills, and project diversions, and periodically measure flows upstream of the powerhouse and at the historic USGS gaging station located downstream of the powerhouse. The FWS, FS, NMFS, and ADFG support Whitewater's minimum flow release, flow monitoring, and mitigation fund proposals (letters from Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C., July 31, 1997; Calvin O. Baker, District Ranger Chugach National Forest, Cordova, Alaska, August 5, 1997; Steven Pennoyer, Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service; Juneau, Alaska, July 30, 1997; and Cevin Gilleland, Habitat Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska, August 18, 1997). The flows in the bypassed reach would be reduced, but the flows are expected to increase between the diversion dam and the powerhouse due to local accretions. No actual steam gaging information is available for determining how much accretion there is below the proposed diversion dam and powerhouse locations. Table 4 shows the expected flows through the year at various project-related locations on Power Creek during dry, normal, and wet water years. Figure 6 focuses on the pre- and post-project flows expected upstream of the powerhouse during dry, normal, and wet water years. Whitewater's proposed flow monitoring would help determine the amount of accretion flow there is between the proposed diversion dam and the powerhouse. The objective of the monitoring is to guarantee that a minimum of 5 cfs is maintained throughout the entire bypassed reach. 42 CO pre-PROJECT FLOW UPSTREAM OF POWERHOUSE: 1 wit PROJECT FLOW UPSTREAM OF POWERHOUSE. Figure Pre and post-project stream flows upstream of powerhouse for dry, normal, and wet water years. 43 the Dolly Varden fry and juvenile instream rearing habitat would be reduced by the reduced flows in the bypassed reach. This is a particular concern during the winter months when stream flows are naturally low. However, Dolly Varden populations above the proposed powerhouse contribute little to the area's total Dolly Varden population due to this section's habitat limitations. Project-related flow reductions could impact spawning habitat in the bypassed reach, but very few fish are known to spawn in this reach. During 1995, Sea-Run Fisheries (1996a) reported that three pair of coho salmon and four pair of Dolly Varden spawned in the reach between the proposed powerhouse and the cascade at SM 2.45 -- the observed upstream limit of migration (figure 5). The same author noted no more than two pairs spawned in this reach during fall of 1996 (Sea-Run Fisheries 1996b). These numbers represent 0.1 to 0.125 percent of the estimated Power Creek coho spawning population, and about 0.8 percent of the estimated Power Creek Dolly Varden spawning population. The project's total diversion capacity of 300 cfs is relatively small compared to the natural, channel-forming flows that pass through the bypassed reach -- greater than 2,000 cfs. Changes in channel substrates below the diversion dam are expected to be minor. Project-related flow reductions during winter would expose more channel area than pre-project flows. This could expose incubating fish eggs and aquatic invertebrates to freezing temperatures. Covel(Sea-Run Fisheries 1996a) measured intra- gravel temperatures during periods when air temperatures were between 10° F and 30° F in the Road-End reach of Power Creek (figure 5). Under these conditions, the substrate was frozen to a depth of 2 inches. Most fish eggs and invertebrates are normally found deeper in the substrate during winter, and would probably not be effected by lower water levels. Most sockeye salmon spawning in Power Creek occurs during the high flow period in the lateral stream channel areas. Under existing natural flow conditions, most of the spawning locations are exposed and subjected to periodic freezing conditions during most winters. Based on the reproductive success of sockeye in Power Creek, intra-substrate freezing does not appear to be a significant source of egg mortality. The project's reduced flows in the bypassed reach are not expected to increase winter egg -and invertebrate mortalities. Whitewater and the agencies agree that (1) releasing and monitoring a minimum flow of 5 cfs in the project's bypassed reach, and (2) establishing a $50,000 fish and wildlife fund to mitigate for any unexpected impacts would provide adequate protection for the aquatic resources of Power Creek. We agree that establishing a fish and wildlife mitigation fund is 44 1ecessary to mitigate for any unexpected impacts. Because releasing flows in the bypassed reach affects both the aquatic resources and power benefits, our recommendation must weigh the tradeoffs between these resources. We discuss the costs of the flow releases in the Developmental Resources section and make our recommendation in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative section. False Fish Attraction to the Tailrace Adult salmonids can be falsely attracted to higher-velocity project tailrace areas during their upstream spawning migrations. This false attraction can result in delaying the upstream migration of these fish (FERC 1995). Whitewater proposes to locate the powerhouse near the upstream end of known fish-spawning migrations. None of the resource agencies have recommended measures to mitigate for the tailrace's potential false attraction. Adult coho and Dolly Varden are known to migrate upstream past the proposed powerhouse (SM 2.2) to the cascade located at SM 2.45 -- a distance of 0.2 miles. During 1995, Sea-Run Fisheries (1996a) reported that three pair of coho salmon and four pair of Dolly Varden spawned in the reach between the proposed powerhouse and the cascade at SM 2.45. The same author noted no more than two pairs spawning in this reach during fall of 1996 (Sea-Run Fisheries 1996b). The project tailrace would be designed to return water to Power Creek about 30 feet downstream from the powerhouse. Whitewater reports that false fish attraction to the tailrace is not expected to be a problem at the project because (1) velocities in the tailrace, which would average 4 feet per second, would be about the same as the Power Creek velocities near its confluence with the tailrace, and (2) few fish migrate as far upstream as the proposed powerhouse location. No information is available on the velocity in Powér Creek near the tailrace confluence, but during the low-flow months of December through April, Power Creek velocities could be less than the tailrace velocities. Because few fish are known to migrate upstream as far as the powerhouse location, false attraction should not be a significant project impact. We believe that Whitewater's proposed tailrace design would adequately protect the fisheries resources of Power Creek. c. Cumulative Impacts Logging by the Eyak Corporation could add cumulatively to 45 the short- or long-term sedimentation impacts associated with project construction and operation. Eyak Corporation logging practices do not create cut units perched above major waterways, and no road building is associated with their logging practices. In addition, Eyak Corporation does not anticipate any future logging in the Power Creek drainage. No project-related cumulative impacts to the aquatic resources of Power Creek are expected. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There could be short-term sedimentation impacts from project construction activities. These short-term effects would be minimized by adherence to an approved ESCP. Establishing a $50,000 mitigation fund for fishery and wildlife impacts directly associated with construction and operation would mitigate for any unavoidable losses to the aquatic resources of Power Creek. 3. Terrestrial Resources a. Affected Environment Vegetation Vegetation in the project area ranges from low-shrub riparian communities near Power Creek to dense Sitka spruce- western hemlock forests in the steeper regions on slopes and in the headwaters. The riparian community along Power Creek is composed of Sitka spruce-Mountain hemlock evergreen stands with a salmonberry, huckleberry, Sitka alderberry, and devil's club understory. The forested slopes in the Power Creek Basin are densely covered with Sitka spruce and mountain hemlock with an understory of tall blueberry and salmonberry. In the Power Creek delta and Surprise Valley, there is a willow-alder-sedge habitat type. A summer 1996 preliminary jurisdictional determination for the presence of wetlands in the project area revealed 13.4 acres of wetlands in the project area (Dames and Moore 1996). A large portion of these wetlands are muskeg areas covered with various mosses and grasses common to muskeg bogs in the area. Two types of scattered wetlands occupying 1.3 acres would be affected by the following project features: (1) palustrine, emergent, persistent-saturated wetland (about 1 acre total) dominated by cottongrass, deer cabbage, and sphagnum (intake access road); and (2) a small transitional facultative wetland community (0.3 acre) having marginal indicative soil, hydrologic, and vegetative 46 wetland properties (parking lot improvements along Power Creek Road) . Wildlife The abundant wildlife resources in the project area are of national, state, and local importance. Large mammals include brown bear, mountain goat, moose, black bear, and Sitka black- tailed deer, although the latter three are in relatively low numbers. Small mammals in the project area include wolverine, pine marten, mink, porcupine, lynx, and snowshoe hare. Notable birds in the project area are the bald eagle, trumpeter swan, water ouzel, American merganser, spruce grouse, willow ptarmigan, mallard, and Canada goose. Birds use the Power Creek Basin as an important feeding and nesting area. In particular, the Copper River delta area is noted for its extremely large abundance of seasonal waterfowl and shorebirds, ranking as one of the premier staging and nesting areas in the world. Mountain goats are common inhabitants of mountainous regions of the project area, and are hunted recreationally. The closest group of goats observed during a 1995 aerial survey was 13 animals located about 2 miles southeast of the project area (Nowlin 1996). Three additional goats were seen about 2 miles northwest of the project area in the Humpback Creek Basin. The largest mammal species most likely to be affected by the project is the brown bear. The resident and migratory brown bear population that use the project area, varies seasonally. The basin is used for denning, mating, feeding, and migration during the salmon spawning period. The territorial base for all the bears found near the project area is many hundreds of square miles in size and includes the Power Creek, Rude River, and other contiguous river basins. Although no brown bears have been harvested in the Power Creek Basin in the past several years, their populations are very healthy compared to those on neighboring islands (personal communication between C. Mike Prewitt, Program Manager, Whitewater Engineering Corporation, Bellingham, Washington and Roy Nowlin, Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Cordova, Alaska, November 1995). Bears were located during an aerial survey, and bear dens were observed during foot surveys along the streambanks and river access areas (Kelly 1995, 1996). MTrack-and-den surveys indicated the numbers of bears in the project area and adjacent basins, and determined whether they remained in the Power Creek drainage. 47 The streamside survey results indicated that the area potentially-affected by development of the Power Creek project probably supports 3 to 5 adult brown bears during the peak of the salmon spawning period. Abundant fish and mast-producing forage provides a rich food supply for the bears. Observed tracks were always of single bears and no sow-cub pairs or individual cubs were seen or reported. Based on frequency of tracks and sightings, bears were most active near Power Creek in July and September through early November. During August and early September, ostensibly between the peaks of the sockeye and coho salmon runs, bear activity dropped off sharply (Kelly 1995). The summer of 1995 offered exceptional bear viewing in the Hatchery Creek area. Anecdotal reports from Cordova residents mention sightings of only single bears. No bears were observed by Kelly (1996) in his June through September surveys which concentrated from the USGS gage upstream in 1996. Sea-Run Fisheries (1996) saw recent evidence of one bear in the Road-End reach in October of 1996. After the salmon spawning activity subsides in Power Creek and other salmon-bearing streams in the Copper River delta area, brown bears become less active and begin denning in November. Bald eagles occur in two primary areas relative to the project: 1) in the Power Creek delta, where they nest, and where they could be disturbed by traffic coming and going from the project construction sites; and 2) along Power Creek, from Hatchery Creek to Ohman Falls, where they are seen in smaller numbers, and are thought to be using the areas primarily for feeding. In these more upstream areas, blasting during project construction is a concern. Three bald eagle activity centers, documented by the FS in July 1995, were located 2.3, 1.3, and 1.0 miles from where project blasting would occur. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Vegetation Construction of the powerhouse and switchyard, 850-foot-long powerhouse access road, and the 2,250-foot-long downstream pipeline route, would remove a total of 3.8 acres of vegetation, mostly alder and shrubs. About 8.75 acres of primarily spruce- hemlock forest, would be removed for construction of the 12,300- foot-long intake access road. A small strip of vegetation (about 0.25 acre) would be disrupted along the upstream pipeline route from the intake to the upstream tunnel portal and along the co ynectesm pipeline between the downstream tunnel portal and the ridge. 48 There would be only 1.3 acres of wetlands potentially affected by project features. During final project design and alignment of appurtenances, Whitewater plans to coordinate with the resource agencies to minimize any probable wetland disturbance. Because of the extent of wetlands in the project area, and construction constraints of topography and soil suitability, alternatives to avoid wetlands for locating project components does not appear available or practicable. Further, the wetland acreage that would be affected by the project is very minor when compared to the overall extent of wetlands in the Cordova region and project vicinity. We agree, however, with Whitewater's plan to coordinate with the agencies. To minimize long-term vegetative disturbance caused by project construction, Whitewater proposes to incorporate a revegetation plan along with its final ESCP. Revegetation would include treatment to all vegetated areas that would be disturbed from construction, except for the intake access road and the powerhouse access road that would both be maintained clear of vegetation. Among the 12.55 acres of physical disturbance expected at the project site, about 6.5 acres is expected to be revegetated. The specific revegetation areas, plant species, and revegetation methods and prescription that Whitewater would use, are proposed to be identified through further consultation with the resource agencies. Therefore, to minimize disturbance to the existing vegetated resources, Whitewater plans to leave as much natural vegetation as possible during project construction, and follow applicable revegetation guidelines. We agree that the planned revegetation measures, along with the proposed soil stabilization measures of the final ESCP (discussed in the Geology and Soils Section of this DEA), would accelerate the restoration of disturbed sites from construction. We believe the revegetation plan should identify areas that would be stabilized, locations and density of willow plantings, and specify a complete prescription of revegetation, including planting densities, fertilizer formulations, application rates, and seed test results. The details of the final revegetation plan should be developed in coordination with the NMFS, FWS, ADFG, and FS and that this be made a condition to any license issued for the project. Brown Bears The most likely wildlife impact would arise from brown bear- human encounters during project construction. Because of increased human activity in the area, particularly July through October during the construction period, brown bears could come into increased contact with workers, particularly those in the staging and access road areas below the USGS gage. 49 In recognizing potential negative effects on brown bears and human safety, Whitewater proposes to implement a program encouraging avoidance and minimizing potential bear-human encounters. This would include: (1) having personnel avoid areas that bears often use, if possible, (2) informing construction crew members of safe operating practices when in bear country, such as keeping clean construction sites and garbage dumps, and (3) installing bear-proof garbage receptacles during construction period(s) . Interior recommends that a bear safety plan be prepared to include safe operating practices when construction personnel are in bear country, training personnel on minimizing encounters, measures to prevent bears from obtaining human food or garbage, and procedures to follow in dealing with problem bears. Brown bears are a resource unique to Alaska, are highly prized by many, and are not uncommon in the project area. Without proper information and planning, bears can be dangerous to personnel, particularly if they are able to obtain food or garbage from construction sites. Bear-human encounters, particularly those of a chronic nature, could lead to personnel injury, and result in the legal or illegal destruction of the offending bears. Human presence in areas traditionally used by bears may result in changes in their daily and seasonal habits. Overall, the level of impact on brown bears is expected to be low at the project site because of the relatively small numbers of bears in the project area, and because encounters are expected to be infrequent. Therefore, to avoid possible conflicts between bears and humans in the project area, we agree with Interior's recommendation that a bear safety plan be prepared that should include the measures Whitewater proposes. We recommend implementation of a bear management plan be made a condition of any license issued for the project. General Wildlife Disturbance Machinery use, blasting, dust, human commotion, and helicopter use would likely cause localized, temporary, short- term displacement of wildlife from the project area particularly by some less mobile animals. Construction noise and other auditory disturbances can affect wildlife in different ways, depending on decibel levels emitted; duration, intensity, timing, and pitch of noise; proximity of animals to the noise source, and species' tolerances to noise. Chadwick (1983) reports that mountain goats are more . sensitive to disturbances than any other big game species in 50 North America, ‘largely “caused by human activities. Because blasting has particularly been shown to affect early spring kidding, Whitewater proposes to coordinate with ADFG and FS biologists Familiar with breeding and rearing periods of goats in the Power Creek Basin. It is not likely that noise generated from construction of the project (blasting) would be an inhibiting factor to mountain goats, including kidding, because goats are not known to enter the project area, and individuals have been observed no closer than 2 miles from the proposed project site. Unless blasting intrudes closer into known mountain goat range, there should not be a conflict with normal activities of mountain goats. Nevertheless, we agree with Whitewater's plan to coordinate with the ADFG to ensure optimal protection against noise disturbance during the mountain goat kidding period. Although most eagles nest undisturbed by human activity, and the overall eagle population in Alaska remains secure, some activities have caused eagles to abandon their nests. Varying levels of bald eagle protection may be needed because of individual eagle responses to human activity and site-specific factors. Therefore, to avoid/minimize adverse noise impacts on bald eagles, Whitewater proposes to observe all requirements to avoid blasting if the blast site is less than one-half mile from an active nest. Unlike the lower 48 states where habitat loss, chemical toxins, and careless destructiveness has decimated bald eagle numbers, Alaska's eagle populations are strong and secure (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). The controversial 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, as an example, was found to have no adverse affects on annual eagle survival (Bowman et al. 1995). Based on known bald eagle activity centers in the project vicinity, we find that construction noise would not conflict or interfere with eagle nesting or other activities, based on guidelines in Recommendations for Managing Activities Near Nesting Bald Eagles (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). No blasting or other construction noise would occur within the primary (300 feet from nest sites) or secondary (600 feet from nest sites) management (protection) zones for bald eagles. Because project-related traffic would be light and sporadic, only minor impacts to eagle nesting from traffic are expected. Because of construction-related disturbances, such as noise, dust, and visual intrusion, Whitewater proposes to develop a plan to avoid wildlife disturbance through coordination with resource agencies. The plan would specify construction period; measures to minimize blasting during critical wildlife periods; construction practices to reduce noise, dust, and visual disturbances; and measures to reduce human disturbance. While 51 the plan would address wildlife in general, the species of principle focus are mountain goats, bears, and bald eagles. We agree with Whitewater's proposal to coordinate with the agencies to minimize, to the extent practical, all adverse noise and other disturbances on wildlife, particularly during the project construction phase. We believe that Whitewater should comply with applicable mountain goat protection guidance provided by the ADFG and guidance provided in Recommendations for Activities Near Nesting Bald Eagles. Our recommendation for a compliance monitor (discussed in the Geology and Soils Resources section) should ensure this requirement. Therefore, we believe that construction-related noise would constitute minor adverse effects on wildlife resources. Transmission Line Hazards Overhead transmission lines can be an electrocution and collision hazard for bald eagles and other large birds. However, since Whitewater proposes to bury the 7.4-mile-long, 12.47- kilovolt transmission line, the transmission line would not cause adverse affects on bald eagles. It is not expected that construction associated with burial of the transmission line would adversely affect the bald eagles that could roost or nest in the vicinity. Wildlife Movement Whitewater's proposed power tunnel and pipeline are proposed as underground features, which would not interfere with wildlife. The power tunnel would be mined by underground drilling and the pipeline would be constructed by excavating and backfilling. These features are proposed on steep terrain that does not encourage use by many wildlife. Because Sitka black-tailed deer moose, black bear, and other wildlife are not expected to use the power tunnel and downstream pipeline areas, these project features are not expected to have direct impacts on wildlife movements. Therefore, we agree that burial of the power tunnel and pipeline would avoid impacts to wildlife during project operation. ce. Cumulative Impacts The probable cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources of past timber harvesting by the Eyak Corporation in the project area has caused temporary displacement of many wildlife species, due to habitat alteration and noise disturbance. Habitat alteration resulting from logging has undoubtedly forced some birds, mammals, and other wildlife forms into less desired areas. 52 However, because there is limited future logging expected by the Eyak Corporation in the project vicinity, it is probable that habitats would revegetate naturally in the long-term. Although the upper portions of the basin have wilderness characteristics, contributing effects from construction and operation of the proposed Power Creek Hydroelectric Project on wildlife populations and their communities are expected to be minor, and localized. There has likely been past logging-related effects on bald eagle habitat (removal of desired tree roosts), but those effects relative to the project are not expected to be noticeable. Construction noise would cause short-term inconsequential dispersal of wildlife. The construction period is expected to last about 20 months and add insignificantly to overall terrestrial resource impacts of the drainage. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There would be moderate unavoidable impacts to 12.8 acres of native vegetation during construction at all project features, particularly along the north downstream pipeline route, the powerhouse access road and the intake access road, and at the powerhouse and switchyard. There would be permanent removal of vegetation along the intake access roads and at the powerhouse and switchyard. There would be 1.3 acres of wetlands altered by construction of the parking lot and proposed intake access road. Most vegetation alteration would be offset by implementation of an ESCP and revegetation plan. 4. Aesthetic Resources a. Affected Environment Aesthetic resources in the project area are primarily related to experiences from the Power Creek trail and the various views of the drainage formed by the creek. The Chugach National Forest has a 25-foot easement on each side of the centerline of the trail, extending from the end of Power Creek road through Eyak Corporation lands to the National Forest Boundary, about a mile away. This trail is one of the most spectacular and diverse in the area, and is a favorite among local residents and visitors to access Power Creek for fishing, viewing the area, and connecting to the Crater Lake trail. Additionally, it is one of the most important aesthetic resources in Alaska given its accessibility. Except for past logging activities, the area's aesthetics are enhanced by the untouched character of the stream valley and the broad and diverse views offered. 53 Ohman Falls is a spatially prominent feature in a small- scale landscape (figures 2 and 5). A distinctive character of the falls is that water cascades over a steep rock face toa broad plunge pool at its base. One element of the Power Creek aesthetic experience is viewing the falls; however, the overall aesthetic value of the falls from the trail is limited because access to the viewing point is difficult and dangerous (due to rugged topography and dense vegetation), and views from the only safe viewing area are limited. Full unrestricted views of the falls require leaving the trail and brush beating through steep terrain. The sounds of Power Creek (water falls/movement) is also an attribute of the aesthetic experience. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Project construction during the planned 20-month-long construction period would cause local, short-term adverse aesthetic effects. On-site machinery and equipment operation would produce noise and dust that would introduce visually obtrusive elements to the landscape. The new appearance of construction staging areas, powerhouse, switchyard, diversion dam, parking area, powerhouse access road, intake access road, and overburden stockpile, could generally degrade the visual quality of the project area, depending on where these features are viewed. However, because these project features are localized and small scale, and because they would not be easily accessed or seen from the Power Creek trail, the overall aesthetic effect would be minor. Visual and auditory impacts of project features would primarily be associated with the lower portions of the Power Creek trail including the powerhouse access road, powerhouse, pipeline bridge, staging area, pipeline and downstream tunnel portal, and Ohman Falls. The proposed powerhouse access road and powerhouse would be partially visible from the Power Creek trail, but views of all features would largely be screened because of dense vegetation. The proposed powerhouse would be located about 600 feet from the end of the existing Power Creek Road, where Whitewater plans to expand the trailhead parking lot, and continue the road to access the powerhouse (figure 2). Because of dense vegetation, it is expected that the powerhouse and switchyard would not be noticeable from the trailhead, and the turbine hum would be partially diffused with proposed shrub and tree plantings. Visual impacts of Ohman Falls from the trail would occur primarily in the summer months when hikers and sightseers can access viewing points. During this period, the base flows over the falls would be reduced significantly during normal and dry water years, causing a reduction in both visual and auditory 54 aesthetics of the falls. Because natural winter flows are less than summer flows, aesthetic effects from flow reductions would be greater in the winter months. The significance of reduced winter flows would be low because few hikers or sightseers would be able to access the area during the winter. Reduced summer flows in the bypassed reach of Power Creek are not expected to cause significant adverse aesthetic effects because of difficulty in accessing clear views of the falls and creek. Protective aesthetic measures have been incorporated into the project design to reduce visibility or obtrusiveness. These include placing the project's flow line in a tunnel to hide its presence, and positioning the powerhouse and switchyard among tall vegetation. Whitewater further proposes to: (1) minimize, to the extent practical, vegetation removal and disturbance in the project area, (2) protect and stockpile topsoil to retain native plant material for use in revegetation, (3) paint the powerhouse and associated structures to blend into the environmental surroundings, (4) seed and revegetate around the powerhouse using two or more layers of conifers, (5) further evaluate onsite vegetative plantings for screening the bridge from the trail through a site visit with the FS, (6) retain the primitive character of the Power Creek trail, and (7) paint, texture, and position various project features (powerhouse, bridge, staging area, downstream tunnel portal) to blend in with the surroundings and/or be out of view, to the extent possible. Although aesthetic affects of project construction and operation are minimal, we agree that the proposed measures would help minimize adverse visual and auditory effects from project construction, to the extent possible. We also believe that Whitewater's final ESCP (Geology and Soils section of this DEA) and Revegetation Plan (Terrestrial Section of this DEA) would further minimize visual effects. Project construction, with implementation of the proposed measures, would not have a significant effect on the aesthetic resources of the project area. Therefore, we recommend that Whitewater, after consultation with the FS, prepare and implement a final aesthetics resources management plan. ec. Cumulative Impacts Aesthetic impacts to the project area's natural landscape has primarily resulted from past timber logging operations by the Eyak Corporation. However, the Eyak Corporation doesn't plan any future logging in the Power Creek drainage. The Power Creek Hydroelectric Project would contribute to the human-caused aesthetic influences of the project area, but only ina localized, minor scale. The principle features would include proposed permanent access roads, pipeline bridge, downstream pipeline portal, diversion dam, powerhouse/switchyard, and parking area. Burial of some project features, as well as 55 implementation of an ESCP and revegetation plan, would help minimize the long-term aesthetic impacts to the area. It is possible that the proposed project roads, particularly the intake access .road, could precipitate future development into a previously non-impacted area above the project area. This is a particular concern because the FS manages the upper portions of the basin, on national forest lands, as semi-wilderness having primitive characteristics. However, to minimize possible expanded development, Whitewater plans to restrict access by gating its proposed intake and powerhouse access roads. da. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Equipment and noise in the project area during the construction period could distract from the natural setting of the area. Project construction would also result in the existence of permanent features on the landscape, including the powerhouse/switchyard, three roads, parking lot, penstock bridge, diversion dam, and forebay. After construction, there would continue to be unavoidable aesthetics impacts, but they would be significantly reduced due to implementation of the ESCP and revegetation plan. Because access to the project area would be limited by locked gates, the aesthetic effects would be restricted to the Power Creek trail. Dense vegetation along much of the trail would prevent clear views of project features. 5. Cultural Resources a. Affected Environment Although there is some disagreement on which prehistoric cultures occupied the Copper River delta region, it is generally agreed that the project area lies within the homeland of the Eyak Indians (Alaska Heritage Research Group 1986). Based on a preliminary literature review conducted by the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Power Creek area potentially affected by the proposed project has not been recently surveyed in detail for cultural resources, other than a reconnaissance study by Johnson (1995). Johnson's study documented the present condition of following three historic sites near the project area: 1) the American Legion cabin and bridge supports (CAR 438); 2) the Power Creek cabin (CAR 439); and 3) the Ohman Falls cabin (CAR 329). Of these, the Ohman Falls cabin is located nearest to Power Creek within the project area. 56 Yarborough (1996) conducted additional cultural resources surveys of the project area in 1996 to assess cultural resources not covered by Johnson. In these surveys, the proposed intake and powerhouse access roads were walked, and detailed observations taken at all project features relative to the current project design. Whitewater also revisited the Power Creek cabin, and conducted interviews with certain individuals in the Cordova area known to have information on the cultural and historical resources in the area. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Cultural resource impacts are expected to be insignificant because the project features, including access roads, would not be located near any significant cultural resources that could be affected by construction or operation. We find that areas disturbed from construction of the powerhouse access road, powerhouse, pipeline, tunnel, and diversion/intake structures are not expected to overlay prehistoric or historic artifacts or sites. The Ohman Falls and American Legion cabins would not be affected by any project feature or access road. The intake access road would not have any significant cultural resources that might be affected by construction or long-term project operation. The SHPO has reviewed Yarborough's report and finds it satisfactory without the need for additional surveys (letter from Judith E. Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer, Anchorage, Alaska to Mike Prewitt, Whitewater Engineering Corp., Bellingham, Washington, November 20, 1996). The SHPO also concludes there is no need for formal evaluation of the Ohman Falls and American Legion cabins for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and has no objections to the project proceeding as planned. If archeological or historic sites are discovered during project operation, we recommend that the licensee shall: (1) consult with the SHPO about the discovered sites; (2) prepare a site-specific plan, including a schedule, to evaluate the significance of the sites and to avoid or mitigate any impacts to sites found eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places; (3) base the site-specific plan on recommendations of the SHPO and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation; (4) file the site-specific plan for Commission approval, together with the written comments of the SHPO; and (5) take the necessary steps to protect the discovered archeological or historic sites from further impact until notified by the Commission that all of these requirements have been satisfied. 57 ec. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural resources are expected. 6. Recreation Resources a. Affected Environment Recreation resources in the project area are divided into two primary use categories: hiking/sightseeing and recreational fishing. Both activities are important to the local and regional residents, but actual use numbers are difficult to obtain. The most actively used area for these activities is the Power Creek trail, which begins at the end of the Power Creek Road and extends 4.2 miles to the Power Creek cabin. The cabin is located on the south slope above Power Creek in the upper end of Surprise Valley. The trail ties into the Crater Lake trail that loops back toward Cordova for a total trail distance of 12 miles. As we've stated, the Power Creek trail system is recognized as one of the most spectacular and diverse on the Chugach National Forest and is a favorite of many local residents and area visitors. The trail segment potentially affected by the project extends from the end of the Power Creek Road to an area about 300 yards upstream from Ohman Falls. The proposed intake structures would be visible from the Surprise Valley overlook, located on a spur which extends south from the power Creek trail near the proposed diversion. Fishing in Power Creek is a popular activity but, like other recreational uses in the area, is difficult to quantify because of limited survey information. The primary attraction to sport fishermen is the Dolly Varden char, which are available from about August through December of each year. Recreational fishing for salmon in Power Creek is prohibited. Fishing for Dolly Varden offers a high-quality recreation experience because of the scenic beauty of the stream, the large concentrations of fish, and the ability to use flies as, well as other fishing techniques. Most Power Creek Dolly Varden fishing is done in the reach at and below the USGS gage (Kelly 1995). This area is easily accessed via the Power Creek Road, and does not require extensive brush removal to access or follow the stream. Extensive sandbars and low stream gradient facilitate fly fishing in this reach as well. Upstream of the USGS gage however, fishing pressure 58 declines noticéably, because access is much more difficult and fishing is more confined to small pools and pockets. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Hiking/sightseeing The project would have minimal to moderate effects on the hiking and sightseeing experiences along the Power Creek Road and the Power Creek trail. Slightly increased heavy machinery traffic could affect the travel experience along the Power Creek Road during construction, but these intrusions would be infrequent as most of the machinery would be moved into the construction site at one time each spring, and not returned until fall. There would be little dirt hauling along the Power Creek Road because surfacing materials for the powerhouse access road would be tunnel spoils stockpiled at the staging area. Similarly, surfacing materials for the intake access road would be mined at the gravel pit at the road's initiation point, also causing no increase in traffic on the main road. The hiking experience along the Power Creek trail would be diminished somewhat during construction because of the presence of heavy equipment operating in the area. As we've mentioned in the Aesthetics section, clear views from the Power Creek trail of project features as they are being constructed would be difficult due to dense shrubs and trees. It is possible that there would be increased use of the trail during the construction period by those curious to observe the construction process. Because there are no changes to the Power Creek trail alignment planned, there would not be an expected modification to the level and quality of recreational experience on the trail. Long-term recreational impacts along the Power Creek trail for hikers would result from visible evidence of human activity, particularly at the downstream tunnel portal and staging area. There could also be changes to the aesthetics of Ohman Falls as a result of project-related flow reductions; however, the falls are so difficult and dangerous to access from the trail that these changes could affect only a few recreationists during the summer. There are no changes to the Power Creek trail alignment proposed, and no restriction or impediment of the hiking experience is expected Fishing The project is not likely to affect fishing in Power Creek either during construction or long-term operation. According to Whitewater, no fishermen have been seen in the project area, and 59 few are likely there because of access difficulties. All fishing has been shown to take place downstream from the end of the Power Creek Road, where there would be no permanent streamside project features, and no project-related effects on streamflow or habitat. To mitigate for any effects on recreation in the project area, Whitewater proposes to: (1) enlarge and improve the parking lot at the end of the Power Creek trail to accommodate 5 full-size vehicles safely, to provide for future increased trail usage, (2) establish highly visible sign(s) that warn visitors of construction hazards, (3) construct a metal swing-type locking gate with dual locks at the trailhead, to ensure the area remains closed to motorized use, and (4) construct a directional sign at the location where the Power Creek trail separates from the powerhouse access road. We agree that these measures would contribute to the recreational appreciation of the project area and that they be included as conditions to any hydropower license issued for this project. c. Cumulative Impacts The Eyak Corporation, during past logging activities, had restricted access to various recreation easements in the Power Creek and Eyak Lake areas by requiring users of the various access trails to public land to first contact the Corporation prior to using the access trails. The Power Creek Project would not restrict access to the local recreation easements, because there would be no expected adverse effect on access along the Power Creek trail, either during construction or long-term operation. The aesthetic effects of logging on the recreational experience, in combination with effects of the project, would not constitute a significant adverse cumulative recreation impact in the Power Creek Basin. There are no cumulative effects on fishing from past Eyak Corporation logging, and none are expected from the proposed project. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Construction improvements to the parking area may cause minor, short-term inconvenience to hikers while parking their vehicles and attempting to access the trailhead. Otherwise, no unavoidable adverse recreational impacts from this project are expected (see section d. of the Aesthetic Resources section of this DEA). 60 7. Land Use Resources a. Affected Environment About four-fifths of the uplands around the Prince William Sound and Copper River delta region are administered by the federal government, in particular, the Chugach National Forest. These lands are managed by the FS and they were withdrawn from the public domain around the turn of the century when the forest was established. Other major landowners in the region include the state of Alaska, Alaska Native regional and village corporations, and the cities of Valdez and Cordova. Numerous small tracts of private land are scattered throughout the area, and the University of Alaska owns some lands as well. Land Ownership The three major federal laws that have affected land ownership patterns in the region are: Alaska Statehood Act of 1958, ANCSA of 1971, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980. Under the Alaska Statehood Act, the state was entitled to select about 103 million acres of land from the public domain, gain title to tidelands and submerged lands lying three miles seaward off the coastline and beneath most navigable lakes and streams, and become eligible for National Forest Community Grant (NFCG) selections within national forests. These NFCG grants allowed the state to select 400,000 acres of vacant, unappropriated land from within Alaska's national forests for the purposes of furthering development and expansion of communities. The lands selected had to be adjacent to established communities or suitable for prospective community centers and recreational areas. Passage of ANCSA addressed efforts by Alaska's Native peoples to gain title to lands they claimed through aboriginal rights. It included a cash settlement of about $963 million and title to about 40 million acres of land, and established regional and village corporations to take title to most lands granted. Under ANCSA, village corporations were afforded title to the surface estate of selected lands; title to the subsurface estate of conveyed lands was granted to regional corporations. Chugach Natives, Inc., now known as Chugach Alaska Corporation, became the Native regional corporation in the Prince William Sound and Copper River delta region, and five villages were incorporated within the area to participate in the settlement. The Eyak Corporation was the largest of these village corporations (Arnold 1978). 61 Under terms of ANCSA, the Eyak Corporation was entitled to select five townships or 115,200 acres of land. The corporation's selections were affected by the fact that the village was located within the boundaries of the city of Cordova and surrounded by the Chugach National Forest. ANCSA established a two-mile boundary around established communities to accommodate community growth, and it limited village corporation claims from within national forests to three townships. ANCSA also required village corporations to choose all land available to them within their core township. Consequently, the Eyak Corporation had to select all available lands immediately outside of the two-mile buffer zone around Cordova and two of its five townships from lands beyond the boundary of the forest. ANILCA was passed to further implement the Alaska Statehood Act and ANCSA, and it addressed still unresolved issues of Native land claims, subsistence lifestyle, energy, development, economic growth, and transportation planning. It designated millions of acres of lands for inclusion within federal land conservation units, and it added 1,890,000 acres of land to the Chugach National Forest. ANILCA specified that these Copper River additions and adjacent lands in the Copper River delta were to be administered by the National Forest System in accordance with land management plans providing for maximum protection of significant fish and wildlife values. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Settlement Actions In addition to the three major Federal laws just described, implementation of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 1994) could also lead to some land ownership changes in the region. The Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 contaminated portions of the shoreline of Prince William Sound, Kenai Peninsula, lower Cook Inlet, Kodiak Archipelago, and Alaska Peninsula. A joint federal-state Exxon Trustee council was formed, in part, to guide restoration of the environment injured by the spill. Habitat acquisition and protection is a part of its program to do so. The identification of potential lands to be acquired for these purposes has involved evaluation and ranking of parcels of private lands throughout the region. Project-Specific The proposed Power Creek Project would directly affect two landowners: the Eyak Corporation and the state of Alaska. The diversion/intake system, pipeline, generation facility, and access road would all be located on lands owned by the Eyak Corporation. 62 The transmission line would be within the 50-foot-wide Power Creek Road right-of-way (25 feet on each side of the road's centerline), which is owned by the state of Alaska and administered by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOTPF). In addition to the state of Alaska, several other landowners hold title to lands proximal to the proposed project. These include the FS (which maintains an easement to the Power Creek trail and a public use cabin); several private residences; and the city of Cordova. In addition, the USGS has an easement in the area for access to the stream gaging station on Power Creek. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Current plans for the project would directly affect two land owners: the Eyak Corporation and the state of Alaska. Certain ongoing settlement processes may affect future land ownership in the project area, and are discussed relative to Eyak lands, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill settlement process, and potential involvement by the FS. As we've stated, the Eyak Corporation currently owns all project lands except for those to be utilized for transmission line conveyance, and those along the powerhouse access road that are congruent with the FS easement on the Power Creek trail. Reportedly, the Corporation and Whitewater are currently negotiating to establish a fee for continued use of Eyak Corporation lands. The power transmission line would be sited within the ADOTPF right-of-way in the Power Creek Road. It is the policy of ADOTPF to encourage the siting of utility corridors within its rights-of-way and there is no conflict between the project and ADOTPF'S right-of-way requirements. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There would be no unavoidable adverse land-use impacts. D. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the no-action alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed, and the environmental and economic conditions related to continuation of present conditions would characterize the future over the licensing period. The energy that would be produced by Whitewater's proposed project would not be available, and CEC would have to rely on existing diesel generation to meet their energy needs. 63 CEC would continue to generate power primarily with diesel units, and a new diesel power plant would be constructed to replace the aging Eyak power plant. Power rates would continue to be very high. Economic growth would be slowed and possibly reversed, because the remaining fish processing facilities have indicated they may close if the energy rates are not lowered within the next few years. VI. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS In this section, we analyze the project's use of the water resources of Power Creek for hydropower purposes, give our estimate of the economic benefits of the proposed project, and look at the effects on the project of the various measures considered in this DEA for mitigation, protection, or enhancement of other resource uses. A. ESTIMATE OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The benefits of the project relate directly to electrical energy costs in the residential and industrial sectors of the city of Cordova and remaining service area of CEC. One measure of the economic benefit is a direct comparison between the cost of power from the project with the cost of power from the most economical alternative, which in Cordova is diesel generation. Because Cordova's loads are not growing appreciably, the project generation would replace generation by the existing diesel power Plants. However, if the project were not built, Cordova would need to replace the aging Eyak power plant, so the economic comparison should compare the cost of power from the project to the cost of power from a new diesel power plant. The estimated capital cost of the project is $15,000,000 at a current (1996) cost level. The capital cost would be financed by a combination of loans and grants, the exact mix of which has not yet been determined. Table 7 presents the debt service costs for the project for a range of loan interest rates and state/federal grant contributions. Also shown in table 7 are the estimated operating costs, the total annual cost, and the cost of power for an average annual generation of 14,200 MWh. 64 Cost of power comparison. Table 7. The cost of power for the diesel alternative is also presented in table 7 for a range of loan interest rates and State/Federal grant contributions. Operating costs include fixed O&M, variable O&M, and fuel costs. The fuel cost is based on a fuel price of 90 cents per gallon and a use rate of 70 gallons per MWh. The operations and maintenance costs are based on typical costs for Alaska utilities. As can be seen from table 7, for all assumed financing conditions, the cost of power from the project is less than the cost of power from the diesel alternative. For current conditions the cost differential is approximately 2-6 cents/kWh, depending on the financing arrangements. The cost differential would likely increase as diesel fuel costs escalate in the future. Another measure of the economic benefit is the potential reduction in the CEC retail power rates. The project would reduce power costs in the CEC service area by as much as 6 cents/kWh, depending on the financing method and the status of the customer with respect to the Alaska PCE program (Table 8). The existing PCE subsidy reduces the customer's monthly power bill for their first 700 kWh of power use. Usage in excess of 700 kWh is charged at a higher rate. Since industrial users use more than the average residential user, their existing PCE benefits are relatively less. All power users using greater than 700 kWh per month would benefit from the reduced power rates that would be provided by the project; industrial users would benefit the most. 65 : 5 : Operating costs include operations and maintenance, administration and general costs, interim replacements, and insurance. Total annual cost divided by the average annual generation of 14,200,000 kWh. Diesel alternative debt service based on capital cost of $1000/kW. Project debt service based on a total capital cost of $15,000,000 and the assumed financing parameters as shown. (5) Diesel fuel cost based on a fuel price of 90 cents/gallon and a use rate of 70 gallons/MWh. Variable O&M based on a rate of 1.0 cents per kWh and an average annual generation of 1760 kWh/kW/year. Total annual cost divided by the average annual generation. Fixed O&M estimated at $12/kW. FINANCING ( (2) @) (4) © @ (8) 66 Table 8. Summary of CEC rate impacts Interest State/Federal PowerCreek —_Total Energy Rate Rate (%) Equity Energy Rate With Power Creek 1994 Cost Investment (¢/kWh) (¢/kWh) (¢/kWh) * $0 14.6 20.3 20.1 $0 $0 $0. Ist Year 18th Year (-0.2) 0.1 1.0 9.0% 7.0% 12.6 19.1 20.1 2.0 5.0% 10.8 72 18.0 20.1 21 35 0.0% 15.8 20.1 43 63 9.0% $7,500,000 9.3 7.1 20.1 3.0 47 7.0% $7,500,000 8.3 16.5 20.1 3.6 5.5 5.0% $7,500,000 74 15.9 20.1 42 6.2 0.0% $7,500,000 5.6 148 20.1 5.2 76 9.0% 6.1 15.1 20.1 49 72 7.0% $12,000,000 5.8 15.0 l 20.1 5.1 738 5.0% 5.4 14.7 20.1 5.4 78 0.0% 47 14.3 20.1 58 8.3 20.1 0.0% 40 13.9 62 89 B. EFFECTS AND COSTS OF MITIGATION, PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES Besides Whitewater's proposed environmental measures for the project, we recommend two additional measures that would increase the cost of the project: we recommend Whitewater hire an environmental compliance monitor during project construction, and we recommend 8 years of fish, wildlife, and water quality monitoring instead of the 7 years proposed. We estimate that the environmental compliance employee would cost Whitewater about $60,000, increasing the annual cost of the project by about $2,000 to $6,000, depending upon how Whitewater finances the project. Eight years of fish and wildlife =onitoring would have an annual cost of about $1,400 to 4,000, about 00 to $500 more per year than 7 years of monitoring. VII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a 67 project is located. When we review a proposed project, the recreation, fish and wildlife, and other nondevelopmental values of the involved waterway are considered equally with its electric energy and other developmental values. In determining whether, and under what conditions, to license a project, the Commission must weigh the various economic and environmental tradeoffs involved in the decision. As we've said, all but two of the measures we are recommending were proposed by Whitewater: conducting fish, wildlife, and water quality monitoring studies for eight years -- Whitewater proposed to monitor for seven years, and employing an environmental monitor during project construction. The one additional year of monitoring is estimated to cost an additional $5,000 (a $200 to $500 annual cost) more than Whitewater had proposed, and we've estimated the cost of employing an environmental monitor during project construction at $60,000 (a $2,000 to $6,000 annual cost). Neither of these measures would significantly affect the project's power value. Therefore, in this case we haven't had to balance the costs versus benefits of these measures. Based on our independent review and evaluation of the proposed project, the proposed project with our additional recommended environmental measures, and the no-action alternative, we have selected the proposed project with two additional recommended environmental measures as the preferred option. Our preferred option includes Whitewater's proposed measures and the agency conditions that have been filed with the Commission. We discuss these measures below. Minimum Flows We recommend that Whitewater release a minimum flow of 5 cfs in the bypassed reach of Power Creek. Whitewater and the agencies agree that this minimum flow release would be adequate to protect the aquatic resources of the bypassed reach of Power Creek. Based on the studies conducted by Whitewater, there isn't a significant resident fishery resource in the bypassed reach and only a few adult anadromous fish use the 0.25-mile-long section of Power Creek upstream of the proposed powerhouse location. We agree that a minimum flow of 5 cfs should protect the aquatic resources in the bypassed reach. Any unexpected impacts would be mitigated using the fish and wildlife mitigation funds (see below). Run-of-River Operations We recommend that Whitewater operate the project in a run-of- river mode, maintaining a constant forebay elevation. As designed, the project's small storage capacity severely limits its capability to follow load demands, even for short periods of time. Flow monitoring We recommend that Whitewater continuously monitor the minimum flows released in the bypassed reach, and monitor the bypassed reach's 68 accretion flows for a period of 5 years. Monitoring our recommended minimum flow releases is necessary to ensure compliance throughout the licensing period. The additional flow monitoring that Whitewater has proposed would help determine if the 5-cfs minimum flow can be maintained throughout the entire bypassed reach, and how project- related flows and affected aquatic resources compare to historic information. Conduct fish, wildlife, and water quality monitoring We recommend that Whitewater fund and conduct fish, wildlife and water quality monitoring studies for a period of 8 years -- versus 7 years proposed by Whitewater -- after commencement of project construction. The additional year of monitoring would enable the resource agencies to review any potential project-related impacts on two full life cycles of coho salmon (personal communication, Gary Wheeler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska, August 22, 1997). We believe the additional year of monitoring would be beneficial. Prior to March 1 of each monitoring year, Whitewater would provide copies of the monitoring study plans to the resource 'encies, provide annual reports on their studies to the resource encies, and sponsor annual meetings to review the monitoring 1cSults. These studies would help determine if any post-licensing project related modifications are necessary to improve fish, wildlife, or water quality. Fish and wildlife mitigation fund We recommend that Whitewater deposit $50,000 in an interest- bearing escrow account, for mitigating any unexpected impacts to fish and wildlife resources directly associated with construction and operation of the project. Coordinate construction activities with wildlife needs We recommend that Whitewater coordinate construction activities with plans developed jointly by Whitewater and resource agencies to avoid disturbance of wildlife, including brown bears, bald eagles, and mountain goats. This coordination would ensure that the wildlife species in the project area would be adequately protected during project construction, and brown bear encounters with workers would be minimized. Environmental compliance monitor We recommend that Whitewater develop a plan, as part of the project's Construction Quality Control Inspection Program, and after consultation with Interior, NMFS, and ADFG, to employ a qualified environmental compliance construction monitor during project construction. The monitor would have the authority to stop work or change orders -in the field. Having an environmental monitor at the project location during construction would ensure that the ESCP, Fuel 69 and Hazardous Substances Spills Plan, and other environmentally- related measures are adhered to. Erosion and sediment control plan We recommend that Whitewater prepare a final ESCP. This plan would address all areas of potential concern for erosion related to project construction and operation. Revegetation We recommend that Whitewater leave as much vegetation as possible during project construction, and complete a revegetation plan using applicable revegetation guidelines. Along with the soil stabilization measures in the ESCP, revegetating would accelerate restoration of disturbed construction sites. Fuel and hazardous substances spills plan We recommend that Whitewater prepare a fuel and hazardous substances spills plan to help prevent and minimize any impacts associated with the handling of hazardous substances during project construction and operation. Power Creek trail access We recommend that Whitewater manage the access to the Power Creek trail by expanding and improving the trailhead parking lot to facilitate recreational use; establishing signs; and restricting access to the powerhouse and intake access roads. Reduce visual impacts We recommend that Whitewater reduce the visual impacts of the powerhouse and substation with vegetation, coloring, and texturing. Whitewater would also use design, placement, texture, and color alternatives to reduce the visibility of the construction staging area near the downstream tunnel portal and at the bridge. To the extent possible, these measures would reduce the project's visual impacts. VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Section 10(a) (2) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, and conserving waterways affected by the project. Twenty-two plans are currently on the Commission list of comprehensive plans for the state of Alaska. Of these, we identified and reviewed four of the plans that are 70 relevant to the project‘. We conclude that, with the inclusion of our recommended environmental measures; the proposed project would not conflict with any of these plans. Whitewater also looked at the following four major land use plans for the region: (1) Cordova Coastal Management Plan (ACMP 1986); (2) City of Cordova Comprehensive Development Plan (CCDP 1995); (3) Eyak Lake Area Meriting Special Attention Cooperative Plan (Professional Fisheries Consultants 1985); and (4) Prince William Sound Area Plan (PWSAP) (ADNR and ADFG 1988). Each of these plans recognizes the need to provide for human settlement, economic development, and protection of the area's natural resources: Further, all four plans have specific goals that encourage economic growth by making various resources available for development. The proposed project falls specifically within the goals of both the ACMP and CCDP regarding hydroelectric development; is within the Eyak Lake AMSA Cooperative Plan goal of accommodating existing and future public development plans; and is within the PWSAP goals for utilities. The proposed project's underground siting of the transmission line meets the Eyak Lake AMSA Cooperative Plan goal for maintaining the visual character of the drainage. Whitewater has undertaken several project design changes that collectively avoid potential adverse effects to fisheries, thus assuring that the project would be consistent with the intent of all four plans to protect fisheries habitats. Not interfering with recreation opportunities and use of existing trails and facilities in the area would also be necessary if the project is to comply with the Eyak Lake AMSA Cooperative Plan. Although the project does not directly affect any federal land, specifically, lands of the Chugach National Forest, Whitewater is mindful that the intake access road might, through illegal use beyond its access barriers, facilitate access to FS lands in the upper Power Creek Basin. Cordova Ranger District personnel have apprised Whitewater that the applicable Forest Plan designates the Surprise Valley area for wilderness or near wilderness types and levels of usage. Whitewater recognizes the concern of the FS, and would work with that agency during subsequent licensing activities to insure that FS concerns about access relative to the intake access road are addressed through access restrictions placed and enforced both by Whitewater and the long-term owner. (1) Copper River Basin Area Plan for State Lands, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 1986, Anchorage, Alaska (2) North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service, 1986, Twin City, Minnesota (3) Land and Resource Management Plan, Chugach National Forest, 1984, Anchorage, Alaska (4) Fisheries USA: The Recreational Fisheries Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Undated, Washington, D.C. 71 IX. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES Under the provisions of Section 10(j) of the FPA, as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of such resources affected by the project, where those conditions are not inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. Table 9 summarizes the recommendations received by the Commission and the conclusions reached in this DEA. Table 9. Analysis of fish and wildlife agencies' recommendations. RECOMMENDATION WITHIN ANNUAL CONCLUSION SCOPE cost OF SECTION 10(4) Instream flow Interior, $45,000 Adopted. release of 5 NMFS cfs Monitor, Interior, Yes $4,500 Adopted. record, and NMFS report the instream flow release and bypassed reach accretions Establish a Interior, Yes $1,700 Adopted. $50,000 fish NMFS to and wildlife $5,000 mitigation fund Conduct fish, NMFS Yes $1,200 Adopted. We wildlife, and to recommended water quality $3,500 monitoring for 8 monitoring years. studies for 7 years after start of project construction 72 RECOMMENDATION AGENCY WITHIN ANNUAL CONCLUSION SCOPE cost OF SECTION 10(4) Conduct fish, Interior Yes $1,400 Adopted. wildlife, and to water quality $4,000 monitoring studies for 8 years after start of project construction Hold annual Interior, Yes minimal Adopted. meeting to NMFS evaluate onitoring esults Employ an Interior, Yes $2,000 Adopted. The Environmental NMFS to Construction Compliance $6,000 Quality Control Monitor Inspection Program would include a provision for an on-site monitor. Prepare a Bear Interior Yes minimal Adopted. Safety Plan X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT We prepared this EA for the Power Creek Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Constructing the proposed project would have some unavoidable adverse impacts; some temporary, some permanent. Temporary impacts would include short-term, localized erosion and sedimentation; loss of native vegetation adjacent to constructed project features; increased noise during construction; and inconvenience to hikers during construction at the parking lot. Implementing the recommended soil erosion and sedimentation control plan and the revegetation plan should help mitigate some of these impacts. Permanent impacts would include: removal of vegetation along the intake access roads and at the powerhouse and switchyard; and altering 1.3 acres of wetlands by constructing the parking lot and intake 73 access road. Loss of vegetation should be mitigated by implementing the revegetation plan. Access to the project area would be limited by locked gates. Any permanent aesthetic impacts that might occur would be restricted to the unlocked Power Creek trail, where dense vegetation along much of the trail prevents clear views of most project features. A small amount of resident and anadromous fish habitat may be lost in the bypassed reach by reducing the flow in the bypassed reach to a minimum of 5 cfs. Establishing a $50,000 fish and wildlife mitigation fund would help mitigate any expected impacts to fish and wildlife. On the basis of this independent analysis, issuance of a license for the project with our recommended environmental measures would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. XI.. LITERATURE CITED Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1993a. Catalog of Waters Specified as Important for the Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes. ADFG Habitat and Restoration Division, Anchorage, AK. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1993b. Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Specified as Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes. ADFG Habitat and Restoration Division, Anchorage AK. Alaska Coastal Management Program. 1986. Cordova Coastal Management Program. Alaska Department of Natural Resources and Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1988. Prince William Sound Area Plan for State Lands. Alaska District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. Small Hydropower Interim Feasibility Study, Cordova, Alaska. Alaska District U.S. Corps of Engineers. 1980. Unpublished calculations of permeability rates in boreholes at Power Creek hydroelectric project. Alaska Division of Water. 1992. Power Creek Preliminary streamflow data summary, May, 1989-September 1991. Hydrologic Survey section, Anchorage, AK. 37pp. Alaska Heritage Research Group, Inc., Glen Bacon, Principle Investigator. 1986. Cultural investigation for the proposed Humpack Creek hydroelectric project. Report prepared for Cordova Electric Cooperative, Cordova, AK. Arnold, R. D., et al. 1978. Alaska Native Land Claims. Alaska Native Foundation, Anchorage, AK. 367 pp. 74 Chadwick, D.H. 1983. Mountain goat ecology - logging relationships in Bunker Creek drainage of western Montana. M.S. Thesis. University of Montana. Missoula, Montana. 260pp. Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc. (1995) Power Creek Hydroelectric Project: Comparison of financing alternatives. CEC preliminary rate study by rate class. 1 table. Cordova, City of. 1995. Comprehensive Development Plan. Final draft, July. 83 Dames and Moore. 1996. Power Creek Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report for Whitewater Engineering. Dames and Moore, Anchorage AK. 17pp. plus Appendices. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1994. Exxon Valdez oil spill restoration plan. Anchorage AK. 56 pp. plus appendices. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1995. Impacts of hydroelectric plant tailraces on fish passage. Office of Hydropower Licensing. Washington, DC. Paper No. DPR-9. June 1995. Fried, N. 1994. A trends profile-the city of Cordova. Alaska Economic Trends. 14 (3):1-4. Fried, N., and H. Stinson. 1992. A look at today's economies in Prince William Sound. Alaska Economic Trends. 12(9):1-9. Hanna, P. and R. Bowker. 1980. Draft Coordination Act Report, South-central Hydropower, Cordova, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, Anchorage, Alaska. Unpublished Rep. 62pp. Human Relations Area Files. 1993. Social indicators study of Alaskan coastal villages. IV. Postspill key informant summaries. Schedule C communities, Part 1. (Cordova, Tatitlek, Valdez). Report for U.S. Mineral Management Service. Alaska OCS Environmental Studies Program. Technical Report 155. 436 pp. Johnson, L. L. 1995. Archaeological Survey of Power Creek. Report Prepared for Whitewater Engineering, Bellingham, WA. Si1pp. Kelly, M. D. 1995. Fish investigations for Power Creek. Environment and Natural Resources Institute, Univ. of Alaska. Anchorage. 32pp. nelly, M.D. 1996. Fish Investigations for Power Creek. Environment and Natural Resources Institute, Univ. of Alaska. Anchorage. In Preparation. 75 Nowlin, R. A. 1996. Power Creek Hydroelectric Project. Mountain goat aerial surveys: distribution of kids. Draft report, ADFG Division of Wildlife Conservation. Cordova, AK. 2pp. Pirtle, R. B. and Groff, R. 1984. Eyak Lake AMSA, Cooperative management plan. Pp: 69-82. Professional Fishery Consultants. 1985. Eyak Lake AMSA Cooperative Management Plan. Report for Eyak Lake AMSA Study Team. 185 pp. Sea-Run Fisheries, 1996a, G. Covel, Principle Investigator. Fisheries Investigation of Power Creek. Report prepared for Whitewater Engineering. Sipp. Sea-Run Fisheries, 1996b, G. Covel, Principle Investigator. Fisheries Investigation of Power Creek. Report prepared for Whitewater Engineering. In Preparation. Sheehy, T.J., 1975. Reconnaissance Ecosystem-Soil Inventory and Management Report for The Upper Prince William Sound, U.S. Forest Service pp. 44-89. Uniform Building Codes, 1993 Soils and Foundation Design Section, page 2-41. University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. 1993a. Economic and social impacts of the Copper River Highway. Vol. 1: Economic impacts of the Copper River Highway. Report for the Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities. University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. 1993b. Economic and social impacts of the Copper River Highway. Vol. 2: Social impacts of the Copper River Highway. Report for the Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Cooperative Extension. 1995. Cost of food at home for a week in Alaska. June. 4 pp. Winkler, G.R. Plafker G., Goldfarb, R.J. and Case, J. E., 1992. The Alaska Mineral Resources Assessment Program: Background Information to Accompany Geologic and Mineral - Resource Maps of the Cordova and Middleton Island Quadrangles, Southern Alaska, U. S. Geotogical Survey Circular 1076 pp. 10- 13. Yarborough, M. 1996. Archaeological Survey of the Power Creek Hydroelectric Project near Cordova, Alaska. Cultural Resource Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. 12pp. 76 XII. LIST OF PREPARERS Michael Henry - Environmental Coordinator - Aquatic Resources, FERC (Fisheries Biologist; B.S. Fisheries) Jim Fargo - Developmental Resources, FERC (Supervisory Civil Engineer; M.S., Civil Engineering) Carl Keller - Geology and Soil, Terrestrial, Aesthetic, Cultural, Recreation, and Land Use Resources, FERC (Wildlife Biologist; M.S., Wildlife Biology) an