The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGoat Lake Hyro Enviromental 1996FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION a WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 OFFICIAL BUSINESS .PENALTY FOR PRIVATE.USE, 8300 WS. OFFICIAL MaiC PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 * * PB meter 7250412 LU.S. POSTAGE eres Re )EGEIWEDA i eee | UNS ocr e995 Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority OCT 03°95 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ROUTING CODE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 % ean ttn OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 WAY 23°96 “11077 101479 DILLLAM R, SNELL EX. OFRECTOR ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 480 WES T TOBOR ROAD ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 U5. OFFICIAL MAIL PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 * PBneren 7250412 U.S. POSTA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D C 20426 To the Agency/Party Addressed: WAY 2 2 1996 - , F x FINAL In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE 47897), the Commission's Office of Hydropower Licensing reviewed the development application, and prepared the attached Final Environmental Assessment (FEA). The FEA contains the staffs’ analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposal and concludes that approval, with mitigative measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. FERC Project No. 11077-001 The attached FEA is your information. Sincerely, Chanrd 74 Abrams for “ John H. Clements Director, Division of Project Review Enclosure: Final Environmental Assessment Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing Division of Project Review 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 and U.S. Forest Service Tongass National Forest - Chatham Area Juneau Ranger District 8465 Old Dairy Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 (May 22, 1996) SUMMARY. ccc cssesusciees rc IL. Il. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . APPLICATION PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION . A. Purpose of Action : B. Need for Power .............0005 IV. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. APART 5 OpOUME rrecies 515 omer = its Project Description . 2, Project Operation 3. Proposed Environmental Measures 4. Mandatory Requirements [4(e) Conditions] f B. Nowhction -AMCnMtiVe Gc ni tgis soe cis eujbe se see neni { Ge Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study . V. | CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE ...................004. A. Agency Consultation . pers B. Interventions .. . Cc Scoping D. Water Quality Certification . . z E. Coastal Zone Management Act ............. 000s eee eee eeee F. Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .........02 000000 eee A. General Description of the Goat Lake Drainage Area . 1. Cumulative Impacts ei = B. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives .................00-.- is Geology and Soil Resources 2. Aquatic Resources ....... a i 4. 5. Aesthetic Resources ........... 6. fe 8. Cc. Impacts of the No-action Alternative VII. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS VIII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED (ART ERNA LN de icis Orem Enis pulse tree ron Mae en slais ye eS Le 38 © | RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES ... . - 38 5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ooo. XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 39, XII. LITERATURE CITED <moe BIST ON PREPARERS x76, 8 114 (cee ek HVAT Iin scasebatacraasaoncenr pues Gro TqIeU 43 APPENDIX A Figure 1. 2 Table iy 2. 3. 4. LIST OF FIGURES Page Location of the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project features ....... LIST OF TABLES 1 Estimated average inflows to Goat Lake for water years 1964 through 1986 . Estimated average flows for Pitchfork Falls for water years 1991 through 1994 Wetlancdslin the project MCAS irs. cas we aa eigne ses wanes Staff's economic analysis of the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project using the average PCROLC GY COLMIARDD <n 5 ars ons 5 Ye pigs 215 wi tres age ts FB Rr ew careers 19 37 SUMMARY The Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP&T) proposes to construct, operate, and maintain the 4-megawatt Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project on Pitchfork Falls, near the town of Skagway in southeast Alaska. AP&T has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) for an original hydropower license and to the U.S. Forest Service (FS) for a special-use authorization to operate the project on the Tongass National Forest. To facilitate decisions whether to issue the hydropower license and special-use authorization, we (Commission and FS staffs) prepared this final environmental assessment to evaluate how the proposed project (FERC No. 11077-001) would affect environmental resources in the Goat Lake drainage area and determine whether additional protection or mitigation measures may be needed to protect and improve the environmental resources and provide the best comprehensive development of the waterway. In addition, we also examine the no-action alternative. Accordingly, we agree with AP&T’s proposed project and mitigation. We recommend at AP&T: (1) develop and implement a final erosion and sediment control plan to include stention of pond run-off, preventing localized erosion, stabilizing stream channel banks, controlling access road erosion, and handling solid waste, waste water, and hazardous substances; (2) leave as much vegetation as possible during project construction; (3) revegetate all disturbed areas from construction as soon after disturbance as possible using FS guidelines; (4) use a helicopter or donkey-winch during project construction to protect the natural vegetation; (5) design the penstock to avoid interference with wildlife; (6) construct the transmission line to avoid possible hazards to large birds; (7) adjust the construction schedule to avoid possible mountain goat disturbance; (8) screen the powerhouse and substation using measures that match the surrounding aesthetic environment; (9) establish a 13 cubic feet per second instream flow over Pitchfork Falls, May through September for 12 hours a day to maintain the natural aesthetics of the area; and (10) develop and implement a cultural resources management plan. Under our recommended alternative, we find that none of the resources--which include water, fishery, wildlife and terrestrial, visual, recreational, and cultural resources--would suffer significant adverse impacts. Therefore, no environmental impact statement is required. iii FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing, Division of Project Review Washington, D.C. and U.S. Forest Service Tongass National Forest, Juneau Ranger District Juneau, Alaska GOAT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 11077-001- ALASKA WAY 22 1996 I. INTRODUCTION The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), acting as lead agency, and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) -- Juneau Ranger District, Chatham Area, as cooperating agency, have prepared this final environmental assessment (FEA) for the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,' issuing a license decision on the project requires preparation of either an EA or Environmental Impact Statement. We (the Commission and FS staffs [staff]) analyze the environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with constructing, operating, and maintaining this project. as proposed by Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP&T). We also consider effects of alternatives to the project. i II. APPLICATION On May 31, 1994, AP&T filed an application with the Commission for a license to construct the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project. The proposed 4-megawatt (MW) seasonal storage project would be constructed along Pitchfork Falls,’ located about 7 miles northeast of the town of Skagway in southeast Alaska (Figure 1), within sections 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 of Township 27 South, Range 60 East, of the Copper River Meridian. * Pub. L. 91-190. 42 U.S. C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), Sept. 13, 1982. ? Pitchfork Falls is a one-mile-long cascading stream that flows from Goat Lake and descends 2.100 feet over a steep, 30 percent gradient to the Skagway River. The most prominent portion of the falls, and the steepest drop, is located between the White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad and the Skagway River. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 1 Gulf of Alaska Figure 1. Location of the Proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project In Southeast Alaska (source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1994a, as modified by the Commission). Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 2 FERC No. 11077-001 Pitchfork Falls is a tributary to the Skagway River, which originates in Cat generally flows southward and terminates at Taiya Inlet. adjacent to the town of wway The project would occupy about 270 acres of the Tongass National Forest, administered by the Juneau Ranger District. A small portion of the project's proposed transmission line lies on 2.9 acres of state-owned lands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has concurrently evaluated a permit application from AP&T pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, for dredging and filling activities associated with the project (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995f). The project is not intended for flood control, navigation. agricultural purposes, or irrigation. We issued the jointly prepared Goat Lake draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for comments on March 11, 1996. In response, we received 3 comment letters. We list the commenting entities in "Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment," section V.F. All comment letters were carefully considered. The sections of the draft EA that have been modified as a result of our reevaluation are identified in Appendix A, "Comments on the Draft EA and Staff Responses.” Ill. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION A. Purpose of Action The Federal Power Act (FPA) provides the Commission with the exclusive authority to license nonfederal water power projects on navigable waterways and federal lands for a period of up to 50 years.’ The Commission will use this FEA to decide: (1) whether or not to issue a license, (2) whether issuing AP&T an original hydropower license for the project would be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and (3) what conditions, if any, would be placed on any license issued for the project To ensure that the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project would be operated in a manner consistent with the National Forest System lands and resources, the FS will use this FEA to decide: (1) what mandatory license terms and conditions they would require, under section 4(e) of the FPA, to adequately protect the Tongass National Forest, should the Commission issue an original license for the project, (2) whether to issue AP&T a special use authorization (SUA) for those portions of the project that fall on national forest lands, and (3) whether these required measures would be consistent with their multiple use, land stewardship responsibilities. The SUA would authorize occupancy and use of forest lands for hydropower development that would include requirements necessary for comprehensive and compatible use of natural resources, consistent with the purposes for which the forest was established. > U.S.C. Sect 791(a)-825(r). Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 3 FERC No. 11077-001 B. Need for Power AP&T proposes to use power from the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project to replace generation from diesel powered generation facilities in the nearby town of Skagway, Alaska. Since Skagway has no transmission lines connected to any other area, there is no market for any power generated from the project other than that needed to meet Skagway’s electrical demands. By supplementing AP&T’s existing Dewey Lakes Hydropower Project, the proposed project would serve Skagway’s residential, commercial, and industrial loads. In 1994, AP&T’s actual peak demand in the Skagway service area was 1,760 kilowatts. For the years 1974 to 1993, AP&T’s electric loads for Skagway have been increasing at an average annual rate of 6 percent. From 1994 to 2003, AP&T’s mid-load forecast predicts the electric loads will grow at an average of 5.5 percent annually. Beyond 2004, AP&T assumes an average mid-load growth of 1.4 percent annually. Power from the proposed project would be useful in meeting the above need for power. When operational, power from the project would be available to displace diesel eeneration on AP&T’s system, conserving fossil fuels and reducing atmospheric pollution. IV. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. AP&T’s Proposal 1. Project Description a AP&T proposes to construct the following project facilities (Figure 2): (1) a 14-foot- wide by 125-foot-long uncontrolled spillway to replace the existing natural lake outlet which would be filled in; (2) a submerged wedgewire screen intake assembly positioned in Goat Lake at elevation 2,875 feet mean sea level (msl), and with a mechanically operated trash rake for cleaning; (3) a 30-inch-diameter, 600-foot-long steel or high density polyethylene chloride siphon pipe attached to a vacuum pump assembly within a 12-foot by 12-foot siphon pump house; (4) a pumpback/valve station consisting of a 10-foot by 18-foot metal building with two 30-horsepower pumps connected to a 14-inch pipe for returning water to the lake;‘ (5) an 8-foot-high by 25-foot-long concrete retaining wall with a 14-foot-wide spillway (elevation 2,876 feet msl) forming a 0.014-acre-foot storage catchbasin located in a portion of the existing pond; (6) a 6,200-foot-long, 22-inch-diameter steel penstock extending from the pumpback station to the powerhouse; (7) a single level, 30-foot by 40-foot powerhouse containing one horizontal twin jet Pelton turbine unit with a generating capacity of 4 MW and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 32 cubic feet per second (cfs); (8) a small substation with a * The proposed 30-inch siphon pipe and 14-inch water return pipe would be laid in the existing 5-foot- wide natural lake outlet before it is filled. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 4 FERC No. 11077-001 | ii TRANSMISSION LINE TO BORDER STATION Scale lin = about 845 leet Figure 2. Proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Features (source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1994a, as modified by the Commission). Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 pad-mounted step-up transformer, automatic recloser, and transmission line dead-end structure adjacent to the powerhouse; and (9) a 3,400-foot-long, 24.9-kilovolt (kV) aerial transmission line on wooden poles extending from the substation, across the Skagway River to the Customs Border Station where it interties with AP&T’s existing 24.9-kV transmission line to Skagway; and (10) a single cable, 500-foot-long aerial tram originating near the end of a 1,000-foot- long access road within a 60-foot-wide right-of-way be built from the Klondike International Highway to provide access to the project. 2. Project Operation Goat Lake is a very deep natural impoundment. Inflows to Goat Lake come from a combination of precipitation and glacial runoff. The glacier, located above the moraine at the south end of the lake, also provides runoff to the pond below Goat Lake and to Pitchfork Falls, which descends about 2,100 feet in elevation from the pond to its confluence with the Skagway River. AP&T proposes to automatically operate the project using the normal water outfall ‘om Goat Lake to generate power. They also propose to draft Goat Lake to generate power uring periods of low runoff or high energy demands. The normal water surface elevation of Goat Lake is 2,915 feet msl and AP&T proposes to limit lake drawdown to 30 feet. AP&T also proposes to pump water from the catchbasin below Goat Lake, back to Goat Lake for regulated storage. AP&T would pump from October through April, when there is no requirement to release flows into Pitchfork Falls,’ and May through September, during the hours the instream flow is not required. During the hours that AP&T proposes to provide flows to Pitchfork Falls, the pump output would be regulated to allow the required release of water to the falls. If natural water flow to the catchbasin would not be sufficient to meet the instream requirements, a valve would open to release water from Goat Lake to supplement flows. AP&T would provide to the 6,200-foot-long bypassed reach, a minimum instream flow of 13 cfs May through September for 12 daylight hours per day. 3. Proposed Environmental Measures AP&T proposes the following measures to protect environmental resources that may be affected by the project: 5 The flow release into Pitchfork Falls is to maintain the aesthetics, particularly in the steepest, cascading portion between the White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad and the Skagway River. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 6 FERC No. 11077-001 + Implement an erosion and sediment control plan to include measures that would detain pond run-off, prevent localized erosion, stabilize stream channel banks, and control access road erosion + Leave as much vegetation as possible during powerhouse and penstock construction; revegetate all vegetated areas disturbed by project construction activities; follow FS guidelines for revegetating disturbed areas + Use a helicopter or donkey-winch to transport the penstock to its location to protect as much natural vegetation as possible . Design the penstock to avoid interfering with wildlife movements . Design and construct the transmission line to prevent hazards to raptors and other large birds . Adjust the construction schedule of the facilities at the lake to avoid disturbance to mountain goat mating and kidding + Visually screen the powerhouse and substation with the use of vegetation and/or coloring to match the surrounding environment + Establish a 13-cfs minimum instream flow over Pitchfork Falls during May through September for 12 daylight hours a day to maintain the aesthetics of the area, by use of a priority flow bypass device + Implement a cultural resources management plan to protect portions of the Skagway Historic District and White Pass National Historic Landmark (Historic Landmark), which includes the Brackett Wagon Road and White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad (WP&YR RR); and the historic Canadian Oil pipeline affected or potentially affected by the project, pursuant to a memorandum of agreement (MOA) prepared in accordance with the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation’s (Advisory Council) regulations (36 CFR 800) for the National Historic Preservation Act. We discuss each of these measures in the individual resource sections of this FEA. 4. Mandatory Requirements [4(e) Conditions] Since the project occupies land of the Tongass National Forest, the FS has authority under Section 4(e) of the FPA, to impose mandatory conditions on any hydropower license the Commission would issue for the project. In its May 9, 1996, letter, the FS filed with the Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 7. FERC No. 1077-001 Commission, the following preliminary 4(e) conditions for the license (letter from Phil Janik, Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service - Alaska Region, Juneau, Alaska, May 9, 1996), and stated that the final 4(e) terms and conditions for the license would be provided within 45 days after issuance of this FEA: + Condition No. | - Requirement to Obtain a FS Special-Use Authorization + Condition No. 2 - FS Approval of Final Design + Condition No. 3 - Approval of Changes After Initial Construction + Condition No. 4 - Consultation . Condition No. 5 - Minimum Steamflow Regime . Condition No. 6 - Guaranteed Priority Flow Bypass Device + Condition No. 7 - Visual Resource Protection Plan ° Condition No. 8 - Erosion Control Plan . Condition No. 9 - Solid Waste and Waste Water Plan + Condition No. 10 - Hazardous Substance Plan + Condition No. 11 - Cultural Resource Protection + Condition No. 12 - Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan B. No-action Alternative Under the no-action alternative the project would not be built. Therefore, there would be no changes to the physical, biological, or cultural resources of the area. The generation that the proposed project would provide would not occur. The no-action alternative is the benchmark from which we compare the proposed action and other action alternatives. C. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study The following are descriptions of three alternative transmission line routes that were considered but eliminated from further consideration by AP&T: White P 4 Yukon Route Railroad This alignment (about 4,400 feet long) would extend from the proposed substation upslope to the WP&YR RR, southerly along the railroad to the Clifton area, downslope across the Skagway River and lastly, upslope to the Customs Border Station. The reasons this alternative was ruled out from further consideration are that: (1) WP&YR RR plans to remove the existing telegraph line along the railroad right-of-way to provide less visual distraction to the natural aesthetics of the area and because the poles are not needed, (2) additional poles would further add to undesired visual impacts of the area, (3) WP&YR RR would impose cost ohibitive charges to AP&T for constructing the transmission line on the right-of-way sement, (4) steep topography and limited access for construction and maintenance presents engineering constraints, and (5) the visual impact to Klondike International Highway users Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 8 FERC No. 11077-001 would be potentially significant due to the taller structures (55-foot-high transmission line poles) compared to the existing 30-foot-high telegraph poles. way River. This alignment (about 3,400 feet long) would extend from the proposed substation downriver and parallel to the Skagway River for about 2,900 feet to the Clifton area, then upslope to the Customs Border Station. The reasons this alternative was ruled out from further consideration are that: (1) construction would likely disturb the historic Brackett Wagon Road located along the east side of the river, (2) an extensive, time-consuming historic/cultural resources survey would be required to investigate presence of Gold Rush artifacts along this route, and the National Park Service discourages ground disturbance before completion of such surveys, (3) required mitigation to offset potential resource losses may be prohibitively expensive, (4) the FS and the town of Skagway may be interested in developing a recreational foot trail along the Brackett Wagon Road and a powerline in this area may not be compatible with land use and (5) this location would increase the visibility of the project from the Klondike International Highway. he Klondike I ional Highwa This alignment (about 3,900 feet long) would extend from the proposed substation across the Skagway River, upslope to the Klondike International Highway, and southerly to the Customs Border Station. The reasons this alternative was ruled out from further consideration are: (1) the degree of slope for powerline construction to the highway and the amount of bedrock present presents two engineering difficulties, (2) the Alaska Department of Transportation disallows pole line construction along the highway due to the scenic nature of the highway, as seen from the WP&YR RR and as viewed from the highway, (3) visual quality would be impaired with the transmission line emerging from the valley to a point near highway pullouts used to view Pitchfork Falls. Although each of the transmission line routes considered may have some merits. we agree with AP&T that the alternatives are more environmentally-damaging and more costly to construct than the proposed alignment. Vv. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE A. Agency Consultation The Commission's hydropower regulations require applicants to consult with the appropriate resource agencies before filing a license application. This consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 9 FERC No. 11077-001 the National Historic Preservation Act, and other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation must be complete and documented according to the Commission's regulations. After the Commission accepts an application, formal comments may be submitted by concerned entities during a public notice period, in accordance with section 4.34(b) of the Commission's regulations under the FPA [18CFR §4.34(b)]. The comments provided by concerned entities are made part of the record and are considered during review of the proposed project. On August 29, 1995, and October 27, 1995, the Commission issued public notices that solicited comments and recommendations on the project. The Department of Interior (Interior) responded by letter dated November 27, 1995, however no recommendations were made on the project. B. Interventions The Commission’s January 6, 1995, notice solicited organizations and individuals to ‘etition to intervene and become a party to any subsequent proceedings. There were no motions to intervene filed for the project. C. Scoping Before preparing this FEA, we conducted scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed. A scoping document (SD1) was distributed to agencies and others on May 18, 1995 (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service 1995), and noticed in the Federal Register, The Skagway News, and Capital City Weekly. Two scoping meetings were held on June 20 and June 22, 1995, in Skagway and Juneau, Alaska, respectively. Verbal comments received during the scoping meetings are recorded in the meeting transcripts (Ann Riley and Associates 1995a, 1995b). In response to SD1, we received written comments from the National Park Service (NPS) (letter from Clay Alderson, Superintendent, Klondike Gold Rush Park, Skagway, Alaska, June 22, 1995). These comments and the comments received at the scoping meetings were addressed in the final scoping document (SD2) issued September 27, 1995. The main issues identified during scoping were: project impacts on the cultural value of the Brackett Wagon Road, cultural resources protection, access to the project, location and type of transmission system, mitigation of archeological and scenic concerns, minimizing vegetation “npacts, measures to protect wildlife, baseline data on mountain goats, time restrictions of ypass instream flows, natural resources management, project economics, contributions of air- vorne pollution from fossil-fueled generation, and baseline environmental information. These issues are addressed in this FEA. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 10 FERC No. 11077-001 D. Water Quality Certification On September 1, 1994, AP&T applied to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) for water quality certification for the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project. as required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1341). The ADEC received this request on September 6, 1994. On October 3, 1994, the ADEC waived AP&T's Section 401 water quality certificate (letter from R. Flinn, Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, Alaska, October 3, 1994). E. Coastal Zone Management Act Under Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Commission cannot issue a license for a project within or affecting a state's coastal zone. unless the state CZMA agency concurs with the license applicant's certification of consistency with that state’s CZMA program, or the agency's concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of its receipt of the applicant's certification. On August 18, 1994, AP&T applied to the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (ADGC) for a consistency determination of the project with the coastal zone management program (letter from Stan Selmer, Site Coordinator, Alaska Power and Telephone Company, Skagway, Alaska, August 18, 1994). On September 6, 1994, the ADGC acknowledged AP&T’s certification request. On November 27, 1995, the ADGC certified that the Goat Lake Project was consistent with the Alaska CZMA and also with the Skagway Coastal Management Plan. No conditions or stipulations were included. F. Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment Commenting Entity Date of Letter U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......... Alaska Power and aan oe National Park Service .. 0 .. March 25, 1996 April 4, 1996 . April 15, 1996 Appendix A includes the comments from the above entities along with our responses to them. Based on our responses, the corresponding sections of the FEA have been modified. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS In this section, staff first describes the general environmental setting in the project area. Included is a discussion of environmental resources in the Skagway River Valley that Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 ll FERC No. 11077-001 may be subject to cumulative effects from the Goat Lake Project when considered in combination with other actions affecting the resource. In our detailed assessment, we discuss each environmental resource affected by the project. For each resource, we first describe the affected environment--which is the existing condition and the baseline against which to measure the effects of the proposed project and any alternative actions--and then the environmental effects of the project, including proposed mitigation measures. In evaluating the environmental effects of the project, we consider both site-specific effects and any cumulative effects to resources in the basin. Unless we say otherwise, the sources of our information are the license application (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1994a-c) and additional information filings by AP&T (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995a-e, 1995g). A. General Description of the Goat Lake Drainage Area The project would be located east of the Skagway River along Pitchfork Falls, about 7 niles northeast of Skagway, Alaska. Founded in 1896, at the extreme north end of Lynn Zanal, Skagway became an important stopover of gold seekers on their way to the Klondike gold fields. With the ebbing of the Klondike Gold Rush (see section VI.B.6.), Skagway’s population dwindled. The present mainstay of Skagway’s economy is tourism, where many tourists visit the area each year for the natural scenery in the Skagway River Valley. The project basin is also used occasionally for outdoor recreation such as hunting and camping. The project area and Skagway River Valley have a remote, wild, and undeveloped character. In particular, the lower portion of Pitchfork Falls has a prominent series of cascading waterfalls which is a popular attraction among local residents and visitors to the area. The three significant linear features that Pitchfork Falls crosses are the WP& YR RR at elevation 1,104 feet msl, the Canadian Oil pipeline along the railroad right-of-way, and the historic Brackett Wagon Road located about 200 feet below and generally parallel to the railroad. The project’s 4.2-square-mile drainage basin includes glaciers, moraines, rugged mountainous terrain, and high-gradient streams with cascades and pools. The topography of the region is primarily the result of glaciation about 13,000 years ago. The landscape of the project area is made up of forests, mixed with mountain meadows, exposed bedrock and boulders, shrubland communities, meadows, and scattered wetlands. The Tongass National Forest provides habitat for about 54 species of mammals, 31 species of birds, and 5 species of amphibians and reptiles (U.S. Forest Service 1991a, 991b). Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 12 FERC No. 11077-001 The 943-kilowatt Dewey Lakes Project (FERC No. 1051), located about | mile east of Skagway, is the only existing hydropower project in the Skagway region. This project was originally licensed on April 1, 1980, and the license expires on August 29, 2007 1, Cumulative Impacts 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. The individually minor impacts of multiple actions, when added together in space and time, may amount to collectively significant cumulative impacts. The existing environment shows the effects of past and present actions and provides the context for determining the significance of cumulative impacts from future actions. In SD2, we identified tourism and sightseeing opportunities as two elements that could be cumulatively affected by development of the project in combination with existing and potential development in the area. However, after further analysis, we don’t believe there is a potential for these, or other resources to be cumulatively affected. The following is the basis for our conclusion: + The Clinton Customs Border Station, the Klondike International Highway, and the WP&YR RR (Figure 1) are the main non-hydropower developments in the Skagway River Valley. Except for other small and isolated structures, there are no other visible human developments in the valley. None of these developments has contributed, nor is expected to contribute, to adverse impacts on tourism and sightseeing opportunities in the area. At this time, there is no known development planned. . Because of its location in a forested environment, the Dewey Lakes Project is not visible from primary public viewing locations such as the Klondike International Highway, the WP&YR RR, or from the town of Skagway. Visual effects of this development can only be seen from hiking trails that lead to the site from Skagway, or by flying over the project above 500 feet msl elevation. Therefore, the Dewey Lakes Project does not adversely affect tourism and sightseeing opportunities in the valley. . AP&T proposes site-specific measures to minimize potential adverse effects from project development on the aesthetic quality of the Goat Lake Project area (see section VI.B.5.). These measures, which are consistent with the Tongass Land Management Plan, would minimize any impacts to visual resources in the project area; therefore eliminating any impacts to tourism and sightseeing opportunities. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 13 FERC No, 11077-001 B. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 1. Geology and Soil Resources a. Affected Environment: The project area consists of exposed bedrock with talus and alluvium deposits. The slopes range from flat to steep. The steeper slopes have an accumulation of rock debris that has formed fan shaped deposits (talus deposits) at the base of steep-sided cliffs. The less steep slopes are alluvium deposits of sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders with traces of silt and woody debris. An organic soil (muskeg) is also found in the project area. Muskegs consist of a soft, highly compressible mixture of peat moss, roots, and other vegetation. The talus and alluvium deposits together with muskeg underlain by bedrock, provide a stable area with little chance of erosion or sedimentation. However, occasionally, water streams with high velocities, water from snow melt, snow avalanches, or major landslides could cause this type of material to shift and move causing erosion and sedimentation. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Construction of the penstock, sowerhouse, catchbasin, siphon house, pumpback/valvehouse and other project features have he potential to cause erosion and sedimentation that would affect water quality. On March 30, 1995, AP&T submitted a draft erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) that outlined the methods and techniques to be followed to control construction impacts during land-disturbing activities. These measures include sediment control ponds, silt fence barriers, streambank stabilization, and use of rock to construct entrance roads. Also, AP&T proposes to use aerial trams and helicopters to transport construction materials to job sites, and to revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible after construction is completed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), and Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) all agree that the methods and measures outlined in AP&T’s draft ESCP address project construction impacts and would ensure maintenance of water quality (letters from Nevin Holmberg, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, April 17, 1995; John Palmes, Area Habitat Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, April 11, 1995; and William Long, Executive Director, Soil and Water Conservation Board, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, May 1, 1995). The FS concludes that the potential for soil erosion is low and that mitigation for any potential erosion is outlined in the draft ESCP. However, the FS says that under their section 4/e) authority, and granting a SUA, AP&T would have to further develop its draft ESCP. he final plan would be required to comply with the Best Management Practices described in ...¢ FS Region 10 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook for this type of construction. Also, Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 14 FERC No. 11077-001 under their section 4(e) authority, the FS would require AP&T to develop solid waste, wastewater, and hazardous substance plans before land-disturbing activities. Staff concludes that the potential for erosion and sedimentation to occur in the project area is low because of the mostly stable slopes. Further, we agree with the agencies that AP&T's draft ESCP outlines methods and measures to be followed during land-disturbing activities that would control construction impacts and protect water quality. However, we also agree with the FS that AP&T needs to develop a final ESCP prior to land-disturbing activities because the draft plan is general and not site-specific enough for construction Therefore, we recommend that AP&T develop a final site-specific ESCP using its draft as a basis for the final plan. We further recommend that the final plan include provisions for handling solid waste, wastewater, and hazardous substances. The final plan should be developed in consultation with the FS, and other agencies, and approved by the FS before it is filed for Commission approval. ¢. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Minor, temporary and localized erosion that would cause temporary sedimentation would be unavoidable during construction activities. 2. Aquatic Resources a. Affected Environment: The Goat Lake outlet flows through a 5-foot-wide, bedrock notch and combines with runoff from the glacial moraine to form a shallow pond about 600 feet below the lake. The pond outflow descends 2,100 feet over a steep, 30 percent gradient and forms Pitchfork Falls before entering the Skagway River. Water Quantity Inflows to Goat Lake result from a combination of precipitation and glacial runoff. AP&T used U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flow data, recorded for the Skagway River at the town of Skagway from 1964 through 1986, to estimate the inflows to Goat Lake by calculating its drainage as a proportion of the Skagway River drainage. Table | shows the estimated average annual and monthly inflows to Goat Lake. The glacier, located above a moraine area at the south end of Goat Lake, is about 1.7 square miles and provides runoff through the moraine to Goat Lake, the pond below Goat Lake, and to Pitchfork Falls below the pond. To develop hydrologic data for the project site, flow gages were installed at the outlet to Goat Lake, the outlet of the pond below Goat Lake, and above Pitchfork Falls near the railroad line. The data for water years 1991 through 1994 show that about 18 percent of the Pitchfork Falls flows are from glacial runoff and the remainder from the pond outflow. Table 2 shows the estimated average annual and monthly flows in Pitchfork Falls as recorded at the gage located at Pitchfork Falls near the railroad line. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 15 FERC No. 11077-001 Table 1. Estimated average inflows to Goat Lake for water years 1964 through 1986 (Source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b). Annual Average 11.3 cfs Table 2. Estimated average flows for Pitchfork Falls for water years 1991 through 1994 (Source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b). cslissastlacategn tnd lncseseig' & igeab peeccae lo seiveesal's ag cBtaundl eoteagts We asi being tha low estimate as the more realistic average. AP&T provided us with monthly estimated averages only for the high estimate, so we calculated the monthly estimates for Table 2 by applying the corresponding monthly percents of the high annual average to the low annual average. Water Quality Water quality in the proposed project area complies with applicable state standards. AP&T conducted water quality studies during August 1992, March and July 1994, and fanuary and March 1995. Water samples for the study were collected from the surface of Goat Lake, 25 feet below the lake surface, and from the Skagway River above and below the Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 16 FERC No. 11077-001 outlet of Pitchfork Falls. Dissolved oxygen levels ranged from 7.1 milligrams per liter (mg/l) to 12.2 mg/l in Goat Lake and from 8.2 mg/I to 9.8 mg/I in the Skagway River. Turbidity levels ranged from 1.49 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU's) to 9.11 NTU's in Goat Lake and from 0.47 NTU's to 44.2 NTU’s in the Skagway River. The pH levels ranged from 6.8 to 7.25 in Goat Lake and from 7.11 to 7.51 in the Skagway River. Conductivity levels ranged from 35 microsiemens per centimeter (uS/cm) to 54.6 uS/cm in Goat Lake and from 23 yS/cm to 64.2 uS/cm in the Skagway River. Temperature profiles were developed for Goat Lake in August 1992, July 1994, and March 1995. The temperatures in Goat Lake ranged from 0.0° Celsius (C) to 5.5°C with no significant thermal stratification in any single profile. Fisheries In April 1994, AP&T and the ADFG conducted a fish survey in the Skagway River upstream and downstream of the Pitchfork Falls outlet. During the survey, no fish were captured or observed. The survey report showed that existing habitat conditions are extremely poor because of the high gradient and lack of overwintering and rearing habitats. The survey results indicate that this section of the Skagway River does not support any significant fish populations (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b). Goat Lake is a coldwater, nutrient-poor lake that historically has not supported fish populations. The ADFG and the FS recently conducted an experimental stocking of Arctic grayling in Goat Lake in an effort to establish a naturally reproducing fish population that would support a fly-in sport fishery. The ADFG stocked the lake with 1,000 immature Arctic grayling in 1994 and 1995; however, a fishery survey conducted after the 1995 stocking found no surviving population (personal communication with Mike Schwan, Supervisor, and John Palmes, Area Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, November 8, 1995). Vi tior Water Rights AP&T has applied to the ADNR for the right to withdraw up to 45 cfs from Goat Lake for hydroelectric power use. There are no existing allocations of water from Goat Lake or the Skagway River for consumptive or non-consumptive uses, so no other water users would be affected by the project. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 If FERC No. 11077-001 Fisheries In SD 2, we identified one aquatic resource issue for analysis: “Whether project drawdowns would limit Arctic grayling access to spawning streams entering Goat Lake, should a population become successfully established.” During the scoping process we received comments on this issue from the FS, the ADFG, and AP&T. The commenters stated that the effects of a 20- to 30-foot drawdown on the entrances to the spawning streams would not be known until after the areas were exposed (Ann Riley and Associates 1995a, 1995b). Based on the findings of the ADFG survey conducted after the June 1995 stocking, we have concluded that no Arctic grayling population has established in Goat Lake, eliminating any potential project effects. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None 3. Terrestrial Resources a. Affected Environment: The project area contains a variety of resource habitats: mountain meadows, shrubland communities, herbaceous-sedge meadows, avalanche chutes, bare bedrock and bedrock supporting lichens, open montane coniferous forest, scattered wet- sedge meadows, muskegs, alpine heaths, and sedge mats (letter from Mary Clay Stensvold, Regional Botanist, U.S. Forest Service, Sitka Ranger District, Sitka, Alaska, April 29, 1994). The dominant trees are subalpine fir, Sitka spruce, western hemlock, paper birch, and cottonwood while the understory shrubs are dominated by Sitka alder, rusty menziesia, black current, tall blueberry, devil’s club, shield fern, crowberry and mountain heather. Herbaceous vegetation include ferns, bunchberry, mosses, five-leaf bramble, twayblade, and Sitka valerian. According to the national wetland inventory, the project area has seven wetland types that are listed on Table 3. The project area has varied and unique wildlife, which provides consumptive and nonconsumptive uses by the public, including sport, subsistence, photographic, and viewing activities. Some of the wildlife are black bear, pine marten, mountain goat, river otter, hairy woodpecker, and boreal owl. Among large birds in the project vicinity is the bald eagle, which is not federally threatened in Alaska as it is in the conterminous United States. During the summer of 1993, there were three known nests near Skagway; two are west of town and the third is in the lower reach of the Taiya Inlet (letter from Mike Jacobson, Eagle Management Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska, September 29, 1993). Bald eagles frequent the Skagway River. Reportedly, as many as 90 eagles have been observed near the head of Taiya Inlet in early spring when spawning candlefish arrive. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 18 FERC No. 11077-001 Table 3. Wetlands in the project area (Source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b). LOCATION Lacustrine, limnetic, unconsolidated, permanently flooded system head of project area; principle water source of la Project Wetland-2 Riverine, intermittent seasonally Pitchfork Falls flooded streambed conveys water from Goat Lake to Skagway River Wetland-3 Palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved |isaaaaea about 2,400 feet SSW of deciduous the proposed penstock: on L west-facing slope Wetland-4 | Riverine, upper perennial, Skagway River unconsolidated bottom bottom of project; tailrace discharges directly into river Wetland-5 Palustrine, unconsolidated, unnamed semipermanently flooded about 4,800 feet N of Pitchfork Falls and about 1,200 feet west of Goat Lake about 1,800 feet NNE of these two unnamed Goat Lake wetland sites are in Wetland-6 Palustrine, unconsolidated, permanently flooded Palustrine, unconsolidated, same area about 1,800 feet NNE of semipermanently flooded | Goat Lake Wetland-7 | Palustrine emergent, persistent, unnamed about 6,000 feet NNE |} seasonally flooded from Goat Lake Bald eagles have not been seen at Goat Lake or Pitchfork Falls, probably because of the absence of fish, which is the principal component of their diet. No other raptor nest sites are known in the Goat Lake area. Other large birds that may periodically use the project area, in small numbers, are the great blue heron, trumpeter swan, and perhaps Canada goose and sandhill crane. Surveys indicate that mountain goat use in the area surrounding Goat Lake is minimal (memorandum from Ben Carney, Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, November 20, 1995). Only two individuals were observed during seven surveys between 1973 and 1994 in the project area. Most of the goats in the project vicinity were near Laughton Glacier, on south-facing slopes along the East Fork of the Skagway River, or on west-facing areas above Goat Lake (letter from Matt Robus, Area Management Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 1107-001 Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 19 Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, January 27, 1994). A low use mountain goat winter area was identified on the west side of the Skagway River Valley in 1973 (memorandum from John Palmes, Regional Habitat Coordinator, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, April 9, 1973). A habitat capability model was developed to estimate the capability of habitats in southeast Alaska to support mountain goat populations (Suring et al. 1988). Since wintering habitat is the most limiting factor for mountain goats in southeast Alaska, particularly due to heavy snows and limited access to desired forage, wintering habitat was emphasized in the model. The important components affecting winter habitat suitability and capability in the model were availability of wintering food, escape terrain, distance of use from cliffs, southerly aspects, general slope characteristics, successional stage of vegetation, tree canopy, mobility corridors, predation, human disturbance and harvest (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1995; Alaska Department of Highways 1973). As a result, predicted goat use areas were plotted and the closest suitable habitat was about 1,400 feet northeast of Goat Lake at elevation 3,150 feet msl, and about 2,000 feet due south of the lake at elevation 3,500 feet msl. Based on physical attributes of the Goat Lake basin, the oroject area is not expected to be a kidding area. t vir D i u Habitat Disturbance Project construction of the valvehouse, new spillway, siphon house, penstock, powerhouse, transmission line, access road, and tramway would physically disturb an estimated 9.25 acres of native soils, vegetation, and habitat used by wildlife. To partially offset these losses and minimize disturbance and alteration to these affected resources, AP&T proposes to: (1) leave as much vegetation as possible during powerhouse and penstock construction; (2) revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible after disturbance, (3) follow FS guidelines for revegetating disturbed areas; (4) use a helicopter or donkey-winch to transport the penstock to its location to protect as much natural vegetation as possible; and (5) design the penstock to avoid interference with wildlife movements. These measures have largely resulted through agency consultation during the preapplication stage. Staff believes implementation of these measures would minimize, protect, or avoid adverse effects on terrestrial resources in the project area. Staff, therefore, recommends that the proposed terrestrial resource protection and mitigation measures should be implemented to ensure conservation of these resources. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 20 FERC No. 11077-001 Wetlands/Riparian Construction of the new spill route, diversion structure, penstock, tailrace, pumphack house, siphon house, and backfilling of the old channel outlet would affect less than 1.0 acre of small, isolated alpine heaths, sedge-grass meadows, sedge mats, and alpine herbaceous meadows having saturated soils and wetland characteristics. The selected site for the powerhouse and substation is about 1,600 feet downriver and on the east side of the Skagway River from the confluence of Pitchfork Falls with the Skagway River. On March 16, 1995, the FS agreed that the wetlands and riparian habitats were not in direct conflict with the project features and that unavoidable incidental impacts to wetland habitats would be minor. We find that since AP&T: (1) has designed the project features to avoid the project area wetlands as much as possible, (2) would avoid effects on wetlands during construction as much as possible, as outlined in the application, and (3) would revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible after construction, as outlined in the draft ESCP and recommended in the final ESCP (section VI.B.1.), all reasonable efforts would be made to minimize wetland impacts and protect water quality. Raptor Protection of Transmission Line a. Electrocution AP&T proposes to construct a 3,400-foot-long, 24.9-kV aerial transmission line. The alignment would start at the substation, cross the Skagway River, continue downgradient and parallel along the west side of the Skagway River near Clinton, and then traverse upslope to the Customs Border Station to intertie with AP&T's existing 24.9-kV transmission line to Skagway. The entire west side of the river is state land. Because the transmission line could represent an electrocution hazard to bald eagles and other large birds in the area, AP&T plans to design and construct the line to prevent possible long-term hazards to raptors and other large birds. Accordingly, AP&T would construct the line to meet or exceed the Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines - The State of the Art in 1981 (Olendorff et al. 1981). In particular, the energized conductors would be positioned far enough apart (minimum separation of 60 inches) that large birds would be unable to simultaneously touch two or more of them with their wings or other body parts. In their March 15, 1995, response, the FWS and FS concurred with AP&T's raptor protection measures on the transmission line. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 21 FERC No. 11077-001 According to Olendorff et al. (1981), transmission lines less than 69 kV could pose an electrocution hazard to birds because of birds’ bodily contact with energized conductors. While we recognize that the project area appears to have only incidental occurrences of bald eagles and other large birds, we nevertheless agree with AP&T’s long-term measures to safeguard against any possible electrocution to bald eagles and other large birds. b. Collision Due to the absence of eagle nest sites, communal roosts, and endangered raptors in the project area, AP&T doesn’t propose collision avoidance measures on the transmission line. In areas of high fog, strong electrical and rain storms, and other climatic conditions, it is possible that transmission lines could pose collision hazards to small and large birds, including eagles. There are no recommended agency measures to prevent collision hazards. A literature review shows that raptor collisions with transmission lines are random, low level, and inconsequential. Eagles have keen eyesight, use relatively slow flapping flight speed, and become conditioned to the presence of transmission lines (Olendorff and Lehman 986). We agree with AP&T that no collision measures are needed because of the following: (1) large bird populations in the project area are very low in numbers, and (2) it doesn’t seem likely that bird strikes with power lines would contribute to substantial bird losses in the project area. We' therefore conclude that the overhead transmission line, as proposed, is consistent with accepted protection guidelines that would prevent electrocution hazards to large birds. Therefore, AP&T should construct the transmission line as proposed. Mountain Goats Chadwick (1983) reports that mountain goat populations have experienced significant declines following habitat alterations and disturbance from hunting and other human activities. In particular, this species is more sensitive to disturbances than any other big game species in North America. The project area has no road access and limited human use. Project construction would likely cause localized noise and disturbance from helicopter and machinery use; however, the noise is not expected to last long, nor be offensive to normal mountain goat activities during the spring and summer months. Because Goat Lake does not appear to provide important summer or winter mountain goat habitat, this species is not likely to be significantly affected by construction or maintenance activities *esociated with the project. The ADFG agrees (memorandum from Ben Carney, Wildlife iologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, November 20, 1995; .-lter from Matt Robus, Area Management Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 a Douglas, Alaska, January 27, 1994; memorandum from John Palmes. Area Habitat Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, November 22, 1995) Nevertheless, to minimize any potential adverse effects on goat mating or kidding during project construction, AP&T proposes to adjust the construction schedule, through coordination with the FS and ADFG, to avoid possible disturbance during the mating and kidding periods. Therefore, we agree with AP&T's proposed protection measure and recommend this protection measure be included in any license issued for the project. To further ensure that wildlife, including goats, are not affected by helicopter activity in the project area, the FS is including in their required section 4(e) conditions, that AP&T file a wildlife habitat plan having the same requirements for minimum distances from wildlife that is required for helicopter tours. This includes maintaining a 1,500-foot vertical and horizontal clearance between helicopters and key goat areas, avoiding known kidding areas from May 15 through June 15, and avoiding harassment of wildlife in any way . c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Project construction is expected to alter about 9.25 acres of wildlife habitat and existing landscape resources that include shrublands, open montane coniferous stands, herbaceous-sedge meadows, bedrock supporting lichens, avalanche chutes, muskegs, and alpine heaths and sedge mats. About one acre of wetland would be affected by project construction, particularly for establishing the penstock. Use of a helicopter and other equipment during project construction would increase noise in the project area, which could cause temporary dispersal and relocation of wildlife It is expected that this short-term noise would occur only during the construction season. Because of their preferred habitat away from Goat Lake, it is unlikely that mountain goats would be affected by the project. 4. Threatened and Endangered Species a, Affected Environment: The FS conducted an extensive plant survey of the project area on July 27, 1993. The survey area included: (1) the proposed penstock corridor from the intake at the lake downgradient to the top of Pitchfork Falls, (2) the existing outlet at the lake to the top of Pitchfork Falls, (3) the subalpine meadow/montane forest mosaic in the general project area, (4) the lower part of the moraine, and (5) montane forest in the Pitchfork Falls vicinity. Only one of the 22 plants designated as sensitive by the FS Regional Forester was located.® This plant, the goose-grass sedge (Carex lenticularis var. ® FS sensitive plant species are those for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by (a) significant current or predicted downward trends in populations numbers or density, and (b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 23 dolia), is also a species Of special concern by the FWS. There are no other listed plants by the FWS in the project area that are threatened, endangered, candidate or species of special concern. The FWS states that the following federally-listed animal species may occur in the proposed project area as transients, particularly during seasonal migration: endangered American peregrine falcon and Arctic peregrine falcon ’ (letter from Nevin D. Holmberg, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska, August 21, 1992; personal communication, John Lindell, Endangered Species Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska, November 21, 1995). Additionally, there are four FWS species of special concern that may occur in the project area: marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Goose-Grass Sedge The first known Alaska collection of the Carex lenticularis var. dolia was in 1913 "ear Skagway, and its main geographic range in Alaska is the southeast panhandle south to dueen Charlotte Island. There are also widely disjunct populations in the Yukon Territory, Jritish Columbia, Alberta, and Glacier National Park in Montana, its southernmost limit. Although there have been few individuals collected, this plant seems to prefer high mountain elevations (5,000 to 9,800 feet msl), at high latitudes from timberline to the alpine, and almost always in or at the water's edge (Standley 1985). The goose-grass sedge appears to be an early successional species, colonizing shallow, wet, organic loamy soils along streams and in seep areas of gentle terrain. The soils are usually very shallow and have a high content of stones and gravel. Surrounding vegetation is usually moist meadows or tundra. In some areas it may be one of the first plants to stabilize stream banks and wet, slumping soils of high elevation terraces. A FS plant survey of the project area revealed that the goose-grass sedge was found above the east side of Goat Lake at about 4,000 feet msl, outside the project area (letter from Mary Clay Stensvold, Regional Botanist, U.S. Forest Service, Sitka Ranger District, Sitka, Alaska, April 29, 1994). 7 Although the Arctic peregrine falcon was delisted on October 5, 1994 (Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 192, pp. 50796-50805) and is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, the FWS must monitor this species for 5 years following its delisting. Federal agencies are requested to voluntarily consider the Arctic peregrine falcon in their planning processes. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 24 FERC No. 11077-001 san Poregiita Fi In Alaska, the American peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus anatum) primarily inhabits interior portions of the state. It is highly migratory and winters as far south as Argentina. Although this species may occur in the project area as a transient, primarily during seasonal migration, there has been no reported observation in the vicinity of the Project. Migration routes and patterns and forage areas haven't been identified During migration across southeast Alaska, availability and abundance of prey most likely determines the birds’ flight patterns and stopover areas. About 82 percent of the food consumed by the American peregrine are vertebrates, and the primary prey in Alaska consists of shorebirds, waterfowl, and passerine birds (U.S. Forest Service 1991b) Peregrines forage over bodies of water, marshes, grasslands, shorelines, and over wooded areas and they attack flying prey from above or by chasing them. Data suggests that the American peregrine populations have recovered as a result of restrictions on organochlorine pesticide use (especially DDT and DDE) in the United States and Canada, and because of successful reintroduction from captive-bred species. In nature, these chemicals have caused eggshell thinning and poor reproductive success among peregrine falcons. No organochlorine pesticides are authorized for use on the Tongass National Forest (U.S. Forest Service 1991a, 1991b). According to Ambrose et al. (1988), American peregrine populations in Alaska are continuing to increase. Therefore, the FWS Proposes to remove this species from the list of threatened and endangered wildlife and the critical habitat designation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). ic Pesegting Fi As with the American peregrine, the Arctic peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus tundrius) populations declined following World War II as a result of organochlorine pesticides use. After 20 years of restriction on the use of these chemicals marked by steady progress toward recovery, reproductive rates in arctic peregrines have steadily increased, and populations continue to rise. About 250 pairs nest in Alaska and thousands nest throughout arctic North America. There has been no reported observation of the Arctic peregrine falcon in the project vicinity. Arctic peregrines nest in tundra regions of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland and migrate through mid North American latitudes and winter in Latin America. Arctic peregrines occur in southeast Alaska only during the migration periods (U.S. Forest Service 1991b). In Alaska, this subspecies nests mostly along rivers in the northern and western parts of the state. Nests are positioned on cliffs or bluffs usually near rivers or lakes that provide habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, and songbirds on which the falcons prey. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 25 FERC No. 11077-001 Although the rate of habitat alteration in nesting, migration, and wintering habitats is greater now than in the past, the rapid population increase over the last 15 years (Ambrose et al. 1988) suggests that habitat modification does not threaten the continued existence of this species. Marbled Murrelet The marbled murrelet is regarded as a bird of mystery because its nesting habits are largely unknown and its nearshore feeding habits make it difficult to survey. This small seabird spends most of its time along coastal areas from Alaska to central California and feeds primarily on small Pacific herring, northern anchovies, Pacific sandlances, sea perch, and invertebrates in near-shore marine waters (Federal Register Vol.60, No.154, pp.40892- 40908, August 10, 1995). Throughout forested portions of its range, such as in the Alexander Archipelago in which the project lies, the marbled murrelet nests in mature and old-growth coniferous forests located mostly within 38 miles (60 km) from marine coastal waters. Those murrelet populations in the more westerly Aleutian and Kenai Peninsula Archipelagos generally nest on the ground. Tree nesting murrelets select large diameter, »Id-growth healthy or decadent trees more than 100 feet above the ground often having nistletoe, deformations, and moss on large limbs (Pacific Seabird Group 1995, Kuletz et al. 1994). Marbled murrelet population numbers are thought to be declining in the lower forty- eight. The greatest threat to murrelets is nesting habitat loss and modification due to logging, development, and fragmentation of nesting stands (Federal Register Vol.65, No. 119., pp. 28362-28367, June 20, 1991, Pacific Seabird Group 1995). Estimated population numbers are higher in Alaska (50,000-220,000) than in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California combined (32,000-71,900). Northern Goshawk The largest of the accipiter hawks, the northern goshawk has a wide geographic breeding range in North America and, in Alaska, it inhabits and breeds in the central and eastern portions of the state (Johnsgard 1990). It winters throughout its breeding range and extends as far south as northern Mexico and Texas. Primarily in April and May, goshawks nest in nearly every kind of coniferous forest, but also use deciduous and mixed woodlands (Apfelbaum and Seelbach 1983). McGowan (1975) found that goshawks in interior Alaska selected paper birch for nesting 94 percent of the time where suitable nest-tree species were present. Generally, nest sites are in old, tall trees having a well-developed understory and are near a water source of moderate slope, usually having a northerly aspect. Large forest ands are favored and there is a great deal of variation in population density throughout its olarctic range. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 26 FERC No. 11077-001 The northern goshawk is associated with diverse habitats such as dense coniferous taiga with scattered glade, tall conifers mixed with deciduous woods. river forests, and cultivated coniferous plantations, and stands of birch, aspen, pine in steppe or woodlands Coniferous forests are preferred over deciduous. The bird shows a lower habitat specificity in the winter often ranging into other habitats, including deserts. In the project area, the northern goshawk is known only as a transient. All studies have shown that there is a high dependency on birds and mammals of moderate to large size in the goshawk diet (Sherrod 1978). Important prey base for the goshawk are Stellar’s jays, grouse, ptarmigan, thrushes, and mid-sized furbearers Goshawks have not been abundant in southeast Alaska but because they are associated with forested landscapes, they are vulnerable to habitat loss from land disturbance. Harlequin Duck In selected areas of its range, such as the Aleutian Islands and parts of British Columbia, the harlequin duck is abundant. But because much of their worldwide range lies in remote regions, accurate populations and distribution has been difficult to determine The western populations of harlequins are primarily in Alaska, particularly in the Aleutians, Alexander Archipelago, and the Alaska Peninsula. The Aleutian Islands are considered to be "a center of abundance” for the Pacific harlequin ducks (Palmer 1976). In May, adults leave their wintering areas along coasts for interior breeding grounds. Their breeding distribution extends from northern Alaska to Washington state where the distribution splits southward to the Cascade range and southeasterly to the northern Rocky Mountains. Harlequins have also been observed during the summer on islands in the Bering Sea and Pribolofs. : Harlequins usually nest along rocky shores adjacent to rapids of turbulent mountain streams. In Alaska’s eastern Prince William Sound, harlequins selected the largest anadromous salmon streams for nesting (Crowley 1993). The nests were located along first order tributaries near timberline, on steep southwest-facing slopes, and positioned beneath old growth forests. Well concealed nests are generally composed of a thin layer of grass, with dry twigs and leaves, and lined with down. Females incubate assiduously and appear to have a high degree of fidelity when nesting. In search of food, harlequins can dive to depths of 5 feet in swift currents. Most of their preferred foods are animal material such as crustaceans (mud crabs, hermit crabs, amphipods), mollusks (chitons, periwinkles, limpets, chink shells, blue mussels), insects (stone flies), worms, and fish. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 27 FERC No. 1107-001 The harlequin duck is thought to occasionally move through the Skagway River Valley in individual or low numbers. Spotted Frog The distribution and population status of the spotted frog in Alaska is unknown. The historical range extended from extreme southeastern Alaska south to central Nevada and east to northwestern Wyoming. The specific reasons for its decline are unknown but researchers speculate the following principle causes: (1) habitat loss due to encroachment by man, (2) climatic changes, including droughts, (3) lake acidification as a. consequence of climate change or succession, (4) increased UV-B radiation due to ozone depletion, and (5) competition with introduced species such as bullfrogs (Blaustein et al. 1995; Waters 1992; Hayes and Jennings 1986). The spotted frog habitats range from coniferous northwest forests to semiarid sagebrush sites. Generally the spotted frog is highly aquatic, always found near permanent water and adjacent grassy margins of lakes, streams, and ponds. It is suggested that this lusive species is more common in cold water habitats than in warm, stagnant ponds. In the tiking River basin near Wrangell, south of Juneau, they were observed breeding in outwash ponds and in a backwater lake, with possible breeding in muskegs and beaver ponds (Waters 1992). This frog is not an old-growth obligate, but forested areas may represent important refugia from further population losses (Blaustein et al. 1995). This species has been reported in the Haines area (located about 40 miles south of the proposed project site), but has yet to be verified by the FWS. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The Goat Lake Project would not adversely affect the federally endangered American peregrine falcon or delisted Arctic peregrine falcon because: (1) both peregrine falcon species are thought to occur in the project area only in small numbers and as occasional migrants; (2) critical habitat for both peregrine species are not known to occur in the project area; (3) preferred prey (shorebirds and waterfowl) are not abundant in the project area, so foraging would not be affected; and (4) the alteration of about 10 acres of forest, shrubland, and muskeg habitats would not affect prey availability for migrating peregrines nor important foraging habitats such as wetlands, ponds, and riparian zones. We also conclude that the project would not adversely affect the five species of special concern that could occur in the project area for the following reasons: (1) these species have not been found in the project area; (2) the goose-grass sedge was found at the 4,000 foot msl elevation, outside the project's impact area; (3) the project area does not have eferred old growth and mature coniferous habitat for marbled murrelet nesting nor is such bitat known in the Skagway River Valley; (4) populations of the northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog that could inhabit the area are likely to be low; (5) the Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 28 FERC No. 11077-001 project area is not known to support high populations nor provide known critical habitat for the northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog: (6) project construction is not expected to affect nesting or movements of the northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog; (7) because Goat Lake is a nutrient-poor lake with low bioproductivity, it is not probable that Pitchfork Falls, which receives water from Goat Lake, sustains a suitable food base (aquatic invertebrate diversity and numbers) for the harlequin duck; (8) construction of various project features (intake, siphon house, pumpback valve house, penstock, powerhouse/substation, transmission line) are not likely to be sited in desired nesting habitats of northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog; and (9) since the project is located about 250 miles north of the known limits of the western spotted frog, it is not likely that this species can be found in the project area. Therefore, we think that the project would not affect the endangered American peregrine falcon and that no further action pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, is required. By letter dated March 25, 1996, the FWS concurred with ‘our determination (letter from Nevin D. Holmberg, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska, March 25, 1996). We also find that project construction and operation would not affect the delisted Arctic peregrine falcon, and the five species of special concern: goose-grass sedge, marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog. & Voi Iv : None a. Affected Environment: The proposed project is located in the Coast Range of southeast Alaska. The Skagway River Valley is characteristic of the region, with its narrow U-shaped valley with glaciers hanging from the surrounding mountain peaks. The lower elevations are densely forested. The higher areas are mostly exposed bedrock. There are many lakes, streams, and rivers throughout the region. Goat Lake is a typical glacier fed lake located in a steep, hanging valley comprised of bedrock and very little vegetation of significant size. The lake is difficult to get to, except by floatplane or helicopter, or hikers who do not need an established trail. The Skagway River is the most prominent of the region’s waterforms. Pitchfork Falls, a long cascading series of waterfalls that descends into the Skagway River, is the most prominent of the many streams that cascade down the valley’s walls. The falls, along with most of the Skagway River Valley, is visible from the turnouts on the Klondike International Highway and from the WP&YR RR. The lower part of Pitchfork Falls can be accessed by the WP&YR RR as it passes through the project area. The lower- and mid-level of the project area, which includes Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 29 FERC No. 11077-001 Pitchfork Falls, where the penstock, powerhouse, tram, and transmission line would be located, is visible from the Klondike International Highway, on the opposite side of the river and from the WP&YR RR. There are several overlooks along the highway where tourists stop and view the Skagway River corridor, which includes the project area. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Constructing and operating the project would affect the aesthetic quality of the project area. The impacts would result from constructing new structures in a relatively undeveloped area and reducing flows over Pitchfork Falls from project operations. Effect of Project Facilities on Aesthetic Resources The penstock, which would be located in dense forested vegetation except where it crosses an avalanche area, should not significantly detract from the aesthetic quality of the area. The powerhouse and substation, located about 1,600 feet downriver from the confluence of Pitchfork Falls with the Skagway River, would also be located in dense vegetation. Although the structures would be visible from the highway overlooks, they vould only be partially visible because of the screening from the vegetation. The ransmission line and cable\tram would be mostly screened from view by vegetation, but would be visible where they cross the river. Goat Lake is in the flight path for visitors touring the area by helicopter. The FS completed an EA, dated May 16, 1995, to assess the effects of helicopter landing tours in the Skagway and Haines area. The selected alternative for authorized helicopter landings includes flying over Goat Lake to access a landing site on Laughton Glacier. The passengers would be able to view the reduced lake level and some project facilities, such as the siphon house and pumpback/valve station. This would not be a significant impact as the facilities should not be readily apparent and the exposed bedrock shoreline would appear similar to the surrounding terrain. Project construction would also cause increased traffic, noise, and dust levels that would temporarily and locally affect visual quality to the project area. AP&T has proposed using construction methods that would minimize the impacts of the facilities on the aesthetic quality of the area. These are: (1) using materials and coloration so that the structures blend into the landscape; (2) minimizing clearing of existing vegetation and ground disturbance for construction of the penstock, powerhouse and substation; (3) removing spoil material; (4) revegetating areas disturbed during construction; “$) and providing access to the powerhouse site by a cable\tram river crossing. The FS, by stter dated February 14, 1995, agreed with these methods and recommended that the applicant develop a visual resource management plan that would provide further details of these specific measures. The staff agrees with the FS that the erosion control and terrestrial Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 30 FERC No. 11077-001 resource measures (revegetate disturbed areas, minimizing vegetative disturbance) proposed by AP&T would assist to effectively maintain the aesthetic quality of the project area Therefore, after consultation with the FS, AP&T should file a visual resource management plan to specify the exterior treatment of project facilities, clearing of vegetation, and revegetating disturbed areas. The plan should be developed in conjunction with the erosion and sediment control plan discussed in section VI.B.1., the terrestrial resource measures in section VI.B.3., and the MOA cultural resources management plan in section VI.B.6. Effect of Reduced Flows on Aesthetic Quality of Pitchfork Falls Pitchfork Falls is a scenic attraction that contributes to the aesthetic quality of the area. It is the focus of viewers from the highway overlooks and from the railcars that pass by the falls. Pitchfork Falls is also mentioned in publications describing the area attractions Project operation would reduce flows over Pitchfork Falls that could affect the aesthetic quality of the falls. AP&T and the FS, with assistance from a Visual Impact Analysis prepared by Land Design North (1994), studied different flow alternatives. Reduction of flow would have various levels of impact depending on the selected alternative. By letter dated July 20, 1995, the FS determined that a minimum flow of 13 cfs would maintain the aesthetic quality of the falls. The FS also determined that maintaining the flow would only be necessary during 12 daylight hours per day, from May through September, the peak tourist season (see section VI.B.7.). AP&T, by additional information filed May 30, 1995, agreed to the minimum flow. Project operation from October through April would substantially reduce flows over the falls. However, this is not the time of the year when many tourists visit the area. - Therefore, the effects would not be substantial. We agree that a minimum flow of 13 cfs over Pitchfork Falls, during 12 daylight hours per day from May through September would maintain the aesthetic quality and visual character of the falls and Skagway River Valley. To ensure compliance with this minimum flow recommendation, AP&T proposes installation of an automatically operated, priority stream flow device to measure and record flows, and to operate the bypass or intake gate to maintain required instream flows. We agree that a stream flow gauge should be electronically interconnected to the bypass and intake gate to ensure minimum flow releases Due to the variable flows and relatively remote location of the site, an automatically controlled device would be necessary to ensure compliance with the minimum flow requirement. Staff believes that installation of a continuously-recording stream gauge upstream of Pitchfork Falls, and a stage-discharge chart would accurately measure the bypass flow. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 31 FERC No. 11077-001 Therefore, after consultation with the FS, AP&T should file a plan to maintain minimum instream flows. The plan should specify measures the applicant would implement to ensure the minimum 13 cfs bypass instream flow is provided for 12 daylight hours per day, such as use of the priority flow bypass device. ¢. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The presence of new structures in a relatively undeveloped area would detract from the undisturbed nature of the Goat Lake basin and to a lesser degree the Skagway River corridor. Operations of the project would marginally reduce flows over Pitchfork Falls from May through September, and substantially during October through April. Constructing the facilities would result in increased traffic, noise, and dust levels that would temporarily affect the natural visual quality of the area. 6. Cultural Resources a. Affected Environment: AP&T conducted a cultural resources survey of the project area (Campbell 1994) . The survey identified the following cultural resources in the project area: (1) contributing elements of the Historic Landmark, that specifically include he WP&YR RR, a historic tourist trail and viewpoint of Pitchfork Falls, the historic srackett Wagon Road, and a historic telegraph or telephone line dating from World War II and possibly earlier; and (2) the historic Canadian Oil pipeline dating from World War II. No other cultural resources were located. The Historic Landmark was established on June 13, 1962, and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The Historic Landmark was established to preserve and interpret historical structures and other features of the Skagway area and the White Pass Trail, to the northeast, relating to the Klondike Gold Rush in the late 1890's and early 1900's (National Park Service 1987). Some of the features of the Historic Landmark, such as the historic trail and railroad, contribute to the current tourist industry. Other features relate to historic events, such as the telephone line along that railroad route, which illustrates the military effort in the Skagway-White Pass area during World War II. The historic Canadian Oil pipeline is eligible for inclusion in the National Register and has been documented in accordance with the standards of the Historic American Engineering Record. The pipeline was constructed in 1943 and is significant as an example of the World War II military effort in the area and as an early means of transporting crude oil from coastal Alaska to the interior of Canada. The Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the NPS, the FS, and the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park (NPS-Klondike Park) concur that the survey is idequate for identifying cultural resources in the project area (letters from Judith E. Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, February 7, 1995; Sandra Faulkner, Regional Historian, National Park Service, vironmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project aves tne 32 FERC No. 11077-001 Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, Alaska. February 9, 1995; Clay Alderson. Superintendent, Klondike Gold Rush National Park, Skagway, Alaska, February 24. 1995: and Karen S. Iwamoto, Forest Archeologist, Tongass National Forest. Sitka, Alaska, March 6, 1995). We concur. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The project may affect the historical integrity of the Brackett Wagon Road, the railroad bed, and the historic Canadian Oil pipeline. The proposed penstock would be routed through a culvert constructed under the railroad bed and the Canadian Oil pipeline. The powerhouse tailrace would be constructed to cross under the Brackett Wagon Road. These construction activities could potentially alter the physical and visual character of these sites. There would be no effect on the historic trail and viewing area, and the historic telephone line. The project is not located in the immediate vicinity of the trail and viewing area, and the historic telephone line is not located in the vicinity of the project facilities. AP&T proposes to conduct additional work to assess the effects of the project on cultural resources and to implement a cultural resources management plan to protect contributing elements of the Historic Landmark affected or potentially affected by the Project, pursuant to an MOA prepared in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations (36 CFR 800) for the National Historic Preservation Act. After review and revisions, the MOA has been accepted and signed by the SHPO, the FS, the NPS-Klondike Park, the NPS, and AP&T. AP&T consulted the Skagua Traditional Village Council, representative of the local Native American tribe, and requested the Village Council to be a party and signatory to the MOA. The Village Council declined and said they have no concerns about traditional uses of the area (letters from Pete Johnson, Representative, Skagua Traditional Village Council, Skagway, Alaska, April 11, 1995; and Silas H. Dennis, Jr., Member-at-Large, Skagua Traditional Village Council, Skagway, Alaska, April 12, 1995). The FS has stated that the intent of the Advisory Council's regulations concerning Native American consultation [36 CFR 800(1)(c)(iii)] has been satisfied for the project (letter from Karen S. Iwamoto, Forest Archeologist, Tongass National Forest, Sitka, Alaska, April 20, 1995). The NPS has said AP&T has made a reasonable effort to consult the Village Council and to include the Village Council as a signatory to the MOA (letter from Sandra Faulker, Regional Historian, National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, Alaska, April 24, 1995). We concur. The MOA requires AP&T to hire a qualified historical archeologist, and consult with the FS, the SHPO, and the NPS to determine the specific effects of the project on the Historic Landmark and the Canadian Oil pipeline, and to identify mitigative measures to minimize effects. The MOA requires AP&T to develop and implement a cultural resources management plan to implement mitigative measures and to protect cultural resources during Project construction and operation, and to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 33 FERC No. 11077-001 and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, the Alaska Comprehensive Preservation Plan, and the cultural resources documentation requirements of Klondike Gold Rush National Park. The MOA also requires AP&T to comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act if discoveries are made during the license term that make it applicable to the project. We concur the MOA is adequate to protect cultural resources at the project. The Project would not have an adverse effect on the Historic Landmark or the historic Canadian Oil pipeline if the MOA is implemented as a condition of a hydropower license. The MOA has been forwarded to the Advisory Council for signature. We recommend a condition requiring implementation of an acceptable MOA be included in any license issued for the project. a. Affected Environment: There are no developed facilities in the Goat Lake basin. -he FS manages the area to retain its roadless and wildland character. Major recreational facilities would not be developed. The developed recreational facilities that exist outside of the basin consist of FS cabins, dispersed campsites, and picnic areas. The National Park Service operates the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park that includes a visitor center in Skagway and a campground in Dyea. Because of the difficulty in accessing the Goat Lake basin, very little recreational use occurs in the vicinity of the lake. Major recreational activities in the project vicinity are dispersed activities such as hiking, fishing, and sightseeing. The most common activity is sightseeing. Sightseeing tours are provided by the WP&YR RR, several highway tour operators along the Klondike International Highway, and aircraft companies. Skagway and its vicinity, due to the attractions and cruise ship moorage, draws a large number of tourists to the area. The Skagway Convention and Visitor Bureau estimates that in 1993 about 350,000 tourists visited the area. Approximately 80 percent of southeast Alaska visitors come to the area by water. Based on survey results, the applicant determined that many of these visitors are interested in sightseeing and photography. The applicant conducted a survey of the tour operators and was able to estimate that 23,000 visitors stopped at the viewpoints overlooking ~tchfork Falls during the season. In addition, 24 percent of the vehicles using the Klondike ternational Highway stopped at the viewpoints. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 34 b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The project would be in a remote location that is difficult to access. The site receives very little recreational use and the Project would not have-a significant effect on existing recreational opportunities with the exception of sightseeing activities from the WP&YR RR and the Klondike International Highway. This issue was discussed in the Aesthetic Resources Section. As discussed earlier, Goat Lake has no known fish, and the state of Alaska and the FS have abandoned plans to create a sustainable fish population in the lake. Thus. the project would not affect recreational fishing. It is not anticipated that project operations would significantly affect access around the lake, as the lake level is primarily drawn down during the winter and spring months. During the peak visitation of helicopter tours over the project area, the lake level would either be rising from large inflows or close to normal elevation. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None. 8. Socioeconomics a. Affected Environment: The project would provide power to the town of Skagway and the immediate vicinity. The population of the area is about 800. The economy of the area is driven by tourism. The unemployment for the region was higher than the state average in 1994, 10.6 percent versus 7.8 percent. b._ Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The project would employ a work force of about 30 people over about a 2-year construction period. The total project construction budget would be about $7.5 million; about 32 percent would be for labor. It's anticipated that workers would be drawn from southeast Alaska. Because of the short - construction period, most workers would probably commute either daily or weekly or stay in temporary housing, and few, if any, would relocate to the immediate project area. Increased employment from the project, albeit short-term, would benefit the region's economy. The project would also provide long-term economic benefits to the state and region from tax revenues that would be collected. The project would also benefit the region by providing a more stable and reliable form of energy than the current system, which relies mostly on diesel generation. ¢._Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None. C. Impacts of the No-action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be constructed and there would be no changes to the existing physical, biological, or cultural resources of the area. The Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 35 energy that would have been produced would continue to be provided by diesel fuel. With this alternative, the public would be denied the opportunity to conserve diesel (non-renewable primary fossil fuel) and to reduce atmospheric pollution. Because of the area's lack of roads and remoteness, diesel fuel is presently delivered by barge thus potentially exposing important aquatic habitats to risks such as oil spills into the environment. These risks would continue with or without the project, although much less with the project, because diesel generators would serve as a back-up during hydropower outages. VII. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS In this section, we look at the project’s use of water resources for hydropower purposes to see what effect various environmental measures would have on the project's power benefits. As explained in Mead Corporation,* the Commission assesses the potential economics of various alternatives using a current-cost approach that does not purport to predict future economic trends over the term of the license. Rather, it reviews economic factors in light of what is known at the time the application is considered. While no assumptions are made concerning future potential inflation or deflation, the analysis is not mtirely a "first-year" approach, as certain costs need to be amortized over the period of vears or will change in presently known and measurable ways. Thus, the current cost figures are derived using a 30-year period of analysis. Because there was no recommended staff proposal that would affect project economics, we did the economic analysis using the applicant’s proposal. We compared the benefits of the proposed operation to not building the project and continuing to use more diesel fuel. We found the 30-year net annual benefits for the low-, mid-, and high-load forecasts using the average hydrology estimate and the following assumptions (see Table 4): project operation begins in 1997, a 1997 construction cost of $7,500,000, a 7 percent discount and interest rate, a 1997 power value of 101 mills per kilowatthour (mills/kWh),° a 1997 operating and maintenance cost for the hydroelectric project of 5 mills/kWh, and a 1997 insurance cost of $1.00/kWh. ee 000 * See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC { 61,027 (July 13, 1995). > We base the value of the project's power on the average cost of purchasing diesel fuel and diesel O&M costs for the Skagway area. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 36 FERC No. 11077-001 Table 4. Staff's economic analysis of Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project using the average hydrology estimate. LOAD AVERAGE ANNUAL POWER VALUE BASED COST OF NET FORECAST | GENERATION ON REPLACING DIESEL | GOAT LAKE ANNUAL GENERATION PROJECT BENEFITS Low 6.4 GWh” $831,000 $934,000 -$103.000 Mid 9.7 GWh'? $1,134,000 $952,000 $182,000 High 11.5 GWh” $1,312,000 $962,000 $350,000 We also assumed in our economic analysis that the energy sold for each year would correspond to the load forecast, until the year 2028. For example, in 1997, the Skagway area would need only 6.9 gigawatthours (GWh) of energy from the Goat Lake Project Therefore, the project would only generate 6.9 GWh in 1997. In 2028, the project would reach its maximum energy generation potential of 13.3 GWh. The average generation over the 30-year economic analysis would be 9.7 GWh for the mid-load forecast. With the above assumptions, the proposed project, producing an average of 9.7 GWh of energy, would have a net annual benefit for the mid-load forecast, which we consider the most likely forecast, of about $182,000 or 18.8 mills/kWh. The high-load forecast would have greater net annual benefits at $350,000 or 30.4 mills/kWh. For the low-forecast year, the project would cost more than the current cost of the most likely alternative source of power (diesel-fuel powered generators) for the Skagway area. We realize that this comparison is not the only consideration in assessing the economic feasibility of the project. Among the other considerations is the future cost of fossil-fuel resources, particularly diesel fuel, which represents about two-thirds of the total cost per kWh of generation. The net annual benefits are, therefore, highly sensitive to fuel cost, which could vary widely over the 50-year license term for a new hydropower project In any event, most of the cost of power that would be produced by the Goat Lake Project is for debt retirement on the initial capital cost and would remain constant over time, and unaffected by inflation. Only about 5 percent of the total cost per kWh is for operation and maintenance, which would be subject to future increases caused by inflation. 10 The average project generation was based on a 30-year period. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 37 FERC No. 11077-001 VIII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. When we review a Proposed project, we equally consider the environment, recreation, fish and wildlife, and other non-developmental values of the project as well as power and other developmental values. Accordingly, any license issued shall be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses. Based on our independent review of agency and public comments filed on this project, and our review of the environmental and economic effects of the proposed project and its alternatives, we've selected the proposed project, along with the applicant’s proposed environmental measures, as the preferred option. The preliminary FS section 4(e) conditions have been incorporated into our preferred alternative. We've determined that none of the measures in our preferred option have an effect on the project's economics. We recommend the proposed project because: (1) issuance of an original hydropower license would allow AP&T to construct and operate the project as a small but dependable source of electrical energy for its customers; (2) the project would meet the increasing demand for electric power in Skagway and avoid the need for an equivalent amount of fossil- fuel-fired, electric generation and capacity, thereby continuing to help conserve these nonrenewable energy resources and reduce atmospheric pollution; and (3) the recommended environmental measures would protect or mitigate the soil, vegetative, wildlife, aesthetic, and cultural/historic resources in the Skagway River Valley. We believe that our preferred option would be best adapted to the comprehensive development of Pitchfork Falls for beneficial public uses. IX. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES Under section 10(j) of the FPA, 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 fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. No fish and wildlife agencies provided recommendations in response to our notices “at the application was ready for environmental analysis. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 38 FERC No. 11077-001 X. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing. or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. Accordingly, federal and state agencies filed 23 plans with the Commission that address various resources in Alaska. Three are relevant to this project.'' No conflicts were found. XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we prepared this environmental assessment for the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project to identify the resources that the licensing decision could impact and discuss the specific impacts the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project would have on the human environment. Project construction would cause minor short-term, localized erosion; temporary relocation of wildlife; and increased traffic and dust levels in the project area, In addition, project development would permanently alter about 9.25 acres of native trees and other vegetation (some of which would be revegetated) and 1 acre of wetland habitat. The new structures and altered flows along Pitchfork Falls could detract from the natural aesthetics of the Goat Lake basin and Skagway River Valley. We find that implementing the protection and mitigation measures described in this FEA would ensure that environmental effects of the project would be insignificant. On the basis of this independent environmental analysis, we find that issuance of an original hydropower license by the Commission and SUA by the FS for this project would not constitute major federal actions significantly affecting quality of the human environment Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. XII. LITERATURE CITED Alaska Department of Highways, Southeast District. 1973. Klondike International Highway Final Environmental Assessment, Skagway to the Canadian Border. September 1973 Exhibit E, p.46. 21 (1) Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 1979, Haines-Skagway area Land Use Plan, Juneau, Alaska; (2) U.S. Forest Service, 1991, Tongass National Forest Proposed Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Ketchikan, Alaska; (3) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service, 1986. North American Wildlife Management Plan, Washington, D.C. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 39 FERC No, 1077-001 Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1994a. Application for License for Major Unconstructed Project, Goat Lake Project FERC Project No. 11077. Table of Contents, Initial Statements, Exhibits A, E, F, G. Port Townsend, Washington. May 31, 1994. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1994b. Application for License for Major Unconstructed Project, Goat Lake Project FERC Project No. 11077. Appendices 1- 13. Port Townsend, Washington. May 31, 1994. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1994c. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Video, Project #11077. 12 minute video. Port Townsend, Washington. March 8, 1994. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995a. Additional information responses to AIR #1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19 and 22. Port Townsend, Washington. March 26, 1995. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995b. Additional information responses to AIR #4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 (Enclosure 1 of 2) and 23, 24, 25-34 (Enclosure 2 of 2): Port Townsend, Washington. May 30, 1995. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995c. Additional information response to electrical load forecast. Port Townsend, Washington. April 6, 1995. 2 pp. with enclosures. ~* Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995d. Additional information response to project operational model. Port Townsend, Washington. April 5, 1995. 3 pp. with diskette and enclosure. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995e. Additional information response to visual impact analysis (January, 1994) and 14pp. - supplemental visual impact analysis (September, 1994). Port Townsend, Washington. March 13, 1995. 29 pp. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995f. Application for Department of the Army Permit (ENG Form 4345, Sept 91). Juneau, Alaska. August, 1995. W/Exhibits, Figures, Coastal Project Questionnaire, and Certification Statement. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995g. Revisions to Exhibits A, E, F and G. Port Townsend, Washington. April 27, 1995. \mbrose, R.E., R.J. Ritchie, C.M. White, P.F. Schempf, T. Swem, R. Dittrick. 1988. Changes in the status of peregrine falcon populations in Alaska. IN: Peregrine Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 40 FERC No. 11077-001 Falcon Populations-Their Management and Recovery, ed. T.J. Cade, J.H Enderson, C.G. Thelander and C.M. White. The Peregrine Fund, Inc. Boise, Idaho. Ann Riley and Associates. 1995a. Official Transcript of Proceedings, In the Matter of. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Scoping Meeting. Docket No. 11077-001 Vol. 1, No. 1, Thursday, June 22, 1995. Juneau, Alaska. 57 pp. with attachments. Ann Riley and Associates. 1995b. Official Transcript of Proceedings, In the Matter of Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Scoping Meeting. Docket No. 11077-001 Vol. 1, No. 1, Tuesday, June 20, 1995. Skagway, Alaska. 62 pp. with attachments. Blaustein, Andrew R., Joseph J. Beatty, Deanna H. Olson, and Robert M. Storm. 1995. _ The biology of amphibians and reptiles in old-growth forests in the Pacific northwest General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-337. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon. 98 pp. Campbell, C. 1994. An archeological reconnaissance survey of sections of the Brackett Wagon Road and the remains of the scenic viewing station at Pitchfork Falls in conjunction with the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 11077. Ketchikan, Alaska. (also Alaska Power & Telephone Company, 1994, appendix 3). Chadwick, D.H. 1973. Mountain goat ecology -logging relationships in Bunker Creek drainage of western Montana. M.S. Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 260 pp. Crowley, David W. 1993. Breeding habitat of harlequin ducks in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Master of Science Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvalis, Oregon. December 9, 1993. 59 pp. with appendix. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service. 1995. Scoping Document 1, Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 11077-001. Washington, D.C. May 18, 1995. 24 pp. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service. 1994. Additional information requests to Alaska Power and Telephone Company, Port Townsend, Washington. December 15, 1994. 3 pp. with 34 questions. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 41 Hayes, M.P. and M. R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbiana) responsible? J. Herpetology 20(4):490-509. Kuletz, Katherine J., Dennis K. Marks, Nancy L. Naslund, Niki G. Stevens, Mary B. Cody. 1994. Information needs for habitat protection: Marbled murrelet habitat identification. Final Report, Restoration Project 93051B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Migratory Bird Management. 54 pp. Land Design North. 1994. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, Visual Impact Analysis. Anchorage, Alaska. January 1994. 29 pp. Lesica, P. 1988. Report on the conservation status of Carex lenticularis var. dolia, a candidate threatened species. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 40pp. with appendices. McGowan, J.D. 1975. Distribution, density, and productivity of goshawks in interior Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Final Report of Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-17-6. 30pp. National Park Service. 1987. Catalog of National Historic Landmarks. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. Olendorff, R.R., A.D. Miller, and R.N. Lehman. 1981. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines: the state of the art in 1981. Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., Raptor Research Report No. 4. St. Paul, Minnesota. 111 pp. Olendorff, R.R. and R.N. Lehman. 1986. Raptor collisions with utility lines: an analysis using subjective field observations. Bureau of Land Management. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. February 1986. 73 pp. Pacific Seabird Group. 1995. The Marbled Murrelet. A pamphlet of the Pacific Seabird Group. Seattle, Washington. August 1995. 4 pp. Palmer, R.S. 1976. Handbook of North American Birds. Vol. 3. Yale University Press. New Haven, Connecticut. 560 pp. Standley, L.A. 1985. Systematics of the Acutae group of Carex (Cyperaceae) in the Pacific Northwest. Systematic Botany Monographs Vol. 7. uring, Lowell H., W. B. Dinneford, A. T. Doyle, R. W. Flynn, M. L. Orme, J. W. Schoen, L. C. Shea, E. L. Young. 1988. Habitat suitability model for mountain goats in southeast Alaska. unpubl. rept. September 13, 1988. 13 pp. with tables. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 42 U.S. Department of the Interior. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Proposed Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 225, November 21, 1991. Part 17. pp 58804-58836. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1993. Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of Review. Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 188, September 30, 1993 Part 17. pp. 51144-51190. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Title 50 (Wildlife and Fisheries), Part 17, Subpart B, §17.11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 20, 1994. 42 pp. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Advance notice of a proposal to remove the American peregrine falcon from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Proposed Rules, FR, Vol. 60, No. 126, Friday, June 30, 1995. U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Environmental Assessment for Helicopter Landing Tours in the Skagway and Haines Area. Department of Agriculture, and Department of Interior, Juneau, Alaska. May 1995. 5Spp. with maps. U.S. Forest Service. 1991a. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision - Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Parts 1 and 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Alaska Region. R10-MB-149, August 1991. 7 chapters with appendices U.S. Forest Service. 1991b. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision - Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed Revised Forest Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Alaska Region. R10-MB-146, August 1991. 7 chapters with appendices. 511 pp. Waters, Dana L. 1992. Habitat associations, phenology, and biogrography of amphibians in the Stikine River basin and southeast Alaska. A report to the 1991 pilot project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arcata, California. May 28, 1992. 61 pp. XII. LIST OF PREPARERS Carl J. Keller -- Commission Environmental Coordinator, Terrestrial Resources, Threatened and Endangered Species (Wildlife Biologist; M.S., Wildlife Biology) Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 43 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 Margaret Beilharz -- FS Environmental Coordinator (Hydrologist; B.S., Ecosystems Management) Nan Allen -- Aquatic Resources (Fishery Biologist; M.S., Biology) John Costello -- Visual Resources, Recreation and Other Land Uses, Socioeconomics (Landscape Architect; BLA, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning) Gaylord Y. Hoisington -- Geological Resources (Soil Conservationist; B.S. Recreation) J. Tim Looney -- Developmental Resources (Civil Engineer; B.S., Civil Engineering) Charlene Scott -- Developmental Resources (Civil Engineer; M.S., Civil Engineering) Edwin Slatter -- Cultural Resources (Archeologist; Ph.D., Anthropology) Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 44 FERC No. 11077-001 APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSES DW United States Department of the Interior aa FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2 arsiige =" go + Alaska Bembeped Sarees Q6 APR =| AMI: 3 itm Ano P- 11077-0061 STAFF'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE GOAT LAKE DEA March 25, 1996 FWS-1 Comment quel’ Lots D. Cashell Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 688 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Dear Ms. Cashell: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Draft mmvironmental Assessment, dated March 11, 1996, for threatened and endangered species that may occur in the vicinity of the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project near Skagway, Alaska. It evaluated the effects of proposed actions on the endangered American peregzine falcon (falco peregrinus apatum) . For the purposes of Section 7 consultation, we agree that populations of the American peregrine falcon will not likely be adversely affected as a result of Fws-1™ proposed project. Although not specifically required by the consultation provisions of the Endangered Species Act, we appreciate your consideration of the Service's Species of Concern in the biological assessment. Your consideration of t! species is important for =heir conservation and assists in preventing their inclusion on the Endangered Species list. These comments are offered for endangered and threatened species for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibility under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1521 @t geqg.) and its amendments. For this project, the Service does not have any additional concerns regarding other organi or habita:s for which we have legislated responsibilities. Sincerely, Nevin D. Holmberg Field Supervisor APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSES United States Department of the Interior on NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Zs Moadike Gold Rush Nanoaal Histone Park Qa ?.0. Bon 517 o = ‘Shagwey, Alaska 99640 : 2 WATE TO) 762) NPS-1 Lois D. Cashell, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioa 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Dear Ms. Cashell, These comments pertain to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE - Gost Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 1 1077-001, Alaska We have reviewed the draft environmental assesement and have the following comments and corrections to the record. On page 8 the document states that the USFS amended its preliminary condition 4(e) by deleting Condition No. 8 (Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Pian). The paragraph further states there are no significant gost populations im the project aren. We disagree and feel that the ecology of mountain goats and their seasonal movement patterns would justify the opposite statement: there ina significant gost populatios ia the projest vicinity. The USFS recently completed an environmental assesement for this area related to helicopter tour operations. A major item of discussion in thet envisoamental sesesament was potential impacts to goats. The proposed hydroelectric project will contribute to some unknown degree, towards cumulative impacts to mountain goets. Recognition of cumulative effects on mountain gosts fom this action and previous actions im the projest vicinity should be stated, and integrated into mitigation plans. Mountain goats are astive to the Goat Lake ares Mountain goats can be seen in the Goat Lake vicinity. Moustaim goats are seen throughout the region. Several years ago the Alaska Department of Fish and Game suspended the hunting of mountain goats from the west side of the Skagway River to the east side of the Taiya River. They had some limited serial survey data that indicated the goat populations had significantly declined and were below expected levels of population densisy. Some of this exchuded hunting area is within the project area for this plan | imagine they did not suspend bunting in the immediate vicinity of Goat lake (the east side of the Skagway River) because their is no practical hunting access to this area. In the valley to the northwest of the project area (Taiya River valley), a very significant concentration of mountain goats occurs almost every summer. It is one of the most dense gatherings of mountain goats known in the state. COPY STAFF’S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE GOAT LAKE DEA NPS-1 As discussed on page 20 of the DEA (see errestrial Resources section), the results of 10 years of surveys by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADBFG) indicate that there are not significant goat habitat or populations in the Goat Lake Basin. Information from the ADFG indicated that goat use in the area surrounding Goat Lake is minimal. There haven't been any known signs (hooveprints, fecal droppings, skeletons, carcasses, etc.) detected in the immediate Goat Lake area and there aren't known seasonal movements within the project boundary. Therefore, neither direct nor cumulative effects to the goat population would result from the use of helicopters during construction of this project’ We agice that significant goat habitat exists in the steeper areas beyond the Guat Lake basin, however, these areas would not be affected by the travel route of helicopters accessing the proyect This is based on maps and models described in the U.S. Forest Service (FS) 1995 Environmental Assessment for Helicopter Landing Tours in the Skagway and Haines Arca Although we find that mountain goats would not be affected by project development, AP&T nevertheless proposes to adjust their construction schedule to avo possible disturbance during the goat mating and kidding periods. AP&T would consult with the ADFG on acceptable construction timing, and we agree this would be a prudent license requirement (see Terrestrial Resources section). To further ensure that no wildlife, including goats, are affected by helicopters, the FS has included as a preliminary 4(¢) Condition, that AP&T file a wildlife mitigation plan requiring the same specified clearance trom wildlite that is required for the helicopter tours. The FS and the ADFG, in conjunction with local helicopter tour Operators, are working toward developing a monitoring plan for the north Lynn Canal mountain goat populations. The National Park Service (NPS) is welcome to participate in this effort. We don’t require a specific cost amount for mitigating adverse project impacts, but believe our recommended wildlife protection measures would adequately minimize the potential effects on mountain goats. APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSES ‘Those goats and others may use the Gost Lake area periodically. Vantage points from the proposed project area could serve as excellent goat population monitoring stations to points across the valley. Since AP&T will have access to the ridge at Gost Lake on a regular basis to monitor and maintain equipment, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has already identified the goat populations in this area as significantly below expected levels, we recommend rescinding the USFS amendment of January 10, 1996 and requiring a NPS-] That plan should establish a minimal amount of financial commitment ($15,000/year) to wildlife monitoring by AP&T on an anqual basis throughout the life of their FERC license. Mountain goat monitoring should be the focus of those efforts. The monitoring could be done in conjunction with other efforts by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the Bureau of Land Management. A wildlife monitoring committee could be established whereby other partner agencies could also contribute to monitoring and restoration Projects. Encumbering a public water body in an area that contains sensitive wildlife should require a long- — term mitigation commitment. National Landmark attributes of the historic railroad corridor. In order to mitigate those impacts, an sesthetic mitigation plan should be developed that requires an annual commitment of funds (minimal $15,000/yr), effort, and sets goals and minimal threshold limits for exterior structure aesthetics, maintenance, erosion control, and landscaping. The focus of these efforts should be iwPS-2 any intrusion to the setting as it exists now. Native plants that blend in with surrounding vegetation should be established in a natural-looking mosaic along the entire length of the The performance required in the Aesthetic and Wildlife Mitigation Plans should be required for life of the FERC permit. If you have any questions about these concerns or comments, please don't hesitate to contact staff Resource Specialist - Damian Sedney, regarding this letter. Sincerely Yours, Clay Superintendent . “ . STAFF’S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE GOAT LAKE DEA NPS-2 The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (referenced in the Cultural Resources section of the FEA) contains provisions to develop and design alternatives that, o the extent feasible and practicable, would avoid or minimize any visual effect within the National Historic Landmark. The project design decisions regarding visual issues would include consultation with the National Park Service. The National Park Service is a signee to the MOA. In addition, staff's recommended visual resources management plan (referenced in the Aesthetic Resources section of the FEA) would require measures to minimize possible visual effects, and would be coordinated with the recommended erosion control, terrestrial resources, and cultural resources management measures We don't require a specific cost amount for mitigating project impacts, but believe our recommended measures in the MOA and visual resources management plan would adequately minimize any anticipated visual resource effects APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSES ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY 0 ain Gone: April 4, 1996 ‘001 wean wm. arm Lois D. Cashell, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission O86 Firse Sereet, NE Washington, DC 20426 Ref: Project No. 11077-001-Alaska enue STAFF’S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE GOAT LAKE DEA Enctosed are our comments on the Draft Eavironmental Assessment (DEA) on AP&T-1 We agree. We've revised our economic analysis to include the cee BON) ater eCEd proteCs capacity credits. The results are in the Developmental Resources section of the FEA Our comments are limited to the section titted Vil. Developmental Analysis: 1. The veoet was’ tuie iaae the heal ‘ 4 with the AP&T-2 We've revised out economic analysis to include the correct cost no-action alternative. We believe ic is FERC policy to consider both energy and capacity costs. W the Goat Lake Project is not developed the applicant AP&T-3 After going over this information, we've revised our economic analysis will be required to make significant lavescmencs in new amd repiacemenc to include our new estimate of the power value Glesel generation to meet the electrical demands of the community. The DEA AP&T-1'shows that the demand for electric power Is Increasing and there are no transmission limes connected to amy other community or area. that Wf the Goat Lake Project is not constructed customers will need to increase generating capacity. The capical costs that are avoided by virtue of the project be comsbaered ia analysis performed by FERC. Enclosed (Attachment | )is lnformadioe on these avoided cost: for your consideration. 12. The estimated cost of the project as shown in license application (. AP&T-25) ts $7,479,770 in 1997$. This does not agreed with the 1997 L__the DEA of $7,800,000." . The 1997 power value of 95 mills per kHowact-hour is based upon the cost of fuel and operation and maintenance’. We suggest that this number be up- dated to am average of several years. We have supplied (Attachment 2) a AP&'T-3 catcutation of our actual average cost for the years 1993, 94, 95 of operation and maintenance of the diesel generation expressed in $/KWH for your The average for these years was $.0357/KWH. ' 11. Purpose and Need fer Action (8.) | Vil. Developeencal Anstysls (asumpetons) Feemects 9, should be carrected 00 show that Oath bs inctnded im dee vaiwe of the project APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSES T— 4, The 1997 insurance cost of $1.00 per KW-HR should be corrected to $1.00 MW-HR. This to be ' AP&T-4 00 appears oo be a cypegraphical exver. STAFF'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE GOAT LAKE DEA Enclosed Is a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (Attachment 3) which uses the corrections ped sc 1 and 2. The comune that 2 laclusion of capacity ae AP&T-4 Typographical error corrected in the Developmental Resources adjustment of che estimaced construction costs, and the update cost data for section of the FEA Operation and maintenance expense has changed the result sufficiently that net annual benefits are now produced by the project. Enclosed with chis letter Is a AP&T-5 In the DEA and FEA economic analyses, we used a current cost AP& “* with che Lotus file which contains the updated analysis. approach (as explained in Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC 461,027 an July 13, 1995) that does not predict future economic trends over tune. Our FEA economic concern Is chat the method of analysis used by FERC indicates chat analysis (see Developmental Analysis section) now shows positive net annual benetits under the project will produce negative net annual benefits to our customers. i FERC the mid-load scenario, because we included “capacity benefits"§ Our DIA did not analyze accepts the modifications we are proposing, we belleve the proposed project will “capacity benefits” because they were not included in the project application produce positive annual benefics to our customers. The determination of positive Robert $. Grimm enc. (as stated) NOTE: Atachments 1, 2, and 3 of AP&T’s April 4, 1996, letter has been filed with the Commission and is available upon request. WOHLFORTH, ARGETSINGER, JOHNSON & BRECHT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JULIUS J. BRECHT TELEPHONE CYNTHIA L. CARTLEDGE ATTORNEYS ATLAW (907) 276-6404 ROBERT M. JOHNSON THOMAS F. KLINKNER 900 WEST 5TH AVENUE, SUITE 600 fe e | ACSIMILE BRADLEY E. MEYEN (9p7) 276-5093 KENNETH E. VASSAR ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-2048 it W ERIC E. WOHLFORTH OF COUNSEL PETER ARGETSINGER MA’ Vi i 5D 4996 May 14, 1996 Alaska Industrial Developr and Export Authority Qe; Wewecch Gacni William R. Snell eco Markloy . . Our a Executive Director Oriun G. le: 6-11-46 Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority Owe 480 West Tudor Road VF Anchorage, Alaska 99503 RE: _ Preliminary Eligibility Application of Goat Lake Hydro, Inc. Our File No. 3730.0658 Dear Riley: | have reviewed the information provided by Howard Garner relating to the application of Goat Lake Hydro, Inc. (the "Company") for the financing by AIDEA of the Company’s hydroelectric generation plant (the "Project"). The Company is seeking financing through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds by AIDEA, and it is the purpose of this letter to provide you with a preliminary assessment of whether the Project is eligible for such financing. Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), provides that the general exclusion from gross income for interest on state or local bonds applies to private activity bonds that are qualified bonds. Section 141(e)(1)(A) of the Code provides that a qualified bond is any private activity bond if such bond is an exempt facility bond. Section 142(a)(8) provides, in part, that an exempt facility bond is any bond issued as part of an issue 95% or more of the net proceeds of which are used to provide facilities for the local furnishing of electricity. In order for property to constitute a facility for the local furnishing of electricity the following four requirements must be met: A. It must be depreciable property or land; B. It must be used to produce, collect, generate, transmit, store, distribute or convey electricity; C. It must be used in the trade or business of furnishing electricity; and William R. Snell May 14, 1996 Page 2 D: It must be part of a system which provides service to the general populace of no more than two contiguous counties. Treas. Reg., Section 1.103-8(f)(2)(iii). Based on the information provided by Mr. Garner, it appears that the above requirements will be satisfied. It should be stressed that the fourth requirement, relating to the two-county rule, will be satisfied only if the Project is used to provide electricity exclusively within the City of Skagway. It appears from the information provided that this is the case; however, before issuing bonds, the Authority should receive explicit assurance to that effect from the Company. One further consideration relates to the intended purpose of the eligibility resolution. The Company will likely use some or all of the proceeds of the bonds to reimburse itself for expenditures on the Project which were made before the issuance of the bonds. Under the Internal Revenue Service’s reimbursement regulations (Treas. Reg. Section 1.150-2(d)(3)), proceeds of bonds can be used to reimburse prior expenditures only if the reimbursement with bond proceeds occurs not later than 18 months after the later of : (a) the date on which the original expenditure is paid, or (b) the date on which the property is placed in service or abandoned (but this date cannot be more than 3 years after the date on which the original expenditure is paid). Treas. Reg., Section 1.150(d)(2). It is important that officials of the Company are familiar with the above mentioned reimbursement period requirement. Based on the foregoing | am of the preliminary opinion that the Project may be financed on a tax exempt basis. Please call me if | can be of further assistance in this matter. Sincerely, WOHLFORTH, ARGETSINGER, JOHNSON & BRECHT eénneth E. Vassar AFF05150/3730.0658 PeveNAL CNEMGT HEGULAIORY COMMISSION ROUTING CODE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 ANCHORAGE, AK ° U.S. OFFICIAL MAIL” PENALTY FOR private | = = Use $300] = 0 Fe 8 = * * PBmeren 7250412: PO G 7 x Croatlhe ——— Alaska Industriel Development and Export Authority UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Alaska Power & Telephone Company ) Project No. 11077-001 Alaska NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (March 11, 1996) 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, major unconstructed license for the eat Lake > Project, and has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the project. The project is located on Pitchfork Falls, about 7 miles from the town of Skagway, in southeast Alaska. In the DEA, the Commission’s staff has analyzed the otentia onmental impacts of the project and has concluded tnat of the project, with appropriate anyinomental * Monidanct anakibnte.« major federal action ificantly affect the quality of the human | Copies of the DEA are available for review in the Public Reference Branch, 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 Mr. Carl Keller, Environmental Coordinator, at (202) 219-2831. Lois D. Cashell Secretary DC-A-17 . > FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. DO 2016 we 1! 19% To the Agency/Party Addressed: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Commission's Office of Hydropower Licensing reviewed the development application, and prepared the attached Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA). The DEA contains the staffs’ analysis of the environmental impacts of the propo: KE Concludes that approval, with mitigative measures, would not constitute a major fede affecting the quality of the human environment. tion significantly Please submit any comments within 30 days of the date of this letter Comments should be addressed to Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. Sincerely, Cdward A Abrams for Director, Division of Project Review Enclosure: Draft Environmental Assessment DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 11077-001 Alaska Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing Division of Project Review 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 and U.S. Forest Service Tongass National Forest - Chatham Area Juneau Ranger District 8465 Old Dairy Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 SUMMARY Ts INTRODUCTION! 55 ¢ 8G. ete overs gels = a, APPLICATION «ic cars 4251 e ees ers OES ER Il. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION . . A. Purpose of Action B. Need for Power IV. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES | A. AP&T's Proposal ...... : 1. Project Description .. 2... . a Project Operation . . . 7 B- Proposed Environmental Me ures 4, Mandatory Requirements [4(e) Conditions] B. No-action Alternative . . . . Cr Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Vi CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE A. Agency Consultation .......... B. JPMCEVEMIONS) egies Foie omnis 2 G SCONE es pent cas, LG terre ere we ORE ST ae Di Water Quality Certification i amas ame E. Coastal Zone Management Act ............... VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .... . A. General Description of the Goat Lake Drainage Area i. Cumulative Impacts - B. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives, swims § i Geology and Soil Resources 2 ees 2: ‘Adatic Resources) i¢ i500. paws cagig tee a: Terrestrial Resources... . . fimo 4. Threatened and Endangered Species SGeB omyes <a os Aesthetic Resources ...... 6. Cultural Resources W, Recreation ...... 8. Socioeconomics: . Gc; Impacts of the No-action Alternative... . . . VII. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS . . VIII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RE cl OMME| NDED ALTERNADIVE: 6 5 281 ta heme. mes SES IX. |. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGE NC IE aS Dax CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS . XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .......... XI. LITERATURE CITED ................. i=e XI. LIST OF PREPARERS .... 2.2... eee ee TABLE OF CC page | ! , , y 1 1 1 6 8 x w 10 w 10 i a) ia] ID 13 Wy 13 Is 23 ” »? uM 5 ‘hy w 1x a8 0 Ww 43 Figure I. 25 Table LIST OF FIGURES Page Location of the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project ..............-. 2 Proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project features .............0......5 LIST OF TABLES Page Estimated average inflows to Goat Lake for water years 1964 through 1986 .... 16 Estimated average flows for Pitchfork Falls for water years 1991 through 1994 .. 16 Wetlanissia the prpect GE. 0, czems sees CEMA S shi creas ovale 19 Staff's economic analysis of the Goat Lake Project using the average hydrology COMME 0 igs EOR1 ARES ESET cin wilmmisems eOB2 ES 37 ii SUMMARY The Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP&T) proposes to construct, operate and maintain the 4-megawatt Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project on Pitchfork Falls. near the town of Skagway in southeast Alaska. AP&T has applied to the Federal Energy Re Commission (Commission) for an original hydropower license and to the U.S. (FS) for a special-use authorization to operate the project on the Tongass Nati St Service al Porest To facilitate decisions whether to issue the hydropower license and special use authorization, we (Commission and FS staffs) prepared this draft rommental assessment (EA) to evaluate how the proposed project (FERC No. 11077-001) would affect environmental resources in the Goat Lake drainage area and determine whether additional protection or mitigation measures may be needed to protect and improve the ¢ resources and provide the best comprehensive development of the waterway. In addition, we also examine the no-action alternative. Accordingly, we agree with AP&T's proposed project and mitigation. We recommend that AP&T: (1) develop and implement a final erosion and sediment control plan to include detention of pond run-off, preventing localized erosion, stabilizing st banks, controlling access road erosion, and handling solid wast aste water, and hazardous substances; (2) leave as much vegetation as possible during project construction; (3) revegetate all disturbed areas from construction as soon after disturbance as possible using FS guidelines; (4) use a helicopter or donkey-winch during project construction to protect the natural vegetation; (5) design the penstock to avoid interference with wildlife: (6) construct the transmission line to avoid possible hazards to large birds: (7) adjust the construction schedule to avoid possible mountain goat disturbance; (8) n the powerhouse and substation using measures that match the surrounding aesthetic environment: (9) establish a 13 cubic feet per second instream flow over Pitchfork Falls, May through September for 12 hours a day to maintain the natural aesthetics of the area: and (10) develop and implement a cultural resources management plan. n channel Under our recommended alternative, we find that none of the resources. which include water, fishery, wildlife and terrestrial, visual, recreational, and cultural resources would suffer significant adverse impacts. Therefore, no environmental impact required, ment is DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing, Division of Project Review Washington, D.C. and U.S. Forest Service Tongass National Forest, Juneau Ranger District Juneau, Alaska GOAT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 11077-001- ALASKA MAR 8 1996 I. INTRODUCTION The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), acting as lead agency, and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) -- Juneau Ranger District, Chatham Area, as cooperating gency, have prepared this environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed Goat Lake lydroelectric Project. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969," issuing a license decision on the project requires preparation of either an EA or Environmental Impact Statement. We (the Commission and FS staffs [staff]) analyze the environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with constructing, operating, and maintaining this project, as proposed by Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP&T). We also consider effects of alternatives to the project. Il. APPLICATION On May 31, 1994, AP&T filed an application with the Commission for a license to construct the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project. The proposed 4-megawatt (MW) seasonal storage project would be constructed along Pitchfork Falls, ? located about 7 miles northeast of the town of Skagway in southeast Alaska (Figure 1), within sections 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 of Township 27 South, Range 60 East, of the Copper River Meridian. 1 Pub. L. 91-190. 42 U.S. C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), Sept. 13, 1982. 2 Pitchfork Falls is a one-mile-long cascading stream that flows from Goat Lake and descends 2,100 ‘er a steep, 30 percent gradient to the Skagway River. ‘The most prominent portion of the falls, and the _.--y~it drop, is located between the White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad and the Skagway River. Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 1 FERC No. 11077-001 PROJECT \ 5 SITE ie ae Skagway | a ‘ 5 = . a Allin “Se ae y 2 NR al \ j *, 1 2 ey ‘ °, ‘ N ey aes Ns a Ni . a aN ‘Scale tin = about 80 miles 3 ;Wrangle ea Gulf of Alaska Figure 1. Location of the Proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project in Southeast Alaska (source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1994a, as modified by the Commission). Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 2 FERC No. 11077-001 Pitchfork Falls is a tributary to the Skagway River, which originates in Canada and generally flows southward and terminates at Taiya Inlet, adjacent to the town of Skagway. The project would occupy about 270 acres of the Tongass National Forest, administered by the Juneau Ranger District. A small portion of the project's proposed transmission line lies on 2.9 acres of state-owned lands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has concurrently evaluated a permit application from AP&T pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, for dredging and filling activities associated with the project (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995f). The project is not intended for flood control, navigation, agricultural purposes, or irrigation. Ill. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION A. Purpose of Action The Federal Power Act (FPA) provides the Commission with the exclusive authority to license nonfederal water power projects on navigable waterways and federal lands for a period of up to 50 years. The Commission will use this EA to decide: (1) whether issuing AP&T an original hydropower license for the project would be a major federal action znificantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and (2) what conditions, if any, ould be placed on any license issued for the project. To ensure that the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project would be operated in a manner consistent with the National Forest System lands and resources, the FS will use this EA to decide: (1) what mandatory license terms and conditions they would require, under section 4(e) of the FPA, to adequately protect the Tongass National Forest, should the Commission issue an original license for the project, (2) whether to issue AP&T a special use authorization (SUA) for those portions of the project that fall on national forest lands, and (3) whether these requii easures would be consistent with their multiple use, land stewardship responsibilities. The SUA would authorize occupancy and use of forest lands for hydropower development that would include requirements necessary for comprehensive and compatible use of natural resources, consistent with the purposes for which the forest was established. B. Need for Power AP&T proposes to use power from the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project to replace generation from diesel powered generation facilities in the nearby town of Skagway, Alaska. Since Skagway has no transmission lines connected to any other area, there is no market for any power generated from the project other than that needed to meet Skagway’s electrical 3 U.S.C. Sect 791(a)-825(r). Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 1077-001 Draft Environmental Assessment March 1996 3 demands. By supplementing AP&T's existing Dewey Lakes Hydropower Project. the proposed project would serve Skagway’s residential, commercial, and industrial loads In 1994, AP&T"s actual peak demand in the Skagway service area was 1.760 kilowatts. For the years 1974 to 1993, AP&T’s electric loads for Skagway have been increasing at an average annual rate of 6 percent. From 1994 to 2003, AP&T's mid load forecast predicts the electric loads will grow at an average of 5.5 percent annually, Beyond 2004, AP&T assumes an average mid-load growth of 1.4 percent annually Power from the proposed project would be useful in meeting the above need tor power. When operational, power from the project would be generation on AP&T’s system, conserving foss ple to displace diesel fuels and reducing atmospheric pollution IV. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATI A. AP&T’s Proposal 1. Project Description AP&T proposes to construct the following project facilities (Figure 2): (1) a Lt foot wide by 125-foot-long uncontrolled spillway to replace the existing natural like outlet which would be filled in; (2) a submerged wedgewire screen i assembly positioned in Goat Lake at elevation 2,875 feet mean sea level (msl), and with a mechanically operated trash rake for cleaning; (3) a 30-inch-diameter, 600-foot-long steel or high density polyethylene chloride siphon pipe attached to a vacuum pump assembly within a 12 foot by 12 foot siphon pump house; (4) a pumpback/valve station consisting of a 10-foot by 18 foot metal building with two 30-horsepower pumps connected to a 14-inch pipe for returning water to the like:! (5) an 8-foot-high by 25-foot-long concrete retaining wall with a 14 foot wide spillway (elevation 2,876 feet msl) forming a 0.014-acre-foot storage catchbasin located ina portion of the existing pond; (6) a 6,200-foot-long, 22-inch-diameter steel penstock extending trom the pumpback station to the powerhouse; (7) a single le 30 foot by 40-foot powerhouse containing one horizontal twin jet Pelton turbine unit with a generating capacity of 4 MW and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 32 cubic feet per second (cfs): (8) a small substation with a pad-mounted step-up transformer, automatic recloser, and transmission line dead end structure adjacent to the powerhouse; ‘and (9) a 3,400-foot-long, 24.9-kilovolt (kV) acrial transmission line on wooden poles extending from the substation, across the Skagway River to the Customs Border Station where it interties with AP&T's c: ng 24.9-kV transmission line to Skagway; and (10) a single cable, 500-foot-long aerial tram originating near the end 4 ‘The proposed 30-inch siphon pipe and 14-inch water return pipe would he laid in the evistine 5 foot wide natural lake outlet before it is filled. Draft Environmental Assessment March 1996 4 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 1107-001 ‘Scale: | in. = about 645 leet Alaska Power and Telephone Company Figure 2. Proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Features (source 1994a, as modified by the Commission). bn ke Z ge 3 32 i g DP \ i 8 a =<a= ~D 5 8 8 = HE He 2 Hi f bos o 3 BAN EE . assy fe8 se i NE Draft Environmental Assessment March 1996 oS Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 of a 1,000-foot-long access road within a 60-foot-wide right-of way be built trom the Klondike International Highway to provide access to the project 2. Project Operation Goat Lake is a very deep natural impoundment. Inflows to Goat Lake come trom a combination of precipitation and glacial runoff. The glacier, located above the moraine at the south end of the lake, also provides runoff to the pond below Goat Lake and to Pitchtork Falls, which descends about 2,100 feet in elevation from the pond to its confluence with the Skagway River. AP&T proposes to automatically operate the project using the normal water outtall from Goat Lake to generate power. They also propose to draft Goat Lake to generate power during periods of low runoff or high energy demands. The normal water surface elevation of Goat Lake is 2,915 feet msl and AP&T proposes to limit lake drawdown to 30 feet AP&T also proposes to pump water from the catchbasin below Goat Lake. back to Goat Lake for regulated storage. AP&T would pump from October through April, when there is no requirement to release flows into Pitchfork Falls,* and May through September during the hours the instream flow is not required. During the hours that AP&T proposes to provide flows to Pitchfork Falls, the pump output would be regulated to allow the required release of water to the falls. If natural water flow to the catchbasin would not be sufficient to meet the instream requirements, a valve would open to release water from Goat Lake to supplement flows. AP&T would provide to the 6,200-foot-long bypassed reach, a minimum instream flow of 13 cfs May through September for 12 hours per day 3. Proposed Environmental Measures al resources that may AP&T proposes the following measures to protect enviror be affected by the project: ° Implement an erosion and sediment control plan to include measures that would detain pond run-off, prevent localized erosion, stabilize stream channel banks, and control access road erosion ¢ Leave as much vegetation as possible during powerhouse and penstock construction; revegetate all vegetated areas disturbed by project 5 ‘The flow release into Pitchfork Falls is to maintain th: cascading portion between the White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad and the Skagway River aesthetics, particularly in the steepest Goat Lake Hydroclectric Propect FERC No, 1077-001 Draft Environmental Assessment March 1996 6 construction activities; follow FS guidelines for revegetating disturbed areas ¢ Use a helicopter or donkey-winch to transport the penstock to its location to protect as much natural vegetation as possible + Design the penstock to avoid interfering with wildlife movements ° Design and construct the transmission line to prevent hazards to raptors and other large birds o Adjust the construction schedule of the facilities at the lake to avoid disturbance to mountain goat mating and kidding ¢ Visually screen the powerhouse and substation with the use of vegetation and/or coloring to match the surrounding environment + Establish a 13-cfs minimum instream flow over Pitchfork Falls during May through September for 12 hours a day to maintain the aesthetics of the area, by use of a priority flow bypass device o Implement a cultural resources management plan to protect portions of the Skagway Historic District and White Pass National Historic Landmark (Historic Landmark), which includes the Brackett Wagon Road and White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad (WP&YR RR); and the historic Canadian Oil pipeline affected or potentially affected by the project, pursuant to a memorandum of agreement (MOA) prepared in accordance with the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation’s (Advisory Council) regulations (36 CFR 800) for the National Historic Preservation Act. We discuss each of these measures in the individual resource sections of this EA. 4. Mandatory Requirements [4(e) Conditions} Since the project occupies land of the Tongass National Forest, the FS has authority, under Section 4(e) of the FPA, to impose mandatory conditions on any hydropower license the Commission would issue for the project. In its September 28, 1995, letter, the FS filed preliminary 4(e) conditions for the project (letter from Phil Janik, Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service - Alaska Region, Juneau, Alaska, September 28, 1995). The preliminary conditions are listed below: ¢ Condition No. 1 - Requirement to Obtain a FS Special-Use Authorization ° Condition No. 2 - FS Approval of Final Design Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 7 FERC No. 11077-001 Condition No. Condition No. Condition No. Condition No. Condition No. Condition No. Approval of Changes After Initial Construction - Annual Consultation - Minimum Steamflow Regime 1aranteed Priority Flow Bypass Device Visual Resource Protection - Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan Condition No. Lake Level Plan Condition No. 10 - Erosion Control Plan Condition No. 11 - Solid Waste and Waste Water Plan Condition No. 12 - Hazardous Substances Plan Condition No. 13 - Cultural Resources Protection SwMIDMNAaYW eeeereoeoeooeoeoe On January 10, 1996, the FS amended its preliminary 4(c) conditions by dele Condition No. 8 (Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan) and Condition No. 9 (Lake Level Plan) (memorandum from Margaret Beilharz, FS Project Coordinator, U.S. Forest Juneau Ranger District, Juneau, Alaska, January 11, 1996). According to the FS. the need for these measures has diminished because ADFG has decided not to pursue grayling stocking in Goat Lake, and because there are no significant goat populations in the project area. According to our interagency agreement, final 4(c) conditions would be filed with the Commission 45 days from the date of final EA issuance. ice B. No-action Alternative Under the no-action alternative the project would not be built. Therefore, there would be no changes to the physical, biological, or cultural resources of the area. The generation that the proposed project would provide would not occur. The no-action alternative is the benchmark from which we compare the proposed action and other action alternatives. C. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study The following are descriptions of three alternative transmission line routes that were considered but eliminated from further consideration by AP&T: Along the White Pass and Yukon Rowe Railroad This alignment (about 4,400 feet long) would extend from the proposed substation upslope to the WP&YR RR, southerly along the railroad to the Clifton area, downslop: across the Skagway River and lastly, upslope to the Customs Border Station. ‘The reasons this alternative was ruled out from further consideration are that: (1) WP&YR RR plans to remove the existing telegraph line along the railroad right-of-way to provide less visual distraction to the natural aesthetics of the area and because the poles are not needed. (2) Draft Environmental Assessment - Goat Lake Hydroclectie Project March 1996 8 FERC No, 11077: 001 additional poles would further add to undesired visual impacts of the area, (3) WP&YR RR would impose cost prohibitive charges to AP&T for constructing the transmission line on the right-of-way easement, (4) steep topography and limited access for construction and maintenance presents engineering constraints, and (5) the visual impact to Klondike International Highway users would be potentially significant due to the taller structures (55- foot-high transmission line poles) compared to the existing 30-foot-high telegraph poles. On the East Side of the Skagway River This alignment (about 3,400 feet long) would extend from the proposed substation downriver and parallel to the Skagway River for about 2,900 feet to the Clifton area, then upslope to the Customs Border Station. The reasons this alternative was ruled out from further consideration are that: (1) construction would likely disturb the historic Brackett Wagon Road located along the east side of the river, (2) an extensive, time-consuming historic/cultural resources survey would be required to investigate presence of Gold Rush artifacts along this route, and the National Park Service discourages ground disturbance before completion of such surveys, (3) required mitigation to offset potential resource losses may be prohibitively expensive, (4) the FS and the town of Skagway may be interested in developing a recreational foot trail along the Brackett Wagon Road and a powerline in this area may not be compatible with land use and (5) this location would increase the visibility of the project from the Klondike International Highway. ns ike Int 1 Highw: This alignment (about 3,900 feet long) would extend from the proposed substation across the Skagway River, upslope to the Klondike International Highway, and southerly to the Customs Border Station. The reasons this alternative was ruled out from further consideration are: (1) the degree of slope for powerline construction to the highway and the amount of bedrock present presents two engineering difficulties, (2) the Alaska Department of Transportation disallows pole line construction along the highway due to the scenic nature of the highway, as seen from the WP&YR RR and as viewed from the highway, (3) visual quality would be impaired with the transmission line emerging from the valley to a point near highway pullouts used to view Pitchfork Falls. Although each of the transmission line routes considered may have some merits, we agree with AP&T that the alternatives are more environmentally-damaging and more costly to construct than the proposed alignment. Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 9 FERC No. 11077-001 V. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE A. Agency Consultation The Commission's hydropower regulations requi appropriate resource agencies before filing a license application. This consultation is the tise step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act the National Historic Preservation Act, and other federal statutes. Pre filing consultation must be complete and documented according to the Commission's regulations. Y applicants to consult with the After the Commission accepts an appli concerned entities during a public notice period Commission's regulations under the FPA [I8CFR concemed entities are made part of the record and proposed project. on, formal comments may be submitted by in accordance with section 4 34(b) of the 34(b)|. The comments provided by are considered during review of the On August 29, 1995, and October 27, 1995, the Commission issued public notices that solicited comments and recommendations on the project. The Department of Interior (Interior) responded by letter dated November 27, 1995, however no recommendations were made on the project. B. Interventions individuals to The Commission's January 6, 1995, notice solicited organizations a petition to intervene and become a party to any subsequent proceedings. T! motions to intervene filed for the project. ore were no C. Scoping Before preparing this EA, we conducted scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed. A scoping document (SD1) was distributed to agencies and others on May 18, 1995 (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service 1995), and noticed in the Federal Register, The Skagway News, City Weekly Two scoping meetings were held on June 20 and June 22, 1995, ay and Juneau, Alaska, respectively. Verbal comments received during the scoping meetings are recorded in the meeting transcripts (Ann Riley and Associates 1995a, 1995b) In response to SDI, we received written comments from the National Park Service (NPS) (letter from Clay Alderson, Superintendent, Klondike Gold Rush Park, Skagway Alaska, June 22, 1995). These comments and the comments received at the scoping meetings were addressed in the final scoping document (SD2) issued September 27, 1905 The main issues identified during scoping were: project impacts on the cultural value of the Draft Environmental Assessment a Goat Lake Uydsocleetric Project March 1996 10 FERC No. 1077-001 Brackett Wagon Road, cultural resources protection, access to the project, location and type of transmission system, mitigation of archeological and scenic concerns, minimizing vegetation impacts, measures to protect wildlife, baseline data on mountain goats, time restrictions of bypass instream flows, natural resources management, project economics, contributions of air-borne pollution from fossil-fueled generation, and baseline environmental information. These issues are addressed in this BA. D. Water Quality Certification On September 1, 1994, AP&T applied to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) for water quality certification for the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, as required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1341). The ADEC received this request on September 6, 1994. On October 3, 1994, the ADEC waived AP&T’s Section 401 water quality certificate (letter from R. Flinn, Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, Alaska, October 3, 1994). E. Coastal Zone Management Act Under Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the “ mmission cannot issue a license for a project within or affecting a state's coastal zone, less the state CZMA agency concurs with the license applicant's certification of ~wasistency with that state’s CZMA program, or the agency's concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of its receipt of the applicant’s certification. On August 18, 1994, AP&T applied to the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (ADGC) for a consistency determination of the project with the coastal zone management program (letter from Stan Selmer, Site Coordinator, Alaska Power and Telephone Company, Skagway, Alaska, August 18, 1994). On September 6, 1994, the ADGC acknowledged AP&T’s certification request. On November 27, 1995, the ADGC certified that the Goat Lake Project was consistent with the Alaska CZMA and also with the Skagway Coastal Management Plan. No conditions or stipulations were included. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS In this section, staff first describes the general environmental setting in the project area. Included is a discussion of environmental resources in the Skagway River Valley that may be subject to cumulative effects from the Goat Lake Project when considered in combination with other actions affecting the resource. Draft Environmental Assessment March 1996 11 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 In our detailed assessment, we discuss each environmental resource affected by the project. For each resource, we first describe the affected environment: which is the existiny condition and the baseline against which to measure the effects of the proposed project and any alternative actions--and then the environmer i mitigation measures. In evaluating the environmet site-specific effects and any cumulative effects to resources in the basin L effects of the projvet. including proposed effects of the project. we consider both Unless we say otherwise, the sources of our information (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1994a-c) and additic AP&T (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995a-e, 1995g) are the license application information filings by A. General Description of the Goat Lake Drainage Area The project would be located east of the Skagway River along Pitchfork Balls. about 7 miles northeast of Skagway, Alaska. Founded in 1896, at the extreme north end of Lynn Canal, Skagway became an important stopover of gold seekers on their way to the Klondike gold fields. With the ebbing of the Klondike Gold Rush (sce section VI.B.6.), Skagway s population dwindled. The present mainstay of S economy is tourism, where many tourists visit the area each year for the natural scenery in the Skagway River Valley. The project basin is also used occasionally for outdoor recreation s as hunting and camping The project area and Skagway River Valley have a remote, wild, character. In particular, the lower portion of Pitchfork Falls cascading waterfalls which is a popular attraction among local area. The three significant linear features that Pitchfork Falls elevation 1,104 feet msl, the Canadian Oil pipeline along the r historic Brackett Wagon Road located about 200 feet below and railroad. (1 undeveloped ent series of sidents and visitors to the ses are the WP&YR RR at Fright of way, and the rally parallel to the re The project's 4.2-square-mile drainage basin includes g! - Moraines, rugged mountainous terrain, and high-gradient streams with cascades and pools. The topography of the region is primarily the result of glaciation about 13,000 years ago. The landscape of the project area is made up of forests, mixed with mountain meadows, exposed bedrock and boulders, shrubland communities, meadows, and scattered wetlands. The Tongass National Forest provides habitat for about 54 species of mammals, 231 species of birds, and 5 species of amphibians and reptiles (U.S. Forest Service 19914 199 1b). The 943-kilowatt Dewey Lakes Project (FERC No. 1051), located about | mile cast of Skagway, is the only existing hydropower project in the Skagway region. This project was originally licensed on April 1, 1980, and the license expires on August 29, 2007 Draft Environmental Assessment March 1996 12 Goat Lake Uydroclectric Projet FERC No, 1077-001 1. Cumulative Impacts 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. The individually minor impacts of multiple actions, when added together in space and time, may amount to collectively significant cumulative impacts. The existing environment shows the effects of past and present actions and provides the context for determining the significance of cumulative impacts from future actions. In SD2, we identified tourism and sightseeing opportunities as two elements that could be cumulatively affected by development of the project in combination with existing and potential development in the area. However, after further analysis, we don’t believe there is a potential for these, or other resources to be cumulatively affected. The following is the basis for our conclusion: ° The Clinton Customs Border Station, the Klondike International Highway, and the WP&YR RR (Figure 1) are the main non-hydropower developments in the Skagway River Valley. Except for other small and isolated structures, there are no other visible human developments in the valley. None of these developments has contributed, nor is expected to contribute, to adverse impacts on tourism and sightseeing opportunities in the area. At this time, there is no known development planned. + Because of its location in a forested environment, the Dewey Lakes Project is not visible from primary public viewing locations such as the Klondike International Highway, the WP&YR RR, or from the town of Skagway. Visual effects of this development can only be seen from hiking trails that lead to the site from Skagway, or by flying over the project above 500 feet msl elevation. Therefore, the Dewey Lakes Project does not adversely affect tourism and sightseeing opportunities in the valley. o AP&T proposes site-specific measures to minimize potential adverse effects from project development on the aesthetic quality of the Goat Lake Project area (see section VI.B.5.). These measures, which are consistent with the Tongass Land Management Plan, would minimize any impacts to visual resources in the project area; therefore eliminating any impacts to tourism and sightseeing opportunities. B. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 1. Geology and Soil Resources a,_Affected Environment: The project area consists of exposed bedrock with talus alluvium deposits. The slopes range from flat to steep. The steeper slopes have an umulation of rock debris that has formed fan shaped deposits (talus deposits) at the base Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 13 FERC No. 11077-001 of steep-sided cliffs. The less steep slopes are alluvium deposits of sand. gravel, cobbles and boulders with traces of silt and woody debris. An organic soil (muskeg) is also found in the project area. Muskegs consist of a soft, highly compressible mixture of peat moss. root and other vegetation. The talus and alluvium deposits together with muskeg underlain by bedrock, provide a stable area with little chance of erosion or sedimentation, However occasionally, water streams water from snow melt, snow avakinches. or major landslides could cause this type of material to shift and move causing erosion and sedimentation. . In accordance with a Section 404 Permit application, the Corps’s Public Notice of Application, and the Corp's Permit Evaluation and Decision Document for the project. about 625 cubic yards of excavated and fill material would be associated with various project activities. These activities are constructing the new spill route. backfilling the old channel outlet, constructing the penstock saddles, constructing the diversion structure at the pumpback valve station, establishing thrust blocks along the penstock. and constructing the tailrace. b._ Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Construction of the penstock powerhouse, catchbasin, siphon house, and the pumpback/valvchouse have the potential to cause erosion and sedimentation that would affect water quality On March 30, 1995, AP&T submitted a erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) that outlined the methods and techniques to be followed to control construction impacts during land-disturbing activities. These measures include sediment control ponds silt fence barriers, streambank stabilization, and use of rock to construct entrance roads Also, AP&T proposes to use aerial trams and helicopters to transport construction materials to job sites, and to revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible after construction is completed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), and Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) all agree that the methods and measures outlined in AP&T's draft ESCP address project construction impacts and would ensure maintenance of water quality (letters from Nevin Holmberg, Field Supervisor, US Fish and Wildlife Service, April 17, 1995; John Palmes, Area Habitat Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, April 11, 1995; and William Long, Executive Director, Soil and Water Conservation Board, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, May 1, 1995). The FS concludes that the potential for soil erosion is low and that mitigation for any potential erosion is outlined in the draft ESCP. However, the FS says that under their section 4(e) authority, and granting a SUA, AP&T would have to further develop its dratt ESCP. The final plan would be required to comply with the Best Management Practices Draft Environmental Assessment a Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 14 FERC No, 1077-001 described in the FS Region 10 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook for this type of construction. Also, under their section 4(e) authority, the FS would require AP&T to develop solid waste, wastewater, and hazardous substance plans before land-disturbing activities. Staff concludes that the potential for erosion and sedimentation to occur in the project area is low because of the mostly stable slopes. Further, we agree with the agencies that AP&T's draft ESCP outlines methods and measures to be followed during land-disturbing activities that would control construction impacts and protect water quality. However, we also agree with the FS that AP&T needs to develop a final ESCP prior to land-disturbing activities because the draft plan is general and not site-specific enough for construction. Therefore, we recommend that AP&T develop a final site-specific ESCP using its draft as a basis for the final plan. We further recommend that the final plan include provisions for handling solid waste, wastewater, and hazardous substances. The final plan should be developed in consultation with the FS, and other agencies, and approved by the FS before it is filed for Commission approval. c¢. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Minor, temporary and localized erosion that would use temporary sedimentation would be unavoidable during construction activities. 2. Aquatic Resources a, Affected Environment: As we've stated, Goat Lake drains an area of about 4.2 square miles. The lake outlet flows through a 5-foot-wide, bedrock notch and combines with runoff from the glacial moraine to form a shallow pond about 600 feet below the lake. The pond outflow descends 2,100 feet over a steep, 30 percent gradient and forms Pitchfork Falls before entering the Skagway River. Water Quantity Inflows to Goat Lake result from a combination of precipitation and glacial runoff. AP&T used U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flow data, recorded for the Skagway River at the town of Skagway from 1964 through 1986, to estimate the inflows to Goat Lake by calculating its drainage as a proportion of the Skagway River drainage. Table | shows the estimated average annual and monthly inflows to Goat Lake. The glacier, located above a moraine area at the south end of Goat Lake, is about 1.7 square miles and provides runoff through the moraine to Goat Lake, the pond below Goat Lake, and to Pitchfork Falls below the pond. To develop hydrologic data for the project site, flow gages were installed at the outlet to Goat Lake, the outlet of the pond below Goat ake, and above Pitchfork Falls near the railroad line. The data for water years 1991 Draft Environmental Assessment March 1996 15 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 Table 1. Estimated average inflows to Goat Lake for wa cars L964 through Lose, (Source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b) MONTH FLOW (cfs) MONTH FLOW (ets) = vn Seana a 0.9 July 8 0.7 August 1 0.7 September 162 Ls October o4 99 November 4 29.9 December it Annual Average 11.3 cfs through 1994 show that about 18 percent of the Pitchfork Falls flows are from glacial runt! and the remainder from the pond outflow. Table 2 shows the estima annual cand monthly flows in Pitchfork Falls as recorded at the gage located at Pitchfork Falls near the railroad line. Table 2. Estimated average flows for Pitchfork Falls for water years 1991 through 1904 (Source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b) = = a FLOW (cfs) 1/ MONTH FLOW (cfs) 1 a —— a0 July WR zl August 2.8 2.4 September 19 October 15.7 November 2} 42.9 December 2.8 Annual Average 13.8 cfs igh and low hydrologic averages by using the averave Tom the estimated average and increasing it by 20 percent to represent a high " estimate as the more realistic average. AP&T provided us with monthl estimate, so we calculated the monthly estimates for Table 2 by applying the corresponding monthly per ent the high annual average to the low annual average Draft Environmental Assessment March 1996 16 Goat Lake Uydrocleetric Proyeet FERC No, 1077-001 Water Quality Water quality in the proposed project area complies with applicable state standards. AP&T conducted water quality studies during August 1992, March and July 1994, and January and March 1995. Water samples for the study were collected from the surface of Goat Lake, 25 feet below the lake surface, and from the Skagway River above and below the outlet of Pitchfork Falls. Dissolved oxygen levels ranged from 7.1 milligrams per liter (mg/l) to 12.2 mg/l in Goat Lake and from 8.2 mg/I to 9.8 mg/l in the Skagway River. Turbidity levels ranged from 1.49 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU’s) to 9.11 NTU’s in Goat Lake and from 0.47 NTU’s to 44.2 NTU's in the Skagway River. The pH levels ranged from 6.8 to 7.25 in Goat Lake and from 7.11 to 7.51 in the Skagway River. Conductivity levels ranged from 35 microsiemens per centimeter (uS/cm) to 54.6 uS/cm in Goat Lake and from 23 »S/cm to 64.2 wS/cm in the Skagway River. Temperature profiles were developed for Goat Lake in August 1992, July 1994, and March 1995. The temperatures in Goat Lake ranged from 0.0° Celsius (C) to 5.5°C with no significant thermal stratification in any single profile. Fisheries In April 1994, AP&T and the ADFG conducted a fish survey in the Skagway River upstream and downstream of the Pitchfork Falls outlet. During the survey, no fish were captured or observed. The survey report showed that existing habitat conditions are extremely poor because of the high gradient and lack of overwintering and rearing habitats. The survey results indicate that this section of the Skagway River does not support any significant fish populations (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b). Goat Lake is a coldwater, nutrient-poor lake that historically has not supported fish populations. The ADFG and the FS recently conducted an experimental stocking of Arctic grayling in Goat Lake in an effort to establish a naturally reproducing fish population that would support a fly-in sport fishery. The ADFG stocked the lake with 1,000 immature Arctic grayling in 1994 and 1995; however, a fishery survey conducted after the 1995 stocking found no surviving population (personal communication with Mike Schwan, Supervisor, and John Palmes, Area Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, November 8, 1995). Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 17 FERC No. 11077-001 b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Water Rights AP&T has applied to the ADNR for the right to with Lake for hydroelectric power use. There are no existing alle Lake or the Skagway River for consumptive or non-consumptive uses, so no other water users would be affected by the project. up to 45 cfs from Gout ions of water from Goat Fisheries In SD 2, we identified one aquatic resource issue for analysis “Whether project drawdowns would limit Arctic grayling access to spawning streams entering Goat Lake, should a population become successfully established.” During the scoping process we received comments on this issue from the FS. the ADFG, and AP&T. The commenters stated that the effects of a 20- to 30-foot drawdown on the entrances to the spawning streams would not be known until after the areas were exposed (Ann Riley and Associates 1995a, 1995b). Based on the findings of the ADPG survey conducted after the June 1995 stocking, we have concluded that no Arctic grayling population has established in Goat Lake, eliminating any potential project effects c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None 3. Terrestrial Resources a._Affected Environment: The project area contains a variety of resource habitats mountain meadows, shrubland communities, herbaceous-sedge meadows, avalanche chutes bare bedrock and bedrock supporting lichens, open montane coniferous forest, scattered wet sedge meadows, muskegs, alpine heaths, and sedge mats (letter from Mary Clay Stensvold Regional Botanist, U.S. Forest Service, Sitka Ranger District, Sitka, Alaska, April 29. 1994). The dominant trees are subalpine fir, Sitka spruc m hemlock, paper birch and cottonwood while the understory shrubs are domir tlder, rusty. menziesia black current, tall blueberry, devil's club, shield fern, crowberry and mountain heather Herbaceous vegetation include ferns, bunchberry, mosses, five-leaf bramble, twayblade, and Sitka valerian. According to the national wetland inventory, the project area has seven wetland types that are listed on Table 3. The project area has varied and unique wildlife, which provides consumptive and nonconsumptive uses by the public, including sport, subsistence, photographic. and view ing activities. Some of the wildlife are black bear, pine marten, mountain goat, river otter, hairy woodpecker, and boreal owl. Draft Environmental Assessment - Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 18 FERC No, 11077001 Table 3. Wetlands in the project area (Source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b). Lacustrine, limnetic, unconsolidated, permanently flooded system head of project area; principle water source of project Riverine, intermittent seasonally | Pitchfork Fats conveys water from Goat flooded streambed Lake to Skagway River Palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved | unnamed about 2,400 feet SSW of deciduous the proposed penstock: on west-facing slope Riverine, upper perennial, Skagway River bottom of project unconsolidated bottom discharges directly river race to Palustrine, unconsolidated, about 4,800 feet N of semipermanently flooded Pitchfork Falls and about 1,200 feet west of Goat Lake Wetland-6 Palustrine, unconsolidated, about 1,800 feet NNE of permanently flooded these two unnamed Goat Lake wetland sites are in Palustrine, unconsolidated, same area about 1,800 feet NNE of semipermanently flooded Goat Lake Palustrine emergent, persistent, unnamed about 6,000 feet NNE seasonally flooded from Goat Lake Among large birds in the project vicinity is the bald eagle, which is not federally threatened in Alaska as it is in the conterminous United States. During the summer of 1993, there were three known nests near Skagway; two are west of town and the third is in the lower reach of the Taiya Inlet (letter from Mike Jacobson, Eagle Management Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska, September 29, 1993). Bald eagles frequent the Skagway River. Reportedly, as many as 90 eagles have been observed near the head of Taiya Inlet in early spring when spawning candlefish arrive. Bald eagles have not been seen at Goat Lake or Pitchfork Falls, probably because of the absence of fish, which is the principal component of their diet. No other raptor nest sites e known in the Goat Lake area. Other large birds that may periodically use the project Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 19 FERC No. 11077-001 area, in small numbers, are the great blue heron, trumpeter swan. and perhaps Canada soos and sandhill crane. Surveys indicate that mountain goat use in the area surrounding Goat Lake is minimal (memorandum from Ben Camey, Wildlife Biologist. Alaska Department of Fish and Gane Douglas, Alaska, November 20, 1995). Only two individuals were observed during seven surveys between 1973 and 1994 in the project area. Most of the goats in the project vicinity were near Laughton Glacier, on south-facing slopes along the East Fork of the Skagway River, or on west-facing areas above Goat Lake (letter from Matt Robus, Area Management Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas. Alaska, January 27, 1994) low use mountain goat winter area was identified on the west side of the Skayway River Valley in 1973 (memorandum from John Palmes, Regional Habitat Coordinator, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, April 9, 1973) A habitat capability model was developed to estimate the capability of habitats in southeast Alaska to support mountain goat populations (Suring ct al. 1988). yee Wintering habitat is the most limiting factor for mountain goats in southeast Alaska, particularly duc to heavy snows and limited access to desired forage, wintering habitat was emphasized in the model. The important components affecting winter habitat suitability and capability in the model were availability of wintering food, escape terrain, di southerly aspects, general slope characteristics, successional mobility corridors, predation, human disturbance and harvest (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1995; Alaska Department of Highways 1973). As a result predicted goat use areas were plotted and the closest suitable habitat was about 1400 tect northeast of Goat Lake at elevation 3,150 feet msl, and about 2.000 feet due south of the lake at elevation 3,500 feet msl. ance of use from cliffs, of vegetation, tree canopy b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Habitat Disturbance Project construction of the valvehouse, new spillway, siphon house, penstock. powerhouse, transmission line, access road, and tramway would physically disturb an estimated 9.25 acres of native soils, vegetation, and habitat used by wildlife. To partially offset these losses and minimize disturbance and alteration to these affected resources, AR& I proposes to: (1) leave as much vegetation as possible during powerhouse and penstock construction; (2) revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible after disturbance, (3) follow FS guidelines for revegetating disturbed areas; (4) use a helicopter or donkey winch to transport the penstock to its location to protect as much natural vegetation as possible: and (5) design the penstock to avoid interference with wildlife movements. These measures have largely resulted through agency consultation during the preapplic ion stage Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydrovlectric Prayest March 1996 20 FERC No, 11077-0017 Staff believes implementation of these measures would minimize, protect, or avoid adverse effects on terrestrial resources in the project area. Staff, therefore, recommends that the proposed terrestrial resource protection and mitigation measures be implemented to ensure conservation of these resources. Wetlands/Riparian Construction of the new spill route, diversion structure, penstock, tailrace, pumpback house, siphon house, and backfilling of the old channel outlet would affect less than 1.0 acre of small, isolated alpine heaths, sedge-grass meadows, sedge mats, and alpine herbaceous meadows having saturated soils and wetland characteristics. The selected site for the powerhouse and substation is about 1,600 feet downriver and on the east side of the Skagway River from the confluence of Pitchfork Falls with the Skagway River. On March 16, 1995, the FS agreed that the wetlands and riparian habitats were not in direct conflict with the project features and that unavoidable incidental impacts to wetland habitats would be minor. We find that since AP&T: (1) has designed the project features to avoid the project area wetlands as much as possible, (2) would avoid effects on wetlands during construction as much as possible, as outlined in the application, and (3) would revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible after construction, as outlined in the draft ESCP and recommended in the final ESCP (section VI.B.1.), all reasonable efforts would be made to minimize wetland impacts and protect water quality. Raptor Protection of Transmission Line a. Electrocution AP&T proposes to construct a 3,400-foot-long, 24.9-kV aerial transmission line. The alignment would start at the substation, cross the Skagway River, continue downgradient and parallel along the west side of the Skagway River near Clinton, and then traverse upslope to the Customs Border Station to intertie with AP&T’s existing 24.9-kV transmission line to Skagway. The entire west side of the river is state land. Because the transmission line could represent an electrocution hazard to bald eagles and other large birds in the area, AP&T plans to design and construct the line to prevent possible long-term hazards to raptors and other large birds. Accordingly, AP&T would construct the line to meet or exceed the Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power es - The State of the Art in 1981 (Olendorff et al. 1981). In particular, the energized ductors would be positioned far enough apart (minimum separation of 60 inches) that Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 21 FERC No. 1077-001 large birds would be unable to simultaneously touch two or more of them with their wines or other body parts. In their March 15, 1995, response, the FWS and FS concurred with AP& T's raptor protection measures on the transmission line According to Olendorff et al. (1981), transmission fines less than 69 KV could pose an electrocution hazard to birds because of bi bodily contact with energized conductors While we recognize that the project area appears to have only incide occur eagles and other large birds, we nevertheless agree with AP&T’s long term measures to safeguard against any possible electrocution to bald eagles and other large birds ves of bald b. Collision Due to the absence of eagle nest sites. communal roosts, and endangered raptors in the project area, AP&T doesn't propo: oidance measures on the transmission line. In areas of high fog, strong electrical and ra’ is possible that transmission lines could pose collision hazards to small and large birds, including eagles. There are no recommended agency measures to prevent collision hazards storms, and other climatic conditions. it A literature review shows that raptor collisions with transmission lines are random low level, and inconseque: Eagles have keen eyesight, use relatively slow Mapping tight speed, and become conditioned to the presence of transmission lines (Olendortf and Lehman 1986). We agree with AP&T that no collision measures are needed because of the follow iny (1) large bird populations in the project area are very low in numbers, and (2) it doesn’t seem likely that bird strikes with power lines would contribute to substantial bird losses in the project area. We therefore conclude that the overhead transmission lit consistent with accepted protection guidelines that would prevent cle large birds. Therefore, AP&T should construct the transmission line as proposed | aS proposed. is rocution hazards to Mountain Goats Chadwick (1983) reports that mountain goat populations have experienced significant declines following habitat alterations and disturbance from hunting and other human activities. In particular, this species is more sensitive to disturbances than any other bie game species in North America. The project a has no road access and fimited human ts: Project construction would likely cause localized noise and disturbance from helicopter and machinery use; however, the noise is not expected to last long. nor be offensive to normal mountain goat activities during the spring and summer months. Becars: Draft Environmental Assessment — - Goat Lake Hydroelectric Pryeat March 1996 22 FERC No. 1077-001 Goat Lake does not appear to provide important summer or winter mountain goat habi this species is not likely to be significantly affected by construction or maintenance activities associated with the project. The ADFG agrees (memorandum from Ben Camey, Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, November 20, 1995; letter from Matt Robus, Area Management Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, January 27, 1994; memorandum from John Palmes, Area Habitat Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, November 22, 1995). Nevertheless, to minimize any potential adverse effects on goat mating or kidding during project construction, AP&T proposes to adjust the construction schedule, through coordination with the FS and ADFG, to avoid disturbance to mountain goat mating and kidding. Therefore, we agree with AP&T’s proposed protection measure and recommend this protection measure be included in any license issued for the project. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Project construction is expected to alter about 9.25 acres of wildlife habitat and existing landscape resources that include shrublands, open montane coniferous stands, herbaceous-sedge meadows, bedrock supporting lichens, avalanche chutes, muskegs, and alpine heaths and sedge mats. About one acre of wetland would be affected by project construction, particularly for _ablishing the penstock. Use of a helicopter and other equipment during project construction would increase noise in the project area, which could cause temporary dispersal and relocation of wildlife. It is expected that this short-term noise would occur only during the construction season. Because of their preferred habitat away from Goat Lake, it is unlikely that mountain goats would be affected by the project. 4. Threatened and Endangered Species a._Affected Environment: The FS conducted an extensive plant survey of the project area on July 27, 1993. The survey area included: (1) the proposed penstock corridor from the intake at the lake downgradient to the top of Pitchfork Falls, (2) the existing outlet at the lake to the top of Pitchfork Falls, (3) the subalpine meadow/montane forest mosaic in the general project area, (4) the lower part of the moraine, and (5) montane forest in the Pitchfork Falls vicinity. Only one of the 22 plants designated as sensitive by the FS Regional Forester was located.° This plant, the goose-grass sedge (Carex lenticularis var. dolia), is also a species of special concern by the FWS. There are no other listed plants by © FS sensitive plant species are those for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by (a) nificant current or predicted downward trends in populations numbers or density, and (b) significant current vr predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 23 FERC No. 1077-001 . the FWS in the project area that are threatened, endangered, candidate or species of special concer. The FWS states that the following federally-listed 4 proposed project area as transients, particularly during seasor American peregrine falcon and Arctic peregrine falcon ’ (letter from Nevin D. Holmberg Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska, August 21, 1992: personal communication, John Lindell, Endangered Species Biologist, U.S. and Wildlife Service Juneau, Alaska, November 21, 1995). Additionally. there are four FWS species of special concern that may occur in the project area: marbled murrelet, northern goshaw k, harlequin duck, and spotted frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994) Goose-Grass Sedge The first known Alaska collection of the Carex lenticularis var. dolia was in 1913 near Skagway, and its main geographic range in Alaska is the southeast panhandle south to Queen Charlotte Island. There are also widely disjunct populations in the Yukon Territory British Columbia, Alberta, and Glacier National Park in Montana, its southernmost limit imal species may occur in the | migration: endangered Although there have been few individuals collected, this plant scems to prefer high mountain elevations (5,000 to 9,800 feet msl), at high latitudes from timbertine to the alpine and almost always in or at the water's edge (Standley 1985). The goose grass sedge appears to be an early successional species, colonizing shallow, wet, organic loamy soils along streams and in seep areas of gentle terrain. The soils are usually very shallow and have a high content of stones and gravel. Surrounding vegetation is usually moist meadows or tundra. In some areas it may be one of the first plants to stabilize stream banks and wet slumping soils of high elevation terraces. A FS plant survey of the project area revealed that the goose grass sedge was found above the east side of Goat Lake at about 4,000 fect msl, outside the project area (letter from Mary Clay Stensvold, Regional Botanist, U.S. Forest Service, Sitka Ranger District, Sitha Alaska, April 29, 1994). ri rine Falcon In Alaska, the American peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus anatum) primarily inhabits interior portions of the state. It is highly migratory and winters as far south as 5, 1994 (Hederal Register Vol 59 Species Act, the EWS must agencies are requested to voluntarily onsider 7 Although the Arctic peregrine falcon was delisted on Octe No. 192, pp. 50796-50805) and is no longer protected under the monitor this species for 5 years following its delisting. Federa the Arctic peregrine falcon in their planning processes. Draft mental Assessment a Goat Lake Hydroclecnic Projet March 1996 24 FERC No, 1077-001 Argentina. Although this species may occur in the project area as a transient, primarily during seasonal migration, there has been no reported observation in the vicinity of the project. Migration routes and patterns and forage areas haven't been identified. During migration across southeast Alaska, availability and abundance of prey most likely determines the birds’ flight patterns and stopover areas. About 82 percent of the food consumed by the American peregrine are vertebrates, and the primary prey in Alaska consists of shorebirds, waterfowl, and passerine birds (U.S. Forest Service 1991b). Peregrines forage over bodies of water, marshes, grasslands, shorelines, and over wooded areas and they attack flying prey from above or by chasing them. Data suggests that the American peregrine populations have recovered as a result of restrictions on organochlorine pesticide use (especially DDT and DDE) in the United States and Canada, and because of successful reintroduction from captive-bred species. In nature, these chemicals have caused eggshell thinning and poor reproductive success among peregrine falcons. No organochlorine pesticides are authorized for use on the Tongass National Forest (U.S. Forest Service 1991a, 1991b). According to Ambrose et al. (1988), American peregrine populations in Alaska are continuing to increase. Therefore, the FWS Proposes to remove this species from the list of threatened and endangered wildlife and the critical habitat designation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). Arctic Peregrine Falcon As with the American peregrine, the Arctic peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus tundrius) populations declined following World War II as a result of organochlorine pesticides use. After 20 years of restriction on the use of these chemicals marked by steady Progress toward recovery, reproductive rates in arctic peregrines have steadily increased, and Populations continue to rise. About 250 pairs nest in Alaska and thousands nest throughout arctic North America. There has been no reported observation of the Arctic peregrine falcon in the project vicinity. Arctic peregrines nest in tundra regions of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland and migrate through mid North American latitudes and winter in Latin America. Arctic peregrines occur in southeast Alaska only during the migration periods (U.S. Forest Service 1991b). In Alaska, this subspecies nests mostly along rivers in the northern and western parts of the state. Nests are positioned on cliffs or bluffs usually near rivers or lakes that provide habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, and songbirds on which the falcons prey. Although the rate of habitat alteration in nesting, migration, and wintering habitats is greater now than in the past, the rapid population increase over the last 15 years (Ambrose et 1988) suggests that habitat modification does not threaten the continued existence of this sies. Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 25 FERC No. 11077-001 Marbled Murrelet The marbled murrelet is regarded as a bird of mystery because its nesting habits ar largely unknown and its nearshore feeding habits make it difficult to survey. This small seabird spends most of its time along coastal areas from Alaska to central California and feeds primarily on small Pacific herring, northern anchovies, Pacific sandlances. sea perch and invertebrates in near-shore marine waters (Federal Register Vol.60, No. 154. pp 4080 40908, August 10, 1995). Throughout forested portions of its range, such as in the Alexander Archipelago in which the project lies, the marbled murrelet nests in mature and old-growth coniferous forests located mostly within 38 miles (60 km) from marine coastal waters. Those murrelet populations in the more westerly Aleutian and Ke Archipelagos generally nest on the ground. Tree nesting murrelets select ta old-growth healthy or decadent trees more than 100 feet above the ground often haying mistletoe, deformations, and moss on large limbs (Pacific Seabird Group 1995, Kulety ct al 1994), nthe lower forty Marbled murrelet population numbers are thought to be declining eight. The greatest threat to murrelets is nesting habitat loss and modifi logging, development, and fragmentation of 2 stands (Federal Register Vol.65, No 119., pp. 28362-28367, June 20, 1991, Pacific Seabird Group 1995). Estimated population numbers are higher in Alaska (50,000-220,000) than in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California combined (32,000-71 900). tion due to lor wk The largest of the accipiter hawks. the northern goshawk has a wide geog breeding range in North America and, in Alaska, it inhabits and breeds in the cent eastern portions of the state Johnsgard 1990). It winters throughout its breeding range and extends as far south as northern Mexico and Texas. Primarily in April and May, gostawhks nest in nearly every kind of coniferous forest, but also use deciduous and mixed woodlands (Apfelbaum and Seelbach 1983). McGowan (1975) found that goshawks in interior Alaska selected paper birch for nesting 94 percent of the time where suitable nest tree species were present. Generally, nest sites are in old, tall trees having a well-developed understory and are near a water source of moderate slope, usually having a northerly aspect. Large forest stands are favored and there is a great deal of variation in population density throughout its Holarctic range. The northern goshawk is iated with diverse habitats such as dense coniferous taiga with scattered glade, tall conifers mixed with deciduous woods, river forests. and cultivated coniferous plantations, and stands of birch, aspen, pine in steppe or woodlands Coniferous forests are preferred over deciduous. The bird shows a lower habitat specitic ity Draft Environmental Assessment fn) Goat Lake Uydrocleetric Vrojest March 1996 26 FERC No, 1077-001 » in the winter often ranging into other habitats, including deserts. In the project area, the northern goshawk is known only as a transient. All studies have shown that there is a high dependency on birds and mammals of moderate to large size in the goshawk diet (Sherrod 1978). Important prey base for the goshawk are Stellar’s jays, grouse, ptarmigan, thrushes, and mid-sized furbearers. Goshawks have not been abundant in southeast Alaska but because they are associated with forested landscapes, they are vulnerable to habitat loss from land disturbance. Harlequin In selected areas of its range, such as the Aleutian Islands and parts of British Columbia, the harlequin duck is abundant. But because much of their worldwide range lies in remote regions, accurate populations and distribution has been difficult to determine. The western populations of harlequins are primarily in Alaska, particularly in the Aleutians, Alexander Archipelago, and the Alaska Peninsula. The Aleutian Islands are considered to be "a center of abundance” for the Pacific harlequin ducks (Palmer 1976). In lay, adults leave their wintering areas along coasts for interior breeding grounds. Their eeding distribution extends from northern Alaska to Washington state where the distribution splits southward to the Cascade range and southeasterly to the northem Rocky Mountains. Harlequins have also been observed during the summer on islands in the Bering Sea and Pribolofs. Harlequins usually nest along rocky shores adjacent to rapids of turbulent mountain streams. In Alaska’s eastern Prince William Sound, harlequins selected the largest anadromous salmon streams for nesting (Crowley 1993). The nests were located along first order tributaries near timberline, on steep southwest-facing slopes, and positioned beneath old growth forests. Well concealed nests are generally composed of a thin layer of grass, with dry twigs and leaves, and lined with down. Females incubate assiduously and appear to have a high degree of fidelity when nesting. In search of food, harlequins can dive to depths of 5 feet in swift currents. Most of their preferred foods are animal material such as crustaceans (mud crabs, hermit crabs, amphipods), mollusks (chitons, periwinkles, limpets, chink shells, blue mussels), insects (stone flies), worms, and fish. The harlequin duck is thought to occasionally move through the Skagway River Valley in individual or low numbers. Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 27 FERC No. 11077-001 Ss Fro; The distribution and population status of the spotted frog in Alaska is unknown The historical range extended from extreme southeastern Alaska south to central Nevada and cast to northwestern Wyoming. The specific reasons for its declin unknown but researchers, speculate the following principle causes: (1) habitat loss due to encroachment by man. ©) ification as a consequence of climate , (4) increased UV-B radiation due to ozone depletion, and (5) competition with introduced species such as bullfrogs (Blaustein et al. 1995; Waters 1992 Hayes and Jennings 1986). The spotted frog habitats range from coniferous northwest forests to semiarid sagebrush sites. Generally the spotted frog is highly a i ways found near permanent water and adjacent grassy margins of lakes, strean . tis su ted that this elusive species is more common in cold water habitats than in warm, stagnant ponds. In the Stiking River basin near Wrangell, south of Jur sding in outwash ponds and in a backwater lake, with possible breeding in muskegs and beaver ponds (Waters 1992). This frog is not an old-growth obli: but forested a refugia from further population losses (Blaustein et al. 1995) has been reported in the Haines area (located about 40 miles south of the proposed project site). but has yet to be verified by the FWS. avy represent important b._ Environmental Impacts and adversely affect the federally endangered American peregrine falcon or delisted Arctic peregrine falcon because: (1) both peregrine falcon species are thought to occur in the project area only in small numbers and as occasional migrants; (2) critical habitat for both peregrine species are not known to occur in the project area: (3) preferred prey (shorebirds and waterfowl) are not abundant in the project area, so foraging would not be a the alteration of about 10 acres of forest, shrubland, and muskeg hat prey availability for migrating peregrines nor important foraging habi ponds, and riparian zones. is: The Goat Lake Project would not fected; and (4) s would not affect such as wetlands We also conclude that the project would not adversely affect the five species of special concern that could occur in the project area for the following reasons: (1) these species have not been found in the project area; (2) the goose-grass sedge 4,000 foot msl elevation, outside the project's impact area; (3) the project preferred old growth and mature coniferous habitat for marbled murrelet nesting nor is such habitat known in the Skagway River Valley; (4) populations of the northern goshawh harlequin duck, and spotted frog that could inhabit the area are likely to be low; (5) the Project area is not known to support high populations nor provide known critical habitat tor the northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog; (6) project construction is not expected to affect nesting or movements of the northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and as found at the does not have Draft Environmental Assessment - Oo Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 28 FERC No, 11077-0010 spotted frog; (7) because Goat Lake is a nutrient-poor lake with low bioproductivity, it is not probable that Pitchfork Falls, which receives water from Goat Lake, sustains a suitable food base (aquatic invertebrate diversity and numbers) for the harlequin duck; (8) construction of various project features (intake, siphon house, pumpback valve house, penstock, powerhouse/substation, transmission line) are not likely to be sited in desired nesting habitats of northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog; and (9) since the project is located about 250 miles north of the known limits of the western spotted frog, it is not likely that this species can be found in the project area. Therefore; we think that the project would not affect the endangered American peregrine falcon and that no further action pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, is required. We also find that project construction and operation would not affect the delisted Arctic peregrine falcon, and the five species of special concern: goose-grass sedge, marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None 5. Aesthetic Resources a. Affected Environment: The proposed project is located in the Coast Range of southeast Alaska. The Skagway River Valley is characteristic of the region, with its narrow U-shaped valley with glaciers hanging from the surrounding mountain peaks. The lower elevations are densely forested. The higher areas are mostly exposed bedrock. There are many lakes, streams, and rivers throughout the region. Goat Lake is a typical glacier fed lake located in a steep, hanging valley comprised of bedrock and very little vegetation of significant size. The lake is difficult to get to, except by floatplane or helicopter, or hikers who do not need an established trail. The Skagway River is the most prominent of the region's waterforms. Pitchfork Falls, a long cascading series of waterfalls that descends into the Skagway River, is the most prominent of the many streams that cascade down the valley's walls. The falls, along with most of the Skagway River Valley, is visible from the turnouts on the Klondike International Highway and from the WP&YR RR. The lower part of Pitchfork Falls can be accessed by the WP&YR RR as it passes through the project area. The lower- and mid-level of the project area, which includes Pitchfork Falls, where the penstock, powerhouse, tram, and transmission line would be located, is visible from the Klondike International Highway, on the opposite side of the river and from the WP&YR RR. There are several overlooks along the highway where tourists p and view the Skagway River corridor, which includes the project area. Draft Environmental Assessment March 1996 29 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 b. Environmental Impa nd Recommendations: Constructing: project would affect the aesthetic quality of the projec constructing new structures in a relatively undeveloped Pitchfork Falls from project operations. and eperating the The impacts would result trom and reducing Hows over Effect of Project Facilities on Aesthetic Resources The penstock, which would be located in dense forested vegetation except where it crosses an avalanche area, should not significantly detract from the aesthetic quality of the area. The powerhouse and substation, located about 1,600 fect downriver from the confluence of Pitchfork Falls with the Skagway River, would also be located in dense vegetation. Although the structures would be visible from the highway overlooks. they would only be partially visible because of the screening from the vegetation. The transmission line and cable\tram would be mostly screened from view by vegetation. but would be visible where they cross the river. Goat Lake is in the flight path for visitors touring the by helicopter. The PS. completed an EA, dated May 16, 1995, to assess the effects of helicopter ti Skagway and Haines area. The selected alternative for authorized helicopter landings includes flying over Goat Lake to access a landing site on Laughton Glacier. ‘The passengers would be able to view the reduced lake level and some proj: house and pumpback/valve station. This would not be should not be readily apparent and the exposed bedrock shoreline would appear si surrounding terrain. Hing tours in the ‘ilities, such as the siphon Mt impact as the facilities iar to the Project construction would also cause increased traffic, noise, and dust levels that would temporarily and locally affect visual quality to the project area AP&T has proposed using construction methods that would minimize the impacts ot the facilities on the aesthetic quality of the area. These are: (1) using materials and coloration so that the structures blend into the landscape; (2) minimizing cle: vegetation and ground disturbance for construction of the penstock, powerhouse substation; (3) removing spoil material; (4) revegetating areas disturbed dur (5) and providing access to the powerhouse site by a cable\t river crossing. The FS. by letter dated February 14, 1995, agreed with these methods and recommended that the applicant develop a visual resource management plan that would provide further details of these specific measures. The staff agres that the resource measures (revegetate disturbed areas, minimizing v by AP&T would assist to effectively maintain the aesthetic qu Wy of existing nd construction erosion control and terrestiial tative disturbance) proposed ity of the project area I resource Therefore, after consultation with the FS, AP&T should management plan to specify the exterior treatment of project fa ies, Clearing of vegetation Goat Lake Hydroclectric Project FERC No, 1077-001 Draft Environmental Assessment March 1996 30 and revegetating disturbed areas. The plan should be developed in conjunction with the erosion and sediment control plan discussed in section VI.B.1., and with the terrestrial resource measures in section VI.B.3. Effect of Reduced Flows on Aesthetic Quality of Pitchfork Falls Pitchfork Falls is a scenic attraction that contributes to the aesthetic quality of the area. It is the focus of viewers from the highway overlooks and from the railcars that pass by the falls. Pitchfork Falls is also mentioned in publications describing the area attractions. Project operation would reduce flows over Pitchfork Falls that could affect the aesthetic quality of the falls. AP&T and the FS, with assistance from a Visual Impact Analysis prepared by Land Design North (1994), studied different flow alternatives. Reduction of flow would have various levels of impact depending on the selected alternative. By letter dated July 20, 1995, the FS determined that a minimum flow of 13 cfs would maintain the aesthetic quality of the falls. The FS also determined that maintaining the flow would only be necessary during 12 daylight hours from May through September, the peak tourist season (see section VI.B.7.). '&T, by additional information filed May 30, 1995, agreed to the minimum flow. Project sration from October through April would substantially reduce flows over the falls. However, this is not the time of the year when many tourists visit the area. Therefore, the effects would not be substantial. We agree that a minimum flow of 13 cfs over Pitchfork Falls, during 12 daylight hours from May through September would maintain the aesthetic quality and visual character of the falls and Skagway River Valley. To ensure compliance with this minimum flow recommendation, AP&T proposes installation of an automatically operated, priority stream flow device to measure and record flows, and to operate the bypass or intake gate to maintain required instream flows. We agree that a stream flow gauge should be electronically interconnected to the bypass and intake gate to ensure minimum flow releases. Due to the variable flows and relatively remote location of the site, an automatically controlled device would be necessary to ensure compliance with the minimum flow requirement. Staff believes that installation of a continuously-recording stream gauge upstream of Pitchfork Falls, and a stage-discharge chart would accurately measure the bypass flow. Therefore, after consultation with the FS, AP&T should file a plan to maintain minimum instream flows. The plan should specify measures the applicant would implement to ensure the minimum 13 cfs bypass instream flow is provided, such as use of the priority flow bypass device. Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 31 FERC No. 11077-001 c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The presence of new structures in a relatives undeveloped area would detract from the undisturbed nature of the Goat Lake basin and to a lesser degree the Skagway River corridor. Operations of the project would marginally reduce flows over Pitchfork Falls from May through September, and substantially during October through April. Constructing the fa would result in increased traffic, noise and dust levels that would temporarily affect the natural visual quality of the area 6. Cultural Resources a._Affected Environment: AP&T conducted a cultural resources survey of the project area (Campbell 1994) . The survey identified the following cultural resources in the project area: (1) contributing elements of the Historic Landmark, that specifically includ the WP&YR RR, a historic tourist trail and viewpoint of Pitchfork Brackett Wagon Road, and a historic telegraph or telephone line and possibly earlier; and (2) the historic Canadian Oil pipelir No other cultural resources were located. ‘alls, the historic ing from Workd War UL iting from World War I The Historic Landmark was established on June 13, 1962 Register of Historic Places. The Historic Landmark was estab) historical structures and other features of the Skagway area and the White Pass Trail. to the northeast, relating to the Klondike Gold Rush in the late 1890's and early 1900's (National Park Service 1987). Certain contributing elements relate to later events, such as development of the tourist industry, of which the historic trail and viewpoint of Pitchtork Falls and operation of the railroad for transporting tourists to scenic and historic areas are examples, and the military effort during World War IL, such as construction of a telephone line along the railroad route. His listed in the National 2d to preserve and interpret The historic Canadian Oil pipeline is eligible for inclusion in the National Register and has been documented in accordance with the standards of the Historic Aq Engineering Record. The pipeline was constructed in 1943 and is significant as an example of the World War II military effort in the area and as an carly means of transporting crude oil from coastal Alaska to the interior of Canada. rican The Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the NPS, the FS, and the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic’ Park (NPS Klondike Park) concur that the survey is adequate for identifying cultural resources in the project area (letters from Judith E. Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer, Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Anchorayc Alaska, February 7, 1995; Sandra Faulkner, Regional Historian, National Park Service Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, Alaska, February 9, 1995; Alderson, Superintendent, Klondike Gold Rush National Park, Skagway, A\ and Karen S. Iwamoto, Forest Archeologist, Tongass National Forest. § 6, 1995). We concur. ly: 24, a a. Alaska, March Draft Environmental Assessment ns - Goat Lake Uydroclectric Project March 1996 32 FERC No, 11077-0017 b._ Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The project may affect the historical integrity of the Brackett Wagon Road, the railroad bed, and the historic Canadian Oil pipeline. The proposed penstock would be routed through a culvert constructed under the railroad bed and the Canadian Oil pipeline. The powerhouse tailrace would be constructed to cross under the Brackett Wagon Road. These construction activities could potentially alter the physical and visual character of these sites. There would be no effect on the historic trail and viewing area, and the historic telephone line. The project is not located in the immediate vicinity of the trail and viewing area, and the historic telephone line is not located in the vicinity of the project facilities. AP&T proposes to conduct additional work to assess the effects of the project on cultural resources and to implement a cultural resources management plan to protect contributing elements of the Historic Landmark affected or potentially affected by the project, pursuant to an MOA prepared in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations (36 CFR 800) for the National Historic Preservation Act. After review and revisions, the MOA has been accepted and signed by the SHPO, the NPS, the NPS-Klondike Park, the NPS, and AP&T. AP&T consulted the Skagua Traditional Village Council, representative of the local “Yative American tribe, and requested the Village Council to be a party and signatory to the 10A. The Village Council declined and said they have no concerns about traditional uses uf the area (letters from Pete Johnson, Representative, Skagua Traditional Village Council, Skagway, Alaska, April 11, 1995; and Silas H. Dennis, Jr., Member-at-Large, Skagua Traditional Village Council, Skagway, Alaska, April 12, 1995). The FS has stated that the intent of the Advisory Council's regulations concerning Native American consultation [36 CFR 800(1)(c)(iii)] has been satisfied for the project (letter from Karen S. Iwamoto, Forest Archeologist, Tongass National Forest, Sitka, Alaska, April 20, 1995). The NPS has said AP&T has made a reasonable effort to consult the Village Council and to include the Village Council as a signatory to the MOA (letter from Sandra Faulker, Regional Historian, National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, Alaska, April 24, 1995). We concur. The MOA requires AP&T to hire a qualified historical archeologist, and consult with the FS, the SHPO, and the NPS to determine the specific effects of the project on the Historic Landmark and the Canadian Oil pipeline, and to identify mitigative measures to minimize effects. The MOA requires AP&T to develop and implement a cultural resources management plan to implement mitigative measures and to protect cultural resources during project construction and operation, and to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, the Alaska Comprehensive Preservation Plan, and the cultural resources documentation requirements of Klondike Gold Rush National Park. The MOA also requires AP&T to comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act if discoveries are made during the license term that it applicable to the project. Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 33 FERC No. 11077-001 We concur the MOA is adequate to protect cultural resources at the project. The project would not have an adverse effect on the Historic Landmark or the historic Canadian Oil pipeline if the MOA is implemented as a condition of a hydropower license. The MO\ has been forwarded to the Advisory Council for signature. We recommend that the Commission not license the project without execution of the MOA c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None 7. Recreation a,_Affected Environment: There are no developed facilities in the Goat Lake basin The FS manages the area to retain its roadless and wildland cl or. Major recreational facilities would not be developed. The developed recreation ilities that exist outside of the basin consist of FS cabins, dispersed campsites, and pi areas. The National Park Service operates the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park that includes a visitor center in Skagway and a campground in Dyea. Because of the difficulty in accessing the Goat Lake basin, very little recreational us occurs in the vicinity of the lake. Major recreational activities in the project vicinity are dispersed activities such as hiking, fishing, and sightseeing. The most common activity is sightseeing. Sightseeing tours are provided by the WP&YR RR, several hway tour operators along the Klondike International Highway, and aircraft companies. Skagway and its vicinity, due to the attractions and cruise ship moorage, draws a large number of tourists to the area. The Skag: Convention and Visitor Bu that in 1993 about 350,000 tourists visited th: Approximately 80 percent of southeast Alaska visitors come to the area by water. AU OStIMtes. Based on survey results, the applicant determined that many of these visitors are interested in sightseeing and photography. The applicant conducted a survey of the tour operators and was able to estimate that 23,000 visitors stopped at the viewpoints overlooking Pitchfork Falls during the season. In addition, 24 percent of the vehicles using the Klondike International Highway stopped at the viewpoints. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommen location that is difficult to access. The site receives very little recreational use and the project would not have a significant effect on existing tional opportunities with the exception of sightseeing activities from the WP&YR RI J the Klondike International Highway. This issue was discussed in the Aesthetic Resources Section ions: The project would be in a remot As discussed earlier, Goat Lake has no known fish, and the state of Alaska and the FS have abandoned plans to create a sustainable fish population in the lake. Thus, the Draft Environmental Assessment — Goat Lake Hydroelectric Proyeet March 1996 34 FERC No, 11077-0081 ~ . project would not affect recreational fishing. It is not anticipated that project operations would significantly affect access around the lake, as the lake level is primarily drawn down during the winter and spring months (Table 3). During the peak visitation of helicopter tours over the project area, the lake level would either be rising from large inflows or close to normal elevation. a._Affected Environment: The project would provide power to the town of Skagway and the immediate vicinity. The population of the area is about 800. The economy of the area is driven by tourism. The unemployment for the region was higher than the state average in 1994, 10.6 percent versus 7.8 percent. b, Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The project would employ a work force of about 30 people over about a 2-year construction period. The total project “onstruction budget would be about $7.5 million; about 32 percent would be for labor. It’s iticipated that workers would be drawn from southeast Alaska. Because of the short -snstruction period, most workers would probably commute either daily or weekly or stay in temporary housing, and few, if any, would relocate to the immediate project area. Increased employment from the project, albeit short-term, would benefit the region’s economy. The project would also provide long-term economic benefits to the state and region from tax revenues that would be collected. The project would also benefit the region by providing a more stable and reliable form of energy than the current system, which relies mostly on diesel generation. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None. C. Impacts of the No-action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be constructed and there would be no changes to the existing physical, biological, or cultural resources of the area. The energy that would have been produced would continue to be provided by diesel fuel. With this alternative, the public would be denied the opportunity to conserve diesel (non-renewable primary fossil fuel) and to reduce atmospheric pollution. Because of the area's lack of roads and remoteness, diesel fuel is presently delivered by barge thus potentially exposing important aquatic habitats to risks such as oil spills into the environment. These risks would ontinue with or without the project, although much less with the project, because diesel jenerators would serve as a back-up during hydropower outages. Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project re March 1996 35 FERC No. 11077-001 VI. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALY In this section, we look at the project's use of water resources for hydropower Purposes to see what effect various environmental measures would have on the project's power benefits. As explained in Mead Corporation.® the Commission assesses the potential economics of various alternatives using a current-cost predict future economics trends over the term of the I it reviews economic factors in light of what is known at the time the application is considered. While no assumptions are made concerning future pote: inflation or deflation, the analysis is not entirely a "first-year" approach, as certain costs need to be amortized over the period of years or will change in presently known and measurable ways. Thus, the current cost figures are derived using a 30-year period of analysis pproach at does not purport to Because there was no recommended staff proposal that would affect project economics, we did the economic analysis using the applicant's proposal. We compared the benefits of the proposed operation to not building the project and continuing to use more diesel fuel. We found the 30-year net annual benefits for the low-, mid-, and high load forecasts using the average hydrology estimate and the following assumptions (sce Table 4) Project operation begins in 1997, a 1997 construction cost of $7,800,000, 7 percent discount rate, 7 percent interest rate, a 1997 power value of 95 mills per kilowatthour (mills/kWh)." a 1997 operating and maintenance cost of 5 mills/kWh, and a 1997 insurance cost of $1.00/kWh. etree eoeoe We also assumed in our economic analysis that the energy sold for each year would correspond to the load forecast, until the year 2028. For example, in 1997, the area would need only 7.0 gigawatthours (GWh) of energy from the Goat Lake Picci Therefore, the project would only generate 7.0 GWh in 1997. In 2028, the project would reach its maximum energy generation potential of 13.3 GWh. The average generation over the 30-year economic analysis would be 9.5 GWh for the mid- load forecast With the above assumptions, the proposed project, producing an average of 9.5 GWh of energy, would have a negative net annual benefit for the mid load forecast. costing more than the current cost of alternative power--of about -$178,000 or -18.7 mills/kWh ® ‘See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC § 61,027 (uly 13, 1995) 3 We base the value of the project's power on the average cost of purchasing diesel fuel for th Skagway area. Draft Environmental Assessment SS - Goat Lake lvdroctecme Project March 1996 36 FERC No. 1077-001 Table 4. Staff's economic analysis of Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project using the average hydrology estimate. — == = LOAD | AVERAGE ANNUAL | POWER VALUE BASED | COST OF NET FORECAST | GENERATION th 6.31 GWh $555,030 $998,340 -$443,300 ON REPLACING GOAT LAKE | ANNUAL DIESEL FUEL PROJECT BENEFITS 9.53 GWh $837,680 $1,015,700 -$178,000 11.12 GWh $984,180 $1,021,500 -$37,340 Although the project would cost more than the current cost of the most likely alternative source of power (diesel-fuel powered generators) for the Skagway area, we realize that this comparison is not the only consideration in assessing the economic feasibility of the project. Among the other considerations is the future cost of fossil-fuel resources, particularly diesel fuel, which represents about two-thirds of the total cost per kWh of generation. The costs are, therefore, highly sensitive to fuel cost, which could vary widely over the 50-year license term for a new hydropower project. Most of the cost of power that would be produced by the Goat Lake Project is for debt retirement on the initial capital cost and would remain constant over time, and unaffected by inflation. Only about 10 percent of the total cost per kWh is for operation and maintenance, which would be subject to future increases caused by inflation. Over a 50-year license term this resistance of hydropower cost to inflation could make the project power cheaper than alternatives. In any event, it is AP&T which must make the business decision whether to pursue the license in view of the net economic costs of the project compared to diesel generators at the current cost of fuel'' . As the Commission explained in Mead, supra, our economic analysis is by necessity inexact. 10 The average annual generation was based over a 30 year period. 11 In this connection, AP&T did its own economic analysis for a 50-year term, which assumes lating costs and alternative power values, and average annual generation figures somewhat different from those we used. AP&T's analysis projects positive net benefits at all load forecast levels ranging from $7.2 million (low) to $31.3 million (high). Draft Environmental Assessment March 1996 37 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 VII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. When we review a proposed project, we equally consider the environment, recreation, fish and wildlife. and other non-developmental values of the project as well as power and other developmental values. Accordingly, any license issued shall be best adapted to a comprehensive plan tor improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all bencfi public uses. Based on our independent review of agency and public comments filed on this project and our review of the environmental and economic effects of the proposed project and its alternatives, we've selected the proposed project, along with the applicant's proposed environmental measures, as the preferred option. The preliminary FS section 4(e) conditions have been incorporated into our preferred alternative. We've determined that none of the measures in our preferred option have an effect on the project's economies. We recommend the proposed project because: (1) issuance of an original hydropower license would allow AP&T to construct and operate the project as a sv source of electrical energy for its customers; (2) the project would meet the increasing demand for electric power in Skagway and avoid the need for an equivalent amount of fossil fuel-fired, electric generation and capacity, thereby continuing to help conserve these nonrenewable energy resources and reduce atmospheric pollution; and (3) the recommended environmental measures would protect or mitigate the soil, vegetative, wildlife, aesthetic, and cultural/historic resources in the Skagway River Valley. All but dependable We believe that our preferred option would be best adapted to the comprehensi« development of Pitchfork Falls for beneficial public uses. NCIES IX. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AC Under section 10(j) of the FPA, 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 fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. No fish and wildlife agencies provided recommendations in response to our notices that the application was ready for environmental analysis. Goat Lake Hydroclectric Project FERC No, 1077-001 Draft Environmental Assessment March 1996 38 * a X. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. Accordingly, federal and state agencies filed 23 plans with the Commission that address various resources in Alaska. Three are relevant to this project.'? No conflicts were found. XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we prepared this environmental assessment for the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project to identify the resources that the licensing decision could impact and discuss the specific impacts the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project would have on the human environment. Project construction would cause minor short-term, localized erosion; temporary vlocation of wildlife; and increased traffic and dust levels in the project area, In addition, ‘oject development would permanently alter about 9.25 acres of native trees and other -getation (some of which would be revegetated) and | acre of wetland habitat. The new structures and altered flows along Pitchfork Falls could detract from the natural aesthetics of the Goat Lake basin and Skagway River Valley. We find that implementing the protection and mitigation measures described in this EA would ensure that environmental effects of the project would be insignificant. On the basis of this independent environmental analysis, we find that issuance of an original hydropower license by the Commission and SUA by the FS for this project would not constitute major federal actions significantly affecting quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. XI. LITERATURE CITED Alaska Department of Highways, Southeast District. 1973. Klondike International Highway. Final Environmental Assessment, Skagway to the Canadian Border. September 1973. Exhibit E, p.46. 12 (1) Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 1979, Haines-Skagway area Land Use Plan, Juneau, laska; (2) U.S. Forest Service. 1991, Tongass National Forest Proposed Revised Land and Resource lanagement Plan, Ketchikan, Alaska; (3) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service, 1986, orth American Wildlife Management Plan, Washington, D.C Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 39 FERC No. 11077-001 Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1994a. Application for License tor Major Unconstructed Project, Goat Lake Project FERC Project No. 11077 Table of Contents, Initial Statements, Exhibits A, E, FG. Port Townsend, Washington. May 31, 1994. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1994b. Application for License for Major Unconstructed Project, Goat Lake Project FERC Project No, 11077. Appendices | 13. Port Townsend, Washington. May 31. 1994 Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1994c. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Videw Project #11077. 12 minute video. Port Townsend, Washington. March 8 1994 Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995a, Additional information responses to AIR #1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19 and 22. Port Townsend, Washington, March 26, 1995. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995b. Additional information responses to AIR #4, 5,9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 (Enclosure 1 of 2) and 23, 24. 25-44 (Enclosure 2 of 2). Port Townsend, Washington. May 30, 1995. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995c. Additional information response to electrical load forecast. Port Townsend, Washington. April 6, 1995. 2 pp. with enclosures. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995d. Additional information response to project operational model. Port Townsend, Washington. April 5, 1995. 3 pp. with disketty and enclosure. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995e. Additional information response to visual impact analysis January, 1994) and I4pp. - supplemental visual impact analysis (September, 1994). Port Townsend, Washington. March 13, 1995, 29 pp Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995f. App! Army Permit (ENG Form 4345, Sept 91). J W/Exhibits, Figures, Coastal Project Questionr Statement. for Department of the . 1995 and Certification Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995g. Revisions to Exhibits A, BE, F and Go Port Townsend, Washington. April 27, 1995. Ambrose, R.E., R.J. Ritchie, C.M. White, P.F. Schempf, T. Swem, R. Dittrick. 1988 Changes in the status of peregrine falcon populations in Alaska. IN: Peregrine Draft Environmental Assessment - Goat Lake Hydroclectric Proget March 1996 40 FERC No. 1077-001 Falcon Populations-Their Management and Recovery, ed. T.J. Cade, J.H. Enderson, C.G. Thelander and C.M. White. The Peregrine Fund, Inc. Boise, Idaho. Ann Riley and Associates. 1995a. Official Transcript of Proceedings, In the Matter of: Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Scoping Meeting. Docket No. 11077-001. Vol. 1, No. 1, Thursday, June 22, 1995. Juneau, Alaska. 57 pp. with attachments. Ann Riley and Associates. 1995b. Official Transcript of Proceedings, In the Matter of: Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Scoping Meeting. Docket No. 11077-001. Vol. 1, No. 1, Tuesday, June 20, 1995. Skagway, Alaska. 62 pp. with attachments. Blaustein, Andrew R., Joseph J. Beatty, Deanna H. Olson, and Robert M. Storm. 1995. The biology of amphibians and reptiles in old-growth forests in the Pacific northwest. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-337. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon. 98 pp. Campbell, C. 1994. An archeological reconnaissance survey of sections of the Brackett Wagon Road and the remains of the scenic viewing station at Pitchfork Falls in conjunction with the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 11077. Ketchikan, Alaska. (also Alaska Power & Telephone Company, 1994, appendix 3). Chadwick, D.H. 1973. Mountain goat ecology -logging relationships in Bunker Creek drainage of western Montana. M.S. Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 260 pp. Crowley, David W. 1993. Breeding habitat of harlequin ducks in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Master of Science Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvalis, Oregon. December 9, 1993. 59 pp. with appendix. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service. 1995. Scoping Document 1, Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 11077-001. Washington, D.C. May 18, 1995. 24 pp. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service. 1994. Additional information requests to Alaska Power and Telephone Company, Port Townsend, Washington. December 15, 1994. 3 pp. with 34 questions. Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 41 FERC No. 11077-001 Hayes, M.P. and M. R. Jennings. 1986, De America: are bullfrogs (Rana cate: ine of ranid frog species in western Nowh ) responsible? J. Herpetology 2004490 509 Kuletz, Katherine J., Dennis K. Marks, Nancy L. Naslund, Niki G. Stevens Mary Bo Cody 1994, Information needs for habitat protection: Marbled murrelet habitat identification. Final Report, Restoration Project 93051B. U.S. Fish and Wildlile Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Migratory Bird Management. 544 pp: Land Design North. 1994. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project. Visual Impact Ancly sis Anchorage, Alaska. January 1994. 29 pp. Lesica, P. 1988. Report on the conservation status of Carex lenticularis var. dolia, a candidate threatened spe Montana Natural Heritage Pr m. Helena Montana. 40pp. with appendices. McGowan, J.D. 1975. Distribution, density, and productivity of goshawks in interior Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Final Report of Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-17-6. 30pp. National Park Service. 1987. Catalog of National Historic Landmarks. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. Olendorff, R.R., A.D. Miller, and R.N. Lehman. 1981. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines: the state of the art in 1981. Raptor Research Foundation Inc., Raptor Research Report No. 4. St. Paul, Minnesota. 111 pp Olendorff, R.R. and R.N. Lehman. 1986. Raptor collisions with using subjective field observations. Bureau of Land Mana Pacific Gas and Electric Company. February 1986. 73 pp. ty lines: an analysis nt. Prepared for Pacific Seabird Group. 1995. The Marbled Murrelet. A pamphlet of the Pacific Seabird Group. Seattle, Washington. August 1995. 4 pp. Palmer, R.S._ 1976. Handbook of North American Birds. Vol. 3. Yale University Press New Haven, Connecticut. 560 pp. Standley, L.A. 1985. Systematics of the Acutae group of Carex (Cyperaceae) in the Pacili Northwest. Systematic Botany Monographs Vol. 7. Suring, Lowell H., W. B. Dinneford, A. T. Doyle, R. W. Flynn, M. L. Orme, 1. W Schoen, L. C. Shea, E. L. Young. 1988. Habitat suitability model for mountain goats in southeast Alaska. unpubl. rept. September 13, 1988. 13 pp. with tables Draft Environmental Assessment a 7 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 42 FERC No. 11077-0001 ’ - Kiki Athanassiadis Paul F. Wilkinson & Associates Inc. 5800 Avenue Monkland Montreal, Quebec, Canada CN H4A1G-1 Suzanne Novak, Hydropower Coordinator USS. Forest Service Headquarters Auditors Building - 4 South 201 14th Street, SW Washington, D.C. Skagway Air Service, Inc. P.O. Box 357 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Regional Director US. Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 State of Alaska, Director Division of Environmental Quality PO Box D Juneau, Alaska 99811 Bob Engelbrecht, Inc. Temsco Helicopters, Inc. 1650 Maptesden Way Juncau, Alaska 99801 State of Alaska Commissioner Alaska Department of Public Safety 45 Whittier Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Tim Smith, SHPO Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 107001 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7001 State of Alaska Director Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Land & Water Mgmt. P.O. Box 107005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Anna True ~ P.O, Box 414 “Skagway, Alaska 99840-0414 Scoping Document 2 September 1995 Bill Garry, Regional Manager Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Southeast Region 400 Willoughby Avenue - 3rd Floor Juneau, Alaska 99801 Karla Hart Alaska Rainforest Tours 369 S. Franklin Street Suite 200 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Joel R. Ward, Chicf Southern Unit Permit Processing Section Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Engincering District, Alaska P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898 Harold Seitz Chief Hydrologist USS. Geological Survey Juncau Field Headquarters P.O. Box 21568 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Clarence "Al" Bolin USS, Burcau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region 1150 North Curtis Road Boise, Idaho 83707 State of Alaska Alaska Office of the Attorney Gencral Pouch K Juneau, Alaska 99811 Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Administration P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802 R.A Stephens P.O. Box 266 Skagway, Alaska 99840-0266 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project 1S FERC No. 11077-001 SCOPING DOCUMENT 2 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 1.0 INTRODUCTION On May 31, 1994, Alaska Power and Telephone Company (Alaska Power) filed a license application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 11077-001). The project would be a seasonal peaking facility having a capacity of 4 megawatts (MW). The purpose of the project would be to generate renewable power for use in Skagway, Alaska, to replace diesel-powered electric generation facilities, as well as . supplement existing hydropower at Dewey Lakes. The project would be located on Pitchfork Falls, about 7 miles northeast of the town of Skagway (Figure 1). Pitchfork Falls is a tributary to the Skagway River, which originates in Canada and generally flows southward to Taiya Inlet, adjacent to the city of Skagway. Most of the project occupies lands of the United States within the Tongass National Forest and ig managed by the U.S. Forest Service (FS). The Commission, under the authority of the Federal Power Act (FPA)', may issue original licenses for up to 50 years for the construction, operation, and maintenance of nonfederal hydroelectric developments, Under the Commission’s regulations, issuing an original license for the project first requires preparation of either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality’s guidelines, 40 CFR Part 1500. To ensure that hydroelectric projects are operated in a manner to protect and effectively use National Forest System lands and resources, the FS must decide what limitations and conditions to include in a Special-Use Permit (SUP) if the Commission issues a license for the project. The FS intends to use the EA to guide its decision to issue mandatory license conditions pursuant to section 4(e) of the FPA and to issue the SUP authorization under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The SUP would authorize occupancy and use of National Forest System lands for hydropower produétion and would include those requirements necessary for comprehensive and 1 USC. Sect. 791(a)-825(1) Scoping Document 2 September 1995 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project 1 FERC No. 11077-001 John Palmes Alaska Department of Fish and Game Southeast Regional Office Habitat and Restoration Division P.O. Box 240020 Douglas, Alaska 99824-0020 U.S. Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary Main Interior Building, MS 2340 1849 C Strect, NW Washington,DC 20240 J. M. Matthews P.O. Box 404 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Skagway Public Library Box 394 Skagway, Alaska 99840 John Harmening Hydropower Coordinator US. Forest Seivive Regional Office P.O. Box 21628 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1628 Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. Ecology & Conservation Office 14th & Constitution Ave., NW Room 6222 Washington, D.C. 20230 Dennis Bousson P.O. Box 212 Skagway, Alaska 99840 U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20240 Alaska Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection 57K) E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Hydro Site Database (Key) RMGB Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97208 Nancy Schave P.O. Box 231 Skagway, Alaska 998409 Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest 204 Siginaka Way Sitka, Alaska 99811 Mollie J. Dent, Director Sicrra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc. 325 Fourth Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Judith E. Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer Alaska Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Avenue Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1724 Honorable Senator Ted Stevens Washington,DC 20515 Hydropower Coordinator USS. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Mark Saldj P.O. Box 287 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Patty Kirchoff, Director Sicrra Club, Juncau Group 11678 Auke Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Director Alaska Public Utilities Commission 1016 West Sixth Avenue Suite 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Davis Syren 1004 Beech Lane Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Scoping Document 2 September 1995 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project 16 FERC No. 1107-001 ‘ " ' Pee ‘ / 4 J z Scale tin » about 80 miles e Bering Sea Gulf of Alaska PROJECT is y site fae Skagway! Ss " Auin - oy Provincial Figure 1. Location of the Proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project In Southeast Alaska Scoping Document 2 September 1995 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project 2 FERC No. 11077-001 $.2.3 5.2.5 5.2.6 Whether project drawdowns would limit Arctic grayling access to spawning streams entering Goat Lake, should a population become successfully established Terrestrial Resources Whether the design and placement of the proposed 3,400-foat-long above- ground transmission line would comply with accepted power line raptor protection practices Whether existing riparian and wetland habitats would be affected by project construction and operation, and if mitigation measures are needed to protect these important habitats Whether construction of the project would affect wildlife, particularly mountain goats in the higher elevations ‘Threatened and Endangered Species Whether project construction and operation would affect threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive species including the peregrine falcon, marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and a sedge, Carex lenticutaris var. dolia Aesthetic Resources Whether the proposed flow regime at Pitchfork Falls would have a visual effect as viewed from the highway pulloff and the railroad corridor Whether project facilities, such as penstack, transmission line, tram, and buildings, would have aesthetic effects Whether project facilities would have a visual effect an the Brackett Wagon Road Complex, Skagway Historie District, and White Pass National Historic Landmark Cultural Resources Whether the project would affect archeological and historical sites in the Skagway Historic District and White Pass National Historic Landmark and other areas Scoping Document 2 September 1995 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project il FERC No, 11077-001 i = < a 53 < = Ow 2 o> z Szz a<s 5 2 a 2 5 * 3s 3 nae ge 3 x IN 2 $ 3 wn 7 z 3 2 ii 3 a +—| 2 z e a z 2 w = ei ; 8 § a é $ tt = Bl. wi 5 = mel | O o ae a 2 sens & 3 ai | 5 3 : 8 oO no s 3 = é a < XG BE ° ao BRN 2\. 28 & s oS #£& we goo ' & c 2 & /\2gz nou ‘ 8 ge 9! Fee Zug § a SE BE BERN EES & ES WOH i Scoping Document 2 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project September 1995 5 FERC No. 1107-001 5.2.7 Recreation 9 Whether stocking of Arctic grayling in Goat Lake would encourage recreational fishing, and what effect lowering of the lake level during project operation would have on shoreline access 5.2.8 Sociveconomics ° Whether project development would affect existing sightseeing opportunities, such as Pitchfork Falls, and the value of private property or businesses ° Whether construction of this original project would affect socioeconomics of the area, such as jobs, local economy, value of private properties and businesses, and services such as schools and housing 5.2.9 Engineering ° How any proposed mitigation, enhancement, and protection measures would affect project economics 6.0 DRAFT EA OUTLINE The tentative outline for the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project EA is as follows: SUMMARY L APPLICATION ue PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION A Purpose of Action B Need for Power A. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. Alaska Power's Proposal Hi Project Description and Operation 2 Proposed Environmental Measures 2 Mandatory Requirements a 4(e) Conditions 6. Section 18 Fishway Prescription Scoping Document 2 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project September 1995 12 The project would consist of constructing: (1) a 14-foot-wide uncontrolled spillway to replace the present notched spillway located about 300 feet away; (2) a submerged wedgewire screen intake having a mechanically operated trash rake for cleaning, positioned at elevation 2,875 feet NGVD; (3) a 30-inch-diameter, 600-foot-long steel or high density polyethylene chloride pipe having a siphon vacuum pump assembly within a 12-foot by 12-foot pump house; (4) a 10-foot by 18-foot metal building containing a pumpback/valve station; (5) an 8-foot-high by 25-foot-long concrete retaining wall with a 14-foot-wide spillway (elevation 2,876 foot NGVD) forming a 0.014- acre-foot storage catchbasin adjacent to the pumpback station; (6) a 6,200-foot-long, 22- inch-diameter steel penstock; (7) a single level, 30-foot by 40-foot powerhouse containing one horizontal twin jet Pelton turbine unit with a generating capacity of 4 MW and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 32 cubic feet per second (cfs); (8) a small substation having a pad-mounted step-up transformer, automatic recloser, and transmission line dead-end structure would be adjacent to the powerhouse; and (9) a 24.9-kilavolt (kV) aerial transmission line about 3,400 feet long, on wooden poles aligned along the west aerial tra ting near thé eid ofa propos from the Klondike Highway (Figure 2); 41:1 Proposed Project Operation The proposed project would be situated in a perched cirque valley that has a drainage basin of about 4.2 square-miles. Goat Lake is very deep and drains about 50 percent of a glacial moraine located at its south end. The natural outlet of the lake flows through a 5-foot-wide notch in the bedrock that provides the major source of water -to the falls below. The remainder of the moraine runoff bypasses the lake and flows into a small pond located about 600 feet below the lake outlet before entering Pitchfork Falls, Alaska Power proposes to automatically operate the project. They plan to use the normal water outfall from Goat Lake to generate power. Also, they propose to draft Goat Lake to supplement inflow ta the lake to generate power during periods of low runoff or high energy demands. The normal water surface elevation of Goat Lake is 2,915 feet NGVD and Alaska Power proposes to limit lake drawdown to 30 feet. On Figure 3 we compare the typical Goat Lake water surface elevation with the proposed project to the normal existing water surface elevation in the lake without the project, Seoping Dacument 2 September 1995 6 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No, 11077-001 FERC No. 11077-001 U.S. Department of the Interior. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, Proposed Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 225, November 21, 1991. Part 17. pp. 58804-58836. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1993. Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of Review. Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 188, September 30, 1993. Part 17. pp. 51144-51190. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Title 50 (Wildlife and Fisheries), Part 17, Subpart B, §17.11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 20, 1994, 42 pp. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Advance notice of a proposal to remove the American peregrine falcon from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Proposed Rules, FR, Vol. 60, No. 126, Friday, June 30, 1995. U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Environmental Assessment for Helicopter Landing Tours in the Skagway and Haines Area. Department of Agriculture, and Department of Interior, Juneau, Alaska. May 1995. SSpp. with maps. U.S. Forest Service. 1991a. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision - Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Parts | and 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Alaska Region. R10-MB-149, August 1991. 7 chapters with appendices. U.S. Forest Service. 1991b. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision - Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed Revised Forest Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Alaska Region. R10-MB-146, August 1991. 7 chapters with appendices. 511 pp. Waters, Dana L. 1992. Habitat associations, phenology, and biogrography of amphibians in the Stikine River basin and southeast Alaska. A report to the 1991 pilot project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arcata, California. May 28, 1992. 61 pp. XIII. LIST OF PREPARERS Carl J. Keller -- Commission Environmental Coordinator, Terrestrial Resources, Threatened and Endangered Species (Wildlife Biologist; M.S., Wildlife Biology) Draft Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 43 FERC No. 11077-001 Margaret Beilharz -- FS Environmental Coordinator (Hydrologist: BLS). Beosy stems Management) Nan Allen -- Aquatic Resources (Fishery Biologist; M.S., Biology) John Costello -- Visual Resources, Recreation and Other Land Uses. Socioeconomics (Landscape Architect; BLA, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning) Gaylord Y. Hoisington -- Geological Resources (Soil Conservationist: B.S. Recreation) J. Tim Looney -- Developmental Resources (Civil Engineer, B.S.. Civil Engineering) Charlene Scott -- Developmental Resources (Civil Engineer, M.S... Civil Engineering) Edwin Slatter -- Cultural Resources (Archeologist; Ph.D., Anthropology) Draft Environmental Assessment Oe Goat Lake Uydroclectric Projeat March 1996 44 FERC No. 11077-0001 Ted and Lucille Tidwell P.O. 473 Skagway, Alaska 99840-0473 Andy Egen P.O. Box 1253 Haines, Alaska 99827 Mr. Lana Shea Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 240020 Douglas, Alaska 99824 Richard Reed Alaska Departmnent of Fish and Game P.O, Box 240020 Douglas, Alaska 99824 Susan Vitera Alaska Dept. of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box 110030 \Juncau, Alaska 99811-0030 Bartlett Henderson Chilkat Guides, LTD. P.O. Box 170 Haines, Alaska 99827 Paul Taylor White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad P.O. Box Box 435 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Nancy Berland P.O. Box 9 Skagway, Alaska 99840 John Beierly Box 164 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Frank Wasmer P. O. Box 231 Skagway; Alaska 99840 Carlin Donahue P.O. Box 565 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Scoping Document 2 September 1995 Gary Heger P.O. Box 564 Skagway, Alaska 99840-0564 Sioux Plummer P.O. Box 500 Skagway, Alaska 99840-0500 Stan Leaphart Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Federal Areas 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Amy Firmin Skagway News P.O. Box 1898 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Dave McCargo American Wildlands P.O. Box 100767 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Patty Glackin Haines Chamber of Commerce Haines, Alaska 99827 Bob Ward Skagway Convention & Visitors Bureau P.O. Box 415 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Philip Gray 4410 North Douglas Highway Juneau, Alaska 99801 Shawn Olson P.O. Box 336 Skagway, Alaska 99840 J.J. Whitmore P.O. Box 250 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Jane Bell P.O, Box 742 Haines, Alaska 99827 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project 19 FERC No. 11077-001 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20426 DATE: SEP 27 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: _ The Party Addressed FROM: John H. Clements eae Director, Division of Project Review SUBJECT: Scoping Document 2 for the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11077-001, Skagway, Alaska No. 11077-001, Environmental As: Scoping Document 2 for the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC sment (EA) is enclosed for your information. Scoping meetings were held on June 20 and 22, 1995, to solicit comments on the project’s EA. After reviewing comments, we revised the May 18, 1995, Scoping Document. Additions are made with shaded type. The Commission and U.S. Forest Service will soon be jointly preparing the EA. Based on the outline and issues in Scoping Document 2, we expect to issue the draft EA in January 1996. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Carl Keller of FERC in Washington, D.C. at (202) 219-2831 or Ms. Margaret Beilharz of the FS in Juneau, Alaska at (907) 586-8800. Enclosure: Scoping Document 2 - Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Dave Herbig Fred Beake P.O. Box 434 P.O. Box 17 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Scott Logan Judy Selmer P.O. Box 271 Box 463 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Peter Grunwaldt Guy W. Self Regency Alaska Tours P.O. Box 378 109 West 6th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99840 Skagway, Alaska 99840-0378 Judy Shuler THON FICHE Alaska Close Up Box 1070 P.O. Box 32666 Craig, Alaska’ Juneau, Alaska 99803 Mike Ronan Riindy Bricksen Royal Carribean Cruises Lid. P.O, Box:330 1050 Carribean Way Haines, Alaska 99827 Miami, Florida 33132 Lisa Ann Cassidy Joanne Korsmo P.O. Box 153 P.O. Box 245 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Skagway, Alaska 99840 David MeLeilat Canadian Embassy Washington, D.C, 20001 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Sheryl Denis” is Tom Kelly Box 233 ee 2072 Victoria Avenue’ Skagway, Alaska 99840 “Port Townsend, Washington :-98368 George Minjie: Sué Tinney Box 464. 2112A Secoiid Siteet Skagway, Alasks Douglas, Alaska 99824 Bladevon Reed © ‘Terry. Stone Box 493. eee US. Army Corps Or Biigitieets Skagway, Alaska » 99840 a Alaska District Suite 106, Jordan Creek Center Rober K) Oa" es 8800 Glacier Highway Chief, Regulatory Branch. Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 501 Pennsylvania Avenue NW CENPA-CO:R, P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506-08998 Juneau, Alaska’ 99801 Scoping Document 2 September 1995 20 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 SCOPING DOCUMENT 2 GOAT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 11077-001 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing Washington, D.C. USS. Forest Service Juneau Ranger District Juneau, Alaska September 1995 =a 2a DAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Alaska Power and Telephone ) Project No. 11077-001 Company ) NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (May 22, 1996) In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission’s) 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 (Cll tite wpnemereomete-zendas, located on Pitchfork Falls, about 7 miles from the town of Skagway, in southeast Alaska. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Forest Service have prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the project which analyzes existing and potential future environmental effects of the project. Our conclusion is that license issuance for the project, with appropriate environmental protective or enhancement measures, would not be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environ- ment. Copies of the FEA are available for review in the Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, of the Commission’s offices at 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426. Lois D. Cashell Secretary DC-A-35 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300 U.S. OF rIGIAL MAIL PENALTY FOR HAY 26°96) se ta00 Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority -~LASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOF :NT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 96-5 RESOLUTION OF THE ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY EXPRESSING OFFICIAL INTENT TO ISSUE BONDS TO FINANCE THE FACILITIES DESCRIBED HEREIN AND DETERMINING RELATED MATTERS. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Identification of Borrower and Project. The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (the "Authority") is adopting this Resolution with respect to the project described in Exhibit A (the "Project") at the request of the individual or entity described in Exhibit A (the "Borrower"). Section 2. Official Intent. The Authority is adopting this Resolution to satisfy the "official intent" requirements of Section 1.150-2 of the regulations adopted under the authority of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the "Code") with respect to the Project. For this purpose, Exhibit A includes a general description of the Project and a statement of the maximum principal amount of bonds the Authority reasonably expects to issue to finance costs of the Project (the "Bonds"). The Authority intends to use the proceeds of the Bonds to finance costs of the Project, and certain other costs, which are eligible under the Code for financing with proceeds of tax-exempt bonds (the "Eligible Costs"). This Resolution is adopted on the date set forth below, and the Eligible Costs incurred up to 60 days before that date will be eligible for reimbursement with proceeds of the Bonds. As of the date set forth below, and subject to the conditions described in Section 3 below, the Authority reasonably expects that it will issue the Bonds and use the proceeds of the Bonds as described in this section. Section 3. Memorandum of Agreement. A form of a Memorandum of Agreement is attached. The Memorandum of Agreement describes certain conditions that must be satisfied prior to the issuance of the Bonds. Issuance of the Bonds by the Authority shall require additional resolutions of this Board. The Executive Director is authorized to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Borrower substantially in the form attached. Adopted this 21st day of May 1996. ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY Wate [ye Chairman “dd. 2 ) Secretary EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project Number 11077) is a hydroelectric power project that will provide electricity within the City of Skagway, Alaska. The project will include a siphon intake and siphon, spill route, pumpback/valve station, penstock, powerhouse, transmission line, and other facilities for the generation and furnishing of electricity. The location of the project is Goat Lake near Skagway, Alaska. BORROWER: Goat Lake Hydro, Inc. MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF BONDS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED: $10,000,000 AIDEA/Goat Lake Project Eligibility Resolution No. 96-5 AFF0514D/3730.0006 Page 2 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT This Memorandum of Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into between the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (the "Authority") and the entity whose signature appears below (the "Company" and, together with the Authority, the "Parties"). PURPOSE The Authority has adopted a resolution (the "Resolution") expressing its intention to issue bonds (the "Bonds") to finance certain costs of the Company’s project described in Exhibit A. The Resolution states that the Authority’s intention to issue the Bonds depends upon satisfaction of the conditions stated in this Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth minimal conditions which must be satisfied before the Authority will make a final determination whether to issue the Bonds or to provide any other form of financial assistance with respect to the Project (the issuance of the Bonds and the providing of any other form of financial assistance being hereafter referred to collectively as the "Financial Assistance"). The Parties mutually understand and agree that neither the Resolution nor this Agreement creates any obligation on the part of the Authority to provide any Financial Assistance even if the minimal conditions set forth in this Agreement are met. The final determination to provide any Financial Assistance will be made by the Authority's Board of Directors and will depend upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth in this Agreement and upon the facts and circumstances in existence at the time such determination is made. FINANCING DOCUMENTS Before the Authority will determine whether to provide any Financial Assistance, the Parties must agree upon the form that the financing documents will take. The form may be a loan agreement, a lease agreement, or another form agreed to by the Parties. In all events, the financing documents must provide for sufficient payments from the revenues of the Project, from the Company, or from any other source identified in the financing documents sufficient to provide for payment of principal and interest with respect to the Bonds when and as due and for payment of all costs associated with the issuance of the Bonds (or, if the Financial Assistance takes a form other than the issuance of Bonds, to provide for reimbursement for the Financial Assistance when and as due) based upon the terms agreed to by the Parties or upon terms determined in accordance with procedures agreed to by the Parties. The financing documents must also provide for (1) the assignment of security interests in the Project and other security for the reimbursement of the Financial Assistance satisfactory to the Authority and (2) if applicable, a schedule for the completion of the Project and closing of the Financial Assistance. CREDIT REVIEW The Authority shall conduct a credit review of the Project and the Company to determine the creditworthiness of each. Upon reasonable request from the Authority, the Company shall provide information and materials requested by the Authority in connection with such credit review. DUE DILIGENCE The Company will cooperate with the Authority in providing, or causing to be provided, all information that may be necessary or desirable, as identified by the Authority, to enable the Authority to determine whether to provide the Financial Assistance or to enable the Authority to provide material information about the Company in any offering document that may be prepared in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. EXPIRATION OF AGREEMENT The Parties shall make reasonable and good faith efforts to determine mutually agreeable terms for the Financial Assistance, including the form of the financing documents; the principal amount, interest rate, maturity, and other terms relating to any loan from the Authority to the Company; and the form of security to be provided. The Parties shall determine the mutually agreeable terms for the Financial Assistance within one year after the date of this Agreement set forth below or such later date as the Parties may mutually agree upon. If the Parties fail to determine mutually agreeable terms for the Financial Assistance within the time established in the preceding paragraph, the Company will immediately reimburse the Authority for all reasonable and necessary expenses which the Authority may incur arising from the execution of this Agreement and the perfor- mance by the Authority of its obligations hereunder. PROCEEDINGS Upon reaching mutually agreeable terms and satisfying the preceding provisions of this Agreement, each of the Parties agrees that it will promptly initiate appropriate steps to cause its governing body (which, in the case of the Authority, is its board of directors) to determine whether to grant final approval for the Financial Assistance and any documentation and other undertakings appropriate in connection with the Financial Assistance. If the respective governing bodies grant final approval, the Parties shall agree to a closing date for the Financial Assistance at which time the financing documents will be executed. AIDEA/Goat Lake Project Memorandum of Agreement AFF0514E/3730.0006 Page 2 The Parties have entered into this Agreement this 21st day of___ May 1996. The individuals whose signatures appear below are authorized to sign this Agreement on behalf of the Party indicated. ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY ATTEST: ty Director-Credit GOAT LAKE HYDRO, INC. Hhword Gorn’, kneeufive Vil, AIDEA/Goat Lake Project Memorandum of Agreement AFF0514E/3730.0006 Page 3 =a. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ROUTING CODE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 x - OFFICIAL BUSINESS ‘ PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 101479 77 NT RE p-11077 GNELL_EX. DL WILLTAM Re pay AUTHORITY ALASKA ENS Anor ROAD 480 3 g 99503 JUL 25°96 CTOR U.S. UFriGiAL MaiL PENALTY For PRIVATE USE $300 * PB naven ) Dvm 5 eA. 3) Stan 2 x, ~~. 76 PERCS 62,039 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Alaska Power and Telephone ) Project No. 11077-001 Company ORDER ISSUING LICENSE (Major Project) (Issued July 15, 1996) On May 31, 1994, the Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP&T) filed, pursuant to Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA) ,1/ an application for a major license to construct, operate and maintain the 4-megawatt (MW) Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project No. 11077 (Goat Lake Project), to be located on Pitchfork Falls, near the town of Skagway, in the First Judicial District n southeast Alaska. The project would occupy about 270 acres of he Tongass National Forest. Notice of the application has been published. No one has objected to issuance of this license. Comments received from interested agencies and individuals have been fully considered in determining whether to issue this license. The staff issued a draft environmental assessment (EA), jointly prepared with the Forest Service (FS), for this project on March 11, 1996. Comments on the draft EA were filed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, AP&T, and the National Park Service. Their concerns were considered in preparing the final EA for this project, which was issued on May 22, 1996, and is attached to and made part of this license order. The staff also completed a Safety and Design Assessment on May 9, 1996, which is available in the Commission’s public file for this project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project would consist of a 14-foot-wide, 125-foot-long spillway to replace the existing natural lake outlet which would be filled in, a submerged wedgewire screen intake assembly in Goat Lake, a 600-foot-long siphon pipe attached to a vacuum pump ssembly within a siphon pump house, a pumpback station (a metal uilding with two 30-horsepower pumps connected to a 14-inch- -iameter pipe for returning water to the lake), a 6,200-foot-long steel penstock extending from the pumpback station to the powerhouse, a powerhouse with an installed capacity of 4 MW, a small substation, a 3,400-foot-long transmission line, and other 1/16 U.S.C. §§ 791a-825r. DC-A-49 Project No. 11077-001 2 appurtenances. A detailed project description is contained in ordering paragraph B(2). WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION On September 1, 1994, AP&T applied to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (Alaska DEC) for water quality certification for the Goat Lake Project, as required by Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) 2/. The Alaska DEC received this request on September 6, 1994. By letter dated October 3, 1994, the Alaska DEC waived certification for the project. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM On August 18, 1994, AP&T applied to the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (Alaska DGC) for a consistency determination of the project with the coastal zone management program (CZMP). On September 6, 1994, the Alaska DGC acknowledged receipt of AP&T’s certification request. On November 27, 1995, the Alaska DGC certified that the Goat Lake Project was consistent with the Alaska CZMP and also with the Skagway Coastal Management Plan. No conditions or stipulations were included. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Section 10(a) (2) (A) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 803(a) (2) (A), requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. 3/ Under Section 10(a) (2) (A), federal and state agencies filed 23 plans that address various resources in Alaska. Of these, the staff identified and reviewed three 2/ 33 U.S.C. §1341(a) (1). 3/ Comprehensive plans for this purpose are defined at 18 C.P.R. § 2.29 (1995). Project No. 11077-001 2 comprehensive plans that are relevant to this project. 4/ No conflicts were found. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES Section 10(j) (1) of the FPA 5/ requires the Commission to include license conditions, based on recommendations of federal and state fish and wildlife agencies submitted pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 6/ for the protection of, mitigation of adverse impacts to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife. No federal or state fish and wildlife agency recommendations were filed for the project in response to our notice that the application was ready for environmental analysis. “SCTION 4(e) FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS Section 4(e) of the FPA, 7/ requires that Commission licenses for projects located within United States reservations must include all conditions that the Secretary of the department under whose supervision the reservation falls shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservation. The project occupies land of the Tongass National Forest, which is under the FS supervision. By letter dated June 17, 1996, the FS submitted its comments on the proposed project and its conditions for inclusion in any license. 8/ The FS’s 4/ (1). Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 1979, Haines- Skagway Area Land Use Plan, Juneau, Alaska; (2) U.S. Forest Service, 1991, Tongass National Forest Proposed Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Ketchikan, Alaska; (3) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service, 1986, North American Wildlife Management Plan, Washington, D.C. 5/16 U.S.C. §803(5) (1). 6/ 16 U.S.C. §661 et seq. 7/ 16.0.8.C. §797(e). / In summary, the Forest Service's conditions are: Condition No. 1 - Requirement to Obtain a FS Special-Use Authorization Condition No. 2 - FS Approval of Final Design Condition No. 3 - Approval of Changes After Initial Construction Condition No. 4 - Consultation Condition No. 5 - Minimum Streamflow Regime Project No. 11077-001 4 conditions are included in this license as Articles 101 through 112. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT Sections 4(e) and 10(a) (1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 797(e) and 803(a) (1), require the Commission, in acting on applications for license, to give equal consideration to the power and development purposes and to purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife, the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. Any license issued shall be such as in the Commission's judgment will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses. The decision to license this project, and the terms and conditions included herein, reflect such consideration. In the EA, the staff examined the proposed project including AP&T’s proposed mitigation measures and the no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative the project would not be built. Therefore, there would be no changes to the physical, biological, or cultural resources of the area. The generation that the proposed project would provide would not occur. The recommended (preferred) option the staff selected is to issue a license for the project as proposed by AP&T, including their proposed mitigation. The final FS section 4(e) conditions have been incorporated into the staff's preferred alternative. The staff recommend this option because: (1) the net benefits of the project outweigh the consequences associated with taking no action; (2) issuance of an original hydropower license would allow AP&T to construct and operate the project as a small but dependable source of electrical energy for its customers; (3) the project would meet the increasing demand for electric power in Skagway and avoid the need for an equivalent amount of fossil- fuel-fired, electric generation and capacity, thereby continuing to help conserve these nonrenewable energy resources and reduce atmospheric pollution; and (4) the proposed environmental measures by AP&T would protect or mitigate the soil, vegetative, Condition No. 6 - Guaranteed Priority Flow Bypass Device Condition No. 7 - Visual Resource Protection Plan Condition No. 8 - Erosion Control Plan Condition No. 9 - Solid Waste and Waste Water Plan Condition No. 10 - Hazardous Substance Plan Condition No. 11 - Cultural Resource Protection Condition No. 12 - Wildlife Mitigation Plan : 1 i + - ~~... Project No. 11077-001 5 wildlife, aesthetic, and cultural/historic resources in the Skagway River Valley. The staff concluded, and I-concur, that issuance of a new license for the Goat Lake Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In determining whether a proposed project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for developing a waterway for beneficial public purposes, pursuant to Section 10(a) (1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 803(a) (1), the Commission considers a number of public interest factors, including the projected economic benefits of project power. Under the Commission’s new approach to evaluating the economics of hydropower projects, as articulated in Mead forporation, Publishing Paper Division, 9/ the Commissiot mploys an analysis that uses current costs to compare the costs ‘£ the project and likely alternative power with no forecasts concerning potential future inflation, escalation, or deflation beyond the license issuance date. The basic purpose of the Commission’s economic analysis is to provide a general estimate of the potential power benefits and the costs of a project, and reasonable alternatives to project power. The estimate helps to support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest with respect to a proposed license. Based on current economic conditions, without future escalation or inflation, and assuming AP&T’s mid-load forecast, the proposed Goat Lake Project would provide an average of 9.7 GWh of energy annually, at an annual cost of about $952,000 (98 mills/kWh) or about $182,000 (18.8 mills/kWh) less than the current cost of an equivalent amount of power using alternative power resources (diesel-fuel powered generators for the Skagway area). Based on the staff’s review of the agency and public comments filed on this project, my review of staff's evaluation of the environmental and economic effects of the proposed project and its alternatives, and our analysis pursuant to Section 10(a) (1) of the FPA, I find that the Goat Lake Project will be best adapted to comprehensive development of the Pitchfork Falls or beneficial public uses. 9/ 72 FERC § 61,027 (1995). Project No. 11077-001 6 TERM OF LICENSE Section 6 of the FPA 10/ states that licenses under Part I of the FPA shall be issued for a period not to exceed 50 years. Because the Goat Lake Project involves an original license with substantial new construction, the license is issued for a period of 50 years. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Background information, analysis of impacts, support for related license articles, and the basis for a finding of no significant impact on the environment are contained in the final EA. Issuance of this license is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The design of this project is consistent with the engineering standards governing dam safety. The project will be safe if constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the requirements of this license. Analysis of related issues is provided in the S&DA. I conclude that the project will not conflict with any planned or authorized development, and will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for development of the waterway for beneficial public uses. THE DIRECTOR ORDERS: (A) A license is issued to the Alaska Power and Telephone Company (licensee), for a period of 50 years, effective the first day of the month in which this order is issued, to construct, operate, and maintain the Goat Lake Project No. 11077. This license is subject to the terms and conditions of the Federal Power Act (FPA), which is incorporated by reference as part of this license, and to the regulations the Commission issues under the provisions of the FPA. (B) The Goat Lake Project No. 11077 consists of: (1) All lands, to the extent of the licensee’s interests in those lands, enclosed by the project boundary shown by Exhibit G: 10/ 16 U.S.C. § 799. Project No. 11077-001 7 Exhibit G- FERC No. 11077- Showing 7 i Land Status and Project Location g 2 Facility Location and Project Boundary 5 a Wetland Inventory (2) Project works consisting of: (a) a 125-foot-long spillway to replace the existing natural lake outlet which would be filled in; (b) a submerged intake assembly positioned in Goat Lake at elevation 2,875 feet mean sea level (msl) with a mechanically operated trash rake for cleaning; (c) a 30-inch- diameter, 600-foot-long steel or high density polyethylene ‘hloride siphon pipe attached to a vacuum pump assembly within a 2-foot by 12-foot siphon pump house; (d) a pumpback/valve station consisting of a 10-foot by 18-foot metal building with two 30-horsepower pumps connected to a 14-inch-diameter pipe for returning water to the lake; 11/ (e) an 8-foot-high, 25-foot- long concrete retaining wall with a 14-foot-wide spillway (elevation 2,876 feet msl) forming a 0.014-acre-foot storage catchbasin located in a portion of the existing pond; (f) a 6,200-foot-long, 22-inch-diameter steel penstock extending from the pumpback station to the powerhouse; (g) a powerhouse containing one horizontal twin jet Pelton turbine unit with a generating capacity of 4 MW and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 32 cubic feet per second (cfs); (h) a small substation with a pad-mounted step-up transformer, automatic recloser, and’ transmission line dead-end structure adjacent to the powerhouse; (i) a 3,400-foot-long, 24.9-kilovolt (kV) aerial transmission line on wooden poles extending from the substation, across the Skagway River to the Customs Border Station where it interties with AP&T’s existing 24.9-kV transmission line to Skagway; (j) a single cable, 500-foot-long aerial tram originating near the end of a 1,000-foot-long access road within a 60-foot-wide right-of- way to the Klondike International Highway to provide access to the project; and (k) other appurtenances. The project works generally described above are more 11/ The proposed 30-inch siphon pipe and 14-inch water return pipe would be laid in the existing 5-foot-wide natural lake outlet before it is filled. Project No. 11077-001 8 specifically described in Sections 3.1 to 3.11 of Exhibit A of the application and shown by Exhibit F: Exhibit F- FERC No. 11077- win z 4 Site Plan did S Geology Site Plan 2 6 Penstock Profile Blend. 7 Headworks Plan aia! 8 Pumpback and Valve House Plan View mec | 9 Pumpback Catchbasin Profile 4.1 10 Siphon Details 4.2 a Intake Screen 4.3 12 Siphon Intake 4.4 a2 Intake Cleaning Blade Details 53) 14 Penstock Supports 5.2 a5 Penstock Railroad Crossing 6 16 Powerhouse Site Plan 7 a7 Powerhouse Floor Plan 8 18 Powerhouse Section al 19 Tram and Access Road Plan View 9.2 20 Tram Profile S.3 21 Tram Passenger Car (3) All of the structures, fixtures, equipment, or facilities used to operate or maintain the project and located within the project boundary, all portable property that may be used in connection with the project and located within or outside the project boundary, and all riparian or other rights that are necessary or appropriate in the operation or maintenance of the project. a... Project No. 11077-001 9 (C) Those sections of Exhibit A and Exhibits F and G described above are approved and made part of the license for the Goat Lake Project No. 11077. (D) The license for the Goat Lake Project No. 11077 is subject to the articles set forth in Form L-2, entitled "Terms and Conditions of License for Unconstructed Major Project Affecting Lands of the United States" (October 1995), and to the following articles. Articles 101 through 112 were submitted by the FS under Section 4(e) of the FPA. Article 101. Within six months following the date of issuance of this license and before starting any activities the Forest Service (FS) determines to be of a land-disturbing nature, the licensee shall obtain from the FS a special-use authorization for the occupancy and use of National Forest System (NFS) lands, and shall file that authorization with the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing. The licensee may commence land-disturbing activities uthorized by the license and special-use authorization 60 days following the filing date of such authorization, unless the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, prescribes a different commencement schedule. Notwithstanding the authorizations granted under the Federal Power Act, NFS lands within the project boundaries shall be managed by the FS under the laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the NFS. The terms and conditions of the FS special-use authorization are enforceable by the FS under the laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the NFS. The violation of such terms and conditions also shall be subject to applicable sanctions and enforcement procedures of the Commission at the request of the FS. In the event there is a conflict between any provisions of the license and FS special-use authorization, the special-use authorization shall prevail on matters which the FS deems to affect NFS resources. Article 102. Before any construction of the project occurs on National Forest System (NFS) land, the licensee shall obtain the prior written approval of the Forest Service (FS) for all final design plans for project components which the FS deems as affecting or potentially affecting NFS resources. The licensee ~hall follow the schedules and procedures for design review and pproval specified in the FS special-use authorization. As part f£ such prior written approval, the FS may require adjustments in final plans and facility locations to preclude or mitigate impacts and to assure that the project is compatible with on-the- ground conditions. Should such necessary adjustments be deemed by the FS, the Commission, or the licensee to be a substantial change, the licensee shall follow the procedures of Article 2 (Form L-2) of the license. Any changes to the license made for Project No. 11077-001 10 any reason pursuant to Article 2 or Article 3 (Form L-2) shall be made subject to any new terms and conditions of the Secretary of Agriculture made pursuant to section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act. Article 103. Notwithstanding any Commission approval or license provisions to make changes to the project, the licensee shall get written approval from the Forest Service (FS) prior to making any changes in the location of any constructed project features or facilities, or in the uses of project lands and waters, or any departure from the requirements of any approved exhibits filed with the Commission. Following receipt of such approval from the FS, and at least 60 days prior to initiating any such changes or departure, the licensee shall file a report with the Commission describing the changes, the reasons for the changes, and showing the approval of the FS for such changes. The licensee shall file an exact copy of this report with the FS at the same time it is filed with the Commission. This article does not relieve the licensee from the amendment or other requirements of Article 2 (Form L-2) or Article 3 (Form L-2) of this license. Article 104. Each year during the 60 days preceding the anniversary date of the license, the licensee shall consult with the Forest Service (FS) with regard to measures needed to ensure protection and development of the natural resource values of the project area. Within 60 days following such consultation, the licensee shall file with the Commission evidence of the consultation with any recommendations made by the FS. The Commission reserves the right, after notice and opportunity for hearing, to require changes in the project and its operation that may be necessary to accomplish natural resource protection. Article 105. During the construction and operation of the facilities authorized by this license, the licensee shall maintain during twelve daylight hours, in Pitchfork Falls, as measured above the railroad tracks, the following continuous minimum flows: May 1 through September 30 13 cubic feet per second (cfs) October 1 through April 30 0 cfs The licensee may temporarily modify minimum flows if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of the licensee. The licensee may also modify minimum flows for short periods upon written consent of the Forest Service. Article 106. The licensee shall construct, operate, and maintain a guaranteed priority streamflow device as part of the diversion/intake structure. Required stream maintenance flows Project No. 11077-001 i adequate to maintain the conditions described in Article 105 shall be automatically released through this device, before any flow can be diverted into the conduit. The licensee shall install a water measurement control section with a continuously- recording stream gage, upstream of Pitchfork Falls that will accurately measure the bypass flow. The licensee shall provide a stage-discharge chart to the Forest Service (FS) prior to commencement of operation of the project. The FS approval must be obtained for the design of the bypass mechanism and the design and location of the measuring control section and stream gage prior to construction. The licensee shall file a report of the streamflow at the gaging station by December 31, of each year for the preceding water year. The report must be filed with the Juneau Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest. Article 107. Within one year following the date of issuance of this license and before starting any activities the Forest ervice (FS) determines to be of a land-disturbing nature on ational Forest System (NFS) land, the licensee shall file with the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, a plan approved by the FS for the design and construction of the project facilities in order to preserve or enhance its visual character. The plan must consider facility configurations and alignments, building materials, color, conservation of vegetation, landscaping, and screening. Project facilities of concern to this plan include, among other things, clearings, diversion structures, penstocks, pipes, ditches, transmission lines and corridors, and access roads. The licensee shall not commence activities the FS determines to be affected by the plan until after 60 days following the filing date, unless the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, prescribes a different commencement schedule. Article 108. Within one year following the date of issuance of this license and before starting any activities the Forest Service (FS) determines to be of a land-disturbing nature on National Forest System land, the licensee shall file with the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, a plan approved by the FS for the control of erosion, and soil mass movement. The licensee shall not commence activities the FS determines o be affected by the plan until after 60 days following the iling date, unless the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, prescribes a different commencement schedule. Article 109. Within one year following the date of issuance of this license and before starting any activities the Forest Service (FS) determines to be of a land-disturbing nature on National Forest System land, the licensee shall file with the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, a plan approved by the FS for the treatment and disposal of solid waste and waste water Project No. 11077-001 12 generated during construction and operation of the project. Ata minimum, the plan must address the estimated quantity of solid ‘waste and waste water generated each day; the location of disposal sites and methods of treatment; implementation schedule; areas available for disposal of wastes; design of facilities; comparisons between on and offsite disposal; and maintenance programs. The licensee shall not commence activities the FS determines to be affected by the plan until after 60 days following the filing date, unless the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, prescribes a different commencement schedule. Article 110. Within one year following the date of issuance of this license and at least 60 days before starting any activities the Forest Service (FS) determines to be of a land- disturbing nature on National Forest System land (NFS), the licensee shall file with the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, a plan approved by the FS for oil and hazardous substances storage and spill prevention and cleanup. At a minimum, the plan must require the licensee to: (a) maintain in the project area, a cache of spill cleanup equipment suitable to contain any spill from the project; (b) periodically inform the FS of the location of the spill cleanup equipment on NFS lands and of the location, type, and quantity of oil and hazardous substances stored in the project area; and (c) inform the FS immediately of the nature, time, date, location, and action taken for any spill. The licensee shall not commence activities the FS determines to be affected by the plan until after 60 days following the filing date, unless the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, prescribes a different commencement schedule. Article 111. Within one year following the date of issuance of this license and before starting any activities the Forest Service (FS) determines to be of a land-disturbing nature, the licensee shall complete the testing as identified in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the FS, State Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Commission. Article 112. Within one year from the issuance of this license and before starting any activities the Forest Service (FS) determines to be of a land-disturbing nature on National Forest System land, the licensee shall file with the Director Office of Hydropower Licensing, a wildlife habitat mitigation plan approved by the FS. This plan must identify requirements for construction and mitigation measures to meet FS wildlife habitat objectives and standards. The plan also must include dates for accomplishing these objectives and standards and must ar... Project No. 11077-001 13 identify needs for the timing of any additional studies necessary. The licensee shall not commence activities the FS determines to be affected by the plan until after 60 days following the filing date, unless the Director, Office of Hydropower licensing, prescribes a different commencement schedule. . The licensee shall pay the United States the following annual charge, effective as of the date of commencement of project construction: (a) For the purposes of reimbursing the United States for the cost of administering Part I of the Federal Power Act, a reasonable amount as determined in accordance with the provisions of the Commission’s regulations in effect from time to time. The authorized installed capacity for that purpose is 4,000 kilowatts. (b) Recompensing the United States for use, occupancy, and enjoyment of 270 acres of its lands, other than for transmission line right-of-way. Article 202. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Power Act, after the first 20 years of operation of the project under license, a specified reasonable rate of return upon the net investment in the project shall be used for determining surplus earnings of the project for the establishment and maintenance of amortization reserves. The licensee shall set aside in a project amortization reserve account at the end of each fiscal year one half of the project surplus earnings, if any, accumulated after the first 20 years of operation under the license, in excess of the specified rate of return per annum on the net investment. To the extent that there is a deficiency of project earnings below the specified rate of return per annum for any fiscal year after the first 20 years of operation under the license, the licensee shall deduct the amount of that deficiency from the amount of any surplus earnings subsequently accumulated, until absorbed. The licensee shall set aside one-half of the remaining surplus earnings, if any, cumulatively computed, in the project amortization reserve account. The licensee shall maintain the amounts established in the project amortization reserve account “ntil further order of the Commission. The specified reasonable rate of return used in computing amortization reserves shall be calculated annually based on current capital ratios developed from an average of 13 monthly balances of amounts properly includible in the licensee’s long- term debt and proprietary capital accounts as listed in the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts. The cost rate for such ratios shall be the weighted average cost of long-term debt and preferred stock for the year, and the cost of common equity shall Project No. 11077-001 14 be the interest rate on 10-year government bonds (reported as the Treasury Department's 10 year constant maturity series) computed on the monthly average for the year in question plus four percentage points (400 basis points). Article 203. Within 45 days of the issuance of the license, the licensee shall file a complete original set and two complete duplicate sets of aperture cards of all the approved drawings, and a third, partial duplicate set of aperture cards showing only the Exhibit G drawings. The set of originals must be reproduced on silver or gelatin 35mm microfilm. The duplicate sets are copies of the originals made on diazo-type microfilm. All microfilm must be mounted on type D (3%" x 7-3/8") aperture cards. The licensee shall submit two copies of Form FERC-587 with aperture cards. Prior to microfilming, the FERC Drawing Number (11077-1 through 11077-21) shall be shown in the margin below the title block of the approved drawing. After mounting, the FERC Drawing Number must be typed on the upper right corner of each aperture card. Additionally, the Project Number, FERC Exhibit (e.g., F-1, G-1, etc.), Drawing Title, and date of issuance of this license must be typed on the upper left corner of each aperture card. The complete original set and one complete duplicate set of aperture cards, and one copy of the Form FERC-587, must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, ATTN: DPCA/ERB. The second complete duplicate set of aperture cards shall be filed with Commission’s Portland Regional Office. The third, partial duplicate set of aperture cards (Exhibit G only) and the remaining copy of Form FERC-587 shall be filed with the Bureau of Land Management Office at the following address: State Director Alaska State Office Bureau of Land Management Division of Lands and Renewable Resources (AK-930 ATTN: FERC Withdrawal Recordation 222 W. 7th Avenue, No. 13 Anchorage, AK 99513-7599 Article 301. The licensee shall commence construction of the project works within 2 years from the issuance date of the license and shall complete construction of the project within 4 years from the issuance date of the license. Article 302. The licensee shall, at least 60 days prior to the start of construction, submit one copy to the Commission's Regional Director and two copies to the Director, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections of the final contract drawings and specifications for such pertinent features of the project, such Project No. 11077-001 15 as water retention structures, all necessary transmission facilities, powerhouse, and water conveyance structures. The Director of Dam Safety and Inspections may require changes in the plans and specifications. Within 90 days after finishing construction, the licensee shall file for Commission approval revised exhibits A, F, and G to describe and show the project as built. Article 304. Before starting construction, the licensee shall review and approve the design of contractor-designed cofferdams and deep excavations and shall make sure construction of the cofferdams and deep excavations is consistent with the approved design. At least 30 days before starting construction of the cofferdam, the licensee shall submit one copy to the Commission’s Regional Director and two copies to the Commission ‘one of these copies shall be a courtesy copy to the Commission's irector, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections), of the pproved cofferdam construction drawings and specifications and the letters of approval. Article 401. At least six months before the start of any land-disturbing or land-clearing activities, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, a final erosion and sediment control plan to control soil erosion and to minimize the quantity of sediment resulting from project construction and operation. The plan shall be based on actual-site geological, soil, and groundwater conditions and on project design. The final erosion and sediment control plan must be complete and specific and shall be based on the draft erosion and sediment control plan submitted on March 30, 1995. The final erosion and sediment control plan shall include the Forest Service’s (FS's) mandatory conditions imposed under Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act that include: (a) an erosion and sediment control plan (Article 108); (b) a solid waste and waste water plan (Article 109); and (c) a hazardous substance plan (Article 110). The final erosion and sediment control plan shall include sediment control ponds, silt fence barriers, stream bank stabilization, rock entrance roads, a revegetation plan, and must comply with the Best Management Practices described in the FS Region 10 Soil and Water ‘onservation Handbook for this type of construction. The licensee shall prepare the plan after consultation with the FS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, the Soil and Water Conservation Board and other interested agencies. The licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the Project No. 11077-001 16 agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies to comment and to make recommendations prior to filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on geological, soil, and groundwater conditions at the site. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. No land-disturbing or land-clearing activities shall begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan, including any changes required by the Commission. . The wildlife mitigation plan required by Article 112 shall be prepared after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and shall include measures to: (a) leave as much vegetation as possible during construction of the powerhouse and penstock; (b) revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible after disturbance and follow Forest Service (FS) guidelines for revegetating the disturbed areas; (c) use a helicopter or donkey- winch to transport the penstock to its location to protect as much natural vegetation as possible; and (d) design the penstock to avoid interference with wildlife movements. The plan must include a schedule for accomplishing these measures. The licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments, if any, are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies to comment and to make recommendations prior to filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons for not adopting that recommendation. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. No land-disturbing or land-clearing activities shall begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan including any changes required by the Commission. Article 403. The licensee shall design and construct the transmission line based on the licensee’s conceptual design plan filed with the Commission in March 1995, in accordance with guidelines set forth in "Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines --- the state of the Art in 1981," by Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. Project No. 11077-001 17 The licensee shall consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the Forest Service in implementing these guidelines, and shall develop and implement a design that will provide adequate separation of energized conductors, ground wires, and other metal hardware, adequate insulation, and any other measures necessary to protect raptors and other large birds from electrocution. As-built drawings of the transmission line must be included in the filings pursuant to Article 303. Article 404. The licensee shall prepare the visual resource protection plan required by Article 107 in consultation with the Forest Service and the National Park Service, and shall file the plan with the Commission, for approval, within one year of the date of issuance of this license or no later than six months before starting any land-clearing, land-disturbing, or spoil- nroducing activities at the project. The licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments, if any, are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies to comment and to make recommendations prior to filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on landscape conditions and other site-specific conditions. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. No land-disturbing or land-clearing activities shall begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan including any changes required by the Commission. Article 405. At least six months before the start of any land-disturbing activities, the licensee shall file with the Commission for approval, a plan to construct, operate, and maintain the priority streamflow release device and the continuously-recording stream gage required in Article 106. The filing shall include a stage-discharge chart. The licensee shall prepare the plan after consultation with ne Forest Service and the National Park Service. The licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments, if any, are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies to comment and to make recommendations prior to filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee Project No. 11077-001 18 does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee's reasons, based on flows and other site-specific conditions. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. No land-disturbing or land-clearing activities shall begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan including any changes required by the Commission. Article 406. The licensee shall file, with the Commission, annual reports for the preceding water year of the streamflow at the gaging station required in Article 106. The reports shall be filed by December 31, of each year for the duration of the project's license. The initial report shall be filed by December 31, of the year the project commences operation. The filing shall include comments on the report from the Forest Service. Article 407. The licensee shall implement the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on cultural resources executed on May 20, 1996, for the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project. Within one year after the date of issuance of the license, the licensee shall file, for Commission approval, the cultural resources management plan prepared pursuant to stipulations of the MOA. In preparing the cultural resources management plan, the licensee shall take into account the comments of the National Park Service in its letter to the Commission dated March 25, 1996, about protecting the visual integrity of the Skagway Historic District and White Pass National Historic Landmark. Article 408. (a) In accordance with the provisions of this article, the licensee shall have the authority to grant permission for certain types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters and to convey certain interests in project lands and waters for certain types of use and occupancy, without prior Commission approval. The licensee may exercise the authority only if the proposed use and occupancy is consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational, and other environmental values of the project. For those purposes, the licensee shall also have continuing responsibility to supervise and control the use and occupancies for which it grants permission, and to monitor the use of, and ensure compliance with the covenants of the instrument of conveyance for, any interests that it has conveyed, under this article. If a permitted use and occupancy violates any condition of this article or any other condition imposed by the licensee for protection and enhancement of the project’s scenic, recreational, or other environmental values, or if a covenant of a conveyance made under the authority of this article is violated, the licensee shall take any lawful action necessary to correct the violation. For a permitted use or occupancy, that action includes, if necessary, canceling the permission to use and Project No. 11077-001 19 occupy the project lands and waters and requiring the removal of any non-complying structures and facilities. (b) The type of use and occupancy of project lands and water for which the licensee may grant permission without prior Commission approval are: (1) landscape plantings; (2) non- commercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and facilities that can accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and where said facility is intended to serve single-family type dwellings; (3) embankments, bulkheads, retaining walls, or similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing shoreline; and (4) food plots and other wildlife enhancement. To the extent feasible and desirable to protect and enhance the project’s scenic, recreational, and other environmental values, the licensee shall require multiple use and occupancy of facilities for access to project lands or waters. The licensee ‘hall also ensure, to the satisfaction of the Commission's uthorized representative, that the use and occupancies for which it grants permission are maintained in good repair and comply with applicable state and local health and safety requirements. Before granting permission for construction of bulkheads or retaining walls, the licensee shall: (1) inspect the site of the proposed construction, (2) consider whether the planting of - vegetation or the use of riprap would be adequate to control erosion at the site, and (3) determine that the proposed construction is needed and would not change the basic contour of the reservoir shoreline. To implement this paragraph (b), the licensee may, among other things, establish a program for issuing permits for the specified types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters, which may be subject to the payment of a reasonable fee to cover the licensee's costs of administering the permit program. The Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to file a description of its standards, guidelines, and procedures for implementing this paragraph (b) and to require modification of those standards, guidelines, or procedures. (c) The licensee may convey easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of, project lands for: (1) replacement, expansion, realignment, or maintenance of bridges or roads where all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) storm drains and water mains; (3) sewers that do not discharge nto project waters; (4) minor access roads; (5) telephone, gas, nd electric utility distribution lines; (6) non-project overhead electric transmission lines that do not require erection of support structures within the project boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, or underground major telephone distribution cables or major electric distribution lines (69-Kv or less); and (8) water intake or pumping facilities that do not extract more than one million gallons per day from a project reservoir. No later than January 31 of each year, the licensee shall file three copies of a report briefly describing for each conveyance made under this paragraph (c) during the prior calendar year, the type of Project No. 11077-001 20 interest conveyed, the location of the lands subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for which the interest was conveyed. (d) The licensee may convey fee title to, easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of project lands for: (1) construction of new bridges or roads for which all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) sewer or effluent lines that discharge into project waters, for which all necessary federal and state water quality certification or permits have been obtained; (3) other pipelines that cross project lands or waters but do not discharge into project waters; (4) non-project overhead electric transmission lines that require erection of support structures within the project boundary, for which all necessary federal and state approvals have been obtained; (5) private or public marinas that can accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and are located at least one- half mile (measured over project waters) from any other private or public marina; (6) recreational development consistent with an approved Exhibit R or approved report on recreational resources of an Exhibit E; and (7) other uses, if: (i) the amount of land conveyed for a particular use is five acres or less; (ii) all of the land conveyed is located at least 75 feet, measured horizontally, from project waters at normal surface elevation; and (iii) no more than 50 total acres of project lands for each project development are conveyed under this clause (d)(7) in any calendar year. At least 60 days before conveying any interest in project lands under this paragraph (d), the licensee must submit a letter to the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, stating its intent to convey the interest and briefly describing the type of interest and location of the lands to be conveyed (a marked exhibit G or K map may be used), the nature of the proposed use, the identity of any federal or state agency official consulted, and any federal or state approvals required for the proposed use. Unless the Director, within 45 days from the filing date, requires the licensee to file an application for prior approval the licensee may convey the intended interest at the end of that period. (e) The following additional conditions apply to any intended conveyance under paragraph (c) or (d) of this article: (1) Before conveying the interest, the licensee shall consult with federal and state fish and wildlife or recreation agencies, as appropriate, and the State Historic Preservation Officer. (2) Before conveying the interest, the licensee shall determine that the proposed use of the lands to be conveyed is not inconsistent with any approved Exhibit R or approved report on recreational resources of an Exhibit E; or, if the project does not have an approved Exhibit R or approved report on Project No. 11077-001 21 recreational resources, that the lands to be conveyed do not have recreational value. (3) The instrument of conveyance must include the following covenants running with the land: (i) the use of the lands conveyed shall not endanger health, create a nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project recreational use; (ii) the grantee shall take all reasonable precautions to insure that the construction, operation, and maintenance of structures or facilities on the conveyed lands will occur in a manner that will protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project; and (iii) the grantee shall not unduly restrict public access to project waters. (4) The Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to take reasonable remedial action to correct any violation of the terms and conditions of this article, for the nrotection and enhancement of the project’s scenic, recreational, ind other environmental values. (£) The conveyance of an interest in project lands under this article does not in itself change the project boundaries. The project boundaries may be changed to exclude land conveyed under this article only upon approval of revised exhibit G or K drawings (project boundary maps) reflecting exclusion of that land. Lands conveyed under this article will be excluded from the project only upon a determination that the lands are not necessary for project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation, public access, protection of environmental resources, and shoreline control, including shoreline aesthetic values. Absent extraordinary circumstances, proposals to exclude lands conveyed under this article from the project shall be consolidated for consideration when revised exhibit G or K drawings would be filed for approval for other purposes. (g) The authority granted to the licensee under this article shall not apply to any part of the public lands and reservations of the United States included within the project boundary. (E) The licensee shall serve copies of any Commission filing required by this order on any entity specified in this rder to be consulted on matters related to the Commission iling. Proof of service on these entities must accompany the filing with the Commission. (F) This order is issued under authority delegated to the Director and constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713. The filing Project No. 11077-001 22 of a request for rehearing does not operate as a stay of the effective date of this order or of any other date specified in this order, except as specifically ordered by the Commission. The licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of this order. Ad 4- Fred E. Springer Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing Form L-2 (October, 1975) FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LICENSE FOR UNCONSTRUCTED MAJOR PROJECT AFFECTING LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES Article 1. The entire project, as described in this order of the Commission, shall be subject to all of the provisions, terms, and conditions of the license. Article 2. No substantial change shall be made in the maps, plans, specifications, and statements described and designated as exhibits and approved by the Commission in its order as a part of he license until such change shall have been approved by the ‘ommission: Provided, however, That if the Licensee or the Com- mission deems it necessary or desirable that said approved exhibits, or any of them, be changed, there shall be submitted to the Commission for approval a revised, or additional exhibit or exhibits covering the proposed changes which, upon approval by the Commission, shall become a part of the license and shall supersede, in whole or in part, such exhibit or exhibits there- tofore made a part of the license as may be specified by the Commission. Article 3. The project works shall be constructed in substantial conformity with the approved exhibits referred to in Article 2 herein or as changed in accordance with the provisions of said article. Except when emergency shall require for the protection of navigation, life, health, or property, there shall not be made without prior approval of the Commission any sub- stantial alteration or addition not in conformity with the approved plans to any dam or other project works under the license or any substantial use of project lands and waters not authorized herein; and any emergency alteration, addition, or use so made shall thereafter be subject to such modification and change as the Commission may direct. Minor changes in project works, or in uses of project lands and waters, or divergence from such approved exhibits may be made if such changes will not esult in a decrease in efficiency, in a material increase in ost, in an adverse environmental impact, or in impairment of the yeneral scheme of development; but any of such minor changes made without the prior approval of the Commission, which in its judg- ment have produced or will produce any of such results, shall be subject to such alteration as the Commission may direct. Upon the completion of the project, or at such other time as the Commission may direct, the Licensee shall submit to the Com- mission for approval revised exhibits insofar as necessary to show any divergence from or variations in the project area and project boundary as finally located or in the project works as actually constructed when compared with the area and boundary shown and the works described in the license or in the exhibits approved by the Commission, together with a statement in writing setting forth the reasons which in the opinion of the Licensee necessitated or justified variation in or divergence from the approved exhibits. Such revised exhibits shall, if and when approved by the Commission, be made a part of the license under the provisions of Article 2 hereof. Article 4. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the project and any work incidental to additions or alterations shall be subject to the inspection and supervision of the Regional Engineer, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in the region wherein the project is located, or of such other officer or agent as the Commission may designate, who shall be the authorized representative of the Commission for such purposes. The Licensee shall cooperate fully with said representative and shall furnish him a detailed program of inspection by the Licensee that will provide for an adequate and qualified inspection force for construction of the project and for any subsequent alterations to the project. Construction of the project works or any features or alteration thereof shall not be initiated until the program of inspection for the project works or any such feature thereof has been approved by said represent - ative. The Licensee shall also furnish to said representative such further information as he may require concerning the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of the project, and of any alteration thereof, and shall notify him of the date upon which work will begin, as far in advance thereof as said representa- tive may reasonably specify, and shall notify him promptly in writing of any suspension of work for a period of more than one week, and of its resumption and completion. The Licensee shall allow said representative and other officers or employees of the United States, showing proper credentials, free and unrestricted access to, through, and across the project lands and project works in the performance of their official duties. The Licensee shall comply with such rules and regulations of general or special applicability as the Commission may prescribe from time to time for the protection of life, health, or property. Article 5. The Licensee, within five years from the date of issuance of the license, shall acquire title in fee or the right to use in perpetuity all lands, other than lands of the United States, necessary or appropriate for the construction, main- tenance, and operation of the project. The Licensee or its successors and assigns shall, during the period of the license, retain the possession of all project property covered by the license as issued or as later amended, including the project area, the project works, and all franchises, easements, water rights, and rights of occupancy and use; and none of such proper- ties shall be voluntarily sold, leased, transferred, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of without the prior written approval of 3 the Commission, except that the Licensee may lease or otherwise dispose of interests in project lands or property without spe- cific written approval of the Commission pursuant to the then current regulations of the Commission. The provisions of this article are not intended to prevent the abandonment or the retirement from service of structures, equipment, or other project works in connection with replacements thereof when they become obsolete, inadequate, or inefficient for further service due to wear and tear; and mortgage or trust deeds or judicial sales made thereunder, or tax sales, shall not be deemed voluntary transfers within the meaning of this article. . In the event the project is taken over by the United States upon the termination of the license as provided in Section 14 of the Federal Power Act, or is transferred to a new licensee or to a non-power licensee under the provisions of Section 15 of said Act, the Licensee, its successors and assigns shall be responsible for, and shall make good any defect*of title 0, or of right of occupancy and use in, any of such project pro- erty that is necessary or appropriate or valuable and service- able in the maintenance and operation of the project, and shall pay and discharge, or shall assume responsibility for payment and discharge of, all liens or encumbrances upon the project or project property created by the Licensee or created or incurred after the issuance of the license: Provided, That the provisions of this article are not intended to require the Licensee, for the purpose of transferring the project to the United States or to a new licensee, to acquire any different title to, or right of occupancy and use in, any of such project property than was nec- essary to acquire for its own purposes as the Licensee. Article 7. The actual legitimate original cost of. the project, and of any addition thereto or betterment thereof, shall be determined by the Commission in accordance with the Federal Power Act and the Commission’s Rules and Regulations thereunder. Article 8. The Licensee shall install and thereafter main- tain gages and stream-gaging stations for the purpose of deter- mining the state and flow of the stream or streams on which the project is located, the amount of water held in and withdrawn from storage, and the effective head on the turbines; shall pro- vide for the required reading of such gages and for the adequate rating of such stations; and shall install and maintain standard 2ters adequate for the determination of the amount of electric iergy generated by the project works. The number, character, and location of gages, meters, or other measuring devices, and the method of operation thereof, shall at all times be satis- factory to the Commission or its authorized representative. The Commission reserves the right, after notice and opportunity for hearing, to require such alterations in the number, character and locations of gages, meters, or other measuring devices, and the method of operation thereof, as are necessary to secure ade- 4 quate determinations. The installation of gages, the rating of said stream or streams, and the determination of the flow thereof, shall be under the supervision of, or in cooperation with, the District Engineer of the United States Geological Sur- vey having charge of stream-gaging operations in the region of the project, and the Licensee shall advance to the United States Geological Survey the amount of funds estimated to be necessary for such supervision, or cooperation for such periods as may be mutually agreed upon. The Licensee shall keep accurate and sufficient records of the foregoing determinations to the satis- faction of the Commission, and shall make return of such records annually at such time and in such form as the Commission may prescribe. Article 9. The Licensee shall, after notice and opportunity for hearing, install additional capacity or make other changes in the project as directed by the Commission, to the extent that it is economically sound and in the public interest to do so. Article 10. The Licensee shall, after notice and opportun- ity for hearing, coordinate the operation of the project, elec- trically and hydraulically, with such other projects or power systems and in such manner as the Commission may direct in the interest of power and other beneficial public uses of water resources, and on such conditions concerning the equitable shar- ing of benefits by the Licensee as the Commission may order. Ar 11. Whenever the Licensee is directly benefited by the construction work of another licensee, a permittee, or the United States on a storage reservoir or other headwater improve- ment, the Licensee shall reimburse the owner of the headwater improvement for such part of the annual charges for interest, maintenance, and depreciation thereof as the Commission shall determine to be equitable, and shall pay to the United States the cost of making such determination as fixed by the Commission. For benefits provided by a storage reservoir or other headwater improvement of the United States, the Licensee shall pay to the Commission the amounts for which it is billed from time to time for such headwater benefits and for the cost of making the determinations pursuant to the then current regulations of the Commission under the Federal Power Act. Article 12. The operations of the Licensee, so far as they affect the use, storage and discharge from storage of waters affected by the license, shall at all times be controlled by such reasonable rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe for the protection of life, health, and property, and in the interest of the fullest practicable conservation and utilization of such waters for power purposes and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes, and the Licensee shall release water from the project reservoir at such rate in cubic 5 feet per second, or such volume in acre-feet per specified period of time, as the Commission may prescribe for the purposes herein- before mentioned. Article 13. On the application of any person, association, corporation, Federal Agency, State or municipality, the Licensee shall permit such reasonable use of its reservoir or other pro- ject properties, including works, lands and water rights, or — parts thereof, as may be ordered by the Commission, after notice and opportunity for hearing, in the interests of comprehensive development of the waterway or waterways involved and the con- servation and utilization of the water resources of the region for water supply or for the purposes of steam-electric, irriga- tion, industrial, municipal or similar uses. The Licensee shall receive reasonable compensation for use of its reservoir or other project properties or parts thereof for such purposes, to include -* least full reimbursement for any damages or expenses which the int use causes the Licensee to incur. Any such compensation yall be fixed by the Commission either by approval of an agree- ment between the Licensee and the party or parties benefiting or after notice and opportunity for hearing. Applications shall contain information in sufficient detail to afford a full under- standing of the proposed use, including satisfactory evidence that the applicant possesses necessary water rights pursuant to applicable State law, or a showing of cause why such evidence cannot concurrently be submitted, and a statement as to the rela- sionship of the proposed use to any State or municipal plans or orders which may’ have been adopted with respect to the use of such waters. Article 14. In the construction or maintenance of the project works, the Licensee shall place and maintain suitable structures and devices to reduce to a reasonable degree the liability of contact between its transmission lines and tele- graph, telephone and other signal wires or power transmission lines constructed prior to its transmission lines and not owned by the Licensee, and shall also place and maintain suitable structures and devices to reduce to a reasonable degree the liability of any structures and devices to reduce to a reasonable degree the liability of any structures or wires falling One obstructing traffic or endangering life. None of the provisions of this article are intended to relieve the Licensee from any esponsibility or requirement which may be imposed by any other awful authority for avoiding or eliminating inductive inter- ference. Article 15. The Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, construct, maintain, and operate, or arrange for the construction, maintenance, and operation of such reasonable facilities, and comply with such reasonable modifications of the project structures and operation, as may be ordered by the Commission upon its own motion or upon 6 the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior or the fish and wildlife agency or agencies of any State in which the project or a part thereof is located, after notice and opportunity for hearing. Article 16. Whenever the United States shall desire, in connection with the project, to construct fish and wildlife facilities or to improve the existing fish and wildlife facili- ties at its own expense, the Licensee shall permit the United States or its designated agency to use, free of cost, such of the Licensee's lands and interests in lands, reservoirs, waterways and project works as may be reasonably required to complete such facilities or such improvements thereof. In addition, after notice and opportunity for hearing, the Licensee shall modify the project operation as may be reasonably prescribed by the Commis- sion in order to permit the maintenance and operation of the fish and wildlife facilities constructed or improved by the United States under the provisions of this article. This article shall not be interpreted to place any obligation on the United States to construct or improve fish and wildlife facilities or to relieve the Licensee of any obligation under this license. Article 17. The Licensee shall construct, maintain, and operate, or shall arrange for the construction, maintenance, and operation of such reasonable recreational facilities, including modifications thereto, such as access roads, wharves, launching ramps, beaches, picnic and camping areas, sanitary facilities, and utilities, giving consideration to the needs of the physi- cally handicapped, and shall comply with such reasonable modi- fications of the project, as may be prescribed hereafter by the Commission during the term of this license upon its own motion or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior or other interested Federal or State agencies, after notice and opportun- ity for hearing. Article 18. So far as is consistent with proper operation of the project, the Licensee shall allow the public free access, to a reasonable extent, to project waters and adjacent project lands owned by the Licensee for the purpose of full public utili- zation of such lands and waters for navigation and for outdoor recreational purposes, including fishing and hunting: Provided, That the Licensee may reserve from public access such portions of the project waters, adjacent lands, and project facilities as may be necessary for the protection of life, health, and property. Article 19. In the construction, maintenance, or operation of the project, the Licensee shall be responsible for, and shall take reasonable measures to prevent, soil erosion on lands adja- cent to streams or other waters, stream sedimentation, and any form of water or air pollution. The Commission, upon request or upon its own motion, may order the Licensee to take such measures 7 as the Commission finds to be necessary for these purposes, after notice and opportunity for hearing. The Licensee shall consult with the appropriate State and Federal agencies and, within one year of the date of issuance of this license, shall submit for Commission approval a plan for clearing the reservoir area. Further, the Licensee shall clear and keep clear to an adequate width lands along open conduits and shall dispose of all temporary structures, unused timber, brush, refuse, or other material unnecessary for the pur- poses of the project which results from the clearing of lands or from the maintenance or alteration of the project works. In addition, all trees along the periphery of project reservoirs which may die during operations of the project shall be removed. Upon approval of the clearing plan all clearing of the lands and disposal of the unnecessary material shall be done with due dili- gence and to the satisfaction of the authorized representative of the Commission and in accordance with appropriate Federal, State, ind local statues and regulations. Article 21. Timber on lands of the United State cut, used, or destroyed in the construction and maintenance of the project works, or in the clearing of said lands, shall be paid for, and the resulting slash and debris disposed of, in accordance with the requirements of the agency of the United States having jurisdiction over said lands. Payment for merchantable timber shall be at current stumpage rates, and payment for young growth timber below merchantable size shall be at current damage appraisal values. However, the agency of the United States having jurisdiction may sell or dispose of the merchantable timber to others than the Licensee: Provided, That timber so sold or disposed of shall be cut and removed from the area prior to, or without undue interference with, clearing operations of the Licensee and in coordination with the Licensee’s project construction schedules. Such sale or disposal to others shall not relieve the Licensee of responsibility for the clearing and disposal of all slash and debris from project lands. Article 22. The Licensee shall do everything reasonably within its power, and shall require its employees, contractors, and employees of contractors to do everything reasonably within their power, both independently and upon the request of officers of the agency concerned, to prevent, to make advance preparations “or suppression of, and to suppress fires on the lands to be ccupied or used under the license. The Licensee shall be liable or and shall pay the costs incurred by the United States in suppressing fires caused from the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project works or of the works appurtenant or accessory thereto under the license. Article 23. The Licensee shall interpose no objection to, and shall in no way prevent, the use by the agency of the United 8 States having jurisdiction over the lands of the United States affected, or by persons or corporations occupying lands of the United States under permit, of water for fire suppression from any stream, conduit, or body of water, natural or artificial, used by the Licensee in the operation of the project works covered by the license, or the use by said parties of water for sanitary and domestic purposes from any stream, conduit, or body of water, natural or artificial, used by the Licensee in the operation of the project works covered by the license. Article 24. The Licensee shall be liable for injury to, or destruction of, any buildings, bridges, roads, trails, lands, or other property of the United States, occasioned by the construc- tion, maintenance, or operation of the project works or of the works appurtenant or accessory thereto under the license. Arrangements to meet such liability, either by compensation for such injury or destruction, or by reconstruction or repair of damaged property, or otherwise, shall be made with the appro- priate department or agency of the United States. Article 25. The Licensee shall allow any agency of the United States, without charge, to construct or permit to be constructed on, through, and across those project lands which are lands of the United States such conduits, chutes, ditches, railroads, roads, trails, telephone and power lines, and other routes or means of transportation and communication as are not inconsistent with the enjoyment of said lands by the Licensee for the purposes of the license. This license shall not be construed as conferring upon the Licensee any right of use, occupancy, or enjoyment of the lands of the United States other than for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project as stated in the license. Article 26. In the construction and maintenance of the project, the location and standards of roads and trails on lands of the United States and other uses of lands of the United States, including the location and condition of quarries, borrow pits, and spoil disposal areas, shall be subject to the approval of the department or agency of the United States having super- vision over the lands involved. Article 27. The Licensee shall make provision, or shall bear the reasonable cost, as determined by the agency of the United States affected, of making provision for avoiding induc- tive interference between any project transmission line or other project facility constructed, operated, or maintained under the license, and any radio installation, telephone line, or other communication facility installed or constructed before or after construction of such project transmission line or other project facility and owned, operated, or used by such agency of the United States in administering the lands under its jurisdiction. 9 Article 28. The Licensee shall make use of the Commission's guidelines and other recognized guidelines for treatment of transmission line rights-of-way, and shall clear such portions of transmission line rights-of-way across lands of the United States as are designated by the officer of the United States in charge of the lands; shall keep the areas so designated clear of new growth, all refuse, and inflammable material to the satisfaction of such officer; shall trim all branches of trees in contact with or liable to contact the transmission lines; shall cut and remove all dead or leaning trees which might fall in contact with the transmission lines; and shall take such other precautions against fire as may be required by such officer. No fires for the burning of waste material shall be set except with the prior written consent of the officer of the United States in charge of the lands as to time and place. Article 29. The Licensee shall cooperate with the United 3tates in the disposal by the United States, under the Act of July 31, 1947, 61 Stat. 681, as amended (30 U.S.C. sec. 601, et jeq.), of mineral and vegetative materials from lands of the United States occupied by the project or any part thereof: Provided, That such disposal has been authorized by the Commis- sion and that it does not unreasonably interfere with the occupancy of such lands by the Licensee for the purposes of the license: Provided further, That in the event of disagreement, any question of unreasonable interference shall be determined by the Commission after notice ad opportunity for hearing. Article 30. If the Licensee shall cause or suffer essential project property to be removed or destroyed or to become unfit for use, without adequate replacement, or shall abandon or discontinue good faith operation of the project or refuse or neglect to comply with the terms of the license and the lawful orders of the Commission mailed to the record address of the Licensee or its agent, the Commission will deem it to be the intent of the Licensee to surrender the license. The Commission, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may require the Licensee to remove any or all structures, equipment and power lines within the project boundary and to take any such other action necessary to restore the project waters, lands, and facilities remaining within the project boundary to a condition satisfactory to the United States agency having jurisdiction over *ts lands or the Commission’s authorized representative, as Pppropriate, or to provide for the continued operation and aintenance of nonpower facilities and fulfill such other obligations under the license as the Commission may prescribe. In addition, the Commission in its discretion, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may also agree to the surrender of the license when the Commission, for the reasons recited herein, deems it to be the intent of the Licensee to surrender the license. 10 Article 31. The right of the Licensee and of its successors and assigns to use or occupy waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, or lands of the United States under the license, for the purpose of maintaining the project works or otherwise, shall absolutely cease at the end of the license period, unless the Licensee has obtained a new license pursuant to the then existing laws and regulations, or an annual license under the terms and conditions of this license. Article 32. The terms and conditions expressly set forth in the license shall not be construed as impairing any terms and conditions of the Federal Power Act which are not expressly set forth herein. TABLE OF CONTENTS page SUMMARY iii I INTRODUCTION 1 FINAL I APPLICATION \ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (I. | PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 3 FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE A Purpose of Action . . . 3 B Need for Power .... . 4 IV. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES. 4 A AP&T's Proposal . 4 1 Project Description 4 2, Project Operation oo 6 n ‘ 3. Proposed Environmental Measures = 6 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project 4. Mandatory Requirements [4(¢) Conditions} . = 7 5 B. eeRC ths AON is a. i sa. aie ere coe sw ees EES 8 FERC Project No. 11077-001 Cc Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .. . . 8 Vv CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE ................ 9 Alaska Ss Agency Consultation ...... . oe B. Interventions ... c Scoping ...2%,... D. Water Quality Certification . matte E: Coastal Zone Management Act ............ Ee Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment . VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............... A. General Description of the Goat Lake Drainage Area 12 Ls Cumulative Impacts 13 B. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives . zm5y it ls Geology and Soil Resources................... . 14 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 2. Aquatic Resources ........ 15 Office of Hydropower Licensing 3; Terrestrial Resources......... 18 Division of Project Review 4. Threatened and Endangered Species 23 888 First Street, NE Si Aesthetic Resources 29 Washington, D.C. 20426 6. Cultural Resources . ropes eimasmoe i Recreation ..... fewrees Biweces wae ge and 8. Socioeconomics 35 & Impacts of the No-action Alternative ...............0000 0000 ans U.S. Forest Service VIL . DEVELQPMENTAL ANALYSIS i... aio. 6hic 305 is 5515 bik one wre einem come 36 Tongass National Forest - Chatham Area VIII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED Juneau Ranger District PEIN MVIE <5 oPh 5 ig 5 HO IT STi a eals wie wane ou wenene eAieams wea wow 38 8465 Old Dairy Road IX. | RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES .. . soos 38 Juneau, Alaska 99801 x CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ........... 39 XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT rey a oe All, * CURRAUNTORE CURD) cov jyv ee brad i 5 HUME FE ad 9 iar © omm> ore eet ee MLE SEIST OR PRERARERE os airs wees sues 1 EOS ms AP TOG s Ease m+ rin «dle 43 APPENDIX A Figure 1 5 Table LIST OF FIGURES Page Location of the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project a Proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project features ............ Bes wa zits ¢ wa LIST OF TABLES Page Estimated average inflows to Goat Lake for water years 1964 through 1986 . . . 16 Estimated average flows for Pitchfork Falls for water years 1991 through 1994... 16 Wetlaniih, Irn thee PrOjeCtiMtem 5. w+ in: 6 myelin «wes ost eas s aA T BLES Le ws ocd ae ne wees | 19) Staff's economic analysis of the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project using the average Niyirobbay, estienee sx 5 5.2 crys ir ote2t neta Sars wwe 6 oe 5 ss ae STs EY ado wi ev exe ss 37 SUMMARY The Alaska Power and Telephone Company (.AP&T) proposes to construct. operate. and maintain the 4-megawatt Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project on Pitchfork Falls. near the town of Skagway in southeast Alaska. AP&T has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) for an original hydropower license and to the U.S. Forest Service (FS) for a special-use authorization to operate the project on the Tongass National Forest. To facilitate decisions whether to issue the hydropower license and special-use authorization. we (Commission and FS staffs) prepared this final environmental assessment to evaluate how the proposed project (FERC No. 11077-001) would affect environmental resources in the Goat Lake drainage area and determine whether additional protection or mitigation measures may be needed to protect and improve the environmental resources and provide the best comprehensive development of the waterway. In addition, we also examine the no-action alternative. Accordingly, we agree with AP&T's proposed project and mitigation. We recommend that AP&T: (1) develop and implement a final erosion and sediment control plan to include detention of pond run-off, preventing localized erosion, stabilizing stream channel banks, controlling access road erosion, and handling solid waste, waste water, and hazardous substances; (2) leave as much vegetation as possible during project construction; (3) revegetate all disturbed areas from construction as soon after disturbance as possible using FS guidelines; (4) use a helicopter or donkey-winch during project construction to protect the natural vegetation; (5) design the penstock to avoid interference with wildlife; (6) construct the transmission line to avoid possible hazards to large birds; (7) adjust the construction schedule to avvid possible mountain goat disturbance; (8) screen the powerhouse and substation using measures that match the surrounding aesthetic environment; (9) establish a 13 cubic feet per second instream flow over Pitchfork Falls, May through September for 12 hours a day to maintain the natural aesthetics of the area; and (10) develop and implement a cultural resources management plan. Under our recommended alternative, we find that none of the resources--which include water, fishery, wildlife and terrestrial, visual, recreational, and cultural resources--would suffer significant adverse impacts. Therefore, no environmental impact statement is required. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing, Division of Project Review Washington, D.C. and US. Forest Service Tongass National Forest. Juneau Ranger District Juneau, Alaska GOAT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 11077-001- ALASKA I. INTRODUCTION The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), acting as lead agency, and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) -- Juneau Ranger District, Chatham Area, as cooperating agency, have prepared this final environmental assessment (FEA) for the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,' issuing a license decision on the project requires preparation of either an EA or Environmental Impact Statement. We (the Commission and FS staffs (staff]) analyze the environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with constructing, operating, and maintaining this project, as proposed by Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP&T). We also consider effects of alternatives to the project. . II. APPLICATION On May 31, 1994, AP&T filed an application with the Commission for a license to construct the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project. The proposed 4-megawatt (MW) seasonal storage project would be constructed along Pitchfork Falls,” located about 7 miles northeast of the town of Skagway in southeast Alaska (Figure 1), within sections 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 of Township 27 South, Range 60 East, of the Copper River Meridian. * Pub. L. 91-190. 42 U.S. C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), Sept. 13, 1982. ? Pitchfork Falls is a one-mile-long cascading stream that flows from Goat Lake and descends 2,100 feet over a steep, 30 percent gradient to the Skagway River. The most prominent portion of the falls, and the steepest drop, is located between the White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad and the Skagway River. Scale in « about 80 mies Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 1 FERC No. 11077-001 Figure 1. Location of the Proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project in Southeast Alaska (source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1994a, as modified by the Commission). Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 2 FERC No. 1077-001 Pitchfork Falls is a tributary to the Skagway River. which originates in Canada and generally flows southward and terminates at Taiya Inlet. adjacent to the town of Skagway The project would occupy about 270 acres of the Tongass National Forest, administered by the Juneau Ranger District. A small portion of the project's proposed transmission line lies on 2.9 acres of state-owned lands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has concurrently evaluated a permit application from AP&T pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. for dredging and filling activities associated with the project (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995f). The project is not intended for flood control, navigation, agricultural purposes. or irrigation. We issued the jointly prepared Goat Lake draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for comments on March 11, 1996. In response, we received 3 comment letters. We list the commenting entities in "Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment," section V.F. All comment letters were carefully considered. The sections of the draft EA that have been modified as a result of our reevaluation are identified in Appendix A, "Comments on the Draft EA and Staff Responses.” III. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION A. Purpose of Action The Federal Power Act (FPA) provides the Commission with the exclusive authority to license nonfederal water power projects on navigable waterways and federal lands for a period of up to 50 years.’ The Commission will use this FEA to decide: (1) whether or not to issue a license, (2) whether issuing AP&T an original hydropower license for the project would be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and (3) what conditions, if any, would be placed on any license issued for the project. To ensure that the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project would be operated in a manner consistent with the National Forest System lands and resources, the FS will use this FEA to decide: (1) what mandatory license terms and conditions they would require, under section +(e) of the FPA, to adequately protect the Tongass National Forest, should the Commission issue an original license for the project, (2) whether to issue AP&T a special use authorization (SUA) for those portions of the project that fall on national forest lands, and (3) whether these required measures would be consistent with their multiple use, land stewardship responsibilities. The SUA would authorize occupancy and use of forest lands for hydropower development that would include requirements necessary for comprehensive and compatible use of natural resources, consistent with the purposes for which the forest was established. > U.S.C. Sect 791(a)-825(r). Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 3 FERC No. 1077-001 B. Need for Power AP&T proposes to use power trom the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project to replace generation from diesel powered generation facilities in the nearby town of Skagway, Alaska. Since Skagway has no transmission lines connected to any other area, there is no market for any power generated from the project other than that needed to meet Skagway’s electrical demands. By supplementing AP&T’s existing Dewey Lakes Hydropower Project. the proposed project would serve Skagway’s residential, commercial, and industrial loads. In 1994, AP&T’s actual peak demand in the Skagway service area was 1.760 kilowatts. For the years 1974 to 1993, AP&T’s electric loads for Skagway have been increasing at an average annual rate of 6 percent. From 1994 to 2003, AP&T’s mid-load forecast predicts the electric loads will grow at an average of 5.5 percent annually. Beyond 2004, AP&T assumes an average mid-load growth of 1.4 percent annually. Power from the proposed project would be useful in meeting the above need for power. When operational, power from the project would be available to displace diesel generation on AP&T's system, conserving fossil fuels and reducing atmospheric pollution. IV. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. AP&T’s Proposal 1. Project Description AP&T proposes to construct the following project facilities (Figure 2): (1) a 14-foot- wide by 125-foot-long uncontrolled spillway to replace the existing natural lake outlet which would be filled in; (2) a submerged wedgewire screen intake assembly positioned in Goat Lake at elevation 2,875 feet mean sea level (msl), and with a mechanically operated trash rake for cleaning; (3) a 30-inch-diameter, 600-foot-long steel or high density polyethylene chloride siphon pipe attached to a vacuum pump assembly within a 12-foot by 12-foot siphon pump house; (4) a pumpback/valve station consisting of a 10-foot by 18-foot metal building with two 30-horsepower pumps connected to a 14-inch pipe for returning water to the lake;* (5) an 8-foot-high by 25-foot-long concrete retaining wall with a 14-foot-wide spillway (elevation 2.876 feet msl) forming a 0.014-acre-foot storage catchbasin located in a portion of the existing pond; (6) a 6,200-foot-long, 22-inch-diameter steel penstock extending from the pumpback station to the powerhouse; (7) a single level, 30-foot by 40-foot powerhouse containing one horizontal twin jet Pelton turbine unit with a generating capacity of 4 MW and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 32 cubic feet per second (cfs); (8) a small substation with a * The proposed 30-inch siphon pipe and 14-inch water return pipe would be laid in the existing 5-foot- wide natural lake outlet before it is filled. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 4 FERC No. 11077-001 4; He ‘Scale In » about 645 feet SECTION 15 1994a, as modified by the Commission). Figure 2. Proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Features (source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 pad-mounted step-up transformer. automatic recloser, and transmission line dead-end structure adjacent to the powerhouse; and (9) a 3.400-foot-long, 24.9-kilovolt (kV) aerial transmission line on wooden poles extending trom the substation. across the Skagway River to the Customs Border Station where it interties with AP&T’s existing 24.9-kV transmission line to Skagway, and (10) a single cable. 500-foot-long aerial tram originating near the end of a 1.000-foot- _ long access road within a 60-foot-wide right-of-way be built from the Klondike International Highway to provide access to the project. 2. Project Operation Goat Lake is a very deep natural impoundment. Inflows to Goat Lake come from a combination of precipitation and glacial runoff. The glacier, located above the moraine at the south end of the lake, also provides runoff to the pond below Goat Lake and to Pitchfork Falls. which descends about 2,100 feet in elevation from the pond to its confluence with the Skagway River. AP&T proposes to automatically operate the project using the normal water outfall trom Goat Lake to generate power. They also propose to draft Goat Lake to generate power during periods of low runoff or high energy demands. The normal water surface elevation of Goat Lake is 2,915 feet msl and AP&T proposes to limit lake drawdown to 30 feet. AP&T also proposes to pump water from the catchbasin below Goat Lake, back to Goat Lake for regulated storage. AP&T would pump from October through April, when there is no requirement to release flows into Pitchfork Falls,’ and May through September, during the hours the instream flow is not required. During the hours that AP&T proposes to provide flows to Pitchfork Falls, the pump output would be regulated to allow the required release of water to the falls. If natural water flow to the catchbasin would not be sufficient to meet the instream requirements, a valve would open to release water from Goat Lake to supplement flows. AP&T would provide to the 6,200-foot-long bypassed reach, a minimum instream flow of 13 cfs May through September for 12 daylight hours per day. 3. Proposed Environmental Measures AP&T proposes the following measures to protect environmental resources that may be affected by the project: 5 The flow release into Pitchfork Falls is to maintain the aesthetics, particularly in the steepest, cascading portion between the White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad and the Skagway River. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 6 FERC No. 11077-001 . Implement an erosion and sediment control plan to include measures that would detain pond run-off. prevent localized erosion. stabilize stream channel banks, and control access road erosion . Leave as much vegetation as possible during powerhouse and penstock construction: revegetate all vegetated areas disturbed by project construction activities: follow FS guidelines for revegetating disturbed areas . Use a helicopter or donkey-winch to transport the penstock to its location to protect as much natural vegetation as possible ° Design the penstock to avoid interfering with wildlife movements ° Design and construct the transmission line to prevent hazards to raptors and other large birds . Adjust the construction schedule of the facilities at the lake to avoid disturbance to mountain goat mating and kidding ° Visually screen the powerhouse and substation with the use of vegetation and/or coloring to match the surrounding environment + Establish a 13-cfs minimum instream flow over Pitchfork Falls during May through September for 12 daylight hours a day to maintain the aesthetics of the area, by use of a priority flow bypass device ° Implement a cultural resources management plan to protect portions of the Skagway Historic District and White Pass National Historic Landmark (Historic Landmark), which includes the Brackett Wagon Road and White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad (WP&YR RR); and the historic Canadian Oil pipeline affected or potentially affected by the project, pursuant to a memorandum of agreement (MOA) prepared in accordance with the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation's (Advisory Council) regulations (36 CFR 800) for the National Historic Preservation Act. We discuss each of these measures in the individual resource sections of this FEA. 4. Mandatory Requirements (4(e) Conditions} Since the project occupies land of the Tongass National Forest, the FS has authority under Section 4(e) of the FPA, to impose mandatory conditions on any hydropower license the Commission would issue for the project. In its May 9, 1996, letter, the FS filed with the Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 7 FERC No. 11077-001 Commission, the following preliminary 4(e) conditions for the license (letter trom Phil Janik. Regional Forester. U.S. Forest Service - Alaska Region. Juneau. Alaska, May 9. 1996), and stated that the final 4(e) terms and conditions for the license would be provided within 45 days after issuance of this FEA. + Condition No. | - Requirement to Obtain a FS Special-Use Authorization . Condition No. 2 - FS Approval of Final Design ° Condition No. 3 - Approval of Changes After Initial Construction + Condition No. 4 - Consultation + Condition No. 5 - Minimum Steamflow Regime . Condition No. 6 - Guaranteed Priority Flow Bypass Device . Condition No. 7 - Visual Resource Protection Plan . Condition No. 8 - Erosion Control Plan + Condition No. 9 - Solid Waste and Waste Water Plan + Condition No. 10 - Hazardous Substance Plan + Condition No. 11 - Cultural Resource Protection . Condition No. 12 - Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan B. No-action Alternative Under the no-action alternative the project would not be built. Therefore, there would be no changes to the physical, biological, or cultural resources of the area. The generation that the proposed project would provide would not occur. The no-action alternative is the benchmark from which we compare the proposed action and other action alternatives. C. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study The following are descriptions of three alternative transmission line routes that were considered but eliminated from further consideration by AP&T: Along the White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad This alignment (about 4,400 feet long) would extend from the proposed substation upslope to the WP&YR RR, southerly along the railroad to the Clifton area, downslope across the Skagway River and lastly, upslope to the Customs Border Station. The reasons this alternative was ruled out from further consideration are that: (1) WP&YR RR plans to remove the existing telegraph line along the railroad right-of-way to provide less visual distraction to the natural aesthetics of the area and because the poles are not needed, (2) additional poles would further add to undesired visual impacts of the area, (3) WP&YR RR would impose cost prohibitive charges to AP&T for constructing the transmission line on the right-of-way easement, (4) steep topography and limited access for construction and maintenance presents engineering constraints, and (5) the visual impact to Klondike International Highway users Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 8 FERC No. 11077-001 would be potentially significant due to the taller structures ($5-foot-high transmission line poles) compared to the existing 30-foot-high telegraph poles. On the East Side of the Skagway River This alignment (about 3,400 feet long) would extend from the proposed substation downriver and parallel to the Skagway River for about 2.900 feet to the Clifton area. then upslope to the Customs Border Station. The reasons this alternative was ruled out trom further consideration are that: (1) construction would likely disturb the historic Brackett Wagon Road located along the east side of the river, (2) an extensive, time-consuming historic/cultural resources survey would be required to investigate presence of Gold Rush artifacts along this route, and the National Park Service discourages ground disturbance before completion of such surveys, (3) required mitigation to offset potential resource losses may be prohibitively expensive, (4) the FS and the town of Skagway may be interested in developing a recreational foot trail along the Brackett Wagon Road and a powerline in this area may not be compatible with land use and (5) this location would increase the visibility of the project from the Klondike International Highway. : Klondike 1 nal Higher This alignment (about 3,900 feet long) would extend from the proposed substation across the Skagway River, upslope to the Klondike International Highway, and southerly to the Customs Border Station. The reasons this alternative was ruled out from further consideration are: (1) the degree of slope for powerline construction to the highway and the amount of bedrock present presents two engineering difficulties, (2) the Alaska Department of Transportation disallows pole line construction along the highway due to the scenic nature of the highway, as seen from the WP& YR RR and as viewed from the highway, (3) visual quality would be impaired with the transmission line emerging from the valley to a point near highway pullouts used to view Pitchfork Falls. Although each of the transmission line routes considered may have some merits, we agree with AP&T that the alternatives are more environmentally-damaging and more costly to construct than the proposed alignment. Vv. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE A. Agency Consultation The Commission's hydropower regulations require applicants to consult with the appropriate resource agencies before filing a license application. This consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 9 FERC No. 11077-001 the National Historic Preservation Act. and other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation must be complete and documented according to the Commission's regulations. After the Commission accepts an application, formal comments may be submitted by concerned entities during a public notice period, in accordance with section 4.34(b) of the Commission's regulations under the FPA (18CFR §4.34(b)]. The comments provided by concerned entities are made part of the record and are considered during review of the proposed project. On August 29, 1995, and October 27, 1995, the Commission issued public notices that solicited comments and recommendations on the project. The Department of Interior (Interior) responded by letter dated November 27, 1995, however no recommendations were made on the project. B. Interventions The Commission's January 6, 1995, notice solicited organizations and individuals to petition to intervene and become a party to any subsequent proceedings. There were no motions to intervene filed for the project. C. Scoping Before preparing this FEA, we conducted scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed. A scoping document (SD1) was distributed to agencies and others on May 18, 1995 (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service 1995), and noticed in the Federal Register, The Skagway News, and Capital City Weekly Two scoping meetings were held on June 20 and June 22, 1995, in Skagway and Juneau, Alaska, respectively. Verbal comments received during the scoping meetings are recorded in the meeting transcripts (Ann Riley and Associates 1995a, 1995b). In response to SD1, we received written comments from the National Park Service (NPS) (letter from Clay Alderson, Superintendent, Klondike Gold Rush Park, Skagway, Alaska, June 22, 1995). These comments and the comments received at the scoping meetings were addressed in the final scoping document (SD2) issued September 27, 1995. The main issues identified during scoping were: project impacts on the cultural value of the Brackett Wagon Road, cultural resources protection, access to the project, location and type of transmission system, mitigation of archeological and scenic concerns, minimizing vegetation impacts, measures to protect wildlife, baseline data on mountain goats, time restrictions of bypass instream flows, natural resources management, project economics, contributions of air- borne pollution from fossil-fueled generation, and baseline environmental information. These issues are addressed in this FEA. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 10 FERC No. 11077-001 D. Water Quality Certification On September |, 1994, AP&T applied to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) for water quality certification for the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project. as required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. $1341). The ADEC received this request on September 6, 1994. On October 3, 1994, the ADEC waived AP&T's Section 401 water quality certificate (letter from R. Flinn, Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Juneau, Alaska, October 3. 1994). E. Coastal Zone Management Act Under Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). the Commission cannot issue a license for a project within or affecting a state's coastal zone, unless the state CZMA agency concurs with the license applicant's certification of consistency with that state's CZMA program, or the agency’s concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of its receipt of the applicant's certification. On August 18, 1994, AP&T applied to the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (ADGC) for a consistency determination of the project with the coastal zone management program (letter from Stan Selmer, Site Coordinator, Alaska Power and Telephone Company, Skagway, Alaska, August 18, 1994). On September 6, 1994, the ADGC acknowledged AP&T's certification request. On November 27, 1995, the ADGC certified that the Goat Lake Project was consistent with the Alaska CZMA and also with the Skagway Coastal Management Plan. No conditions or stipulations were included. F. Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment Commenting Entity Date of Letter March 25, 1996 April 4, 1996 April 15, 1996 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Power and Telephone Company . National Park Service ........... Appendix A includes the comments from the above entities along with our responses to them. Based on our responses, the corresponding sections of the FEA have been modified. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS In this section, staff first describes the general environmental setting in the project area. Included is a discussion of environmental resources in the Skagway River Valley that Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 a FERC No. 11077-001 may be subject to cumulative etfects from the Goat Lake Project when considered in combination with other actions affecting the resource. In our detailed assessment, we discuss each environmental resource atfected by the project. For each resource, we first describe the affected environment--which is the existing condition and the baseline against which to measure the effects of the proposed project and any alternative actions--and then the environmental effects of the project. including proposed mitigation measures. In evaluating the environmental etfects of the project, we consider both site-specific effects and any cumulative effects to resources in the basin. Unless we say otherwise, the sources of our information are the license application (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1994a-c) and additional information filings by AP&T (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995a-e, 1995g). A. General Description of the Goat Lake Drainage Area The project would be located east of the Skagway River along Pitchfork Falls, about 7 miles northeast of Skagway, Alaska. Founded in 1896, at the extreme north end of Lynn Canal, Skagway became an important stopover of gold seekers on their way to the Klondike gold fields. With the ebbing of the Klondike Gold Rush (see section VI.B.6.), Skagway’s population dwindled. The present mainstay of Skagway’s economy is tourism, where many tourists visit the area each year for the natural scenery in the Skagway River Valley. The project basin is also used occasionally for outdoor recreation such as hunting and camping. The project area and Skagway River Valley have a remote, wild, and undeveloped character. In particular, the lower portion of Pitchfork Falls has a prominent series of cascading waterfalls which is a popular attraction among local residents and visitors to the area. The three significant linear features that Pitchfork Falls crosses are the WP&YR RR at elevation 1,104 feet msl, the Canadian Oil pipeline along the railroad right-of-way, and the historic Brackett Wagon Road located about 200 feet below and generally parallel to the railroad. The project's 4.2-square-mile drainage basin includes glaciers, moraines, rugged mountainous terrain, and high-gradient streams with cascades and pools. The topography of the region is primarily the result of glaciation about 13,000 years ago. The landscape of the project area is made up of forests, mixed with mountain meadows, exposed bedrock and boulders, shrubland communities, meadows, and scattered wetlands. The Tongass National Forest provides habitat for about 54 species of mammals, 231 species of birds, and 5 species of amphibians and reptiles (U.S. Forest Service 1991a, 1991b). Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 12 FERC No. 11077-001 The 943-kilowatt Dewey Lakes Project (FERC No. 1051), located about I mile east of Skagway, is the only existing hydropower project in the Skagway region. This project was originally licensed on April 1, 1980. and the license expires on August 29, 2007 1. Cumulative Impacts 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. The individually minor impacts of multiple actions, when added together in space and time. may amount to collectively significant cumulative impacts. The existing environment shows the effects of past and present actions and provides the context for determining the significance of cumulative impacts from future actions. In SD2, we identified tourism and sightseeing opportunities as two elements that could be cumulatively affected by development of the project in combination with existing and potential development in the area. However, after further analysis, we don't believe there is a potential for these, or other resources to be cumulatively affected. The following is the basis for our conclusion: ° The Clinton Customs Border Station, the Klondike International Highway, and the WP& YR RR (Figure |) are the main non-hydropower developments in the Skagway River Valley. Except for other small and isolated structures, there are no other visible human developments in the valley. None of these developments has contributed, nor is expected to contribute, to adverse impacts on tourism and sightseeing opportunities in the area. At this time, there is no known development planned. . Because of its location in a forested environment, the Dewey Lakes Project is not visible from primary public viewing locations such as the Klondike International Highway, the WP&YR RR, or from the town of Skagway. Visual effects of this development can only be seen from hiking trails that lead to the site from Skagway, or by flying over the project above 500 feet msl elevation. Therefore, the Dewey Lakes Project does not adversely affect tourism and sightseeing opportunities in the valley. ° AP&T proposes site-specific measures to minimize potential adverse effects from project development on the aesthetic quality of the Goat Lake Project area (see section VI.B.5.). These measures, which are consistent with the Tongass Land Management Plan, would minimize any impacts to visual resources in the project area; therefore eliminating any impacts to tourism and sightseeing opportunities. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 13 FERC No. 11077-001 B. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 1, Geology and Soil Resources a_Affected Environment: The project area consists of exposed bedrock with talus and alluvium deposits. The slopes range from flat to steep. The steeper slopes have an accumulation of rock debris that has formed fan shaped deposits (talus deposits) at the base of steep-sided cliffs. The less steep slopes are alluvium deposits of sand, gravel. cobbles, and boulders with traces of silt and woody debris. An organic soil (muskeg) is also found in the project area. Muskegs consist of a soft. highly compressible mixture of peat moss. roots, and other vegetation. The talus and alluvium deposits together with muskeg underlain by bedrock, provide a stable area with little chance of erosion or sedimentation. However, occasionally, water streams with high velocities, water from snow melt, snow avalanches, or major landslides could cause this type of material to shift and move causing erosion and sedimentation. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Construction of the penstock, powerhouse, catchbasin, siphon house, pumpback/valvehouse and other project features have the potential to cause erosion and sedimentation that would affect water quality. On March 30, 1995, AP&T submitted a draft erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) that outlined the methods and techniques to be followed to control construction impacts during land-disturbing activities. These measures include sediment control ponds, silt fence barriers, streambank stabilization, and use of rock to construct entrance roads. Also, AP&T proposes to use aerial trams and helicopters to transport construction materials to job sites, and to revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible after construction is completed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), and Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) all agree that the methods and measures outlined in AP&T's draft ESCP address project construction impacts and would ensure maintenance of water quality (letters from Nevin Holmberg, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, April 17, 1995; John Palmes, Area Habitat Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, April 11, 1995; and William Long, Executive Director, Soil and Water Conservation Board, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, May 1, 1995). The FS concludes that the potential for soil erosion is low and that mitigation for any potential erosion is outlined in the draft ESCP. However, the FS says that under their section 4(e) authority, and granting a SUA, AP&T would have to further develop its draft ESCP. The final plan would be required to comply with the Best Management Practices described in the FS Region 10 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook for this type of construction. Also, Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 14 FERC No. 1077-001 under their section 4(e) authority, the FS would require AP&T to develop solid waste. wastewater. and hazardous substance plans betore land-disturbing activities. Staff concludes that the potential for erosion and sedimentation to occur in the Project area is low because of the mostly stable slopes. Further, we agree with the agencies that AP&T’s draft ESCP outlines methods and measures to be followed during land-disturbing activities that would control construction impacts and protect water quality. However, we also agree with the FS that AP&T needs to develop a final ESCP prior to land-disturbing activities because the draft plan is general and not site-specific enough for construction. Therefore, we recommend that AP&T develop a final site-specific ESCP using its draft as a basis for the final plan. We further recommend that the final plan include provisions for handling solid waste, wastewater, and hazardous substances. The final plan should be developed in consultation with the FS, and other agencies, and approved by the FS before it is filed for Commission approval. ¢. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Minor, temporary and localized erosion that would cause temporary sedimentation would be unavoidable during construction activities. 2. Aquatic Resources a. Affected Environment: The Goat Lake outlet flows through a 5-foot-wide, bedrock notch and combines with runoff from the glacial moraine to form a shallow pond about 600 feet below the lake. The pond outflow descends 2,100 feet over a steep, 30 percent gradient and forms Pitchfork Falls before entering the Skagway River. Water Quantity Inflows to Goat Lake result from a combination of precipitation and glacial runoff. AP&T used U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flow data, recorded for the Skagway River at the town of Skagway from 1964 through 1986, to estimate the inflows to Goat Lake by calculating its drainage as a proportion of the Skagway River drainage. Table | shows the estimated average annual and monthly inflows to Goat Lake. The glacier, located above a moraine area at the south end of Goat Lake, is about 1.7 square miles and provides runoff through the moraine to Goat Lake, the pond below Goat Lake, and to Pitchfork Falls below the pond. To develop hydrologic data for the project site, flow gages were installed at the outlet to Goat Lake, the outlet of the pond below Goat Lake, and above Pitchfork Falls near the railroad line. The data for water years 1991 through 1994 show that about 18 percent of the Pitchfork Falls flows are from glacial runoff and the remainder from the pond outflow. Table 2 shows the estimated average annual and monthly flows in Pitchfork Falls as recorded at the gage located at Pitchfork Falls near the railroad line. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 15 FERC No. 11077-001 Table | Estimated average inflows to Goat Lake for water years 1964 through 1986 (Source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b) January 09 July 352 February 0.7 | August 26.1 March ; 0.7 September 162 April Ls October 94 May 99 November 34 December Table 2. Estimated average flows for Pitchfork Falls for water years 1991 through 1994 (Source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b). estimated average increasing it 7 20 percent to epitieal a high estimated wage We af are using the low estimate as the more realistic average. AP&T provided us with monthly estimated averages only for the high estimate, so we calculated the monthly estimates for Table 2 by applying the corresponding monthly percents of the high annual average to the low annual average. Water Quality Water quality in the proposed project area complies with applicable state standards. AP&T conducted water quality studies during August 1992, March and July 1994, and January and March 1995. Water samples for the study were collected from the surface of Goat Lake, 25 feet below the lake surface, and from the Skagway River above and below the Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 16 FERC No. 11077-001 outlet of Pitchfork Falls. Dissolved oxygen levels ranged from 7.1 milligrams per liter (mg/l) to 12.2 mg/l in Goat Lake and from 8.2 mg/l to 9.8 mg/l in the Skagway River. Turbidity levels ranged from 1.49 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU’s) to 9.11 NTU’s in Goat Lake and from 0.47 NTU’s to 44.2 NTU’s in the Skagway River. The pH levels ranged from 6.8 to 7.25 in Goat Lake and from 7.11 to 7.51 in the Skagway River. Conductivity levels ranged from 35 microsiemens per centimeter (u4S/cm) to 54.6 uS/cm in Goat Lake and from 23 uS/cm to 64.2 S/cm in the Skagway River. Temperature profiles were developed for Goat Lake in August 1992, July 1994, and March 1995. The temperatures in Goat Lake ranged from 0.0° Celsius (C) to 5.5°C with no significant thermal stratification in any single profile. Fisheries In April 1994, AP&T and the ADFG conducted a fish survey in the Skagway River upstream and downstream of the Pitchfork Falls outlet. During the survey, no fish were captured or observed. The survey report showed that existing habitat conditions are extremely poor because of the high gradient and lack of overwintering and rearing habitats. The survey results indicate that this section of the Skagway River does not support any significant fish populations (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b). Goat Lake is a coldwater, nutrient-poor lake that historically has not supported fish populations. The ADFG and the FS recently conducted an experimental stocking of Arctic grayling in Goat Lake in an effort to establish a naturally reproducing fish population that would support a fly-in sport fishery. The ADFG stocked the lake with 1,000 immature Arctic grayling in 1994 and 1995; however, a fishery survey conducted after the 1995 stocking found no surviving population (personal communication with Mike Schwan, Supervisor, and John Palmes, Area Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, November 8, 1995). b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Water Rights AP&T has applied to the ADNR for the right to withdraw up to 45 cfs from Goat Lake for hydroelectric power use. There are no existing allocations of water from Goat Lake or the Skagway River for consumptive or non-consumptive uses, so no other water users would be affected by the project. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 17 Fisheries In SD 2. we identified one aquatic resource issue for analysis: “Whether project drawdowns would limit Arctic grayling access to spawning streams entering Goat Lake, should a population become successfully established.” During the scoping process we received comments on this issue from the FS, the ADFG., and AP&T. The commenters stated that the effects of a 20- to 30-foot drawdown on the entrances to the spawning streams would not be known until after the areas were exposed (Ann Riley and Associates 1995a, 1995b). Based on the findings of the ADFG survey conducted after the June 1995 stocking, we have concluded that no Arctic grayling population has established in Goat Lake, eliminating any potential project effects. c._ Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None 3. Terrestrial Resources a. Affected Environment: The project area contains a variety of resource habitats: mountain meadows, shrubland communities, herbaceous-sedge meadows, avalanche chutes, bare bedrock and bedrock supporting lichens, open montane coniferous forest, scattered wet- sedge meadows, muskegs, alpine heaths, and sedge mats (letter from Mary Clay Stensvold, Regional Botanist, U.S. Forest Service, Sitka Ranger District, Sitka, Alaska, April 29, 1994). The dominant trees are subalpine fir, Sitka spruce, western hemlock, paper birch, and cottonwood while the understory shrubs are dominated by Sitka alder, rusty menziesia, black current, tall blueberry, devil's club, shield fern, crowberry and mountain heather. Herbaceous vegetation include ferns, bunchberry, mosses, five-leaf bramble, twayblade, and Sitka valerian. According to the national wetland inventory, the project area has seven wetland types that are listed on Table 3. The project area has varied and unique wildlife, which provides consumptive and nonconsumptive uses by the public, including sport, subsistence, photographic, and viewing activities. Some of the wildlife are black bear, pine marten, mountain goat, river otter, hairy woodpecker, and boreal owl. Among large birds in the project vicinity is the bald eagle, which is not federally threatened in Alaska as it is in the conterminous United States. During the summer of 1993, there were three known nests near Skagway; two are west of town and the third is in the lower reach of the Taiya Inlet (letter from Mike Jacobson, Eagle Management Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska, September 29, 1993). Bald eagles frequent the Skagway River. Reportedly, as many as 90 eagles have been observed near the head of Taiya Inlet in early spring when spawning candlefish arrive. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 18 Table 3 Wetlands in the project area (Source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b). Wetland-! Lacustrine, limnetic. unconsolidated. head of project area; permanently flooded system Principle water source of | project Riverine, intermuttent seasonally Pitchfork Falls conveys water from Goat flooded streambed | Lake to Skagway River Palustrine. scrub-shrub, broad-leaved | unnamed about 2,400 feet SSW of deciduous the proposed penstock: on | west-facing slope Riverine, upper perennial, Skagway River bottom of project; tailrace | unconsolidated bottom discharges ‘directly into river Palustrine, unconsolidated, about 4,800 feet N of semipermanently flooded Pitchfork Falls and about 1,200 feet west of Goat Lake ee oa Palustrine, unconsolidated, about 1,800 feet NNE of permanently flooded Goat Lake Palustrine, unconsolidated, about 1,800 feet NNE of semipermanently flooded | Goat Lake Palustrine emergent, persistent, about 6,000 feet NNE seasonally flooded from Goat Lake Bald eagles have not been seen at Goat Lake or Pitchfork Falls, probably because of the absence of fish, which is the principal component of their diet. No other raptor nest sites are known in the Goat Lake area. Other large birds that may periodically use the project area, in small numbers, are the great blue heron, trumpeter swan, and perhaps Canada goose and sandhill crane. Surveys indicate that mountain goat use in the area surrounding Goat Lake is minimal (memorandum from Ben Carney, Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, November 20, 1995). Only two individuals were observed during seven surveys between 1973 and 1994 in the project area. Most of the goats in the project vicinity were near Laughton Glacier, on south-facing slopes along the East Fork of the Skagway River, or on west-facing areas above Goat Lake (letter from Matt Robus, Area Management Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 19 FERC No. 1077-001 Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Douglas, Alaska, January 27, 1994), A low use mountain goat winter area was identified on the west side of the Skagway River Valley in 1973 (memorandum from John Palmes. Regional Habitat Coordinator, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, April 9, 1973) A habitat capability model was developed to estimate the capability of habitats in southeast Alaska (0 support mountain goat populations (Suring et al. 1988). Since wintering habitat is the most limiting factor for mountain goats in southeast Alaska, particularly due to heavy snows and limited access to desired forage, wintering habitat was emphasized in the model. The important components affecting winter habitat suitability and capability in the model were availability of wintering food, escape terrain, distance of use from cliffs, southerly aspects, general slope characteristics, successional stage of vegetation, tree canopy, mobility corridors, predation, human disturbance and harvest (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1995; Alaska Department of Highways 1973). As a result, predicted goat use areas were plotted and the closest suitable habitat was about 1,400 feet northeast of Goat Lake at elevation 3,150 feet msl, and about 2,000 feet due south of the lake at elevation 3,500 feet msl. Based on physical attributes of the Goat Lake basin, the Project area is not expected to be a kidding area. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Habitat Disturbance Project construction of the valvehouse, new spillway, siphon house, penstock, powerhouse, transmission line, access road, and tramway would physically disturb an estimated 9.25 acres of native soils, vegetation, and habitat used by wildlife. To partially offset these losses and minimize disturbance and alteration to these affected resources, AP&T Proposes to: (1) leave as much vegetation as possible during powerhouse and penstock construction; (2) revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible after disturbance, (3) follow FS guidelines for revegetating disturbed areas; (4) use a helicopter or donkey-winch to transport the penstock to its location to protect as much natural vegetation as possible; and (5) design the penstock to avoid interference with wildlife movements. These measures have largely resulted through agency consultation during the preapplication stage. Staff believes implementation of these measures would minimize, protect, or avoid adverse effects on terrestrial resources in the project area. Staff, therefore, recommends that the proposed terrestrial resource protection and mitigation measures should be implemented to ensure conservation of these resources. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 20 FERC No. 1107-001 Wetlands/ Riparian Construction of the new spill route. diversion structure. penstock. tailrace. pumpback house. siphon house, and backfilling of the old channel outlet would affect less than 1.0 acre of small, isolated alpine heaths, sedge-grass meadows. sedge mats, and alpine herbaceous meadows having saturated soils and wetland characteristics. The selected site for the powerhouse and substation is about 1.600 feet downriver and on the east side of the Skagway River from the confluence of Pitchfork Falls with the Skagway River. On March 16, 1995, the FS agreed that the wetlands and riparian habitats were not in direct conflict with the project features and that unavoidable incidental impacts to wetland habitats would be minor. We find that since AP&T: (1) has designed the project features to avoid the project area wetlands as much as possible, (2) would avoid effects on wetlands during construction as much as possible, as outlined in the application, and (3) would revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible after construction, as outlined in the draft ESCP and recommended in the final ESCP (section VI.B.1.), all reasonable efforts would be made to minimize wetland impacts and protect water quality. Raptor Protection of Transmission Line a. Electrocution AP&T proposes to construct a 3,400-foot-long, 24.9-kV aerial transmission line. The alignment would start at the substation, cross the Skagway River, continue downgradient and parallel along the west side of the Skagway River near Clinton, and then traverse upslope to the Customs Border Station to intertie with AP&T's existing 24.9-kV transmission line to Skagway. The entire west side of the river is state land. Because the transmission line could represent an electrocution hazard to bald eagles and other large birds in the area, AP&T plans to design and construct the line to prevent possible long-term hazards to raptors and other large birds. Accordingly, AP&T would construct the line to meet or exceed the Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines - The State of the Art in 1981 (Olendorff et al. 1981). In particular, the energized conductors would be positioned far enough apart (minimum separation of 60 inches) that large birds would be unable to simultaneously touch two or more of them with their wings or other body parts. In their March 15, 1995, response, the FWS and FS concurred with AP&T's raptor Protection measures on the transmission line. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 21 FERC No. 11077-001 According to Olendorff et al. (1981). transmission lines less than 69 kV could pose an electrocution hazard to birds because of birds’ bodily contact with energized conductors. While we recognize that the project area appears to have only incidental occurrences of bald eagles and other large birds, we nevertheless agree with AP&T’s long-term measures to safeguard against any possible electrocution to bald eagles and other large birds b. Collision Due to the absence of eagle nest sites. communal roosts, and endangered raptors in the project area, AP&T doesn’t propose collision avoidance measures on the transmission line. In areas of high fog, strong electrical and rain storms, and other climatic conditions, it is possible that transmission lines could pose collision hazards to small and large birds, including eagles. There are no recommended agency measures to prevent collision hazards A literature review shows that raptor collisions with transmission lines are random, low level, and inconsequential. Eagles have keen eyesight, use relatively slow flapping flight speed, and become conditioned to the presence of transmission lines (Olendorff and Lehman 1986). We agree with AP&T that no collision measures are needed because of the following: (1) large bird populations in the project area are very low in numbers, and (2) it doesn't seem likely that bird strikes with power lines would contribute to substantial bird losses in the project area. We therefore conclude that the overhead transmission line, as proposed, is consistent with accepted protection guidelines that would prevent electrocution hazards to large birds. Therefore, AP&T should construct the transmission line as proposed. Mountain Goats Chadwick (1983) reports that mountain goat populations have experienced significant declines following habitat alterations and disturbance from hunting and other human activities. In particular, this species is more sensitive to disturbances than any other big game species in North America. The project area has no road access and limited human use. Project construction would likely cause localized noise and disturbance from helicopter and machinery use; however, the noise is not expected to last long, nor be offensive to normal mountain goat activities during the spring and summer months. Because Goat Lake does not appear to provide important summer or winter mountain goat habitat, this species is not likely to be significantly affected by construction or maintenance activities associated with the project. The ADFG agrees (memorandum from Ben Carney, Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, November 20, 1995; letter from Matt Robus, Area Management Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 22 FERC No. 11077-001 Douglas, Alaska, January 27, 1994: memorandum from John Palmes, Area Habitat Biologist. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Douglas. Alaska, November 22. 1995) Nevertheless, to minimize any potential adverse effects on goat mating or kidding during project construction, AP&T proposes to adjust the construction schedule, through coordination with the FS and ADFG, to avoid possible disturbance during the mating and kidding periods. Therefore, we agree with AP&T's proposed protection measure and recommend this protection measure be included in any license issued for the project. To further ensure that wildlife, including goats. are not affected by helicopter activity in the Project area. the FS is including in their required section 4(e) conditions, that AP&T file a wildlife habitat plan having the same requirements for minimum distances from wildlife that is required for helicopter tours. This includes maintaining a 1,500-foot vertical and horizontal clearance between helicopters and key goat areas, avoiding known kidding areas from May 15 through June 15, and avoiding harassment of wildlife in any way. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Project construction is expected to alter about 9.25 acres of wildlife habitat and existing landscape resources that include shrublands, open montane coniferous stands, herbaceous-sedge meadows, bedrock supporting lichens, avalanche chutes, muskegs, and alpine heaths and sedge mats. About one acre of wetland would be affected by project construction, particularly for establishing the penstock. Use of a helicopter and other equipment during project construction would increase noise in the project area, which could cause temporary dispersal and relocation of wildlife. It is expected that this short-term noise would occur only during the construction season. Because of their preferred habitat away from Goat Lake, it is unlikely that mountain goats would be affected by the project. 4. Threatened and Endangered Species a. Affected Environment: The FS conducted an extensive plant survey of the project area on July 27, 1993. The survey area included: (1) the proposed penstock corridor from the intake at the lake downgradient to the top of Pitchfork Falls, (2) the existing outlet at the lake to the top of Pitchfork Falls, (3) the subalpine meadow/montane forest mosaic in the general project area, (4) the lower part of the moraine, and (5) montane forest in the Pitchfork Falls vicinity. Only one of the 22 plants designated as sensitive by the FS Regional Forester was located.* This plant, the goose-grass sedge (Carex lenticularis var. FS sensitive plant species are those for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by (a) significant current or predicted downward trends in populations numbers or density, and (>) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 23 FERC No. 11077-001 dolia). is also a species of special concern by the FWS. There are no other listed plants by the FWS in the project area that are threatened. endangered. candidate or species of special concem The FWS states that the following federally-listed animal species may occur in the proposed project area as transients, particularly during seasonal migration: endangered American peregrine falcon and Arctic peregrine falcon ’ (letter from Nevin D. Holmberg, Field Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Juneau, Alaska, August.21, 1992; personal communication, John Lindell, Endangered Species Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska, November 21, 1995). Additionally, there are four FWS species of special concern that may occur in the project area: marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Goose-Grass Sedge The first known Alaska collection of the Carex lenticularis var. dolia was in 1913 near Skagway, and its main geographic range in Alaska is the southeast panhandle south to Queen Charlotte Island. There are also widely disjunct populations in the Yukon Territory, British Columbia, Alberta, and Glacier National Park in Montana, its southernmost limit. Although there have been few individuals collected, this plant seems to prefer high mountain elevations (5,000 to 9,800 feet msl), at high latitudes from timberline to the alpine, and almost always in or at the water's edge (Standley 1985). The goose-grass sedge appears to be an early successional species, colonizing shallow, wet, organic loamy soils along streams and in seep areas of gentle terrain. The soils are usually very shallow and have a high content of stones and gravel. Surrounding vegetation is usually moist meadows or tundra. In some areas it may be one of the first plants to stabilize stream banks and wet, slumping soils of high elevation terraces. A FS plant survey of the project area revealed that the goose-grass sedge was found above the east side of Goat Lake at about 4,000 feet msl, outside the project area (letter from Mary Clay Stensvold, Regional Botanist, U.S. Forest Service, Sitka Ranger District, Sitka, Alaska, April 29, 1994). ” Although the Arctic peregrine falcon was delisted on October 5, 1994 (Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 192, pp. 50796-S080S) and is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, the FWS must monitor this species for $ years following its delisting. Federal agencies are requested to voluntarily consider the Arctic peregrine falcon in their planning processes. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 24 FERC No. 11077-001 American Peregrine Falcon In Alaska. the American peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus anatum) primarily inhabits interior portions of the state. It is highly migratory and winters as far south as Argentina. Although this species may occur in the project area as a transient, primarily during seasonal migration, there has been no reported observation in the vicinity of the project. Migration routes and patterns and forage areas haven't been identified. During migration across southeast Alaska. availability and abundance of prey most likely determines the birds’ flight patterns and stopover areas. About 82 percent of the food consumed by the American peregrine are vertebrates, and the primary prey in Alaska consists of shorebirds, waterfowl, and passerine birds (U.S. Forest Service 1991b). Peregrines forage over bodies of water, marshes, grasslands, shorelines, and over wooded areas and they attack flying prey from above or by chasing them. Data suggests that the American peregrine populations have recovered as a result of restrictions on organochlorine pesticide use (especially DDT and DDE) in the United States and Canada, and because of successful reintroduction from captive-bred species. In nature, these chemicals have caused eggshell thinning and poor reproductive success among peregrine falcons. No organochlorine pesticides are authorized for use on the Tongass National Forest (U.S. Forest Service 1991a, 1991b). According to Ambrose et al. (1988), American peregrine populations in Alaska are continuing to increase. Therefore, the FWS Proposes to remove this species from the list of threatened and endangered wildlife and the critical habitat designation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). Peseta As with the American peregrine, the Arctic peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus tundrius) populations declined following World War II as a result of organochlorine pesticides use. After 20 years of restriction on the use of these chemicals marked by steady progress toward recovery, reproductive rates in arctic peregrines have steadily increased, and populations continue to rise. About 250 pairs nest in Alaska and thousands nest throughout arctic North America. There has been no reported observation of the Arctic peregrine falcon in the project vicinity. Arctic peregrines nest in tundra regions of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland and migrate through mid North American latitudes and winter in Latin America. Arctic peregrines occur in southeast Alaska only during the migration periods (U.S. Forest Service 1991b). In Alaska, this subspecies nests mostly along rivers in the northern and western parts of the state. Nests are positioned on cliffs or bluffs usually near rivers or lakes that provide habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, and songbirds on which the falcons prey. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 25 FERC No. 11077-001 Although the rate of habitat alteration in nesting, migration, and wintering habitats 1s greater now than in the past. the rapid population increase over the last 15 years (Ambrose et al. 1988) suggests that habitat modification does not threaten the continued existence of this species Marbled M The marbled murrelet is regarded as a bird of mystery because its nesting habits are largely unknown and its nearshore feeding habits make it difficult to survey. This small seabird spends most of its time along coastal areas from Alaska to central California and feeds primarily on small Pacific herring, northern anchovies, Pacific sandlances, sea perch, and invertebrates in near-shore marine waters (Federal Register Vol.60, No.154, pp.40892- 40908, August 10, 1995). Throughout forested portions of its range, such as in the Alexander Archipelago in which the project lies, the marbled murrelet nests in mature and old-growth coniferous forests located mostly within 38 miles (60 km) from marine coastal waters. Those murtelet populations in the more westerly Aleutian and Kenai Peninsula Archipelagos generally nest on the ground. Tree nesting murrelets select large diameter, old-growth healthy or decadent trees more than 100 feet above the ground often having mistletoe, deformations, and moss on large limbs (Pacific Seabird Group 1995, Kuletz et al. 1994). Marbled murrelet population numbers are thought to be declining in the lower forty- eight. The greatest threat to murrelets is nesting habitat loss and modification due to logging, development, and fragmentation of nesting stands (Federal Register Vol.65, No 119.. pp. 28362-28367, June 20, 1991, Pacific Seabird Group 1995). Estimated population numbers are higher in Alaska (50,000-220,000) than in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California combined (32,000-71,900). No wi The largest of the accipiter hawks, the northern goshawk has a wide geographic breeding range in North America and, in Alaska, it inhabits and breeds in the central and eastern portions of the state (Johnsgard 1990). It winters throughout its breeding range and extends as far south as northern Mexico and Texas. Primarily in April and May, goshawks nest in nearly every kind of coniferous forest, but also use deciduous and mixed woodlands (Apfelbaum and Seelbach 1983). McGowan (1975) found that goshawks in interior Alaska selected paper birch for nesting 94 percent of the time where suitable nest-tree species were present. Generally, nest sites are in old, tall trees having a well-developed understory and are near a water source of moderate slope, usually having a northerly aspect. Large forest stands are favored and there is a great deal of variation in population density throughout its Holarctic range. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 26 FERC No. 1077-001 The northern goshawk is associated with diverse habitats such as dense coniferous taiga with scattered glade, tall conifers mixed with deciduous woods. river forests, and cultivated coniferous plantations. and stands of birch. aspen. pine in steppe or woodlands Coniferous forests are preferred over deciduous. The bird shows a lower habitat specificity in the winter often ranging into other habitats. including deserts. In the project area, the northern goshawk is known only as a transient. All studies have shown that there is a high dependency on birds and mammals of moderate to large size in the goshawk diet (Sherrod 1978). Important prey base for the goshawk are Stellar’s jays, grouse, ptarmigan, thrushes, and mid-sized furbearers. Goshawks have not been abundant in southeast Alaska but because they are associated with forested landscapes, they are vulnerable to habitat loss from land disturbance. Harlequin Duck In selected areas of its range, such as the Aleutian Islands and parts of British Columbia, the harlequin duck is abundant. But because much of their worldwide range lies in remote regions, accurate populations and distribution has been difficult to determine. The western populations of harlequins are primarily in Alaska, particularly in the Aleutians, Alexander Archipelago, and the Alaska Peninsula. The Aleutian Islands are considered to be “a center of abundance” for the Pacific harlequin ducks (Palmer 1976). In May, adults leave their wintering areas along coasts for interior breeding grounds. Their breeding distribution extends from northern Alaska to Washington state where the distribution splits southward to the Cascade range and southeasterly to the northern Rocky Mountains. Harlequins have also been observed during the summer on islands in the Bering Sea and Pribolofs. : Harlequins usually nest along rocky shores adjacent to rapids of turbulent mountain streams. In Alaska’s eastern Prince William Sound, harlequins selected the largest . anadromous salmon streams for nesting (Crowley 1993). The nests were located along first order tributaries near timberline, on steep southwest-facing slopes, and positioned beneath old growth forests. Well concealed nests are generally composed of a thin layer of grass, with dry twigs and leaves, and lined with down. Females incubate assiduously and appear to have a high degree of fidelity when nesting. In search of food, harlequins can dive to depths of 5 feet in swift currents. Most of their preferred foods are animal material such as crustaceans (mud crabs, hermit crabs, amphipods), mollusks (chitons, periwinkles, limpets, chink shells, blue mussels), insects (stone flies), worms, and fish. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 27 FERC No. 11077-001 The harlequin duck is thought to occasionally move through the Skagway River Valley in individual or low numbers Sport ro! The distribution and population status of the spotted frog in Alaska is unknown. The historical range extended from extreme southeastern Alaska south to central Nevada and east to northwestern Wyoming. The specific reasons for its decline are unknown but researchers speculate the following principle causes: (1) habitat loss due to encroachment by man, (2) climatic changes, including droughts, (3) lake acidification as a consequence of climate change or succession, (4) increased UV-B radiation due to ozone depletion, and (5) competition with introduced species such as bullfrogs (Blaustein et al. 1995; Waters 1992; Hayes and Jennings 1986). The spotted frog habitats range from coniferous northwest forests to semiarid sagebrush sites. Generally the spotted frog is highly aquatic, always found near permanent water and adjacent grassy margins of lakes, streams, and ponds. It is suggested that this elusive species is more common in cold water habitats than in warm, stagnant ponds. In the Stiking River basin near Wrangell, south of Juneau, they were observed breeding in outwash ponds and in a backwater lake, with possible breeding in muskegs and beaver ponds (Waters 1992). This frog is not an old-growth obligate, but forested areas may represent important refugia from further population losses (Blaustein et al. 1995). This species has been reported in the Haines area (located about 40 miles south of the proposed project site), but has yet to be verified by the FWS. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The Goat Lake Project would not adversely affect the federally endangered American peregrine falcon or delisted Arctic peregrine falcon because: (1) both peregrine falcon species are thought to occur in the project area only in small numbers and as occasional migrants; (2) critical habitat for both peregrine species are not known to occur in the project area; (3) preferred prey (shorebirds and waterfowl) are not abundant in the project area, so foraging would not be affected; and (4) the alteration of about 10 acres of forest, shrubland, and muskeg habitats would not affect prey availability for migrating peregrines nor important foraging habitats such as wetlands, ponds, and riparian zones. We also conclude that the project would not adversely affect the five species of special concern that could occur in the project area for the following reasons: (1) these species have not been found in the project area; (2) the goose-grass sedge was found at the 4.000 foot msl elevation, outside the project's impact area; (3) the project area does not have preferred old growth and mature coniferous habitat for marbled murrelet nesting nor is such habitat known in the Skagway River Valley; (4) populations of the northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog that could inhabit the area are likely to be low; (5) the Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 28 FERC No. 11077-001 project area is not known to support high populations nor provide known critical habitat for the northern goshawk, harlequin duck. and spotted frog: (6) project construction is not expected to affect nesting or movements of the northern goshawk. harlequin duck, and spotted frog; (7) because Goat Lake is a nutrient-poor lake with low bioproductivity, it is not probable that Pitchfork Falls, which receives water from Goat Lake, sustains a suitable food base (aquatic invertebrate diversity and numbers) for the harlequin duck; (8) construction of various project features (intake, siphon house, pumpback valve house, penstock, powerhouse/ substation, transmission line) are not likely to be sited in desired nesting habitats of northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog; and (9) since the project is located about 250 miles north of the known limits of the western spotted frog, it is not likely that this species can be found in the project area. Therefore, we think that the project would not affect the endangered American peregrine falcon and that no further action pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, is required. By letter dated March 25, 1996, the FWS concurred with our determination (letter from Nevin D. Holmberg, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska, March 25, 1996). We also find that project construction and operation would not affect the delisted Arctic peregrine falcon, and the five species of special concern: goose-grass sedge, marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None a._Affected Environment: The proposed project is located in the Coast Range of southeast Alaska. The Skagway River Valley is characteristic of the region, with its narrow U-shaped valley with glaciers hanging from the surrounding mountain peaks. The lower elevations are densely forested. The higher areas are mostly exposed bedrock. There are many lakes, streams, and rivers throughout the region. Goat Lake is a typical glacier fed lake located in a steep, hanging valley comprised of bedrock and very little vegetation of significant size. The lake is difficult to get to, except by floatplane or helicopter, or hikers who do not need an established trail. The Skagway River is the most prominent of the region's waterforms. Pitchfork Falls, a long cascading series of waterfalls that descends into the Skagway River, is the most prominent of the many streams that cascade down the valley's walls. The falls, along with most of the Skagway River Valley, is visible from the turnouts on the Klondike International Highway and from the WP&YR RR. The lower part of Pitchfork Falls can be accessed by the WP&YR RR as it passes through the project area. The lower- and mid-level of the project area, which includes Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 29 FERC No. 11077-001 Pitchfork Falls, where the penstock. powerhouse, tram, and transmission line would be located. is visible from the Klondike International Highway. on the opposite side of the river and from the WP&YR RR. There are several overlooks along the highway where tourists stop and view the Skagway River corridor. which includes the project area. b_ Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Constructing and operating the project would affect the aesthetic quality of the project area. The impacts would result from constructing new structures in a relatively undeveloped area and reducing flows over Pitchfork Falls from project operations. Effect of Project Facilities on Aesthetic Resources The penstock, which would be located in dense forested vegetation except where it crosses an avalanche area, should not significantly detract from the aesthetic quality of the area. The powerhouse and substation, located about 1.600 feet downriver from the confluence of Pitchfork Falls with the Skagway River, would also be located in dense vegetation. Although the structures would be visible from the highway overlooks, they would only be partially visible because of the screening from the vegetation. The transmission line and cable\tram would be mostly screened from view by vegetation, but would be visible where they cross the river. Goat Lake is in the flight path for visitors touring the area by helicopter. The FS completed an EA, dated May 16, 1995, to assess the effects of helicopter landing tours in the Skagway and Haines area. The selected alternative for authorized helicopter landings includes flying over Goat Lake to access a landing site on Laughton Glacier. The passengers would be able to view the reduced lake level and some project facilities, such as the siphon house and pumpback/valve station. This would not be a significant impact as the facilities should not be readily apparent and the exposed bedrock shoreline would appear similar to the surrounding terrain. Project construction would also cause increased traffic, noise, and dust levels that would temporarily and locally affect visual quality to the project area. AP&T has proposed using construction methods that would minimize the impacts of the facilities on the aesthetic quality of the area. These are: (1) using materials and coloration so that the structures blend into the landscape; (2) minimizing clearing of existing vegetation and ground disturbance for construction of the penstock, powerhouse and substation; (3) removing spoil material; (4) revegetating areas disturbed during construction; (5) and providing access to the powerhouse site by a cable\tram river crossing. The FS, by letter dated February 14, 1995, agreed with these methods and recommended that the applicant develop a visual resource management plan that would provide further details of these specific measures. The staff agrees with the FS that the erosion control and terrestrial Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 30 FERC No. 11077-001 resource measures (revegetate disturbed areas. minimizing vegetative disturbance) proposed by AP&T would assist to effectively maintain the aesthetic quality of the Project area Therefore. after consultation with the FS, AP&T should file a visual resource management plan to specify the exterior treatment of project facilities, clearing of vegetation. and revegetating disturbed areas. The plan should be developed in conjunction with the erosion and sediment control plan discussed in section VI.B.1., the terrestrial resource measures in section VI.B.3.. and the MOA cultural resources management plan in section VLB.6. Effect of Reduced Flows on Aesthetic Quality of Pitchfork Falls Pitchfork Falls is a scenic attraction that contributes to the aesthetic quality of the area. I[t is the focus of viewers from the highway overlooks and from the railcars that pass by the falls. Pitchfork Falls is also mentioned in publications describing the area attractions. Project operation would reduce flows over Pitchfork Falls that could affect the aesthetic quality of the falls. AP&T and the FS, with assistance from a Visual Impact Analysis prepared by Land Design North (1994), studied different flow alternatives. Reduction of flow would have various levels of impact depending on the selected alternative. By letter dated July 20, 1995, the FS determined that a minimum flow of 13 cfs would maintain the aesthetic quality of the falls. The FS also determined that maintaining the flow would only be necessary during 12 daylight hours per day, from May through September, the peak tourist season (see section VI.B.7.). AP&T, by additional information filed May 30, 1995, agreed to the minimum flow. Project operation from October through April would substantially reduce flows over the falls. However, this is not the time of the year when many tourists visit the area. Therefore, the effects would not be substantial. We agree that a minimum flow of 13 cfs over Pitchfork Falls, during 12 daylight hours per day from May through September would maintain the aesthetic quality and visual character of the falls and Skagway River Valley. To ensure compliance with this minimum flow recommendation, AP&T proposes installation of an automatically operated, priority stream flow device to measure and record flows, and to operate the bypass or intake gate to maintain required instream flows. We agree that a stream flow gauge should be electronically interconnected to the bypass and intake gate to ensure minimum flow releases. Due to the variable flows and relatively remote location of the site, an automatically controlled device would be necessary to ensure compliance with the minimum flow requirement. Staff believes that installation of a continuously-recording stream gauge upstream of Pitchfork Falls, and a stage-discharge chart would accurately measure the bypass flow. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 31 FERC No. 11077-001 Therefore. after consultation with the FS. AP&T should file a plan to maintain minimum instream flows. The plan should specify measures the applicant would implement to ensure the minimum 13 cfs bypass instream flow is provided for 12 daylight hours per day, such as use of the priority flow bypass device ¢. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The presence of new structures in a relatively undeveloped area would detract from the undisturbed nature of the Goat Lake basin and to a lesser degree the Skagway River corridor. Operations of the project would marginally reduce flows over Pitchfork Falls from May through September. and substantially during October through April. Constructing the facilities would result in increased traffic, noise, and dust levels that would temporarily affect the natural visual quality of the area 6. Cultural Resources a._Affected Environment: AP&T conducted a cultural resources survey of the project area (Campbell 1994) . The survey identified the following cultural resources in the project area: (1) contributing elements of the Historic Landmark, that specifically include the WP&YR RR. a historic tourist trail and viewpoint of Pitchfork Falls, the historic Brackett Wagon Road, and a historic telegraph or telephone line dating from World War II and possibly earlier; and (2) the historic Canadian Oil pipeline dating from World War II. No other cultural resources were located. The Historic Landmark was established on June 13, 1962, and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The Historic Landmark was established to preserve and interpret historical structures and other features of the Skagway area and the White Pass Trail, to the northeast, relating to the Klondike Gold Rush in the late 1890's and early 1900's (National Park Service 1987). Some of the features of the Historic Landmark, such as the historic trail and railroad, contribute to the current tourist industry. Other features relate to historic events. such as the telephone line along that railroad route, which illustrates the military effort in the Skagway-White Pass area during World War II. The historic Canadian Oil pipeline is eligible for inclusion in the National Register and has been documented in accordance with the standards of the Historic American Engineering Record. The pipeline was constructed in 1943 and is significant as an example of the World War II military effort in the area and as an early means of transporting crude oil from coastal Alaska to the interior of Canada. The Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the NPS, the FS, and the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park (NPS-Klondike Park) concur that the survey is adequate for identifying cultural resources in the project area (letters from Judith E. Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, February 7, 1995; Sandra Faulkner, Regional Historian, National Park Service, Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 32 FERC No. 11077-001 Alaska Regional Office. Anchorage, Alaska. February 9. 1995; Clay Alderson. Superintendent. Klondike Gold Rush National Park. Skagway. Alaska, February 24. 1995; and Karen S. Iwamoto, Forest Archeologist. Tongass National Forest, Sitka, Alaska, March 6. 1995). We concur. b__Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The project may affect the historical integrity of the Brackett Wagon Road, the railroad bed, and the historic Canadian Oil pipeline. The proposed penstock would be routed through a culvert constructed under the railroad bed and the Canadian Oil pipeline. The powerhouse tailrace would be constructed to cross under the Brackett Wagon Road. These construction activities could potentially alter the physical and visual character of these sites. There would be no effect on the historic trail and viewing area, and the historic telephone line. The project is not located in the immediate vicinity of the trail and viewing area, and the historic telephone line is not located in the vicinity of the project facilities. AP&T proposes to conduct additional work to assess the effects of the project on cultural resources and to implement a cultural resources management plan to protect contributing elements of the Historic Landmark affected or potentially affected by the project, pursuant to an MOA prepared in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations (36 CFR 800) for the National Historic Preservation Act. After review and revisions, the MOA has been accepted and signed by the SHPO, the FS, the NPS-Klondike Park, the NPS, and AP&T. AP&T consulted the Skagua Traditional Village Council, representative of the local Native American tribe, and requested the Village Council to be a party and signatory to the MOA. The Village Council declined and said they have no concerns about traditional uses of the area (letters from Pete Johnson, Representative, Skagua Traditional Village Council, Skagway, Alaska, April 11, 1995; and Silas H. Dennis, Jr., Member-at-Large, Skagua Traditional Village Council, Skagway, Alaska, April 12, 1995). The FS has stated that the intent of the Advisory Council's regulations concerning Native American consultation [36 CFR 800(1)(c)(iii)] has been satisfied for the project (letter from Karen S. Iwamoto, Forest ° Archeologist, Tongass National Forest, Sitka, Alaska, April 20, 1995). The NPS has said AP&T has made a reasonable effort to consult the Village Council and to include the Village Council as a signatory to the MOA (letter from Sandra Faulker, Regional Historian, National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, Alaska, April 24, 1995). We concur. The MOA requires AP&T to hire a qualified historical archeologist, and consult with the FS, the SHPO, and the NPS to determine the specific effects of the project on the Historic Landmark and the Canadian Oil pipeline, and to identify mitigative measures to minimize effects. The MOA requires AP&T to develop and implement a cultural resources management plan to implement mitigative measures and to protect cultural resources during project construction and operation, and to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 33 FERC No. 11077-001 and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, the Alaska Comprehensive Preservation Plan. and the cultural resources documentation requirements of Klondike Gold Rush National Park. The MOA also requires AP&T to comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act if discoveries are made during the license term that make it applicable to the project We concur the MOA is adequate to protect cultural resources at the project. The Project would not have an adverse effect on the Historic Landmark or the historic Canadian Oil pipeline if the MOA is implemented as a condition of a hydropower license. The MOA has been forwarded to the Advisory Council for signature. We recommend a condition requiring implementation of an acceptable MOA be included in any license issued for the project. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None 7. Recreation a, Affected Environment: There are no developed facilities in the Goat Lake basin. The FS manages the area to retain its roadless and wildland character. Major recreational facilities would not be developed. The developed recreational facilities that exist outside of the basin consist of FS cabins, dispersed campsites, and picnic areas. The National Park Service operates the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park that includes a visitor center in Skagway and a campground in Dyea. Because of the difficulty in accessing the Goat Lake basin, very little recreational use occurs in the vicinity of the lake. Major recreational activities in the project vicinity are dispersed activities such as hiking, fishing, and sightseeing. The most common activity is sightseeing. Sightseeing tours are provided by the WP&YR RR, several highway tour operators along the Klondike International Highway, and aircraft companies. Skagway and its vicinity, due to the attractions and cruise ship moorage, draws a large number of tourists to the area. The Skagway Convention and Visitor Bureau estimates that in 1993 about 350,000 tourists visited the area. Approximately 80 percent of southeast Alaska visitors come to the area by water. Based on survey results, the applicant determined that many of these visitors are interested in sightseeing and photography. The applicant conducted a survey of the tour operators and was able to estimate that 23,000 visitors stopped at the viewpoints overlooking Pitchfork Falls during the season. In addition, 24 percent of the vehicles using the Klondike International Highway stopped at the viewpoints. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 34 FERC No. 11077-001 b, Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The project would be in a remote location that is difficult to access. The site receives very little recreational use and the project would not have a significant effect on existing recreational opportunities with the exception of sightseeing activities from the WP&YR RR and the Klondike International Highway. This issue was discussed in the Aesthetic Resources Section. As discussed earlier, Goat Lake has no known fish, and the state of Alaska and the FS have abandoned plans to create a sustainable fish population in the lake. Thus, the project would not affect recreational fishing. [t is not anticipated that project operations would significantly affect access around the lake, as the lake level is primarily drawn down during the winter and spring months. During the peak visitation of helicopter tours over the project area, the lake level would either be rising from large inflows or close to normal elevation. Jnav ve : None. 8. Socioeconomics a. Affected Environment: The project would provide power to the town of Skagway and the immediate vicinity. The population of the area is about 800. The economy of the area is driven by tourism. The unemployment for the region was higher than the state average in 1994, 10.6 percent versus 7.8 percent. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The project would employ a work force of about 30 people over about a 2-year construction period. The total project construction budget would be about $7.5 million; about 32 percent would be for labor. It's anticipated that workers would be drawn from southeast Alaska. Because of the short construction period, most workers would probably commute either daily or weekly or stay in temporary housing, and few, if any, would relocate to the immediate project area. Increased employment from the project, albeit short-term, would benefit the region's economy. The project would also provide long-term economic benefits to the state and region from tax revenues that would be collected. The project would also benefit the region by providing a more stable and reliable form of energy than the current system, which relies mostly on diesel generation. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None. C. Impacts of the No-action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be constructed and there would be no changes to the existing physical, biological, or cultural resources of the area. The Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 BS FERC No. 11077-001 energy that would have been produced would continue to be provided by diesel fuel. With this alternative. the public would be denied the opportunity to conserve diesel (non-renewable primary fossil fuel) and to reduce atmospheric pollution. Because of the area's lack of roads and remoteness. diesel fuel is presently delivered by barge thus potentially exposing important aquatic habitats to risks such as oil spills into the environment. These risks would conunue with or without the project, although much less with the project, because diesel generators would serve as a back-up during hydropower outages. VII. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS In this section, we look at the project's use of water resources for hydropower Purposes to see what effect various environmental measures would have on the project's power benefits. As explained in Mead Corporation,’ the Commission assesses the potential economics of various alternatives using a current-cost approach that does not purport to predict furure economic trends over the term of the license. Rather, it reviews economic factors in light of what is known at the time the application is considered. While no assumptions are made concerning future potential inflation or deflation, the analysis is not entirely a “first-year” approach, as certain costs need to be amortized over the period of years or will change in presently known and measurable ways. Thus, the current cost figures are derived using a 30-year period of analysis. Because there was no recommended staff proposal that would affect project economics, we did the economic analysis using the applicant's proposal. We compared the benefits of the proposed operation to not building the project and continuing to use more diesel fuel. We found the 30-year net annual benefits for the low-, mid-, and high-load forecasts using the average hydrology estimate and the following assumptions (see Table 4): project operation begins in 1997, a 1997 construction cost of $7,500,000, a 7 percent discount and interest rate, a 1997 power value of 101 mills per kilowatthour (mills/kWh),’ a 1997 operating and maintenance cost for the hydroelectric project of 5 mills/kWh, and a 1997 insurance cost of $1.00/kWh. ereoee a4 * See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC { 61,027 (July 13, 1995) ” We base the value of the project's power on the average cost of purchasing diesel fuel and diesel O&M costs for the Skagway area. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 36 FERC No, 11077-001 Table 4. Staff's economic analysis of Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project using the average hydrology estimate AVERAGE ANNUAL POWER VALUE BASED COST OF GENERATION ON REPLACING DIESEL | GOAT LAKE GENERATION PROJECT Low 64.GWh® LOAD FORECAST Mid | 97 GWh? $1,134,000 000 11S GWh? High '$350.000 We also assumed in our economic analysis that the energy sold for each year would correspond to the load forecast, until the year 2028. For example, in 1997, the Skagway area would need only 6.9 gigawatthours (GWh) of energy from the Goat Lake Project. Therefore, the project would only generate 6.9 GWh in 1997. In 2028, the project would reach its maximum energy generation potential of 13.3 GWh. The average generation over the 30-year economic analysis would be 9.7 GWh for the mid-load forecast. With the above assumptions, the proposed project, producing an average of 9.7 GWh of energy, would have a net annual benefit for the mid-load forecast, which we consider the most likely forecast, of about $182,000 or 18.8 mills/kWh. The high-load forecast would have greater net annual benefits at $350,000 or 30.4 mills/kWh. For the low-forecast year, the project would cost more than the current cost of the most likely alternative source of power (diesel-fuel powered generators) for the Skagway area. We realize that this comparison is not the only consideration in assessing the economic feasibility of the project. Among the other considerations is the future cost of fossil-fuel resources, particularly diesel fuel, which represents about two-thirds of the total cost per kWh of generation. The net annual benefits are, therefore, highly sensitive to fuel cost, which could vary widely over the 50-year license term for a new hydropower project. In any event, most of the cost of power that would be produced by the Goat Lake Project is for debt retirement on the initial capital cost and would remain constant over time, and unaffected by inflation. Only about 5 percent of the total cost per kWh is for operation and maintenance, which would be subject to future increases caused by inflation. °° The average project generation was based on a 30-year period. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 37 FERC No. 11077-001 VIII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. When we review a proposed project. we equally consider the environment, recreation, fish and wildlife, and other non-developmental values of the project as well as power and other developmental values. Accordingly. any license issued shall be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses. Based on our independent review of agency and public comments filed on this project, and our review of the environmental and economic effects of the proposed project and its alternatives, we've selected the proposed project, along with the applicant's proposed environmental measures, as the preferred option. The preliminary FS section 4(e) conditions have been incorporated into our preferred alternative. We've determined that none of the measures in our preferred option have an effect on the project's economics. We recommend the proposed project because: (1) issuance of an original hydropower license would allow AP&T to construct and operate the project as a small but dependable source of electrical energy for its customers; (2) the project would meet the increasing demand for electric power in Skagway and avoid the need for an equivalent amount of fossil- fuel-fired, electric generation and capacity, thereby continuing to help conserve these nonrenewable energy resources and reduce atmospheric pollution; and (3) the recommended environmental measures would protect or mitigate the soil, vegetative, wildlife, aesthetic, and cultural/historic resources in the Skagway River Valley. We believe that our preferred option would be best adapted to the comprehensive development of Pitchfork Falls for beneficial public uses. IX. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES Under section 10(j) of the FPA, 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 fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. No fish and wildlife agencies provided recommendations in response to our notices that the application was ready for environmental analysis. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 38 FERC No. 1077-001 X. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. Accordingly. federal and state agencies filed 23 plans with the Commission that address various resources in Alaska. Three are relevant to this project.'' No conflicts were found. XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we prepared this environmental assessment for the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project to identify the resources that the licensing decision could impact and discuss the specific impacts the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project would have on the human environment. Project construction would cause minor short-term, localized erosion; ‘temporary relocation of wildlife; and increased traffic and dust levels in the project area, In addition, Project development would permanently alter about 9.25 acres of native trees and other vegetation (some of which would be revegetated) and 1 acre of wetland habitat. The new structures and altered flows along Pitchfork Falls could detract from the natural aesthetics of the Goat Lake basin and Skagway River Valley. We find that implementing the protection and mitigation measures described in this FEA would ensure that environmental effects of the project would be insignificant. On the basis of this independent environmental analysis, we find that issuance of an original hydropower license by the Commission and SUA by the FS for this project would not constitute major federal actions significantly affecting quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. XII. LITERATURE CITED Alaska Department of Highways, Southeast District. 1973. Klondike International Highway. Final Environmental Assessment, Skagway to the Canadian Border. September 1973. Exhibit E, p.46. ** (1) Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 1979, Haines-Skagway area Land Use Plan, Juneau, Alaska; (2) U.S. Forest Service, 1991, Tongass National Forest Proposed Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Ketchikan, Alaska; (3) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service, 1986, North American Wildlife Management Plan, Washington, D.C. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 39 FERC No. 11077-001 Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1994a. Application for License for Major Unconstructed Project. Goat Lake Project FERC Project No. 11077. Table of Contents, Initial Statements. Exhibits A. E. F, G. Port Townsend, Washington. May 31, 1994. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1994b. Application for License for Major Unconstructed Project, Goat Lake Project FERC Project No. 11077. Appendices |- 13. Port Townsend, Washington. May 31, 1994. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1994c. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Video, Project #11077. 12 minute video. Port Townsend, Washington. March 8, 1994 Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995a. Additional information responses to AIR #1, 2. 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19 and 22. Port Townsend, Washington. March 26, 1995. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995b. Additional information responses to AIR #4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 (Enclosure 1 of 2) and 23, 24, 25-34 (Enclosure 2 of 2). Port Townsend, Washington. May 30, 1995. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995c. Additional information response to electrical load forecast. Port Townsend, Washington. April 6, 1995. 2 pp. with enclosures. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995d. Additional information response to project operational model. Port Townsend, Washington. April 5, 1995. 3 pp. with diskette and enclosure. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995e. Additional information response to visual impact analysis (January, 1994) and 14pp. - supplemental visual impact analysis (September, 1994). Port Townsend, Washington. March 13, 1995. 29 pp. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995f. Application for Department of the Army Permit (ENG Form 4345, Sept 91). Juneau, Alaska. August, 1995. W/Exhibits, Figures, Coastal Project Questionnaire, and Certification Statement. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995g. Revisions to Exhibits A, E, F and G. Port Townsend, Washington. April 27, 1995. Ambrose, R.E.,. R.J. Ritchie, C.M. White, P.F. Schempf, T. Swem, R. Dittrick. 1988. Changes in the status of peregrine falcon populations in Alaska. IN: Peregrine Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 40 FERC No. 1077-001 Falcon Populations-Their Management and Recovery, ed. T.J. Cade. J.H Enderson, C.G. Thelander and C.M. White. The Peregrine Fund, Inc. Boise. Idaho. Ann Riley and Associates. 1995a. Official Transcript of Proceedings, In the Matter of: Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Scoping Meeting. Docket No. 11077-001. Vol. 1. No. 1. Thursday, June 22, 1995. Juneau, Alaska. 57 pp. with attachments. Ann Riley and Associates. 1995b. Official Transcript of Proceedings, In the Matter of: Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Scoping Meeting. Docket No. 11077-001. Vol. 1, No. 1, Tuesday, June 20, 1995. Skagway, Alaska. 62 pp. with attachments. Blaustein, Andrew R., Joseph J. Beatty, Deanna H. Olson, and Robert M. Storm. 1995. The biology of amphibians and reptiles in old-growth forests in the Pacific northwest. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-337. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon. 98 pp. Campbell, C. 1994. An archeological reconnaissance survey of sections of the Brackett Wagon Road and the remains of the scenic viewing station at Pitchfork Falls in conjunction with the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 11077. Ketchikan, Alaska. (also Alaska Power & Telephone Company, 1994, appendix 3). Chadwick, D.H. 1973. Mountain goat ecology -logging relationships in Bunker Creek drainage of western Montana. M.S. Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 260 pp. Crowley, David W. 1993. Breeding habitat of harlequin ducks in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Master of Science Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvalis, Oregon. December 9, 1993. 59 pp. with appendix. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service. 1995. Scoping Document 1, Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 11077-001. Washington, D.C. May 18, 1995. 24 pp. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service. 1994. Additional information requests to Alaska Power and Telephone Company, Port Townsend, Washington. December 15, 1994. 3 pp. with 34 questions. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 41 FERC No. 11077-001 Hayes. MP. and M. R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbiana) responsible? J. Herpetology 20(4) 490-509 Kuletz. Katherine J.. Dennis K. Marks, Nancy L. Naslund. Niki G. Stevens, Mary B. Cody 1994. Information needs for habitat protection: Marbled murrelet habitat ‘: identification, Final Report, Restoration Project 93051B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Migratory Bird Management. 54 pp. Land Design North. 1994. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, Visual Impact Analysis. Anchorage, Alaska. January 1994. 29 pp Lesica, P. 1988. Report on the conservation status of Carex lenticularis var. dolia, a candidate threatened species. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana 40pp. with appendices. McGowan, J.D. 1975. Distribution, density, and productivity of goshawks in interior Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Final Report of Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-17-6. 30pp. National Park Service. 1987. Catalog of National Historic Landmarks. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. Olendorff. R.R., A.D. Miller, and R.N. Lehman. 1981. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines: the state of the art in 1981. Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., Raptor Research Report No. 4. St. Paul, Minnesota. 111 pp. Olendorff, R.R. and R.N. Lehman. 1986. Raptor collisions with utility lines: an analysis using subjective field observations. Bureau of Land Management. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. February 1986. 73 pp. Pacific Seabird Group. 1995. The Marbled Murrelet. A pamphlet of the Pacific Seabird Group. Seattle, Washington. August 1995. 4 pp. Palmer, R.S. 1976. Handbook of North American Birds. Vol. 3. Yale University Press. New Haven, Connecticut. 560 pp. Standley, L.A. 1985. Systematics of the Acutae group of Carex (Cyperaceae) in the Pacific Northwest. Systematic Botany Monographs Vol. 7. Suring, Lowell H., W. B. Dinneford, A. T. Doyle, R. W. Flynn, M. L. Orme, J. W. Schoen, L. C. Shea, E. L. Young. 1988. Habitat suitability mode! for mountain goats in southeast Alaska. unpubl. rept. September 13, 1988. 13 pp. with tables. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 42 FERC No. 1077-001 U.S. Department of the Interior. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Proposed Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 225. November 21. 1991. Part 17. pp 58804-58836. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1993. Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species: Notice of Review. Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 188, September 30, 1993 Part 17. pp. 51144-51190. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Title 50 (Wildlife and Fisheries), Part 17, Subpart B, §17.11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 20, 1994. 42 pp. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Advance notice of a proposal to remove the American peregrine falcon from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Proposed Rules, FR, Vol. 60, No. 126, Friday, June 30, 1995. US. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Environmental Assessment for Helicopter Landing Tours in the Skagway and Haines Area. Department of Agriculture, and Department of Interior, Juneau, Alaska. May 1995. 5Spp. with maps. U.S. Forest Service. 1991a. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision - Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Parts 1 and 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Alaska Region. R10-MB-149, August 1991. 7 chapters with appendices. U.S. Forest Service. 1991b. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision - Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed Revised Forest Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Alaska Region. R10-MB-146, August 1991. 7 chapters with appendices. 511 pp. Waters, Dana L. 1992. Habitat associations, phenology, and biogrography of amphibians in the Stikine River basin and southeast Alaska. A report to the 1991 pilot project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arcata, California. May 28, 1992. 61 pp. XIII. LIST OF PREPARERS Carl J. Keller -- Commission Environmental Coordinator, Terrestrial Resources, Threatened and Endangered Species (Wildlife Biologist; M.S., Wildlife Biology) Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 43 FERC No. 11077-001 Margaret Beilharz -- FS Environmental Coordinator (Hydrologist; B.S.. Ecosystems Management) ; Nan Allen -- Aquatic Resources (Fishery Biologist: M.S., Biology) John Costello -- Visual Resources, Recreation and Other Land Uses, Socioeconomics (Landscape Architect; BLA, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning) Gaylord Y. Hoisington -- Geological Resources (Soil Conservationist; B.S. Recreation) J. Tim Looney -- Developmental Resources (Civil Engineer; B.S., Civil Engineering) Charlene Scott -- Developmental Resources (Civil Engineer; M.S., Civil Engineering) Edwin Slater -- Cultural Resources (Archeologist; Ph.D., Anthropology) Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 44 FERC No, 11077-001 eal per United States Department of the Interior a F252. WILoUrE SERVICE ¢ 96 APR = ANIL: 3p— am P- 1/077 -001 APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSES march 25 iss Lots 0 Cashell Secr r ington, 0.¢ ary 1 Energy Regulatory Commission Lest Street. Dear Me Casheil ay occur in the vici Shagway. Alaska endangered American per for the purposes of Section 7 consultation. we agree thet populations of the ican peregrine falcon will not likely be sdversely affected as « result of y Of the proposed Goat Lake Mydreclectric Project sear ed the effects of proposed actions om the ne falcon (falco Bacentioud apakum) . te FWS- ‘Although mot specifically required by the consultation provisions of the Endangered Species Act. we appreciate your consideration of the Service's Species of Concern ia the spect inclusion on the Endangered Species ‘These comments are of! jelogical assesment. Your consideration of these jen and assists ia preventing their te es is important for = for eodangered and threatened species for which the ian and wildiie has responsibility under Section 7 of che Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 OSC 1521 af agg.) and Ce amendments. for «i ocner nie project. the Service does not have amy edditional concerns regarding organisms or habita:s for waich we have legislated responsibilities. Sincerely FWS-1 STAFF'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE GOAT LAKE DE Comment noted APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSE United States Department of the Intenor “> NATIONAL PARE SERVICE Rieti Cid aa Meme Mas Past 70 Best? Ragen seats ta 2 S ome 621 e NPS-1 Low D Cashell, Secretary Federal Energy Reguimory Commence 888 First Surent, NE Washagioa, D.C. 20426 Dear bs. Cashel, ‘These comments pertam to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE - Gost Lake Hydrostecanc Project, FERC Project No. | 1077-001, Asana We have reviewed che dial eoercements sescsmmen and have the jdbowing (cmmemts sod recom bo ee omc On page § the document sates thet the USFS amended 1s preimanary comdwioa 4c) by deleting Condenca No § (Fish and Wikdiie bémgamon Pian) The paragraph further mates there are a0 gpk net Bost poputemoen on ites propeot seus We dnangs es eat heel thar ie obo ecusiees goss mad then sensed mowemen! patterms would puslfy Uke Opposites mavememt [boi a nema goat someCR me ibe pci same The | SES re eetry compteied oa ee ee CPeanion of thet enamummemiel amano ve pObbMMe me LO goats Tho yoqroted ryt Uebecanic pragect wall Comectnens my Scr cma Rome Gag et Owes ome s impeLLS LD cue om gosta Raceguemen of mmm afbects 20 mmm poets Bum mse De sat pioacuae acRa in ee pepe Searanty uhdead bos Mane need Begrined Wl weLgAtiie phe Moustsia goste are aasive to the Goat Lake ares. Mua Goes Cae be seem oe te Coed Lake nceety Mbongsemm goats aon seen throughs tbe ragon Severn years ago the Alaska Deportes of Py and anno sammencad tio mnemang of mvumtam peoeia Mom Ra Smet abe of the ‘Skagwey Rives to the east side of the Tanya River. They had some lmuted sonal survey data that cakcaued the geet pagutemons bed mgmehionmy txcteed nad owe betow coe ied ween of poandesene deeasiey ‘Some of thas excheded Inemang aren ws wathne the proyect ares for Uns plan | umagine they ded mot auapend naming in the immediate vacinty of Gost lake (the enat side of the Skagway River) pecouse tae to we practical imenming mccta 6 ties aren be Lhd vadbey Lo he mir tirwrat Uf ite propect aren (Tanya Rover valley) 2 very mgmiicemt comcenraaos of mousime posts Occurs simcet ony name. bison lene Genes gathoregs of mucins guais Exown aa tha wale ase STAFF'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE GOAT LAKE | NPS-1 As discussed un page 20 of the DLA (sce Jerrestriul Keswurees section), the results of 10 years of surveys by the Alioks Department ot bist aud Gian (ADEG) madwate that there ate nut significant goat habuat oF populations a the Goat I Basia Informatwn from the ADEG indwated that goat use ui the atca sursonuading Gus Lake ts musumal There haven't been any kauwn signs (houvepiuus. heal Uioppangs, sbeletons, carcasses, cic ) detected im the unmediaie Guat Lake aica aml thcte atcn’t ki seasonal movements within the project boundary Therefore, newher direct aur cumulative ctlerts to the goat pupal these areas would nut be affected by the travel rule of helmopicrs acessing the pres Thus 1s based oa maps and models described un the US Purest Service (ES) 1995 Envivomenial Ascssunent for Helcopicr Landing Tuuts oo the Skagway and Maines Av Aluhough we fund that mountain gusts woukd net be atlected by jp development, AP&T nevertheless proposes Ww adjust then consinuctio hedule ms possible dissurbance during the gust mating and kidding periods AIK I would consult the ADFG 0a acceptable coasiruction tumung, and we agice the would be 4 prudent Ine requirement (see Terrestrial Resources sexton) Vo turther casute that He, wml goats, are affected by helicopters, the FS has included 4s 4 prelunmary de) Condi APAT file 2 wildlle muigation plan requiring the same specilied Lieataime fiom wikllit 1s required for the helicopter tours The FS and the ADFG, wi conjumiva with baal belwoptcr tout vperaiors, are working loward developing 2 monuoring plan tur the worth Lyn Canal @ountaia goa populations. The Naoaal Park Servwe (NPS) 1s wekume Ww palthyratc tus effon. We don’t require @ specific cost amount for mitigating adverse por) impacts, bul believe uur recommended wildlife protcciwa measures would adequately mmunumuze the puicatial cllects va mountain gusts APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSES [——Thhose goats aad others may use the Gost Lake aren parncdecally ‘Vestage pousts from the proposed proyect ares could serve as excedem gost populanos momnonag manoes to posts scrous the valley. See APAT wil heve accast to the ndge Gost STAFF'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE GUAT LAKE DE Lake cn s regular bams 10 momsor and mamtain equipment, and the Alaska Department of Fish ad Came has srendty deunbed the gost popudanoes m tis ares a mgmdicamtly below expecied Ai pe > leveta, we recommend rescandung the USFS smmandeent of Jameary 10, 1996 and requnng. Wikis Mecgence Plan - * . Resources seciwn of the FEA) costains provisions Wu develop and des The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (icleremed in the Culture fatives that NPS-] The: pins should establish « minumel amount of financial commutment (515,000/year) 10 wide monsonag by APAT ca an snmsel bene throughort the bie of thew FERC boemes Moustem sachude consukatioe wih the Nauonal Pask Service The Natwnal Paik Servne ‘monsioring should be the focus of those efforts fo the MOA. In addition, siaff's recommended visual resources management pl a < (referenced un the Aestheuc Resources sectwa ol the FEA) would require measures 10 monsoring could be dose i= compunction with other efforts by the Alaska Department of Fish "usumize possible visual effects, and would be coordinated with the recommended €105 ree car ene allen Wak Sees ha Ua Sane Paso Bese. ts Alaina Ospusiaen of Comrol, terresirul resources, and culuural resources management measures Neoured Resources amd the Bureen of Land bMenagemen A webdise momsionmng commaties coubd ‘exabhshed whereby other partner agencies Could sleo comtribute to momtoring and restorance We doa't require a specific cost amount for mitigating project imps pean but believe our recommended measures i the MOA and visual resources management pls would adequately munumize any anucipaied visual resource effects Encumbenag pubbc water body m an ares that comtaans senatrve weldisle should requare # long- — Lerm mengsuce commement [— In addation, we feel thet Une papainns and other facakies wll permanently eagatrrety wmpect the Neuiceel Landmark attributes of the bastonc radroed comdor la onder to mangate thoes umpects, ‘aa seatbetic menganoa plan should be developed thet requrres a anmuel commatment of funds (cunamal $15,000/yr), effort, ond sets goeis and manimal threshold lenits for ecenior structure scatheucs, mamienaace, eromoa comrol, and landecapang The focus of these efforts should be NPS-2, 27 crass to the eting ast exists now. Native plats thet blend in with surrounding | ‘vepetatuoa should be estabhshed m «manual tookueg motes slong the anne length of the popeens Thes meuganoa wll requere years of effort aad dibgent revegetanoa and pas, ‘The performance required m the Acsthenc and Wilduie Mangano Plans should be required for ile of the FERC pormat If you have any questions about these concerns or comments, please don't hestsie 10 comtsct aff Resource Speciaket - Daman Sedaey, regarding thes lacie Suacerety Yours, APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSES ALASKA Powan & TELEPHONE COMPANY Apri 4, 1996 Lets D. Cashell, Secrecary Federal Lmergy Requiscery Commisiies O88 Firss Seren, WE Washingson, DC 20426 Rat: Project Me. 11077-001-Alaska eas Ve: STAFE'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE GOAT LAKE DE Enciesed are cur comments on the Draft Levirenmencal Amessmem (DLA) on AP&T-1 We agree We've revised our ccunomn analysis Wy im tude the Bs abews rebusomied prepoct capacuy credus The results are in the Developmental Kesoutces section of the DEA Gey Costanamcs ata Renteed ow tia corto waked VM Sew phenome Amaty ss: oa ee nn an a a STR APT 2! = wee rondo isnsanl Bayon Wo mile etait capacity cones. Mt the Gost Lake Project ls nat dovetaped the appa = APE&T-3 —aites going over this sntormatwn, we've cevned vt ccmunn anal 40 include our new estimate of the power value ‘2. The estimsced cost of the project as shown in cance appdicocien (Appendix 2.6) ts $7,479,770 in 19973. This does net agreed with the 1997 cost used in DEA of $7,000,000." ‘The 1997 power vatus of 95 mills par kitowaer-how bs based upon the cost of aalaeensnas’, Wo suapuse et hls puaber bo woe Fe tt he mre ete thet One by hectindind bn thie wane fhe eres APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSES (4, The 1997 insurance cost of $1.00 per KW-HR should be corrected to $1.00 AP&T-4 pe Ptw-na. This appears to be 2 Cypegraphical errer. [Enclosed Is a Lite Cycte Cost Amatysis (Attachment 3) which uses the corrections ond Asmamp tees suttmed aheve and Mi mised bn ais hed memo amdmess oad AP&T-5 (Over petmary Comcarn ty Chat the minted of sed by FERC indicates that A Sr epeCS welll protean aegatirs mai meee! bacolies by was mssommars WFR CO ee me oehems ws Be preparing wo bebeve chs prepesed pragect Wi creda peshibrs ama Bemis io oer Cmemweee. The docermi sting ef pasties et menead Remedi wel tea vii et fo pecmr tag Baa sec binge fer mish por cape ‘Tikenk you ber chis sopertansty to Losmmer< hog Pv mabe ost (ab marae) NOTE: Atachments 1, 2, and 3 of AP&T’s April 4, 1996, letter has been filed with the Commission and is available upon request. STAEE'S RESPONSES TO COMMENT) ON ILE GOAT LAbE L AP&T-4 Tile eo eel est caer ae sectwe ol the FEA AP&T-5 To the DEA aid FEA ccommnin analyses we used 4 cunie approach (as caplained un Mead Corputativn. Publiatiug Paps Divo 72 1ERC Fo July 13, 1995) that dues not predict fumure cconome Wwends ver une Our LEA ese analysis (see Develupmental Analysis sectiwn) now shows pesuive net annual benetits the mad-luad wenarw, because we imbued “Lapaciy Denes” Our DEA did mut anes “capacuy benefus* because they were mt uncluded 1m the project appla ation * ’ FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ROUTING CODE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 SKI 101479 ANAGER PENALTY FOR PRIVATE | = PB eran @.8. UFriGial MaiL USE $300 Staiz 7250412 LU.S. POSTAG 76 FERC 62,039 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Alaska Power and Telephone ) Project No. 11077-001 Company ORDER ISSUING LICENSE (Major Project) (Issued July 15, 1996) On May 31, 1994, the Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP&T) filed, pursuant to Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1/ an application for a major license to construct, operate and maintain the 4-megawatt (MW) Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project No. 11077 (Goat Lake Project), to be located on Pitchfork Falls, near the town of Skagway, in the First Judicial District ‘n southeast Alaska. The project would occupy about 270 acres of he Tongass National Forest. Notice of the application has been published. No one has objected to issuance of this license. Comments received from interested agencies and individuals have been fully considered in determining whether to issue this license. The staff issued a draft environmental assessment (EA), jointly prepared with the Forest Service (FS), for this project on March 11, 1996. Comments on the draft EA were filed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, AP&T, and the National Park Service. Their concerns were considered in preparing the final EA for this project, which was issued on May 22, 1996, and is attached to and made part of this license order. The staff also completed a Safety and Design Assessment on May 9, 1996, which is available in the Commission’s public file for this project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project would consist of a 14-foot-wide, 125-foot-long spillway to replace the existing natural lake outlet which would be filled in, a submerged wedgewire screen intake assembly in Goat Lake, a 600-foot-long siphon pipe attached to a vacuum pump -ssembly within a siphon pump house, a pumpback station (a metal uilding with two 30-horsepower pumps connected to a 14-inch- iameter pipe for returning water to the lake), a 6,200-foot-long steel penstock extending from the pumpback station to the powerhouse, a powerhouse with an installed capacity of 4 MW, a small substation, a 3,400-foot-long transmission line, and other 1/ 16 U.S.C. §§ 791a-825r. DC-A-49 Project No. 11077-001 2 appurtenances. A detailed project description is contained in ordering paragraph B(2). WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION On September 1, 1994, AP&T applied to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (Alaska DEC) for water quality certification for the Goat Lake Project, as required by Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) 2/. The Alaska DEC received this request on September 6, 1994. By letter dated October 3, 1994, the Alaska DEC waived certification for the project. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM On August 18, 1994, AP&T applied to the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (Alaska DGC) for a consistency determination of the project with the coastal zone management program (CZMP). On September 6, 1994, the Alaska DGC acknowledged receipt of AP&T’s certification request. On November 27, 1995, the Alaska DGC certified that the Goat Lake Project was consistent with the Alaska CZMP and also with the Skagway Coastal Management Plan. -No conditions or stipulations were included. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Section 10(a) (2) (A) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 803(a) (2) (A), requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. 3/ Under Section 10(a) (2) (A), federal and state agencies filed 23 plans that address various resources in Alaska. Of these, the staff identified and reviewed three 2/33 :'U.S.C. §1341(a) (1). af Comprehensive plans for this purpose are defined at 18 C.F.R. °F 219 (2995) - Project No. 11077-001 3 comprehensive plans that are relevant to this project. 4/ No conflicts were found. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES Section 10(j) (1) of the FPA 5/ requires the Commission to include license conditions, based on recommendations of federal and state fish and wildlife agencies submitted pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 6/ for the protection of, mitigation of adverse impacts to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife. No federal or state fish and wildlife agency recommendations were filed for the project in response to our notice that the application was ready for environmental analysis. “ECTION 4(e) FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS Section 4(e) of the FPA, 7/ requires that Commission licenses for projects located within United States reservations must include all conditions that the Secretary of the department under whose supervision the reservation falls shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservation. The project occupies land of the Tongass National Forest, which is under the FS supervision. By letter dated June 17, 1996, the FS submitted its comments on the proposed project and its conditions for inclusion in any license. 8/ The FS’s 4/ (1) Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 1979, Haines- Skagway Area Land Use Plan, Juneau, Alaska; (2) U.S. Forest Service, 1991, Tongass National Forest Proposed Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Ketchikan, Alaska; (3) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service, 1986, North American Wildlife Management Plan, Washington, D.C. 5/16 U.S.C. §803(5) (1). 6/ 16 U.S.C. §661 et seq. 7/16 U.S.C. §797(e). i} In summary, the Forest Service’s conditions are: Condition No. 1 - Requirement to Obtain a FS Special-Use Authorization Condition No. 2 - FS Approval of Final Design Condition No. 3 - Approval of Changes After Initial Construction Condition No. 4 - Consultation Condition No. 5 - Minimum Streamflow Regime Project No. 11077-001 4 conditions are included in this license as Articles 101 through LL2 s COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT Sections 4(e) and 10(a) (1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 797(e) and 803(a) (1), require the Commission, in acting on applications for license, to give equal consideration to the power and development purposes and to purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife, the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. Any license issued shall be such as in the Commission's judgment will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses. The decision to license this project, and the terms and conditions included herein, reflect such consideration. In the EA, the staff examined the proposed project including AP&T’s proposed mitigation measures and the no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative the project would not be built. Therefore, there would be no changes to the physical, biological, or cultural resources of the area. The generation that the proposed project would provide would not occur. The recommended (preferred) option the staff selected is to issue a license for the project as proposed by AP&T, including their proposed mitigation. The final FS section 4(e) conditions have been incorporated into the staff's preferred alternative. The staff recommend this option because: (1) the net benefits of the project outweigh the consequences associated with taking no action; (2) issuance of an original hydropower license would allow AP&T to construct and operate the project as a small but dependable source of electrical energy for its customers; (3) the project would meet the increasing demand for electric power in Skagway and avoid the need for an equivalent amount of fossil- fuel-fired, electric generation and capacity, thereby continuing to help conserve these nonrenewable energy resources and reduce atmospheric pollution; and (4) the proposed environmental measures by AP&T would protect or mitigate the soil, vegetative Condition No. 6 - Guaranteed Priority Flow Bypass Device Condition No. 7 - Visual Resource Protection Plan Condition No. 8 - Erosion Control Plan Condition No. 9 - Solid Waste and Waste Water Plan Hazardous Substance Plan Cultural Resource Protection Wildlife Mitigation Plan Condition No. 10 Condition No. 11 Condition No. w N Project No. 11077-001 5 wildlife, aesthetic, and cultural/historic resources in the Skagway River Valley. The staff concluded, and I concur, that issuance of a new license for the Goat Lake Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment . In determining whether a proposed project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for developing a waterway for beneficial public purposes, pursuant to Section 10(a) (1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 803(a) (1), the Commission considers a number of public interest factors, including the projected economic benefits of project power. Under the Commission's new approach to evaluating the economics of hydropower projects, as articulated in Mead “orporation, Publishing Paper Division, 9/ the Commission mploys an analysis that uses current costs to compare the costs f the project and likely alternative power with no forecasts concerning potential future inflation, escalation, or deflation beyond the license issuance date. The basic purpose of the Commission's economic analysis is to provide a general estimate of the potential power benefits and the costs of a project, and reasonable alternatives to project power. The estimate helps to support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest with respect to a proposed license. Based on current economic conditions, without future escalation or inflation, and assuming AP&T’s mid-load forecast, the proposed Goat Lake Project would provide an average’of 9.7 GWh of energy annually, at an annual cost of about $952,000 (98 mills/kWh) or about $182,000 (18.8 mills/kWh) less than the current cost of an equivalent amount of power using alternative power resources (diesel-fuel powered generators for the Skagway area). Based on the staff's review of the agency and public comments filed on this project, my review of staff’s evaluation of the environmental and economic effects of the proposed project and its alternatives, and our analysis pursuant to Section 10(a) (1) of the FPA, I find that the Goat Lake Project will be hest adapted to comprehensive development of the Pitchfork Falls or beneficial public uses. a/ 72 FERC 4 61,027 (1995). Project No. 11077-001 6 TERM OF LICENSE Section 6 of the FPA 10/ states that licenses under Part I of the FPA shall be issued for a period not to exceed 50 years. Because the Goat Lake Project involves an original license with substantial new construction, the license is issued for a period of 50 years. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Background information, analysis of impacts, support for related license articles, and the basis for a finding of no significant impact on the environment are contained in the final EA. Issuance of this license is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The design of this project is consistent with the engineering standards governing dam safety. The project will be safe if constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the requirements of this license. Analysis of related issues is provided in the S&DA. I conclude that the project will not conflict with any planned or authorized development, and will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for development of the waterway for beneficial public uses. THE DIRECTOR ORDERS: (A) A license is issued to the Alaska Power and Telephone Company (licensee), for a period of 50 years, effective the first day of the month in which this order is issued, to construct, operate, and maintain the Goat Lake Project No. 11077. This license is subject to the terms and conditions of the Federal - Power Act (FPA), which is incorporated by reference as part of this license, and to the regulations the Commission issues under the provisions of the FPA. (B) The Goat Lake Project No. 11077 consists of: (1) All lands, to the extent of the licensee's interests in those lands, enclosed by the project boundary shown by Exhibit G: 10/ 16 U.S.C. § 799. Project No. 11077-001 7 Exhibit G- FERC No. 11077- Showing 4 1 Land Status and Project Location 2 2 Facility Location and Project Boundary a 2 Wetland Inventory (2) Project works consisting of: (a) a 125-foot-long spillway to replace the existing natural lake outlet which would be filled in; (b) a submerged intake assembly positioned in Goat Lake at elevation 2,875 feet mean sea level (msl) with a mechanically operated trash rake for cleaning; (c) a 30-inch- diameter, 600-foot-long steel or high density polyethylene ‘thloride siphon pipe attached to a vacuum pump assembly within a 2-foot by 12-foot siphon pump house; (d) a pumpback/valve etation consisting of a 10-foot by 18-foot metal building with two 30-horsepower pumps connected to a 14-inch-diameter pipe for returning water to the lake; 11/ (e) an 8-foot-high, 25-foot- long concrete retaining wall with a 14-foot-wide spillway (elevation 2,876 feet msl) forming a 0.014-acre-foot storage catchbasin located in a portion of the existing pond; (f) a 6,200-foot-long, 22-inch-diameter steel penstock extending from the pumpback station to the powerhouse; (g) a powerhouse containing one horizontal twin jet Pelton turbine unit with a generating capacity of 4 MW and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 32 cubic feet per second (cfs); (h) a small substation with a pad-mounted step-up transformer, automatic recloser, and transmission line dead-end structure adjacent to the powerhouse; (i) a 3,400-foot-long, 24.9-kilovolt (kV) aerial transmission line on wooden poles extending from the substation, across the Skagway River to the Customs Border Station where it interties with AP&T’s existing 24.9-kV transmission line to Skagway; (j) a single cable, 500-foot-long aerial tram originating near the end of a 1,000-foot-long access road within a 60-foot-wide right-of- way to the Klondike International Highway to provide access to the project; and (k) other appurtenances. The project works generally described above are more 11/ The proposed 30-inch siphon pipe and 14-inch water return pipe would be laid in the existing 5-foot-wide natural lake outlet before it is filled. Project No. 11077-001 8 specifically described in Sections 3.1 to 3.11 of Exhibit A of the application and shown by Exhibit F: Exhibit F- FERC No. 11077- Showing 1 4 Site Plan lisule 5 Geology Site Plan 2 6 Penstock Profile Bak 7 Headworks Plan Sia! 8 Pumpback and Valve House Plan View Sins) 9 Pumpback Catchbasin Profile 4e1 10 Siphon Details 4.2 aL Intake Screen 4.3) 12 Siphon Intake 4.4 13 Intake Cleaning Blade Details Bick 14 Penstock Supports 5.2 15 Penstock Railroad Crossing 6 16 Powerhouse Site Plan 7 a7, Powerhouse Floor Plan 8 18 Powerhouse Section 9.1 19 Tram and Access Road Plan View S22 20 Tram Profile o..3 21 Tram Passenger Car (3) All of the structures, fixtures, equipment, or facilities used to operate or maintain the project and located within the project boundary, all portable property that may be used in connection with the project and located within or outside the project boundary, and all riparian or other rights that are necessary or appropriate in the operation or maintenance of the project. Project No. 11077-001 9 (C) Those sections of Exhibit A and Exhibits F and G described above are approved and made part of the license for the Goat Lake Project No. 11077. (D) The license for the Goat Lake Project No. 11077 is subject to the articles set forth in Form L-2, entitled "Terms and Conditions of License for Unconstructed Major Project Affecting Lands of the United States" (October 1995), and to the following articles. Articles 101 through 112 were submitted by the FS under Section 4(e) of the FPA. Article 101. Within six months following the date of issuance of this license and before starting any activities the Forest Service (FS) determines to be of a land-disturbing nature, the licensee shall obtain from the FS a special-use authorization for the occupancy and use of National Forest System (NFS) lands, and shall file that authorization with the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing. : The licensee may commence land-disturbing activities uthorized by the license and special-use authorization 60 days following the filing date of such authorization, unless the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, prescribes a different commencement schedule. Notwithstanding the authorizations granted under the Federal Power Act, NFS lands within the project boundaries shall be managed by the FS under the laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the NFS. The terms and conditions of the FS special-use authorization are enforceable by the FS under the laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the NFS. The violation of such terms and conditions also shall be subject to applicable sanctions and enforcement procedures of the Commission at the request of the FS. In the event there is a conflict between any provisions of the license and FS special-use authorization, the special-use authorization shall prevail on matters which the FS deems to affect NFS resources. Article 102. Before any construction of the project occurs on National Forest System (NFS) land, the licensee shall obtain the prior written approval of the Forest Service (FS) for all final design plans for project components which the FS deems as affecting or potentially affecting NFS resources. The licensee shall follow the schedules and procedures for design review and pproval specified in the FS special-use authorization. As part f such prior written approval, the FS may require adjustments in final plans and facility locations to preclude or mitigate impacts and to assure that the project is compatible with on-the- ground conditions. Should such necessary adjustments be deemed by the FS, the Commission, or the licensee to be a substantial change, the licensee shall follow the procedures of Article 2 (Form L-2) of the license. Any changes to the license made for Project No. 11077-001 10 any reason pursuant to Article 2 or Article 3 (Form L-2) shall be made subject to any new terms and conditions of the Secretary of Agriculture made pursuant to section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act. Article 103. Notwithstanding any Commission approval or license provisions to make changes to the project, the licensee shall get written approval from the Forest Service (FS) prior to making any changes in the location of any constructed project features or facilities, or in the uses of project lands and waters, or any departure from the requirements of any approved exhibits filed with the Commission. Following receipt of such approval from the FS, and at least 60 days prior to initiating any such changes or departure, the licensee shall file a report with the Commission describing the changes, the reasons for the changes, and showing the approval of the FS for such changes. The licensee shall file an exact copy of this report with the FS at the same time it is filed with the Commission. This article does not relieve the licensee from the amendment or other requirements of Article 2 (Form L-2) or Article 3 (Form L-2) of this license. Article 104. Each year during the 60 days preceding the anniversary date of the license, the licensee shall consult with the Forest Service (FS) with regard to measures needed to ensure protection and development of the natural resource values of the project area. Within 60 days following such consultation, the licensee shall file with the Commission evidence of the consultation with any recommendations made by the FS. The Commission reserves the right, after notice and opportunity for hearing, to require changes in the project and its operation that may be necessary to accomplish natural resource protection. Arti 05. During the construction and operation of the facilities authorized by this license, the licensee shall maintain during twelve daylight hours, in Pitchfork Falls, as measured above the railroad tracks, the following continuous, minimum flows: May 1 through September 30 13 cubic feet per second (cfs) October 1 through April 30 0 cfs The licensee may temporarily modify minimum flows if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of the licensee. The licensee may also modify minimum flows for short periods upon written consent of the Forest Service. Article 106. The licensee shall construct, operate, and maintain a guaranteed priority streamflow device as part of the diversion/intake structure. Required stream maintenance flows Project No. 11077-001 TL adequate to maintain the conditions described in Article 105 shall be automatically released through this device, before any flow can be diverted into the conduit. The licensee shall install a water measurement control section with a continuously- recording stream gage, upstream of Pitchfork Falls that will accurately measure the bypass flow. The licensee shall provide a stage-discharge chart to the Forest Service (FS) prior to commencement of operation of the project. The FS approval must be obtained for the design of the bypass mechanism and the design and location of the measuring control section and stream gage prior to construction. The licensee shall file a report of the streamflow at the gaging station by December 31, of each year for the preceding water year. The report must be filed with the Juneau Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest. Article 107. Within one year following the date of issuance of this license and before starting any activities the Forest service (FS) determines to be of a land-disturbing nature on tational Forest System (NFS) land, the licensee shall file with the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, a plan approved by the FS for the design and construction of the project facilities in order to preserve or enhance its visual character. The plan must consider facility configurations and alignments, building materials, color, conservation of vegetation, landscaping, and screening. Project facilities of concern to this plan include, among other things, clearings, diversion structures, penstocks, pipes, ditches, transmission lines and corridors, and access roads. The licensee shall not commence activities the FS determines to be affected by the plan until after 60 days following the filing date, unless the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, — prescribes a different commencement schedule. Article 108. Within one year following the date of issuance of this license and before starting any activities the Forest Service (FS) determines to be of a land-disturbing nature on National Forest System land, the licensee shall file with the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, a plan approved by the FS for the control of erosion, and soil mass movement. The licensee shall not commence activities the FS determines o be affected by the plan until after 60 days following the iling date, unless the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, erescribes a different commencement schedule. Article 109. Within one year following the date of issuance of this license and before starting any activities the Forest Service (FS) determines to be of a land-disturbing nature on National Forest System land, the licensee shall file with the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, a plan approved by the FS for the treatment and disposal of solid waste and waste water Project No. 11077-001 12) generated during construction and operation of the project. Ata minimum, the plan must address the estimated quantity of solid waste and waste water generated each day; the location of disposal sites and methods of treatment; implementation schedule; areas available for disposal of wastes; design of facilities; comparisons between on and offsite disposal; and maintenance programs. The licensee shall not commence activities the FS determines to be affected by the plan until after 60 days following the filing date, unless the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, prescribes a different commencement schedule. Article 110. Within one year following the date of issuance of this license and at least 60 days before starting any activities the Forest Service (FS) determines to be of a land- disturbing nature on National Forest System land (NFS), the licensee shall file with the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, a plan approved by the FS for oil and hazardous substances storage and spill prevention and cleanup. At a minimum, the plan must require the licensee to: (a) maintain in the project area, a cache of spill cleanup equipment suitable to contain any spill from the project; (b) periodically inform the FS of the location of the spill cleanup equipment on NFS lands and of the location, type, and quantity of oil and hazardous substances stored in the project area; and (c) inform the FS immediately of the nature, time, date, location, and action taken for any spill. The licensee shall not commence activities the FS determines to be affected by the plan until after 60 days following the filing date, unless the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, prescribes a different commencement schedule. Article 111. Within one year following the date of issuance of this license and before starting any activities the Forest Service (FS) determines to be of a land-disturbing nature, the licensee shall complete the testing as identified in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the FS, State Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Commission. Article 112. Within one year from the issuance of this license and before starting any activities the Forest Service (FS) determines to be of a land-disturbing nature on National Forest System land, the licensee shall file with the Director Office of Hydropower Licensing, a wildlife habitat mitigation plan approved by the FS. This plan must identify requirements for construction and mitigation measures to meet FS wildlife habitat objectives and standards. The plan also must include dates for accomplishing these objectives and standards and must Project No. 11077-001 13 identify needs for the timing of any additional studies necessary. The licensee shall not commence activities the FS determines to be affected by the plan until after 60 days following the filing date, unless the Director, Office of Hydropower licensing, prescribes a different commencement schedule. Article 201. The licensee shall pay the United States the following annual charge, effective as of the date of commencement of project construction: (a) For the purposes of reimbursing the United States for the cost of administering Part I of the Federal Power Act, a reasonable amount as determined in accordance with the provisions of the Commission’s regulations in effect from time to time. The authorized installed capacity for that purpose is 4,000 kilowatts. (b) Recompensing the United States for use, occupancy, and enjoyment of 270 acres of its lands, other than for transmission line right-of-way. Article 202. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Power Act, after the first 20 years of operation of the project under license, a specified reasonable rate of return upon the net investment in the project shall be used for determining surplus earnings of the project for the establishment and maintenance of amortization reserves. The licensee shall set aside in a project amortization reserve account at the end of each fiscal year one half of the project surplus earnings, if any, accumulated after the first 20 years of operation under the license, in excess of the specified rate of return per annum on the net investment. To the extent that there is a deficiency of project earnings below the specified rate of return per annum for any fiscal year after the first 20 years of operation under the license, the licensee shall deduct the amount of that deficiency from the amount of any surplus earnings subsequently accumulated, until absorbed. The licensee shall set aside one-half of the remaining surplus earnings, if any, cumulatively computed, in the project amortization reserve account. The licensee shall maintain the amounts established in the project amortization reserve account until further order of the Commission. The specified reasonable rate of return used in computing amortization reserves shall be calculated annually based on current capital ratios developed from an average of 13 monthly balances of amounts properly includible in the licensee’s long- term debt and proprietary capital accounts as listed in the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts. The cost rate for such ratios shall be the weighted average cost of long-term debt and preferred stock for the year, and the cost of common equity shall Project No. 11077-001 14 be the interest rate on 10-year government bonds (reported as the Treasury Department's 10 year constant maturity series) computed on the monthly average for the year in question plus four percentage points (400 basis points). Article 203. Within 45 days of the issuance of the license, the licensee shall file a complete original set and two complete duplicate sets of aperture cards of all the approved drawings, and a third, partial duplicate set of aperture cards showing only the Exhibit G drawings. The set of originals must be reproduced on silver or gelatin 35mm microfilm. The duplicate sets are copies of the originals made on diazo-type microfilm. All microfilm must be mounted on type D (3\%" x 7-3/8") aperture cards. The licensee shall submit two copies of Form FERC-587 with aperture cards. Prior to microfilming, the FERC Drawing Number (11077-1 through 11077-21) shall be shown in the margin below the title block of the approved drawing. After mounting, the FERC Drawing Number must be typed on the upper right corner of each aperture card. Additionally, the Project Number, FERC Exhibit (e.g., F-1 G-1, etc.), Drawing Title, and date of issuance of this license must be typed on the upper left corner of each aperture card. The complete original set and one complete duplicate set of aperture cards, and one copy of the Form FERC-587, must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, ATTN: DPCA/ERB. The second complete duplicate set of aperture cards shall be filed with Commission's Portland Regional Office. The third, partial duplicate set of aperture cards (Exhibit G only) and the remaining copy of Form FERC-587 shall be filed with the Bureau of Land Management Office at the following address: State Director Alaska State Office Bureau of Land Management Division of Lands and Renewable Resources (AK-930) ATTN: FERC Withdrawal Recordation 222 W. 7th Avenue, No. 13 Anchorage, AK 99513-7599 Article 301. The licensee shall commence construction of the project works within 2 years from the issuance date of the license and shall complete construction of the project within 4 years from the issuance date of the license. Article 302. The licensee shall, at least 60 days prior to the start of construction, submit one copy to the Commission's Regional Director and two copies to the Director, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections of the final contract drawings and specifications for such pertinent features of the project, such Project No. 11077-001 15 as water retention structures, all necessary transmission facilities, powerhouse, and water conveyance structures. The Director of Dam Safety and Inspections may require changes in the plans and specifications. Article 303. Within 90 days after finishing construction, the licensee shall file for Commission approval revised exhibits A, F, and G to describe and show the project as built. Articl. 4. Before starting construction, the licensee shall review and approve the design of contractor-designed cofferdams and deep excavations and shall make sure construction of the cofferdams and deep excavations is consistent with the approved design. At least 30 days before starting construction of the cofferdam, the licensee shall submit one copy to the Commission's Regional Director and two copies to the Commission ‘one of these copies shall be a courtesy copy to the Commission's ‘irector, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections), of the pproved cofferdam construction drawings and specifications and the letters of approval. Article 401. At least six months before the start of any land-disturbing or land-clearing activities, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, a final erosion and sediment control plan to control soil erosion and to minimize the quantity of sediment resulting from project construction and operation. The plan shall be based on actual-site geological, soil, and groundwater conditions and on project design. The final erosion and sediment control plan must be complete and specific and shall be based on the draft erosion and sediment control plan submitted on March 30, 1995. The final erosion and sediment control plan shall include the Forest Service's (FS's) mandatory conditions imposed under Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act that include: (a) an erosion and sediment control plan (Article 108); (b) a solid waste and waste water plan (Article 109); and (c) a hazardous substance plan (Article 110). The final erosion and sediment control plan shall include sediment control ponds, silt fence barriers, stream bank stabilization, rock entrance roads, a revegetation plan, and must comply with the Best Management Practices described in the FS Region 10 Soil and Water onservation Handbook for this type of construction. The licensee shall prepare the plan after consultation with the FS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, the Soil and Water Conservation Board and other interested agencies. The licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the Project No. 11077-001 16 agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies to comment and to make recommendations prior to filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on geological, soil, and groundwater conditions at the site. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. No land-disturbing or land-clearing activities shall begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan, including any changes required by the Commission. Article 402. The wildlife mitigation plan required by Article 112 shall be prepared after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and shall include measures to: (a) leave as much vegetation as possible during construction of the powerhouse and penstock; (b) revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible after disturbance and follow Forest Service (FS) guidelines for revegetating the disturbed areas; (c) use a helicopter or donkey- winch to transport the penstock to its location to protect as much natural vegetation as possible; and (d) design the penstock to avoid interference with wildlife movements. The plan must include a schedule for accomplishing these measures. The licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments, if any, are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies to comment and to make recommendations prior to filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons for not adopting that recommendation. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. No land-disturbing or land-clearing activities shall begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan including any changes required by the Commission. Article 403. The licensee shall design and construct the transmission line based on the licensee’s conceptual design plan filed with the Commission in March 1995, in accordance with guidelines set forth in "Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines --- the state of the Art in 1981," by Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. Project No. 11077-001 17 The licensee shall consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the Forest Service in implementing these guidelines, and shall develop and implement a design that will provide adequate separation of energized conductors, ground wires, and other metal hardware, adequate insulation, and any other measures necessary to protect raptors and other large birds from electrocution. As-built drawings of the transmission line must be included in the filings pursuant to Article 303. Article 404. The licensee shall prepare the visual resource protection plan required by Article 107 in consultation with the Forest Service and the National Park Service, and shall file the plan with the Commission, for approval, within one year of the date of issuance of this license or no later than six months before starting any land-clearing, land-disturbing, or spoil- »roducing activities at the project. The licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments, if any, are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies to comment and to make recommendations prior to filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on landscape conditions and other site-specific conditions. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. No land-disturbing or land-clearing activities shall begin . until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan including any changes required by the Commission. Article 405. At least six months before the start of any land-disturbing activities, the licensee shall file with the Commission for approval, a plan to construct, operate, and maintain the priority streamflow release device and the continuously-recording stream gage required in Article 106. The filing shall include a stage-discharge chart. The licensee shall prepare the plan after consultation with he Forest Service and the National Park Service. The licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments, if any, are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies to comment and to make recommendations prior to filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee Project No. 11077-001 18 does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on flows and other site-specific conditions. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. No land-disturbing or land-clearing activities shall begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan including any changes required by the Commission. Article 406. The licensee shall file, with the Commission, annual reports for the preceding water year of the streamflow at the gaging station required in Article 106. The reports shall be filed by December 31, of each year for the duration of the project's license. The initial report shall be filed by December 31, of the year the project commences operation. The filing shall include comments on the report from the Forest Service. Article 407. The licensee shall implement the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on cultural resources executed on May 20, 1996, for the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project. Within one year after the date of issuance of the license, the licensee shall file, for Commission approval, the cultural resources management plan prepared pursuant to stipulations of the MOA. In preparing the cultural resources management plan, the licensee shall take into account the comments of the National Park Service in its letter to the Commission dated March 25, 1996, about protecting the visual integrity of the Skagway Historic District and White Pass National Historic Landmark. Article 408. (a) In accordance with the provisions of this article, the licensee shall have the authority to grant permission for certain types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters and to convey certain interests in project lands and waters for certain types of use and occupancy, without prior Commission approval. The licensee may exercise the authority only if the proposed use and occupancy is consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational, and other environmental values of the project. For those purposes, the licensee shall also have continuing responsibility to supervise and control the use and occupancies for which it grants permission, and to monitor the use of, and ensure compliance with the covenants of the instrument of conveyance for, any interests that it has conveyed, under this article. If a permitted use and occupancy violates any condition of this article or any other condition imposed by the licensee for protection and enhancement of the project’s scenic, recreational, or other environmental values, or if a covenant of a conveyance made under the authority of this article is violated, the licensee shall take any lawful action necessary to correct the violation. For a permitted use or occupancy, that action includes, if necessary, canceling the permission to use and Project No. 11077-001 19 occupy the project lands and waters and requiring the removal of any non-complying structures and facilities. (b) The type of use and occupancy of project lands and water for which the licensee may grant permission without prior Commission approval are: (1) landscape plantings; (2) non- commercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and facilities that can accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and where said facility is intended to serve single-family type dwellings; (3) embankments, bulkheads, retaining walls, or similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing shoreline; and (4) food plots and other wildlife enhancement. To the extent feasible and desirable to protect and enhance the project’s scenic, recreational, and other environmental values, the licensee shall require multiple use and occupancy of facilities for access to project lands or waters. The licensee shall also ensure, to the satisfaction of the Commission’s iuthorized representative, that the use and occupancies for which at grants permission are maintained in good repair and comply with applicable state and local health and safety requirements. Before granting permission for construction of bulkheads or retaining walls, the licensee shall: (1) inspect the site of the proposed construction, (2) consider whether the planting of vegetation or the use of riprap would be adequate to control erosion at the site, and (3) determine that the proposed construction is needed and would not change the basic contour of the reservoir shoreline. To implement this paragraph (b), the licensee may, among other things, establish a program for issuing permits for the specified types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters, which may be subject to the payment of a reasonable fee to cover the licensee’s costs of administering the permit program. The Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to file a description of its standards, guidelines, and procedures for implementing this paragraph (b) and to require modification of those standards, guidelines, or procedures. (c) The licensee may convey easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of, project lands for: (1) replacement, expansion, realignment, or maintenance of bridges or roads where all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) storm drains and water mains; (3) sewers that do not discharge nto project waters; (4) minor access roads; (5) telephone, gas, nd electric utility distribution lines; (6) non-project overhead clectric transmission lines that do not require erection of support structures within the project boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, or underground major telephone distribution cables or major electric distribution lines (69-Kv or less); and (8) water intake or pumping facilities that do not extract more than one million gallons per day from a project reservoir. No later than January 31 of each year, the licensee shall file three copies of a report briefly describing for each conveyance made under this Paragraph (c) during the prior calendar year, the type of Project No. 11077-001 20 interest conveyed, the location of the lands subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for which the interest was conveyed. (d) The licensee may convey fee title to, easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of project lands for: (1) construction of new bridges or roads for which all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) sewer or effluent lines that discharge into project waters, for which all necessary federal and state water quality certification or permits have been obtained; (3) other pipelines that cross project lands or waters but do not discharge into project waters; (4) non-project overhead electric transmission lines that require erection of support structures within the project boundary, for which all necessary federal and state approvals have been obtained; (5) private or public marinas that can accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and are located at least one- half mile (measured over project waters) from any other private or public marina; (6) recreational development consistent with an approved Exhibit R or approved report on recreational. resources of an Exhibit E; and (7) other uses, if: (i) the amount of land conveyed for a particular use is five acres or less; (ii) all of the land conveyed is located at least 75 feet, measured horizontally, from project waters at normal surface elevation; and (iii) no more than 50 total acres of project lands for each project development are conveyed under this clause (d)(7) in any calendar year. At least 60 days before conveying any interest in project lands under this paragraph (d), the licensee must submit a letter to the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, stating its intent to convey the interest and briefly describing the type of interest and location of the lands to be conveyed (a marked exhibit G or K map may be used), the nature of the proposed use, the identity of any federal or state agency official consulted, and any federal or state approvals required for the proposed use. Unless the Director, within 45 days from the filing date, - requires the licensee to file an application for prior approval, the licensee may convey the intended interest at the end of that period. (e) The following additional conditions apply to any intended conveyance under paragraph (c) or (d) of this article: (1) Before conveying the interest, the licensee shall consult with federal and state fish and wildlife or recreation agencies, as appropriate, and the State Historic Preservation Officer. (2) Before conveying the interest, the licensee shall determine that the proposed use of the lands to be conveyed is not inconsistent with any approved Exhibit R or approved report on recreational resources of an Exhibit E; or, if the project does not have an approved Exhibit R or approved report on Project No. 11077-001 21 recreational resources, that the lands to be conveyed do not have recreational value. (3) The instrument of conveyance must include the following covenants running with the land: (i) the use of the lands conveyed shall not endanger health, create a nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project recreational use; (ii) the grantee shall take all reasonable precautions to insure that the construction, operation, and maintenance of structures or facilities on the conveyed lands will occur in a manner that will protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project; and (iii) the grantee shall not unduly restrict public access to project waters. (4) The Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to take reasonable remedial action to correct any violation of the terms and conditions of this article, for the rotection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational, nd other environmental values. (£) The conveyance of an interest in project lands under this article does not in itself change the project boundaries. The project boundaries may be changed to exclude land conveyed under this article only upon approval of revised exhibit G or K drawings (project boundary maps) reflecting exclusion of that land. Lands conveyed under this article will be excluded from the project only upon a determination that the lands are not necessary for project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation, public access, protection of environmental resources, and shoreline control, including shoreline aesthetic values. Absent extraordinary circumstances, proposals to exclude lands conveyed under this article ‘from the project shall be consolidated for consideration when revised exhibit G or K drawings would be filed for approval for other purposes. (g) The authority granted to the licensee under this article shall not apply to any part of the public lands and reservations of the United States included within the project boundary. (E) The licensee shall serve copies of any Commission “iling required by this order on any entity specified in this rder to be consulted on matters related to the Commission iling. Proof of service on these entities must accompany the filing with the Commission. (F) This order is issued under authority delegated to the Director and constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713. The filing Project No. 11077-001 22 of a request for rehearing does not operate as a stay of the effective date of this order or of any other date specified in this order, except as specifically ordered by the Commission. The licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of this order. Fred E. Springer Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing Form L-2 (October, 1975) FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LICENSE FOR UNCONSTRUCTED MAJOR PROJECT AFFECTING LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES Article 1. The entire project, as described in this order of the Commission, shall be subject to all of the provisions, terms, and conditions of the license. Article 2. No substantial change shall be made in the maps, plans, specifications, and statements described and designated as exhibits and approved by the Commission in its order as a part of the license until such change shall have been approved by the tommission: Provided, however, That if the Licensee or the Com- .lission deems it necessary or desirable that said approved exhibits, or any of them, be changed, there shall be submitted to the Commission for approval a revised, or additional exhibit or exhibits covering the proposed changes which, upon approval by the Commission, shall become a part of the license and shall supersede, in whole or in part, such exhibit or exhibits there- tofore made a part of the license as may be specified by the Commission. Article 3. The project works shall be constructed in substantial conformity with the approved exhibits referred to in Article 2 herein or as changed in accordance with the provisions of said article. Except when emergency shall require for the protection of navigation, life, health, or property, there shall not be made without prior approval of the Commission any sub- stantial alteration or addition not in conformity with the approved plans to any dam or other project works under the license or any substantial use of project lands and waters not authorized herein; and any emergency alteration, addition, or use so made shall thereafter be subject to such modification and change as the Commission may direct. Minor changes in project works, or in uses of project lands and waters, or divergence from such approved exhibits may be made if such changes will not ~esult in a decrease in efficiency, in a material increase in ost, in an adverse environmental impact, or in impairment of the _eneral scheme of development; but any of such minor changes made without the prior approval of the Commission, which in its judg- ment have produced or will produce any of such results, shall be subject to such alteration as the Commission may direct. Upon the completion of the project, or at such other time as the Commission may direct, the Licensee shall submit to the Com- mission for approval revised exhibits insofar as necessary to show any divergence from or variations in the project area and project boundary as finally located or in the project works as actually constructed when compared with the area and boundary shown and the works described in the license or in the exhibits approved by the Commission, together with a statement in writing setting forth the reasons which in the opinion of the Licensee necessitated or justified variation in or divergence from the approved exhibits. Such revised exhibits shall, if and when approved by the Commission, be made a part of the license under the provisions of Article 2 hereof. Article 4. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the project and any work incidental to additions or alterations shall be subject to the inspection and supervision of the Regional Engineer, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in the region wherein the project is located, or of such other officer or agent as the Commission may designate, who shall be the authorized representative of the Commission for such purposes. The Licensee shall cooperate fully with said representative and shall furnish him a detailed program of inspection by the Licensee that will provide for an adequate and qualified inspection force for construction of the project and for any subsequent alterations to the project. Construction of the project works or any features or alteration thereof shall not be initiated until the program of inspection for the project works or any such feature thereof has been approved by said represent - ative. The Licensee shall also furnish to said representative such further information as he may require concerning the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of the project, and of any alteration thereof, and shall notify him of the date upon which work will begin, as far in advance thereof as said representa- tive may reasonably specify, and shall notify him promptly in writing of any suspension of work for a period of more than one week, and of its resumption and completion. The Licensee shall allow said representative and other officers or employees of the United States, showing proper credentials, free and unrestricted access to, through, and across the project lands and project works in the performance of their official duties. The Licensee shall comply with such rules and regulations of general or special applicability as the Commission may prescribe from time to time for the protection of life, health, or property. Article 5. The Licensee, within five years from the date of issuance of the license, shall acquire title in fee or the right to use in perpetuity all lands, other than lands of the United States, necessary or appropriate for the construction, main- tenance, and operation of the project. The Licensee or its successors and assigns shall, during the period of the license, retain the possession of all project property covered by the license as issued or as later amended, including the project area, the project works, and all franchises, easements, water rights, and rights of occupancy and use; and none of such proper- ties shall be voluntarily sold, leased, transferred, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of without the prior written approval of 3 the Commission, except that the Licensee may lease or otherwise dispose of interests in project lands or property without spe- cific written approval of the Commission pursuant to the then current regulations of the Commission. The provisions of this article are not intended to prevent the abandonment or the retirement from service of structures, equipment, or other project works in connection with replacements thereof when they become obsolete, inadequate, or inefficient for further service due to wear and tear; and mortgage or trust deeds or judicial sales made thereunder, or tax sales, shall not be deemed voluntary transfers within the meaning of this article. Article 6. In the event the project is taken over by the United States upon the termination of the license as provided in Section 14 of the Federal Power Act, or is transferred to a new licensee or to a non-power licensee under the provisions of Section 15 of said Act, the Licensee, its successors and assigns hall be responsible for, and shall make good any defect of title 0, or of right of occupancy and use in, any of such project pro- _erty that is necessary or appropriate or valuable and service- able in the maintenance and operation of the project, and shall pay and discharge, or shall assume responsibility for payment and discharge of, all liens or encumbrances upon the project or project property created by the Licensee or created or incurred after the issuance of the license: Provided, That the provisions of this article are not intended to require the Licensee, for the purpose of transferring the project to the United States or to a new licensee, to acquire any different title to, or right of occupancy and use in, any of such project property than was nec- essary to acquire for its own purposes as the Licensee. Article 7. The actual legitimate original cost of the project, and of any addition thereto or betterment thereof, shall be determined by the Commission in accordance with the Federal Power Act and the Commission’s Rules and Regulations thereunder. Article 8. The Licensee shall install and thereafter main- tain gages and stream-gaging stations for the purpose of deter- mining the state and flow of the stream or streams on which the project is located, the amount of water held in and withdrawn from storage, and the effective head on the turbines; shall pro- vide for the required reading of such gages and for the adequate ~ating of such stations; and shall install and maintain standard eters adequate for the determination of the amount of electric nergy generated by the project works. The number, character, and location of gages, meters, or other measuring devices, and the method of operation thereof, shall at all times be satis- factory to the Commission or its authorized representative. The Commission reserves the right, after notice and opportunity for hearing, to require such alterations in the number, character and locations of gages, meters, or other measuring devices, and the method of operation thereof, as are necessary to secure ade- 4 quate determinations. The installation of gages, the rating of said stream or streams, and the determination of the flow thereof, shall be under the supervision of, or in cooperation with, the District Engineer of the United States Geological Sur- vey having charge of stream-gaging operations in the region of the project, and the Licensee shall advance to the United States Geological Survey the amount of funds estimated to be necessary for such supervision, or cooperation for such periods as may be mutually agreed upon. The Licensee shall keep accurate and sufficient records of the foregoing determinations to the satis- faction of the Commission, and shall make return of such records annually at such time and in such form as the Commission may prescribe. Article 9. The Licensee shall, after notice and opportunity for hearing, install additional capacity or make other changes in the project as directed by the Commission, to the extent that it is economically sound and in the public interest to do so. Article 10. The Licensee shall, after notice and opportun- ity for hearing, coordinate the operation of the project, elec- trically and hydraulically, with such other projects or power systems and in such manner as the Commission may direct in the interest of power and other beneficial public uses of water resources, and on such conditions concerning the equitable shar- ing of benefits by the Licensee as the Commission may order. Article 11. Whenever the Licensee is directly benefited by the construction work of another licensee, a permittee, or the United States on a storage reservoir or other headwater improve- ment, the Licensee shall reimburse the owner of the headwater improvement for such part of the annual charges for interest maintenance, and depreciation thereof as the Commission shall determine to be equitable, and shall pay to the United States the cost of making such determination as fixed by the Commission. For benefits provided by a storage reservoir or other headwater improvement of the United States, the Licensee shall pay to the Commission the amounts for which it is billed from time to time for such headwater benefits and for the cost of making the determinations pursuant to the then current regulations of the Commission under the Federal Power Act. Article 12. The operations of the Licensee, so far as they affect the use, storage and discharge from storage of waters affected by the license, shall at all times be controlled by such reasonable rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe for the protection of life, health, and property, and in the interest of the fullest practicable conservation and utilization of such waters for power purposes and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes, and the Licensee shall release water from the project reservoir at such rate in cubic 5 feet per second, or such volume in acre-feet per specified period of time, as the Commission may prescribe for the purposes herein- before mentioned. Article 13. On the application of any person, association, corporation, Federal Agency, State or municipality, the Licensee shall permit such reasonable use of its reservoir or other pro- ject properties, including works, lands and water rights, or . parts thereof, as may be ordered by the Commission, after notice and opportunity for hearing, in the interests of comprehensive development of the waterway or waterways involved and the con- servation and utilization of the water resources of the region for water supply or for the purposes of steam-electric, irriga- tion, industrial, municipal or similar uses. The Licensee shall receive reasonable compensation for use of its reservoir or other project properties or parts thereof for such purposes, to include -t least full reimbursement for any damages or expenses which the oint use causes the Licensee to incur. Any such compensation hall be fixed by the Commission either by approval of an agree- ment between the Licensee and the party or parties benefiting or after notice and opportunity for hearing. Applications shall contain information in sufficient detail to afford a full under- standing of the proposed use, including satisfactory evidence that the applicant possesses necessary water rights pursuant to applicable State law, or a showing of cause why such evidence cannot concurrently be submitted, and a statement as to the rela- sionship of the proposed use to any State or municipal plans or orders which may have been adopted with respect to the use of such waters. Arti 14. In the construction or maintenance of the project works, the Licensee shall place and maintain suitable structures and devices to reduce to a reasonable degree the liability of contact between its transmission lines and tele- graph, telephone and other signal wires or power transmission lines constructed prior to its transmission lines and not owned by the Licensee, and shall also place and maintain suitable structures and devices to reduce to a reasonable degree the liability of any structures and devices to reduce to a reasonable degree the liability of any structures or wires falling or ; obstructing traffic or endangering life. None of the provisions of this article are intended to relieve the Licensee from any esponsibility or requirement which may be imposed by any other awful authority for avoiding or eliminating inductive inter- terence. Article 15. The Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, construct, maintain, and operate, or arrange for the construction, maintenance, and operation of such reasonable facilities, and comply with such reasonable modifications of the project structures and operation, as may be ordered by the Commission upon its own motion or upon 6 the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior or the fish and wildlife agency or agencies of any State in which the project or a part thereof is located, after notice and opportunity for hearing. Article 16. Whenever the United States shall desire, in connection with the project, to construct fish and wildlife facilities or to improve the existing fish and wildlife facili- ties at its own expense, the Licensee shall permit the United States or its designated agency to use, free of cost, such of the Licensee’s lands and interests in lands, reservoirs, waterways and project works as may be reasonably required to complete such facilities or such improvements thereof. In addition, after notice and opportunity for hearing, the Licensee shall modify the project operation as may be reasonably prescribed by the Commis- sion in order to permit the maintenance and operation of the fish and wildlife facilities constructed or improved by the United States under the provisions of this article. This article shall not be interpreted to place any obligation on the United States to construct or improve fish and wildlife facilities or to relieve the Licensee of any obligation under this license. Article 17. The Licensee shall construct, maintain, and operate, or shall arrange for the construction, maintenance, and operation of such reasonable recreational facilities, including modifications thereto, such as access roads, wharves, launching ramps, beaches, picnic and camping areas, sanitary facilities, and utilities, giving consideration to the needs of the physi- cally handicapped, and shall comply with such reasonable modi- fications of the project, as may be prescribed hereafter by the Commission during the term of this license upon its own motion or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior or other interested Federal or State agencies, after notice and opportun- ity for hearing. Article 18. So far as is consistent with proper operation of the project, the Licensee shall allow the public free access, to a reasonable extent, to project waters and adjacent project lands owned by the Licensee for the purpose of full public utili- zation of such lands and waters for navigation and for outdoor recreational purposes, including fishing and hunting: Provided That the Licensee may reserve from public access such portions of the project waters, adjacent lands, and project facilities as may be necessary for the protection of life, health, and property. Article 19. In the construction, maintenance, or operation of the project, the Licensee shall be responsible for, and shall take reasonable measures to prevent, soil erosion on lands adja- cent to streams or other waters, stream sedimentation, and any form of water or air pollution. The Commission, upon request or upon its own motion, may order the Licensee to take such measures 7 as the Commission finds to be necessary for these purposes, after notice and opportunity for hearing. Article 20. The Licensee shall consult with the appropriate State and Federal agencies and, within one year of the date of issuance of this license, shall submit for Commission approval a plan for clearing the reservoir area. Further, the Licensee shall clear and keep clear to an adequate width lands along open conduits and shall dispose of all temporary structures, unused timber, brush, refuse, or other material unnecessary for the pur- poses of the project which results from the clearing of lands or from the maintenance or alteration of the project works. In addition, all trees along the periphery of project reservoirs which may die during operations of the project shall be removed. Upon approval of the clearing plan all clearing of the lands and disposal of the unnecessary material shall be done with due dili- gence and to the satisfaction of the authorized representative of the Commission and in accordance with appropriate Federal, State, ind local statues and regulations. Article 21. Timber on lands of the United State cut, used, or destroyed in the construction and maintenance of the project works, or in the clearing of said lands, shall be paid for, and the resulting slash and debris disposed of, in accordance with the requirements of the agency of the United States having jurisdiction over said lands. Payment for merchantable timber shall be at current stumpage rates, and payment for young growth timber below merchantable size shall be at current damage appraisal values. However, the agency of the United States having jurisdiction may sell or dispose of the merchantable timber to others than the Licensee: Provided, That timber so sold or disposed of shall be cut and removed from the area prior to, or without undue interference with, clearing operations of the Licensee and in coordination with the Licensee's project construction schedules. Such sale or disposal to others shall not relieve the Licensee of responsibility for the clearing and disposal of all slash and debris from project lands. Article 22. The Licensee shall do everything reasonably within its power, and shall require its employees, contractors, and employees of contractors to do everything reasonably within their power, both independently and upon the request of officers of the agency concerned, to prevent, to make advance preparations or suppression of, and to suppress fires on the lands to be vccupied or used under the license. The Licensee shall be liable «or and shall pay the costs incurred by the United States in suppressing fires caused from the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project works or of the works appurtenant or accessory thereto under the license. Article 23. The Licensee shall interpose no objection to, and shall in no way prevent, the use by the agency of the United 8 States having jurisdiction over the lands of the United States affected, or by persons or corporations occupying lands of the United States under permit, of water for fire suppression from any stream, conduit, or body of water, natural or artificial, used by the Licensee in the operation of the project works covered by the license, or the use by said parties of water for sanitary and domestic purposes from any stream, conduit, or body of water, natural or artificial, used by the Licensee in the operation of the project works covered by the license. Article 24. The Licensee shall be liable for injury to, or destruction of, any buildings, bridges, roads, trails, lands, or other property of the United States, occasioned by the construc- tion, maintenance, or operation of the project works or of the works appurtenant or accessory thereto under the license. Arrangements to meet such liability, either by compensation for such injury or destruction, or by reconstruction or repair of damaged property, or otherwise, shall be made with the appro- priate department or agency of the United States. Article 25. The Licensee shall allow any agency of the United States, without charge, to construct or permit to be constructed on, through, and across those project lands which are lands of the United States such conduits, chutes, ditches, railroads, roads, trails, telephone and power lines, and other routes or means of transportation and communication as are not inconsistent with the enjoyment of said lands by the Licensee for the purposes of the license. This license shall not be construed as conferring upon the Licensee any right of use, occupancy, or enjoyment of the lands of the United States other than for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project as stated in the license. Article 26. In the construction and maintenance of the project, the location and standards of roads and trails on lands of the United States and other uses of lands of the United States, including the location and condition of quarries, borrow pits, and spoil disposal areas, shall be subject to the approval of the department or agency of the United States having super- vision over the lands involved. Article 27. The Licensee shall make provision, or shall bear the reasonable cost, as determined by the agency of the United States affected, of making provision for avoiding induc- tive interference between any project transmission line or other project facility constructed, operated, or maintained under the license, and any radio installation, telephone line, or other communication facility installed or constructed before or after construction of such project transmission line or other project facility and owned, operated, or used by such agency of the United States in administering the lands under its jurisdiction. Ss Article 28. The Licensee shall make use of the Commission's guidelines and other recognized guidelines for treatment of transmission line rights-of-way, and shall clear such portions of transmission line rights-of-way across lands of the United States as are designated by the officer of the United States in charge of the lands; shall keep the areas so designated clear of new growth, all refuse, and inflammable material to the satisfaction of such officer; shall trim all branches of trees in contact with or liable to contact the transmission lines; shall cut and remove all dead or leaning trees which might fall in contact with the transmission lines; and shall take such other precautions against fire as may be required by such officer. No fires for the burning of waste material shall be set except with the prior written consent of the officer of the United States in charge of the lands as to time and place. Article 29. The Licensee shall cooperate with the United 3tates in the disposal by the United States, under the Act of July 31, 1947, 61 Stat. 681, as amended (30 U.S.C. sec. 601, et 3eq.), of mineral and vegetative materials from lands of the United States occupied by the project or any part thereof: Provided, That such disposal has been authorized by the Commis- sion and that it does not unreasonably interfere with the occupancy of such lands by the Licensee for the purposes of the license: Provided further, That in the event of disagreement, any question of unreasonable interference shall be determined by the Commission after notice ad opportunity for hearing. Article 30. If the Licensee shall cause or suffer essential project property to be removed or destroyed or to become unfit for use, without adequate replacement, or shall abandon or discontinue good faith operation of the project or refuse or neglect to comply with the terms of the license and the lawful orders of the Commission mailed to the record address of the Licensee or its agent, the Commission will deem it to be the intent of the Licensee to surrender the license. The Commission, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may require the Licensee to remove any or all structures, equipment and power lines within the project boundary and to take any such other action necessary to restore the project waters, lands, and facilities remaining within the project boundary to a condition satisfactory to the United States agency having jurisdiction over *ts lands or the Commission’s authorized representative, as ppropriate, or to provide for the continued operation and aintenance of nonpower facilities and fulfill such other obligations under the license as the Commission may prescribe. In addition, the Commission in its discretion, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may also agree to the surrender of the license when the Commission, for the reasons recited herein, deems it to be the intent of the Licensee to surrender the license. 10 Art: 31. The right of the Licensee and of its successors and assigns to use or occupy waters over which the United States ‘has jurisdiction, or lands of the United States under the license, for the purpose of maintaining the project works or otherwise, shall absolutely cease at the end of the license period, unless the Licensee has obtained a new license pursuant to the then existing laws and regulations, or an annual license under the terms and conditions of this license. Article 32. The terms and conditions expressly set forth in the license shall not be construed as impairing any terms and conditions of the Federal Power Act which are not expressly set forth herein. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 11077-001 Alaska Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing Division of Project Review 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 and U.S. Forest Service Tongass National Forest - Chatham Area Juneau Ranger District 8465 Old Dairy Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 [ I U1. Iv TABLE OF CONTENTS page SUMMARY iti INTRODUCTION 1 APPLICATION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 3 A Purpose of Action . . 3 B Need for Power é 4 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 4 A AP&T's Proposal . + 1 Project Description . . nse 2 3 4 Bi Project Operation 0 7 6 3 Proposed Environmental Measures Aaaws 6 4. Mandatory Requirements (4(e) Conditions] . 7 B. NO=ACHOM ANGIRENVOY 0... ie csc vores we mins my pare aey 8 Gc Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from ‘Detailed Study . 8 CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE ................. 9 AGT COCRNMIOD i. Fo ree owrs ees ERS 9 Interventions ../......... 10 Scoping 10 Vi. VIL. VIL. IX. X; XI. XII. XIII. Coastal Zone Management Act Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment ..... . A B D. Water Quality Certification .......... Lee : wy oh E EF E NVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ee a A. General Description of the Goat Lake Drainage Area 12 u. Cumulative Impacts .................. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives .. . . Geology and Soil Resources.............. Aquatic Resources ........ Terrestrial Resources ......... Threatened and Endangered Species . Aesthetic Resources ......... 2 SYAwWEENH Socioeconomics . Cc Impacts of the No-action Alternative . re es DEVELOPMENTAL (ANIONS 5 85145 ty 5:8 Lecie Pee nsec wim ene vies wes yee COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED UTRRNATIVES 554 aye Gott # ooo nase messing 1 rein ve gm ae 1m O8 RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT LITERATURE CITED . LIST OF PREPARERS APPENDIX A Figure I ~ LIST OF FIGURES Page Location of the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project 2 Proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project features ................ : 5 LIST OF TABLES Page Estimated average inflows to Goat Lake for water years 1964 through 1986 ..... 16 Estimated average flows for Pitchfork Falls for water years 1991 through 1994... 16 Wetlands/int the;project area... ce sis iy 06) 5 r8 61s FEELS oie cnn stn sis ware 19 Staff's economic analysis of the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project using the average AY CACOLO MY TOStUITIMED . ins:5 ca « cole omens rE ics & eg FT S (OE UE BIA Sal « ses men's ws Cr YOR ZB OD 37 SUMMARY The Alaska Power and Telephone Company (.AP&T) proposes to construct. operate. and maintain the 4-megawatt Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project on Pitchfork Falls. near the town of Skagway in southeast Alaska. AP&T has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) for an original hydropower license and to the U.S. Forest Service (FS) for a special-use authorization to operate the project on the Tongass National Forest. To facilitate decisions whether to issue the hydropower license and special-use authorization, we (Commission and FS staffs) prepared this final environmental assessment to evaluate how the proposed project (FERC No. 11077-001) would affect environmental resources in the Goat Lake drainage area and determine whether additional protection or mitigation measures may be needed to protect and improve the environmental resources and provide the best comprehensive development of the waterway. In addition, we also examine the no-action alternative. Accordingly, we agree with AP&T's proposed project and mitigation. We recommend that AP&T: (1) develop and implement a final erosion and sediment control plan to include detention of pond run-off, preventing localized erosion, stabilizing stream channel banks, controlling access road erosion, and handling solid waste, waste water, and hazardous substances; (2) leave as much vegetation as possible during project construction; (3) revegetate all disturbed areas from construction as soon after disturbance as possible using FS guidelines; (4) use a helicopter or donkey-winch during project construction to protect the natural vegetation; (5) design the penstock to avoid interference with wildlife; (6) construct the transmission line to avoid possible hazards to large birds; (7) adjust the construction schedule to avoid possible mountain goat disturbance; (8) screen the powerhouse and substation using measures that match the surrounding aesthetic environment; (9) establish a 13 cubic feet per second instream flow over Pitchfork Falls, May through September for 12 hours a day to maintain the natural aesthetics of the area; and (10) develop and implement a cultural resources management plan. Under our recommended alternative, we find that none of the resources--which include water, fishery, wildlife and terrestrial, visual, recreational, and cultural resources--would suffer significant adverse impacts. Therefore, no environmental impact statement is required. iii FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing, Division of Project Review Washington, D.C. and U.S. Forest Service Tongass National Forest. Juneau Ranger District Juneau, Alaska GOAT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 11077-001- ALASKA I. INTRODUCTION The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), acting as lead agency, and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) -- Juneau Ranger District, Chatham Area, as cooperating agency, have prepared this final environmental assessment (FEA) for the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,' issuing a license decision on the project requires preparation of either an EA or Environmental Impact Statement. We (the Commission and FS staffs (staff]) analyze the environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with constructing, operating, and maintaining this project, as proposed by Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP&T). We also consider effects of alternatives to the project. II. APPLICATION On May 31, 1994, AP&T filed an application with the Commission for a license to construct the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project. The proposed 4-megawatt (MW) seasonal storage project would be constructed along Pitchfork Falls,” located about 7 miles northeast of the town of Skagway in southeast Alaska (Figure 1), within sections 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 of Township 27 South, Range 60 East, of the Copper River Meridian. * Pub. L. 91-190. 42 U.S. C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), Sept. 13, 1982. ? Pitchfork Falls is a one-mile-long cascading stream that flows from Goat Lake and descends 2,100 feet over a steep, 30 percent gradient to the Skagway River. The most prominent portion of the falls, and the steepest drop, is located between the White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad and the Skagway River. Scale tin = about 80 mies Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 1 FERC No. 11077-001 Figure 1. Location of the Proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project in Southeast Alaska (source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1994a, as modified by the Commission). Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 2 FERC No. 11077-001 Pitchfork Falls is a tributary to the Skagway River, which Originates in Canada and generally flows southward and terminates at Taiya Inlet. adjacent to the town of Skagway The project would occupy about 270 acres of the Tongass National Forest, administered by the Juneau Ranger District. A small portion of the project's proposed transmission line lies on 2.9 acres of state-owned lands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has concurrently evaluated a permit application from AP&T pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. for dredging and filling activities associated with the project (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995f). The project is not intended for flood control, navigation, agricultural purposes. or irrigation. We issued the jointly prepared Goat Lake draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for comments on March 11, 1996. In response, we received 3 comment letters. We list the commenting entities in "Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment," section V.F. All comment letters were carefully considered. The sections of the draft EA that have been modified as a result of our reevaluation are identified in Appendix A, “Comments on the Draft EA and Staff Responses.” Ill. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION A. Purpose of Action The Federal Power Act (FPA) provides the Commission with the exclusive authority to license nonfederal water power projects on navigable waterways and federal lands for a period of up to 50 years.’ The Commission will use this FEA to decide: (1) whether or not to issue a license, (2) whether issuing AP&T an original hydropower license for the project would be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and (3) what conditions, if any, would be placed on any license issued for the project. To ensure that the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project would be operated in a manner consistent with the National Forest System lands and resources, the FS will use this FEA to decide: (1) what mandatory license terms and conditions they would require, under section 4(e) of the FPA, to adequately protect the Tongass National Forest, should the Commission issue an original license for the project, (2) whether to issue AP&T a special use authorization (SUA) for those portions of the project that fall on national forest lands, and (3) whether these required measures would be consistent with their multiple use, land stewardship responsibilities. The SUA would authorize occupancy and use of forest lands for hydropower development that would include requirements necessary for comprehensive and compatible use of natural resources, consistent with the purposes for which the forest was established. > U.S.C. Sect 791(a)-825(r). Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 3 FERC No. 11077-001 B. Need for Power AP&T proposes to use power from the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project to replace generation from diesel powered generation facilities in the nearby town of Skagway, Alaska. Since Skagway has no transmission lines connected to any other area, there is no market for any power generated from the project other than that needed to meet Skagway’s electrical demands. By supplementing AP&T’s existing Dewey Lakes Hydropower Project, the proposed project would serve Skagway’s residential, commercial. and industrial loads. In 1994, AP&T's actual peak demand in the Skagway service area was 1.760 kilowatts. For the years 1974 to 1993, AP&T's electric loads for Skagway have been increasing at an average annual rate of 6 percent. From 1994 to 2003, AP&T's mid-load forecast predicts the electric loads will grow at an average of 5.5 percent annually. Beyond 2004, AP&T assumes an average mid-load growth of 1.4 percent annually. Power from the proposed project would be useful in meeting the above need for power. When operational, power from the project would be available to displace diesel generation on AP&T's system, conserving fossil fuels and reducing atmospheric pollution. IV. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. AP&T's Proposal 1. Project Description AP&T proposes to construct the following project facilities (Figure 2): (1) a 14-foot- wide by 125-foot-long uncontrolled spillway to replace the existing natural lake outlet which would be filled in; (2) a submerged wedgewire screen intake assembly positioned in Goat Lake at elevation 2,875 feet mean sea level (msl), and with a mechanically operated trash rake for cleaning; (3) a 30-inch-diameter, 600-foot-long steel or high density polyethylene chloride siphon pipe attached to a vacuum pump assembly within a 12-foot by 12-foot siphon pump house; (4) a pumpback/valve station consisting of a 10-foot by 18-foot metal building with two 30-horsepower pumps connected to a 14-inch pipe for returning water to the lake;* (5) an 8-foot-high by 25-foot-long concrete retaining wall with a 14-foot-wide spillway (elevation 2.876 feet msl) forming a 0.014-acre-foot storage catchbasin located in a portion of the existing pond; (6) a 6,200-foot-long, 22-inch-diameter steel penstock extending from the pumpback station to the powerhouse; (7) a single level, 30-foot by 40-foot powerhouse containing one horizontal twin jet Pelton turbine unit with a generating capacity of 4 MW and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 32 cubic feet per second (cfs); (8) a small substation with a * The proposed 30-inch siphon pipe and 14-inch water return pipe would be laid in the existing 5-foot- wide natural lake outlet before it is filled. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 4 FERC No. 11077-001 i i ‘Scale tin = about 645 leet SECTION 16 Figure 2. Proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Features (source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1994a, as modified by the Commission). Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 pad-mounted step-up transformer. automatic recloser. and transmission line dead-end structure adjacent to the powerhouse; and (9) a 3.400-foot-long, 24.9-kilovolt (kV) aerial transmission line on wooden poles extending trom the substation. across the Skagway River to the Customs Border Station where it interties with AP&T’s existing 24.9-kV transmission line to Skagway; and (10) a single cable, 500-foot-long aerial tram originating near the end of a 1.000-foot- — long access road within a 60-foot-wide right-of-way be built trom the Klondike International Highway to provide access to the project. 2. Project Operation Goat Lake is a very deep natural impoundment. Inflows to Goat Lake come from a combination of precipitation and glacial runoff. The glacier, located above the moraine at the south end of the lake, also provides runoff to the pond below Goat Lake and to Pitchfork Falls. which descends about 2,100 feet in elevation from the pond to its confluence with the Skagway River. AP&T proposes to automatically operate the project using the normal water outfall trom Goat Lake to generate power. They also propose to draft Goat Lake to generate power during periods of low runoff or high energy demands. The normal water surface elevation of Goat Lake is 2,915 feet msl and AP&T proposes to limit lake drawdown to 30 feet. AP&T also proposes to pump water from the catchbasin below Goat Lake, back to Goat Lake for regulated storage. AP&T would pump from October through April, when there is no requirement to release flows into Pitchfork Falls,’ and May through September, during the hours the instream flow is not required. During the hours that AP&T proposes to provide flows to Pitchfork Falls, the pump output would be regulated to allow the required release of water to the falls. If natural water flow to the catchbasin would not be sufficient to meet the instream requirements, a valve would open to release water from Goat Lake to supplement flows. AP&T would provide to the 6,200-foot-long bypassed reach, a minimum instream flow of 13 cfs May through September for 12 daylight hours per day. 3. Proposed Environmental Measures AP&T proposes the following measures to protect environmental resources that may be affected by the project: 5 The flow release into Pitchfork Falls is to maintain the aesthetics, particularly in the steepest, cascading portion between the White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad and the Skagway River. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 6 FERC No. 1077-001 ° Implement an erosion and sediment control plan to include measures that would detain pond run-off, prevent localized erosion, stabilize stream channel banks, and control access road erosion . Leave as much vegetation as possible during powerhouse and penstock construction: revegetate all vegetated areas disturbed by project construction activities: follow FS guidelines for revegetating disturbed areas ° Use a helicopter or donkey-winch to transport the penstock to its location to protect as much natural vegetation as possible ° Design the penstock to avoid interfering with wildlife movements . Design and construct the transmission line to prevent hazards to raptors and other large birds ° Adjust the construction schedule of the facilities at the lake to avoid disturbance to mountain goat mating and kidding + Visually screen the powerhouse and substation with the use of vegetation and/or coloring to match the surrounding environment . Establish a 13-cfs minimum instream flow over Pitchfork Falls during May through September for 12 daylight hours a day to maintain the aesthetics of the area, by use of a priority flow bypass device ° Implement a cultural resources management plan to protect portions of the Skagway Historic District and White Pass National Historic Landmark (Historic Landmark), which includes the Brackett Wagon Road and White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad (WP&YR RR); and the historic Canadian Oil pipeline affected or potentially affected by the project, pursuant to a memorandum of agreement (MOA) prepared in accordance with the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation’s (Advisory Council) regulations (36 CFR 800) for the National Historic Preservation Act. We discuss each of these measures in the individual resource sections of this FEA. 4. Mandatory Requirements (4(e) Conditions} Since the project occupies land of the Tongass National Forest, the FS has authority under Section 4(e) of the FPA, to impose mandatory conditions on any hydropower license the Commission would issue for the project. In its May 9, 1996, letter, the FS filed with the Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 ae FERC No. 11077-001 Commission, the following preliminary 4(e) conditions for the license (letter trom Phil Janik. Regional Forester. U.S. Forest Service - Alaska Region. Juneau. Alaska, May 9. 1996), and stated that the final 4(e) terms and conditions for the license would be provided within 45 days after issuance of this FEA: Condition No. 10 - Hazardous Substance Plan Condition No. 11 - Cultural Resource Protection Condition No. 12 - Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan . Condition No. | - Requirement to Obtain a FS Special-Use Authorization . Condition No. 2 - FS Approval of Final Design . Condition No. 3 - Approval of Changes After Initial Construction . Condition No. 4 - Consultation ° Condition No. 5 - Minimum Steamflow Regime ° Condition No. 6 - Guaranteed Priority Flow Bypass Device . Condition No. 7 - Visual Resource Protection Plan + Condition No. 8 - Erosion Control Plan . Condition No. 9 - Solid Waste and Waste Water Plan . . . B. No-action Alternative Under the no-action alternative the project would not be built. Therefore, there would be no changes to the physical, biological, or cultural resources of the area. The generation that the proposed project would provide would not occur. The no-action alternative is the benchmark from which we compare the proposed action and other action alternatives. C. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study The following are descriptions of three alternative transmission line routes that were considered but eliminated from further consideration by AP&T: ; White P Yukon Route Rail This alignment (about 4,400 feet long) would extend from the proposed substation upslope to the WP&YR RR, southerly along the railroad to the Clifton area, downslope across the Skagway River and lastly, upslope to the Customs Border Station. The reasons this alternative was ruled out from further consideration are that: (1) WP&YR RR plans to remove the existing telegraph line along the railroad right-of-way to provide less visual distraction to the natural aesthetics of the area and because the poles are not needed, (2) additional poles would further add to undesired visual impacts of the area, (3) WP&YR RR would impose cost prohibitive charges to AP&T for constructing the transmission line on the right-of-way easement, (4) steep topography and limited access for construction and maintenance presents engineering constraints, and (5) the visual impact to Klondike International Highway users Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 8 FERC No. 11077-001 would be potentially significant due to the taller structures (55-foot-high transmission line poles) compared to the existing 30-foot-high telegraph poles. way Riv This alignment (about 3,400 feet long) would extend from the proposed substation downriver and parallel to the Skagway River for about 2.900 feet to the Clifton area, then upslope to the Customs Border Station. The reasons this alternative was ruled out trom further consideration are that: (1) construction would likely disturb the historic Brackett Wagon Road located along the east side of the river, (2) an extensive, time-consuming historic/cultural resources survey would be required to investigate presence of Gold Rush artifacts along this route, and the National Park Service discourages ground disturbance before completion of such surveys, (3) required mitigation to offset potential resource losses may be prohibitively expensive, (4) the FS and the town of Skagway may be interested in developing a recreational foot trail along the Brackett Wagon Road and a powerline in this area may not be compatible with land use and (5) this location would increase the visibility a! the project from the Klondike International Highway. ike 1 ional Hi This alignment (about 3,900 feet long) would extend from the proposed substation across the Skagway River, upslope to the Klondike International Highway, and southerly to the Customs Border Station. The reasons this alternative was ruled out from further consideration are: (1) the degree of slope for powerline construction to the highway and the amount of bedrock present presents two engineering difficulties, (2) the Alaska Department of Transportation disallows pole line construction along the highway due to the scenic nature of the highway, as seen from the WP&YR RR and as viewed from the highway, (3) visual quality would be impaired with the transmission line emerging from the valley to a point near highway pullouts used to view Pitchfork Falls. Although each of the transmission line routes considered may have some merits, we agree with AP&T that the alternatives are more environmentally-damaging and more costly to construct than the proposed alignment. Vv. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE A. Agency Consultation The Commission's hydropower regulations require applicants to consult with the appropriate resource agencies before filing a license application. This consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 2 FERC No. 11077-001 the National Historic Preservation Act. and other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation must be complete and documented according to the Commission's regulations. After the Commission accepts an application, formal comments may be submitted by concerned entities during a public notice period, in accordance with section 4.34(b) of the Commission's regulations under the FPA (18CFR §4.34(b)]. The comments provided by concerned entities are made part of the record and are considered during review of the proposed project. On August 29, 1995, and October 27, 1995, the Commission issued public notices that solicited comments and recommendations on the project. The Department of Interior (Interior) responded by letter dated November 27, 1995, however no recommendations were made on the project. B. Interventions The Commission's January 6, 1995, notice solicited organizations and individuals to petition to intervene and become a party to any subsequent proceedings. There were no motions to intervene filed for the project. C. Scoping Before preparing this FEA, we conducted scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed. A scoping document (SD1) was distributed to agencies and others on May 18, 1995 (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service 1995), and noticed in the Federal Register, The Skagway News, and Capital City Weekly. Two scoping meetings were held on June 20 and June 22, 1995, in Skagway and Juneau, Alaska, respectively. Verbal comments received during the scoping meetings are recorded in the meeting transcripts (Ann Riley and Associates 1995a, 1995b). In response to SD1, we received written comments from the National Park Service (NPS) (letter from Clay Alderson, Superintendent, Klondike Gold Rush Park, Skagway, Alaska, June 22, 1995). These comments and the comments received at the scoping meetings were addressed in the final scoping document (SD2) issued September 27, 1995. The main issues identified during scoping were: project impacts on the cultural value of the Brackett Wagon Road, cultural resources protection, access to the project, location and type of transmission system, mitigation of archeological and scenic concerns, minimizing vegetation impacts, measures to protect wildlife, baseline data on mountain goats, time restrictions of bypass instream flows, natural resources management, project economics, contributions of air- borne pollution from fossil-fueled generation, and baseline environmental information. These issues are addressed in this FEA. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 10 FERC No. 11077-001 D. Water Quality Certification On September 1, 1994, AP&T applied to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) for water quality certification for the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project. as required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. $1341). The ADEC received this request on September 6, 1994. On October 3, 1994, the ADEC waived AP&T’s Section 401 water quality certificate (letter from R. Flinn, Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Juneau, Alaska, October 3. 1994). E. Coastal Zone Management Act Under Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Commission cannot issue a license for a project within or affecting a state's coastal zone, unless the state CZMA agency concurs with the license applicant's certification of consistency with that state's CZMA program, or the agency's concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of its receipt of the applicant's certification. On August 18, 1994, AP&T applied to the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (ADGC) for a consistency determination of the project with the coastal zone management program (letter from Stan Selmer, Site Coordinator, Alaska Power and Telephone Company, Skagway, Alaska, August 18, 1994). On September 6, 1994, the ADGC acknowledged AP&T’s certification request. On November 27, 1995, the ADGC certified that the Goat Lake Project was consistent with the Alaska CZMA and also with the Skagway Coastal Management Plan. No conditions or stipulations were included. F. Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment Commenting Entity Date of Letter U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . Alaska Power and Telephone Company National Park Service Appendix A includes the comments from the above entities along with our responses to them. Based on our responses, the corresponding sections of the FEA have been modified. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS In this section, staff first describes the general environmental setting in the project area. Included is a discussion of environmental resources in the Skagway River Valley that Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 ul FERC No. 1077-001 may be subject to cumulative effects from the Goat Lake Project when considered in combination with other actions affecting the resource. In our detailed assessment. we discuss each environmental resource affected by the project. For each resource, we first describe the atfected environment--which is the existing condition and the baseline against which to measure the effects of the proposed project and any alternative actions--and then the environmental effects of the project. including proposed mitigation measures. In evaluating the environmental effects of the project, we consider both site-specific effects and any cumulative effects to resources in the basin. Unless we say otherwise, the sources of our information are the license application (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1994a-c) and additional information filings by AP&T (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 199Sa-e, 1995g). A. General Description of the Goat Lake Drainage Area The project would be located east of the Skagway River along Pitchfork Falls, about 7 miles northeast of Skagway, Alaska. Founded in 1896, at the extreme north end of Lynn Canal, Skagway became an important stopover of gold seekers on their way to the Klondike gold fields. With the ebbing of the Klondike Gold Rush (see section VI.B.6.), Skagway’s population dwindled. The present mainstay of Skagway's economy is tourism, where many tourists visit the area each year for the natural scenery in the Skagway River Valley. The project basin is also used occasionally for outdoor recreation such as hunting and camping. The project area and Skagway River Valley have a remote, wild, and undeveloped character. In particular, the lower portion of Pitchfork Falls has a prominent series of cascading waterfalls which is a popular attraction among local residents and visitors to the area. The three significant linear features that Pitchfork Falls crosses are the WP&YR RR at elevation 1,104 feet msl, the Canadian Oil pipeline along the railroad right-of-way, and the historic Brackett Wagon Road located about 200 feet below and generally parallel to the railroad. The project's 4.2-square-mile drainage basin includes glaciers, moraines, rugged mountainous terrain, and high-gradient streams with cascades and pools. The topography of the region is primarily the result of glaciation about 13,000 years ago. The landscape of the project area is made up of forests, mixed with mountain meadows, exposed bedrock and boulders, shrubland communities, meadows, and scattered wetlands. The Tongass National Forest provides habitat for about 54 species of mammals, 231 species of birds, and 5 species of amphibians and reptiles (U.S. Forest Service 1991a, 1991b). Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 12 FERC No. 11077-001 The 943-kilowatt Dewey Lakes Project (FERC No. 1051), located about | mile east of Skagway, is the only existing hydropower project in the Skagway region. This Project was originally licensed on April 1, 1980. and the license expires on August 29, 2007. 1. Cumulative Impacts 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. The individually minor impacts of multiple actions, when added together in space and time. may amount to collectively significant cumulative impacts. The existing environment shows the effects of past and present actions and provides the context for determining the significance of cumulative impacts from future actions. In SD2, we identified tourism and sightseeing opportunities as two elements that could be cumulatively affected by development of the project in combination with existing and potential development in the area. However, after further analysis, we don't believe there is a potential for these, or other resources to be cumulatively affected. The following is the basis for our conclusion: ° The Clinton Customs Border Station, the Klondike International Highway, and the WP& YR RR (Figure |) are the main non-hydropower developments in the Skagway River Valley. Except for other small and isolated structures, there are no other visible human developments in the valley. None of these developments has contributed, nor is expected to contribute, to adverse impacts on tourism and sightseeing opportunities in the area. At this time, there is no known development planned. ° Because of its location in a forested environment, the Dewey Lakes Project is not visible from primary public viewing locations such as the Klondike International Highway, the WP&YR RR, or from the town of Skagway. Visual effects of this development can only be seen from hiking trails that lead to the site from Skagway, or by flying over the project above 500 feet msl elevation. Therefore, the Dewey Lakes Project does not adversely affect tourism and sightseeing opportunities in the valley. . AP&T proposes site-specific measures to minimize potential adverse effects from project development on the aesthetic quality of the Goat Lake Project area (see section VI.B.5.). These measures, which are consistent with the Tongass Land Management Plan, would minimize any impacts to visual resources in the project area; therefore eliminating any impacts to tourism and sightseeing opportunities. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 13 FERC No. 11077-001 B. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 1, Geology and Soil Resources a._Affected Environment: The project area consists of exposed bedrock with talus and alluvium deposits. The slopes range from flat to steep. The steeper slopes have an accumulation of rock debris that has formed fan shaped deposits (talus deposits) at the base of steep-sided cliffs. The less steep slopes are alluvium deposits of sand, gravel. cobbles, and boulders with traces of silt and woody debris. An organic soil (muskeg) is also found in the project area. Muskegs consist of a soft. highly compressible mixture of peat moss. roots, and other vegetation. The talus and alluvium deposits together with muskeg underlain by bedrock. provide a stable area with little chance of erosion or sedimentation. However, occasionally, water streams with high velocities, water from snow melt, snow avalanches, or major landslides could cause this type of material to shift and move causing erosion and sedimentation. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Construction of the penstock, powerhouse, catchbasin, siphon house, pumpback/valvehouse and other project features have the potential to cause erosion and sedimentation that would affect water quality. On March 30, 1995, AP&T submitted a draft erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) that outlined the methods and techniques to be followed to control construction impacts during land-disturbing activities. These measures include sediment control ponds, silt fence barriers, streambank stabilization, and use of rock to construct entrance roads. Also, AP&T proposes to use aerial trams and helicopters to transport construction materials to job sites, and to revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible after construction is completed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), and Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) all agree that the methods and measures outlined in AP&T's draft ESCP address project construction impacts and would ensure maintenance of water quality (letters from Nevin Holmberg, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, April 17, 1995; John Palmes, Area Habitat Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, April 11, 1995; and William Long, Executive Director, Soil and Water Conservation Board, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, May 1, 1995). The FS concludes that the potential for soil erosion is low and that mitigation for any potential erosion is outlined in the draft ESCP. However, the FS says that under their section 4(e) authority, and granting a SUA, AP&T would have to further develop its draft ESCP. The final plan would be required to comply with the Best Management Practices described in the FS Region 10 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook for this type of construction. Also, Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 14 FERC No. 11077-001 under their section 4(e) authority, the FS would require AP&T to develop solid waste. wastewater. and hazardous substance plans before land-disturbing activities. Staff concludes that the potential for erosion and sedimentation to occur in the project area is low because of the mostly stable slopes. Further, we agree with the agencies that AP&T"s dratt ESCP outlines methods and measures to be followed during land-disturbing activities that would control construction impacts and protect water quality. However, we also agree with the FS that AP&T needs to develop a final ESCP prior to land-disturbing activities because the draft plan is general and not site-specific enough for construction. Therefore, we recommend that AP&T develop a final site-specific ESCP using its draft as a basis for the final plan. We further recommend that the final plan include provisions for handling solid waste, wastewater, and hazardous substances. The final plan should be developed in consultation with the FS, and other agencies, and approved by the FS before it is filed for Commission approval. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Minor, temporary and localized erosion that would cause temporary sedimentation would be unavoidable during construction activities. 2. Aquatic Resources a._Affected Environment: The Goat Lake outlet flows through a 5-foot-wide, bedrock notch and combines with runoff from the glacial moraine to form a shallow pond about 600 feet below the lake. The pond outflow descends 2,100 feet over a steep, 30 percent gradient and forms Pitchfork Falls before entering the Skagway River. Water Quantity Inflows to Goat Lake result from a combination of precipitation and glacial runoff. AP&T used U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flow data, recorded for the Skagway River at the town of Skagway from 1964 through 1986, to estimate the inflows to Goat Lake by calculating its drainage as a proportion of the Skagway River drainage. Table | shows the estimated average annual and monthly inflows to Goat Lake. The glacier, located above a moraine area at the south end of Goat Lake, is about 1.7 square miles and provides runoff through the moraine to Goat Lake, the pond below Goat Lake, and to Pitchfork Falls below the pond. To develop hydrologic data for the project site, flow gages were installed at the outlet to Goat Lake, the outlet of the pond below Goat Lake, and above Pitchfork Falls near the railroad line. The data for water years 1991 through 1994 show that about 18 percent of the Pitchfork Falls flows are from glacial runoff and the remainder from the pond outflow. Table 2 shows the estimated average annual and monthly flows in Pitchfork Falls as recorded at the gage located at Pitchfork Falls near the railroad line. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 1s FERC No. 1107-001 Table | Estimated average inflows to Goat Lake for water vears 1964 through 1986 (Source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b). January 09 July 352 February 0.7 August 26.1 | March 0.7 September 16.2 April | LS October 94 | May 99 |__ November 34 June 29.9 December ll Annual Average 11.3 cfs Table 2. Estimated average flows for Pitchfork Falls for water years 1991 through 1994 (Source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b). ee 24 July February 2.1 | August | 26.8 TV APET develo} b hydrologic averages by using the average from t ccord estimated average increasing it by 20 percent to represent a high estimated average. We are using the low estimate as the more realistic average. AP&T provided us with monthly estimated averages only for the high estimate, so we calculated the monthly estimates for Table 2 by applying the corresponding monthly percents of the high annual average to the low annual average. Water Quality Water quality in the proposed project area complies with applicable state standards. AP&T conducted water quality studies during August 1992, March and July 1994, and January and March 1995. Water samples for the study were collected from the surface of Goat Lake, 25 feet below the lake surface, and from the Skagway River above and below the Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 16 FERC No, 11077-001 outlet of Pitchfork Falls. Dissolved oxygen levels ranged from 7.1 milligrams per liter (mg/l) to 12.2 mg/l in Goat Lake and from 8.2 mg/l to 9.8 mg/l in the Skagway River. Turbidity levels ranged from 1.49 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU’s) to 9.11 NTU's in Goat Lake and from 0.47 NTU’s to 44.2 NTU’s in the Skagway River. The pH levels ranged from 6.8 to 7.25 in Goat Lake and from 7.11 to 7.51 in the Skagway River. Conductivity levels ranged from 35 microsiemens per centimeter (uS/cm) to 54.6 wS/cm in Goat Lake and from 23 uS/cm to 64.2 uS/cm in the Skagway River. Temperature profiles were developed for Goat Lake in August 1992, July 1994, and March 1995. The temperatures in Goat Lake ranged from 0.0° Celsius (C) to 5.5°C with no significant thermal stratification in any single profile. Fisheries In April 1994, AP&T and the ADFG conducted a fish survey in the Skagway River upstream and downstream of the Pitchfork Falls outlet. During the survey, no fish were captured or observed. The survey report showed that existing habitat conditions are extremely poor because of the high gradient and lack of overwintering and rearing habitats. The survey results indicate that this section of the Skagway River does not support any significant fish populations (Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b). Goat Lake is a coldwater, nutrient-poor lake that historically has not supported fish populations. The ADFG and the FS recently conducted an experimental stocking of Arctic grayling in Goat Lake in an effort to establish a naturally reproducing fish population that would support a fly-in sport fishery. The ADFG stocked the lake with 1,000 immature Arctic grayling in 1994 and 1995; however, a fishery survey conducted after the 1995 stocking found no surviving population (personal communication with Mike Schwan, Supervisor, and John Palmes, Area Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, November 8, 1995). A b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Water Rights AP&T has applied to the ADNR for the right to withdraw up to 45 cfs from Goat Lake for hydroelectric power use. There are no existing allocations of water from Goat Lake or the Skagway River for consumptive or non-consumptive uses, so no other water users would be affected by the project. Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 17 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 Fisheries In SD 2. we identified one aquatic resource issue for analysis: “Whether project drawdowns would limit Arctic grayling access to spawning streams entering Goat Lake, should a population become successfully established.” During the scoping process we received comments on this issue from the FS, the ADFG., and AP&T. The commenters stated that the effects of a 20- to 30-foot drawdown on the entrances to the spawning streams would not be known until after the areas were exposed (Ann Riley and Associates 1995a, 1995b). Based on the findings of the ADFG survey conducted after the June 1995 stocking, we have concluded that no Arctic grayling population has established in Goat Lake, eliminating any potential project effects. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None 3. Terrestrial Resources a. Affected Environment: The project area contains a variety of resource habitats: mountain meadows, shrubland communities, herbaceous-sedge meadows, avalanche chutes, bare bedrock and bedrock supporting lichens, open montane coniferous forest, scattered wet- sedge meadows, muskegs, alpine heaths, and sedge mats (letter from Mary Clay Stensvold, Regional Botanist, U.S. Forest Service, Sitka Ranger District, Sitka, Alaska, April 29, 1994). The dominant trees are subalpine fir, Sitka spruce, western hemlock, paper birch, and cottonwood while the understory shrubs are dominated by Sitka alder, rusty menziesia, black current, tall blueberry, devil’s club, shield fern, crowberry and mountain heather. Herbaceous vegetation include ferns, bunchberry, mosses, five-leaf bramble, twayblade, and Sitka valerian. According to the national wetland inventory, the project area has seven wetland types that are listed on Table 3. The project area has varied and unique wildlife, which provides consumptive and nonconsumptive uses by the public, including sport, subsistence, photographic, and viewing activities. Some of the wildlife are black bear, pine marten, mountain goat, river otter, hairy woodpecker, and boreal owl. Among large birds in the project vicinity is the bald eagle, which is not federally threatened in Alaska as it is in the conterminous United States. During the summer of 1993, there were three known nests near Skagway; two are west of town and the third is in the lower reach of the Taiya Inlet (letter from Mike Jacobson, Eagle Management Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska, September 29, 1993). Bald eagles frequent the Skagway River. Reportedly, as many as 90 eagles have been observed near the head of Taiya Inlet in early spring when spawning candlefish arrive. Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 18 Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 Table 3 Wetlands in the project area (Source: Alaska Power and Telephone Company 1995b). Werland-1 | Lacustrine. limnetic. unconsolidated, head of project area; permanently flooded system principle water source of Project Riverine, intermuttent seasonally Pitchfork Falls conveys water from Goat flooded streambed Lake to Skagway River Palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved | unnamed about 2,400 feet SSW of deciduous the proposed penstock; on west-facing slope Riverine, upper perennial, bottom of project; tailrace |} unconsolidated bottom discharges directly into river Palustrine, unconsolidated, about 4,800 feet N of semipermanently flooded Pitchfork Falls and about 1,200 feet west of Goat Lake Palustrine, unconsolidated, about 1,800 feet NNE of permanently flooded these two unnamed Goat Lake wetland sites are in Palustrine, unconsolidated, same area about 1,800 feet NNE of semipermanently flooded Goat Lake Palustrine emergent, persistent, unnamed seasonally flooded Bald eagles have not been seen at Goat Lake or Pitchfork Falls, probably because of the absence of fish, which is the principal component of their diet. No other raptor nest sites are known in the Goat Lake area. Other large birds that may periodically use the project area, in small numbers, are the great blue heron, trumpeter swan, and perhaps Canada goose and sandhill crane. Surveys indicate that mountain goat use in the area surrounding Goat Lake is minimal (memorandum from Ben Carney, Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, November 20, 1995). Only two individuals were observed during seven surveys between 1973 and 1994 in the project area. Most of the goats in the project vicinity were near Laughton Glacier, on south-facing slopes along the East Fork of the Skagway River, or on west-facing areas above Goat Lake (letter from Matt Robus, Area Management Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 19 FERC No. 11077-001 Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Douglas, Alaska, January 27, 1994). 4 low use mountain goat winter area was identified on the west side of the Skagway River Valley in 1973 (memorandum from John Palmes. Regional Habitat Coordinator, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, April 9, 1973) A habitat capability model was developed to estimate the capability of habitats in southeast Alaska (0 support mountain goat populations (Suring et al. 1988). Since wintering habitat is the most limiting factor for mountain goats in southeast Alaska. particularly due to heavy snows and limited access to desired forage, wintering habitat was emphasized in the model. The important components affecting winter habitat suitability and capability in the model were availability of wintering food, escape terrain, distance of use from cliffs, southerly aspects, general slope characteristics, successional stage of vegetation, tree canopy, mobility corridors, predation, human disturbance and harvest (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 1995; Alaska Department of Highways 1973). As a result, predicted goat use areas were plotted and the closest suitable habitat was about 1,400 feet northeast of Goat Lake at elevation 3,150 feet msl, and about 2,000 feet due south of the lake at elevation 3,500 feet msl. Based on physical attributes of the Goat Lake basin, the Project area is not expected to be a kidding area. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Habitat Disturbance Project construction of the valvehouse, new spillway, siphon house, penstock, powerhouse, transmission line, access road, and tramway would physically disturb an estimated 9.25 acres of native soils, vegetation, and habitat used by wildlife. To partially offset these losses and minimize disturbance and alteration to these affected resources, AP&T Proposes to: (1) leave as much vegetation as possible during powerhouse and penstock construction; (2) revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible after disturbance, (3) follow FS guidelines for revegetating disturbed areas; (4) use a helicopter or donkey-winch to transport the penstock to its location to protect as much natural vegetation as possible; and (5) design the penstock to avoid interference with wildlife movements. These measures have largely resulted through agency consultation during the preapplication stage. Staff believes implementation of these measures would minimize, protect, or avoid adverse effects on terrestrial resources in the project area. Staff, therefore, recommends that the proposed terrestrial resource protection and mitigation measures should be implemented to ensure conservation of these resources. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 20 FERC No. 11077-001 Wetlands/ Riparian Construction of the new spill route. diversion structure. penstock, tailrace. pumpback house. siphon house, and backfilling of the old channel outlet would affect less than 1.0 acre of small, isolated alpine heaths, sedge-grass meadows. sedge mats, and alpine herbaceous meadows having saturated soils and wetland characteristics. The selected site for the powerhouse and substation is about 1.600 feet downriver and on the east side of the Skagway River from the confluence of Pitchfork Falls with the Skagway River. On March 16, 1995, the FS agreed that the wetlands and riparian habitats were not in direct conflict with the project features and that unavoidable incidental impacts to wetland habitats would be minor. We find that since AP&T: (1) has designed the project features to avoid the project area wetlands as much as possible. (2) would avoid effects on wetlands during construction as much as possible, as outlined in the application, and (3) would revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible after construction, as outlined in the draft ESCP and recommended in the final ESCP (section VI.B.1.), all reasonable efforts would be made to minimize wetland impacts and protect water quality. Raptor Protection of Transmission Line a. Electrocution AP&T proposes to construct a 3,400-foot-long, 24.9-kV aerial transmission line. The alignment would start at the substation, cross the Skagway River, continue downgradient and parallel along the west side of the Skagway River near Clinton, and then traverse upslope to the Customs Border Station to intertie with AP&T's existing 24.9-kV transmission line to Skagway. The entire west side of the river is state land. Because the transmission line could represent an electrocution hazard to bald eagles and other large birds in the area, AP&T plans to design and construct the line to prevent possible long-term hazards to raptors and other large birds. Accordingly, AP&T would construct the line to meet or exceed the Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines - The State of the Art in 1981 (Olendorff et al. 1981). In particular, the energized conductors would be positioned far enough apart (minimum separation of 60 inches) that large birds would be unable to simultaneously touch two or more of them with their wings or other body parts. In their March 15, 1995, response, the FWS and FS concurred with AP&T's raptor protection measures on the transmission line. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 21 FERC No. 11077-001 According to Olendorff et al. (1981). transmission lines less than 69 kV could pose an electrocution hazard to birds because of birds’ bodily contact with energized conductors While we recognize that the project area appears to have only incidental occurrences of bald eagles and other large birds, we nevertheless agree with AP&T’s long-term measures to safeguard against any possible electrocution to bald eagles and other large birds b. Collision Due to the absence of eagle nest sites, communal roosts, and endangered raptors in the project area, AP&T doesn’t propose collision avoidance measures on the transmission line. In areas of high fog, strong electrical and rain storms, and other climatic conditions, it is possible that transmission lines could pose collision hazards to small and large birds, including eagles. There are no recommended agency measures to prevent collision hazards A literature review shows that raptor collisions with transmission lines are random, low level, and inconsequential. Eagles have keen eyesight, use relatively slow flapping flight speed, and become conditioned to the presence of transmission lines (Olendorff and Lehman 1986). We agree with AP&T that no collision measures are needed because of the following: (1) large bird populations in the project area are very low in numbers, and (2) it doesn't seem likely that bird strikes with power lines would contribute to substantial bird losses in the project area. We therefore conclude that the overhead transmission line, as proposed, is consistent with accepted protection guidelines that would prevent electrocution hazards to large birds. Therefore, AP&T should construct the transmission line as proposed. Mountain Goats Chadwick (1983) reports that mountain goat populations have experienced significant declines following habitat alterations and disturbance from hunting and other human activities. In particular, this species is more sensitive to disturbances than any other big game species in North America. The project area has no road access and limited human use. Project construction would likely cause localized noise and disturbance from helicopter and machinery use; however, the noise is not expected to last long, nor be offensive to normal mountain goat activities during the spring and summer months. Because Goat Lake does not appear to provide important summer or winter mountain goat habitat, this species is not likely to be significantly affected by construction or maintenance activities associated with the project. The ADFG agrees (memorandum from Ben Carney, Wildlife Biologist. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, November 20, 1995; letter from Matt Robus, Area Management Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 22 FERC No. 11077-001 Douglas, Alaska. January 27, 1994: memorandum from John Palmes. pea Habitat Biologist. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Douglas. Alaska, November 22. 1995) Nevertheless. to minimize any potential adverse effects on goat mating or kidding during project construction, AP&T proposes to adjust the construction schedule, through coordination with the FS and ADFG, to avoid possible disturbance during the mating and kidding periods. Therefore, we agree with AP&T's proposed protection measure and recommend this protection measure be included in any license issued for the project. To further ensure that wildlife, including goats. are not affected by helicopter activity in the project area, the FS is including in their required section 4(e) conditions, that AP&T file a wildlife habitat plan having the same requirements for minimum distances from wildlife that is required for helicopter tours. This includes maintaining a 1,500-foot vertical and horizontal clearance between helicopters and key goat areas, avoiding known kidding areas from May 15 through June 15, and avoiding harassment of wildlife in any way. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Project construction is expected to alter about 9.25 acres of wildlife habitat and existing landscape resources that include shrublands, open montane coniferous stands, herbaceous-sedge meadows, bedrock supporting lichens, avalanche chutes, muskegs, and alpine heaths and sedge mats. About one acre of wetland would be affected by project construction, particularly for establishing the penstock. Use of a helicopter and other equipment during project construction would increase noise in the project area, which could cause temporary dispersal and relocation of wildlife. It is expected that this short-term noise would occur only during the construction season. Because of their preferred habitat away from Goat Lake, it is unlikely that mountain goats would be affected by the project. 4. Threatened and Endangered Species a. Affected Environment: The FS conducted an extensive plant survey of the project area on July 27, 1993. The survey area included: (1) the proposed penstock corridor from the intake at the lake downgradient to the top of Pitchfork Falls, (2) the existing outlet at the lake to the top of Pitchfork Falls, (3) the subalpine meadow/montane forest mosaic in the general project area, (4) the lower part of the moraine, and (5) montane forest in the Pitchfork Falls vicinity. Only one of the 22 plants designated as sensitive by the FS Regional Forester was located.* This plant, the goose-grass sedge (Carex lenticularis var. * FS sensitive plant species are those for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by (a) significant current or predicted downward trends in populations numbers or density, and (b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 23 FERC No. 11077-001 dolia), is also a species of special concern by the FWS. There are no other listed plants by the FWS in the project area that are threatened. endangered. candidate or species of special concern. The FWS states that the following federally-listed animal species may occur in the proposed project area as transients, particularly during seasonal migration: endangered American peregrine falcon and Arctic peregrine falcon ’ (letter from Nevin D Holmberg, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau. Alaska, August 21, 1992; personal communication. John Lindell. Endangered Species Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Juneau. Alaska, November 21, 1995). Additionally, there are four FWS species of special concern that may occur in the project area: marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Goose-Grass Sedge The first known Alaska collection of the Carex lenticularis var. dolia was in 1913 near Skagway, and its main geographic range in Alaska is the southeast panhandle south to Queen Charlotte Island. There are also widely disjunct populations in the Yukon Territory, British Columbia, Alberta, and Glacier National Park in Montana, its southernmost limit. Although there have been few individuals collected, this plant seems to prefer high mountain elevations (5,000 to 9,800 feet msl), at high latitudes from timberline to the alpine, and almost always in or at the water's edge (Standley 1985). The goose-grass sedge appears to be an early successional species, colonizing shallow, wet, organic loamy soils along streams and in seep areas of gentle terrain. The soils are usually very shallow and have a high content of stones and gravel. Surrounding vegetation is usually moist meadows or tundra. In some areas it may be one of the first plants to stabilize stream banks and wet, slumping soils of high elevation terraces. A FS plant survey of the project area revealed that the goose-grass sedge was found above the east side of Goat Lake at about 4,000 feet msl, outside the project area (letter from Mary Clay Stensvold, Regional Botanist, U.S. Forest Service, Sitka Ranger District, Sitka, Alaska, April 29, 1994). ” Although the Arctic peregrine falcon was delisted on October 5, 1994 (Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 192, pp. 50796-50805) and is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, the FWS must monitor this species for 5 years following its delisting. Federal agencies are requested to voluntarily consider the Arctic peregnne falcon in their planning processes. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 24 FERC No. 11077-001 American Peregrine Falcon In Alaska, the American peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus anatum) primarily inhabits interior portions of the state. It is highly migratory and winters as far south as Argentina. Although this species may occur in the project area as a transient, primarily during seasonal migration, there has been no reported observation in the vicinity of the project. Migration routes and patterns and forage areas haven't been identified. During migration across southeast Alaska, availability and abundance of prey most likely determines the birds’ flight patterns and stopover areas. About 82 percent of the food consumed by the American peregrine are vertebrates, and the primary prey in Alaska consists of shorebirds, waterfowl, and passerine birds (U.S. Forest Service 1991b). Peregrines forage over bodies of water, marshes, grasslands, shorelines, and over wooded areas and they attack flying prey from above or by chasing them. Data suggests that the American peregrine populations have recovered as a result of restrictions on organochlorine pesticide use (especially DDT and DDE) in the United States and Canada, and because of successful reintroduction from captive-bred species. In nature, these chemicals have caused eggshell thinning and poor reproductive success among peregrine falcons. No organochlorine pesticides are authorized for use on the Tongass National Forest (U.S. Forest Service 1991a, 1991b). According to Ambrose et al. (1988), American peregrine populations in Alaska are continuing to increase. Therefore, the FWS proposes to remove this species from the list of threatened and endangered wildlife and the critical habitat designation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). ic Peregrine E As with the American peregrine, the Arctic peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus tundrius) populations declined following World War II as a result of organochlorine pesticides use. After 20 years of restriction on the use of these chemicals marked by steady progress toward recovery, reproductive rates in arctic peregrines have steadily increased, and populations continue to rise. About 250 pairs nest in Alaska and thousands nest throughout arctic North America. There has been no reported observation of the Arctic peregrine falcon in the project vicinity. Arctic peregrines nest in tundra regions of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland and migrate through mid North American latitudes and winter in Latin America. Arctic peregrines occur in southeast Alaska only during the migration periods (U.S. Forest Service 1991b). In Alaska, this subspecies nests mostly along rivers in the northern and western parts of the state. Nests are positioned on cliffs or bluffs usually near rivers or lakes that provide habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, and songbirds on which the falcons prey. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 25 FERC No. 11077-001 Although the rate of habitat alteration in nesting, migration. and wintering habitats is greater now than in the past. the rapid population increase over the last 15 years (Ambrose et al. 1988) suggests that habitat modification does not threaten the continued existence of this species. Marbled M The marbled murrelet is regarded as a bird of mystery because its nesting habits are largely unknown and its nearshore feeding habits make it difficult to survey. This small seabird spends most of its time along coastal areas from Alaska to central California and feeds primarily on small Pacific herring, northern anchovies, Pacific sandlances, sea perch, and invertebrates in near-shore marine waters (Federal Register Vol.60, No.154, pp.40892- 40908, August 10. 1995). Throughout forested portions of its range, such as in the Alexander Archipelago in which the project lies, the marbled murrelet nests in mature and old-growth coniferous forests located mostly within 38 miles (60 km) from marine coastal waters. Those murrelet populations in the more westerly Aleutian and Kenai Peninsula Archipelagos generally nest on the ground. Tree nesting murrelets select large diameter, old-growth healthy or decadent trees more than 100 feet above the ground often having mistletoe, deformations, and moss on large limbs (Pacific Seabird Group 1995, Kuletz et al. 1994) Marbled murrelet population numbers are thought to be declining in the lower forty- eight. The greatest threat to murrelets is nesting habitat loss and modification due to logging, development, and fragmentation of nesting stands (Federal Register Vol.65, No 119., pp. 28362-28367, June 20, 1991, Pacific Seabird Group 1995). Estimated population numbers are higher in Alaska ($0,000-220,000) than in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California combined (32,000-71,900). Northern Goshawk The largest of the accipiter hawks, the northern goshawk has a wide geographic breeding range in North America and, in Alaska, it inhabits and breeds in the central and eastern portions of the state (Johnsgard 1990). It winters throughout its breeding range and extends as far south as northern Mexico and Texas. Primarily in April and May, goshawks nest in nearly every kind of coniferous forest, but also use deciduous and mixed woodlands (Apfelbaum and Seelbach 1983). McGowan (1975) found that goshawks in interior Alaska selected paper birch for nesting 94 percent of the time where suitable nest-tree species were present. Generally, nest sites are in old, tall trees having a well-developed understory and are near a water source of moderate slope, usually having a northerly aspect. Large forest stands are favored and there is a great deal of variation in population density throughout its Holarctic range. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 26 FERC No. 1077-001 The northern goshawk is associated with diverse habitats such as dense coniferous taiga with scattered glade, tall conifers mixed with deciduous woods, river forests, and cultivated coniferous plantations. and stands of birch. aspen. pine in steppe or woodlands Coniferous forests are preferred over deciduous. The bird shows a lower habitat specificity in the winter often ranging into other habitats. including deserts. In the Project area, the northern goshawk is known only as a transient. All studies have shown that there is a high dependency on birds and mammals of moderate to large size in the goshawk diet (Sherrod 1978). Important prey base for the goshawk are Stellar's jays. grouse, ptarmigan, thrushes, and mid-sized furbearers. Goshawks have not been abundant in southeast Alaska but because they are associated with forested landscapes, they are vulnerable to habitat loss from land disturbance. Harlequin Duck In selected areas of its range, such as the Aleutian Islands and parts of British Columbia, the harlequin duck is abundant. But because much of their worldwide range lies in remote regions, accurate populations and distribution has been difficult to determine. The western populations of harlequins are primarily in Alaska, particularly in the Aleutians, Alexander Archipelago, and the Alaska Peninsula. The Aleutian Islands are considered to be "a center of abundance” for the Pacific harlequin ducks (Palmer 1976). In May, adults leave their wintering areas along coasts for interior breeding grounds. Their breeding distribution extends from northern Alaska to Washington state where the distribution splits southward to the Cascade range and southeasterly to the northern Rocky Mountains. Harlequins have also been observed during the summer on islands in the Bering Sea and Pribolofs. Harlequins usually nest along rocky shores adjacent to rapids of turbulent mountain streams. In Alaska's eastern Prince William Sound, harlequins selected the largest anadromous salmon streams for nesting (Crowley 1993). The nests were located along first order tributaries near timberline, on steep southwest-facing slopes, and positioned beneath old growth forests. Well concealed nests are generally composed of a thin layer of grass, with dry twigs and leaves, and lined with down. Females incubate assiduously and appear to have a high degree of fidelity when nesting. In search of food, harlequins can dive to depths of 5 feet in swift currents. Most of their preferred foods are animal material such as crustaceans (mud crabs, hermit crabs, amphipods), mollusks (chitons, periwinkles, limpets, chink shells, blue mussels), insects (stone flies), worms, and fish. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 27 FERC No. 11077-001 The harlequin duck is thought to occasionally move through the Skagway River Valley in individual or low numbers Spotted Frog The distribution and population status of the spotted frog in Alaska is unknown. The historical range extended from extreme southeastern Alaska south to central Nevada and east to northwestern Wyoming. The specific reasons for its decline are unknown but researchers speculate the following principle causes: (1) habitat loss due to encroachment by man. (2) climatic changes, including droughts. (3) lake acidification as a consequence of climate change or succession, (4) increased UV-B radiation due to ozone depletion, and (5) competition with introduced species such as bullfrogs (Blaustein et al. 1995; Waters 1992; Hayes and Jennings 1986). The spotted frog habitats range from coniferous northwest forests to semiarid sagebrush sites. Generally the spotted frog is highly aquatic, always found near permanent water and adjacent grassy margins of lakes, streams, and ponds. It is suggested that this elusive species is more common in cold water habitats than in warm, stagnant ponds. In the Stiking River basin near Wrangell, south of Juneau, they were observed breeding in outwash ponds and in a backwater lake, with possible breeding in muskegs and beaver ponds (Waters 1992). This frog is not an old-growth obligate, but forested areas may represent important refugia from further population losses (Blaustein et al. 1995). This species has been reported in the Haines area (located about 40 miles south of the proposed project site), but has yet to be verified by the FWS. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The Goat Lake Project would not adversely affect the federally endangered American peregrine falcon or delisted Arctic peregrine falcon because: (1) both peregrine falcon species are thought to occur in the project area only in small numbers and as occasional migrants; (2) critical habitat for both peregrine species are not known to occur in the project area; (3) preferred prey (shorebirds and waterfowl) are not abundant in the project area, so foraging would not be affected; and (4) the alteration of about LO acres of forest, shrubland, and muskeg habitats would not affect prey availability for migrating peregrines nor important foraging habitats such as wetlands, ponds, and riparian zones. We also conclude that the project would not adversely affect the five species of special concern that could occur in the project area for the following reasons: (1) these species have not been found in the project area; (2) the goose-grass sedge was found at the 4,000 foot msl elevation, outside the project's impact area; (3) the project area does not have preferred old growth and mature coniferous habitat for marbled murrelet nesting nor is such habitat known in the Skagway River Valley; (4) populations of the northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog that could inhabit the area are likely to be low; (5) the Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 28 FERC No. 1077-001 project area is not known to support high populations nor provide known critical habitat for the northern goshawk, harlequin duck. and spotted frog: (6) project construction is not expected (0 affect nesting or movements of the northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted trog: (7) because Goat Lake is a nutrient-poor lake with low bioproductivity, it is not probable that Pitchfork Falls. which receives water from Goat Lake. sustains a suitable food base (aquatic invertebrate diversity and numbers) for the harlequin duck; (8) construction of various project features (intake, siphon house, pumpback valve house. penstock, powerhouse/ substation, transmission line) are not likely to be sited in desired nesting habitats of northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog; and (9) since the project is located about 250 miles north of the known limits of the western spotted frog, it is not likely that this species can be found in the project area. Therefore, we think that the project would not affect the endangered American peregrine falcon and that no further action pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, is required. By letter dated March 25, 1996, the FWS concurred with our determination (letter from Nevin D. Holmberg, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska, March 25, 1996). We also find that project,construction and operation would not affect the delisted Arctic peregrine falcon, and the five species of special concern: goose-grass sedge, marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, harlequin duck, and spotted frog. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None 5. Aesthetic Resources a._Affected Environment: The proposed project is located in the Coast Range of southeast Alaska. The Skagway River Valley is characteristic of the region, with its narrow U-shaped valley with glaciers hanging from the surrounding mountain peaks. The lower elevations are densely forested. The higher areas are mostly exposed bedrock. There are many lakes, streams, and rivers throughout the region. Goat Lake is a typical glacier fed lake located in a steep, hanging valley comprised of bedrock and very little vegetation of significant size. The lake is difficult to get to, except by floatplane or helicopter, or hikers who do not need an established trail. The Skagway River is the most prominent of the region's waterforms. Pitchfork Falls, a long cascading series of waterfalls that descends into the Skagway River, is the most prominent of the many streams that cascade down the valley's walls. The falls, along with most of the Skagway River Valley, is visible from the turnouts on the Klondike International Highway and from the WP&YR RR. The lower part of Pitchfork Falls can be accessed by the WP&YR RR as it passes through the project area. The lower- and mid-level of the project area, which includes Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 29 FERC No. 11077-001 Pitchfork Falls, where the penstock. powerhouse, tram, and transmission line would be located. is visible from the Klondike International Highway. on the opposite side of the river and from the WP&YR RR. There are several overlooks along the highway where tourists stop and view the Skagway River corridor. which includes the project area > Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Constructing and operating the project would affect the aesthetic quality of the project area. The impacts would result from constructing new structures in a relatively undeveloped area and reducing flows over Pitchfork Falls from project operations. Effect of Project Facilities on Aesthetic Resources The penstock, which would be located in dense forested vegetation except where it crosses an avalanche area, should not significantly detract from the aesthetic quality of the area. The powerhouse and substation, located about 1.600 feet downriver from the confluence of Pitchfork Falls with the Skagway River, would also be located in dense vegetation. Although the structures would be visible from the highway overlooks, they would only be partially visible because of the screening from the vegetation. The transmission line and cable\tram would be mostly screened from view by vegetation, but would be visible where they cross the river. Goat Lake is in the flight path for visitors touring the area by helicopter. The FS completed an EA, dated May 16, 1995, to assess the effects of helicopter landing tours in the Skagway and Haines area. The selected alternative for authorized helicopter landings includes flying over Goat Lake to access a landing site on Laughton Glacier. The passengers would be able to view the reduced lake level and some project facilities, such as the siphon house and pumpback/valve station. This would not be a significant impact as the facilities should not be readily apparent and the exposed bedrock shoreline would appear similar to the surrounding terrain. Project construction would also cause increased traffic, noise, and dust levels that would temporarily and locally affect visual quality to the project area. AP&T has proposed using construction methods that would minimize the impacts of the facilities on the aesthetic quality of the area. These are: (1) using materials and coloration so that the structures blend into the landscape; (2) minimizing clearing of existing vegetation and ground disturbance for construction of the penstock, powerhouse and substation; (3) removing spoil material; (4) revegetating areas disturbed during construction; (5) and providing access to the powerhouse site by a cable\tram river crossing. The FS, by letter dated February 14, 1995, agreed with these methods and recommended that the applicant develop a visual resource management plan that would provide further details of these specific measures. The staff agrees with the FS that the erosion control and terrestrial Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 30 FERC No, 11077-001 resource measures (revegetate disturbed areas. minimizing vegetative disturbance) Proposed by AP&T would assist to effectively maintain the aesthetic quality of the project area. Therefore. after consultation with the FS. AP&T should file a visual resource management plan to specify the exterior treatment of Project facilities, clearing of vegetation, and revegetating disturbed areas. The plan should be developed in conjunction with the erosion and sediment control plan discussed in section VI.B.1., the terrestrial resource measures in section VI_B.3.. and the MOA cultural resources management plan in section VIB6. Effect of Reduced Flows on Aesthetic Quality of Pitchfork Falls Pitchfork Falls is a scenic attraction that contributes to the aesthetic quality of the area. It is the focus of viewers from the highway overlooks and from the railcars that pass by the falls. Pitchfork Falls is also mentioned in publications describing the area attractions. Project operation would reduce flows over Pitchfork Falls that could affect the aesthetic quality of the falls. AP&T and the FS, with assistance from a Visual Impact Analysis Prepared by Land Design North (1994), studied different flow alternatives. Reduction of flow would have various levels of impact depending on the selected alternative. By letter dated July 20, 1995, the FS determined that a minimum flow of 13 cfs would maintain the aesthetic quality of the falls. The FS also determined that maintaining the flow would only be necessary during 12 daylight hours per day, from May through September, the peak tourist season (see section VI.B.7.). AP&T, by additional information filed May 30, 1995, agreed to the minimum flow. Project operation from October through April would substantially reduce flows over the falls. However, this is not the time of the year when many tourists visit the area. Therefore, the effects would not be substantial. We agree that a minimum flow of 13 cfs over Pitchfork Falls, during 12 daylight = hours per day from May through September would maintain the aesthetic quality and visual character of the falls and Skagway River Valley. To ensure compliance with this minimum flow recommendation, AP&T proposes installation of an automatically operated, priority stream flow device to measure and record flows, and to operate the bypass or intake gate to maintain required instream flows. We agree that a stream flow gauge should be electronically interconnected to the bypass and intake gate to ensure minimum flow releases. Due to the variable flows and relatively remote location of the site, an automatically controlled device would be necessary to ensure compliance with the minimum flow requirement. Staff believes that installation of a continuously-recording stream gauge upstream of Pitchfork Falls, and a stage-discharge chart would accurately measure the bypass flow. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 31 FERC No. 11077-001 Therefore. after consultation with the FS. AP&T should file a plan to maintain minimum instream flows. The plan should specify measures the applicant would implement to ensure the minimum 13 cts bypass instream flow is provided for 12 daylight hours per day, such as use of the priority flow bypass device. ¢__Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The presence of new structures in a relatively undeveloped area would detract from the undisturbed nature of the Goat Lake basin and to a lesser degree the Skagway River corridor. Operations of the project would marginally reduce flows over Pitchfork Falls from May through September, and substantially during October through April. Constructing the facilities would result in increased traffic, noise, and dust levels that would temporarily affect the natural visual quality of the area 6. Cultural Resources a__ Affected Environment: AP&T conducted a cultural resources survey of the project area (Campbell 1994) . The survey identified the following cultural resources in the project area: (1) contributing elements of the Historic Landmark, that specifically include the WP&YR RR. a historic tourist trail and viewpoint of Pitchfork Falls, the historic Brackett Wagon Road, and a historic telegraph or telephone line dating from World War II and possibly earlier; and (2) the historic Canadian Oil pipeline dating from World War II. No other cultural resources were located. The Historic Landmark was established on June 13, 1962, and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The Historic Landmark was established to preserve and interpret historical structures and other features of the Skagway area and the White Pass Trail, to the northeast, relating to the Klondike Gold Rush in the late 1890's and early 1900's (National Park Service 1987). Some of the features of the Historic Landmark, such as the historic trail and railroad, contribute to the current tourist industry. Other features relate to historic events, such as the telephone line along that railroad route, which illustrates the military effort in the Skagway-White Pass area during World War II. The historic Canadian Oil pipeline is eligible for inclusion in the National Register and has been documented in accordance with the standards of the Historic American Engineering Record. The pipeline was constructed in 1943 and is significant as an example of the World War II military effort in the area and as an early means of transporting crude oil from coastal Alaska to the interior of Canada. The Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the NPS, the FS, and the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park (NPS-Klondike Park) concur that the survey is adequate for identifying cultural resources in the project area (letters from Judith E. Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, February 7, 1995; Sandra Faulkner, Regional Historian, National Park Service, Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 32 FERC No. 11077-001 Alaska Regional Office. Anchorage. Alaska. February 9. 1995; Clay Alderson. Superintendent. Klondike Gold Rush National Park. Skagway. Alaska. February 24. 1995: and Karen S. Iwamoto, Forest Archeologist. Tongass National Forest, Sitka, Alaska, March 6. 1995). We concur. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The project may affect the historical integrity of the Brackett Wagon Road, the railroad bed, and the historic Canadian Oil pipeline. The proposed penstock would be routed through a culvert constructed under the railroad bed and the Canadian Oil pipeline. The powerhouse tailrace would be constructed to cross under the Brackett Wagon Road. These construction activities could potentially alter the physical and visual character of these sites. There would be no effect on the historic trail and viewing area, and the historic telephone line. The project is not located in the immediate vicinity of the trail and viewing area, and the historic telephone line is not located in the vicinity of the project facilities. AP&T proposes to conduct additional work to assess the effects of the project on cultural resources and to implement a cultural resources management plan to protect contributing elements of the Historic Landmark affected or potentially affected by the project, pursuant to an MOA prepared in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations (36 CFR 800) for the National Historic Preservation Act. After review and revisions, the MOA has been accepted and signed by the SHPO, the FS, the NPS-Klondike Park, the NPS, and AP&T. AP&T consulted the Skagua Traditional Village Council, representative of the local Native American tribe, and requested the Village Council to be a party and signatory to the MOA. The Village Council declined and said they have no concerns about traditional uses of the area (letters from Pete Johnson, Representative, Skagua Traditional Village Council, Skagway, Alaska, April 11, 1995; and Silas H. Dennis, Jr., Member-at-Large, Skagua Traditional Village Council, Skagway, Alaska, April 12, 1995). The FS has stated that the intent of the Advisory Council's regulations concerning Native American consultation (36 CFR 800(1)(c)(iii)] has been satisfied for the project (letter from Karen S. Iwamoto, Forest Archeologist, Tongass National Forest, Sitka, Alaska, April 20, 1995). The NPS has said AP&T has made a reasonable effort to consult the Village Council and to include the Village Council as a signatory to the MOA (letter from Sandra Faulker, Regional Historian, National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, Alaska, April 24, 1995). We concur. The MOA requires AP&T to hire a qualified historical archeologist, and consult with the FS, the SHPO, and the NPS to determine the specific effects of the project on the Historic Landmark and the Canadian Oil pipeline, and to identify mitigative measures to minimize effects. The MOA requires AP&T to develop and implement a cultural resources management plan to implement mitigative measures and to protect cultural resources during project construction and operation, and to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 33 FERC No, 11077-001 and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. the Alaska Comprehensive Preservation Plan. and the cultural resources documentation requirements of Klondike Gold Rush National Park. The MOA also requires AP&T to comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act if discoveries are made during the license term that make it applicable to the project We concur the MOA is adequate to protect cultural resources at the project. The project would not have an adverse effect on the Historic Landmark or the historic Canadian Oil pipeline if the MOA is implemented as a condition of a hydropower license. The MOA has been forwarded to the Advisory Council for signature. We recommend a condition requiring implementation of an acceptable MOA be included in any license issued for the Project. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None 7. Recreation a._Affected Environment: There are no developed facilities in the Goat Lake basin. The FS manages the area to retain its roadless and wildland character. Major recreational facilities would not be developed. The developed recreational facilities that exist outside of the basin consist of FS cabins, dispersed campsites, and picnic areas. The National Park Service operates the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park that includes a visitor center in Skagway and a campground in Dyea. Because of the difficulty in accessing the Goat Lake basin, very little recreational use occurs in the vicinity of the lake. Major recreational activities in the project vicinity are dispersed activities such as hiking, fishing, and sightseeing. The most common activity is sightseeing. Sightseeing tours are provided by the WP&YR RR, several highway tour operators along the Klondike International Highway, and aircraft companies. Skagway and its vicinity, due to the attractions and cruise ship moorage, draws a large number of tourists to the area. The Skagway Convention and Visitor Bureau estimates that in 1993 about 350,000 tourists visited the area. Approximately 80 percent of southeast Alaska visitors come to the area by water. Based on survey results, the applicant determined that many of these visitors are interested in sightseeing and photography. The applicant conducted a survey of the tour operators and was able to estimate that 23,000 visitors stopped at the viewpoints overlooking Pitchfork Falls during the season. In addition, 24 percent of the vehicles using the Klondike International Highway stopped at the viewpoints. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 34 FERC No. 11077-001 b, Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The project would be in a remote location that is difficult to access. The site receives very little recreational use and the project would not have a significant effect on existing recreational opportunities with the exception of sightseeing activities from the WP&YR RR and the Klondike International Highway. This issue was discussed in the Aesthetic Resources Section. As discussed earlier, Goat Lake has no known fish, and the state of Alaska and the FS have abandoned plans to create a sustainable fish population in the lake. Thus, the project would not affect recreational fishing. [t is not anticipated that project operations would significantly affect access around the lake, as the lake level is primarily drawn down during the winter and spring months. During the peak visitation of helicopter tours over the project area, the lake level would either be rising from large inflows or close to normal elevation. a._Affected Environment: The project would provide power to the town of Skagway and the immediate vicinity. The population of the area is about 800. The economy of the area is driven by tourism. The unemployment for the region was higher than the state average in 1994, 10.6 percent versus 7.8 percent. b. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The project would employ a work force of about 30 people over about a 2-year construction period. The total project construction budget would be about $7.5 million; about 32 percent would be for labor. It's anticipated that workers would be drawn from southeast Alaska. Because of the short construction period, most workers would probably commute either daily or weekly or stay in temporary housing, and few, if any, would relocate to the immediate project area. Increased employment from the project, albeit short-term, would benefit the region's economy. The project would also provide long-term economic benefits to the state and region from tax revenues that would be collected. The project would also benefit the region by providing a more stable and reliable form of energy than the current system, which relies mostly on diesel generation. ¢. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None. C. Impacts of the No-action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be constructed and there would be no changes to the existing physical, biological, or cultural resources of the area. The Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 35 FERC No. 1077-001 energy that would have been produced would continue to be provided by diesel fuel. With this alternative. the public would be denied the opportunity to conserve diesel (non-renewable primary fossil fuel) and to reduce atmospheric pollution. Because of the area's lack of roads and remoteness. diesel fuel is presently delivered by barge thus potentially exposing important aquatic habitats to risks such as oil spills into the environment. These risks would continue with or without the project. although much less with the project, because diesel generators would serve as a back-up during hydropower outages. VII. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS In this section, we look at the project's use of water resources for hydropower purposes to see what effect various environmental measures would have on the project's power benefits. As explained in Mead Corporation,* the Commission assesses the potential economics of various alternatives using a current-cost approach that does not purport to predict future economic trends over the term of the license. Rather, it reviews economic factors in light of what is known at the time the application is considered. While no assumptions are made concerning future potential inflation or deflation, the analysis is not entirely a “first-year” approach, as certain costs need to be amortized over the period of years or will change in presently known and measurable ways. Thus, the current cost figures are derived using a 30-year period of analysis. Because there was no recommended staff proposal that would affect project economics, we did the economic analysis using the applicant's proposal. We compared the benefits of the proposed operation to not building the project and continuing to use more diesel fuel. We found the 30-year net annual benefits for the low-, mid-, and high-load forecasts using the average hydrology estimate and the following assumptions (see Table 4): project operation begins in 1997, a 1997 construction cost of $7,500,000, a 7 percent discount and interest rate, a 1997 power value of 101 mills per kilowatthour (mills/kWh),° a 1997 operating and maintenance cost for the hydroelectric project of 5 mills/kWh, and a 1997 insurance cost of $1.00/kWh. eereee a4 * See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC { 61,027 (July 13, 1995) ” We base the value of the project's power on the average cost of purchasing diesel fuel and diesel O&M costs for the Skagway area. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 36 FERC No, 11077-001 Table 4. Staff's economic analysis of Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project using the average hydrology estimate LOAD AVERAGE ANNUAL | POWER VALUE BASED | COST OF | FORECAST | GENERATION ON REPLACING DIESEL | GOAT LAKE AL GENERATION PROJECT BENEFITS | } Low |} Mid 64 GWh? -$103.000 $952,000 | $182,000 $1,134,000 $1.312.000 We also assumed in our economic analysis that the energy sold for each year would correspond to the load forecast, until the year 2028. For example, in 1997, the Skagway area would need only 6.9 gigawatthours (GWh) of energy from the Goat Lake Project. Therefore, the project would only generate 6.9 GWh in 1997. In 2028, the project would reach its maximum energy generation potential of 13.3 GWh. The average generation over the 30-year economic analysis would be 9.7 GWh for the mid-load forecast. With the above assumptions, the proposed project, producing an average of 9.7 GWh of energy, would have a net annual benefit for the mid-load forecast, which we consider the most likely forecast, of about $182,000 or 18.8 mills/kWh. The high-load forecast would have greater net annual benefits at $350,000 or 30.4 mills/kWh. For the low-forecast year, the project would cost more than the current cost of the most likely alternative source of power (diesel-fuel powered generators) for the Skagway area. We realize that this comparison is not the only consideration in assessing the economic feasibility of the project. Among the other considerations is the future cost of fossil-fuel resources, particularly diesel fuel, which represents about two-thirds of the total cost per kWh of generation. The net annual benefits are, therefore, highly sensitive to fuel cost, which could vary widely over the 50-year license term for a new hydropower project. In any event, most of the cost of power that would be produced by the Goat Lake Project is for debt retirement on the initial capital cost and would remain constant over time, and unaffected by inflation. Only about 5 percent of the total cost per kWh is for operation and maintenance, which would be subject to future increases caused by inflation. 29 The average project generation was based on a 30-year period. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 37 FERC No. 11077-001 VIII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. When we review a proposed project, we equally consider the environment. recreation, fish and wildlife, and other non-developmental values of the project as well as power and other developmental values. Accordingly. any license issued shall be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses. Based on our independent review of agency and public comments filed on this project. and our review of the environmental and economic effects of the proposed project and its alternatives, we've selected the proposed project, along with the applicant's proposed environmental measures, as the preferred option. The preliminary FS section 4(e) conditions have been incorporated into our preferred alternative. We've determined that none of the measures in our preferred option have an effect on the project's economics. We recommend the proposed project because: (1) issuance of an original hydropower license would allow AP&T to construct and operate the project as a small but dependable source of electrical energy for its customers; (2) the project would meet the increasing demand for electric power in Skagway and avoid the need for an equivalent amount of fossil- fuel-fired, electric generation and capacity, thereby continuing to help conserve these nonrenewable energy resources and reduce atmospheric pollution; and (3) the recommended environmental measures would protect or mitigate the soil, vegetative, wildlife, aesthetic, and cultural/historic resources in the Skagway River Valley. We believe that our preferred option would be best adapted to the comprehensive development of Pitchfork Falls for beneficial public uses. IX. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES Under section 10(j) of the FPA, 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 fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. No fish and wildlife agencies provided recommendations in response to our notices that the application was ready for environmental analysis. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 38 FERC No. 11077-001 X. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Section 10(a\(2) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the extent to which 4 project is consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving. developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. Accordingly. federal and state agencies filed 23 plans with the Commission that address various resources in Alaska. Three are relevant to this project.'' No conflicts were found. XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we prepared this environmental assessment for the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project to identify the resources that the licensing decision could impact and discuss the specific impacts the Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project would have on the human environment. Project construction would cause minor short-term, localized erosion; temporary relocation of wildlife; and increased traffic and dust levels in the project area, In addition, Project development would permanently alter about 9.25 acres of native trees and other vegetation (some of which would be revegetated) and 1 acre of wetland habitat. The new structures and altered flows along Pitchfork Falls could detract from the natural aesthetics of the Goat Lake basin and Skagway River Valley. We find that implementing the protection and mitigation measures described in this FEA would ensure that environmental effects of the project would be insignificant. On the basis of this independent environmental analysis, we find that issuance of an original hydropower license by the Commission and SUA by the FS for this project would not constitute major federal actions significantly affecting quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. XII. LITERATURE CITED Alaska Department of Highways, Southeast District. 1973. Klondike International Highway. Final Environmental Assessment, Skagway to the Canadian Border. September 1973. Exhibit E, p.46. * (1) Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 1979, Haines-Skagway area Land Use Plan, Juneau, Alaska; (2) U.S. Forest Service, 1991, Tongass National Forest Proposed Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Ketchikan, Alaska; (3) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service, 1986, North American Wildlife Management Plan, Washington, D.C. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 39 FERC No. 11077-001 Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1994a. Application for License for Major Unconstructed Project, Goat Lake Project FERC Project No. 11077. Table of Contents, Initial Statements, Exhibits A. E. F, G. Port Townsend, Washington. May 31, 1994. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1994b. Application for License for Major Unconstructed Project, Goat Lake Project FERC Project No. 11077. Appendices 1- 13. Port Townsend, Washington. May 31, 1994 Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1994c. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Video, Project #11077. 12 minute video. Port Townsend, Washington. March 8, 1994. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995a. Additional information responses to AIR #1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19 and 22. Port Townsend, Washington. March 26, 1995. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995b. Additional information responses to AIR #4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 (Enclosure | of 2) and 23, 24, 25-34 (Enclosure 2 of 2). Port Townsend, Washington. May 30, 1995. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995c. Additional information response to electrical load forecast. Port Townsend, Washington. April 6, 1995. 2 pp. with enclosures. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995d. Additional information response to project operational model. Port Townsend, Washington. April 5, 1995. 3 pp. with diskette and enclosure. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 199Se. Additional information response to visual impact analysis (January, 1994) and 14pp. - supplemental visual impact analysis (September, 1994). Port Townsend, Washington. March 13, 1995. 29 pp. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995f. Application for Department of the Army Permit (ENG Form 4345, Sept 91). Juneau, Alaska. August, 1995. W/Exhibits, Figures, Coastal Project Questionnaire, and Certification Statement. Alaska Power and Telephone Company. 1995g. Revisions to Exhibits A, E, F and G. Port Townsend, Washington. April 27, 1995. Ambrose, R.E., R.J. Ritchie, C.M. White, P.F. Schempf, T. Swem, R. Dittrick. 1988. Changes in the status of peregrine falcon populations in Alaska. IN: Peregrine Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 40 FERC No. 11077-001 Falcon Populations-Their Management and Recovery, ed. T.J. Cade, J.H. Enderson, C.G. Thelander and C.M. White. The Peregrine Fund, Inc. Boise. Idaho. Ann Riley and Associates. 1995a. Official Transcript of Proceedings. In the Matter of: Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Scoping Meeting. Docket No. 11077-001. Vol. 1. No. 1, Thursday, June 22, 1995. Juneau, Alaska. 57 pp. with attachments. Ann Riley and Associates. 1995b. Official Transcript of Proceedings. In the Matter of: Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Scoping Meeting. Docket No. 11077-001. Vol. 1, No. 1, Tuesday, June 20, 1995. Skagway, Alaska. 62 pp. with attachments. Blaustein. Andrew R., Joseph J. Beatty, Deanna H. Olson, and Robert M. Storm. 1995 The biology of amphibians and reptiles in old-growth forests in the Pacific northwest. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-337. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon. 98 pp. Campbell, C. 1994. An archeological reconnaissance survey of sections of the Brackett Wagon Road and the remains of the scenic viewing station at Pitchfork Falls in conjunction with the proposed Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 11077. Ketchikan, Alaska. (also Alaska Power & Telephone Company, 1994, appendix 3). Chadwick, D-H. 1973. Mountain goat ecology -logging relationships in Bunker Creek drainage of western Montana. M.S. Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 260 pp. Crowley, David W. 1993. Breeding habitat of harlequin ducks in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Master of Science Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvalis, Oregon. December 9, 1993. 59 pp. with appendix. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service. 1995. Scoping Document 1, Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 11077-001. Washington, D.C. May 18, 1995. 24 pp. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service. 1994. Additional information requests to Alaska Power and Telephone Company, Port Townsend, Washington. December 15, 1994. 3 pp. with 34 questions. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 41 FERC No. 11077-001 Hayes, MP. and M. R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbiana) responsible? J. Herpetology 20/4) 490-509 Kuletz. Katherine J.. Dennis K. Marks, Nancy L. Naslund, Niki G. Stevens, Mary B. Cody 1994. Information needs for habitat protection: Marbled murrelet habitat identification. Final Report, Restoration Project 93051B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Migratory Bird Management. 54 pp. Land Design North. 1994. Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project, Visual Impact Analysis. Anchorage, Alaska. January 1994. 29 pp Lesica, P. 1988. Report on the conservation status of Carex lenticularis var. dolia, a candidate threatened species. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana 40pp. with appendices. McGowan, J.D. 1975. Distribution, density, and productivity of goshawks in interior Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Final Report of Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-17-6. 30pp. National Park Service. 1987. Catalog of National Historic Landmarks. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. Olendorff, R.R., A.D. Miller, and R.N. Lehman. 1981. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines: the state of the art in 1981. Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., Raptor Research Report No. 4. St. Paul, Minnesota. 111 pp. Olendorff, R.R. and R.N. Lehman. 1986. Raptor collisions with utility lines: an analysis using subjective field observations. Bureau of Land Management. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. February 1986. 73 pp. Pacific Seabird Group. 1995. The Marbled Murrelet. A pamphlet of the Pacific Seabird Group. Seattle, Washington. August 1995. 4 pp. Palmer, R.S. 1976. Handbook of North American Birds. Vol. 3. Yale University Press. New Haven, Connecticut. 560 pp. Standley, L.A. 1985. Systematics of the Acutae group of Carex (Cyperaceae) in the Pacific Northwest. Systematic Botany Monographs Vol. 7. Suring, Lowell H., W. B. Dinneford, A. T. Doyle, R. W. Flynn, M. L. Orme, J. W. Schoen, L. C. Shea, E. L. Young. 1988. Habitat suitability model for mountain goats in southeast Alaska. unpubl. rept. September 13, 1988. 13 pp. with tables. Final Environmental Assessment Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 42 FERC No. 11077-001 U.S. Department of the Interior. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Proposed Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 225. November 21. 1991. Part 17. pp 58804-58836. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1993. Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species: Notice of Review. Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 188, September 30, 1993. Part 17. pp. 51144-51190. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Title 50 (Wildlife and Fisheries), Part 17, Subpart B, §17.11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 20, 1994. 42 pp. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Advance notice of a proposal to remove the American peregrine falcon from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Proposed Rules, FR, Vol. 60, No. 126, Friday, June 30, 1995. U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Environmental Assessment for Helicopter Landing Tours in the Skagway and Haines Area. Department of Agriculture, and Department of Interior, Juneau, Alaska. May 1995. 5Spp. with maps. U.S. Forest Service. 1991a. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision - Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Parts 1 and 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Alaska Region. R10-MB-149, August 1991. 7 chapters with appendices. U.S. Forest Service. 1991b. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision - Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed Revised Forest Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Alaska Region. R10-MB-146, August 1991. 7 chapters with appendices. 511 pp. Waters, Dana L. 1992. Habitat associations, phenology, and biogrography of amphibians in the Stikine River basin and southeast Alaska. A report to the 1991 pilot project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arcata, California. May 28, 1992. 61 pp. XII. LIST OF PREPARERS Carl J. Keller -- Commission Environmental Coordinator, Terrestrial Resources, Threatened and Endangered Species (Wildlife Biologist; M.S., Wildlife Biology) Goat Lake Hydroelectric Project Final Environmental Assessment 43 FERC No. 11077-001 May 1996 Margaret Beilharz -- FS Environmental Coordinator (Hydrologist; B.S.. Ecosystems Management) Nan Allen -- Aquatic Resources (Fishery Biologist: M.S, Biology) John Costello -- Visual Resources, Recreation and Other Land Uses, Socioeconomics (Landscape Architect; BLA, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning) Gaylord Y. Hoisington -- Geological Resources (Soil Conservationist; B.S. Recreation) J. Tim Looney -- Developmental Resources (Civil Engineer; B.S., Civil Engineering) Charlene Scott -- Developmental Resources (Civil Engineer; M.S., Civil Engineering) Edwin Slater -- Cultural Resources (Archeologist; Ph.D., Anthropology) Final Environmental Assessment May 1996 44 Goat Lake Hydroetectric Project FERC No. 11077-001 APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA air United States Department of the Interior fl WILDUFE SERVICE S a u -00! 96 APR -1 AML: 3 mm a mere p- 1/077 -0 washington. 0.¢ Dear ne The U Assessment. dated March 11. may occur in the vicinity of the proposed Skagway. Alaska wat march 25, * 20426 Cashel $ Tish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Draft Exvircamental 1996. Cor Chreatened and endanger It evaluated the effect endangered Aserican peregrine falcon (falca pacestigus apatum) - Tor the purposes of Section Consultation. we agree that populations of the American peregrine falcon will not likely be adversely affected as « result of FWS-Pe ‘Alchough not specifically required by the consultation provisions of the Endangered Species Act. ve Species of Concern in the species is important for =! f conservation and assists in preventing their inclusion on the Endangered Species List Tres! us Endangered Species Act of 197 For this project. ocher omments are offered for endangered and threatened species for which the and Wildlife Servici esponsibility wader Section 7 of the OSC 1521 a6 agg.) and Ite amendments, does not have any edditional concerns regarding for waich we have legislated responsibilities the Sei organiess or habica: Sincerely FWS-1 AND STAFF RESPONSES STAFF'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE GOAT LAKE DE Comment noted APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSES r 2 United States Department of the Intenor NATIONAL PARK SERVICE iene Catt ach MamenalHsare Pa tO bent Rages, Ante bw om 7624 NPS-1 Lou D Cashell, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commence 888 Firs Suen, NE Washungon, D.C. 20426 Dear Ms. Cashel, ‘Thess comments pertam to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE - Gost Lake Hydrosiecanc Project, FERC Proyect No 11077-001, Alaa We have reviewed the draft emercementsl sesssement aad have the budbowing (omens sad or meaaRe $b Uke recsis On pags 8 the document sines that the USFS amanded 0s prekminary coadwoa 4(¢) by deleting Coadanca No 8 (Fish and Wikdiie hémgamon Pina) The paragraph further mates there are 20 agekcast gost popummoes m the propect aren We dsagies nnd bool (het ina eotugy of meen goats and chew senscma) sowement parbermes soukd pul) (he Oppuets mavemmem (bos an nemicem gost sopuienoe mm ihe proeeet came. The USFS recently compleied on orveraamemid exceamsased Gor shea erea rubamnd be hab plas (Our OperMboes magus dase Of Deane Mo Ud Sanam AeSNEEREK eee yea weep ti IO pats [he propiesd Cyd CabecEnc prugect wall cameras op coms ee Boome dag eR Lowel dn Gamat re wMpECLE LS cecauatece pont Dscogemmes of cemadaarve affects on mmmumnees poets fom hee a noe ned eeoweons acieoes ta Hn prep vege chsald Ke cnkes ond Iagresd et) magatiin pemes Mountain poste are astive to the Goat Lake aren. MMoustsm goats can be seen we the Goat Lake cesry Moonganasn goats qn sens throughs the rege Severn yout ago che Alama Leper tse of ede es Comme sacgeaned to basing of muses goats Mus ke Se eae Gf he Skagway Rivas to the enat side of the Teiya River. They had some limuted sonal survey data thet ncased the get ppecbannesen bad mgpaBicantty dociend wad worn babe eupecied bev aba of popes Sema Some of thee excheded inemang ares ws wathen Une proyert wen hx Uns plea | mages Unery ded mot ‘nuapend nanting in the imemodiane vicinity of Gost lake (che cast side of the Skagway River) peceses then i mo practiced inentang sccens to diss eres be des valbay to the aortreest Of Uke STAKE'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE GOAT 1 NPS-1 As discussed vn page 20 ul the DLA (sce Ferresirial Kewurces section), the results of 10 years of surveys by the Alka Depaitincut ot His and Gan (ADFG) mndwcate that there ate nur signal: Basia ndormatwn from the ADFG indicated that goat use ui the sic suitounding Go Lake 1 munumal There haven't been any knvwn sigis (hovveprus, fecal dioppaigs skeletons, carcasses, cic ) detected im the unmeduate Guat Lake aica aul thete atcn’t ki seasunal movements wuhin the project buundary Therefore, neuher dwect nor cumulative cllccts 1 the gost pupal these areas would nut be affected by the travel ruuie of heluwupters acessing the prayer Thus 15 based oa maps and models described in the US Forest Seivwce (PS) 1995 Envuunmenal Ascsunent for Helicopter Landing Touts in the Skagway and Masnes A, Although we find that muuntaun gusts would not te atlected by jp development, AP&T nevertheless proposes Ww adjust their constnuctint sthedule 4 possible dusmurbance during the gust mating and kidding perurls 1 would consult the ADFG 00 acceptable consiruction timing. and we agice this would be 4 pradcia Ins requirement (sce Terresinal Resources xcuuoa) Vo turthet cnsute that im) wikllile, un! goats, are affected by helicopters, the FS has included as a prelunmary 4c) Condunon APAT file 2 wildlife muigation plan requiring the same specitied vleatame lnm wikllit 1s required for the helicopser tours The FS and the ADFG, wi conumiion wih baal hclnopter tous operaiors, are working loward developing a monuioring plan tue the worth Lyn Canal mountain goat pupulaisoas. The Natioaal Park Service (NPS) © wekume W pattn ypaic tus effon. We dunt requure @ specific Cust amount for muigating adverse ppt.) ampacis, but believe our recommended wikllite proicciwa measures would adcyusicly mamamuze the puicatial cilerts ve mountain gusts progect area (Terye Rover vediey), o very mgmdicast coment /1u0s of moustina posts Occurs seme covery sasmmer MoS Om Pew domes gatherings of eouetme gues kROwn am leo ate Caswe APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSES ‘Those goats and others may use tbe Gost Laks aren panodically Vemiage poms from the proposed proyect area could serve as excedeat gost populance momsonag matoes io poms across the valley. Sauce APAT wil have accamt 10 the ndge at Goat = STAFF'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE GOAT LAKE DE Lake cos repute beams 10 mommtor end manta eqpapanemt and Une Alasts Department of Fuh snd Came has sendy sdemred the gout popuianons m ts arve as mgmiicamthy below expected Ape > The Memorandum of Agreement (MUA) (icleremed in the Cultura bevels, we recommend rescamdang the USFS amendment of lemsery 10,1996 amd requering & Wikdinte hengsmce Phas - Resources seciwa of the FEA) coatauns proviswns to develop and design alternatives Uist the extent feasible and practicable, would avowd or minunue any visual ctlect within the NPS] Thm: pine should establish s minimal amount of financial commement (515,000/yeer) 10 wildlife Nattonal Histone Landmark. The project design dexiswns regatding visual issues would monsoring by APAT on on anmual bess throughout the life of then FERC koemes. Moustam include consuktaiioe with the National Park Service The Natweal Pach Servwe is a signe pom momsioneg should be the focus of thoes efforts fo the MOA. In addution, uaff's recommended visual resources management plan (referenced wi the Aesthetic Resources seciwa ul the FEA) would requue measures to ‘The momtoring could be dose in comuaction with other efforts by the Alasks Department of Fish “unumize possible visual effects, and would be coordinated with the recommended 10310 ‘end Game, the National Park Service, the Unned Stses Forest Service, the Alaska Deparument of oairol, terresirual resources, and culuural resources management measures 5 Natural Resources sad the Burems of Land Managemen A weds momsionng commetios could be esabhahed other cond tec comrinue 10 end renorenica We doa't require a specific cost amount for mutgating project umpa projects ee ee Oe ee ee bu believe our recommended measures in the MOA and visual resources management ple would adequately uname aby amix wpeied visual resource cites Emcumbenag « pubbc water body m an ares thet comms semasive weidise should require « long- er eg 2008 COmmene meet Le edctaicm, we feel Uses Une prpeines wad other facies will permanestly megatrvety umpect Uke Natonal Landmark sctributes of the hasonc radrosd corndor la order to mngsie those wpacts, he sembetc mangaboe plas should be developed thet requares aa samual commeument of funds (mammal $15,000/yr), efor, and sets gosis and munamal threshold beats for exiencr suructire eembeuct, mamienaace, eromoa comrol, and landecapang The focus of these efforts should be NPS-2 27 serusos to the sering as t exists now Neuve plants thet blend m woth surrounding ‘vepetsuca should be established im a aacuraitooiong moss slong the ennre length of the | papshas This mauganon wal requare years of effort and dehgent revegeisnoa end pasa, The performance requered m the Assthenc and Wikdale Meugatce Plas should be required for lafe of the FERC pormat. If you have amy quesuoms about tkess comcerns of comments please doa’! bestate (0 coatact mall Resource Speciahat - Daman Sedesy, regardung thes beter Suacerely Your, Cig isin! APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSES ALASKA Powsn TELEPHONE COMPANY April 4, 1996 Leis D. Cashel, Seceuary Federal Rmergy Heguisrery Comeabasisa 008 Firse Seren, WE Washingsen, DC 20426 Rat: Project Me. 11077-001-Alaska oan pa STAFF'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON TIE GOAT LAKE DE Knclosed are cur comments on the Draft Lavirenmenal Amesmmen (DEA)en = AP&T-1 we agree We've revised our econ anulysn to smn hude the Ba abeve fede emcad pregect. capacuy credus The results are in the Developmental Resources ai ol the PEA. (ner Commmeeecs oto Ohentemd us Che sai then sited Yi Dev shamemeetad Amahrae: +. teanamabdlis ts cbs Ricenitaaitbh ine (APSUC2 lite erent x commnionirin's abel ks wernt as actten steernssive, We bedeve kt by FERC pelicy to consider beth energy and capacity costs. i the Goat Lake Project is aot the Oe sae cr neden eo weet Ger epetas Stacaay eh on meee on oth SREY a Caper nies - | { | | | Cneerroaaber ca seem Eeephdies Crete er pear umask robe ‘T The eschmssed cost of tha prefect as shown ba icmnse apgtkcaston (Appendix AP&T-2 bs $7,479,770 im 19978. This does not agreed wich the 1997 cost used in “sme BEA of $7,000,008." ‘Tee 1997 power vatue of 95 mills par hiowate-bow bs based upon the cost of heat oad spar naan aad | Mo meqge thet cht member ba oy desed co an prerage of several years. We have supplied (Attachment 2) 2 AP& 3 catcutasion of our acuaal average cost for the years 1993, 94, 95 of operation and mabmesacai of tag desl pie sakes siprourad be S/H ies your ‘The average fer these years was $.0357/KWH. * Mt. Purpose and Mes ton (8.) * Vil. Dovatepenenend / coomepctons ) + Knmemane ®. sham he emmmctnd ee snes Ghat ach te tnctndind tn the watee af the preinct APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA AND STAFF RESPONSES (— 4. The 1997 insurance cost of $1.00 per KW-HR should be corrected to $1.00 AP&T-4 per PtW-nk. This appears to be 3 typographical errer. ‘Enctosed bs a Lite Cycte Cost Amatysis (Attachment J) which uses the corrections AOA Asseamp coms ouchaed ames Bnd Be uiied te aLacBed mea: nodes md | | t i ‘Our primary concern is chat the method of analysis used by FERC indicates chat the project will produce megative net samaal benefics es ow cussemert if FERC CEES Mee eee, nies we Re preg eEhng wa hedbers ho prawesed prepa it ponders pactove masa benathis te mer cmnaneeers Ths docormin eben of pestatye rok Samat emedhes call ben eee tn cacrar tg Panett 2 ath prebe i Tins yom tee thhbs sparen eumicy ty Coenen: Beg NOTE: Atachments 1, 2, and 3 of AP&T’s April 4, 1996, letter has been filed with the Commission and is available upon request. STAEE'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON [LE GOAT LAbE L AP&T-+4 I ypogtaphnal cite corsected the Developmental Reson sectwa of the FEA AP&T-5 fa the DEA aid FEA comm aitslyses, we used 4 cure approach (as explained in Mead Corputativa. Publoluug Past Divnwn 22 11 KC fo July 13, 1995) that docs mot predict fueure cconume trends over tune Our EEA coon analysis (sce Developmental Analysis secon) now shows positive et anual benetits us the mid-luad wenarw, because we included “capacity benetus” ue DEA dad aut aise! “capacuy benefus” because they were mut unluded un the project appix ation Project No. 11077-001 =8 = prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Any of these documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies required by the Commission’s regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Project Review, Office of Hydropower Licensing, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Room 1027, at the above address. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010. Linwood A. Watson, Jr. Acting Secretary OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 { Export Authority end UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION NOTICE OF APPLICATION READY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (August 9, 1995) Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. Type of Application: Major License bh. Project No.: 11077-001 Date filed: May 31, 1994 d. Applicant: Alaska Power and Telephone Company eis Name of Project: Goat Lake —_ oy Location: At the existing Goat Lake, near Skagway, Alaska. Sections 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16, Township 27 South, Range 60 West, CRM. Fe Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC §§791(a)- 825(r) h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert S. Grimm, President Alaska Power & Telephone Co. P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (206) 385-1733 i. FERC Contact: Héctor M. Pérez, (202) 219-2839 J. Deadline for comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions: October 19, 1995 Status of Environmental Analysis: This application is now ready for environmental analysis at this time - see attached paragraph D10. m. Brief Description of Project: The proposed project would consist of: (1) Goat Lake, with a surface area of 204 acres and a storage capacity of 5,460 acre-feet at surface elevation of 2,915 feet; (2) a submerged wedge wire screen intake at elevation 2,875 feet; (3) a 600-foot-long and 30- DC-A-21 (reat Loe WH 4 DYOW Project No. 11077-001 -2- inch-diameter steel or HDPE siphon with a vacuum 4) assembly; (4) a 6,200-foot-long and 22-inch-diameter steeée penstock; (5) a powerhouse containing a 4-MW unit; (6) a 24.9-kV and 3,400-feet-long transmission line; and (7) other appurtenances. n. This notice also consists of the following standard paragraph: A4 and D10. °. Available Locations of Application: A copy of the application, as amended and supplemented, is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission’s Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, located at 941 North Capitol Street, N.E., Room 3104, Washington, D.C. 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address shown in item h above. A4. Development Application -- Public notice of the filing of the initial development application, which has already been given, established the due date for filing competing applications or notices of intent. Undetr™the Commission’s regulations, any competing development application must be filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the initial development application. No competing applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this notice. D10. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents -- The application is ready for environmental analysis at this time, and the Commission is requesting comments, reply comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions. The Commission directs, pursuant to Section 4.34(b) of the Regulations (see Order No. 533 issued May 8, 1991, 56 FR 23108, May 20, 1991) that all comments, recommendations, terms and conditions and prescriptions concerning the application be filed with the Commission within 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments must be filed with the Commission within 105 days from the date of this notice. Anyone may obtain an extension of time for these deadlines from the Commission only upon a showing of good cause or extraordinary circumstances in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2008. All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title "COMMENTS", "REPLY COMMENTS", "RECOMMENDATIONS," "TERMS AND CONDITIONS," or "PRESCRIPTIONS;" (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or