The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPA2649~C/DEIS-0039 BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT FERC No. 8221 ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OFFICE OF HYDROPOWER LICENSING FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION February 1985 FERC/DEIS.~0039 BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT [M]£00~& 0 ~liD&®©@ Susitna Joint Venture Document Number Please Return To DOCUMENT CONTROL . . FEf1C No. 8221 . \ ALASKA . DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL I~J1P·ACT ST.i\TEMENT .. . ~ • .. o·FFICE OF HYDROPGV.JER LiCt=rJSiNG FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION February 1985 nATE DUE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULA TORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: Attached is one copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Bradley Lake Project No. 8221. Agencies, organizations, or individuals receiving copies of this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement are invited to file comments pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of l969.and Commission Order No. 415-C, issued December 18, 1972. Any comments, conclusions, or recommendations that draw upon studies, reports, or other working papers for substance should be s~pported by appropriate documentation. Any person desiring to be heard,' to present evidence, to be advised of all hearings and proceedings with reference to this application for license or to t"his Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and to receive .notice of subsequent statements, must file with the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, a petition to intervene, in accordance with the requirements of the commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 C.F.R. 1.8), unless the person has already filed a petition to intervene in this proceeding. Comments, protests, or petitions to intervene are due on the same date specified by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register, approximately April 15, 1985. Recipients of this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact statement are also requested to provide comments on the Draft Mitigation Plan for the proposed Bradley Lake Project, which was provided to Federal, state, and local agencies and filed with the commission on January 28, 1985. Additional copies of the Draft Mitigat~on Plan are available upon request from the Alaska Power Authority, 334 west Fifth Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF HYDROPOWER LICENSING DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No. 8221 -Alaska Applicant: Alaska Power Authority 334 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Additional copies of the Draft Supplemental EIS may be ordered from: Division of Public Information Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 North Capitol Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 February 1985 I l- 1 COVER SHEET a. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) b. Title: Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 8221, Alaska c. Contact: Mr. Peter Foote Federal Energy Regulatory Commission OHL-DEA 825 North Capitol Street, NE Washington, D.C 20426 Telephone: (202) 376-9053 d. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement e. Abstract: Alaska Power Authority (Applicant) of Anchorage, Alaska, proposes to construct and operate a hydroelectric project with an installed capacity of 90 megawatts (MW) on Bradley Lake approximately 25 miles northeast of Homer, Alaska. The proposed project would consist of: (1) a 125-foot-high, concrete-faced, rockfill dam, with a crest elevation of 1,190 feet above project datum (equals mean sea level plus 4.02 feet), located at the outlet of Bradley Lake: (2) a 20-foot-high diversion dam, with a crest elevation of 2,204 feet, located on the Middle Fork of the Bradley River: (3) a 6-foot-diameter underground pipe from the Middle Fork diversion dam to Marmot Creek, a tributary to Bradley Lake: (4) a low diversion dike on the upper Nuka River immediately below the Nuka Glacier: (5) an 11-foot-diameter, 18,610-foot-long power tunnel from an intake at Bradley Lake to a powerhouse at sea level: (6) a powerhouse located adjacent to Kachemak Bay, and containing two 45-MW Pelton generating units: (7) a 20-mile-long, liS- kilovolt transmission line from the powerhouse to a proposed interconnection between Fritz Creek and Soldotna: (8) access facilities, including a barge basin and channel in Kachemak Bay, an airstrip, two construction camps, and about 10 miles of access roads: (9) construction facilities, including two concrete-batching plants, borrow areas, and spoil areas: and (10) other appurtenant facilities. Construction would commence subsequent to issuance of a license. f. Transmittal: This draft supplemental environmental impact statement, prepared by the Commission staff in connection with an application filed by the Alaska Power Authority for proposed project No. 8221, is being transmitted for your information pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Commission Order No. 415-C, issued December 18, 1972. This draft statement supplements the final environmental impact statement prepared by the Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers (Corps), in August 1982, for a similar project proposed by the Corps at the same location, but later deauthorized. -iii- -~ ------------------------------------------------- g. The draft supplemental environmental impact statement was sent to the Environmental Protection Agency and made available to the public on or about February 25, 1985. -iv- FOREWARD The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FP Act)* and the Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act,** is authorized to issue licenses for terms up to 50 years for the construction and operation of non-Federal hydro- electric developments subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary condition: (T)hat the project adopted ••• shall be such as in the judgement of the Commission will be best adapted to a compre- hensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of waterpower development, and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes *** The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the provisions of the FP Act as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the Project.t Compliance with such conditions during the license period is required. Section 1.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure allows any person objecting to a licensee's compliance with such conditions to file a complaint noting the basis for such objection for the Commission's consideration. tt * 16 u.s.c. § 79l(a) -825(r) ** Public Law 95-91, 91 Stat. 556 *** 16 u.s.c. Sec. 803(a) t 16 u.s.c. Sec. 803(g) tt 18 C.F.R. Sec. 1.6 -v- PREFACE Since 1962, the Corps had studied a proposed hydroelectric project on Bradley Lake. The Corps' study culminated in a project design very similar to the design now proposed by the Applicant. The Corps published a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) on its proposed project in August 1982, but soon thereafter the Congress deauthorized the project. Since the presently proposed project is located on the identical site of the Corps project, and contains very similar major design features, Commission staff is adopting the Corps' FEIS and has prepared the Bradley Lake draft environmental impact state- ment (EIS) as a supplement to the Corps' FEIS. This avoids the duplication of effort that would occur by reproducing the extensive data and information contained in the Corps' FEIS and its appendices. A copy of the Corps' FEIS is included in Volume 10, Appendix I, of the application for license for the Bradley Lake Project. The Bradley Lake draft supplemental EIS focuses on: (1) areas where additional information has come to light as a result of the Appli- cant's recent studies: (2) areas that in Staff's opinion were not fully treated by the Corps' FEIS: and (3) environmental issues that have not been resolved by the Applicant and resource agencies. The Bradley Lake draft supplemental EIS does not, however, consider or treat the information contained in the Applicant's draft mitigation plan, received by the Commission staff on January 29, 1985. The draft supplemental EIS was already in final form when the plan was received, thus precluding any consideration in the draft EIS. The draft mitigation plan will be fully considered and treated in the final supplemental EIS. Copies of the draft mitigation plan are available upon request from the Alaska Power Authority, 334 West Fifth Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. -vii- Cover Sheet Foreward Preface Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER 1.1. Purpose of Action 1.2. Need for Power 1.2.1 Historical Energy Requirements 1.2.1.1 Geographical Perspective 1.2.1.2 Regional Development 1.2.2 Present Energy Scenario 1.2.2.1 Electric Power Resources 1.2.3 Future Energy Resources 1.2.4 Load Growth Forecasts 1.2.4.1 Applicant's Load Projections 1.2.4.2 FERC Load Pro1ections 1.2.5 Load Resource Comparisons 1.2.5.1 Comparison Based on Applicant's Load Project ion 1.2.5.2 Comparison Based on FERC Staff Load Projections 1.3 Alternatives to the Project 1.3.1 Alternative Project Design 1.3.1.3 Alternative Dam Type 1.3.1.2 Alternative Reservoir Level 1.3.1.3 Alternative Barge Landing Facilities 1.3.1.4 Alternative Transmission Facilities 1.3.2 Other Hydroelectric Alternatives 1.3.3 Nonhydroelectric Generation 1.3.3.1 Feasible Alternative Forms of Generation 1.3.4 Nongenerating Alternatives 1.3.4.1 Effects of Conservation on Demand 1.3.4.2 Effects of Rate Revision on Demand iii v vii ix XV xvii 1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-4 1-7 1-14 1-14 1-14 1-21 1-28 1-28 1-28 1-28 1-31 1-31 1-31 1-31 1-32 1-32 1-32 1-32 1-34 1-34 1-35 1.3.5 Economic Comparison of Alternative Forms 1-36 of Generation -ix- 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.2 2.3 Bradley Lake Project -Applicant's Proposal Facilities 2.1.1 Location 2 .1. 2 Proposed 2.1.2.1 Glacier Diversion, Darns, and Reservoir 2.1.2.2 Power Conduit 2.1.2.3 Powerhouse 2.1.2.4 Tailrace 2.1.2.5 Transmission Facilities 2.1.2.6 Access Facilities 2.1.2.7 Recreational Facilities 2.1.2.8 Land Requirements 2.1.2.9 Borrow Areas 2.1.2.10 Spoil Disposal Areas 2.1.3 Construction Schedule 2.1.4 Work-force Requirements 2.1.5 Operation of the Bradley Lake Project 2.1.6 Safety Control 2.1.7 Compliance with Applicable Laws 2.1.8 Future Plans Description of Alternative Projects 2.2.1 Natural Gas-fired, Combined-cycle Generation Plan 2.2.1.1 Facilities 2.2.1.2 Location 2.2.1.3 Construction Requirements 2.2.1.4 Operation and Maintenance 2.2.2 Coal-fired Generation Alternative 2.2.2.1 Facilities 2.2.2.2 Location 2.2.2.3 Construction Requirements 2.2.2.4 Operation and Maintenance No-Action Alternative 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Bradley Lake Project 3.1.1 Meteorology 3 .1 .1 .1 Cl irna te 3.1.1.2 Air Quality 3.1.1.3 Noise 3.1.2 Land Features 3.1.3 Aquatic Environment 3.1.3.1 Water Quantity and Quality 3.1.3.2 Fishery Resources 3.1.3.3 Benthic Communities -x- 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-6 2-6 2-6 2-7 2-7 2-7 2-7 2-9 2-9 2-10 2-10 2-10 2-11 2-11 2-11 2-11 2-11 2-12 2-12 2-12 2-14 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-4 3-7 - 3.1.4 Terrestrial Environment 3.1.5 3.1.6 3.1.7 3.1.8 3.1.9 3.1.4.1 Plant Associations 3.1.4.2 Wildlife Resources Threatened or Endangered Species Recreation and Land Use Visual Resources Cultural Resources Socioeconomic Factors 3.1.9.1 Demographic Considerations 3.1.9.2 Employment and Income Alternative Projects 3.2.1 Combined-cycle Generation Alternative 3.2.1.1 Land Features 3.2.1.2 Aquatic Resources 3.2.1.3 Terrestrial Resources 3.2.1.4 Threatened or Endangered Species 3.2.1.5 Socioeconomic Factors 3.2.1.6 Visual Resources 3.2.1.7 Cultural Resources 3.2.1.8 Air Quality and Noise 3.2.2 Coal-fired Generation Alternative 3.2.2.1 Land Features 3.2.2.2 Aquatic Resources 3.2.2.3 Terrestrial Resources 3.2.2.4 Threatened or Endangered Species 3.2.2.5 Socioeconomic Factors 3.2.2.6 Visual Resources 3.2.2.7 Cultural Resources 3.2.2.8 Air Quality and Noise Levels 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATIVE MEASURES PROPOSED, AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Bradley Lake Project 4.1.1 Air Quality 4.1.2 Noise Levels 4.1.3 Geology and Soils 4.1.4 Water Quantity and Quality 4.1.5 Aquatic Communities 4.1.6 Terrestrial Environment 4.1.7 Threatened or Endangered Species 4.1.8 Recreation and Land Use 4.1.9 Visual Resources 4.1.10 Cultural Resources 4.1.11 Socioeconomic Factors -xi- 3-7 3-7 3-11 3-20 3-21 3-21 3-21 3-23 3-23 3-23 3-24 3-24 3-24 3-26 3-26 3-26 3-26 3-26 3-27 3-27 3-27 3-27 3-27 3-28 3-28 3-28 3-28 3-29 3-29 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-4 4-10 4-16 4-38 4-38 4-40 4-41 4-42 4.5 4.6 Alternative Projects 4.2.1 Combined-cycle Generation Alternative 4. 2.1 .1 Geology and Soils 4.2.1.2 Aquatic Resources 4.2.1.3 Terrestrial Resources 4.2.1.4 Threatened or Endangered Species 4.2.1.5 Socioeconomic Factors 4.2.1.6 Visual Resources 4.2.1.7 Cultural Resources 4.2.1.8 Air Quality and Noise 4.2.2 Coal-fired Generation Alternative 4.2.2.1 Geology and Soils 4.2.2.2 Aquatic Resources 4.2.2.3 Terrestrial Resources 4.2.2.4 Threatened or Endangered Species 4.2.2.5 Socioeconomic Factors 4.2.2.6 Visual Resources 4.2.2.7 Cultural Resources 4.2.2.8 Air Quality and Noise No-Action Alternative Comparison of Alternatives 4.4.1 Air Quality and Noise 4.4.2 Water Quality 4.4.3 Aquatic Resources 4.4.4 Cultural Resources 4.4.5 Geology and Soils Relationship to Laws and Policies Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4.6.1 Bradley Lake Project 4.6.2 Combined-cycle Alternative 4.6.3 Coal-fired Alternative Short-Term uses and Long-Term Productivity 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS 5.1 5.2 Significant Environmental Impacts 5.1.1 Bradley Lake Project 5.1.2 Combined-cycle Generation Alternative 5.1.3 Coal-fired Generation Alternative 5.1.4 No-action Alternative Mitigative Measures Recommended by Staff and Agencies 5. 2.1 Geology and Soils 5. 2. 2 Aquatic Resources 5.2.3 Vegetation 5.2.4 Wildlife Resources 5.2.5 Threatened or Endangered Species -xii- 4-44 4-44 4-44 4-44 4-45 4-45 4-45 4-46 4-46 4-46 4-46 4-46 4-47 4-47 4-47 4-48 4-48 4-48 4-48 4-49 4-49 4-49 4-50 4-50 4-50 4-50 4-51 4-51 4-51 4-51 4-51 4-51 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-2 5-2 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-4 5-5 F 5.3 5.4 5.2.6 Recreation and Land Use 5.2.7 Visual Resources 5.2.8 Cultural Resources 5.2.9 Socioeconomic Factors Unmitigated Environmental Impacts 5.3.1 Bradley Lake Project 5.3.2 Combined-cycle Generation Alternative 5.3.3 Coal-fired Generation Alternative Staff Recommendations on Alternatives 6. LITERATURE CITED 7. LIST OF PREPARERS 8. LIST OF RECIPIENTS 9. APPENDICES 5-5 5-5 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 6-1 7-1 8-1 A. Applicant's draft proposed outline of Best Management Practices Manual, for erosion and sedimentation control. B. Department of the Interior's recommended biological stipulations for a license for the proposed Bradley Lake Project. -xiii- ___ ...__ ____ ------------------------------------------------- Figure Cover 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 LIST OF FIGURES A view of Bradley Lake, with the Kechamak Glacier in the background. The Alaska Rail way from Seward to Eielson Air Force Base. Electrical transmission system of the Railbelt. Projected world oil prices. Price of oil under various forecasts. FERC staff load projections and selected Alaska Power Authority (APA) load projections for 1983-2010 (including the Clark, Alaska Department of Revenue mean, FERC high, FERC medium, and Alaska Department of Revenue 30- percent cases). Alternative transmission line alignments. A peak-week load curve for the Railbelt region, showing the December peak-week load. A comparison of 1983 present worth of total, 47-year, net benefit of the Bradley Lake Project over the nonhydroelectric generation alternatives, at various discount rates. 1-2 1-13 1-24 1-24 1-27 1-33 1-37 1-40 2-1 General plan of the proposed Bradley Lake Project. 2-2 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 3-2 3-3 Proposed Bradley Lake dam, spillway, and flow structures. Proposed diversion dike and outlet weir at the base of the Nuka Glacier. Proposed project construction schedule. Point count stations for the avian survey of April through September, 1980. Moose survey areas, 1983-1984. Land ownership and use. -xv- 2-3 2-4 2-8 3-12 3-17 3-22 4-1 4-2 Predicted preproject and postproject thermal regime in the lower Bradley River. Proposed waterfowl nesting area. -xvi- • 4-14 4-35 .... LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Historic Railbelt economic and electric power 1-3 data. 1-2 Net generation by electric utility in GWh. 1-5 1-3 Alaskan fuel consumption, 1981, in trillion 1-6 British thermal units. 1-4 Total Alaska and Railbelt energy consumption by 1-6 energy sector, 1981. 1-5 Railbelt energy consumption by fuel type for each 1-8 sector, 1981. 1-6 Railbelt existing generating capacity in MW for 1-9 1982, by load center, company ownership, type, and fue 1 use • 1-7 Railbelt generating capacity retirement schedule. 1-10 1-8 Summary of input and output data in the Sherman H. 1-16 1-9 1-10 1-11 1-12 1-13 1-14 1-15 Clark No Supply Disruption Case (Clark case). Projected peak demand and energy, net, in the 1-27 Clark case. Separation of the Anchorage-Cook Inlet load into 1-18 Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula loads in the Clark case. Fuel price projections in the Clark case, in 1983 1-19 dollars per 1 million Btu. Railbel t peak demand and energy, net, in the 1-22 Alaska Department of Revenue 50-percent case. Fuel price projections in the Alaska Department 1-23 of Revenue 50-percent case, in 1983 dollars per 1 million Btu. Railbelt load forecast, FERC staff medium world 1-26 oil price scenario, 1983-2022. Railbelt load forecast, FERC staff, high world 1-26 oil price scenario, 1983-2022. -xv ii- 1-16 1-17 1-18 1-19 2-1 2-2 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 Railbelt load resource comparison in the Clark case. 1-29 Railbelt load resource comparison in the FERC 1-30 staff midrange forecast. Parameters for thermal alternatives. 1-38 Parameters and values for the Bradley Lake 1-38 Project. Technical parameters and economic assumptions 2-10 of the combined-cycle alternative in 1983 dollars. Technical parameters and economic assumptions 2-13 of a coal-fired generation alternative and a combustion-turbine alternative, in 1983 dollars. Summary of commercial salmon catch data for the 3-6 Southern District of Lower Cook Inlet Manage- ment Area, 1954-1983. Summary of subsistence fishery catches for the 3-6 Southern District of the Lower Cook Inlet Management Area, 1969-1983. Population trends in Horner City and the Kenai 3-24 Peninsula Borough, 1970-1982. Employment trends by industrial sector, Kenai 3-25 Peninsula Borough, 1972-1982. Existing and predicted mean monthly flows in the 4-6 lower Bradley River during proposed project operation. Estimated water temperature regime of the lower 4-7 Bradley River (river mile 5.1) before and during proposed project operation. Applicant's proposed minimum instream flows (cfs) 4-9 for the lower Bradley River, to be measured at river mile 5.1. Analysis of the effects of an altered thermal 4-13 regime on the timing of fry emergence in three species of salmon in the lower Bradley River. -xviii- 4-5 Approximate acreages of plant communities displaced by the proposed Bradley Lake Project facilities. -xix- 4-18 SUMMARY The Alaska Power Authority (Applicant) proposes to construct and operate the 90-megawatt(MW)-capacity Bradley Lake Project to meet the late 1980's electrical energy needs of the Kenai Peninsula area of the Alaska Railbelt region in central Alaska. Major project facilities would include: (1) a 125-foot-high, concrete-faced rockfill dam, with a crest elevation of 1,190 feet above project datum (equals mean sea level plus 4.02 feet), located at the outlet of Bradley Lake; (2) a 20-foot-high diversion dam, with a crest elevation of 2,204 feet, located on the Middle Fork of the Bradley River; (3) a 6-foot-diameter underground pipe from the Middle Fork diversion dam to Marmot Creek, a tributary to Bradley Lake; (4) a low diversion dike on the upper Nuka River, immediately below the Nuka Glacier; (5) an 11-foot-diameter, 18,610-foot-long power tunnel from an intake at Bradley Lake to a powerhouse at sea level; (6) a powerhouse, located adjacent to Kachemak Bay and containing two 45-MW Pelton generating units; (7) a 20-mile-long, 115-kilovolt transmission line from the power- house to a proposed interconnection between Fritz Creek and Soldotna; and (8) access facilities, including a barge basin and channel in Kachemak Bay, an airstrip, two construction camps, and about 10 miles of access roads. Staff identified two feasible alternatives that could also meet the growing electrical energy needs of the Kenai Peninsula, beginning in the late 1980's. These alternatives include: (1) a 200-MW combined-cycle (natural gas) generation project, and (2) a 200-MW coal-fired generation project, used in conjunction with a 70-MW gas turbine facility that would be brought on line to meet loads prior to the in-service date for a coal-fired plant. The combined-cycle alternative would be located somewhere in the western Cook Inlet area, near natural gas distribution pipelines and close to a cooling-water source. The coal-fired plant would be located near the Nenana coal fields of central Alaska, close to a cooling-water source. An economic comparison of the proposed Bradley Lake Project and the two non-hydro alternatives indicates that the Bradley Lake Project would be more economical than either of the alternatives at a real discount rate of 5.6 percent and less. The no-action alternative, denial of the license for the Bradley Lake Project, was also considered by Staff. This alternative would result in the maintenance of the existing environmental resources and values of the Bradley Lake Basin, but would require the Applicant to develop alternative hydroelectric or thermal generation projects to meet the electrical energy needs of the Kenai Peninsula. Construction and operation of the proposed Bradley Lake Project would result in the following significant environmental impacts: (1) erosion of disturbed land areas and increased sedimentation and turbidity in Battle Creek, Martin River, Bradley River, Sheep Creek, and the Fox River; l -2- (2) temporary loss of 115 acres of marine benthic habitat in upper Kachemak Bay: (3) removal of 3,352 acres of existing vegetation, including inun- dation of 2,578 acres of terrestrial and wetland habitat by the enlarged Bradley Lake; (4) disturbance of wildlife usage of affected portions of the tidal wetlands, forested, and other upland areas, to include mountain goat movement and moose migration in the vicinity of Bradley Lake; {5) disruption of a relatively pristine viewscape by large-scale construction activities, transforming the existing, unspoiled area into one with obvious signs of disturbance by man; (6) long-term alteration of the flow regime of the lower Bradley River by reducing peak summertime flows and increasing and stabilizing winter low flows; (7) long-term alteration of the thermal regime of the lower Bradley River, by increasing early summer water temperatures and decreasing late summer and fall water temperatures; (8) alteration of the pattern of freshwater inflow to the Bradley River-Sheep Creek estuary and upper Kachemak Bay, with probable disruption of salmon migration patterns within the estuary; and (9) permanently opening the Bradley River Basin to human access, subjecting fish and wildlife resources of the basin to long- term, increased harvesting pressures. Construction and operation of the combined-cycle alternative somewhere in the western Cook Inlet area would result in the follow- ing significant environmental impacts: (1) erosion of disturbed lands areas and increased sedimentation and turbidity in water bodies associated with project construc- tion activities; (2) loss of large areas of vegetation resulting from the construc- tion of project facilities and associated access roads, con- struction camp, airfield, and transmission line, with disturbance of wildlife usage of the area; (3) disruption of a relatively pristine viewscape by large-scale construction activities and placement of project facilities, resulting in permanent alteration of the area to one with obvious signs of man's activities; and (4) permanently opening the project area to human access, with probable increased hunting and fishing pressure on local fish and wildlife resources. -3- Construction and operation of the coal-fired alternative in the Nenana area of the Railbelt would result in the following significant environmental impacts: (1) erosion of disturbed lands areas and increased sedimentation and turbidity in water bodies associated with project construction activities; (2) loss of large areas of vegetation resulting from the construction of project facilities and associated access roads, construction camp, airfield, and transmission line, with disturbance of wild- life usage of the area; (3) disruption of a relatively unspoiled viewscape, permanently changing the area to one with obvious signs of man's activities; (4) permanently opening the project area to human access, with probable increased hunting and fishing pressure on nearby fish and wildlife resources; (5) long-term degradation of air quality in the area because of the release of the byproducts of burning coal, with possible minimal impacts on Denali National Park; and (6) long-term impacts on land features and use, and water quality, as a result of mining coal for the life of the project. A comparison of the action alternatives indicates that all three alternatives would have similar construction impacts if the project sites were located in an undeveloped, remote area, such as the Bradley Lake Basin. Long-term operational impacts would be greatest for the coal-fired alternative, which would require a continuous coal mining operation for the life of the project. A coal-fired project would also result in a long-term degradation of air quality from the byproducts of burning coal. Operational impacts of the Bradley Lake Project and the combined-cycle projects would generally be minor, although the proposed Bradley Lake Project would potentially have greater effects on aquatic resources. A disadvantage of both of the thermal generation alternatives would be the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels. Based on the consideration of the long-term environmental impacts, economic factors, and long-term energy needs, Staff believes that the proposed Bradley Lake Project would be the preferred alter- native for meeting the electrical energy requirements of the Kenai Peninsula area of the Alaska Railbelt for the period beginning in the late 1980's. 1-1 1. PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER 1.1 PURPOSE OF ACTION The proposed Bradley Lake Project would be developed for the single purpose of producing hydroelectricity. The completed project would have a total installed capacity of 90 megawatts (MW) and would produce an average of 369.2 gigawatthours (GWh) of elec- tricity annually. The Applicant would use the energy developed by the proposed project to serve the needs of customers within the "Railbel t" reg ion, the area of south-central Alaska served by the Alaska Railway. The Bradley Lake Project would be located in the southern end of the Kenai Peninsula, about 105 miles south of Anchorage, the largest electrical energy load center in the Railbelt region. The proposed development would use the eff~ctive head between Bradley Lake, located in the Kenai Mountain region, and Kachernak Bay to generate electricity. Outflow from the Nuka Glacier would be diverted into the upper Bradley River, a small diversion darn would divert natural flows from the Middle Fork drainage basin to Bradley Lake, and a darn at the outlet of Bradley Lake would impound water and would raise the lake level 100 feet. A concrete-lined tunnel and buried penstock would convey water from the Bradley Lake Darn to an above-ground, enclosed powerhouse, located on the eastern shoreline of Kachernak Bay. 1.2 NEED FOR POWER 1.2.1 Historical Energy Requirements 1.2.1.1 Geographical Perspective The Alaskan Railbelt encompasses more than 150,000 square miles of territory, stretching from the southern terminus of the Alaska Railway north through Anchorage and through the Matanuska and Susitna Valleys to the northern terminus of the railway at Fairbanks (Figure 1-1). Anchorage is the primary business center of the state and is a major port and rail station. Fairbanks is the transportation and business center of the interior section of the Railbelt and the takeoff and supply point for activities in the Arctic and for main- tenance activity for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. 1.2.1.2 Regional Development Available economic and electric power data for Alaska and for the Railbelt are summarized in Table 1-1. The table shows the rapid growth that has occurred in the state's and the Railbelt's population, economy, and use of electric power. The growth has been especially rapid during the last decade. 1-2 Eielson A.F .B. Mt. McKinley 0 Talkeetna Fiqure 1-1. '!he Alaska Railway fran seward to Eielson Air Force Base (Source: Department of Energy, 1980) • 1-3 Table 1-1. Historic Railbelt economic and electric power data (SOUrce: Alaska Power Authority, 1983, Exhibit R). Item .Y Unit Year I960 1965 1970 1975 1980 State oil and gas 1o6xs 4.2 y 16.3 938.6 y 88.3 2,262.3 revenues to general fund State general fund NA A2.7 188.6 453.3 1,172.8 expenditures State population 226,200 265,200 304,700 390,000 402,000 State employment 94,300 110,000 133,400 197,500 211,200 Railbelt population 140,486 NA 199,670 NA 275,818 Railbelt employment y NA 74,100 88,500 130,400 132,000 Railbelt households 37,062 NA 54,057 NA 94,210 Railbelt electric 5/ GWh energy generation- Anchorage NA 526 885 1,451 2,365 Fairbanks NA 231 433 617 627 Total NA 757 1,318 2,068 3,012 Railbelt peak MW NA 171 296 420 634 demand y Railbelt MW NA NA NA NA 1,143 generation capacity 1/ Annual data are not available on a consistent basis for all items listed. 2; Figure is for 1961. 3/ This figure results from the collection of a large petroleum lease bonus. 4! Excludes agriculture workers and self employed. ~ Includes electric utilities, military generation, and self-supplied industrial. 1982 3,567.3 4,601.9 437,175 231,984 307,107 154,033 106,599 2,709 691 3,400 655 1,272 1-4 Between 1960 and 1982, employment in the Railbelt grew from 94,300 to 231,984, an increase of 146 percent, at a rate of 4.2 percent annually. The number of households in the Railbelt grew at a faster rate during this period, 4.9 percent annually, reflectinq the nationwide trend toward fewer persons per household. Much of the population and economic growth during this period is attributable to the tremendous increase in state petroleum revenues and general fund expenditures. State petroleum revenues grew from $4.2 million in 1960 to $3.57 billion in 1982, mainly because of the discovery and development of petroleum on Alaska's North Slope. Between 1960 and 1982, state general fund expenditures rose from less than $100 million per year to $4.6 billion. Consumption of electric energy in the Railbelt has risen significantly faster than the rate of economic growth. Between 1965 and 1982, total electric energy generation increased from 757 GWh to 3,400 GWh, an annual rate of 9.2 percent. Table 1-2 gives the net annual generation of each Railbelt utility between 1976 and 1982. 1.2.2 Present Energy Scenario Data collected by the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DOCED) provides a fairly complete picture of 1981 energy use by the state and the Railbelt region. In 1981, Alaskans used 543 trillion British thermal units (Btu) of primary energy. Of this total, approximately 184 trillion Btu of refined products, ammonia-urea, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) were exported from Alaska; some 86 trillion Btu were lost in refining operations, generating electricity, and processing natural gas for ammonia-urea and LNG; and 273 trillion Btu were consumed by the residential, commercial, industrial transportation and national defense sectors within the state. Oil, natural gas, coal, and hydroelectricity were the four main sources of the energy consumed by the end-use sectors, with oil and natural gas supplying approximately 93 percent of the total. A regional breakdown of end-use energy consumption is shown in Table 1-3. The Railbelt region receives over 75 percent of the total energy delivered to the six basic consumption sectors in Alaska. Of the total energy delivered to the Railbelt, 11 percent is for national defense, 41 percent (exclusively petroleum) goes to the transportation sector, and the remaining 48 percent is delivered to the residential, commercial, industrial, and electric utility sectors. Natural gas provides most of the energy for space heating and electric generation. Table 1-4 shows state and Railbelt con- sumption by consumption sector. l-5 Table 1-2. Net generation by electric utility in GWh (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1983, Exhibit B). Utility 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Anchorage 444.9 420.3 443.1 473.1 486.6 485.3 579.5 Municipal Light and Pololer ( AMLP) Chugach 1,054.5 1,179.7 1,308.6 1,401.0 1,434.1 1,467.7 1,718.4 Electric Association (CEA) Alaska Power 118.0 203.5 180.1 171.1 184.3 222.7 147.9 Administration (APAD) AnchoragP.-1,617.4 1,803.6 1,93l.R 2,045.2 2,105.0 2,175.7 2,445.8 Cook Inlet Subtotal .!/ Fairbanks 123.3 128.5 124.7 124.7 125.6 126.1 140.7 Municipal Utility Systan ( FMUS) Golden Valley 344.7 353.5 341.5 322.9 317.7 316.9 350.3 Electric Association (GVEA) Fairbanks area 468.0 481.7 466.2 447.6 443.3 443.0 491.1 Subtotal .!/ Railbelt 2,085.4 2,285.3 2,398.0 2,492.8 2,54R.3 2,618.7 2,936.9 Total .!/ .!1 Subtotals and total shown may differ from column totals because of rounding. l 1-6 Table 1-3. Alaskan fuel consumption, 1981, in trillion British thennal units (Btu) 1/ [Source: Staff, fran Alaska I:epartment of Ccmnerce and Economic Development, 1983]. Fuel Type Region ~troleum Natural gas Coal Hydro All fuels y ( {X>pulation) Railbelt y 137.1 81.0 12.6 2.9 1.6 235.2 ( 313,767) Southeast 19.9 3.3 1.2 24.4 (51,689) North Slope 11.9 1.7 13.6 ( 3, 282) Bush 29.8 0.3 30.1 ( 53,449) State total 198.7 82.7 12.6 6.2 31.1 303.2 v Includes 30 trillion Btu lost in conversion to electric IX>~r • '!:! lbes not include UNG or ammonia-urea. y Includes the Valdez-cordova area, with a {X>pulation of 9,301. Table 1-4. 'lbtal Alaska and Railbel t energy consum);X.ion by energy sector, 1981 ( S;)urce : Alaska I:epartmen t of Catmerce arrl Econan ic Development, 19 83) • Sector Alaska Railbelt Billion Btu (Percent) Billion Btu (Percent) Trans{X>rtation ll4,672 38 88,715 38 Industrial 64,823 21 44,699 19 Utility 1/ 46,344 15 40 ,ll5 17 Military-25,847 9 25,847 11 :Eesidential 26,571 9 19,434 8 Catmercial & Public ll ,913 4 10,658 5 Off-highway 13,059 4 6,430 3 'lbtal 303,239 100 235,929 100 y Includes total electricity consum);X.ion. • 1-7 The mixture of fuels used within the Railbelt reflects the prices of energy. Natural gas, for instance, presently is priced at less than $2.00 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) to the residential sector, the lowest price in any state. Where a gas distribution pipeline is available, gas clearly is more cost effective to use than the alternatives--electricity, distillate oil, or liquid propane. In the following tabulation, the FERC staff uses 1983 data from the DOCED to show the comparative cost of heating fuels in the Railbelt for 1981, in 1981 dollars per 1 million Btu. (The fiqures do not account for the efficiencies of equipment used to produce heat from specific fuel.) Table 1-5 shows the Railbelt energy consumption by sector and fuels. Fuel Electricity Fuel oil Natural gas Wood Propane Anchorage 11.49 9.45 1.~5 6.36 13.82 1.2.2.1 Electric Power Resources Fairbanks 26.83 9.94 5.23 13.85 Matanuska 12.58 10.24 4.87 17.86 The 1982 total installed capacity for utilities within the Railbelt is reported by the Alaska Power Administration to be 1128.5 megawatts (MW), including 18.6 MW owned by the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, but excluding 101.3 MW of capacity owned by the military at various installations within the region and excluding 27 MW of older or more expensive utility capacity relegated to standby or "black-start" service (start-up power following a system blackout). A survey by the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories disclosed that approximately 28 MW of unreported capacity was owned by industrial concerns within the Railbelt in 1981. A summary of the Railbelt's 1982 utility capacity by is presented in Table 1-6. A current, planned retirement schedule for the existing facilities is shown in Table 1-7. The existing electric transmission system within the Railbelt is composed of isolated networks in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. An interconnection currently under construction between Willow and Healy was scheduled to link the two areas by 1984. The transmission system is shown in Figure 1-2. 1-8 Table 1-5. Railbel t energy consunption by fuel t~ for each sector, 1981. (Source: Alaska r::epartment of Ccrrmerce and Fcornnic r::evelopnent, 1983) • Sec tor & Fuel type .!/ Transportation Fuel oil Coal 'Ibtal rroustrial Fuel oil Natural gas Electricity 'Ibtal Utility Fuel oil Natural gas Coal Hydro 'Ibtal Military Fuel oil Natural gas Coal Electricity 'Ibtal Residential Fuel oil Natural gas Coal Woc:d Electricity 'Ibtal Commercial & Public Fuel oil Natural gas Coal Electricity 'Ibtal Energy consumption (billion Btu) 88,649 66 88,715 13,264 31,435 2,130 46,829 2,152 29,652 5,407 2,904 40,115 15,364 4,590 5,893 1,690 27,537 9,647 8,109 140 1,561 3,745 23,202 2,256 7,333 1,069 3,842 14,500 Iercent 99.9 o.1 100.0 28.3 67.1 4.6 100.0 5.9 73.9 13.5 7.2 100.0 55.8 16.7 21.4 6 .l 100.0 41.6 35.0 0.6 6.7 16 .l 100.0 15.6 50.5 7.4 26.5 100.0 Electricity consunpt.ion is inclt.rled in the utility sector and also is reported in the other sectors. 1-9 Table 1-6. Railbelt existirg generati~ capacity in MW for 1982, by load center, cnnp:my ownership, type, and fuel use (Source: Staff, fran Alaska R:>wer Authority, 1984a, Technical Carment NFP 032). Canbustion Canbined turbine cycle Installed Hydro Diesel Oil Gas Gas Coal Capacity 1/ Anchor a:;}e-Cook Inlet area APAD 30 30.0 AMLP 172.6 139.0 3ll.6 CFA 16 269.5 178.0 463.5 MFA 0.9 0.9 HEA 2.6 2.6 SES 5.5 5.5 Subtotal 46 9.0 442.1 317 .o 814.1 Fairbanks-Tanana Valley Area !I GVFA 23.8 172.8 25.0 221.6 FMffi 8.4 35.8 30.0 74.2 OAK 5.6 13.0 18.6 Subtotal 37.8 208.6 68.0 314.4 'Ibtal 46.0 46.8 208.6 442.1 317.0 68.0 1,128.5 y 1/ Installed capacity as of 1982 at 0°F. ]I Excludes National Defense installed capacity of 101.3 MW; 101.3 MW modified from 95.0 by FERC staff. y APAD-Alaska R:>wer Mninistration. AMLP-Anchora:Je Municipal Light arrl R:>wer I:epartment. CFA--chugach Electric Association. MFA-Matanuska Electric Association. HEA-Hamer Electric Association. SES-Seward Electric System. !f GVFA-Golden Valley Electric Association. RMffi-Fairbanks Municipal utility System. OAK-University of Alaska. r 1-10 i ! i Table 1-7. Railbelt generating capacity retirement schedule (Source: Staff, fran Alaska !bwer Authority, 1984a, Technical Ccmnent NFP 032) • Annual Cumulat1ve Year Utility2/ Station Unit Type 1/ Capacity 0°F Total Total 1982 .AMLP #l 1 SCCT 16.3 FMffi Chen a 2 Steam 2.5 FMUS Cffina 3 Stean 1.5 20.3 1983 CFA Bernice Lobe 1 SCCT 8.6 FMUS Crena 4 seer 7.0 15.6 35.9 1984 AMLP #1 2 SCCT 16.3 CFA International 1 SCCT 14.0 HEA Seldoria 2 Diesel 0.6 FMUS Cffina 1 Steam 5.0 35.9 71.8 1985 CFA International 2 SCCT 14.0 SES SES 1 Diesel 1.5 SES SES 2 Diesel 1.5 SES SES 3 Diesel 2.5 GVFA Zendffir Canbined Diesel 21.0 40.5 112.3 Diesels 1986 112.3 1987 MFA Talkeetna 1 Diesel 0.9 FMffi Chena Dl Diesel 2.8 GVFA Healy D Diesel 2.8 6.5 118.8 1988 AMLP #l 3 SCCT 18.0 CEA Belu;Ja 1 SCCT 16.1 CFA Belu;Ja 2 SCCT 16.1 FMUS Cffina D2 Diesel 2.8 FMffi Chen a D3 Diesel 2.8 55.8 174.6 1989 174.6 y SCCT-simple-cycle canbU'3tion turbine: K:CT-regenerative-cycle canbU'3tion turbine. y AMLP-AncoorCICJe M . .micipal Light and !bwer ~partment. FMffi--Fairbanks Municipal utility System. CPA--chugach Electric Association. SES-Seward Electric System. GVFA--Golden Valley Electric Association. MEA--Matanuska Electric .Msociation. 1-11 Table 1-7 (continued). Railbelt generating capacity retirement schedule Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 y y (Source: Staff, from Alaska Power Authority, 1984a, Technical Comment NFP 032). Annual Cumulative Utility2/ Station Unit Type 1/ Capacity 0°F Total Total CFA International 3 seer 18.0 HFA Seldonia 3 Diesel 0.6 18.fi HFA pt. Graham 1 Diesel 0.2 GVEA Zendher 1 seer 18.4 18.6 AMLP u 4 seer 32.0 CFA Bernice Lake 2 seer 18.9 GVEA Zendher 2 seer 17.4 68.3 CEA Beluga 3 RCer 53.0 53.0 CEA Beluga 5 RCer 5R.O GVEA Zendher 3 seer 3.5 GVEA Zendher 4 seer 3.5 65.0 GVEA North Pole 1 seer fi5.0 FMUS Chena 6 seer 28.8 93.8 GVEA Healy Coal Stearn 25.0 GVEA r-brth Pole 2 seer 65.0 90.0 CFA Bernice Lake 3 seer 215.4 26.4 HFA Kenai 1 Diesel 0.9 0.9 UAK Dl Diesel 2.8 UAK D2 Diesel 2.8 FMUS Chena 5 Stearn 21.0 26.6 seer--sbnple-cycle combustion turbine: RCer--regenerative-cycle combustion turbine. CEA--Chugach Electric Association. HFA--Hamer Electric Association. GVEA--Golden valley Electric Association. AMLP--Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Department. FMUS--Fairbanks Municipal Utility System. OAK--university of Alaska. 193.2 2ll.R 280.1 333. 333. 398. 491. 581.9 608. 609. 635.9 .,, .. --·~-···-·------------------- 1-12 Table 1-7 (concluded). Railbelt generating capacity retirement schedule (Source: Staff, from Alaska Power Authority, 1984a, Technical Comment NFP 032). Annual Cumulative Year Utility2/ Station Unit 'J:YPe 1/ Capacity 0°F Total Total 2001 635.8 2002 AMLP #2 8 SCCT 90.0 CEA Bernice Lake 4 seer 26.4 116.4 752.2 2003- 2008 752.2 2009 AMPL #2 5,6,7 cc 139.0 139.0 891.2 2010 OAK Sl Steam 1.5 OAK S2 Steam 1.5 OAK S3 Steam 10.0 13.0 904.2 2012 CEA Beluga 6,7,8 cc 178.0 178.0 1082.2 Not retired Eklutna 30. Cooper Lake 16. 46.0 HEA Seldovia .3 Total Railbelt capacity 1982 1128.5 y y SCCT--stmple-cycle combustion turbine: RCCT--regenerative-cycle combustion turbine: CC--cambined cyle. AMLP--Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Department. CEA--Chugach Electric Association. OAK--University of Alaska. HEA--Horner Electric Association. F' GVEA --69/34.5 KV l-13 LOCATION OF MAP Fiqure 1-2. Electrical Transmission System of the Railbelt (Source: Staff, fran Alaska Power Authority, 19A4a, Application). 1-14 1. 2. 3 Future Energy Resources Staff considered the following planned capacity additions through 1988: Plant Type Grant Lake Hydro Soldotna Combustion Turbine MW 7.0 30.0 1.2.4 Load Growth Forecasts Year 1988 1985 1.2.4.1 Applicant's Load Projections Average Energy (GWh) 33 In performing power studies for the Bradley Lake appl.ication, the Applicant selected a load-growth projection based on a Sherman H. Clark Associates' No Supply Disruption Case (Clark case) [Alaska Power Authority, 1983]. The Clark case projection was developed by using four interrelated computer models to project the future Railbelt load-growth for various oil price projections. These models are the following. PETREV--Operated by the Alaska Department of Revenue (DOR). This mode uses a probability distribution of possible values that affect Alaska petroleum revenues to predict a range of royalties and production taxes. MAP--Developed by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) of the University of Alaska. The MAP (Man-in-the-Arctic Program) is an economic model that simulates the behavior of the Alaska economy and the population growth for each of twenty regions of the state. RED--Developed by ISER and modified by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. The RED (Railbelt Electricity Demand) model is a simulation model that forecasts annual electricity consumption for each end-use sector in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks- Tanana Valley load centers. r 1-15 OGP --Developed by General Electric Company. OGP (Optimized Generation Planning) is a model used to produce generation expansion plans based on system reliability, operating, and investment costs. Several oil price projections were considered, including the Clark Case projections. The oil price affects the need for electric power within the Railbelt in four ways: petroleum revenues available to the State of Alaska are a direct function of the market price of petroleum; the price of electricity to the consumer is impacte9.since most Railbelt power is generated from fossil fuels; the ability to economically substitute different fuels for power generation is dependent on the price of oil; and the level of oil exploration and development in Alaska will vary with the world oil price. A summary of the input and output data for the Clark case is presented in Table 1-8. During the 28 years included in this scenario, the net use of electric energy within the Railbelt is projected to increase from 2,803 GWh to 5,858 GWh, with a corre- sponding increase in the peak demand from 579 MW to 1,217 MW (Table 1-9). The Kenai Peninsula load is included in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet category. To identify the impact of the Bradley Lake Project on the Kenai Peninsula, the Applicant prepared a separate load projection for the Kenai Peninsula using historical loads in the Achorage and Kenai Peninsula areas. During recent years, the peak and energy requirements of the Kenai Peninsula amount to about 14 to 16 percent of the total Anchorage-Cook Inlet load. For the purpose of the study, it is assumed that the Kenai Peninsula will represent 15 percent of the Anchorage-Cook Inlet load during the study period of 1983 through 2007. The resulting load projections for the Anchorage area and the Kenai Peninsula shown in Table 1-10 represent a conser- vative estimate of the Kenai Peninsula load. The fuel price projections reflected in the Clark case and used by the Applicant in the Bradley Lake analysis are shown in Table 1-11. The fuel prices shown are based on the following assumptions. The escalation in the price of natural gas will vary in the same manner as that of oil. Although proven Cook Inlet natural gas reserves will be exhausted around the year 2000, sufficient additional reserves will be discovered to meet all future demand during the study period. No supply restrictions were imposed in any portion of the Bradley Lake power study. The Beluga coal field, presently undeveloped, will be opened for development and coal will be exported to Japan. Table 1-8. S\..IITIT\ary of input and output data in the Shennan H. Clark No Supply Disruption case (Clark case) [Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1983, Exhibit B]. ITEM DE::iCklPTION l~8J Worla Uil Price (1983$/obl) ]:/ 28.95 Energy Price Used by RED (1~80$) Heating Fuel Oil-Anchorage ($/MMBTU)2/ 7.7? Natural Gas -Anchorage ($~BTU) State Petroleum Revenues 3/ (Nom.$xlQ6).Y Production Taxes Royalty Fees State Gen. Fund Expeoditures (Nom. $xl06) State Population State Employment Railbelt Population Railbelt Employment Rai1belt Total Number of Households Railbelt Electricity Consumption (GWh) Anchorage Fairbanks Total Railbelt Peak Demand (HW) 1/ 1983 dollars per barrel. 2/ Dollars per 1 million Btu. 1. Ls 1,474 1,457 3,288 457,83b 243,067 3191767 159,147 111,549 2' 322 ~ 2,803 579 128? ~6. 30 6.45 1.95 1,561 1,~55 3, 700 490,146 258,396 3411613 lb9,197 120,140 2,561 --212. 3,096 639 1920 12~5 ;:-ooo ~00~ 27.90 32.34 3'7. 50 43.47 6.84 7.9 3 ~.l<.J 10.65 2.88 4.0? 4.29 4.9b 2,032 1,868 1,~10 2,150 2,480 2,b')1 3,07b 3,799 '),571 7,729 9, 714 13,035 554,634 608,810 644,111 686,663 293,689 313,954 325,186 345,701 3891026 423,460 451,561 486,851 l<j0 1b83 204,668 214,542 23l,584 138,640 152,463 163,913 177,849 3,045 3, 371 3,662 4,107 _lli 800 880 _.2§.§. 317 36 4' 171 4,542 51093 777 868 945 1,059 3/ Petroleum revenues include corporate incane taxes, oil and gas property taxes, lease bonuses, and Federal shared royalties. 4/ Nominal dollars in millions. ,~10 50.39 12..:)5 5. 38 2,421 4 ,689, 17,975 f-' I 744,418 f-' 3761169 (j) 5331218 255,974 195,652 417 35 1,123 5,858 1,217 1-17 Table 1-9 • Projected peak demand and energy, net, in the Clark case (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1983, Exhibit B). Anchorage-Fairbank!~- Cooi( In:et Ar~a :'ar:ana ValleY Area :'ota: ?.ai:::~e:: Energy Peak Energy Peak Energy ?eak Year ~ifi': ~w Gi.'h ~w Gi¥1': ~w :;a 3 2, 322 -+69 481 1:.0 2,803 579 1984 2, .... 2 '"95 508 1:6 2,950 609 :gas 2,561 -· .. 535 122 3,096 6 39 jJ.. 1986 2,658 5 38 560 129 3,2214 . '7 "::0, 1987 2, 755 558 597 l3b 3, 352 695 1988 2,852 579 629 1 .. 4 3,481 '722 :.989 2,949 599 660 1 -· 3,609 750 ... , ... 1990 3,045 6i9 691 :.sa 3. 7 37 7i7 :.;91 -: . , . 633 7' < 16 3 3. 821.1 796 .;f ·~----:.~~2 3'::. i6 646 7 35 1 ... ~ 3' 9ll a:...--~0 199 3 3,240 659 757 :.. 7 3 3,997 a•-..,t:. l99'+ 3. 306 672 778 :. 7 8 -+,084 a so :.gg; -.......... 686 800 :.a 3 4,17:. 868 .:,.=,,. :.996 3,429 697 ole :.a6 4,245 884 :.997 3. 487 709 832 l90 .. '319 899 :.998 3' 545 721 8-.8 :.94 .... 394 9!.~ :.;99 3,604 732 864 :.97 ... ,.68 g3Q 2COO 3,662 7 i44 880 20:. ... '; .. 2 945 2JO.i ~ 7-· 762 902 2C6 .. ,652 968 j, I, .. 2002 3,840 780 ~-. 2:.:.. ..o,-:'62 --' .,,., '1"'1J. 200 3 3,929 798 944 2:.5 . ~..,.-:..~:; ... '..., ' " 2CC4 ... ,o:.a 816 965 220 ... ~a 3 :. 'c 36 2005 4,107 334 986 225 5 t J9 3 ~ .-··q:""' -f.J..,"1 2006 4,232 859 :.,013 231 5,,~0 :.,:91 2007 .. '358 8t!S 1,041 238 ; '399 :. ':.22 2008 4, .. 84 910 1,068 2~<4 5,55' 1,:.5'+ 2009 4 ,6C9 936 l,096 -c::: ~ 5,705 :.,186 ,;,..,u 2010 -4' ~ 35 961 :.. ':.2 3 250 5,358 -,--·'- 1-18 Table 1-10· Separation of the Anchorage-cook Inlet load into Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula loads in the Clark case (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1984a, .AWlication, Appeooix F). Anenorase Kenai ?eninsula '!yr ::r.erp-.j-.r. :lemar.o-."!w ;:Jeru-.jwn ::; e!!!i!: G -t"1 w 1983 ~.974 399 348 70 1984 2,076 419 366 74 1985 2,:..77 14 39 384 78 1986 2,259 457 399 81 1987 2, 342 ~74 4~3 84 1988 2,4214 492 428 87 :.989 2,507 509 '442 .90 1990 2,588 526 457 13 :.991 2,544 538 '467 95 1992 2,700 549 476 97 199 3 2, 754 560 486 99 1994 2,810 57l 496 lC1 :.995 2,865 583 506 :o 3 :.996 2,;15 592 514 :as :997 2,364 603 523 :.o6 1998 3,013 613 532 108 :.999 3,063 622 541 ::a 2000 3,l.l3 632 549 --~ 2001 3,:.88 648 563 :.:~ 2002 3,264 563 . .,, :,o 200 3 3, 340 678 589 :.20 2004 3,415 694 60 3 :22 2005 3,491 709 610 :.zs 2006 3,597 730 , -= o.:.., :.29 752 :s .. . --2007 3, 704 .. -~~ 2008 3, 31:.. 774 ... -:! ::li., :. 37 2009 3,918 796 5.;~ :JC 20l0 ... ns a:; -:-:.J :.·~ l-19 Table 1-11. Fuel price projections in the Clark case, in 1983 dollars per 1 million Btu (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1983, Exhibit D). Natural Diesel Turbine Beluga Nenana Year Gas 1/ Oil Oil Coal Coal 1983 2.17 6.87 6.23 1.86 1.72 1984 2.57 6.55 5.94 1.89 1.74 1985 2.46 6.25 5.66 1.92 1.77 1986 2.81 6.25 5.66 1.95 1.83 1987 2.81 6.25 5.66 1.98 1.83 1988 2.89 6.25 5.66 2.01 1.92 1989 2.96 6.4 3 5.8 3 2.05 1.97 1990 3.04 6. 6 3 6.01 2.08 2.02 1991 3.13 6.83 6.19 2.11 2.07 1992 3.21 7 .o 3 6-38 2.15 2.11 1993 3.30 7.24 6.57 2.18 2.17 1994 3. 39 7.46 6.76 2.21 2.22 1995 3.48 7.68 6.97 2.25 2.27 1996 3.57 7.91 7.18 2.29 2. 32 1997 3.67 8.15 7.39 2.32 2.38 1998 3.77 8. 39 7.61 2.36 2.43 1999 3.88 8.64 7.84 2.40 2.48 2000 3-99 8.91 8.08 2.44 2.55 2001 4.10 9.18 8.32 2.48 2.60 2002 4.21 9.45 8.57 2.51 2.66 2003 4.33 9. 74 8.83 2.55 2. 73 2004 4.45 10.03 9.09 2.60 2.79 2005 4.57 10.32 9.36 2.64 2.85 2006 4. 70 10.63 9.64 2.68 2.9 3 2007 4.83 10.95 9.9 3 2. 72 2.99 2008 4.97 11.28 10.23 2.77 3.06 2009 5.11 11.62 10.54 2.81 3.14 2010 5.25 11.97 10.85 2.86 3.21 2011 5.38 12.26 11.31 2.90 3.28 2012 5.50 12.57 11.40 2.95 3-35 2013 5.6 3 12.88 11.69 2.99 3.4 3 2014 5. 77 13.21 11.98 3.04 3.51 2015 5.90 13.54 12.28 3.09 3.58 2016 6.04 13.88 12.59 3.14 3.66 2017 6.19 14.22 12.90 3.19 3. 75 2018 6.34 14.58 13.23 3.24 3-83 2019 6.49 14.94 13.56 3.29 3.91 2020 6.64 15.32 13.89 3-35 4.00 );/ Includes 30 cents/1 million Btu for pipeline transportation cost. l-20 Table 1-11. (concluded). Fuel price projections in the Clark case, in 1983 dollars per 1 million Btu (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1983, Exhibit C'). Natural Diesel Turbine Beluga Nenana ~ear Gas 1/ Oil Oil Coal Coal 2021 6.74 15.55 14.10 3.40 4.09 2022 6.8 3 15.78 14. 31 3.45 4.18 2023 6.9 3 16.02 14.53 3.51 4.28 2024 7 .o 3 16.26 14.75 3-57 4. 37 2025 7.13 16.50 14.97 3.62 4.47 2026 7.23 16.75 15.19 3.68 4.57 2027 7.34 17.00 15.42 3.74 4.67 2028 7.44 17.25 15.65 3.80 4.77 2029 7.55 17.51 15.89 3.86 4.88 2030 7.66 17.78 16.13 3-92 4.99 2031 7. 7 3 17.95 16.29 3.98 5.10 2032 7.81 18.13 16.45 4.05 5.21 2033 7.88 18.31 16.61 4.11 5.33 2034 7.96 18.50 16.78 4.18 5.45 2035 8.0 3 18.68 16.95 4.25 5.57 2036 8.11 18.87 17.12 4. 31 5.70 2037 8.19 19.06 17.29 4.38 5.82 y Includes 30 cents/1 million Btu for pipeline transportation cost. 1-21 The Applicant checked the sensitivity of load and fuel price variations on the economics of the Bradley Lake Project by studying a Railbelt no-growth case, assuming that the 1983 load remained constant for the duration of the study and that the fuel price projections were the same as in the reference case. In further sensitivity analyses, the Applicant considered Railbelt load growth and fossil fuel price projections that correspond to a DOR 50-percent case (Alaska Power Authority, 1983). The load growth and fossil fuel projections for the DOR 50- percent case for the years from 1983 to 2010 are shown in Tables 1-12 and 1-13. These tables show the following: the Railbelt load grows at an average annual compound rate of about 2.3 percent: the real coal price remains constant: the real turbine oil price decreases by about 25 percent between 1983 and 2000 and then remains constant: and the real natural gas price decreases by about 11 percent between 1983 and 2000 and then remains constant. FERC Load Project~ons In the FERC staff review of the Susitna license application (Alaska Power Authority, 1983), Staff evaluated the various possi- bilities for future oil prices and identified the following mid-range projection shown in 1983 dollars: Year Oil price ($/barrel) ($/metric ton) 1983 29 213 1985 24 176 1990 1995 20 22 14 7 162 2000 2(110 24 29 176 213 The range of Staff's projects are shown in Figure 1-3. Var~ous forecasts of others are shown in Figure 1-4. The Staff projection is based on an assumption that the strength of economic forces now acting in the direction of reduc- ing oil prices (fuel switching, conservation, and the growth of non-OPEC oil production) will continue through the 1980s to exceed the strength of economic forces tending to increase oil prices (renewed world economic growth). Oil price projections from the DOR, the Clark case, and the Department of Energy's (DOE} Northwest Energy Policy Project (NEPP} are Shown in Figure 1-4. The Clark and DOE projections are all postulated on an assumption that the combination of economic forces will cause a sufficient growth in demand for oil to allow OPEC to increase its output, and hence maintain its market power. l-22 Table 1-12. Railbelt peak demand and energy, net, in the Alaska Department of Revenue 50-percent case (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Appendix F). Peak Demand ll F;%? ll' ];_/ '!ear MW Chan•• 3/ l983 580 5. 34 2,808 l984 611 4.91 2,956 l985 641 3.l2 3,104 l986 661 3.l8 3,l98 l987 682 2.93 3,292 l988 702 2.99 3,385 l989 723 2.77 3,479 l990 743 l.35 3,573 l991 753 l.33 3,620 l992 763 l.l8 3,667 l993 772 l.30 3. 714 l994 782 l.28 3. 761 l995 792 1.64 3,808 l996 805 l.61 3,871 l997 818 l.59 3,935 l998 831 l.56 3,998 l999 844 l.54 4,062 2000 857 2.lo 4,l25 2001 875 2.06 4,211 2002 893 l.90 4,297 2003 910 l.98 4,384 2004 928 l.94 4,470 2005 946 2.64 4,556 2006 971 2.57 4,676 2007 996 2.4l 4,796 2008 1,020 2.45 4,9l6 2009 l,045 2. 39 5,036 2010 1,070 5,l56 11 Average annual compound growth rate: 2.3 percent. 2/ Average load factor: 55 percent. 11 Percent change from current to following year. 1 1-23 Table 1-13. Fuel price projections in the Alaska Department of Revenue SO-percent case, in 1983 dollars per 1 million Btu (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Appendix F). Natural Turbine Year Cias 1/ Oil Coal 1983 2.77 6.23 1.80 1984 2.60 5.8o 1.80 1985 2.43 5. 37 1.80 1986 2.47 5. 30 1.80 1987 2.51 5.23 1.80 1988 2.54 5.16 1.80 1989 2.58 5.09 1.80 1990 2.62 5.02 1.80 1991 2.60 4.98 1.80 1992 2.58 4.95 1.80 1993 2.57 4.91 1.80 1994 2.55 4.88 1.80 1995 2.53 4.84 1.80 1996 2.52 4.81 1.80 1997 2.50 4.17 1.80 1998 2.49 4.74 1.80 1999 :!:.1 2.47 4.70 1.80 2000 2.46 4.67 1.80 11 Includes 30 cents per 1 million Btu for pipeline transportation cost. 2/ All fuel prices remain constant after the year 2000. .-l ~ ~ Ul ~ .-l .s M co 0'1 .-l I ~ ·rl ti .-l ·rl 0 100 1970 1970 l-24 ,, ~~·,, ..... ~,, ,, /' ,, Possible Supply Disruption ,, \ #, • _,#' .. -#-•• -~# ,, --- \ -----------------------Mlnt,u, ' ------------I -------\" ----1 ---Competitive Pricing Potential Possible Decline Due to v......-(price collapse) Photovoltllcs, Fusion, etc. 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Figure 1-3. Projected world oil prices (Source: Staff). (1) ,12) _,. ./ .~ ./ ./ .~ ,(3) .;'.~ ,~ •• (4) /. ~ .. ~ ... , ~··· ' : ~/_.-..-(5) "4':~ __ , ... ,~-·-..... ·--. .. ._. ~--··-··-··-(8) ---(7) 1/ 1. DOENEP~ Scelllflo C 2. Shlrmln H. Cllrk Auoclltii.S1pply Dllruptlon 3. DOENEPP-83 Sctllrlo A (llw Clll) 4. Sherman H. Cllrk Aaaoclatiii·Nt Supply Disruption 5. Alllkl Department of RMn•·MIII 8. Alllkl Dtpartallnt of RMnUI· 50% 7. Alllkl Department of RM-·30% 1/ The Department of -Energy's Northwest Energy Policy Project. Figure 1-4• Price of oil under various forecasts (Source: Staff). l i p M m 0 t n r 1 T t t a m F1 f< D ( : Gc n 81 Cc n Bt sc ec 1-25 If oil prices decline, then the magnitude of fuel switching and conservation should diminish, less exploration and development should occur in non-OPEC countries, and the world's economic growth should be stimulated. In short, a reduction in oil prices will reduce the magnitude of forces tending to further reduce oil prices and will increase the magnitude of forces tending to cause prices to rise. As a consequence, even if oil prices decline in the near term, they eventually will start to rise again. Almost all analysts project increasing prices after about a decade or less. Conversely, if oil prices rise, then the economic forces tending to cause oil prices to fall will be strengthened, whereas the degree of the world's economic recovery will tend to be reduced. Using world oil price forecasts, Staff made a series of load projections to forecast state petroleum revenues for use in the MAP model and to define end-user fuel ~rices for input into RED model. The resulting load projections for medium and high world oil price assumptions are shown in Tables 1-14 and 1-15. No projections consistent with the low world oil price trajectory could be generated. The state economic model compo- nent of MAP was unable to compute a solution, given the drastic reductions in state revenues implied by the low oil price in 1985. This should not be viewed as a failure of the MAP model. The result is indicative of the very serious economic problems that the world, and Alaska in particular, are likely to face if the price of oil collapses to a range of $10 a barrel. A graph comparing FERC staff's projections of electric demand and the Applicant's projections is shown in Figure 1-5. Staff's midrange projections of fuel costs related to the midrange load forecast are shown below. Fuel forecast 1983 1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Diesel oil 41 36 32 34 36 41 49 57 67 ($/barrel) Gas 2.77 2.47 2.23 2.70 2.83 3.13 3.55 4.02 4.62 ($/1 million Btu) Coal 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 l • 60 l . 60 l . 60 1 • 60 ($/1 million Btu) Staff, in addition to making changes in world oil price scenarios, attempted to alter the MAP model in order to improve the economic consistency of what appears to be a sophisticated fore- ALA~KA RESOURCES LIRRt :." ' U.S. DEPT. OF INTErTn-~·''"·' 1--26 Table 1-14. Railbelt load forecast, FERC staff medium world oil price scenario, 1983-2022 (Source: Staff). Peak t... '"'::: ··-· : ~-'"1~--:: Year (.3~h) (~1\o/) 1983 2 .8(12 579 1985 3.094 639 1990 3.4/4 722 1995 1 -,....o -'. /Ov 788 2000 4.168 866 2005 4,623 960 2010 5.234 1.086 2020 6.424 1. 332 2022 6.693 1.388 Table 1-15. Railbelt load forecast, FERC staff, high world oil price scenario, 1983-2022 (Source: Staff). Peak Engrqy Demand Year (GWh) (~1\o/) 1983 2,814 581 1985 3' 116 6.14 1990 3,567 742 1995 3,927 81i 2000 4,447 925 2005 4,793 996 2010 5,371 1,115 2020 6,591 1,367 2022 6,866 1,424 (/] ,., 1-27 6000 5500 5000 APA reference DOR mean FERC high FERC medium DOR 30% ] 4500 .1-J .1-J ; co bO ·~ (.!) 4000 3500 3000 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year a Figure 1-5. FERC staff load projections and selected Alaska R:>wer Authority (APA) load projections for 19A3-2010 (including the Clark, Alaska Department of Revenue mean, FEOC high, FERC medium, and Alaska Department of Revenue 3D-percent cases). [Source: Staff]. 1-28 casting tool. Where the specification of an equation could be altered to add economic content, as well as to improve both the statistical fit and the significance of coefficients in the equa- tion, then such a modification was made. In those instances where an equation was successfully altered, however, it was found that substitution of the new equation into the model caused the system to become unstable. This is not an unreasonable circumstance, given a model with the complexity of the MAP system. For this reason, Staff has judged that the forecasting models employed by the Applicant could not be improved upon in a reasonable time, and the models, unchanged, were used to generate Staff's Railbelt forecasts. 1.2.5 Load Resource Comparisons 1.2.5.1 Comparison Based on Applicant's Load Projection The Applicant's power requirement projections for the Railbelt are shown in Table 1-9, and a load resource comparison for the Railbelt, based on the Applicant's projection of power requirements and on current retirement schedules for existing resources, is shown in Table 1-16. The comparison in Table 1-16 indicates a need for the Bradley Lake Project or some other resource in 1988, assuming the installation of a 30-MW combustion turbine at Soldotna, scheduled for 1985, and the construction of a 7-MW hydro project at Grant Lake by 1988. The comparison also shows that the Bradley Lake Project can be fully absorbed by the Railbelt prior to the proposed operation of the Susitna Project in 1993. 1.2.5.2 Comparison Based on FERC staff Load Projections A load resource forecast based on FERC staff power requirement projections is shown in Table 1-17. Staff's loads forecast also indicates the need for additional generating resources in the 1988-1989 period and that the Bradley Lake Project could be fully absorbed by the Railbelt prior to the proposed installation of Susitna in 1993. 1.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT The Corps, in a Final Environmental Impact Statement {FEIS) for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project {1982), evaluated reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. 1 i ! . l i l ,j 1 I ' l 1 1 1-29 Table 1-16. Railbel t load resource can pari son in tffi Clark case ( f:burce: 1988 1989 1990 Existing capability~ 1982 (MW) 1128 1128 1128 Cumulative retirements~ ( K'J) 175 175 193 Available capacity ( MW) 953 953 935 Power demand V ( MW) 779 810 839 Reserve requirementV (MW) 243 243 252 Capacity requirement (MW) 1013 1053 1091 capacity surplus (deficit) ( 60) ( 100) ( 156) Planned capacity addition~ 37 37 37 Capacity surplus (deficit) (23) (63) ( 119) ..!/ capacity@ 0°F based on Alaska R:>wer Authority, 1984a. y letirement data fran Alaska R:>wer Authority, 1984a. '}/ Clark case projections, including 8 percent for losses. 1991 1128 212 916 859 258 1117 ( 201) 37 ( 164) Staff). 1992 1128 280 848 879 284 1143 ( 295) 37 (258) !/ Based on 30-percent reserve requirement assumed by Stone and W:!bster following discussions with Railbelt utilities (Alaska POwer Authority, 1984b, Application, Appeoo ix F) • 5/ 30-MW combustion turbine scheduled for installation by the winter of 1985, 7-MW hydro project at Grant Lake bein;J considered for 1988 by tffi Alaska Power Authority. 1-30 Table 1-17. Railbel t load reoource canparison in tre FERC staff rnidran;Je forecast (Source: Staff) • 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Existing capability~ 1982 (MW) 1128 1128 1128 1128 1128 CUmulative retirements~ (MW) 175 175 193 212 280 Available capacity ( M\1) 953 953 935 916 848 Power demand Y ( MW) 750 768 787 801 815 Reserve requirementV (MW) 225 230 236 240 244 Capacity requirement (MW) 975 998 1023 1041 1059 capacity surplus-(deficit) (22) (45) ( 88) ( 125) (211) Planned capacity addition_s; 37 37 37 37 37 Capacity surplus-(deficit) 15 (8) (51) (88) ( 174) y capacity @ 0°F based on Alaska Power Authority, l984a. y Eetirernent data fran Alaska Power Authority, l984a. y FERC staff projections, including 9 percent for losses. Y Based on 30-percent reserve requirement ass\.lnoo by Stone and \ti>ster following discussions with Railbelt utilities (Alaska Power Authority, l984b, Application, ~mix F.) ?I 30-MW ocmbustion turbine screctuloo for installation by the winter of 1985, 7-M\1 hydro project at Grant Iake bein;J consideroo for 1988 by tre Alaska R:>wer Authority. l-31 1.3.1 Alternative Project Design 1.3.1.1 Alternative Dam Type The Applicant performed detailed engineering studies and cost estimates for a concrete gravity dam and a concrete-faced rockfill dam. Both types were found acceptable from an engineering viewpoint, which included earthquake-loading considerations. Geologic condi- tions existing at the dam site showed that acceptable foundations and abutments could be developed and that seepage under the dam could be limited. The cost estimates for the two types of dams showed that the concrete-faced rockfill dam is more economical. Other factors favoring the rockfill dam are: readily available quarried material adjacent to the dam; smaller concrete quantities reducing the material borrowed from the Martin River Delta; use of the low cost overflow spillway at the right abutment; and the opportunity to develop a low-level intake channel as part of the quarrying operation. 1.3.1.2 Alternative Reservoir Level Reservoir operating levels were determined on the basis of economic studies, technical considerations, and environmental considerations. Benefits were assumed to consist only of the project's capability for producing additional average annual energy. The costs associated with providing the increased benefits reflect larger dams and higher spillways, increased power tunnel intake excavation quantities, and additional reservoir clearing. Three alternative maximum operating lake levels were studied: 1,170 feet mean sea level (msl), 1,180 feet msl, and 1,190 feet msl. Lake levels above 1,190 feet msl were not studied because of potential detrimental environmental impacts on wildlife migration patterns, possible encroachment of the downstream toe of the main dam in the riverbed, and possible interference and difficulty of construction of the intake, cofferdam, and main, concrete-faced rockfill dam toe slab. Elevation 1,180 feet msl was found to provide the maximum incre- mental net benefits. Pool elevations above 1,180 feet msl were found to require dam sizes that would encroach on the riverbed area to such an extent that construction of the various facilities would be diffi- cult. 1.3.1.3 Alternative Barge Landing Facilities The Applicant, in reevaluation studies of the Bradley Lake Project in October 1983, reviewed the Corps' preferred barge site at the south side of Sheep Point, and found the limited accessi- bility too restrictive and unacceptable. A delay in the delivery 1-32 of material or equipment could delay the project construction. The Applicant therefore would require an access channel and barge basin that would provide better accessibility during high tides. The Applicant's recommended access channel and barge basin facili- ties are designed to accommodate a barge 250 feet long by 76 feet beam by 10 feet draft and a design tug size ot 90 feet long by 30 feet beam by 10 feet draft. A channel having a bottom width of 200 feet at invert elevation of minus 14 feet and a length of about 5,840 feet would connect to a barge basin approximately 350 feet wide by 500 feet 1 ong. 1.3.1.4 Alternative Transmission Facilities The 115-kV project transmission lines will extend from a switchyard located north of the proposed powerhouse to compatible powerlines scheduled for construction by the Homer Electric Association. Overhead transmission lines and partially buried transmission lines were considered as alternatives, with an over- head line for the entire alignment being the recommended alterna- tive. Each of the three alignments follow essentially the same route near the powerhouse, but would cross the Fox River Valley over three different routes (Figure 1-6). All three alignments are technically feasible and would be of similar cost. The chief difference in the alignments is in land ownership and in infringe- ment on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. There is no private ownership of land in the preferred alignment, and other land use considerations along this route appear to be acceptable. 1 • 3. 2 Other Hydroelectric Alternatives The FERC staff concurs with the Corps' procedure and evaluation of other hydroelectric alternatives. 1.3.3 Nonhydrolectric Generation The FERC staff concurs with the Corps' procedure and evaluation of nonhydroelectric generation including nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, wood thermal energy, and energy transfer. 1.3.3.1 Feasible Alternative Forms of Generation The nonhydroelectric technologies evaluated by Staff as alternatives to the Bradley Lake Project was a combustion-turbine operation, a combined-cycle operation (a combustion-turbine topping cycle with a steam-turbine bottoming cycle), and a coal-fired steam operation. Staff considers combustion turbines a reasonable alter- native to hydro generation, because historically, combustion-turbine plants in the Railbelt have been operated at high capacity. Since a combined-cycle unit using the same fuel can be constructed with moderately increased investment costs and can be operated at a considerable lower heat rate, however, the combined-cycle unit is a t I I I r-----+ALTERNATIVE I JUNCTION I L-----.. I ', I I I I I PROPOSED NEW ! HOMER ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION-. TRANSMISSION LINE I .... ~ Ul Ul fi~ ~~ a:: I- ""X! J:!i l ' ' ' ' FOX RIVER VALLEY Figure 1-6. Alternative transmission line alignments (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit B). 1-34 better alternative than the combustion turbine. A coal-fired, steam-electric plant is also a reasonable alternative, but because of a 6-year construction period, a coal plant could not be brought on line before 1990-1991. This would be particularly true for a steam-electric plant that might be located at the month of a currently nonexisting coal mine in the Beluga area. Staff has evaluated the economic feasibility of installing combustion turbines to meet load until a coal plant could be placed in operation in the Nenana area of the Railbelt. It was assumed that production of coal from the Nenana coal fields could be expanded within the time needed to construct the steam- electric plant. The alternative was examined to define the effect on total cost of two fuel-cost variations with time, the variations of gas in the combined cycle and coal in the steam plant. 1.3.4 Nongenerating Alternatives Nongenerating alternatives are being emphasized in many states because of the high capital cost associated with the construction of new generation and the resulting need for rate increases. The most important nongenerating alternatives are conservation, rate revision, and load management. In an effort to advance these alternatives, the Congress has passed three related acts, the National Energy Conservation Act of 1978, the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners is conducting a separate study on the effects of rate revision and load management. 1.3.4.1 Effects of Conservation On Demand Conservation of electric energy can reduce load growth, thereby forestalling construction of new generating facilities. To date, most conservation measures have been voluntary, and have been encouraged through public education, utility financing arrangements, or Federal programs. These measures include installing insulation, encouraging the use of major appliances during off-peak hours, lowering the thermostat setting of heating units, and raising the thermostat setting on air conditioning units. Conservation could also be encouraged by revised building codes or by providing tax incentives or low-cost Federal loans for insulating residential and commercial establishments, for designing and constructing energy- efficient homes and offices, and for manufacturing energy-efficient equipment. There are three principal types of conservation programs that play a part in the current energy scenario of the Railbelt. These program categories are: the state Residential Energy Conservation Program: the Municipality of Anchorage Low-Income Weatherization Program: and various conservation assistance programs sponsored by Railbelt utilities. 1-35 The state-sponsored program has undertaken the following: the training of energy auditors; the performance of residential energy audits, entailing the physical inspection of the premises; the provision of grants and loans for conservation improvements recommended by the audit; and the provision of retrofitted insu- lation and weatherization for qualifying low-income households. The Municipality of Anchorage program provides grants of up to $1,600 for energy conservation materials and repairs. The utility- sponsored conservation programs, at least so far as they address residential consumers, can best be described as educationally oriented. The bulk of this activity appears to be distributing brochures, making presentation to groups, and counselinq customers regarding conservation techniques. Most assessments of these con- servation programs (including the assessments of the sponsoring organizations) indicate modest impacts, particularly in the Anchorage area. The trend appears to be toward curtailment rather than expansion of most of these efforts. Experience in other states suggests that consumer conservation measures are generally undertaken when electric rates become burdensome and when the savings available from specific measures are well identified. Utilities have measured the extent of conservation efforts on system load. These measurements are used on input data to the RED model, in addition to forecasts of additional conservation efforts. Thus the load forecast for the Railbelt region includes conservation effects. 1.3.4.2 Effects of Rate Revision on Demand Restructured or redesigned electric tariffs, developed to reduce electric energy consumption during peak hours, need to accurately represent the incremental cost of producing the electric power. The cost in terms of economic resources to produce a unit of electricity for the supply of utility system loads changes continu- ously. Cost depends on the system load, which is constantly varying in hourly, daily, weekly, and seasonal cycles, and on the availa- bility and efficiency of generation capacity, which often varies in a 12-month cycle. In theory, seasonal rates designed to account for the average seasonal difference in the cost of producing energy might be used; or if the cost of implementing them can be justified, time-of-day rates--rates that reflect the marginal cost of producing energy, a cost that fluctuates with each chanqe in system load-- could be used. While the economic theory of rate revision is basically sound, its implementation presents a variety of practical problems. Electric energy use appears to be responsive to price in the long run, but is limited in response during shorter periods. For example, 1-36 most consumers of electricity have a significant investment in electrical equipment. For these consumers, operating existing equipment at high electric costs may be less expensive than investing in more efficient equipment that would operate at a relatively lower cost. In this situation, the implementation of increased rates has the potential to penalize the consumer while achieving little or no reduction in energy consumption. 1.3.5 Economic Comparison of Alternative Forms of Generation The proposed Bradley Lake Project would have a firm annual energy capability of 334 GWh and a dependable capacity of 65 MW. The dependable capacity was determined by loading the firm energy into the peak week-hourly load curve (Figure 1-7) for the Railbelt region. The 65 MW of dependable capacity would be available for an average of 14 hours per day, based on the December peak-week load. According to the Applicant's life-cycle cost analysis, using load growth and fuel costs equivalent to the Clark case projections and a 3.5 percent real discount rate, the project is economically feasible by a considerable margin. The Applicant's detailed system expansion analysis shows that significant benefits would accrue to the Kenai Peninsula, and to the Railbelt area as a whole, through the additional reserve sharing and economic energy interchange possible between the Anchorage area and the Kenai Peninsula with Bradley Lake in operation. The detailed system-expansion study aryd the related Kenai Peninsula transmission system analysis also show that without the Bradley Lake Project, the most economical plan to serve the Kenai Peninsula would be to construct a new transmission line between the Anchorage area and the Kenai Peninsula. With Bradley Lake constructed at 90 MW, the existing transmission intertie is ade- quate, and the new transmission line between the Anchorage area and the Kenai Peninsula is not needed through the analysis period. The Bradley Lake Project would be used to displace thermal generation in the Railbelt area. Reasonable alternative methods of providing the Bradley Lake generation, identified in Section 1.3.2, were gas-fired, combined-cycle generation and coal-fired, steam- electric generation. Staff evaluated the economic feasibility of the project and of these alternatives, using 50-year, present worth values and the real discount rate. various values were assumed for the real discount rate. The parameters used for the economic analysis are listed in Tables 1-18 and 1-19. Construction of the coal alternative would require an estimated 6 years. Since a coal alternative would not be available to meet the region's capacity demand in 1988 and 1989, the cost of constructing and operating a gas turbine was included to meet the deficit while the coal plant is under construction. 0 Cl <( g ~ ~ (/) >-(/) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 HOURS 1"77;1 Energy generation of the ~ Bradley Lake ProjeCt 120 140 160 180 Figure 1-7. A peak-week load curve for the Railbelt region, showinq the ~cent>er peak-week load (Source: Staff-generated load pattern, based on data from Alaska POwer Authority, 1983). 1-38 Table 1-18. Paraneters for thennal alternatives (S::>Urce: Staff). Combined cycle Coal plant Gas turbine Capital Cost y in $/kW @ 3% real discount rate 1180 2,593 681 @ 4.5% real disoount rate 1202 2, 710 686 @ 6% real discount rate 1220 2,827 692 Fixerl Operation and Maintenance (O&M) in $/kW yr 7.76 18.01 2. 89 Variable 0 & M in $/kW yr 1.81 0.64 5.18 Construction pericd in 2 6 1 years H:xlt rate in Btu/kW'l 8,000 10,000 12,200 .!I All oost is in 1983 dollars and includes interest during construction. Table 1-19. Parameters and values for the Bradley lake Project (Source: Staff). Parameters Installed capacity Average annual generation I:Ependable capacity y IE:p2ndable energy Capital oost 2/ in $ /kW @ 3% real discount rate @ 4.5% real disoount rate @ 6% real discount rate Operation and Maintenance (O&M) y in $/kW yr Construction pericd in years .!/ Staff estimate. Values 90 MW 369.2 GWh 65 MW 334.1 G'b 3,352 3,456 3,560 13.91 3 ~ All oost is in 1983 dollars and includes interest during oonstruction. y Includes QiM for transmission line to proJ:nsed lbner Electric Line. 1-39 The results of the Staff analysis, plotted in Figure 1-8, show that the proposed Bradley Lake Project is more economical than the least-cost, nonhydroelectric-generation alternative at real discount rates less than 5.6 percent. II) c: .2 ·-:::E -.5 .c .. .. j .. c: • II) ! Q. ... ii: w z w Ill ... w z 1-40 125 100 71 50 21 0 -21 -10~----~----~----~----~----~--~~---- 2 • 7 REAL DISCOUNT RATE 1% I Legend /i COMIUIU CYCU AU X COAL PUNT ALT Figure 1-8. A comparison of 1983 present worth of total, 47-year, net benefit of the Bradley Lake Project over the nonhydroelectric generation alternatives, at various discount rates (Source: Staff). 2-1 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT--APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL 2 .1.1 Location The proposed Bradley Lake Project would be located on the Bradley River in Kenai Peninsula Borough, largely on lands of the United States administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM}. The Applicant's proposal is nearly identical in location to a proposal by the Corps. Both proposals include the construction of a dam to raise the level of the existing Bradley Lake. 2.1.2 Proposed Facilities An overview of the proposed project is provided in Figure 2-1; the design of the proposed dam is shown in Figure 2-2. 2.1.2.1 Glacier Diversion, Dams, and Reservoir The proposed project would include the diversion of outflow from the Nuka Glacier, the construction of a diversion dam on the Middle Fork of Bradley River, and the construction of a darn at Bradley Lake. The Nuka Glacier diversion would consist of a rock cut at the natural outlet of the Nuka Glacier pool into the upper Bradley River, the construction of a dike in the outlet into the upper Nuka River, and the widening of the upper Bradley River channel immediately downstream of the outlet (Figure 2-3}. Construction on the Middle Fork of the Bradley River would consist of a 20-foot-high diversion darn, with a spillway crest elevation of 2,204 feet 1/, which would divert flows through a 6-foot-diarneter underground pipe to Marmot Creek, a tributary of Bradley Lake. The darn at Bradley Lake would be a 125-foot-high, concrete-faced, rock- fill darn, with a crest elevation of 1,190 feet at the outlet of Bradley Lake, and with an ungated, ogee spillway, at a crest eleva- tion of 1,180 feet, located on a saddle feature 150 feet east of the darn. Operation of the proposed darn would raise Bradley Lake 100 feet, giving the reservoir a surface area of 3,820 acres and a usable storage capacity of 315,500 acre-feet at a maximum operating water surface elevation of 1,180 feet. These features of the Applicant's proposal differ from the Corps' proposal in that the Corps had proposed a concrete gravity darn with an integral spillway and a reservoir elevation that would be 14 feet lower than that proposed by the Applicant. !/ All elevations refer to the Applicant's Project Datum. Mean Sea Level Datum equals Project Datum plus 4.02 feet. Figure 2-1. General plan of the proposed Bradley Lake Project (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit F). N ' N 2-3 BRADLEY LAKE MAXIMUM OPERATING WS EL 118() MJ:.UMVM ()PE>;I.G.TING \\: S EL 1080 ~lOT[ U~'YATIOf:::, S4QN~• A~ HASED ON P~ . ..ECT DATL;r~ ~_.E.A"J SE.A LEVEL I)ATUM•PRU-ECT OA-LJN' PU.;S 4.~2 n Figure 2-2. Proposed Bradley Lake dam, spillway, and flow structures (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit F). Figure 2-3. Proposed diversion dike and outlet weir at the base of the Nuka Glacier (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). N I .p- 2-5 2.1.2.2. Power Conduit The Applicant's proposed 11-foot-diameter, concrete-lined, underground power tunnel consists of a 950-foot-long horizontal section with dual gates near the downstream end, an 810-foot-long inclined section, and a 16,850-foot-lonq main section, with steel lining on the downstream 2,400 feet. This design would eliminate the need for the surge tank, its access road, and 2,710 feet of surface penstock as proposed by the Corps. 2.1.2.3 Powerhouse The proposed 138-foot-long, 66-foot-wide, 112-foot-high, steel and reinforced-concrete powerhouse would contain two Pelton 45-MW generating units, with provisions for one additional 45-MW unit. The use of Pelton rather than Francis units, as proposed by the Corps, would result in 17 vertical feet less of rock excavation. The Corps had proposed a full 135-MW capacity. 2.1.2.4 Tailrace The tailrace channel would be dug from the tidal flats of the Bradley River-Sheep Creek estuary to an elevation of -6.0 feet, with a bottom width of 67 feet, in order to allow free discharges of generating flows into the tidal flats and into Kackemak Bay. 2.1.2.5 Transmission Facilities Project transmission facilities would consist of a substation, adiacent to the powerhouse, and two parallel, 20-mile-lonq, 115-kV lines from the substation to a proposed Homer Electric Association line between Fritz Creek and Soldotna. The proposed alignment is discussed in Section 1.3.1.4 (Figure 1-6). 2.1.2.6 Access Facilities Access facilities would include a barge channel from Kachemak Bay, a barge basin and ramp, an airstrip, and project roads connecting the airstrip, the powerhouse, the lower and upper construction camps, and the dam (Figure 2-1). The baroe channel would be 200 feet wide and 1.5 miles long; the airstrip would be 2,200 feet lonq; and the access roads, which would total about 10 miles in length, would consist of two 12-foot-wide lanes in high traffic areas and one 12-foot-wide lane in lower traffic areas. 2.1.2.7 Recreational Facilities Recreational facilities would include six camp sites, three near the barqe dock and three near Bradley Lake. All the camp sites would have tent pads, picnic tables, and benches, and the three camp sites near the barge dock would have fire pits. There would be two pit latrines, one for each group of camp sites. These 2-6 facilities would be developed in coordination with the Alaska State Division of Parks. The barge channel and dock would be opened to the public after project construction is complete, and the project roads would be restricted to pedestrian use. 2.1.2.R Land Requirements The project would occupy 6,786 acres of BLM land. Almost 2,000 acres within the proposed project boundary are lands of the State of Alaska. 2.1.2.9 Borrow Areas Gravel or quarried rock would be required for road fill, to build the construction camp and access facilities, for dam construc- tion, and to produce concrete aggregate for the dam and other project structures. The proposed material sources for the project are the Martin River delta and the left dam abutment at Bradley Lake. Material excavated from the powerhouse, the power tunnel, the penstock alignment, and the mountainside portion of the project road to Bradley Lake also would be used in construction, when feasible. A borrow site with acceptable gravel has been identified on the Martin River delta. Another acceptable site, about 3 miles upstream on the Martin River, would yield material of larger diameter. Either site could be developed with no overburden removal. The delta site, which is the proposed site, would require the addition of 2 miles of haul road to the primary project road. The upstream site would require the addition of about 5 miles of haul road to the primary road. Material for rockfill, concrete aggregate, or riprap could be quarried from the rock adjacent to either side of the dam at the same time that the dam and power conduit intake structure are built. The quarry would be suitable as a source of high-quality large rock for riprap, dam, and spillway construction and for concrete aggregate. This source would not be available for the earlier stages of construction. The quarry would disturb a maximum of about 8 acres of rock and alpine tundra. 2.1.2.10 Spoil Disposal Areas Solid wastes from the project construction camp and from project operation would be buried in a 10-acre landfill near the lower construction camp. The landfill would be operated in accor- dance with state standards and normal landfill practices. Disposal sites are shown in Figure 2-1. Excess material from cut-and-fill road construction would be placed in a disposal site near the construction camp and in small areas along the road where the material could be stabilized. 2-7 Material dug from the upper end of the underground power tunnel would be placed in an upland site of about 5 acres near the dam, where it would be covered by the project reservoir. Material excavated from the barge channel, the turning basin, and the powerhouse tailrace would be placed on the upper tidal flats between the hillside and the project road connecting the barge dock and the powerhouse. The Applicant proposes to develop this disposal site for waterfowl nesting habitat. 2.1.3 Construction Schedule Construction of the Bradley Lake Project is expected to require a period of 36 months from the proposed start of the project in December 1985 to its completion in December 1988. The principal activities planned during the construction period are shown in Figure 2-4. 2.1.4 Work-force Requirements A projection of construction personnel requirements is presented in Section 4, Table 4-5. Peak employment for the project would occur in the 17th month of construction, when 406 persons would be working at the site. The average monthly employ- ment over the 33-month construction term would be 242 persons. An additional discussion of work-force requirements is contained in Section 4.1.11.1. 2.1.5 Operation of the Bradley Lake Project The primary function of the Bradley Lake Reservoir would be to regulate streamflow and to provide for carryover storage for producing energy, in a peakinq mode, throughout the year. The normal maximum operating range of the reservoir would be between elevations of 1,080 feet and 1,180 feet. The project would normally would be operated and monitored by remote control. 2.1.6 Safety Control If the proposed project is licensed, the Commission staff would inspect the project, both during and after construction, to ensure the physical safety of the project and the safety of the public, including that of recreational users, and to ensure compli- iance with any special construction and operating requirements of the license. The constructed project normally would be inspected each year by a staff engineer, who would observe the general condi- tion of the project structures, looking particularly for any evidence of leakage or structural deterioration that might affect safety. Warning signs, protective fencing, and upstream and down- stream safety devices would be checked, and suggestions would be -------------------------- ,_ ,_ 1917 ,_ ACTIVITIES J J I A I 5 OINID JIFIM A I Ml J JIA_ls oiN_tD J IF IM A I M LJ J_lAis OINID J I FJM A I M I J J I A Is OINID MOBILIZATION ACCESS ROADS CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT FACILITIES lARGE BASIN & STAGING AREA CAMP FACIUTIES CONSTRUCTION DIVERSION TUNNEL TIJNNEUNG & INTAKE --FINAL PERMANENT OUTLET MAIN DAM COFFERDAM -INTAKE CHANNEL MAIN DAM SPILLWAY POWER TUNNEL TIJNNEL lORING MACHINE MDIIUZATION TIJNNEL EXCAVATION TIJNNEL UNING & GATE INSTALLATION MIDDLE FORK DIVERSION POWERHOUSE POWERHOUSE EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING PENSTOCK TAILRACE & POWERHOUSE INSTALL EQUIPMENT STARTIJP AND TEST c~~c7AL UNIT Z POWERHOUSE SUBSTATION OPERATION TRANSMISSION LINE DEMOBILIZAnON • P'M)JECT~ET E J J I A Is oiNID J IF I M AIM I J J I A Is OINID J I f I M AIMlJ J_tAIS OINID J If I M A I Ml J J IAISIOINIDI ,_ ,_ 1917 ,_ J Figure 2-4. Proposed project construction schedule (Source: Alaska Power Authority, l984b, Application, Exhibit C). N I (X) ~ I 2-9 made for any necessary improvements. In addition, every 5 years, an independent consultant, experienced in the design and construc- tion of hydroelectric projects, would inspect and evaluate the structures. The consultant's report, which would be limited to the safety of the project, would be submitted to the Commission for review. 2.1.7 Compliance with Applicable Laws Prior to construction and operation of the proposed project, the Applicant would review the need for, and would obtain as necessary, the following Federal, state, and local permits and authorization: Federal hydroelectric license Section 404 permit Section 10 permit right-of-way grant and temporary use permits Federal Land Policy and Management Act Section 302 leases, permits, and easements free use permit for gravel National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit prevention of significant deterioration of air quality determination of eligibility for the National Register determination of effect on sites listed on the National Register State Section 401 certification certificate of reasonable assurance Alaska Coastal Management Program certificate of consistency anadromous fish protection permit approval of fishways to mitigate for obstruction to fish passage land use permits material sales water rights permit and certificate of appropriation land lease permit to construct a dam right-of-way for an easement Local Kenai Peninsula Borough permits and reviews 2.1.8 Future Plans The Applicant's proposed project design allows for the future installation of one additional generating unit, should additional capacity be required. 2-10 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS 2.2.1 Natural Gas-fired, Combined-cycle Generation Plant 2.2.1.1 Facilities For the combined-cycle generation alternative, FERC staff assumes that a state-of-the art, 200-MW, gas-fired, baseload, combined-cycle plant would be installed. The assumed combined- cycle plant would include two combustion-turbine generator units; a heat recovery boiler, using the exhaust gases of the combustion turbines to produce superheated steam; and a steam turbine generator. The combined-cycle plant would substantially improve power generation efficiency and would provide operating flexibility. The plant would be able to operate at partial load with one of the gas turbines out of service, and the individual combustion turbines could be operated without the steam cycle. The technical parameters and economic assumptions used for the combined-cycle units are listed in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. Technical parameters and econanic assumptions of the canbined-cycle alternative in 1983 dollars (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Appendix F). Parameters Technical Unit size (MW) Heat rate (Btu/kWh) Planned outages (%) Forced outages (%) Econc:rnic Unit capital cost 1; ($/kW) Operating and maintanence costs Fixed ( $/kW yr) variable (mills/kWh) Economic life (years) Combined c cle 200 8,000 7 8 1,185 7.76 1.81 30 1; Including interest during construction at 0 percent escalation and 3.5 percent interest. ¢2 * 2-11 2.2.1.2 Location The Staff assumes that the combined-cycle unit would be located close to natural gas distribution pipelines in the western Cook Inlet area. 2.2.1.3 Construction Requirements The number of personnel required to build a 200-MW, combined- cycle plant would vary over a 32-month construction period and would peak at about 400 persons in the second year. The services needed to support construction of a combined-cycle plant would include access roads; a complete water supply, storage, and distribution system; power lines, to provide electric power for construction activities; and camp facilities, including sewage treatment facilities, a waste incinerator and garbage compactor, sleeping, recreational, and dining quarters, and an airstrip for the trans- portation of personnel, perishable goods, and medical emergencies. Transmission line connections would be required to tie the combined-cycle plants into existing transmission networks. 2.2.1.4 Operation and Maintenance A combined-cycle unit would require 10 to 15 operating personnel and 19 maintenance personnel. Periodic maintenance would be performed on the combined-cycle plant and equipment under an established maintenance program that would include the complete stripdown and major inspection of the turbines at the intervals required or suggested by the equipment manufacturer. In addition, the maintenance programs would include monitoring the revegetation and erosion-prevention programs begun during the cleanup phase of construction. Major equipment replace- ment or overhaul functions generally would be performed during a plant's annual scheduled outages. The operating and maintenance costs assumed in the Staff's analysis are listed in Table 2-1. 2.2.2 Coal-fired Generation Alternative 2.2.2.1 Alternative Facilities The Staff estimates that a 200-MW coal unit would go into operation in 1991. It would be a conventional state-of-the-art design, equipped with dry, flue-gas, desulfurization scrubbers for the removal of sulfur oxides, baghouse particulate removal, wet-dry, mechanical, draft-cooling towers for heat rejection, and pulverized coal for combustion. The assumed capital cost reflects the state- of-the-art for environmental safeguards and for the ability to meet established performance standards. It is assumed that a 70-MW, ; I! 'If 2-12 combustion-turbine unit would be installed in 1989 to meet load requirements until the coal-fired unit becomes operational in 1991. The combustion-turbine peaking unit would consist of a simple-cycle machine using natural gas fuel. The technical parameters and economic assumptions for capital cost, operating and maintenance costs, and economic life are listed in Table 2-2. 2.2.2.2 Location The Staff assumes that the coal-fired, steam-electric plant would be located in the Nenana area of the Railbelt. Coal delivery to the plant is assumed to be by unit train from the vicinity of the Usibelli Mine in the Nenana coal fields. The combustion turbine is not specifically sited, but would be located in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area. Fuel for the combustion turbine presumably would be available from gas distribution pipelines in the area. 2.2.2.3 Construction Requirements Construction of the steam-electric plant would require about 5 years. The number of construction workers required would vary, but would peak at about 500 by the end of the second year and would drop dramatically near the end of the fourth year. Construction would include access roads: a complete water supply, storage, and distribution system: power lines to provide electric power for construction activities: a railroad spur to provide fuel and equipment transport: construction camp facilities, including sewage treatment facilities, a waste incinerator, and a garbage compactor: sleeping, recreational, and dining quarters: and an airstrip for the transportion of personnel, perishable goods, and medical emergencies. Installation of the combustion-turbine would require from 1 to 2 years. Limited construction activities would be required because the installation consists mostly of prefabricated modules. A work force of about 30 people would be required for the install- ation, and site services would vary with location. 2.2.2.4 Operation and Maintenance The operation and maintenance of a single, 200-MW, coal-fired, steam-electric plant would require an estimated staff of about 100 persons in support of a three-shift, 24-hour-a-day operation. Operation and maintenance of the gas turbine would require about 12 people. The staff would perform periodic maintenance on all steam- electric pipes, valves, rotating machines, heat-sensitive equipment, and other items subject to wear, leaks, corrosion, or other deter- ioration. In addition, the staff would monitor the revegetation and 2-13 Table 2-2. Technical parameters and economic assumptions of a coal- fired generation alternative and a combustion-turbine alternative, in 1983 dollars (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Appendix F). Parameters Technical Unit size (MW) Heat rate (Btu/kWh) Planned outages (%) Forced outages (%) Economic Unit capital cost~/ ($/kW) Operating and Maintenance costs Fixed ($/kW yr) Variable (mills/kWh) Economic life (years) Coal-fired steam 200 10,000 8.0 5.7 2,632 18 •. 01 0.64 30 Combustion turbine 70 12,200 3.2 8.0 683 2.89 5.18 30~/ Including interest during construction at 0 percent escalation and 3.5 percent interest. The Applicant assumes a 30-year retirement in its studies, but a 20-year retirement in its discussion. ,I' ,, 2-14 erosion-prevention programs started during the cleanup phase of construction. In general, major equipment replacement or overhauls would be performed during scheduled outages, and would sometimes involve the temporary assignment of specialized personnel. On the average, scheduled outages require approximately 4 weeks per year for plants ranging in size from 100 MW to 300 MW, corresponding to a scheduled outage rate of 8 percent. The operating and maintenance costs assumed in the economic analysis are listed in Table 2-2. 2.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The Commission's denial of a license to construct, operate, and maintain the Bradley Lake Project, as proposed by the Applicant, would constitute the no-action alternative. This alternative would result in the expanded use of the nonrenewable energy resources of coal and natural gas to meet projected Railbelt electric energy requirements in the late 1980's. In the event that the license is denied, the proposed Bradley Lake Project site would remain in its present state, because no alternative developments at the site are currently planned by the Applicant. 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT 3.1.1 Meteorology 3.1.1.1 Climate 3-1 The climate of the immediate project area is described in Section IV.A. of the Corps' FEIS. In general, the project area is under the influence of maritime weather patterns, characterized by cool summers, moderate winters, and long periods of fog, clouds, and rain. 3.1.1.2 Air Quality Air quality in the project area is excellent, with few pollu- tants present because of the relatively pristine nature of the area surrounding the project site. The nearest community to the site, Horner, with a population of about 3,200 persons (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E), likely has only a minor influence on air quality in the area. 3.1.1.3 Noise No ambient noise measurements have been made in the proposed project area. The area is undeveloped and relatively isolated. 3.1.2 Land Features The proposed Bradley Lake Project would be located in the same setting as that considered for the Corps' proposed project at Bradley Lake. The physiography, topography, geology, and soils of the proposed project area are described and discussed in Subsections IV.A and IV.B of the Corps' FEIS. 3.1.3 Aquatic Environment 3.1.3.1 Water Quantity and Quality Bradley River Basin A description of the seasonal runoff pattern from Bradley Lake and Bradley River and a description of the quality of project waters is contained in Sections IV.A and B and Appendices B and C of the Corps' FEIS. Briefly, the runoff pattern from the Bradley River basin is typical of glacial streams in coastal Alaska, with low flows occurring during the winter months and highest flows occurring during the late summer. About 90 percent of the annual runoff from the basin occurs from May through October. A unique aspect of the runoff from the Bradley River Basin, however, is the contribution 1.1 ,.r . ::1 ,,, I~ t~ 3-2 of flow from the Nuka Glacier, which periodically shifts between the Bradley River and the Nuka River. Before 1971, about 75 percent of the flow from the Nuka Glacier went into the Nuka River; from 1971 to 1983, most of the glacier's flow went into the Bradley River Basin; since 1983, several additional shifts have occurred between the two river basins. The average annual flow at the Bradley Lake outlet, based on historical streamflow records (with the Bradley River receiving only 25 percent of the Nuka Glacier runoff), is 438 cubic feet per second (cfs) [Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit El. Average monthly flows ranqe from 52 cfs in March to 1,170 cfs in August. If it is assumed that all the Nuka Glacier flow is diverted into the Bradley River, as proposed by the Applicant, the average annual flow at the lake outlet is 484 cfs. Limited flow data are available from the North Fork and Middle Fork of the Bradley River, the site of the proposed diversion. Based on 3 years of data from the Middle Fork, the Applicant calcu- lates an annual flow of 51 cfs, with monthly average flows ranging from 4 cfs in March and April to 162 cfs in July and August (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E). The Applicant also estimated the flow available from the North Fork and from the remainder of the unregulated Bradley River Basin, downstream of the proposed Bradley Lake damsite and Middle Fork diversion. An average annual flow of 66 cfs was calculated, with monthly average flows ranging from 24 cfs in March to 174 cfs in June. The estimated mean annual flow at the mouth of Bradley River is 598 cfs • The water quality of Bradley Lake and Bradley River is typical of glacial streams in pristine areas of Alaska. Concentrations of suspended sediments are seasonally high, ranging from 10 milligrams per liter (mg/1) in the winter to over 150 mg/1 during the summer high-flow months. Other water quality parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, organic nutrients~ available nitrogen, phosphorus, and fecal coliform counts, indicate high water quality in the basin and no sources of pollution. Bradley Lake generally remains isothermal r6° to 7° Celsius (C)] during the ice-free months, although occasion- ally the lake exhibits a weak temperature stratification with 8° to 10° C water in the top 20 feet of the water column. During ice cover (November through May), water temperatures range from oo C near the surface to 2 to 2.5° C at lower depths. Nuka River Little information is available on flows or water quality in the Nuka River. The Geological Survey (USGS) attempted to install a stream gage on the river in 1970, but this gage was destroyed by ice within a year. No data were collected, and only occasional spot measurements by USGS are available. It is assumed, however, that the annual runoff pattern of the Nuka River is similar to the Bradley River, since the Nuka River receives glacial runoff from • 3-3 the Nuka glacier, as well as other smaller glaciers. When the Nuka Glacier runoff shifts to the Bradley River Basin, the Applicant has estimated that this results in an average annual reduction in runoff to the Nuka Basin of 158 cfs, ranging from a monthly average of 1.6 cfs in March to 539 cfs in September (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E). Water quality in the Nuka River is probably excellent, similar to that of the Bradley River, since the basin is pristine, with no human habitation or disturbance. Unnamed Pond at Upper Camp Site The 6.9-acre pond located near the proposed upper construc- tion camp site has been investigated by the Applicant as a source of potable water for the camp. The pond receives only precipitation runoff from the surrounding area, and is reported to be of excel- lent quality, suitable for human use with little treatment (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). Battle Creek Battle Creek, which is located near the proposed lower camp site and which would be crossed by the access road to the Martin River borrow sites (Figure 2-1), has a runoff pattern similar to that of the Bradley River, although the creek apparently receives less glacial runoff than the Bradley River. The estimated mean annual flow at the mouth of Battle Creek is 106 cfs, ranging from a monthly average flow of 13.8 cfs in March to 252 cfs in July. Water quality in Battle Creek is excellent, similar to that in Bradley River, except that concentrations of suspended solids are lower, and low levels of fecal coliform bacteria (5 col./100 ml) have been noted (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E) • Martin River The Martin River, located immediately south of Battle Creek, is proposed as the major borrow site for gravel to be used in project construction. The Martin River has a runoff pattern similar to Battle Creek and Bradley River. The estimated mean annual flow is 148 cfs, with monthly average flows ranging from 19.2 cfs in March to 352 cfs in July. Water quality is similar to the Bradley River, except that water temperatures are about 5° C less than the Bradley River in summer and fall, and suspended solid concentrations are higher. Martin River also contains low levels of fecal coliform bacteria (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E). Sheep Creek and Fox River Sheep Creek and Fox River, which would be crossed by the project transmission line, are located to the north of Bradley River (Figure 2-1), and together comprise the largest freshwater 3-4 inflow to upper Kachemak Bay. Both streams have runoff patterns similar to Bradley River, with the lowest flows occurring during March and highest flows occurring in July. The estimated mean annual flow at the mouths of Sheep Creek and Fox River are 1,075 cfs and 496 cfs, respectively. Water quality in both streams is generally good, similar to other streams in the area, except that the Fox River contains relatively high levels of fecal coliform bacteria, at times exceeding the limits considered safe for drink- ing water. The source of this bacteria is likely cattle that graze in the watershed (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E). Kachemak Bay Kachemak Bay (the Bay) is a 30-mile-long arm of Cook Inlet that extends to the northeast of Homer, with the head of the Bay immediately adjacent to the Bradley River. A detailed description of the Bay, its tidal patterns, ice formations, salinities, and important resources are described in Sections IV.A and B and Appendices B and C of the Corps' FEIS. Briefly, the Bay in the vicinity of the project area is characterized by extensive mudflats at low tide, with an average daily tidal range of about 11 feet (measured at Seldovia near the mouth of the Bay). During the summer months, the upper Bay receives a strong freshwater inflow from the Bradley River and other nearby streams. This freshwater inflow is dammed up by saline waters on incoming and high tides, but is well mixed within two tidal cycles. At low tide, the outflow from Bradley River forms a well-defined freshwater plume along the south shore of the Bay. 3.1.3.2 Fishery Resources The fishery resources of the project area have previously been described in Section IV.B and Appendix B of the Corps' FEIS. Studies conducted since the Corps FEIS was published allow further description of these resources. The lower Bradley River, Martin River, Battle Creek, Nuka River, Sheep Creek, and the Fox River all contain populations of Pacific salmon. Of the three streams most directly affected by the project (Bradley River, Martin River, Battle Creek), the Bradley River contains the largest fish runs. About 1,000 pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), 50 chum salmon (0. keta), 10 sockeye (0. nerka), and 6 ch1nook salmon (0. tshawytscha,-were observed in the Bradley River in 1983 (Alaska- Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E). Few fish were observed in either Martin River or Battle Creek in 1983, although past studies have identified sockeye and chum salmon in the Martin River, and sockeye and coho salmon (0. kisutch) in Battle Creek. Sheep Creek reportedly contains runs-of pink and coho salmon, and Fox River contains runs of sockeye, coho, and pink salmon. The Nuka River also reportedly contains a small pink salmon run in its lower reaches [United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 1981]. 3-5 The lower 5.9 miles of the Bradley River, the reach available to anadromous fishes, were studied in detail by the Applicant's consultant in 1983 (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1983). This study identified the reach of the river between river miles (RM) 4.25 and 5.2 as that most heavily utilized by salmon and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). This reach contains spawning areas for pink, chum, and coho salmon. Fox Farm Creek, a tributary entering the Bradley River at RM 2.9, also contains spawning areas for pink, chum, and coho salmon. Rearing areas for chinook and coho were identified in sloughs in the reach of Bradley River between RM 4.5 and RM 5.2; juvenile coho were also collected in Fox Farm Creek, Muka Muka Slough, Slippery Slough, Long Slough, and Short Slough. Dolly Varden juveniles were found in large numbers between RM 4.5 and RM 5.2, and in moderate numbers in the lower river sloughs. Other species identified in the lower Bradley River include eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Bering cisco (Coregonus laurettae), slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), Pacific staghorn sculpln (Leptocottus armatus), sharpnose sculpin (Clinocot- tus acuticeps), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius), and in the lower tidal areas, starry flounder (Plat1chtyus stellatus). The marine fishery resources of the Bay have previously been described in Section IV.B and Appendices B and C of the Corps' FEIS. Briefly, the Bay contains significant commercial fisheries for the five species of Pacific salmon, halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallas1), k1ng crab (Paralithedes camtschatica), tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi), Dungeness crab (Cancer magister), and shrimp (Pandalus sp.). Little fishing occurs in the immed1ate project vicinity, although commer- cial fishing for Dungeness crab does occur at the head of the Bay near the edge of the intertidal mud flats (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E). The upper Bay is important, however, as a nursery area for herring, crab, and other organisms important to the food web of commercial species. Commercial catch data are unavailable for the Bay alone, since the Bay's catches are included in the Southern District of the Cook Inlet Management Area. Available commercial salmon catch data for the Southern District are summarized in Table 3-1. In 1982, the Southern District Dungeness crab catch was 818,300 pounds. The Southern District commercial halibut catch ranges between 171,000 and 226,000 pounds annually (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E). Kachemak Bay also supports an important subsistence fishery and a limited sport fishery. Again, data for the Bay alone are unavailable; Table 3-2 summarizes the subsistence data for the Southern District of Cook Inlet. Little data are available for the Bay sport fishery. The 1983 mail survey conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) indicates that anglers fished d. __ ..... _____ _ 3-6 Table 3-1. Summary of commercial salmon catch data (numbers of fish) for the S:mthern District of lower Cook Inlet Management Area, 1954-1983 • .!/ Chinook Sockeye Coho Pinky Olurn 1btal 30-year 10,720 981,536 116,702 8,901, 295 534,500 10,544,753 total 30-year 357 32,718 3,890 296,710 17,817 351,492 average 30-year 10-1,532 7,720-485-9,126-1,517-72,711- range 141,088 12,235 1,451,002 150,796 1,561,782 y Alaska Fbwer Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E, and Alaska Fbwer Authority, 1984c, adapted fran Alaska I:Epartment of Fish am Game data. y From 1954-1970, even-year catches were largest; since 1971, odd-year catches have domina too. '!able 3-2. 15-year total 15-year average 15-year range St.mmary of subsistence fishery catches (numbers of fish) for the Southern District of the lower Cook Inlet Management Area, 1969-1983 • .!/ Chinook Sockeye Coho Pink 156 456 34,452 9,057 794 10 30 2,297 604 53 0-43 9-64 376-38-0-123 7,303 2,251 Other species 867 58 2-153 'Ibtal 45,782 3,052 539- 8,474 y Alaska Fbwer Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E, and Alaska Fbwer Authority, 19 84c, adapted fran Alaska I:Epartmen t of Fish am Game data • 3-7 Humpy Creek, Fox River, and Caribou Lake, and caught pink, sockeye, and land-locked coho salmon and Dolly Varden (Alaska Power Authority, 1984c). The upper Bay sport fishery is limited due to the limited road access to good fishing areas. 3.1.3.3 Benthic Communities Freshwater and marine benthic communities in the project area have previously been described in Section IV.B and Appendices B and C of the Corps FEIS. Concentrations of benthic invertebrates are somewhat limited in the Bradley River because of the heavy load of glacial flour carried by the stream, and the deposition of this material in reaches of the stream. Higher concentrations of inverte- brates are present, however, in sloughs and tributaries of the river. Orders of insects noted include stone flies ( Plecoptera) , mayflies (Ephemeroptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), beetles (Coleoptera), and midges (Diptera). Marine benthos reported in the Bradley River estuary and mud flats by previous studies (Wapora, Inc., 1981) include polychaete worms, small clams, amphipods, other small crustaceans, and arrow worms. Important species noted include the bivalve Macoma balthica, the blue mussel (Mytilus elegans), the amphipod Eogammarus confervicolus, and the opposum shrimp (Neomysis mercedis). These species serve as important prey for fish and other commercially-valuable invertebrates (crabs) in the Bay. 3.1.4 Terrestrial Environment 3.1.4.1 Plant Associations General descriptions of vegetation and the major climatic and other biotic and abiotic factors that affect vegetative cover are given in the Corps' FEIS (pages 55-60) for the major habitat areas in the vicinity of Bradley Lake. The major characteristics of the plant communities, that would be affected by the proposed project, are summarized below from the license application for the proposed Bradley Lake Project (Alaska Power Authority, 19R4b). The impor- tance of various plant species or cover types to wildlife species is discussed throughout Sect ion 3. 1. 4. 2, Wildlife Resources. Closed Coniferous Forests Closed coniferous forests occur below 1,500 feet in elevation on moderately well-drained sites. The overstory is dominated by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), with an average diameter at breast height (DBH) of 14 inches and an average height of 60 feet. The canopy coverage is 60 to 75 percent, and the openings are dominated by tall shrubs, primarily Sitka alder (Alnus crispa sinuata). The ground cover consists of ferns and sphagnum moss (Sphagnum sp.) l 3-8 Open Coniferous Forests Open coniferous forests occupy poorly/drained flat areas, such as the Fox River Valley, and moderately well-drained slopes, which occur between the closed coniferous forest zone in the lower eleva- tions and the tall shrub subalpine zone in the higher elevations. The canopy becomes more open as elevation increases, with the dominant spruce giving way to openings dominated by tall alders. Spruce occur only as scattered individuals above 2,000 feet in elevation. The low shrub layer includes rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), willow (Salix sp.), and squashberry (Viburnum edule). Ground cover includes five-leaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), horsetail (Equisetum sp.), and sphagnum moss. Birch Forests Birch forests occur on southern slopes adjacent to coastal marshes and river floodplains and are relatively uncommon in the area. The dominant species is paper birch (Betula papyrifera) with an understory of alder. Balsam Poplar Forests Balsam poplar, or cottonwood, (Populus balsamifera) dominates this cover type, which commonly occurs on sandy or gravelly flood- plains. These poplars have an average height of 60 to 70 feet and a DBH of 13 inches. The shrub layer consists of thinleaf alder (Alnus incana tenuifolia) ranging up to 25 feet in height. The herbaceous layer includes polar grass (Arctagrostis sp.) and horsetail. Mixed Spruce-Birch Forest Mixtures of Sitka spruce and paper birch occur on moderately well-drained slopes between coastal sedge-grass communities and coniferous forests. This community is relatively uncommon in the project area. Associated species include Sitka alder, thinleaf alder, elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and horsetail. Mixed Spruce-Balsam Poplar Forest Moderately well-drained, low-elevation floodplains are commonly dominated by mixed forests of Sitka spruce and balsam poplar, with an average canopy cover of 6 to 25 percent. Associated species include thinleaf alder, devil's club (Oplopanax horridus), squash- berry, and willow. The ground layer includes mosses, ferns, grasses, fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium) and larkspur (Delphinium glaucum). 3-9 Tall Alder Shrubland Alder commonly dominates the river floodplains in the project area, alder also occurs between the closed coniferous forests and the lower elevation boundary of shrub tundra. Thinleaf alder character- istically dominates the flat terrain, and Sitka alder dominates the slopes. Balsam poplar is usually scattered throughout the tall alder communities on floodplains. The herbaceous vegetation in this community includes grasses, ferns, horsetail, fireweed, and primrose (Trientalis europaea). Tall Willow Shrubland Tall willow shrubland communities are common along rivers and streams. Clumps of alder are often intermixed with the willow. The herbaceous layer includes bluejoint grass horsetail, ferns, lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis), fireweed, and primrose. Low Willow Shrubland Willows commonly dominate areas in the subalpine and alpine zones surrounding Bradley Lake. Willows range in height from 2 feet, where strong wind or poor soil conditions limit their growth, to 6 feet in areas with milder conditions. Herbaceous species include sedge, grasses, fireweed, cranesbill (Geranium erianthum), primrose, and wintergreen (Pyrola sp.). Bogs are uncommon in the project area. The dominant species is sphagnum moss. Associated species include sedges, and iris (Iris setosa). Sphagnum bogs are generally associated with the coniferous forests along the rivers. Tall Grassland Bluejoint comprises 51 to 75 percent of the tall grasslands in the project area. Other species include fireweed, horsetail, and sedges. Tall grasslands are common in flat, poorly-drained areas and on moderately well-drained slopes from the lowlands to the subalpine zone. Tall shrublands are often interspersed with the tall grassland communities. Mesic Herbaceous Sedge-Grass This community occupies the subalpine and alpine zones on moderately well-drained, deep soils, which contain stored water or receive water from deep snow patches. Vegetation reaches a height of 1 to 1.5 feet and includes bluejoint grass, fescue (Festuca altaica), wormwood (Artemesia arcticum),-yarrow (Achillea borealis), bearberry (Arctostaphylos sp.), crowberry, and marsh violet. ~' . t i"'l 3-10 These meadows are common in the project area and are normally interspersed with patches of Sitka alder, shrub tundra, and larqe boulders. Freshwater Herbaceous Sedge-Grass This wetland plant community is relatively uncommon in the project area and is confined primarily to the lower Fox River and the higher elevation of the lower Kachemak Creek Valley. The substrate is poorly-drained hydric soils that contain 3 to 6 inches of standing water during the summer. The dominant species are sedges (up to 50 percent coverage), horsetail, crowfoot (Caltha palustris), marsh firefinger (Potentilla palustris), sphagnum moss (up to 25 percent coverage), willow, and grasses. This plant community is often interspersed with the tall or low shrubland communities. Saltwater Herbaceous Sedge-Grass This saltwater wetland community is common in the tidal areas of upper Kachemak Bay. Species composition is influenced by the grey, silty, hydric soil and by the influx of saltwater. Salt tolerent sedges, principally Carex lyngbyaei and Carex ramenski, dominate these tidal wetlands. Pools, which maintain 4 to 6 inches of standing water, contain up to 25 percent coverage of mare's tail (Hippuris sp.) Shrub Tundra Shrub tundra communities occur on well-drained, shallow soils in alpine areas. The dominant plant species are less than 6 inches high and include crowberry, bearberry (Arctostaphylos sp.), bog blueberry, Alaska spirea, alpine azalea (Andromeda polifolia), Labrador tea (Ledum palustre), lichens, and sphagnum moss. Elymus Grassland Lyme grass (Elymus archarius mollis) is the dominant species in the grassland community, accounting for up to 50 percent of the coverage. Associated species include Pacific silverweed (Potentilla egedii), Lathyrus maritimus (a legume), arrow grass (Triglochin sp.) and other grasses. Lyme grass grasslands occur on flat, poorly-drained, silty soils in coastal areas and are relatively uncommon in the project area. Floodplains Floodplains in the project area are primarily unvegetated due to the movement of water. The project area contains three types of floodplains. Floodplains along low gradient, perennial rivers, and streams consist largely of unconsolidated gravel, sand, and r 3-11 boulders. Scattered seedlings of balsam poplar, fireweed, lyme grass, and lupine may occupy these areas. Floodplains of high gradient perennial rivers and streams consist chiefly of unvegetated boulders. Floodplains of tidal rivers and streams are normally mud flats, which may contain some scattered lyme grass along the borders of channels. 3.1.4.2 Wildlife Resources A discussion of some of the more significant wildlife species is contained in the Corps• FEIS (pages 62-71}. The source of infor- mation for the following discussion, unless otherwise indicated, is the application for license for the proposed Bradley Lake Project, (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b}, which contains study results from four principal sources: the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS}, 1981], which was prepared for the Corps• study; the results of a Habitat Evaluation Procedures analysis (Rappoport, et al., 1981} conducted by FWS for the Corps• study; an assessment conducted by the ADF&G (Holderman, 1983}; and a 1980 avian study conducted by Krasnow and Halpin (1981}. Bird densities in the following discussion are from the Krasnow and Halpin (1981) study. Point observation locations are shown in Figure 3-1. Waterfowl The upper Kachemak Bay is an important staging area for migrating waterfowl. The proposed project area lies within the state-designated Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area and the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area. Tundra (whistling) swans (Cygnus columbianas) and trumpeter swans (Olor buccinator) utilize the proposed project area, primarily at Goose Point near the confluence of Bradley River and Sheep Creek, for feeding during migration. Densities are approximately 2.6 per square mile (sq. mi.). Swans begin staging in the area during mid-August and disburse throughout the herbaceous sedge-grass communities in the upper Kachemak Bay. One nesting was confirmed near Clearwater Slough in the upper Fox River valley. According to FWS (1981), the nesting swans are most likely trumpeter swans. The occurrence of swans flying through the area of the proposed transmission line corridor is relatively low. Krasnow and Halpin (1981) observed 10 unidentified swans crossing the area of the proposed corridor during 1980 weekly surveys. The 10 sightings were all in the spring. Swans observed flying up the valley were above transmission line height; swans flying down the valley were at transmission line height. Geese use the Fox River valley primarily for resting and feeding during migration. No nesting geese were reported during spring surveys. Canada geese (Branta canadensis) were the most numerous t -N- ] SHEEP POINT OBSERVATION 3-12 SWAN POND D • FOX FARM • OBSERVATIO POINT PROPOSED POWERHOUSE SITE OBSERVATION PT. K ACHEMAK BAY Figure 3-1. Point count stations for the avian survey of April through September, 1980 (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, as adapted from Krasnow and Halpin, 1981). 3-13 geese observed (average daily density of 15.5 per sq. mi. in the Fox Farm area near Goose Point) during the spring. The majority of sightings (83 percent) occurred on the tidal flats at the confluence of Bradley River and Sheep Creek (Krasnow and Halpin, 1981). White- fronted geese (Anser albifrons) arrive in late July, and Canada geese begin staging aga1n in m1d-August. Densities in the Fox Farm-Goose Point area averaged 114.0 per sq. mi. for Canada geese and 18.1 per sq. mi. for white-fronted geese during the 1980 autumn survey. Approximately 95 percent of the fall-migrating geese were observed in the upper end of Kachemek Bay, in the sedge-grass wetlands between Swift Creek and Bradley River. These wetlands are dominated by Puccinellia phryganodes, P. Hultenii, and Carex ramenskii, plant spec1es that are preferred foods of Canada geese 1n Alaska. Approximately 2.5 percent of the Canada geese observed in the Fox River Valley were observed flying in the vicinity of the proposed transmission line. Ducks that winter in the study area include mallards (Anas playtyrhynchos), old squaw (Clangula hyemalis), scoters (Meranitta spp.), and red-breasted mergansers (Mergus serrator). Mergansers had the highest density (283.3 per sq. mi.) in the Sheep Point area. As winter ice builds up in the Fox River flats, the ducks move toward the ice-free bays along the southeast shoreline of Kachemak Bay. Wintering ducks also move in response to tides; when the Fox River flats are submerged, dabbling ducks may roost on the Martin River delta. In late March, migrating pintails (Anas acuta), American wigeon (Anas americana), green-winged tear-{Anas crecca), and scaup (AYtfiYa marila) began to move through the project area. The average daily density of dabbling ducks was 212 per sq. mi. in the spring. The highest concentrations were near the Bradley River. Most ducks migrate out of the area in May, with the exception of small breeding populations of mallards, green-winged teal and common mergansers (Mergus merganser). Post breeding populations of ducks, principally mallards, pintails, green-winged teal, scoters, and red-breasted mergansers, move back into the area in July. Large numbers of red-breasted mergansers (up to 238 per sq. mi.) concentrate in the Sheep Point and Martin River delta areas from mid-August through September. Summer densities of other divers and sea ducks were lowest in the areas of Fox Farm and the proposed powerhouse site. Dabbling ducks averaged a daily density of 212.4 per sq. mi. in the spring and 108.8 per sq. mi. in the fall in the vicinity of Fox Farm. Fall densities of dabblers averaged 33.7 per sq. mi. at the proposed powerhouse site, compared to 297.9 at Sheep Point. Mallards were the most frequently observed dabbling duck in the vicinity of the proposed transmission line corridor. Eighteen of the 27 spring observations and all 13 of the summer observations were at or below transmission line height. 3-14 Shorebirds Winter observations in the study area consisted of concen- trations of rock sandpipers (Calidris ptilocnemis), which never exceeded a few hundred birds. Spring migrants peak in early May (between 50,000 and 100,000) in the upper Kachemak Bay. The mean daily density of small shorebirds in the vicinity of the Bradley River was 10,207 per sq. mi. in the spring. The majority (65 percent) of western sandpipers (Calidris mauri) observed during the spring were on the flats at Goose Point, which are sparsely vegetated with Puccinellia spp. and Carex ramenskii. The birds concentrate at the water's edge and disperse over the flats to feed as the tide goes out. Other shorebirds, including semipalmated polvers (Charadrius semipalmatus), yellowlegs (Tringa spp.), dowitchers (Llmnodromus spp.), least sandpipers (Cal1dris minutilla), and pectoral sandpipers (Calidris mauri) are associated with the shallow ponds and vegetated tidal flats. Fall migration includes western, least, and pectoral sandpipers, semipalmated plovers, dowitchers, and yellowlegs. Concentrations were lower in the fall of 1980 then in the spring. The highest fall concentration observed was 200 birds per sq. mi. Nesting is generally unsuccessful in the tidal flats because of inundation by high tides. Potential nesting habitat exists, however, in the Martin River and Fox River Valleys above the tidal zone (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). Raptors The most commonly observed raptor in the project area is the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (eight eagles per sq. mi. in the spring, three eagles per sq. mi. in the fall). Eagles nest along the Martin River delta, Battle Creek, and the lower Bradley River, and in the Fox River Valley. Bald eagles overwinter in the Fox River Valley and along the Martin River. Nests and potential eagle habitat exist in the vicinity of the proposed lower camp and at the Martin River borrow area. Bald eagles were observed in the vicinity of the proposed transmission line corridor at an average of 0.1 per hour in the spring, 1980. Approximately 30 percent flew at or below trans- mission line height. Of 10 summer observations, 60 percent were above transmission line height. Of nine fall observations, 67 percent were at or below transmission line height. All of the Northern harriers (Circas cyaneus) observed in the proposed corridor during the fall were at or below transmission line height. Harriers observed in the corridor accounted for 33 percent of the total observations of harriers in the study area. 3-15 Approximately 43 percent of the sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter striatus), observed in the study area were recorded flying through the area of the proposed transmission line corridor. Of these, 33 percent were at or below transmission line height. Other raptors observed in the project area included red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), goshawks (Accipiter gentilis), and peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus). Of these, only the red-tailed hawk was observed in the area of the proposed transmission line corridor. The peregrines were observed over the flats at Goose Point. The subspecies of peregrine in this area has not been determined. (See Section 3.1.5.) Gulls and Terns Gulls and terns were most often observed during migration on the flats between Swift Creek and the Bradley River (61 percent) and in the Martin River Delta area (24 percent). Seventy-six percent of the spring observations were of mew gulls (Larus canus). Glaucous- winged gulls (Larus glaucescens) and mew gulls peaked in August, with the largest concentrations along the Martin River Delta. The highest fall density was 712 per sq. mi. Arctic terns (Sterna paradisea) were observed (52 sightings) in the vicinity of Sheep Creek. Of these, 55 percent were observed flying at or below transmission line height. Other Birds The densities of passerine birds are highest between Fox River and Sheep Creek. The most abundant species observed during the 1980 survey were water pipits (Anthus spinoletta) and Savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis). The water pipit inhabits alpine meadows, muddy shores, and open land. The Savannah sparrow inhabits tundra and salt marshes and other open areas with short or sparse grasses (Robbins et al., 1966~ Udvardy, 1977). Spruce grouse (Canachites canadensis), boreal owl (Aegolius funereus), Stellar's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), boreal chickadee (Parus hudsonicas), and pine grosbeak (Pinlcola enucleator), are among the b1rds identified in the project area, which are associated with coniferous forests (Udvardy, 1977). Pine siskins (Carduelis pinus), also recorded in the proposed project area, are associated with coniferous forest, alders, and transition zones between coniferous and broadleaf cover types (Udvardy, 1977). Willow ptarmigan (Lagopus logapus) and rock ptarmigan (L. mutus) inhabit tundra areas (Robbins et al., 1966). Moose Biologists conducted a study to determine the seasonal distri- bution of moose (Alces alces), from October 1983 to June 1984 (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1984a). The study included 22 aerial 3-16 surveys in the proposed project area, which was divided into five segments (Figure 3-2): the Kachemak Creek Flats, which includes the area of the proposed reservoir: the Fox River Valley, which includes portions of the proposed transmission line corridor: the "Bench" (the mountains south and east of Sheep Creek and north of the Bradley River): the Nuka River Valley (extending south from Nuka Glacier to Beauty Bay): and the Martin River delta. Moose surveyed in the Kachemak Creek Flats during October ranged in number from 1 to 11. Moose utilized both the freshwater wetlands in the proposed innundation zone and higher altitudes. November surveys recorded from 1 to 13 moose, which were inhabiting the subalpine, alder-willow slopes. From 4 to 12 moose were observed during the December surveys. The number of moose remained relatively constant (from four to five) during February through April. Early October (rutting season) concentrations of migratory moose, ranging from 25 to 35 individuals, were observed in the Fox River Valley. In December, 40 moose were counted within one sq. mi. south of Clearwater Slough. An April survey counted 21 moose in the valley. Moose were also common near the emergency airstrip on the west side of the valley. Bench surveys revealed from 9 to 12 moose moving into the sub- alpine, alder-willow zones in early November. They remained through December, but were not observed in this area during surveys conducted between February and June. Fall counts in the Nuka River Valley, including the upper Beauty Bay area, recorded 11 moose in early November, 10 in late November, and 10 in mid-December. Four moose were observed in late February. FWS (1981) reports that the Bradley Lake area may be an important migratory route between the Fox River area and Beauty Bay. No moose were observed in the Martin River Delta area during the surveys. Seven moose were observed, however, at the mouth of nearby Battle Creek in late February. The total number of moose surveyed within the proposed project area ranged from a low of 8 in early June to a high of 110 in mid- December and was directly related to the number of moose in the Fox River valley. Clearwater Slough and Sheep Creek were heavily utilized during the rut, over winter, and during spring. The study concludes that migrants from outside the project area most likely accounted for the bulk of the Fox River Valley population in November and December, and that moose within the project area are probably a subgroup of a larger population, rather than a distinct population (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1984a). In the project area, moose browse year-round on willow, balsam poplar, and birch. Additional factors, which are important compo- nents of moose habitat, include the percent coverage of coniferous r I ! I I I I I I j ·Upper Bradley Nuka Glacie ,.l t;·-~' •'' .• Scale in Miles 0 5 ·. " \ \.. ·,\. ·· .. \ \\,. .. --.. \ .. Dingl_~stadt ..... \ River I i. "! ·,_ ~.~~~ ... \._.i ·. i ·-... w I ...... " Glacier Figure 3-2. MOose survey areas, 1983 -1984 (Source: Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1984a). The survey also included the Nuka River valley from the Nuka Glacier to Beauty Bay (not shown). 3-18 trees, folious lichens, and ligonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea}. In the project area, browse on much of the moose winter range in the area is old and decadent (LeResche et al., 1974}. Although fires burned 142 acres in recent years and increased browse, most of these fires were concentrated in the area near the emergency airstrip on the western side of the Fox River Valley. According to Bailey et al. (1976}, the Fox River Valley is the only identified major calving ground on the Kenai Peninsula. Both resident and migratory moose calve near Clearwater Slough. Most of the habitat in this area is within 200 yards of suitable spring- summer feeding habitat, which is characterized by a high percentage of horizontal forb cover. The area also contains an open tree canopy, which allows moose to see predators, and contains abundant freshwater. Freshwater sites are a valuable component of moose habitat for two reasons: they provide a food source of aquatic plants (Peek et al., 1976} and an avenue of escape from predatory ~elves (Peterson et al., 1984}. Mountain Goats Mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus} populations have remained relatively stable in the project area over the last several years. FWS (1981} reported approximately 65 goats in the general vicinity of the proposed project. The ratio of adult goats to kids in the project area is similar to other areas of the Kenai Peninsula and has also remained relatively constant over the last several years. Goats are generally dispersed throughout the area from Sheep Creek, through the mountains around Bradley Lake to the Nuka Glacier during the summer, and concentrated around the Bradley River in the vicinity of the outlet to the lake during the winter. Mid-November observations by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1984a} included 11 goats 0.5 mile northwest of the outlet of Bradley Lake, 15 goats, 1 mile east of the dam site, and 2 goats in the upper Nuka River Valley. From December through March, goats were only observed near the lake outlet. The highest number recorded was 39. Mountain goats have different habitat requirements for different seasons. Studies by Hjeljord (1971} and Klein (1953} indicate that goats utilize vegetated southern slopes and rock outcrops in the spring, feeding on bluejoint grass, elderberry, and ferns. South- facing slopes and summits are utilized in the summer. In winter, goats utilize subalpine alder slopes, exposed alpine slopes, and coniferous forests adjacent to steep slopes. The subalpine alder communities provide the most nutritious forage for winter goats (Hjeljord, 1971}. Grizzly Bears Grizzly bears (Ursus horribilis} have been observed near Clearwater Slough, the channels of lower Sheep Creek, and along the F ! lt 3-19 Fox River. The annual harvest on the Kenai Peninsula between 1975 and 1982 averaged 6.8 bears. Grizzly bears prey on salmon and marmots (Marmota caligata} and other mammals when they are available. Calves of ungulates are preyed upon in the spring. Fruit, carrion, and insects are consumed in the fall. Black Bear Black bears (Ursus americanus} are common throughout the project area and are hunted year-round in the lower Fox River Valley and Bradley Lake areas. Black bears feed on grasses, sedges, and forbs in the spring and also prey on waterfowl, insects, salmon, and moose calves. The fall diet largely consists of fruit. Herbaceous plants and salmon are consumed relative to their availability (Shea, 1981}. Black bears require the cover of mature trees in proximity to feeding habitat. Adults have large home ranges, up to 52 square miles, and may travel up to 24 miles between seasonal ranges (Schwartz and Fransmann, 1980}. Wolves Wolves (Canis lupus} recolonized the Kenai Peninsula in the 1960's after an absence of 50 years (Peterson et al., 1984}. Wolves and wolf sign were observed within the Bradley Lake Project area during moose and goat surveys and during the 1980 interagency Habitat Evaluation Procedures Study. Wolf tracks were identified near Battle Creek, on the Sheep Point tidal flats, on Bradley River, and in the upper Fox River Valley. The recent moose survey, conducted by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1984a}, recorded wolf tracks in the Fox River Valley during December, 1983. Wolves are a major predator on moose calves and tend to follow prey populations. Peterson et al. (1984} calculated a winter predation rate of 1 moose per wol~ pack per 4.7 days in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, which is north of the project area. Predation was largely on calves and older (10.9 years average} or weaker moose. FWS (1981} states that, in addition to availability of prey, habitat selection is influenced by the presence of suitable den sites and isolation from human disturbance. Peterson et al. (1984} recorded home range sizes of 68 to 600 sq. mi., with an average of 246 sq. mi. for wolves within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. River Otter River otters (Lutra canadensis} are fairly abundant in the southside of the Kachemak Bay and have been observed along all reaches of the Bradley River. Evidence of otter use was observed on the flats north of Sheep Point (FWS, 1981}. Otter prey on marine and freshwater fish, crustaceans, and on small mammals. 3-20 Beaver Four beaver (Castor canadensis) lodges were recorded at the east end of Bradley Lake. Additional observations were recorded in Kachemak Creek and the Fox River and on the subalpine lakes near the outlet of Bradley Lake. Beaver utilize freshwater aquatic areas, which are bordered by subclimax shrub and forest vegetation. Beaver feed on the bark of willow, balsam poplar, birch, and occasionally alder. The availablilty of these species largely determines the suitability of an area as beaver habitat. Marine Mammals Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas), and stellar sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) inhabit Kachemak Bay. Only harbor seals have been regularly observed in the upper bay near the project area. Harbor seals, beluga whales, and sea lions occasionally range into the Bradley River-Sheep Creek estuary. Seals were most abundant during runs of smelt or sand lance (Corps, 1982). Other mammals Coyotes (Canis latrans) were observed during the 1983-1984 moose survey in the Fox River Valley and in the Kachemak Creek valley. Lynx (Lynx canadensis) tracks were recorded in the Kachemak Creek area in December 1983 (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1984a). Wolverines were observed in the Fox River valley, the Bench (Figure 3-2) and in the Kachemak Creek Valley during the moose survey (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1984a). The project area also provides abundant habitat for muskrat (Ondatra zibethicas), mink (Mustela vison), red fox (Vulpes fulva), red squirrel (Tamiascirurus hudsonicus), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), marmot (Marmota caligata), and voles (Microtis sp.). Red Squirrel and snowshoe hare inhabitat coniferous forest areas. FWS (1981) reports extensive squirrel sign in coniferous forests above Sheep Point and in the Fox Farm areas and moderate numbers of snowshoe hares in the project area. 3.1.5 Threatened or Endangered Species The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrine anatum) and the artie peregrine (F. peregrinus tundrius) are Federally listed as endangered in Alaska. Peale's peregr1ne (F. peregrinus pealei) inhabits the coastlines of British Columbia and southern Alaska and is not Federally listed. FWS biologists reported 6 sightings of peregrine falcons in the vicinity of the proposed project in 1980. It could not be determined, however, if the falcons were of an endangered subspecies. FWS observed one peregrine in early May, 3 in August, and 2 in 3-21 September (Corps 1982). The absence of observations during the remainder of the year indicates that the birds were most likely migrating through the area and were not residents. No other threatened or endangered species or critical habitats have been identified in the project area. 3.1.6 Recreation and Land Use The existing recreation and land uses are generally described in the Corps' FEIS. Since the publication of the Corps' FEIS, portions of Kachemak Bay and the Fox River delta in the proposed project area have been identified as critical habitat areas, primarily for waterfowl. Figure 3-3 indicates the general land ownership and management patterns in the proposed project area. 3.1.7 Visual Resources The project area has a natural landscape character containing a variety of vegetation, and land and water forms including: Kachemak Bay, Bradley River, and Bradley Lake, and numerous creeks: shorelines, flats, hills and jagged, rocky cliffs: and grassy open spaces and thick forest canopy. The visual quality of the immedi- ate project area is spectacular, although nearby areas on the Kenai Peninsula have sustained impacts caused by rights-of-way for pipe- lines, transmission lines, survey gridlines, roads, mines, and forest management activities. Viewer sensitivity for the visual resources is very low because of the remoteness of the project area. 3.1.8 Cultural Resources A portion of the project impact areas was inventoried by the Corps prior to filing of the application (Steele, 1979, 1982). The remaining portion has been inventoried by the Applicant, including the proposed transmission corridor (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E: Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1984b). The inventories were based on archeological survey, historical record, and literature searches and interviews with local inhabitants. Two abandoned fox-fur farms were located in the project area adjacent to Kachemak Bay. Both date to the period of the 1920's and early 1930's. Fox-fur farming was a major economic activity during the period 1910-1935 in the Kachemak Bay area and through- out the coastal regions of southern Alaska, and aided in the settlement and development of th~ area in historic times. The sites are well preserved and represent excellent examples of the vernacular architecture and the layout of activity areas of such sites. Both appear to have excellent potential for historic archeological research. 1 l l i •• Figure 3-3. 0 K~ NATIONAL WI.Dl.A! AEFUGE 0 KACHEMAKW.t'.,. .. llt I'AIIK Land ownership and use (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E). w I N N 3-23 Both farms appear eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Staff has requested eligibility determinations for the two farms from the Secretary of the Interior. No prehistoric or other historic sites were located during the cultural resources inventory of the project area. 3.1.9 Socioeconomic Factors Economic, demographic, and fiscal impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project would occur within the Kenai Peninsula Borough (Borough), particularly in the Homer area. The Borough's and Homer's most significant socio- economic characteristics are summarized below. 3.1.9.1 Demographic considerations As shown in Table 3-3, the total population of the Borough increased from 16,586 in 1970 to 25,282 persons in 1980. The Bureau of the Census estimates that on July 1, 1982, approximately 32,000 persons resided there. Most recent population gains have resulted from the net in-migration of persons ages 18 to 30 who were attracted by the Borough's employment and outdoor recreational opportunities. During the 1970-1980 decade, Homer's population more than doubled--from 1,083 persons in 1970 to 2,209 residents in 1980. A special census conducted by the Kenai Peninsula Borough in summer 1982 found that Homer population had reached 2,897. The city's official population estimate as of September 30, 1983, was 3,237. Planners anticipate that Homer's population will total between 4,700 and 6,500 persons in 1990 (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E). 3.1.9.2 Employment and Income The Borough's economy is based on oil and natural gas drilling, oil refining, and the manufacture of petrochemicals (which are centered in the Kenai area); commercial fishing and fish processing; tourism, particularly sport fishing; and Federal and state government spending. In 1982, an average of 10,383 persons was employed within the Borough. These included full-and part-time employees of private establishments, self-employed persons, state and local government employees, Federal civilian employees, and Federal military personnel. As shown in Table 3-4, total area employment during the ten-year period, 1972-1982, increased by 5,256 (103 percent). 3-24 Table 3-3. Population trends in Hamer City and the Kenai Peninsula Borough, 1970-1982. TOtal Population rate Haner Kenai Peninsula Borough April 1, 1970 1,083 .!( 16,586 2/ April 1, 1980 2,209 1/ 25,282 1/ July 1, 1981 3/ 29,008 2/ July 1, 1982 2,897 y 31,989 2/ Sept. 30, 1983 3,237 4/ y .!( Bureau of the Census, 1982. ~ Personal communication, Richard Downing, Statistical Officer, Bureau of the Census, Suitland, Maryland, tbvember 1, 1984. "}/ Data is unavailable. y Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E. The per capita personal income of Borough residents in 1982 was $13,394. This amount was 20 percent less than the $16,854 per capita income for the State of Alaska (personal communication, Kathy Albetsky, Statistician, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington, D.C., October 31, 1984). In addition to money income, many area households obtain considerable subsistence income from hunting and fishing. For example, a recent study found that Homer area households harvest an average of 222 pounds of meat and fish annually, primarily halibut, salmon, and moose (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E). 3.2 ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS 3.2.1 Combined-cycle Generation Alternative 3.2.1.1 Land Features The natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle generation plant would likely be located near the Beluga and Chuitna Rivers in the western Cook Inlet Lowlands. The Beluga area includes poorly drained floodplains and marshy tidal flats. The Chuitna area consists largely of a broad, rounded moraine. Slopes near Chuitna are steeper, but the soils are commonly wet [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 1984 (FERC, 1984), draft environmental impact statement for the Susitna, Alaska, hydroelectric project, FERC No. 7114). p ' ' Table 3-4. Employment trends by industrial sector, Kenai Peninsula Borough, 1972-1982. !( Full-and part-tbne em21oyment Industrial sector 1972 1982 Pqriculture 3/ 64 77 Fann services, forestry, and fishing 62 20 Mining 519 804 Construction 439 838 Manufacturing 551 1,426 Transportation, communications and public utilities 282 961 \'A'lolesale trade 109 300 Retail trade 390 1,112 Finance, insurance, and real estate 81 277 Personal, repair, business, medical, Legal, educational, and tourist services y 502 1,168 Federal civilian government 91 124 Federal military personnel 398 445 State and local government 935 1,626 Non-fann proprietors 704 1,205 'lbtal 5,127 10,383 !( Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1984. The data excludes the Seward area. ~ Excludes volunteer and unpaid family workers. 3/ Includes fann proprietors and employees. change + 13 42 + 285 + 399 + 875 + 679 + 191 + 722 + 196 + 666 + 33 + 47 + 691 + 501 +5,256 y Y Includes workers employed by privately owned and operated establishments. Excludes public school teachers, persons employed by public hospitals, etc. w I t.:> CJl 3-26 3.2.1.2 Aquatic Resources Since a specific site for a combined-cycle unit has not been selected, a detailed description of potentially affected resources is not possible. Sites for such a project, however, would need to be located on larger streams or bodies of water because of the requirements for water. Potential sites in the western Cook Inlet area would include locations on the Beluga and Chuitna Rivers, lakes in the area, or on Cook Inlet itself. Both of the rivers originate in the Alaska Range and have glacial flow regimes and water quality typical of glacial streams. Species of fish potentially affected by this alternative would include the five species of Pacific salmon, burbot (Lota lota), cottids, Dolly Varden, grayling (Thymallus arcticus_)_,-- northern pike (Esox lucius), rainbow trout (Salmo ga1rdneri), sculpin, sucker~nd wh1tefish. If the project is located on Cook Inlet, a variety of marine fishes and invertebrates could be affected. 3.2.1.3 Terrestrial Resources A combined-cycle plant would most likely be located in the western Cook Inlet area, in proximity to natural gas distribution pipelines. The vegetation in this area largely consists of spruce- hardwood forests and sedge-grass wetlands (FERC, 1984). The principal big game species in the area include grizzly bear, black bear, and moose. Moose concentrate along the lower Chuitna River in the summer and winter eastward from the mouth of the Beluga River. Bears feed along the lower Chuitna River and both grizzly and black bears den in the upland forests. Bald eagles are common throughout the area. Waterfowl include trumpeter swans, loons (Gavia irnrner), Canada geese, and a variety of ducks (FERC, 1984). 3.2.1.4 Threatened or Endangered Species As discussed in Section 3.1.5, the peregrine falcon is the only Federally listed threatened or endangered species that may occur in the Cook Inlet area. Although peregrines have been sighted, no one has determined whether the peregrines are of a listed or non-listed subspecies. 3.2.1.5 Socioeconomic Factors Population and employment in the Kenai Peninsula Borough are discussed in Section 3.1.9 of this report. 3.2.1.6 Visual Resources This alternative would likely be located in an area with natural visual characteristics and high visual quality. The area would involve diversified land and water forms, and vege- tative patterns. Sensitivity for the area would vary, however, 3-27 depending on the location. An area close to population centers and access routes, or an area with recreational importance, would have higher sensitivity than the more remote locations. In most cases, sensitivity for the visual resources are low to moderate, with the exception of locations near Anchorage. 3.2.1.7 Cultural Resources Few cultural resources have been discovered in the areas that would be affected by the natural gas-fired alternative. Surveys of specific sites would be necessary to adequately assess cultural resources (FERC, 1984). 3.2.1.8 Air Quality and Noise Air quality data for the western Cook Inlet area is not available but air quality is expected to be high, meeting both National and Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards. The only probable sources of pollutants are the offshore oil and gas platforms in Co9k Inlet, and the industrial area located north of the City of Kenai. Natural dust has been noted as an occasional problem in the vicinity of Kenai. Ambient noise levels are expected to be low in any of the potential sites for a combined-cycle project. 3.2.2 Coal-fired Generation Alternative 3.2.2.1 Land Features The coal-fired alternative project would likely be located in the Nenana area on the thick alluvial deposits of the Tanana River floodplains. Soils in low lying areas are poorly drained and have severe use limitations because of permafrost and wetness (FERC, 1984). 3.2.2.2 Aquatic Resources Specific sites for the coal-fired generation plant and the interim combustion turbine unit have not been identified. The coal-fired plant, however, would be located on a large river or lake because of the water supply requirements of the plant. A probable location in the Nenana area would be on the Tanana River, with the coal being supplied from a mine within the Nenana River Basin. The associated combustion turbine unit could be located anywhere in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area, but would not require a large water supply for operation. The Tanana River in the vicinity of Nenana is a large, low- gradient, braided river with an average annual flow of 23,490 cfs. The river carries a high sediment load from qlacial runoff, but water quality is generally good. The Tanana contains runs of 3-28 Pacific salmon, and other common freshwater species such as burbot, cottids, Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, sculpin, and whitefish. 3.2.2.3 Terrestrial Resources If a coal-fired alternative were constructed, it would most likely be located in the Nenana area of the Railbelt. The combustion turbine would most likely be located in the Anchorage- Cook Inlet area. Vegetation in the Nenana area is primarily bottomland spruce-poplar forest. Coal would be mined in the vicinity of Healy, along the Nenana River, where the vegetation consists of upland spruce-hardwood forests. The dominate vegeta- tion in the Anchorage area of Cook Inlet is lowland spruce-hardwood (FERC, 1984). Moose concentrate along the Nenana River in the winter. Waterfowl occur along the river in relatively low densities. The Healy mining area supports species that are characteristic of relatively open habitats, including caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and brown bear. Caribou winter in concentrations near the mine area and along the Nenana River. The Anchorage area provides limited habitat because of urbanization (FERC, 1984). 3.2.2.4 Threatened or Endangered Species As previously discussed the peregrine falcon is the only Federally listed species in the south-central Alaskan area. Peregrine use of the Nenana area has not been extensively studied. 3.2.2.5 Socioeconomic Factors The most current census figures indicate that as of July 1, 1982, the City of Nenana had 505 permanent residents, and the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area's population totaled 8,060 (personal communication, Diane Winters, Statistical Information Assistant, Bureau of the Census, Suitland, Maryland, January 29, 1985). Because employment opportunities in the Nenana area are limited, many area residents commute to jobs in the Fairbanks area. 3.2.2.6 Visual Resources This alternative probably would be located in an area with natural visual characteristics and high visual quality. The area would involve diversified land forms, water forms, and vegetative patterns. Sensitivity for the area would vary, depending on the location. An area close to population centers and access routes, or an area with recreational importance, would have higher sensi- tivity than more remote locations. In most cases, sensitivity for the visual resources are low to moderate, except for locations near Anchorage. 3-29 3.2.2.7 Cultural Resources Only limited information on cultural resources is presently available for the areas that would be affected by this alternative. Seven cultural resource sites are currently recorded for the Nenana area. Site-specific surveys, which would likely yield additional sites, would be necessary in order to fully assess existing cultural resources (FERC, 1984). 3.2.2.8 Air Quality and Noise Levels Limited air quality data are available from the Nenana area. These data indicate that air quality is excellent, with the exception of occasional high levels of total suspended parti- culates due to natural dust. Ambient noise levels are expected to be low in any of the potential sites for a coal-fired project. 4-1 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATIVE MEASURES PROPOSED, AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4.1 BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT 4.1.1 Air Quality 4.1.1.1 Beneficial and Adverse Impacts Impacts on air quality would occur during the construction period, and would be limited to increased exhaust emissions from construction equipment and increased dust caused by blasting and vehicular movements along access roads and other areas. These impacts would persist throughout the 3-year construction period, although they would be most severe for a shorter time period during the peak of the land disturbing activities. Because the project area is located far from any population centers, only the onsite construction workers and nearby wildlife populations will be subjected to this temporary decrease in air quality. 4.1.1.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed The Applicant has proposed to implement procedures normally used by construction contractors to minimize dust, such as wetting road surfaces. The construction contractor would also attempt to maintain its equipment in good working order, which would reduce exhaust emissions to some degree. 4.1.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Exhaust emissions and dust, even with the implementation of normal control measures, are unavoidable impacts of a large con- struction project. These impacts would affect only a small segment of the population, however, and would subside upon the completion of construction. 4.1.2 Noise Levels 4.1.2.1 Beneficial and Adverse Impacts During the construction phase of the project, increased noise levels would be expected from many sources, including operation of construction machinery, transportation of personnel and materials by air, water and land conveyances, and construction activities such as blasting, wood cutting, and earth moving. Increased noise levels, especially those caused by blasting and aircraft operation, would contrast greatly with the existing low noise levels, and would adversely affect public use and wildlife populations. (See Section 4.1.6.1.2). These impacts would persist in varying degrees of intensity throughout the construction period. t·' ~ ~ ~~ -------~ ---- 4-2 During the operation of the project, short-term, localized increases in noise levels would be expected, primarily as a result of maintenance activities and project-related aircraft and vehicle use. These temporary increases in noise levels should not result in any significant impacts. At other times, increases above back- ground noise levels would be apparent only in the immediate vicinity of the powerhouse. 4.1.2.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed The Applicant has not proposed any specific mitigation for increased noise levels beyond th~ scheduling of blasting and aircraft operations as a part of the mitigation for impacts on wildlife. Occupational safety regulations require hearing protection for workers in the vicinity of damaging noise levels. The construction contractor would be expected to maintain engine mufflers and other e-quipment in g-ood working eroer. 4.1.2.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Increases in noise levels, even with the implementation of normal control measures, are unavoidable impacts of a large construc- tion project. These impacts could cause significant adverse impacts on wildlife populations, the magnitude of which can be reduced, but not eliminated by mitigative measures. Considering the remoteness of the project area and the low incidence of public use in the project vicinity, increased noise levels during the construction phases would not appear to have a significant adverse impact on humans. Increases in noise levels during project operation should be of a local nature, and of short-term duration, except in the immediate vicinity of the powerhouse, where minor increases in noise levels caused by the periodic cycling of the facilities and the discharge of water to the tailrace would continue throughout the life of the installation. 4.1.3 Geology and Soils 4.1.3.1 Beneficial and Adverse Impacts Such construction activities as dredging the barge access channel, soil and rock excavation, and disposing of spoil, which would disturb soils and other consolidated deposits, would result in erosion and sedimentation. Minor localized unstable conditions would occur on some oversteepened excavated slopes, primarily along access roads in areas of steep terrain. Project operation would cause reduced scouring and sediment load below the dams at Bradley Lake and the Middle Fork Bradley River, minor localized erosion and instability along the reservoir shoreline, and some minor erosion and redistribution of sediment below the tailrace. 4-3 The geological and soils impacts of the proposed project would be less than would be associated with the Corps' project because the proposed projects's power tunnel would extend to the powerhouse, thus precluding erosion, sedimentation, and unstable slope conditions that would occur with construction and operation of the above-ground pipeline and associated access road. The proposed project's shortened tailrace would also avoid the majority of the construction impacts that would be associated with the longer tailrace considered by the Corps. Disposal of dredged materials for the proposed project within an enclosed site would avoid the redeposition of sediment in estuarine and marine ecosystems. With these differences, the geological and soils impacts for the two projects would be essentially the same. Project impacts related to geological and soils resources are described and discussed in the Corps' FEIS in Subsection v.B, paragraphs 22, 23, 24, and 25; Subsection v.E, paragraph 36; and the Section 404(b)(l) evaluation. 4.1.3.2 Mitigative Measures proposed The Applicant proposes to use the rock excavated from the tunnel for construction of the airstrip and as fill for the access road and other facilities, thereby precluding the need for a disposal area for that material, and also avoiding any associated disposal site erosion and sedimentation. Rockbolts and other measures would be used for stabilization, and a retaining wall would be used to contain any eroded materials on the cut slopes, upstream from the powerhouse and switchyard area. Rather than using an exposed marine, estuarine, or tidal flat disposal site, the Applicant proposes to spoil the clayey silt excavated from the barge basin and its access channel (approximately 464,000 cubic yards) in a 40-acre site, enclosed between the powerhouse- to-camp access road embankment and the shoreline. An outline of the techniques and practices that the Applicant would use to control erosion and sedimentation at the project is contained in the Draft Proposed Outline for Best Management Practices Manual -Erosion and Sedimentation Control attached as Appendix A. The Applicant proposes to have the manual (scheduled for completion in February 1985) formally reviewed by regulatory agencies and other interested parties before its final adoption. 4.1.3.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Some minor localized erosion and sedimentation would be unavoidable during construction and along the reservoir shoreline during project operation. ~ . . I ;( ':.~ I 1 , , ~ 4-4 4.1.4 Water Quantity and Quality 4.1.4.1 Beneficial and Adverse Impacts A description of water quality and quantity impacts resulting from the Corps' project is contained in Section v.B and in the Section 404(b) (1) evaluation of the Corps' FEIS. Construction Impacts due to construction of the proposed project would be similar to those described by the Corps, and would be primarily limited to Bradley Lake and River, Martin River, Battle Creek, and a portion of the upper end of Kachemak Bay, with some possible effects on Fox River and Sheep Creek from the construction of the transmission line. The major impacts of construction would be the erosion of disturbed areas, resulting in sedimentation in nearby streams, higher turbidity levels, and the runoff of chemical or organic wastes into local water bodies. Activities likely to produce the greatest impacts on water quality would include: construction of the barge basin and channel: access road construction: and operation of borrow and spoil areas. Construction of the barge basin and channel would directly disturb about 115 acres of upper Kachemak Bay, and would involve the dredging of 464,000 cubic yards of primarily silty and sandy clay material. Since this material is easily re-suspended, it is expected that high turbidity levels would persist in the vicinity of the dredging activities, and would spread to an area greater than the 115 acres directly disturbed. Dredging and construction, and in turn, high turbidity levels, would occur for about a 6-month period, from March through August of the first full year of construction (Figure 2-4). The precise turbidity level expected is difficult to determine, although the level may be similar to the high turbidities that normally occur during the summer months in upper Kachemak Bay. Construction of about 10 miles of access roads, including a bridge over Battle Creek, would probably result in the erosion of disturbed areas and in sedimentation and increased turbidity in streams close to the construction sites. The stream most likely to receive runoff from construction areas would be Battle Creek, of which about 3,000 feet passes within close proximity of a portion of the access road and the lower construction camp. Con- struction of the temporary bridge over Battle Creek would result in disturbance of the stream if construction equipment crosses the stream, although the Applicant has proposed to construct the bridge abutments as far away from the streambed as possible. The probable level of turbidity or sedimentation expected in Battle Creek is difficult to predict, and would depend on the success of the contractor's erosion control measures and general construction practices. 4-5 As described earlier, Battle Creek experiences high natural turbidity levels from glacial runoff, although it has somewhat lower turbidities than the other streams in the project area. Other water bodies in the area should not receive direct runoff from road construction, except for the unnamed lake at the upper construction camp, through which the road will be built. Excavation of borrow material and deposition of spoil material may result in the discharge of turbid waters or increased sedimenta- tion into water courses in the project area. The Martin River borrow site has the potential for creating the greatest impacts on water quality of any of the borrow or spoil disposal sites. The proposed borrow pits are located close to active channels of the Martin River (Figure 2-1), with the possibility that runoff from these disturbed areas would enter the Martin River. The quarry site near the outlet of Bradley Lake may contribute highly turbid runoff to the lake1 although the high turbidity levels that already exist in the lake may mask this effect. The main disposal site for dredged material, located near the barge dock behind the powerhouse access road, would not likely affect water quality in the tidal flat, since the access road would contain the dredged material. There is the possibility, however, of limited runoff from the spoil areas reaching the flats through the series of overflow culverts. Other impacts on water quality resulting from project construction would be associated with the runoff of chemicals or organic wastes, such as used motor oil, sewage effluent from the construction camps, and discharge of waste water from the concrete batching plants. Although the Applicant has proposed specific containment areas for storage of chemicals and organics, accidental spills are possible. These, however, would be short-term events, temporarily affecting water quality in a localized areas. The proposed volume of the sewage effluent, which would receive secondary treatment, indicates that this effluent would have little impact on Battle Creek. At the Battle Creek 100-percent-exceedence flow of 10 cfs, the effluent would be diluted at a ratio of 200 to 1. During the summer months, when the construction work force would be the largest and the sewage effluent would peak, the 100-percent-exceedence flow ranges between 40 and 150 cfs (June through September), further diluting the effluent (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). The concrete batching plants, to be located near the proposed damsite and powerhouse site, would be constructed with settling ponds to receive the waste water discharge. The powerhouse plant settling ponds would discharge into the nearby main spoil disposal site, while the damsite plant settling ponds would discharge into Bradley Lake. The small volume of waste water from each plant (2 gallons per minute or 0.004 cfs) would likely have minimal impacts on areas receiving this discharge. The main disposal site would easily absorb or dilute the waste water, while Bradley Lake would also dilute any discharge from the settling ponds. 4-6 Operation Project operation would affect water quantity and quality in the Bradley River by reducing river flows in the lower river and by changing the temperature regime of the same reach of river. Minor changes in salinity may also occur in the lower Bradley River and its estuary, and some flow reductions are probable in the Nuka River. A comparison of the existing and predicted mean monthly flows in the lower Bradley River is contained in Table 4-1. Project operation would result in a more stable, but greatly reduced, flow regime in the lower Bradley River. The average annual flow would be reduced by 87 percent, with monthly reductions ranging from 50 to 94 percent. Reduction of the outflow from Bradley Lake would beneficially affect the water quality of the lower Bradley River by reducing the inflow of highly turbid lake waters during the summer months. Reduction in turbidity levels in the river would increase water transparency and would probably cause an increase in produc- tivity. The total pink salmon spawning habitat in the lower Bradley River would decrease by 55 percent (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1983), but the remaining habitat would be better protected by the more stable flow regime. '!able 4 -1. Existing and predicted mean monthly flows ( cfs) in the lower Bradley River during prop:>sed project operation • ..!/ l'bnth Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Annual Existing flow 634 278 139 123 100 80 89 401 1,126 1,486 1,541 1,182 598 Predicted Fercent flow charqe 82 -87% 62 -78 40 -71 40 -67 40 -60 40 -50 40 -55 107 -73 174 -85 102 -93 100 -94 75 -94 75 -87 !/ !:burce: Alaska R:>wer Authority, 1984b, License Ppplication, Exhibit E. 4-7 Temperature changes expected in the lower Bradley River are summarized in Table 4-2. The postproject temperature regime would likely be slightly warmer during the summer months, cooler during the fall months, and the same as preproject temperatures during the winter and spring months. '!able 4-2. Estimated water temrerature regime of the loYA:lr Bradley River (river mile 5.1) before and during proposed project operation • .!/ ~nth Preproject temperatures Postproject temperatures Difference oc OF oc Of oc Of Oct 40 39.2° 20 35.6° -20 -3.6° Nov 1 33.8 1 33.8 0 0 IEc 0 32.0 0 32.0 0 0 Jan 0 32.0 0 32.0 0 0 Feb 0 32.0 0 32.0 0 0 Mar 0 32.0 0 32.0 0 0 Apr 1 33.8 1 33.8 0 0 May 2 35.6 2 35.6 0 0 Jun 3 37.4 4 39.2 +1 +1.8 Jul 6 42.8 7 44.6 +1 +1.8 Aug 7 44.6 8 46.4 +1 +1.8 Sep 7 44.6 5 41.0 -2 -3.6 .!/ &:>urce: Alaska Power Authority, 1984c • The greatest potential for salinity changes would occur in the summer months, when the Bradley River flows would experience the greatest flow reduction (Table 4-1). Reduced freshwater discharge from Bradley River may allow more saline water to penetrate farther upstream during high tides. Salinities in upper Kachemak Bay, however, are relatively low during the summer months because of a high freshwater inflow from surrounding streams, and thus any salinity increases would be minor. The Applicant has estimated potential increases to less than 2.0 parts per thousand (ppt) up to river mile 3.5 of the Bradley River (Alaska Power Authority, 1984c). Diversion of all runoff from the Nuka Glacier to Bradley Lake would reduce flows in the Nuka River by an undetermined amount. Because of the dynamic situation that has occurred over the years, with the glacier's flow alternatively switching between the two basins, the precise impacts are difficult to predict. In a worst- case scenario, if all the glacier's flow was to be diverted from the Nuka River to Bradley Lake, the Nuka River would experience an average annual reduction in flows of 158 cfs, ranging from a monthly average reduction of 1.6 cfs in March to 539 cfs in September (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E). The ------------------~----------- 4-8 impacts of such a diversion on water quality and fisheries habitat can not be quantified, although similar such diversions have occurred naturally in the past. A water quality impact that could result from reservoir filling would be the development of high levels of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) as organic matter in the inundated areas decomposes. High concentrations of H2S can be toxic to fish and other aquatic organ- isms. It is unlikely, however, that such a problem would occur. H2S is commonly generated in the hypolimnion of highly eutrophic stratified lakes where dissolved oxygen is absent in the hypolimnion (Ruttner, 1973). Bradley Lake can not be characterized as a strat- ified eutrophic lake, but exhibits isothermal conditions through the open-water season, with high levels of dissolved oxygen through- out the water column. The enlarged lake will inundate about 2,578 acres, including 1,169 acres of tall alder-low shrub habitat. The Applicant, however, has proposed to clear larger vegetation from inundated areas. If higher concentrations of H2S were to develop in the lake from the decomposition of the remaining vegetation, H2S would probably be limited to the deeper areas of the lake, below the level of any of the water intakes. 4.1.4.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed Construction The Applicant has attemped to design a project construction plan that would minimize impacts to the surrounding water bodies. In addition, the Applicant is preparing Best Management Practices (BMP) Manuals, containing state-of-the-art measures to protect aquatic resources, for use by project construction contractors (Alaska Power Authority, l984c). BMP manuals are being prepared for: (l) erosion and sedimentation control; (2) fuel and hazardous materials; (3) contingency planning; and (4) liquid and solid waste management. An outline of the erosion and sedimentation control manual is included as Appendix A. Specific mitigative measures proposed by the Applicant, some discussed previously, include: (l) containing dredge spoil material behind the access road embankment; (2) establishing a buffer strip between Battle Creek and the access road route; (3) constructing the Battle Creek temporary bridge so that the abutments are placed out of the stream channel; (4) constructing a dike in the Martin River delta to prevent the active channels from breaking into the borrow pits; (5) establishing a buffer zone between the Martin River and the borrow pits to minimize sedimentation impacts; (6) building secondary sewage treatment facilities for the construc- tion camps; (7) constructing hazardous chemical storage and contain- ment areas; and (8) constructing settling ponds near the concrete hatching plants to minimize the runoff of cement waste water to the surrounding area. 4-9 Operation The Applicant has proposed to maintain m1n1mum flows in the lower Bradley River to protect fisheries habitat (Table 4-3). These flows are based on an instream flow study conducted by the Applicant's consultant (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1983), and have been agreed to by the resource agencies. Table 4-3. Applicant's proposed m1n1mum instream flows (cfs) for the lower Bradley River, to be measured at river mile 5.1 l/ Month Minimum Month Minimum flow flow Oct 50 Apr 40 Nov 50 May 1-22 40 23-31 100 Dec 40 Jun 100 Jan 40 Jul 100 Feb 40 Aug 100 Mar 40 Sep 1-15 100 26-30 50 !/ Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, License Application, Exhibit E. In regard to possible water quality impacts (temperature, H2S), the Applicant has proposed to monitor water temperatures and water quality before and after project startup, and if water quality problems are identified, to modify project operations to avoid impacting fishery resources. The Applicant has also proposed to install a storm gage the Nuka River to determine the impacts of the proposed Nuka diversion on flows in the lower Nuka River. 4.1.4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Construction Some erosion, stream sedimentation, and higher turbidity levels would be unavoidable during project construction. Activities where such impacts could not be avoided would include the proposed barge channel dredging and other construction within water bodies. Runoff from disturbed land areas, such as roads, staging areas, and construction camps, would also be unavoidable. Such runoff could be highly turbid and could contain chemicals or other wastes. 4-10 Operation Although the Applicant has proposed a minimum flow reqime acceptable to the resource agencies, reduction of Bradley River flows would be an unavoidable impact of project operation. An impact that would remain, even with the implementation of an accep- table minimum flow, is the reduction of high flushing flows that act to clean stream gravels of fines. The estimated highest spill- way discharge from the Bradley Lake dam during project operation would be 1,522 cfs in August, but a spill of this magnitude would be expected to occur only once every 5 years. The highest average annual spill is estimated to be only 108 cfs (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E). Water quality impacts (temperature changes and possibly H2S increases) would be unavoidable with the project as proposed. The temperature changes, however, are expected to be minor, and it remains to be seen if H2S actually becomes a problem. Flow reductions in the Nuka River would be an unavoidable impact of project operation, although the resulting impact on aquatic habitat is yet to be determined. 4.1.5 Aquatic Communities 4.1.5.1 Beneficial and Adverse Impacts A description of the impacts of the proposed Corps project on aquatic communities is contained in Section v.B and in the Section 404(b)(l) evaluation of the Corps' FEIS. Impacts of the presently proposed project would be similar to those previously described by the Corps, and are summarized below. Additional FERC staff analysis of impacts is also described. Construction Construction activities would have the greatest direct impact on benthic communities, since benthic habitat would actually be removed during the dredging activities for the barge basin and would be directly impacted by the sedimentation of stream substrate in the runoff from disturbed areas. Dredging activities would remove about 115 acres of marine benthic habitat in upper Kachemak Bay and would result in a total loss of benthic communities in the dredged area. Recolonization of this area by benthos would begin upon completion of dredging activities, however, and total recolonization would likely be complete within a few years. Stream benthos in Battle Creek and Martin River could be lost if sediment from road construction and borrow activities is deposited in the streams and covers the bottom substrate. The extent of sedimentation and the amount of benthic habitat that would be lost, however, is difficult to predict. 4-11 Fish populations could also be affected by stream sediment- ation through the direct loss of spawning and rearing habitat and the loss of benthic food organisms. In addition, if sedimentation were to occur in areas containing incubating eggs or fry, mortali- ties of these life stages would be likely. Adult and juvenile fishes could also experience mortalities if accidental chemical or oil spills were to occur in Battle Creek or Martin River. If the dike and buffer zone between Martin River and the borrow sites were to fail as a result of a flood or other natural event, fish migrating into the Martin River might become entrapped in the borrow pits or experience delay in reaching upstream spawning sites. Both Martin River and Battle Creek, the streams most likely to be affected by project construction activities, do not contain large fish popula- tions, however, so the net effect on fishery resources in the area probably would be minor. Operation The effects of project operation on benthic communities is expected to be minor. Benthic habitat would be reduced in the lower Bradley River because flows would be significantly reduced (Table 4-1). The habitat that remains would be better protected by the stable year-round flows. In addition, turbidity levels would decrease because of the reduction of the outflow from Bradley Lake, resulting in higher water transparency and a probable increase in productivity. If H2S becomes a problem in Bradley Lake, as a result of the decomposition of organic matter in the area inundated, few effects would be expected in the lower Bradley River. No releases would be made from the lake during much of the year, and if releases are made, these would be through an intake located above the layers of the lake expected to contain H2S, if any. Benthic habitat would also be reduced in the Nuka River by an unknown amount, but would be within the range that has been exper- ienced naturally in the Nuka River. Available fisheries habitat in the lower Bradley River would be reduced by project operations, and would be subjected to an altered thermal regime. Although a significant amount of available habitat would be lost, the habitat that would remain would be more effec- tively protected by the more stable flow regime. The Applicant estimates in its instream flow study (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1983) that pink salmon effective spawning habitat, which is habitat that would be available to spawning fish and that also would be protected by incubation flows, could increase by up to 400 percent with the Applicant's proposed minimum flow regime (Table 4-3), compared to the existing natural flow regime. It was estimated that 98.6 percent of the pink salmon spawning habitat available at the proposed spawning flow (100 cfs) would be protected at the proposed winter incubation flow (40 cfs). It thus appears that pink salmon production could increase under proposed project flows. The results of the instream flow study also indicate that chum salmon spawning habitat would increase under the proposed flow 4-12 regime, although few chum salmon now utilize the Bradley River, possibly because of the lack of suitable substrate or upwelling areas normally used by spawning chum salmon. The study indicates that rearing habitat for coho salmon would increase under project flows~ this may not be significant since few coho now spawn in the Bradley River, and existing rearing habitat is only lightly utilized. The fishery agencies have accepted the Applicant's proposed minimum flow release schedule. ll The altered thermal regime in the lower Bradley River (Table 4-2) could impact the salmon resources of the river by changing the timing of spawning and the rate of incubation, thereby altering the pattern of springtime fry emergence. The predicted temperature regime, on a monthly average basis, is that temperatures would be l°C warmer in June, July, and August, 2°C cooler in September and October, and the same as the preproject reqime the remainder of the year. The warmer temperatures in June through August would not appear significant, since temperatures would remain within a range suitable for the spawning of salmon (Bell, 1973), and in fact, probably would not differ significantly from the natural temperature variations in the river. The qreatest potential impact from the temperature changes would be changing the rate of egg incubation and the timing of fry emergence. It is known that the rate of egg incubation is tied to water temperature, and that each species of salmon has a specific requirement for temperature units (TU) for eggs to hatch and for fry to emerge from the gravel. FERC staff has assessed the potential for alteration in the timing of pink, chum, and coho salmon fry emergence, using an analysis of TU's available during the incubation period under existing and project operation conditions. The predicted tempera- tures on Table 4-2 were used as the bases for generating estimated temperature regimes for the first, middle, and last third of each month. These estimated temperature regimes used in the analysis are presented in Figure 4-1. The beginning of the incubation period for each species was the median date of spawning derived from the phenology chart for Bradley River salmonids reported in Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1983). This same chart was used to determine the median date of fry emergence under existing condi- tions, and in turn the TU requirements for the three species in the Bradley River. The existing median date of spawning was also used for the postproject conditions, since it was assumed that the small temperature difference expected during the spawning season would not shift the timing of spawning. ll Letter from Bruce Blanchard, Director, Environmental Project Review, Department of the Interior,.Washington, D.C., September 14, 1984. 10 9 8 0 0 7 1&1 a: :::» .... 6 c a: 1&1 ~ 5 2 1&1 .... 4 3 2 1 0 • • Predicted preprojeet thennal regime o---o Predicted postpro;ect thermal regime I p I ' p q \ p ~ ' ? q ' ~ ~ ' ~ JAN FES MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH Figure 4-1. Predicted preproject and postproject thermal regime in the lower Bradley River (Source: Staff, based on Alaska Power Authority, 1984c). 4-14 Results of this analysis (Table 4-4) indicate that fry emergence may be delayed because of the lower incubation tempera- tures expected in the fall months (Figure 4-1). The median date of emergence for all three species was extended at least 1 month, with pink salmon indicating a shift of about 7 weeks. Such a shift would place a major portion of the fry emergence period outside of the range of the emergence period reported by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1983). The effects of such a delay in emergence are difficult to predict, although a delay would likely adversely affect the growth of salmon fry after emerging from redds. A food supply would likely be available to fry that emerge in June, but these fry would be at a disadvantage because of the shortened growing season. Fry not reaching an optimum size for over-wintering or ocean survival would likely experience higher mortality. Increased mortality of Bradley River salmon fry would adversely affect the stock, and may somewhat offset the potential habitat gains resulting from the stabilized flow regime described earlier. 'Table 4-4. Analysis of the effects of an altered thermal regime on the timing of fry emergeoce in three species of salmon in the lower Bradley River • .!/ Species Preproject existing conditions Postproject conditions of Median Median TU's Median Median TU's Delay in salmon spawning anergeoce to spawning anergeoce y to anergeoce emerge. 2/ emerge. (days) Pink July 25 April 20 1,310 July 25 June 9 1,313 50 Chum July 15 April 25 1,448 July 15 June 10 1,452 46 eooo Sept 1 May 25 946 Sept 1 June 29 948 35 .!/ fource: Staff. y Calculated fran temperature regime depicted in Figure 4-1. May differ fran TU requiranents fran other rivers as reported in the literature. y Date at which cunulative TU' s reached or first exceeded the TU requirements cited in previous colunn. Although such impacts appear serious, it should be noted that the Staff's analysis is based on average temperatures likely to occur, and is limited by the lack of daily temperature data. In addition, even if the predicted temperatures are correct, Graybill et al. (1979) report that TU compensation, wherein salmon eggs developing under different temperatures have differing TU require- ments, likely occurs in species of Pacific salmon. Thus if incuba- tion temperatures are lower, fewer TU's would be required for :e 4-15 hatching and fry emergence, resulting in emergence at a time siwilar to existing conditions. This may be a mechanism that allows salmon to adapt to varying environmental conditions, while keeping emergence at approximately the same time of the year. An impact that could result from the powerhouse discharge into the Sheep Creek-Bradley River common estuary would be the attraction of returning Bradley River salmon into the tailrace, resulting in unsuccessful spawning or in a delay in migration to the river. This impact appears probable, based on the location of the powerhouse in relation to the Bradley River estuary (Figure 2-l), the volume of powerhouse discharge, and experiences at other hydroelectric projects in Alaska where salmon have been attracted into tailraces. The proposed powerhouse would discharge an average flow of 621 cfs during the period of salmon migration into the Bradley River, ranging from a winimum of 444 cfs to a maximum of 1,250 cfs. During July and August, the combined outflow from Sheep Creek and the Bradley River would average 2,661 cfs (July) and 2,336 cfs (August) [Alaska Power Authority, l984b, License Application, Exhibit E]. Including the powerhouse flow, the total freshwater discharge from the Sheep Creek-Bradley River estuary would ranqe from 3,105 cfs to 3,911 cfs in July and from 2,780 cfs to 3,5A6 cfs in August. The powerhouse discharge would comprise 14 percent to 32 percent of total freshwater outflow in July, and 16 percent to 35 percent of the total outflow in August. This significant discharge, entering the Sheep Creek-Bradley River estuary downstream of the point where the Bradley River enters the estuary, would likely attract salmon. It is difficult to predict, however, the behavior of fish entering the tailrace. These fish could attempt to spawn in the unsuitable tailrace habitat, or after some delay, could return to the estuary to continue upstream migration to the Bradley River. The powerhouse discharge could also attract and delay salmon bound for Sheep Creek, although this is less likely, since it is expected that Sheep Creek fish would be able to differentiate between Bradley River and Sheep Creek waters. 4.1.5.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed The Applicant's proposed mitigative measures to protect aquatic habitat during construction and operation of the project have already been described. In short, the Applicant proposes to: minimize erosion, sedimentation, and other impacts during construction: maintain minimum flows in the lower Bradley River: conduct monitoring studies during project construction and operation: and provide additional mitigative measures depending on the results of the monitoring studies. Monitoring studies proposed specifically for fishery resources would entail an A-year program that would include: monitoring of adult salmon escapement, , , I 1, !l:f 4-16 monitoring of incubation success to determine embryo and alevin survival, and monitoring of adult salmon usage of the powerhouse tailrace. 4.1.5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During project construction, destruction of some benthic habitat in the upper Kachemak Bay, in short reaches of Battle Creek and Martin River, would be unavoidable. This habitat would, however, totally recolonize within a few years. Project operation would change the thermal regime of the lower Bradley River, which in turn could alter the timing of salmon fry emergence in the river. The powerhouse discharge would likely attract some adult salmon and would cause either the delay of migration and spawning or unsuccessful spawning in the tailrace. 4.1.6 Terrestrial Environment 4.1.6.1 Beneficial and Adverse Impacts 4.1.6.1.1 Vegetation l/ Roads Approximately 3,352 acres of vegetation would be removed for the construction and operation of the project. The following discussion gives the acreages of each cover type, discussed in Section 3.1.4.1, that would be affected by each of the proposed facilities. A summary of the total acreages of each cover type affected by the project is presented in Section 4.1.6.3. Approximately 10 miles of access roads are proposed for the project (Figure 2-1). Roads would be constructed from the airstrip to the powerhouse, past the barge dock, to the lower camp (2.5 miles); from the lower camp to the borrow pits in the Martin River (1.5 miles); and from the lower camp, past the upper camp, to the dam (6.1 miles). The road to the Martin River borrow area would be temporary; all other roads would be permanent. The roads from the airfield to the powerhouse and from the powerhouse to the lower camp would pass through 0.9 mile of salt- water, herbaceous, sedge-grass vegetation, in the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area, and through approximately 4 miles of coniferous forest. The road leading from the lower camp to the Martin River borrow area would include approximately 0.7 mile through saltwater, herbaceous, sedge-grass communities. The road from the lower camp ~/ Unless indicated otherwise, the information is taken from the application for license for the proposed Bradley Lake Project (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b). Acreage figures are taken from computer printouts supplied by Michael Joyce, Senior Project Scientist, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. p 4-17 to the upper camp would pass through 1.8 miles of coniferous and deciduous forest types and through 4.3 miles of alpine areas, including intermittently exposed bedrock. Excavated material from bedrock cuts would be placed on an upland disposal area approximately o.s mile above the lower camp. The proposed project access roads would occupy a total of 46.1 acres of project land (Table 4-5), including 0.2 acre of open water. The open water crossing through the unnamed pond near the upper camp site would provide access to the upper camp. This crossing is along a high ridge in the pond, which is exposed during periods of low water levels. Alternative routes around the pond were rejected because of increased length and probable higher siltation into the pond. Building permanent roads through forested or tall shrub areas would include a right-of-way. The right-of-way would not be main- tained following construction and would revegetate naturally over time, primarily to willow and alder. The Martin River borrow-area road would be levelled to preconstruction conditions and would be allowed to revegetate naturally. The remaining lower project roads would be open to the public after construction. Dust from road construction and from traffic during project operation would reduce the abundance and coverage of flowering herbs (forbs) near the roads. Everett (1980) states that abundance of forbs, mosses, and lichens decrease with exposure to dust along haul roads. Wetland vegetation immediately adjacent to the roads would be adversely affected by sedimentation. Airstrip A 2,200-foot-long airstrip would be constructed in the vicinity of the proposed powerhouse, displacing approximately 7 acres of salt- water, herbaceous, sedge-grass flats and 2 acres of coniferous forest vegetation. Two alternative sites for the airfield were considered, one on the Martin River delta and one near Sheep Point. The proposed powerhouse site is within the Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area and the ADF&G prefers that no permanent facilities should be constructed in this area unless there are no prudent or feasible alternatives. The Martin River delta site was ruled out for safety reasons and because of the high cost and the need for an increased quantity of fill. The Sheep Point site was ruled out because it would be adjacent to the proposed area for waterfowl mitigation, l/ and was opposed by the ADF&G. Letter from Robert L. Grogan, Associate Director, Office of Management, Division of Governmental Coordination for the State of Alaska, Office of the Governor, Juneau, Alaska, December 11, 1984. Table 4-5. Approximate acreages of plant communi tiPs displaced by the proposed Bradley Lake ProjPct facl HtiPs. }_/ Plant community Roads Air Dredge Borrow Lower Upper Dam Reservoir Mid. Fork Power-Tr<tnsmission Waste Quarry Totals field dls~osal area camE: camE Diversion house line diSEOSal sites Closed coniferous 17.1 2.0 o. 3 21.9 0.6 0.3 352.4 1.4 6.9 402.9 Open coniferous 11.1 5.2 180.7 199.0 Birch forest 0.3 18.7 19.0 llalsam poplar forest 0.1 29.5 7. 7 37.3 Mixed spruce-hi rch 0.8 0.8 Mixed spruce-poplar 26.0 26.0 Tall alder shrubland 5.9 3.2 3.2 366.9 o. 7 39.0 5.0 3.9 427.8 Tall willow shruhland I.R 1.8 Low willow shruhland 801.5 9.0 810.5 ~ I Bog 0.4 7R.9 0.7 80.0 f-1 00 Tall grassland 21.2 21.2 Mesic sedge-grass 1.5 o. 3 R95.4 15.5 912.7 Freshwater sedge-~rass 334.2 9.2 343.4 Saltwater sedge-~rass 4.5 7.0 42.7 4. 7 2.4 61.3 Shruh tundra 0.2 3.8 0.7 I. 2 5.9 Elymus grassland 0.1 2.3 0.1 2.5 Gravel floodplains 1.9 1.0 61.1 1.8 1.3 174.0 7. I o. 7 248.9 Open water ~ 0.6 4.8 0.2 5.8 Total facility acreage 46.1 9.0 44.0 86.2 34.2 5.8 8.6 2577.5 1.9 5.0 762.1 14.2 12.2 3606.8 -Total unvegetated acreage 254.7 Total acreaKe of vegetation removed 3352.1 y Source: Staff, from Woodward-r.lyde Consultants, 1985. unpublished data. -----·----------------------------...... 4-19 ADF&G states that, because no feasible and prudent alternatives have been identified, it has no objection to the powerhouse sites. l/ Barge Basin, Access Channel, and Disposal Site The barge basin and access channel would be constructed within 26 surface acres of open water and 23.2 acres of unvegetated tidal floodplain. Dredged material from the barge basin and access channel would be deposited on sedge flats between the access road and foot- hills north of Sheep Point. The total volume of dredged material would be approximately 464,000 cubic yards and would be placed in a 44-acre, confined, intertidal disposal site, which would displace approximately 43 acres of saltwater, sedgegrass flats (Table 4-5). Alternative dredged-material disposal site locations are dis- cussed in the Corps' FEIS (1982). After reviewing the Corps' study, the Applicant considered four location options; upland, open water, intertidal flat, and the proposed contained intertidal disposal. The Applicant selected the confined intertidal disposal site as the least environmentally damaging alternative (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). The Sheep Point disposal site would be rehabilitated and revege- tated following construction and used as a waterfowl habitat and nesting area. (See Section 4.1.6.2.) No future maintenance dredging is planned during operation of the project. Additional impacts to tidal-flat vegetation would include siltation from barge traffic and potential spills of the petroleum products that would be handled in this area during project construction. Borrow Area The project borrow area would occupy approximately 86 acres in the Martin River area (Table 4-5). The borrow pits would be situated to minimize disturbance to the scattered tall alder communities. Short-term impacts to adjacent vegetation, primarily the herbaceous components of the tall alder communities, would result from the accum- ulation of dust that would be generated during borrow operations. Lower Camp and Staging Area The lower camp and staging area would displace approximately 34 acres of vegetation (Table 4-5). A transmission line would be constructed from the powerhouse to the camp on the saltwater, herbaceous sedge-grass flats. Vegetation disturbance from the ~/ Letter from Carl W. Yanagawa, Regional Supervisor, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division, Anchorage, Alaska, December 4, 1984. 4-20 lower-camp, power-line construction would not be significant because soil disturbance would be minimal. The effects of the lower camp and maintenance building operations on vegetation would be minor. Upper Camp The upper camp would disturb approximately 5.2 acres of open coniferous forest and would displace 0.6 surface acre of a small pond, due to the construction of the access road. The alternative of locating the upper camp in an area that would become part of the reservoir after construction was rejected because of the steepness of the terrain at the west end of Bradley Lake (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). Unlike use of the lower campsite, use of the upper camp would involve no storage of large quantities of fuel or construction of a transmission line. The upper camp would be completely removed after project construction. Dam The dam and intake would occupy 8.6 acres (Table 4-5). Concrete mixing, blasting, and other construction activities at the site would create dust that would have a short-term impact on herbaceous cover. Operation of the project would reduce flows below the dam: the down- stream portion of the canyon forms a narrow, steep-sided channel, however, so changes in soil moisture would not cause a significant shift in vegetative cover types. Reduced flows on gravel bars would most likely result in a minor increase in the coverage of such alder and herbaceous species as fireweed. Middle Fork Diversion The Middle Fork diversion would utilize a buried pipeline, which would cross alder and shrub tundra (Table 4-5). Revegetation would be slowest in the shallow, rocky soils of the shrub tundra zone. Operation of the project would eliminate the vegetation immediately below the outlet of the diversion pipe. Nuka Glacier Flow Diversion The Nuka Glacier flow diversion would involve the construction in unvegetated areas, of a gravel dike on the Nuka River and an outlet weir on the Upper Bradley River. Construction equipment would be airlifted to the site. No impacts to vegetation are anticipated from the construction or operation of this facility. Reservoir The proposed reservoir would inundate 2,577.5 acres (Table 4-5), including tall alder, low willow shrub, and sedge-grass vegetation where Kachemak Creek and the Upper Bradley River feed into Bradley Lake. In addition to the vegetation killed through innundation, the vegetation immediately above the maximum-fill level (1,180-foot 4-21 contour) would be lost through erosion in areas that are subject to high wave action. Unlike the Corps' proposal, the Applicant's pro- posed dam construction would not involve a drawdown of the existing lake. Before the reservoir is filled, trees greater than l-inch diameter breast height would be removed by mechanical means. During cutting and removal, work crews would minimize disturbances to the vegetation above the inundation zone. Tunnel Unlike the Corps' proposed project, the Applicant's proposed tunnel would be constructed underground. Impacts to vegetation would be minimal and would be confined primarily to shrub tundra and tall alder vegetation in the immediate area of the intake, and to closed coniferous forest at the outlet. Powerhouse and Tailrace Saltwater herbaceous sedge-grass would be affected by the con- struction of the powerhouse and tailrace (Table 4-5). Additional, scattered patches of saltwater sedge-grass vegetation would be affected by the tailrace discharge, which would run through the mud flats during project operation. Transmission Line Forest vegetation along the 20-mile-long transmission line would be cleared to provide a 225-foot-wide corridor. In addition, selected tall woody vegetation would be removed for 50 feet on either side of the right-of-way. The right-of-way would pass through closed conifer- ous forest on the east side of the Fox River Valley. The line would then cross the Fox River Valley and would continue west, passing south of Caribou Lake, to a tie-in with the proposed Fritz Creek Soldotna transmission line (Figure 1-6). The corridor area would total approximately 762 acres (Table 4-5). The Applicant would keep vegetative removal on the steep west side of the valley to a minimum to decrease the erosion potential. Vegetation beneath the powerlines in forested areas would be maintained in a shrub stage. Waste Disposal Concrete wastes resulting from building the dam, tunnel, and other facilities would be poured onto a gravel pad, allowed to harden, and subsequently removed for disposal onsite at designated solid-waste disposal areas. There would be a 5-acre disposal area at the dam, and incinerated material and clean waste (concrete, non-toxic metals, and other non-combustibles) would go to a landfill adjacent to the staging area and the lower camp (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). Forest vegetation would be disposed of in five possible ways: commercial timber would be sold or would be used for onsite construction; 4-22 slash would be left on the ground (in areas where it will not inter- fere with wildlife movements), piled and burned, or transported to a central location for disposal. The estimated acreage of commercial timber would total 356.7 acres. The bulk of the commercial timber would come from the right-of-way clearing for the transmission line (352.4 acres). Two acres would be cleared for the airstrip, 0.6 acre for the lower camp buildings, 1.4 at the organic stockpile area, and 0.3 at the powerhouse site (personnal communication, Paul Hampton, Wildlife Biologist, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska, January 15, 1985). Material produced by blasting in the tunnel and by tunnel boring would be used onsite for the airstrip and for the surfacing of access roads and yard areas (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). Organic soil material would be stockpiled at the lower camp area on 3.9 acres, which would displace 1.4 acres of closed coni- ferous forest and 2.5 acres of balsam poplar vegetation. Batching Plants The Applicant would operate two concrete batching plants; one located adjacent to the access road, between the powerhouse and the dredged material disposal area, a second approximately 3,000 feet from the proposed site of the dam. The batching plants would occupy 1 to 2 acres (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). The upper plant would be within a tall alder vegetative community and the lower plant would be wi/thin a saltwater herbaceous sedge-grass community. Quarry Sites The lower quarry area would be approximately 1 mile up the road from the lower camp and would occupy 7.6 acres. A second quarry site of 4.6 acres would be located near the dam. (See Table 4-5 for the vegetative cover types.) 4.1.6.1.2 Wildlife l/ The following section discusses species of regional importance that would be affected by each of the major project facilities. Disturbances and minor changes to the distribution and abundance of small mammals, passerine birds, and other common species are not discussed unless they are of some significance. ll Unless indicated otherwise, the information has been derived from Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E. 4-23 Roads Construction of the roads from the airport to the powerhouse and from the powerhouse to the lower camp would begin in March of the first construction year and would continue through May. Construction of the upper road to access the dam would begin in March of the first construction year and would continue through August. Construction techniques would require cutting and filling and would involve blasting on a daily basis. Waterfowl would be affected by road construction in the tidal flat areas through loss of habitat and through disturbances during the March through May construction period. The tidal flats, in the vicinity of the proposed road construction, are used by waterfowl for feeding: nesting is unsuccessful because of tidal inundation. The actual habitat loss is approximately 4.5 acres. The access road from the lower camp to the Martin River borrow area would be less significant, for waterfowl distribution and density, than the airstrip-to-lower-camp road, because most of the waterfowl concentrate along the tideline. The primary disturbance would result from blasting and the operation of heavy equipment. The peak water- fowl concentrations occur in late August through September, after the completion of the March through May road construction in the tidal flats. The long-term effects of project roads on waterfowl distribution and abundance largely would involve disturbances by vehicular traffic. These effects are expected to be minor. Waterfowl feeding along the sedge-grass flats tend to move in and out with the tide. The proxim- ity of feeding waterfowl to the road would therefore be limited to short periods each day. In addition, the use of project roads would be limited. Only the airport-to-powerhouse road would be open to visitors: remaining roads would be used by the project staff for inspections and maintenance. Shorebird distribution and abundance would be more significantly affected by road construction than would waterfowl, because shorebird migration and staging peaks in the spring, and would coincide with the bulk of the lower road construction in the tidal flats. The use of heavy equipment and blasting would be the primary disturbance factors: blasting would be the more significant disturbance because of its sudden impact. Shorebirds would be more likely than waterfowl to adapt to the chronic disturbance of heavy equipment (Joyce and Hampton, 1983). The disturbance to shorebirds caused by vehicular traffic during project operation is expected to be minor, as it would be for water- fowl, because of the limited use of the access roads. Neither road construction nor operation is expected to have a significant affect on nesting shorebirds, because of the lack of suitable nesting habitat in the immediate area. 4-24 Bald eagles are known to nest in the project area and three nests have been identified in the vicinity of the proposed roadways. Road construction near Battle Creek would come within 1,000 feet of a bald eagle nest. Road construction on the Martin River Delta would be no closer than 3,000 feet from a nest. The airstrip road would be over 2 miles from the nearest eagle nest, which is adjacent to the Bradley River. The main disturbance factor would be heavy equipment. Blasting would be used primarily for road construction on the reach from approximately 0.5 mile above the lower camp to the upper camp and dam (personal communication Michael Joyce, Senior Project Scientist, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Archorage, Alaska, January 15, 1985). The three eagle nests discussed above are in the lower areas where road construction would consist primarily of grading and filling. The distances between the nests and the road construction are expected to provide adequate buffers to minimize the disturbance to nesting eagles. Road construction would create a short-term disturbance to moose in the upland areas where blasting would be required. Roads do not cross known moose migration routes. The Martin River segment would be constructed between March and May and would not affect potential moose wintering use near the mouth of the river. Opera- tion should have minimal effects because hunters would be restricted from the upper roads. The road from the upper camp to the dam is the only portion of the project roadways that would affect mountain goats. This portion of the road would create a relatively insignificant long- term loss of range. The use of heavy equipment and blasting would create a short-term disturbance, affecting distribution. Because a small portion of the goat population uses the vicinity of the upper road, it is expected that road construction would constitute only a minor disturbance to the population. Long-term disturbance to goats would be insignificant because of the minimal use of the upper project roads by vehicular traffic. Construction would displace local bears temporarily. Grizzly bears are not common in the road areas. Any black bears that may be denning in the adjacent coniferous forests would be disturbed by blasting and heavy equipment noise. Any resulting mortality would not significantly affect the black bear population in the area. Hunting pressure is not expected to increase significantly because the upper project roads would not be open to hunters and construction crews would not be permitted to hunt. Wolf distribution would be affected by project road construc- tion. Wolves tend to avoid areas of human activity (Mech, 1970). Wolf tracks have been observed in the vicinities of both the upper and lower project roads, but wolves would probably avoid these areas during construction. Long-term impacts are not anticipated because only infrequent use of the roads is planned during operation. + 4-25 Airstrip Building the airfield would remove wintering waterfowl and shore- bird habitat totaling 7 acres, and would disturb species staging in the surrounding sedge-grass flats during construction. The wetlands in the area of the airfield are designated as a critical habitat area by the state. Geese and dabbling ducks disperse over the sedge flats to feed; sea ducks and diving ducks tend to follow the tides, feeding in deeper water (personal communication, Michael Joyce, Senior Project Scientist, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska, January 8, 1985); shorebirds follow the tideline. Sea ducks and diving ducks and shorebirds are more likely to be concentrated and thus to be more susceptible to displacement by construction activities and aircraft during high tides. Long-term impacts would result from low-flying aircraft and from increased hunter access. The potential hunting pressure would be lessened by limiting use of the airstrip. The airfield would not be lighted and would be posted as "use at your own risk" to discourage heavy use. Airfield use is expected to be lower during project operation than during construction. During operation of the airfield, fixed-wing aircraft, which would generally approach from the northeast, would pass over a bald eagle nest along the Bradley River. The approach path would occur at an adequate buffer distance, consistent with the requirements of the Bald Eagle Protection Act, which is expected to minimize distur- bance to nesting eagles. Construction of the airfield is not expected to affect moose, wolves, or bears because these species do not regularly use the airfield site. Operation would provide additional hunter access, which would most likely affect black bear. The airstrip is closer to black bear habitat than to areas used by other game species. Barge Basin and DisposaL Site A 1.5-mile-long access channel and barge basin would be dredged in the tidal flats in the summer during a period of approximately 60 days (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). As previously discussed, dredged material would be deposited on a 44-acre, saltwater, tidal wetland and would be rehabilitated as a non-tidal freshwater wetland and waterfowl nesting site. The basin would remain open to sportsmen. Dredging activities would temporarily displace waterfowl, but this impact is expected to be minor because most waterfowl use is near the tideline, and waterfowl densities are lowest in the summer. Barge and boat traffic would constitute minor long-term disturbances. Increa- sed hunting pressure on area waterfowl would constitute a significant, long-term indirect impact, resulting from the improved access. The loss of the 44-acre tidal flat as feeding habitat is expected to be offset by the creation of a freshwater wetland on the same site. If the site is successfully established as a nesting site, it would 4-26 increase waterfowl and shorebird production in the project area and would also benefit gulls. Suitable nesting habitat is currently a limiting factor to waterfowl and shorebirds in the project area. The use of the 44-acre saltwater herbaceous sedge-grass site for the mitigation plan was necessary because no other site was suitable or feasible for the disposal of dredged material. Seals might be disturbed during dredging operations. Dredging would occur during both pupping and molting periods in the summer. Seals would most likely avoid the area during dredging operations. The long-term effects of boat traffic are expected to be minor because boats would not enter the area during low tide when seals are out of the water. During high tide, seals are usually out in the water feeding, and would not be in the vicinity of the barge basin. Martin River Borrow Pit The borrow area would consist of three shallow pits in 86 acres of gravel floodplain and coniferous forest. The design of the borrow pits would incorporate feathered edges and littoral zones. The resulting pits would be flooded after project construction. The middle and lower pits would contain vegetated islands. Borrow pit construction is not expected to significantly affect waterfowl because the active floodplain and tidal flats that these species use would not be disturbed by borrow activities. Similarly, shorebirds utilize the tidal flats and would not be sig- nificantly affected by construction. The borrow area would provide additional waterfowl and shorebird habitat after construction, be- cause littoral zones and islands would be incorporated in the design. Bald eagles are the only raptors known to utilize the Martin River Delta in the vicinity of the proposed borrow area. An eagle nest is located approximately 500 feet from the upper borrow pit. Mining would extend from March through late summer and would coin- cide with the nesting and brood-rearing period. The operation of heavy equipment would constitute a chronic disturbance. No blasting would occur, however, and the success of fledgling eagles would most likely not be affected. Mining during the following year would occur greater than 2,000 feet away from the nest. Bald eagles concentrate along the lower Martin River in the fall; typically in balsam poplars, at least 1,000 feet upstream from the proposed borrow area. Because of this distance and the absence of blasting, no significant impacts are expected. In the long-term, the rehabilitated borrow pits would provide a potential food source for eagles, if the pits are used by trout or salmon. According to Rappoport et al. (1981), the borrow area is adjacent to a high quality moose range. No direct habitat loss to the winter range would occur, although heavy equipment noise would 1 4-27 probably displace any moose in the immediate vicinity or discourage moose from moving into the area. A moose survey of the project area from October 1983 until June 1984 recorded no moose observations on the Martin River delta, and no moose sign (tracks, scat, or evidence of browse on vegetation) was encountered (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, l984a). Any effects on moose utilization or potential utilization of the area would be short term. Habitat disturbance (loss of an estimated 22 acres of conifers and 3 acres of tall alder) is not expected to create a significant long-term adverse impact. Lower Camp The lower camp area (including the staging area, buildings, the waste disposal site, the organic stockpile, the sewage lagoon, and the 7.6acre lower quarry site) would displace approximately 51 acres of vegetation, which includes 37 acres of balsam poplar. The temporary camp would accommodate 240 people. Hunting and trapping by project construction personnel would be prohibited. Permanent housing for four families would remain on the site. Those individuals permanently stationed at the site for project operation would be permitted to hunt according to Federal and state regulations. Waterfowl use of the Battle Creek area, near the proposed camp, is low compared to the use of the surrounding tidal flats. Construc- tion is therefore expected to temporarily displace small numbers of feeding waterfowl. Shorebirds feed along the Battle Creek tideline during the summer. Camp construction and operation would not affect the shoreline habitat. Waterfowl would most likely move to the adjacent tidal flats. A bald eagle nest is located over 3,000 feet from the camp site and roughly 2 miles from the lower quarry site; because of this distance, disturbance should be minimal. No other raptor nesting in the lower camp area has been documented. The potential for raptor collisions with the camp transmission line would be minimized through a raptor-proof pole design and through wide spacing of the transmission wires. The removal of 37 acres of balsam poplar would constitute a loss of winter habitat for moose and would include several large snags (cavity trees) that provide potential habitat for woodpeckers, owls, and cavity nesting, passerine birds such as chickadees. Construction noise, especially from quarry minings, would likely displace black bears in the adjacent coniferous forest. Although the four families permanently stationed at the project site would be permitted to hunt, the long-term effects on the regional black bear population would not be significant. Refuse would be stored in "bearproof" containers at the site and would be transported to an incineration area daily in an effort to 4-28 minimize the occurrence of problem bears. These containers would be large capacity, covered, metal containers with locking devices, and would be located within a fenced area (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d) 0 Sewage treatment is expected to prevent any siqnificant water quality impacts that would adversely affect wildlife, including beaver and marine mammals. Similarily, any indirect effects on such terrestrial fish-eating species as eagles and bears are unlikely. The lower quarry would be approximately 1 mile up the road from the lower camp. The closest active eagle nest is about 2 miles away. Upper Camp The upper camp would be a temporary facility to house 210 people during construction at the lake. Sewage would be transported to the lower camp treatment facility. Hunting would be prohibited. The upper camp would not be within an area utilized by water- fowl and shorebirds or highly utilized by raptors. Construction materials would be flown to the site by helicopter before the com- pletion of the roadways. This helicopter activity would increase the use of the airstrip, which would most likely displace waterfowl, and shorebirds in the area of the airstrip, and would disturb raptors along the lower portions of the flight path. Moose would be displaced along the helicopter routes during con- struction and would be displaced by heavy equipment noise at the site. Mountain goats would be similarly affected, but because only a small percentage of the herd is known to occur in the vicinity, construction and operation of the upper camp is expected to have a minor effect. The areas in the vicinity of the camp provide good habitat for grizzly and black bears. The actual habitat loss (5.2 acres) would not be significant. Disturbance, from construction and human activities would be short term. In addition, construction crews would not be permitted to hunt. Camp refuse would be stored in "bear-proof" containers, as previously described. Bradley Lake Dam Construction of the dam, operation of the concrete-batching plant, and mining at the upper quarry would all begin in March. Blasting would occur on a frequent basis for approximately 8 months. Activities would stop for the first winter, from December through the following March. Minimum flow releases would protect shorebird habitat along the river during operation. Area raptors would most likely alter their hunting ranges to avoid the construction activity; passerine birds and ptarmigan in the area would be displaced by blasting. Construction would occur during three breeding seasons. 4-29 Moose and bear habitat is abundant in the area. These species would avoid the dam site because of blasting, other noise, and human disturbance. Mountain goats concentrate near the Bradley River and Sheep Creek beginning in late October or early November, and move to sum- mer range, from Sheep Creek to the Nuka Glacier, beginning in late May and June. Goats would be affected by dam construction during the winter when they are generally in poor condition. Construction would be stopped during the first season from December through March. Goats that are in the area during construction would move into adja- cent range, where their survival would depend on the size and quality of the range. In addition, goats would be unable to cross the Bradley River near the lake outlet; any goats on the south side of the river would be isolated from the winter range to the north. It is likely that suitable winter range exists south of the river, because goat herds have been documented both north and south of the Bradley River adjacent to the project area (Holderman, 1983). This effect should be short term, because the facility design incorporates a corridor for goats to cross the river. It is expected that use of the corridor would increase as goats become accustomed to the presence of the dam. Harbor seals, river otters, and small furbearers would not be significantly affected by operation of the dam because of the minimum flow releases, which are intended to protect fisheries. Beaver would gain improved habitat conditions, in fact, because high flows current- ly limit beaver distribution along the lower portions of the river. Middle Fork Diversion The Middle Fork diversion, located 1 mile north of the lake, would include a small dam, a spillway, and two buried diversion pipe- lines. Construction would occur from April through September, and materials and equipment would be transported by helicopter to the site. Construction would most likely interfere with the nesting and the brood-rearing of ptarmigans and passerine birds. The construction of the diversion lines from Middle Fork to Marmot Creek would displace moose and would potentially disrupt their spring migration between the Fox River and Kachemak Creek. The shrub tundra and alder vegeta- tion, that provide food and cover for moose would be disturbed during construction and would revegetate slowly because of the alpine climate of the site. Mountain goats use the site during the summer and would be driven to adjacent range due to the construction noise and heli- copter traffic. Goat summer range, however, is fairly extensive and goats are in relatively good condition during summer months. During operation, the diversion lines would not restrict goat movement because the lines would be buried. 4-30 Nuka Glacier Flow Diversion Construction would involve blasting, movement of soil and rock, and the use of helicopters and would last for 2 weeks. Because of the short time frame, short-term disturbances are not expected to significantly affect wildlife species. No important habitats would be affected in this area. Goats have been observed on the mountain slopes above the glacier, and moose feed in the upper Bradley River; both species would avoid the area during construction. During operation, flows in the upper Bradley River would be increased into the reservoir and flows on the Nuka River would be decreased. Because the area is largely unvegetated, the change in water regime is not expected to have a significant effect on wildlife habitat. Reservoir Operation The reservoir would begin filling in March and would reach 1,180 feet in elevation by October, inundating 2,577.5 acres that would include 1,230 acres of herbaceous wetlands, 800 areas of low willow, and 367 acres of tall alder. The water level would fluctuate by 60 feet annually. As water levels rise in the winter, wintering birds would be displaced from the willow and alder thickets around the lake to higher elevations or to adjacent areas. Water levels would rise by about 25 feet during May and June, when ptarmigans and passerine birds would be nesting, resulting in the inundation of any nests within the zone. Eventually, the willow and alder below 1,180 feet would be eliminated by the mechanical disturbance of the ice and by flooding during the growing season, and this zone would be eliminated as a nesting habitat. The inundation of the wetlands in the Kachemak Creek-Upper Bradley River area would eliminate approximately 1,610 acres of high-quality, spring-to-early-summer, moose range and fair-to-good quality winter range, a significant loss. The highest count of moose in this area, made during a recent survey (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1984a) was 13 in November 1983. Displaced moose could move into the Fox River valley or the Nuka River Valley. The Fox River Valley would most likely support the displaced population; the Fox River Valley exper- iences its highest use from late November to late December, but appears under-utilized during the rest of the year (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1984a). The Nuka River Valley would also be able to support additional moose, but the valley is relatively isolated, which accounts for the current low density of moose there. Because tracks were observed on the slopes of the Kachemak Creek and the Upper Rradley River Valleys above the maximum reservoir elevation, it is probable that the reser- voir would not impede the movement of moose into or out of the Nuka River Valley (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1984a). 4-31 The reservoir is not expected to impede the movement of mountain goats which are not normally found in the zone that would be flooded. The loss of the herbaceous wetlands in the inundation zone would affect the black bear and the grizzly bear. The loss would be signi- ficant, because the Kackemak flats provide a habitat, scarce in the area, where bears can feed on grasses and forbs in the early spring. Inundation of the wetland areas would eliminate the beaver that inhabit this area. Four beaver lodges are known to occur in the proposed inundation zone. Small mammals would be locally affected and wolves, coyotes, foxes, and other predators would largely lose the inundation zone as a potential hunting area. The abundance of these species would decline in the immediate project vicinity. Powerhouse and Tunnel The powerhouse and tailrace would be constructed in the tidal flats. The underground tunnel would be excavated from the powerhouse, through the mountain, and to the lake. Construction would involve drilling, blasting, and the use of a tunnel-boring machine. Construc- tion crews would use the excavated material for the airstrip and the access roads. Excavated material from the upper portion of the tunnel would be piled at the waste site near the intake structure. Blasting would disturb wildlife in the vicinity of the powerhouse during the first 100 to 300 feet of tunnel excavation. The boring machine would continue the rest of the excavation. Blasting would occur during late summer and fall when bird densities are low in this area. The only potentially important disturbance would be to denning black bears in the adjacent coniferous forest. Passerine birds are the most abundant avian species near the dam and the intake and would most likely be displaced by excavation in this area. Construction would also displace any moose, bears, small mammals, fox, coyote, and wolves. The effect would be short-term, and the loss of habitat would be minimal. Mountain goats, distributed throughout the higher elevations, are not expected to move out of the area because of the short-term nature of the disturbance. Operation of the underground tunnel would not significantly affect wildlife populations. The presence of the powerhouse would not substantially impede the movement of moose through the tidal areas. This site does not constitute important moose feeding or calving habitat (Alaska Power Authority, l984d). Transmission Line The transmission line would be approximately 20 miles long. Most of the 762-acre right-of-way would pass through coniferous forests, 4-32 totalling approximately 530 acres. Construction would occur between October and May. Helicopters would transport materials except in the Fox River valley, where tracked vehicles would be used. Construction crews would remove slash in areas where wildlife movements could be impeded. Slash disposal techniques, acreages of cover types affected, and acreages of commercial timber are discussed in Section 4.1.6.1.1., Vegetation. Helicopters, noise, and construction activities would displace local passerine birds and raptors in the forested areas of the right- of-way and would displace waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors in the wetland areas near the powerhouse and in parts of the Fox River Valley. The transmission lines would pose a long-ter~ collision hazard to birds, including waterfowl and raptors. The flight intensities of migratory waterfowl are generally low enough, however, that mor- tality would not significantly affect resident or migratory avian populations. Resident dabbling ducks that breed near the trans~is sion lines would most likely suffer the highest mortality. An aver- age of 83 percent of the dabblers, observed near the proposed trans- mission-line corridor during the spring and summer surveys, flew at or below transmission line height. Many were observed in courtship pursuits, which could distract the ducks from seeing and avoiding transmission lines. Factors that affect actual mortality rates include the visibility of the line; the experience of the resident population with the line; the behavioral characteristics of the species; the flight speed of the species; and disturbance or distrac- tion factors, caused by hunters, boats, and aircraft (Thompson, 1978). Raptor electrocutions on powerlines are largely determined by the behavioral characteristics and the size of the species and the design characteristics of the transmission facility, specifically the distance between phase and ground wires (Olendorff et al., 1981). Sharpshined hawks and goshawks generally perch in the shelter of trees and rarely perch on powerlines or poles. Red-tailed hawks commonly perch on powerpoles. Small raptors are unable to span the distance between phase and ground wires (Olendorff et al., 1981). Bald eagles are the largest raptor species in the project area. The electrocution hazard to eagles and other raptors would be minimized by spacing the lines 15.5 feet apart and by designing the system without an overhead ground wire (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). Construction noise would temporarily displace local wildlife populations. Grizzly bears would be displaced from spring feeding areas where the transmission line crosses the Fox River flats. Denning black bears would be displaced where the line crosses through closed coniferous forest habitat. In general, the long-term effects of the transmission line right-of-way would be beneficial to local mammal populations. The Applicant would maintain the corridor in an early successional shrub 4-33 stage. Local bear populations, as well as other fruit-eating mammals and birds, would benefit from an increased fruit production of some shrub species. The increased availability of shrub species would also improve moose range in the forested areas along the corridor. The degree of benefit largely depends, however, on the species compo- sition of the forest understory before the overstory spruce is cut. The chief understory component in much of the closed conifer forest is alder, which is not a preferred browse species. The highest quality browse would regenerate in the mixed, spruce-balsam poplar and deciduous stands. 4.1.6.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 4.1.6.2.1 Vegetation The adverse effects of road dust would be minimized by spraying the roads with water. Water would not be taken from active fish streams such as Battle Creek or the Martin and Bradley Rivers. Roads in the upper tidal areas, other than in the containment basin area, would be located along the toe of the uplands to mini- mize impacts to tidal wetlands. Disturbed sedge-grass areas would be revegetated using native species. The Applicant would develop erosion-control techniques (including detailed revegetation plans) and drainage structure designs in conjunction with the relevant agencies and would finalize the techniques during the final design stage of the project. Proper culvert installation would prevent dewatering or the impoundment of project area wetlands. The pond crossing near the upper camp would include oversized culverts and an embankment of clean rock fill. The lower project roads would be open to the public. The use of all-terrain vehicles would only be permitted on maintained project roads, however, to protect the saltwater herbaceous sedge-grass community within the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area and the Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area. Impacts to the remaining sedge-grass communities in the vicinity of the barge basin would be minimized through the safe handling of petroleum products. The Applicant proposes to develop a "Spill Pre- vention and Contamination Countermeasures Plan" prior to construction. The confined dredged material disposal site would be developed as a freshwater wetland. Precipitation and natural drainage would provide the source of fresh water for the site. Salt-tolerant plant species would be used for revegetation because of the initial leach- ing of salts from the dredged material. Salt leaching is expected to diminish over time because of fresh water infiltration. The selection of plant species would be coordinated with the ADF&G and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources' Plant Material Center (Alaska Power Authority, 1984c). ,, I~ 4-34 The impacts of dust on vegetation from the operation in the lower camp, at maintenance buildings, and in the upper camp would be minimized by spraying water. Work crews at the lower camp and at maintenance buildings would store fuel underground to prevent spills. Organic soils from clearing activities and road construction would be stockpiled adjacent to the lower camp (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d), and would be used to rehabilitate and to revegetate the lower and upper camp areas after the camp facilities are removed. Waste dis- posal areas would be covered with 24 inches of soil, graded for drainage, and revegetated. The Applicant proposes to maintain the transmission line right- of-way in wooded areas by mechanical methods and to avoid the use of herbicides. The Applicant further proposes several practices to lessen the impacts from transmission line construction in wetland areas. Sensitive wetland and riparian areas would be accessed by helicopter or by rubber-tired, low-ground-bearing-pressure vehicles. Tracked- vehicles would be used only on frozen ground within the wetland areas (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). 4.1.6.2.2. Wildlife l/ The Applicant proposes to regrade and revegetate the 1.5-mile- long temporary road to the Martin River borrow area with native sedge and grass species. This mitigative action would aid in restoring the site as habitat suitable for feeding by waterfowl. The Applicant proposes to construct the 44-acre dredged disposal area as a freshwater marsh for waterfowl mitigation. Material would be pumped in by hydraulic dredge. After the site is dewatered, the Applicant would grade and contour the site to create several shallow water areas and an approximate total of 2.5 acres of islands and peninsulas, which would be suitable for waterfowl nesting (Figure 4-2). The site would be designed to minimize nest predation, the islands, for example, would be constructed at a sufficient distance from the shoreline to decrease the probability of mammalian predators reaching them (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). This mitigative plan is intended to offset the loss of the 44 acres of feeding habitat, which now exists at the proposed disposal site, and the loss of other feeding habitat (from roadways and the airstrip) by providing nesting and brood-rearing habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. Nesting habitat is presently very limited in the project area. To monitor the effects of project construction on eagles, the Applicant proposes to conduct additional field studies to locate, identify, and assess the activity at each bald eagle nest in the pro- ~I Unless otherwise indicated, the source is Alaska Power Authority, l984b, Application, Exhibit E. SPOL DISI'05AI. & W.O.TE~OWL NESTING 11.RF A "--S( yr TYPICAL ROAD SECT ION ALONG 5POIL DISPOSAl & W.O.TERFOWL NESTING AREA TYPICAL NES TONG ISLAND Figure 4-2. Proposed waterfowl nesting area (Source: Alaska Power Authority, 1984 b, Application, Exhibit E). ~ I w CJl • 4-36 ject area. The methodologies and study parameters would be devel- oped in consultation with the FWS (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). When possible, the Applicant proposes to schedule blasting to avoid or to minimize impacts to wildlife. This includes the potential to schedule daily blasting to coincide with low tides, when waterfowl and shorebirds are farthest from the construction sites (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). Proposed mitigation for the airstrip includes: (1) limiting construction and aircraft landings and takeoffs during high tides, when waterfowl are most likely to be concentrated near the power- house area; and (2) developing the proposed waterfowl nesting area (dredged disposal site). The expected benefits of the mitigation site over the wetlands lost to project construction ar8 that the mitigation site would be a freshwater wetland, which would be unaffected by tides and would be suitable for nesting. The Martin River delta borrow area would be rehabilitated to provide vegetated islands and shallow water zones. This rehabili- tation would provide additional potential habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. If fish utilize the ponds, additional feeding habitat would become available to eagles. Personnel occupying the lower and upper camp sites would not be permitted to hunt during the construction period. After construc- tion, the temporary facilities would be removed, leaving only the permanent facilities in the lower camp areas to accommodate four families~ ' A travel corridor would be constructed in conjunction with the Bradley Lake Dam. This feature is intended to eliminate the obstacle to seasonal mountain goat movements that would occur from the pre- sence of the dam. The Applicant would prohibit construction personnel from harassing mountain goats by airplane or from the ground (Alaska Power Authority, 1984d). Proposed mitigation for building the transmission line includes a design to prevent raptor electrocution, the disposal of cut trees from areas where slash might impede wildlife movements, and mechanical maintenance that would avoid the use of herbicides. Maintenance of the transmission line corridor would provide more available browse for moose and would partially compensate for moose habitat losses at the reservoir site. 4.1.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The removal of approximately 3,352 acres of vegetation for the construction and operation of the project would be unavoidable. Total affected acreage for each plant community is given in Table 4-5. The reservoir and transmission line account for the greatest portion of unavoidable acreage losses of the existing plant communities. 4-37 The acreage losses within the saltwater sedge-grass community includes approximately 7 acres for construction of the project air- strip within the Fox River Critical Habitat area. This loss would be unavoidable because alternative airstrip sites are either infeas- ible or would be more environmentally damaging. The generation of dust from construction and from the heavy use of the access roads would be unavoidable. Dust would accumulate on vegetation adjacent to the roads and construction sites and would reduce herbaceous cover to a minor degree. This would be a short- term effect. Airstrip and road construction in the tidal flats would decrease waterfowl and shorebird feeding habitat and would disturb those spec- ies during seasonal staging in the area. The airstrip would occupy a portion of the Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area. The airstrip and barge basin would significantly improve hunter access to the wet- land areas and would increase the hunting pressure on waterfowl with- in the state-designated critical habitat area and in the adjacent wet- lands in the Upper Kachemak Bay. Quarrying and construction of the dam, roads, camps, and other facilities within forested areas would disturb denning black bears and would cause raptors, moose, wolves, foxes, wolverines, and other forest species to avoid these areas. The lower camp would displace approximately 37 acres of balsam poplar, which provides winter habi- tat for moose and reproductive habitat for cavity-nesting birds. Construction of the dam would also affect mountain goats, which concentrate near the Bradley River and Sheep Creek area during late autumn and winter. Construction noise and activity would cause goats to move to adjacent range. Goats normally cross the Bradley River in the vicinity of the proposed dam. Construction would temporarily block the passage of the goats between ranges north and south of the Bradley River. Reservoir operation would flood 2,577.5 acres, which would in- clude 1,230 acres of herbaceous wetlands and 800 acres of low willow. These cover types provide high quality spring and summer range for moose and are not abundant in the project area. The loss of herba- ceous wetlands would also remove spring feeding habitat for black bear and grizzly bear. The reservoir would displace four known beaver lodges and would eliminate the inundation zone as nesting habitat for ptarmigans and passerine birds. Loss of the terrestrial and wetland habitat within the inundation zone would also reduce the quantity and variety of small mammal habitat and of hunting habitat for mammalian predators and raptors within the project area. Construction of the transmission line would disturb denning black bears and other species over a 20-mile-long, linear area. The transmission line would be located mainly within coniferous forests. Long-term impacts would include transmission line collisions by birds, especially dabbling ducks. 4-38 4.1.7 Threatened or Endangered Species The Corps (1982) conducted a biological assessment of the poten- tial effects of the proposed Corps' project on the peregrine falcon. The assessment states that potential nesting habitat (open, rugged terrain) exists only in the areas of the proposed dam, spillway, and Middle Fork diversion. Site surveys revealed no pereqrine nesting activity. The observations of the six peregrines by FWS biologists in 1980 were made during migration; no peregrines were sighted dur- ing the breeding season. The Corps therefore concluded that the project would not interfere with peregrine nesting. In addition, the potential loss of habitat suitable for hunting by peregrines was considered insignificant in relation to the amount of suitable habitat in the region. The biological assessment concluded that the proposed Corps' project would not adversely affect the peregrine fal- con. FWS concurred with the findings of the biological assessment. !/ There are few significant differences between the Corps' proposed project and the current proposal. Thus, the proposed Alaska Power Authority project would have no significant effect on the peregrine falcon. 4.1.7.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed The Applicant has proposed no mitigative measures. 4.1.7.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No unavoidable adverse impacts to Federally listed threatened or endangered species or to critical habitat are anticipated. 4.1.8 Recreation and Land Use 4.1.8.1 Beneficial and Adverse Impacts Hunting opportunities for waterfowl and big game, primarily moose and mountain goat, would be adversely affected by project con- struction and operation. The game populations would be displaced from the areas of immediate disturbance, and the small moose popula- tion would probably be reduced through a loss of habitat. These impacts and mitigation proposals are discussed in the pertinent sections on terrestrial resources. Hunting by construction person- nel would be prohibited, and hunting activity by others would be restricted for safety reasons. These reduced hunting opportunities are expected to extend over a period of approximately three years. !I Letter from Jon M. Nelson, Assistant Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska, May 19, 1982. 4-39 The project features, including the barge basin, the airstrip, the project roads, and the transmission line rights-of-way (ROW) would improve access for hunters in the project area. For a number of reasons, however, including the limited number of moose in the project area, the availability of other hunting areas with good success rates on the Kenai Penisula, and the existing lack of hunter interest in the Bradley Lake area, it is not expected that improved access would result in increased moose-hunting pressure. Also, mountain goat hunts are controlled by a permit system. The improved access might encourage more hunters to try the Bradley Lake herd, but there should be little change in the populations under such a controlled situation. The improved access afforded by the barge basin and airstrip could increase hunting pressure on the waterfowl populations in the area. Sport fishing is not a significant activity in the area that would be affected by the project, because of the poor availability of fish. The proposed mitigative plan could result in improved conditions for salmonid production; however, the generally excellent sport fishing opportunities available throughout the Kenai Peninsula, contrasted with those available in waters affected by the project, indicate that fishing activity in the project area would be limited to anglers in the vicinity for reasons other than only fishing. The project would alter the undeveloped character of the recrea- tional setting. Recreational use that depends on a natural environ- ment, such as wilderness camping, would be directed to other locations on the Kenai Peninsula. Since such use of the Bradley Lake area is relatively limited in terms of numbers of users, other lands should be able to absorb any increase in visitors who decide to stop using the project area. Conversely, a number of recreationists would be attracted to the area to view the project and to take advantage of the improved access to the Bradley Lake Basin. In terms of numbers of users, such induced demand for public use at the project is not expected to be significant. The project would be constructed on lands identified for hydro- power development, but would conflict with the use of other lands reserved or managed for other purposes. The powerhouse, the tailrace and the airstrip would intrude into the Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area, designated as a waterfowl and shorebird staging area by the State of Alaska. The state has agreed to this use of the lands subject to restrictions on aircraft use during the spring waterfowl staging period from April 15 to May 15. 1/ The alignment of the transmission line ROW across state-managed public interest lands appears to conflict with a number of leases and dedications !I Letter from Robert L. Grogan, Alaska Office of Management and Budget to Roy Taylor, Alaska Power Authority, December 11, 1984. i I 4-40 to public purposes such as future road construction. The proposed alignment appears to avoid private property. The state has agreed to resolve any potential conflicts during the issuance of the required state permits. !/ 4.1.8.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed The Applicant has proposed the recreational development described in Section 2.1.2.7 to provide for any recreational demand induced by construction and operation of the project~ the Applicant has agreed to work with the state in resolving any potential land-use conflicts along the transmission line ROW. 4.1.8.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The natural undeveloped recreational setting of the Bradley Lake Basin would be altered by the presence of the project features. The powerhouse, the tailrace, and the project airstrip would intrude upon the Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area. 4.1.9 Visual Resources 4.1.9.1 Beneficial and Adverse Impacts: The proposed project has area few important scenic viewing areas. The size of the project and the vastness of the area impacted would allow only small portions of the project to be seen from any roads or recreation areas, existing or proposed. When within view, those portions of the project that would be seen would be dwarfed by the surrounding area. This low viewing sensitivity could increase as access to the area is made easier by project development, but it would not increase beyond a moderate level. The countryside in Alaska, however, is viewed most often from the air. This panoramic view of many unobstructed miles would make the repetitive qualities of the access road and the transmission line corridors more significant than when viewed from the ground. The impact caused by the cleared vegetation for the access road would be minor because of the narrow width and curvilinear route which gener- ally follows the natural topographic contours. The cleared vegeta- tion and support structures of the transmission line would have a more significant adverse impact. The corridor would consist of: a 225-foot-wide clear-cut and an additional 100 feet of selective cutting on either side of the clear-cut~ a length of over 20 miles, !/ Letter of Comment from the Alaska Office of Management and Budget, Attachment I, p. 3, September 28, 1984. 4-41 with straight-line segments up to 5 miles is length; and sharp angles, regardless of topographic forms or vegetative patterns. The total clear-cut area would be approximately 545 acres. The wood support structures would be located at approximately 1000-foot intervals. The proposed transmission line would degrade the visual quality of the area and would contrast strongly with the natural character of the area when seen from the air. 4.1.9.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed The Applicant does not consider visual impacts to be significant enough to require specific mitigation. Some mitigation is included in the overall project proposal, however. This would include: the removal of construction-related facilities and the rehabilitation of those areas impacted by the construction camp, the Martin River haul road and borrow pit, and the dredge spoil-disposal site; the design of project facilities to blend with the forest setting, and to be set back from the tidal flats to reduce contrast with the surroundinqs; and the use of colors and building materials to reduce reflection and to blend with the natural landscape. 4.1.9.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The project facilities at the lake and on the bay would have a minor impact on the visual quality from the ground; the limited pop- ulation and land use and the vastness of the area would provide some mitigation to make those impacts acceptable. The transmission line, however, would create a significant impact to the visual quality when viewed from the air. 4.1.10 Cultural Resources 4.1.10.1 Beneficial and Adverse Impacts Two historic fox-fur farms are located near a proposed access road and the proposed transmission corridor, but would not be dir- ectly impacted by construction or operation of project facilities. The farms, however, could be affected by acts of vandalism, the po- tential for which would increase with the influx and maintenance of personnel in the area for construction and operation of the project. Any archeological or historic sites discovered during con- struction could also be impacted by the project. 4.1.10.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed The Applicant has proposed the following measures to avoid impacts to the fox-fur farms, to avoid vandalism, and to protect any archeological or historic sites discovered during construction (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1984b). (1) The fox-fur farms would be designated "off-limits" to all personnel associated with the 4-42 construction and operation of the Bradley Lake Project. Entry into the "off-limits" area would be grounds for immediate employment termination. (2) The personnel associated with construction and operation would be monitored by the Applicant's environmental field officer to enforce the "off-limits" regulations. (3) Should there be an emergency discovery found during construction, a management plan would be prepared in compliance with the historic preservation guidelines of the Department of the Interior and the State of Alaska. 4.1.10.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No such impacts should occur. 4.1.11 Socioeconomic Factors 4.1.11.1 Beneficial and Adverse Impacts The project's major socioeconomic impacts would occur during the proposed 33-month construction period, when an average of 242 persons would be employed at the project site. Because almost all construction machinery and materials would be purchased from out-, side the Kenai Peninsula Borough, expenditures for these items would not impact the local economy. The number of all on-site personnel would range from 19 to 406, averaging 242 workers. As shown in Table 4-6, employment would be seasonal in nature, with peak levels occurring from May through August. These manpower estimates are based on the assumption that personnel would work 60 hours per week (i.e., a 10-hour daily shift and 6 days per week). Project construction would require approxi- mately 8,000 man-months of onsite labor and would generate wages and salaries totaling $50 million in 1984 dollars (Alaska Power Authority, 1984b, Application, Exhibit E). The numbers of onsite personnel are significantly greater than the labor force projected by the Corps in its FEIS because the Corps' project involved a con- siderably longer (6-year) construction period. The Corps' projected peak number of onsite personnel was significantly less (250 persons). Although the project site would remain inaccessible by vehicle, the proposed onsite landing strip would permit small passenger planes to transport personnel. The Applicant indicates that daily scheduled flights between the Homer Airport and the construction site airfield would be initiated by a local air service, and that the price of a one-way ticket would be approximately $20 (Alaska Power Authority, 1984c). Because few workers would be willing to pay $40 per day to commute to and from the project site, the Applicant has proposed to provide dormitory-style housing for all onsite personnel. Current plans call for two separate construction camps with a total of 450 beds. Each camp would include: modular sleeping quarters that accom- modate one or two persons per room; bathroom and shower facilities; laundry rooms; a separate, centrally located cafeteria; a first-aid '!able 4-6. Projected m.mber of monthly onsite construction personnel at the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Proiect • ..!/ f.t>nth Direct construction personnel Contractors 1 Construct ion Applicant 1 s Agency 'lbtal m.mber and camp workers supervisory man~anent and personnel personnel of onsite personnel eo;1ineerinq personnel personnel March 165 14 17 3 l 200 April 270 18 l7 4 2 311 May 300 20 18 5 2 345 June 320 20 20 5 2 367 July 330 20 22 5 2 379 August 320 20 22 5 2 369 September 230 18 24 5 2 279 O::tober 200 18 25 5 2 250 November 155 18 25 5 2 205 I:ecanber 145 18 25 5 2 195 January 120 24 25 5 2 176 +:'- Feburary 155 28 26 5 2 216 I +:'- March 200 32 26 5 2 265 w April 245 32 26 5 2 310 May 300 32 26 5 2 365 June 335 36 26 5 2 404 July 335 38 26 5 2 406 August 290 44 26 5 2 367 September 230 36 26 5 2 299 O::tober 215 30 27 5 2 279 November 210 24 27 5 2 268 Dacanber 195 24 28 5 2 254 January 185 24 25 5 2 241 February 180 24 25 5 2 236 March 170 22 25 5 2 224 April 155 20 26 5 2 208 May 150 18 26 5 2 201 June 120 18 26 5 2 171 July 20 12 16 5 2 55 August 15 10 15 5 2 47 September 10 8 14 5 2 39 O::tober 5 6 10 5 2 28 November 5 4 6 3 l 19 y Source: Alaska Ibv.er Authority, l984b, Application, Exhibit E. ·• 4-44 room; recreation rooms; and a small store that would sell news- papers, magazines, work clothing, laundry supplies, and snack foods. Construction workers would not be charged for room or board. Consequently, virtually all onsite workers are expected to reside at the project site. The self-contained nature of the construction site, the 6-day work week, and the expense of flying to Homer would minimize the project's socioeconomic impacts. Spendinq by project personnel at retail establishments in Homer on days off-work would benefit proprietors, and could create a few additional employment opportuni- ties. Although 70 to 80 percent of all construction personnel would be hired from outside the Kenai Peninsula Borough, mainly from Anchorage, few workers would relocate their family to the Homer area. Based on experience at comparable projects, Staff projects that the project would result in the in-migration of 40 households at most. Give.n Homr•s recent dramatic population gains, the influx of 40 project elated households would not represent a significant impact Following the completion of construction, the project would employ four permanent onsite personnel. These persons and their families would reside in houses constructed at the project site by the Applicant. 4.1.11.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed The proposed project would not cause any significant adverse socioeconomic impacts, and consequently, mitigative measures have not been proposed. 4.1.11.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The proposed project is not expected to produce any significant unavoidable adverse socioeconomic impacts. 4.2 ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS 4.2.1 Combined-cycle Generation Alternative 4.2.1.1 Geology and Soils Excavation and other soil-disturbing activities during construc- tion would result in increased soil erosion. More erosion would occur on the steeper slopes near the Chuitna River than on the flatter topo- graphy near the Beluga River. Implementation of erosion prevention programs, however, would be expected during project construction, as would regrading, revegetation, and other site-restoration measures designed to prevent erosion during project operation. 4.2.1.2 Aquatic Resources Construction of a 200-MW, combined-cycle plant in the western Cook Inlet area would likely result in adverse impacts on water 4-45 quality in water bodies close to construction areas. The number of water bodies and wetland areas affected by construction of the pro- ject, the access facilities, and the construction camp could be sig- nificant, depending on the specific site. Increased sedimentation and turbidity in these water bodies would be likely, and would adversely affect benthic communities and fish populations. Operational impacts are expected to be minor, since the facility would require only a minimal supply of water (less than 2 cfs per gen- erating unit). Localized impacts on water quality could occur because of increased dissolved solids in the cooling system discharge. An indirect, but serious, impact of the development of this alternative in remote areas would be the increased accessibility of nearby fish- ery resources resulting from the new access roads and airfield. This could result in increased fishing pressure on streams that have never supported a significant sport or subsistance fishery, and in turn could place an additional source of mortality on fish populations in these streams. 4.2.1.3 Terrestrial Resources Because no specific site has been selected for a combined-cycle plant, any impact analysis is speculative and cursory. Several general conclusions, however, can be drawn. The plant would require access roads, transmission lines, camp facilities for 400 people, and an airstrip. Construction of these facilities would require the substantial removal of forest vegetation and the filling of sedge- grass wetlands. Blasting and the operation of heavy equipment would displace moose and disturb denning black bears. Construction in the wetland areas would displace staging waterfowl. The airstrip would increase hunter access to the area in the long term. 4.2.1.4 Threatened or Endangered Species No specific site has been selected for a combined-cycle alter- native, so any impact analysis is speculative and cursory. If the peregrine falcon information for the Bradley Lake area (Section 4.1.7) can be considered valid for the surrounding area, it is unlikely that an endangered subspecies would be significantly affected by development. 4.2.1.5 Socioeconomic Factors Construction of a gas-fired, combined-cycle alternative located in the western Cook Inlet area would have impacts similar to those of the proposed hydroelectric project. Because personnel would reside in a self-contained construction camp, impacts would be relatively minor, consisting of spending by off-duty workers at retail stores and at personal service establishments in Kenai. This alternative would employ 30 permanent operations and maintenance workers who either would be provided onsite housing or free commuting between the project and Kenai. Their salaries and spending would represent a favorable impact on the Kenai economy. 4-46 4.2.1.6 Visual Resources The combined-cycle alternative would have varying visual impacts, based on the length of any pipeline and the transmission lines. If the power plant could be located near the fuel source, impacts could be negated and might be equal to those one of the proposed Bradley Lake Project. 4.2.1.7 Cultural Resources Impacts to cultural resources would probably be limited. Most impacts to significant sites likely would be avoided or mitigated through data-recovery investigations. Site-specific surveys and significance assessments would be necessary to determine the extent of the required protection measures (FERC, 1984). 4.2.1.8 Air Quality and Noise Construction activities would result in localized increases in noise levels and dust, which would subside upon completion of construc- tion. Project operation would result in small increases in various air pollutants close to the project, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and total suspended particulates. Air quality stan- dards, however, would probably continue to be met. Impacts on noise levels in the area would also be minor, provided a buffer zone of at least 0.5 to 1.5 miles is provided between the plant and any noise- sensitive areas. 4.2.2 Coal-fired Generation Alternative 4.2.2.1 Geology and Soils Increased erosion that would occur during construction would be minimized by the relatively level terrain. The project would be affected by the thawing of permafrost. Approximately 15 acres of land per year would be disturbed by the surface mining of coal for the plant. Impacts from surface mining would include modification of surface drainage and topography, slope failures from excavation, increased sedimentation and wind erosion of soils from spoil piles, and permafrost thawing resulting from vegetation stripping (FERC, 1984). Implementation of erosion prevention programs would be expected during construction of the plant, as would regrading, revegetation, and other site-restoration measures designed to prevent erosion dur- ing project operation. Appropriate erosion, sediment, slope stability, and dust control measures would be expected to be utilized during sur- face mining operations. These would also be expected to include appro- priate measures for temporary stockpiling of stripped topsoil and for regrading, revegetation, drainage control, and other measures for the immediate restoration of stripped lands. I 4-47 Minor erosion and permafrost impacts would be unavoidable at the plant site during construction. Minor, continuing erosion, sedi- mentation, and windblown soil losses would be unavoidable during surface mining and would require the restoration of stripped lands. 4.2.2.2 Aquatic Resources Construction of a 200-MW, coal-fired project on the Tanana River in the vicinity of Nenana would likely result in adverse impacts on water quality in water bodies and wetlands potentially affected by construction of the project, the access facilities, and the construc- tion camp, but would depend on the specific project site selected. Construction activities would likely result in adverse effects on benthic communities and fish populations. Operation of a coal-fired project on the Tanana River would likely have only minor impacts on water quality and aquatic resources. A 200-MW project with closed-cycle cooling (cooling towers) would have a consumptive water use of only 4 cfs, with makeup water being required only during the months of June, July, and August. This mini- mal withdrawal would have an imperceptible impact on flows or aquatic resources in the Tanana River. Because a closed-cycle cooling system would be used, thermal impacts to the Tanana River would be negligible. Localized impacts on water quality could occur from cooling system blowdown, the discharge of chemical cleaning solutions, ash pond overflow, and coal pile drainage. A long-term impact of this alternative, if constructed in a remote area, would be the increased accessibility of nearby fishery resources from the new access roads and airfield. This could result in increased fishing pressure on streams that have never supported a significant sport or subsistence fishery, and in turn could place an additional source of mortality on fish populations in these streams. 4.2.2.3 Terrestrial Resources Construction of a coal-fired facility would include access roads, transmission lines, camp facilities for 500 people, and an airstrip. Construction of those facilities would require a substantial removal of bottomland spruce-poplar forest in the Tanana River area. Mining of an upland spruce-hardwood area would be required to support the facility. Mining would create substantial long-term impacts to local wildlife populations because of habitat removal and noise. Species that would be adversely affected by construction and operation of the facility include caribou, brown bear, and waterfowl. Impacts to wintering caribou in the mining areas could be significant. 4.2.2.4 Threatened or Endangered Species As discussed in Section 4.2.1.4, it is unlikely that alternative developments in the area would significantly affect peregine falcons. 4-48 4.2.2.5 Socioeconomic Factors Construction of a coal-fired, steam-electric plant in the Nenana area would involve a self-contained construction camp, and therefore relatively modest socioeconomic impacts. Spending by off-duty workers would benefit retail stores and personnel service establishments in the Fairbanks area. This alternative would employ approximately 100 permanent operating and maintenance personnel, whose salaries and spending would represent a favorable impact to the Fairbanks economy. Installation and operation of a combustion-turbine facility would not have any significant impact on the local economy. 4.2.2.6 Visual Resources The coal-fired alternative would create the most adverse impact with the mining operation, requiring many hundreds of ,acres to be com- mitted to coal-mining operations. The location of the power plant and other facilities and the clearing of vegetation for the transmission line corridor would also be highly visible. 4.2.2.7 Cultural Resources Impacts to cultural resources would probably be limited. Most impacts to significant sites would likely be avoided or mitigated through data-recovery investigations. Site-specific surveys and significance assessments would be necessary to determine the extent of the required protective measures (FERC, 1984). 4.2.2.8 Air Quality and Noise Construction activities would result in localized increases in noise levels and dust, which would subside upon completion of construc- tion. Project operation would result in some increases in air pollu- tion in the immediate project area, including higher levels of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and total suspended particulates. Air quality standards, however, would likely continue to be met. A concern with the siting of a coal-fired plant in the Nenana area would be the effects on the Denali National Park, which is located about 60 miles to the south. A single, coal-fired, 200-MW project at Nenana would not likely violate air quality standards in Denali Park, but could produce a noticeable plume that would be visible from Denali in some conditions (FERC, 1984). Impacts on noise levels in the area would likely be minor, pro- vided a buffer zone of at least 0.5 to 1.5 miles is provided between the plant and any noise-sensitive area. The major sources of noise would be the coal-handling equipment, the cooling towers, and the transformers. 4-49 4.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Denial of a license for the Bradley Lake Project would result in the maintenance of the environmental resources and values of the Bradley Lake Basin and the surrounding areas, as described in Section 3.1. License denial, however, would force the Applicant to pursue alternative energy sources, which could include the combined-cycle or coal-fired alternatives discussed above. General impacts from these alternatives are described in Section 4.2. 4.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES The no-action alternative, denial of a license for the proposed Bradley Lake Project, would result in no changes in the environmental resources of the Bradley Lake Project area. Comparison of the proposed Bradley Lake Project, the combined- cycle alternative, and the coal-fired alternative can only be done in a general way, since specific sites for the combined-cycle and coal- fired alternatives have not been identified. Construction of any of these alternatives in a remote, undeveloped area of Alaska, however, would have similar impacts in the areas of geology and soils, water quality, terrestrial resources, recreation and land use, visual resources, and socioeconomic factors. Construction of any large electrical generation project, with associated access roads, construc- tion camps, airfields, transmission lines, and related facilities, in a remote area would: disturb large tracts of land; increase sedimenta- tion and turbidity in water bodies associated with the project; perma- nently change the land use pattern of the area; increase human access to the area; potentially impact a wide range of vegetative and wild- life resources; and permanently change the visual character of the immediate project area. The severity of each of these impacts would depend on the specific project site, the total area affected, and the importance of the specific resources affected. The provisions of an onsite construction camp for the construction workforce, common to all the alternatives, would result in minimal socioeconomic impacts on nearby communities. Operational impacts of the three alternatives would differ in the areas of air quality and noise, water quantity, aquatic resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and are discussed below. 4.4.1 Air Quality and Noise Long-term operational impacts on air quality ~nd noise would differ in that the combined-cycle and coal-fired alternatives would produce air pollutants through the burning of natural gas and coal, while the proposed Bradley Lake Project would not affect air quality during operation. The com~ined-cycle and coal-fired alternatives would also have a greater long-term impact on noise levels than the Bradley Lake Project, which would have only a relatively low noise 4-50 level eminating from the powerhouse and transformers. The coal- fired alternative would likely have the greatest impact on noise levels as a result of the delivery of coal by train, and the use of onsite coal-handling equipment. The combined-cycle and coal-fired alternatives would also affect atmospheric conditions in the immediate project area by producing plumes of steam from the cooling towers, which would produce the greatest plumes during the winter months. 4.4.2 Water Quantity The Bradley Lake Project would have the greatest impact on stream- flow patterns of the three alternatives. The project would, in effect, divert the entire outflow from Bradley Lake out of the Bradley River, while the combined-cycle and coal-fired alternatives would have only minimal water supply need (to a maximum of 4 cfs consumptive use). This rate of withdrawal would likely have minimal impacts on any water body used as a water supply source. The Bradley Lake Project would provide for a minimum flow in the lower Bradley River, however, which would protect the more important fishery habita~. 4.4.3 Aquatic Resources The Bradley Lake Project would have a greater potential for affecting aquatic resources during operation than the combined-cycle and coal-fired alternatives, based on the volume of streamflow to be used by the project. This would depend, however, on the specific sites for the alternative projects, and on whether important resources would be located near the project sites. The proposed minimum flow in the lower Bradley River would protect benthic and fish habitat in the river, and thus may not result in significant losses of fishery resources. 4.4.4 Cultural Resources The Bradley Lake Project would be located in close proximity to two sites potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The project, however, would not likely signifi- cantly affect these sites. Since specific project locations have not been identified for the combined-cycle and coal-fired alternatives, it is impossible to predict the impacts on cultural resources asso- ciated with these projects. Staff assumes, however, that the oper- ators of an alternative project would attempt to avoid any significant cultural resources and to mitigate any impacts to such resources. 4.4.5 Geology and Soils Operation of a coal-fired project and the associated coal-mining operation would have a greater long-term impact on geologic and soil resources than either the proposed Bradley Lake Project or the combined-cycle alternative. A coal-mining operation would disturb about 15 acres per year for the life of the project, and would result in continued erosion and associated impacts for an equal 4-51 time period. Neither the proposed Bradley Lake Project nor the combined-cycle alternatives, once constructed, would result in such disturbances for the life of the project. 4.5 RELATIONSHIP TO LAWS AND POLICIES The evaluation of the license application and assessment of environmental impacts has been conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. 4.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 4.6.1 Bradley Lake Project There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources associated with the Bradley Lake Project as proposed, other than those materials required for construction. Natural resources such as the terrestrial and wetland habitat occupied by project facilities would, however, be committed for the life of the project. 4.6.2 Combined-cycle Alternative Construction of the combined-cycle alternative would result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of materials used in construction. This alternative would also commit terrestrial and wetland habitat for occupation by project facilities for the life of the project. Project operation would consume a non-renewable resource, natural gas, for the life of the project. 4.6.3 Coal-fired Alternative The coal-fired alternative would irretrievably commit materials used for construction of the project, would occupy terrestrial and wetland habitat for the life of the project, and would consume a nonrenewable resource, coal. 4.7 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Operation of either the Bradley Lake Project, the combined- cycle alternative, or coal-fired alternative would provide dependable electrical power to the Kenai Peninsula area for the life of the project (at least 30 to 50 years), but would be at the expense of environmental resources directly affected by project facilities and operation. Adverse impacts on these resources would be long-term and in fact, permanent, unless project facilities are retired at some future date and are totally removed from the area. 5-1 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS 5.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5 .1.1 Bradley Lake Project Construction and operation of the proposed Bradley Lake Project would result in the following significant environmental impacts: (1) erosion of disturbed land areas and increased sedimentation and turbidity in Battle Creek, Martin River, Bradley River, Sheep Creek, and the Fox River; (2) temporary loss of 115 acres of marine benthic habitat in upper Kachemak Bay; (3) removal of 3,352 acres of existing vegetation, including inun- dation of 2,578 acres of terrestrial and wetland habitat by the enlarged Bradley Lake; (4) disturbance of wildlife usage of affected portions of the tidal wetlands, forested, and other upland areas, to include mountain goat movement and moose migration in the vicinity of Bradley Lake; (5) disruption of a relatively pristine viewscape by large-scale construction activities, transforming the existing, unspoiled area into one with obvious signs of disturbance by man; (6) long-term alteration of the flow regime of the lower Bradley River by reducing peak summertime flows and increasing and stabilizing winter low flows; (7) long-term alteration of the thermal regime of the lower Bradley River, by increasing early-summer water temperatures and decreasing late-summer and fall water temperatures; (8) alteration of the pattern of freshwater inflow to the Bradley River-Sheep Creek estuary and upper Kachernak Bay, with probable disruption of salmon migration patterns within the estuary; and (9) permanently opening the Bradley River Basin to human access, subjecting fish and wildlife resources of the basin to long- term, increased harvesting pressures. 5.1.2 Combined-cycle Generation Alternative Construction and operation of the combined-cycle alternative somewhere in the western Cook Inlet area would result in the follow- ing significant environmental impacts: (1) erosion of disturbed lands areas and increased sedimentation and turbidity in water bodies associated with project construc- tion activities; 5-2 (2) loss of large areas of vegetation resulting from the construc- tion of project facilities and associated access roads, con- struction camp, airfield, and transmission line, with disturbance of wildlife usage of the area: (3) disruption of a relatively pristine viewscape by large-scale construction activities and placement of project facilities, resulting in permanent alteration of the area to one with obvious signs of man's activities: and (4) permanently opening the project area to human access, with probable increased hunting and fishing pressure on local fish and wildlife resources. 5.1.3 Coal-fired Generation Alternative Construction and operation of the coal-fired alternative in the Nenana area of the Railbelt would result in the following significant environmental impacts: (1) erosion of disturbed lands areas and increased sedimentation and turbidity in water bodies associated with project construction activities: (2) loss of large areas of vegetation resulting from the construction of project facilities and associated access roads, construction camp, airfield, and transmission line, with disturbance of wild- life usage of the area: (3) disruption of a relatively unspoiled viewscape, permanently changing the area to one with obvious signs of man's activities: (4) permanently opening the project area to human access, with probable increased hunting and fishing pressure on nearby fish and wildlife resources: (5) long-term degradation of air quality in the area because of the release of the byproducts of burning coal, with possible minimal impacts on Denali National Park: and (6) long-term impacts on land features and use, and water quality, as a result of mining coal for the life of the project. 5.1.3 No-action Alternative Denial of the license for the Bradley Lake Project would result in the maintenance of the existing environmental resources and values of the Bradley River Basin and the nearby areas. 5.2 MITIGATIVE MEASURES RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND AGENCIES Geology and Soils 1ce e nt nd ion n d- 5-3 The Department of the Interior (Interior) has recomwended a list of stipulations to be included as binding articles in any project license for the purpose of protecting biological resources. These "Biological Stipulations," included in this statement as Appendix B, include general guidelines for erosion and sedimentation control, the aquisition and deposition of materials (borrow and spoil disposal), the clearing of vegetation, site restoration, and road construction at the project. Interior also recommends that the stipulations be- come part of project contract agreements. Recommended stipulations for geological and soil resources would be requirements that: (1) the project design provide for control of erosion and the production, transportation, and deposition of sediment in accordance with state water quality regulations (18 AAC 70): (2) specific erosion control methodologies be delineated in a project erosion control plan to be developed by the Applicant and approved by concerned state and Federal agencies before construction: (3) the erosion control plan be incor- porated into project technical specifications: (4) a detailed mining plan be prepared for each borrow operation and no materials be removed until mining plans are reviewed and approved by concerned resource agencies: (5) specific restoration and revegetation methodologies be delineated in a project restoration-revegetation plan to be approved by appropriate state and Federal agencies prior to construction: (6) the approved restoration-revegetation plan be incorporated into project technical specifications; and (7) a layout for each proposed road be approved by the resource agencies. Staff recommends that the Applicant prepare detailed plans to control erosion, sedimentation, and slope stability at the project and at any areas that would be directly or indirectly affected by the project. This would also include any project-related preconstruction and post- construction activities. The plan should include functional design drawings and map locations of control measures, an implementation schedule, monitoring and maintenance programs for project construction and operation, and provisions for periodic review of the plan and for making any necessary revisions to the plan. Appropriate state and Federal resource agencies should be consulted during preparation of the plan, and should also be allowed sufficient opportunity to review the plan after it is prepared. Aquatic Resources Resource agencies that commented on the application for license recommended several general mitigative measures for protection of water quality and fisheries resources in the project area. These proposals can be generally grouped into: (1) measures to prevent or control erosion during project construction; (2) measures for avoiding impacts during construction: (3) monitoring programs during project construction and operation: and 5-4 (4) mechanisms for modifying mitigative measures during both project construction and operation. (See Appendix B.) Interior recommended that an interagency team be established, includ- ing onsite representation by FERC staff, to resolve issues and desiqn an acceptible mitigative plan. Staff believes that those measures recommended by the comment- ing agencies should be implemented. The Applicant, in fact, has already generally proposed to implement many of the measures recom- mended, although the Applicant has not worked out the final details. A significant mitigative measure, instream flows in the Bradley River, has been agreed to by the Applicant and agencies. Significant remaining issues in regard to water quality and fisheries include the potential temperature changes in the lower Bradley River and the effects of tailrace discharges on the migration of salmon. The extent of these potential impacts can not be determined prior to project licensing, although Staff believes that the impacts would likely be minor. Thus a monitoring program should be implemented to verify if impacts are minor: if impacts are found to be serious, the Applicant would be required to mitigate these impacts. Potential mitigative measures that could be implemented for fishery resources affected by the above impacts would include: (1) changes in project operations, such as additional flow releases from the Bradley Lake Dam, or stopping project generation for short periods of time: (2) structural modifications, such as tailrace barriers: and (3) compensation measures, such as artifical propagation and release of salmon into the Bradley River. 5.2.3 Vegetation The Applicant should develop a detailed revegetation plan after consultation with the FWS and the ADF&G. The selection of native species for revegetation should be coordinated with these agencies. Wildlife Resources The Applicant should determine the peak seasonal concentration periods and daily concentration periods of waterfowl and shorebirds in the tidal flats and the peak seasonal usage of moose, mountain goats, denning bears, nesting raptors, and other important species to develop periodicity charts for these groups. The Applicant should use these data, in coordination with the wildlife agencies, to develop blasting schedules and other construction schedules so as to minimize disturbance to wildlife species near the construction zones. 5-5 The Applicant should develop and conduct an environmental training program for all project field supervisors and personnel to ensure minimal impact to wildlife species and vegetation during construction of the project. The program should include periodic environmental briefings and on-the-job instruction by supervisors. The program should be coordinated with the resource agencies. All debris resulting from clearing operations that May block or impede wildlife movement, block streamflow, contribute to flooding, or contribute to erosion should be immediately removed. Excavated material from road construction should not be sidecast on roadside slopes that exceed a grade of 10 percent. Threatened or Endangered Species If peregrine falcon nesting is observed in the project area, or within peregrine hunting range of the proposed project, the sub- species should be determined by a qualified ornithologist and the Applicant after consultation with FWS, should undertake appropriate measures to protect the species. Recreation and Land use The Applicant's proposals for recreational development and use at the project appear to adequately provide for the initial recrea- tional needs at the project. Staff believes that the Applicant should provide the details of a monitoring program to ensure orderly development of the recreational opportunities at the project as the need occurs. The Applicant has not yet established management responsibility for project lands and recreational facilities. The management of the lands and facilities would be the responsibility of the Licensee until the management responsibility is assumed by another party. If another party agrees to assume responsibility for management of the project lands and recreational facilities, a copy of any agreement should be filed with the Commission. The Applicant should consult with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to ensure that the proposed alignment of the transmission line ROW is consistent with the State's management of the public interest lands. Should any change in the alignment be required, an amendment of the application should be filed with the Commission. Visual Resources The Applicant should prepare a comprehensive plan to avoid or to minimize damage to the environment and to protect and enhance the visual, cultural, and related natural resource values of areas that would be affected by the proposed transmission facilities. 5-6 5. 2. 8 Cultural Resources The Applicant should ensure that construction and permanent operational personnel are prevented from disturbing or vandalizing the two historical fox farms-potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Socioeconomic Factors Since project construction and operation would have minimal impacts on local communities, no specific measures are recommended. 5.3 UNMITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5. 3.1 Bradley Lake Project As previously described, the major impact of construction and operation of the Bradley Lake Project would be the placement of a large electrical generation facility in a previously undeveloped remote area of Alaska. This would result in a loss of important wildlife habitat, some impacts on water quality, increased human access and possible intensified hunting pressure on wildlife populations in the area, and a permanent change in the visual character of the area. 5.3.2 Combined-cycle Generation Alternative Development of the combined-cycle alternative in a remote area of western Cook Inlet would have unmitigated impacts similar to the proposed Bradley Lake Project, although this alternative would have minor long-term effects on air quality through the burning of natural gas. This alternative would involve the use of a non-renewable energy source. 5.3.3 Coal-fired Generation Alternative Development of the coal-fired alternative in a remote site in the Nenana area of the Railbelt would have unmitigated impacts similar to those described above for the Bradley Lake Project and the combined-cycle alternative. This alternative, however, would have long-term effects on air quality through the burning of coal, and would require the long-term disturbance of land areas by the mining of coal. This alternative would also involve the use of a non-renewable energy source. 5.4 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALTERNATIVES Based on the consideration of the long-term environmental impacts, economic factors, and long-term energy needs, Staff believes that the proposed Bradley Lake Project would be the preferred alter- native for meeting the electrical energy requirements of the Kenai Peninsula area of the Alaska Railbelt for the period beginning in the late 1980's. I i __l_ 6-l 6. LITERATURE CITED Alaska Power Authority. 1983. Application for license for a major unconstructed project, the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 7114, Alaska, filed February 28, 1983. l984a. Response to the Commission's draft env1ronmental 1mpact statement for the proposed Susitna Project, FERC No. 7114, Alaska, filed August 23, 1984. l984b. Application for license for a major unconstructed project, the Bradley Lake Project, FERC No. 8221, Alaska, filed April 4, 1984. l984c. Additional information in support of the application for license for the proposed Bradley Lake Project, FERC No. 8221, Alaska, filed September 21, 1984. 1984d. Responses to agency comments on the application for license for the proposed Bradley Lake Project, FERC No. 8221, filed November 13, 1984. Bailey, T.N., A.W. Franzman, P.D. Arneson, J.L. Davis, and R.E. LeResche. 1976. Kenai Peninsula moose population identity study. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Final report. P-R project W-17-2 through W-17-7. Job no. 1.7R. Cited in Alaska Power Authority, 1984b. Bell, M.C. 1973. Fisheries handbook of enqineering requirements and biological criteria. Fisheries-engineering research program. Department of the Army, North Pacific Division Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon. Bureau of the Census. 1982. 1980 census of population, number of inhabitants, Alaska. Table 4, population of borough and census area subdivisions. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1984. system. Table 25, unpublished. Regional economic information Department of Commerce. Corps of Engineers. 1982. Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, Alaska, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Department of the Army, Alaska District Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska. August 1982. 184 pp. with appendices. Everett, K.R. 1980. Distribution and properties of road dust along the northern portion of the haul road. In: Brown, J., and R.L. Berg (eds.), Environmental engineering and ecological baseline investigations along the Yukon River- Prudhoe Bay Haul Road. Department of the Army, Alaska District Corps of Engineers. CRREL report no. 80-19. Cited in Alaska Power Authority, l984b. 6-2 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1984. Draft environmental impact statement, Susitna Hydroelectric Proiect, FERC No. 7114, Alaska. Washington, D.C. May 1984. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Appendix B: Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, Horner, Alaska. Final Coordination Act Report. u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Alaska Ecological Services, Anchorage, Alaska. 131 pp. Department of the Interior. In: Corps of Engineers, 1982. Graybill, J.P., R.L. Burgner, J.C. Gislason, P.E. Huffman, K.H. Wyman, R.G. Gibbons, K.W. Kurko, Q.J. Stober, T.W. Fagnan, A. P. Stayrnan, and D.M. Eggers. 197 9. Asse ssrnen t of the reservoir-related effects of the Skagit Project on downstream fishery resources of the Skagit River, Washington. Fisheries Research Institute. College of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Report for the City of Seattle, Department of Lighting. Seattle, Washington. 602 pp. Hjeljord, 0. 1971. Feeding ecology and habitat preference of the mountain goat in Alaska. Master's thesis. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 65 pp. Cited in Alaska Power Authority, 1984b. Holderrnann, D.A. 1983. An assessment of the impact of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project on selected wildlife populations. Unpublished report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Horner, Alaska. 78 pp. Cited in Alaska Power Authority, 1984b. Joyce, M.R., and P.O. Hampton. 1983. Avifauna. In: Oliktok Environmental Studies. Prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants for ARCO Alaska, Inc. Cited in Alaska Power Authority, 1984b. Klein, D.R. Alaska. Alaska. 1953. A reconnaissance study of the mountain goat in Master's thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 121 pp. Cited in Alaska Power Authority, 1984b. Krasnow, L.D. and M.A. Halpen. 1981. Potential impacts of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project on birds: a preconstruction study. u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries Research Center, Marine Bird Section, Anchorage, Alaska. Department of the Interior. Cited in Alaska Power Authority, 1984b. LeReseche, R.E., R.H. Bishop, and J.W. Coady. 1974. Distribution and habitats of moose in Alaska. Naturaliste Canadian 101: 143-178. Cited in Alaska Power Authority, 1984b. Mech, L.D. 1970. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. Natural History Press, New York. 384 pp. Cited in Alaska Power Authority, 1984b. If d 6-3 Murray, D.F. 1961. Some factors affecting the production and harvest of beaver in the upper Tanana River Valley, Alaska. Master's thesis, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. Cited in Alaska Power Authority, 1984b. Olendorff, R.R, A.D. Miller, and R.N. Lehman. 1981. Suggested practices for raptor protection on powerlines, the state of the art in 1981. Raptor research report no. 4. Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota. 111 pp. Peek, J.M., D.L. Urich, and R. J. Mackie. 1976. Moose habitat selection and relationships to forest management in Northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs, no. 48. 65 pp. Peterson, R.O., J.D. Wellington, and T.N. Bailey. 1984. Wolves of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Wildlife Monographs, No. 88, 52 pp. Rappoport, A., L. Shea, and L. Halpin. 1981. Application of the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Evaluation Procedures to the proposed Bradley Lake Project, Alaska. u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Alaska Ecological Services, Anchorage, Alaska. 31 pp plus appendices. Department of the Interior. Cited in Alaska Power Authority, 1984b. Ruttner, Franz. 1973. Fundamentals of limnology. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. 295 pp. Schwartz, c.c., and A. w. Franzmann. 1980. the Kenai Peninsula black bear. Alaska Game. Federal aid wildlife restoration project W-17-11. Cited in Alaska Power Population ecology of Department of Fish and project progress report, Authority, 1984b. Steele, Julia. 1979. Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project survey report. Manuscript on file with the Department of the Army, Alaska District Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska. 1982. Appendix D, Cultural resource survey, Bradley Lake Project. Manuscript on file with the Department of the Army, Alaska District Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska. Thompson, L.S. 1978. Transmission line wire strikes: mitigation through engineering design and habitat modification. In: M.L. Avery (ed.) Impacts of transmission lines on birds in flight. FWS/OBS-78/48. u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 151 pp. Department of the Interior. Cited in Alaska Power Authority, 1984b. Udvardy, M.D.F. 1977. The Audubon Society field guide to North American birds, Western region. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York. 852 pp. 6-4 Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1983. Bradley River instream flow studies. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority, Anchoraqe, Alaska. 75 pp. with appendices. 1984a. Moose survey report. Prepared for Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. Anchorage, Alaska. 22 pp. 1984b. Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, Alaska Power Authority, historic and cultural pedestrian survey. Anchorage, Alaska. December, 1984. 7-1 7. LIST OF PREPARERS JAMES FARGO (B.S., M.s., civil engineering). More than ten years of experience in civil engineering in nuclear and hydroelectric project design and analysis. PETER FOOTE--EIS Coordinator (B.S., Wildlife Biology, M.S., Fisheries Biology). Thirteen years of experience in fields of fisheries biology and impact assessment. JAMES HAIMES (B.A., Economics, 60 semester hours for Ph.D.). Seven years experience in private economic consulting, eleven years experience as government economist.· JAMES 0. HUNTER, JR. (B.S., Civil Engineering; P.E.). Two years' experience in construction of civil works facilities; six years' experience in analysis and impact evaluation of water resource projects; and three years' experience in analysis of hydroelectric projects. PETER LEITZKE (B.s., Geology; M.A., Geological Sciences). Eleven years experience. J. TIMOTHY LOONEY (B.S., Engineering). Three years experience with the u.s. Bureau of Reclamation in planning and design of water resource projects. Four years experience with FERC performing studies related to hydroelectric project safety, adequacy and economics. JOHN MITCHELL (B.S., Social Science; graduate studies in Broadcasting). Eight years' experience as a public information specialist, and eleven years' experience writing and editing environmental impact statements. MARY NOWAK (B.S., English). Four years' experience assisting in preparation of environmental impact statements. EDWIN D. SLATTER (B.A., M.A., Ph.D., Anthropology). Seven years experience in North American archeology and teaching archeology and cultural anthropology (college-level). JOHN STAPLES (M.s., Wildlife Management). Six years experience in terrestrial impact assessment. DAVID STARKIE (B.L.A., Landscape Architecture). Eighteen years of experience in landscape architecture, including four years of visual resource management. MARTIN J. THORPE (B.s. electrical engineering). Fourteen years of experience in electric power system planning in the electric utility industry, 16 years with the government in regulatory analysis of electric power system planning and operation. 7-2 E. GORDON WARREN, JR. (B.S., Conservation: B.S., Natural Resources Recreation Management: two years postgraduate work in Recreation Resources Administration). Eleven years experience in the planning and management of public use of land and water resources. .on I $ 8. LIST OF RECIPIENTS The following agencies, organizations, and individuals are being provided copies of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Federal Department of Aqriculture Department of the Army, Alaska District Corps of Enqineers National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration Department of the Interior Department of Transportation Department of Health and Human Services Environmental Protection Aqency Advisory Council on Historic Preservation State Alaska Public Utilities Commission Alaska State-Federal Coordinator Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Public Safety Office of the Governor State Historic Preservation Officer Alaska Power Administration Office of Coastal Management Local Mayor, City of Anchoraqe Mayor, City of Seward Mayor, Kenai Peninsula Borough City Manaqer, City of Homer Mayor, City of Homer Mayor, City of Soldotna Town Supervisor, Town of Seldovia Anchorage Municipal Library University of Alaska at Anchorage Library Homer Public Library Soldotna Public Library Kenai Public Library Seldovia Public Library Others Senator Ted Stevens Senator Frank H. Murkowski Representative Donald E. Young State Senator Paul A. Fischer Mr. Phil Nash Mr. Kent Wick Ms. Sue Carter Mr. Ronald Rice Mr. Leo Rhode Sierra Club National Wildlife Federation Applicant Alaska Power Authority -2- 9-1 9. APPENDICES A. Applicant's draft proposed outline of Best Management Practices Manual, for erosion and sedimentation control. B. Department of the Interior's recommended biological stipulations for a license for the proposed Bradley Lake Project. Appendix A. Applicant's draft proposed outline of Best Mana9ement Practices Manual, for erosion and sedimentation control. DRAFT PROPOSED DUTL !liE FOR BEST MANAGEMEriT PRACTICES MAtiUAL EROSION AND SEDI~IENTATION CONTROL I. INTRODUCTION B. 1. 2. Pn•pared by Alas~a PowPr Authority as on!' of a s!'ries of "bPst management pr,lctices" manuals to be used in pr·e-df'sign, dE>siqn, construction, and maintenance of hydro!'lectric prnj@cts in Ala~ka. Presents <)f'neral <JUidel ines and commonly rt'commend!'d tPchniques to address envirnnml'ntal concerns ~nd mitigate adver~e enviror.~Jf'ntal impacts. Limitations I. RP(Ognition that project impacts and tpchniques are site sp@cific. Manu~l should be used only as a guide to develop appropriatp site-specific techniques. 2. Manual not all-inclusivejconcentrates on commonly accPptPd prac- tices. 1. Chapter 2 presents summaries of gen!'ral guidelines for projects during pre-design, design, construction, and maintenance phases. 2. Chapter 3 presents description of acce;>tablf' practices and their advantagE's and disadvantages. 3. Chapter 4 lists applicable permits, authorities and agencies. II. GEIIERAL GUIDELINES -SUMMARIES A. Pre-0!'~ l. Planning Utilize a plannin1,1 team comprised of multidisciplinary specialists experienced in Alaska conditions. Fully considPr long-range land use manag!'ment problPms and assess surrounding resources. Maintain an open dialogue among managpment, engineers, environmental specialists, planners and gover·nment agencies. as well as solicit public input. Assemble all available data concerning water quality, soils. topography, climate and bioloqy tu determine prnsion potential and other related problems. > I ..... Con\nlidate rPlated facilities to minimize envir~nmental d~m~qe. Utilize existing rights-of-way whenever possible Identify all altern,t.ive routes and rnnstruction requiremP.'nts and preparl' a projected 1 ife/cost (h~>nefit) analysis. Avoid, when possiblP, siting facilities in areas of unst~ble permafrost soils, set>page zones, landslide areas, disseqerl terrain, ponds, natural channels, and wetlands. Minimize cut and fill apprn•ches to streams and encroachment on streams. 2. Reconnaissance 3. When possible, conduct exploration on frozen grr,und to minimize surface disturbances. Reconnaissance surveys should be sufficiently intensive to close gaps in existing data and determine potential prc!blenis. Recontnended procedures include use of preliminary, aerial ph·oto and map studies followed by extensive ground-truthing programs. Collect sufficient data on surface and subsurface soils, geology, vegetative type and cover, fish and wildlife, climate and topography not only to satisfy engineering de9'i'Jn requirements, but also to estimate erosinn pote~ti~l a~d risk, and reouirements for plantings. (Attachment showing Pxamples of resnurce mapping) Areas disturbed by reconnaissance activities should be treated to prevent degradation. Clearing for surveys shnuld be kept to a minimum. Avoid ·the use of convenience routes. Economic Evaluation The amount and type of erosion protection should be cost justified with alternate sites, routes and configuratinns. Erosion and sedimentation control techniques shnuld be considered as capital costs. Projected maintenance cost~ of these itPms should be evaluated. B. Design l. Configuration When possible, locate facilities on upland areas and a~ay from stream cour,es and wetland a ·eas. Avoid seepage areas, clay beds, alluvial forms and oeologic features wn1ch may result in instability. 2. When possible, ma~e cuts steeper to m1n1m1ze surface area. In erodible soils, bal.1nre the gradiPnt with slope stabilization measures. In permafrost areas, ovPrlay is preferred to conventional cut and fill. Design for stabilizing frozen, unstable cuts. Fills or embankments should be well compacted and built in lifts. Design for less thon the angle of repose for greater stability. Design to reduce the amount of clearing required for cuts and fi 11 s. Design to prevent accumulation of water on surfaces of pads. Provide buffer strips of vegetative or other materials on downhill sides of facilities as well as adjacent to streams, drains and critical areas. Drainage Design Design to provide immediate interception and removal of runoff waters. Incorporate temporary measures to protect disturbed arPas. Use culverts large enough to carry snowmelt runoff. Provide for clean-out or use debris collectors to prevent clogging. Provide sufficient cross-drainage accumulation on uphill sides of pads. to prevent excess On low-use routes, use water bars and low-water crossings for reduced maintenance. Consider fish passage requireme~ts through the use of such techni<:ues as low-flow channels. Provide adequate protection for inlets and outlets of drainagP structures. Approach stream crossings at right angles, and when pnssible leave a buffer strip along the stream bank until actual construction of the structure is ready to begin. In permafrost areas or erodible natural soils, avoid concentrated discharges from drainage 'tructures onto undisturbed terrain. Attempt to convert to sheet flow to prevent headward cutting. Consider bridging where fish passage is critical. Provide clearance for debris and to avoid icing, and stabilize banks. > I N 3. Provido> me•ns to remove or control qroundw~•rr· and se~paqP wiltrrs to prrvPnt 'aufeis' buildup. Con'.ult frrlPral and state agr~cirs for fi•.h requrremPnts and other hdbitat features. WhPnever possiblP use ovt>rlay construction as oppo~•d to cut and f i 11. WhPn using ovt>rlay, avoid stripping of lhP org~nic layer. Con~irler wintpr construction tn avoid mt"lting anrl thr•·n~al de')radation. Provide for immediate stabiliz~tion of cut slopf's. Avoid induced drainage or standinq water ov!'r permafrost an•as which can resu 1t in rapid thenna 1 · rlegr.rda t ion. 4. Borrow and Disposal Areas 5. Oesign for staged devt>lopment whenever po~siblr. Conserve stripped topsoil for resprP•ding ovf'r complet.ed areas. Consider traffic routes along with mininq requir~ments. Provide perimeter dikes, diversions and othf'r techniques to prevent sediment movement from mininq an•as into streams and drainaqes. Incorporate sediment removal techniquPS into dispos~l site plans. As required by Federal, State or local r~']uirpmpnts, prepare comprehensive site plans which in drtail outline mining and disposal techniques, applicable erosion procedures, tr·affic routes and final restoration measures. (Example of mining plan to be attached.) Stabilize all slopes and embankment•,. Grade to stable slope angles. Erosion Control Design Based on design and construction requirPmPnts, incor·porate temporary erosion control procedures into desi')n provisions. c. Give special attention to in•nprliate control of runoff waters. Revegpt.ate erodible areas which are to be left uncompleted for ne~t season work. Consider work schedules and local climatological events to insure adequate erosion protection is provided. Take advantage of na lura 1 ero~ ion contra 1 fea lures such as vt>getative and brush buffer strips. Attempt to use materials available on the projPct such as brush, logs, straw, etc. for erosion control. Provide for adequate right-of -way to perfonn eros i on-re 1 at prJ work. 6. Design Documentation Specifications should clearly detail measures to prevent erosion. Insure correlation between plans, specifications and other contract documents. Incorporate all temporary and permanent erosion control measures into a design plan. Allow flexibility to project engineers and contractors to improve upon design or methods. Provide contingency to allow for unforeseen circumstances. Contract scheduling should specify the appropriate time to perfonn all seasonally-effected work, to result in minimal impact. Construction l. General A preconstruction conference should educate and coordinatP all involved parties towards the goals of erosion control and protection of water quality. Equipment operators and other personnel should clearly understand and participate in safe and proper practices. Inspection tPams should be given sufficient authority to be effective. Timing is critical to avoid rework. > I w 2. 3. Surveying, Clearing and Grubbing Identify boundaries on the ground prior to initiating clearing operations. Apply techniques which m1n1m1ze on-ground traffic and disturbances. All trees, snags and other wood material cut in connection with cle~ring op~>rations should be felled within the clearing boundaries and away from water courses. Avoid destroying the organic mat in permafro~t areas. lml!'diate treatment should follow any disturbances. Keep clearing and grubbing operations closely in 1 ine with subsequent activities. Avoid clearing beyond the present season's schedule. Dispose of slash and debris in accepted manners. Uti! ize · available materials for brush barriers and ditch checks. Utilize hand cleering in permafrost locations, wetlands and in areas such as along tops of cut banks. Earthwork Avoid m1x1ng organic matter with fill materials. Compact fills in lifts to reduce infiltration and settling. Provide temporary protection such as berms to the tops of. erodible cut and fill slopes. Dispose of waste spoils in approved areas away from water courses. Preferred methods include disposal in the future inpoundment area of the dam, or retention for rehabilitation of material sites or for solid waste disposal site maintenance. Minimize earthwork in wet weather. Dependent upon material quality and availability, borrow areas should be located in the future impoundment area of the dam. Other preferred materia 1 source sites are abandoned access roads, camp pads, and airstrips. Stabilize borrow areas with prrimeter dikes and ditches and provide for sediment removal from mining operations. Apply measures immediately to control runoff waters throughout construction areas. 4. Drainage Establish permanent drainage structures as early as possible. 5. 6. Keep sediment and debris out of all structures. Stablize at inlets and outlets. Begin all drainage installations at the downstream end, working upstream. Use low water crossings for both temporary and permanent cross-drains on low traffic volume routes. Exercise care in rerouting streams during bridge and culvert installation. Provide a non-erosive temporary channel or sediment removal measure such as silt curt~ins. Avoid sedimentation of water courses when removing temporary structures. Support Activities Maintain camp pads and other disturbed project areas in a stable condition. Erosion Control and Revegetation/Rehabilitation Schedule rehabilitation activities to closely follow final construction. Utilize temporary techniques to protect slopes until ready for final treatment. Surfaces left exposed for extended periods should he temporarily revegetated with fast-growing native species. Encourage reinvasion by native species from surrounding undisturbed areas. Establish permanent erosion control items. Give consideration to critical areas and erodible soils. Abandon and block unused access roads, borrow and disposal sites and other low-use areas. Stabilize cross-drains by either removal or adequate inlet and outlet protection. Inspect abandoned facilities periodically to correct any erosion problems. > I ~ -··----·----------------~--, D. ~Ia i nten~nce 1. General 2. Organize a planned, regularly scheduled maintenance progqm providing inspection and expeditious repair. Provide complete design, construction and waintendnce documentation. Develop dialogue among maintenance and design personne 1 . Drainage Systems ln~po>ct all structures prior to wet seasons or befor·e winter. Clean out debris and sediment. Clear transportable debris upstream and downstream of s true tures . Clean out ditc~es, sediment basins and other sediment retention structures periodically. Dispose of sediments in approved fashions. 3. Surface Maintenance Treat rills and gullies on slopes by filling, mulchin·g and revegetation. Avoid damaging treated areas with maintenance equipment. Direct special attention to frozen cuts until stabilized. Keep non-paved surfaces crowned or sloped. Avoid windows along edges to provide lateral drainage. Water and fertilize revegetated areas to promoto> qrowth. Dust control chemicals, herbicides and pf"sticides should be used carefully and only with accepted techniquPs according. to local, state and federal regulations. 4. Winter Maintenance Prior to breakup, remove or level snow berms along road e4ges to prevent accumulation of meltwaters. Use salts and other chemi·:als prudently, especially near any streams containing aquatic life. Attempt to divert aufeis-forming flows away from driv'e surfaces. Prior to breakup, thaw culverts susceptible to erosion from ice-buildup. I I I. RECOMMENDED PRACTIC£S ( JIICLUDES APPLICJIB Ill TV, DESCR I PT lOriS, ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS) A. B. Earthwork I. Clearing, grubbing and slash disposal 2. 3. a. b. c. d. e. Minimizing disturbed areas Conservation of topsoil Temporary stabilization Slash and timber disposal Stream crossings Surface preparation a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Scarification Serra ted cuts Topsoil ing Aggregate cover Surface configuration Compaction Crowning or sloping Temporary seed or mulch Borrow and disposal practices a. Mining plan b. Phased development c. Sediment impoundment d. Conserving topsoil and revegetation e. Floodplain sites f. Fish entrapment f. Restoration h. Disposal areas i. Side borrow and balanced Drainage Structures 1. Culverts a. Size b. Placement c. Fish streams 2. Low-water crossings 3. Grading, cross-drains 4. Vegetated channels > I V1 5. Ditch checks, check dams 6. 7. B. a. b. c. d. e. f. Straw bale chetks Wire f~nce check with straw bales Wire fence with brushwood bundles Stakes and brush Dumped rock SandhdgS Mechanical channel liners a. llettings b. Fiberglass erosion checks c. Stone center drains d. Drop structures and check dams Outlet protection a. Plunge pools b. Protective aprons c. Drawdown and sediment basin d. log/rock crib e. Paved chute or flume Inlet protection a. Debris deflectors b. Debris racks c. Debris risers d. Debris fins e. Debris cribs f. Debris dams and basins C. Sediment Retention 1. Sediment basins a. Size b. Storage c. Spillways d. Embankments e. Temporary basins 2. Buffer strips, barriers and fences a. Mounds or depressions b. Brush barriers c. Sod strips d. Straw bales e. Sediment fences f. Buffer strips . -------··----~---.. ------ 3. Traps and filters for inlets 4. Silt curtains D. Slope stabilization I. Non-permafrost areas a. Serrated cuts b. Pavement or riprap c. Diversion ditch d. Benches or fill berms e. Slope drains f. Diversion berms g. Sodding h. Seeding or mulch i. Woody vegetation j. Temporary cover 2. Temporary drawdrains a. Sectional drawdrain b. Paved chute c. Flexible drawdrain 3. Permanent drawdrains 4. Diversions and benches a. Diversion channel b. Diversion leaves c. Benches 5. Level spreaders and interceptor dikes E. Revegetation 1. Grasses, herbaceous and woody plants a. Site preparation b. Timing c. Application methods d. Fertilization e. Mulching 2. Organic mulches 3. Nettings, mattings and mulch blankets 4. Chemical stabilizers and soil binders > I 0' -----·----------=~-, f 0 5trr~m Protcrtion -----~ l. Protection during crossing and construction a. Construction dikes b. Coffpr d~ms c 0 Tl'mpor~ry ch~nnel chan<)!'' d. flumin<J e. Temporary culvPrts f. Low-water crossings 2 0 Bank stabilization -mechanical a. Obstruction removal b. Clearing c 0 Bank sloping d. Revetments e. Gab ions f. Jetties, groins 3. Bank stabilization -vegetative a. Willow jetties b. Brush revetment G. Thermal Erosion Control l. Prevention/treatment of disturbed surfaces a. Overlay construct ion b. Drainage control c. Revf'geta t ion d. Insulation 2 0 Cut slope stabilization a. Vertical cut b. Filter buttress c 0 Insulation and revegetation H. Icing Control l. Specialized drainage structures a. Dual culverts b. Subsurface drains 2. Culvert thawing a. Thaw cahles b. ~team thawing c. F 1 re pots 3. Channel maintenance a. trost belts b. Air-ice covers c. lee fence I. Final Restoration J. Moni tori_ll.S_ IV. Applicable Permits, Authorities, and Agencies V. References > I '-.) Appendix B. Department of the Interior's recommended biological stipulations for a license for the proposed Bradley Lake Project. , Biological Stipulations We recommend that these stipulations be incorporated into the FtRC license as 1 binding exhibit. They should then become part of project contract agreements. Prullble Implementation of these stipulations are appropriate during the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Bradley Lake ~droelectrlc Project. Sound engineering practices shall be employed to preserve and protect flsn and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Licensee, through guidance to the Designer, Engineer, and Construction Contractor, shall balance environmental values with economic considerations and technical capabilities, consistent with State and National policies. This evaluation shall Include benefits or detriments to people, property, or environmental resources resulting from the Bradley Lakt Project. 1. Envlro,_ntal Briefings The Licensee shall develop, In consultation with resource agency representatives, and provide environmental briefings for all supervisory and field personnel directly related to the project prior to construction or during new-hire orientation. Environmental Briefings shall be neld to famillerize project personnel with environmentally sensitive features of the project erea, Federal and State regulations, agency permit stipulations, and specific project policies and restrictions relating to protection of vegetation, f1sh, wildlife, and cultural resources. Briefings shall explain why certain habitats or organisms ere vulnerable to disturbance and why protective measures are needed. 2. Pollution Control The Licensee shall construct, operlte, .. tntaln, and termln.ate the project in 1 .. nner which adheres to all Stete end Federal eir, land, end water quality standards, laws and regulations reletlng to pollution control or prevention. The liquid waste treat.ent sys~ shall be operated by personnel accredl ted by the State of Ahska. 6r1y water shall be treated along with other 11qu1d wastes. A program of periodic effluent testing shall be followed to ensure co.p11ance with the National Pollutant Discharge Eli•1netion Sys~ (NPOESI, pe~it Stete of Alaskl Westewater Disposal Regulation (lB AAC 721. and State of Alaska Water Quelity Reguletions (18 AAC 70). Effluent testing Shill be conducted by 1 certified water quality leboratory. Effluent discharge into stree•s shill be located to achieve •xi-dilution. Mobile ground equlp!ltnt shall not be opereted in wetllnds or other bodies of weter. Temperature ranges of natural surface or ground ~•ters, IS deter-ined by pre-project baseline studies, shall not oe altered by the project design or construction activities. The Licensee shall use only State and federally approved non-persistent and imobile types of pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals. Each chemical (Including fuels and oils 1 to be used, its storage, application and clean-up shall be addressed in the project 011 and Hazardous Substances Co~trol Plan prior to arrival of such substances on site. Solid waste disposal sites Shill be established in stable, well-drained locations. Siting shall utilize existing excavations such as depleted upland borrow pits. Deposited .. terial shall be covered daily with non-silty excavation spoil stockpiled for this purpose It the site. Solid waste disposal site design and operation shall confor• with guidelines established by the Alaska Deparaaent of Environmental Conservation. Incinerators for the dally burning of putrescible and combustible westes shall be installed at each camp and In operating condition prior to construction c .. p occupation. To •1ni•tze scavenging by birds end •ammals (with resulting human/animal conflicts) all putresc1ble kitcnen waste shall be stored Indoors In sealed containers and incinerated on the same day they are produced. Camp Incinerators shall be properly sized, operated by trained personnel, and be specified to accommodate peak camp capacity. tamp perimeters and Incinerators shall be protected by fencing designed and built to specifications subject to revie~ and approval by the .anitorlng tea•. 3. Buffer Strips Unless pe~itted on 1 site-specific basts, 1 •inl.um 500-foot wide buffer of undisturbed vegetation shall be .. intalned betooeen project features and strea•s, lakes, or wetlends. 4. Erosion and Sedi.entat1on Control The design of tne project shall provide for control of erosion and sediment production, transport, end deposit in accordance with State of Alaska Water Quality Regulations (18 AAC 70). Design of erosion control .eesures shall acc~dlte 1 50-ytlr flood 1nd Shill be i_,lemented to 11•1t induced and 1cceler1ted erosion, li•lt sediment production 1nd trensport, 1nd 11•1t the fo~tlon of new dra1n1ge channels. Specific erosion control methodologies shill be de11neeted In 1 project Erosion Control Plan developed by the Licensee and lpproved by concerned State end Federal egenc1es prior to construction Tn 1pproved project Erosion Control Pl1n shell be Incorporated l~t e project technlcel spec1flclt1ons. 0 If oth~rwls~ per.ltt~d. ro1ds or ~qulpnent crossing w~tl1nds, oth~r w•t~rbodl~s. or 1ctlve (25-y~•r flood ~vents) floodpl1ins Shill not ~suit tn erosion o_r sediMntltfon In ucess of the St1te of Alukl w1 t~r Qu1ltty Regulltlons (18 AAC 70!. Exc•v•t~d .. tertii In excess of the 1.uunts required for blckfllllng 1nd ~stor1tlon sh1ll be disposed In 1 .. nner IS dellne1ted In the Erosion Control Pl1n. Exc1v1ted ••terial shill not be stockpiled in wetllnds or in other w1terbodles. Overburden 1nd exav1ted .. terl1ls f~ the construction of 1ccess rotds shall not be side c1st on r01d slopes exceeding • grade of 10 percent. Where gr1vel pads ere used, provision for cross-dr1ln1ge sh1ll be •de to prevent blrrters to sheet flow. 5. Fish 1nd Wildlife Protection All proj~ct personnel sh1ll be governed by approprt1te Stlte 1nd Feder•l rules 1nd regul1ttons pert1tntng to fish 1nd wildlife resources; such rules 1nd regul1ttons shill be tncorporlted·tnto project technlc1l spectflcltlons by reference. A condition of t~~ployMnt for 111 project personnel wtll be 1-dilte ter.tn1tion for viol1tlng Slid rules 1nd regulltions. P~p tntlkes shall be screened to prevent har. to fish. Screening requirements IS stipul1ted by the AIISkl DeplrtMnt of Fish 1nd Gam~ (ADFIG) sh1ll be tncorpor1ted Into project design. Thl Licensee shill design, construct, oper1te, •lntltn, 1nd ter.inlte the project in 1 .. nner to 1ssure free p1ss1ge 1nd .ovement of fish. T~r1ry block1ges of fish, not to exceed 24 hours, necessitlted by instre1• 1cttvltles •Y be 1llowed, subject to conditions i•posed by ADFIG's Title 16 per.tt. The Licensee shill not unnecess1rily disturb fish spawning beds, fish re1ring, 1nd overwintering 1re1s. Where dtsturblnce Is tnevltlble IS 1 result of 1pproved project design, proposed .odtficltlons end •itigetion -.•sures shell be Included IS part of project bid docu-.nts. Tilt Licensee shill protect fish spawning beds end reerlnt end overwinterint 1re1s fro-sedi-.nutton/siltltion resulttnt f~ construction activities. As provided In the Erosion Control Plan, settling beslns 1nd other sediment control structures shell be constructed 1nd .. tnt1tned to Intercept sedi.,nts 1nd silts before they reach fish hlbltlt. The Licensee shell not teke w1ter fro. fish spawning beds or reirtng end overwintering 1re1s, or fro• weters that replenish those 1re1s, durir.g crttlcll periods Identified by AOFIG. The Licensee Shill design the project to 1cc~date the tiM and location of fish 1nd wildlife breeding, nesting, spawning, ~Iring, c1lvlng, overwintering, denntng, 1nd •lgrltlon. Stlte lnd Feder1l resource 1gencies shall review and 1pprove fish 1nd wildlife periodicity ch1rts prepared 1nd used In construction scheduling. The Licensee sh1ll design, construct, 1nd .. lntltn the project to 1ssure free p1ssage 1nd .ovenent of big gaMe lni .. ls. 6. Acquisition 1nd Disposition of Mlterl1ls The Licensee sh1ll ••ke 1ppllc1tlon to the United States for the purch1se of •lneral .. terl1ls on Feder1l lands In 1ccordlnce with 43 CFM P1rt 3610 1nd shall su~tt 1 •lnlng pl1n In 1ccord1nce with 43 CFR P1rt 23. No .. tertlls •Y be r.-oved until •lnlng pl1ns 1re reviewed and lpproved by concerned resource 1genctes. Material sites shall blend with surrounding n1tur1l l1nd patterns. Primary e-phasls Shill be pl1ced on the prevention of soil erosion 1nd damage to vegetation, end the protection of fish 1nd wildlife hlbl tit. Design shall •lnl•lze gravel requirements by lvoldlng w~t 1reas, consolidating structures, end balancing cuts 1nd fills to the extent practicable. A detllled •lnlng pl1n shall be prepared for e1ch borrow operation. Mining plens Shill Identify 111 1ssoct1ted roads, ftclllttes, •lnlng techniques, schedules, rehabtlttltlon procedures, the type of borrow •terlal, 1nd quantities expected to be •lned. AbAndoned 1ccess rotds 1nd c .. p pads shall be used as .. tertii sources whenever fe•slble in lieu of expanding existing borrow sites or tntttettng new ones. 7. Cle~rtng All trees, sntgs, 1nd other woo~ •tertal removed for road construction shill be felled within clearly Identified boundlries 1nd IWIY fr011 w1ter courses. All slash shill be disposed of IS directed by the Project Engineer. Sl1sh sh1ll be disposed of prior to the end of the first winter 1fter cutting. Dtsposll of veget1tton, non-.erch1nt1ble tl~er, overburden, 1nd other •tert1ls reaoved during cle1rtng oper1ttons Shill be In accordance with the project Erosion Control Pl1n. Siting of project f1ctllttes shill •tnl•tze requirements for clearing 1nd removtl of vegetltton. Where removtl of veget1tton Is required, org1ntc overburden Shill be segreg1t~d 1nd stockpiled for use In subsequent rehlbllttltton. Stockptles sh11l be pllced In well-dntned loclttons 1nd ber-.d to cont1tn runoff. -------------------··------------. to I N Structures shall be consolidated to •lnl•lze necessary ground surface dis tul'bance • I. Dhtul'bance or use of Nitural Waters. rocesstng Is required for borrow .. terlal, Wlter withdrawal lfd~~s~narge locations shall be sited to preclude fish and wildlife ··:~ tul'bance. water Intake structures shall be designed to preclude s 1 nt or entrainn~ent of fish eggs and s .. ll fish. Settling en~~s~all be designed, operated, and 110nltored to ensure that :~scnarge standards are achieved. Settling ponds shall be designed and sited to avoid fish entrapaent. Water discharge shall be designed in 1 •anner that precludes erosion. Energy disslpators shall be used as appropriate. 9. Off Right-of-Way Traffic The Licensee sh1ll not operate 110bile ground equipment off the right-of-way, roads, or other authorized travel routes except as necessary to prevent I~Pediate ha~ to any person or property. 10. Use of Explosives Blasting shall avoid tl~es and locations which are sensitive for fish and wildlife. Blasting procedures and schedules ~st be sufficiently flexible to allow alteration at short notice for the protection of wildlife. ADf&G blasting guidelines shall be followed. ll. Restoration Specific restoration and revegetation .ethoclologles shall be delineated In 1 project Restoration/Revegetation plan approved by appropriate State and federal agencies prior to construction. The approved Restoratlon/Aevegatlon plan shall be Incorporated Into project technical specifications by reference. Upon ca.pletlon of use, the Licensee shall restore all lands disturbed by project activities In accordance with the Restoration/Revegetation Plan. Restoration Includes erosion and sedl.ent control, revegetation, re-establlshlent of native species and stabilization. All disturbed areas shall be left In such stabilized condition that erosion will be controlled through such ~~eans as water bars, be~s. ditching, . revegetation, and other techniques Included In the Erosion Control and Restoration/Revegetation Plan. Culverts and bridges shall be re110ved and slopes shall be restored. Revegetation of disturbed areas shall be accomplished In accordance with the Restoration/Revegetation Plan and approved schedules. The par.-eters to dete~ine the success of revegetation shall be Included In the plan. The Licensee shall dispose of all .. terlals from roads, berms, dikes and other earthen structures In accordance with the project Restoration/Revegetation Plan. Pending the restoration/revegetation of 1 disturbed area, the Licensee shall contour grade and stabilize each area prior to the end of the growing season and/or prior to the onset of the freezing season I~Pediately following the tl.e of disturbance. Upon completion of restoration/revegetation of an area, the Licensee shall re.ove all equipment and .. terial fro. the area In accordance with approved plans. Organic overburden, slash, and debris stockpiled during clearing shall be distributed over the excavated area prior to fertilization. Once operational .aterlal sites are depleted or no longer required, they snail be rehabilitated by the end of the next grow1ng season following last use. Erosion-prone slopes shall be fertilized and dry seeded with a fast-growing native grass. 12. Oil and ~!ard Substances The Licensee shall submit an oil and hazardous substance control, cleanup and disposal plan that shall be approved by concerned State and Federal agencies prior to Initial construction activities. The approved 011 and Hazardous Substances Plan shall be Incorporated Into project technical specifications by reference. As a mlnl~m the plan shall address fuel distribution systems, storage and contaln~ent, containerized products, leak detection sys~s. handling procedures, training programs, provisions for collection, storage and ultl .. te disposal of waste oil, cleanup •ethods and disposal sites. The plan shall outline all areas where oil and/or hazardous substances are stored, utilized, transported, or distributed. The Licensee shall ~nstrate Its capability and readiness to execute the plan to the satisfaction of the Project Engineer and concerned State and federal agencies. Storage containers for fuels and hazardous substances shall be located away fro. water bodies and benaed to contain liU percent of the .. xtaum volume to be stored. Contal~nt areas shall be lined with Impervious .aterlal. 13. Standards for Roads The licensee shall submit 1 layout of each proposed road for approval by the resource agencies and the Project Engineer. As a •lnlmum, the layout shall Include areas of fills and cuts, the locations of culverts, bridges and low water crossings, spoil disposal, dl•enslons and roadside ditching necessary for runoff water control. Maintenance grading shall be clone In a .. nner that cross drainage culverts and stele ditches will not be blocked with roacfNterlal. Drainage ditches and culverts shall be Inspected weekly and cleaned out as needed during the seasons of surface grading and snow removal. tp I w Road design speeds shall be kept to the mlnt.um consistent with project ~equl~ements. lower design speeds allow greater flexibility fo~ alignment adjustments to avoid envl~onmentally sensitive featu~es and reduce requirements for .. jor road cuts. Lower design speeds also enable routing to follow higher~ drier ter~atn, thereby reducing requt~ements for gravel extraction and fill placement In wetlands. Routes shall avoid wetland and riparian areas whenever possible, and minimize st~eam crossing and encroachments. Whe~e st~eam c~osstng cannot be avoided, they shall be aligned at ~ignt angles to the stream and located to preclude bank cutting and st~eambed disturbance. fish spawning and overwinte~ing areas shall be avoided by route adjustlll!nts. Where stream crossings are planned for winter construction, the thalweg, banks, and other locattonal featu~es shall be Identified and staked in the field prior to snowfall or.freeze-up. Overwinte~ing •~eas of fish or aquatic .. mmals shall not be disturbed during winte~ construction. All access roads not required for project operation shall be "put to bed" as soon as they are no longer required, If possible du~tng the same season. Drainage structures shall be removed and the roadbed recontoured to 1 stable configuration providing proper drainage. Rehabilitation shall Include scarification, fertilization, and blockage with 1 be~ followed by a cut. Erosion-prone locations shall be stabilized by contour grading, water cont~ol structures or seeding wtth fast-growing native species. Where Impoundment of sheet now has occurred, non-operational roads shall be structurally altered to restore nonul now. Road dust control shall utilize water rather than oil or other synthetic compounds. Water withdrawal procedures and sources for dust control shall be approved on 1 cese-by-case basts by project environmental monitors following stte-spectftc Inspection. 14. Culverts, Bridges, Low Water Crossings Culverts and bridges necessary for operation and maintenance of the project shell be designed at 1 minimum to accommodate 1 50-year flood tn accordance with criteria establltshed by the American Assoclltion of State Highway Officials end the Federal Highway Adminlst~atton and endorsed by the Alaska Department of T~ansportation and Public Facti tttes. Culverts necessary for const~uctton or ope~atton of the p~oject shall be Installed with the culvert Invert 1 minimum of six (61 Inches o~ 20 percent of tne culvert dtamete~. whtcheve~ Is g~eate~. below the thalweg In ftsh streams. All bridge abutments and culvert Inlets and outlets wtll be rip-rapped or armored at the tt• of Installation. Culverts Installed In fish st~eams shall be designed to provide fish passage at the Q2 flood, with the following parameters: a) No fish passage culvert shall exceed 100 feet tn total length. b) Maximu• average allowable velocity of water flow through a fish passage culve~t shall not exceed 4.52 feet per second (fpsl for culverts up to 40 feet tn length (ft). for culverts In excess of 40 feet In length, the following average velocities are not to be exceeded: Ave. Yelocitl (fps l Culvert length (ft) 4.0 50 3.6 60 3.3 70 3.0 80 2.8 90 2.5 100 All culve~ts Installed tn fish strea•s shall be Inspected and .. tntalned to allow fish passage In accordance with the design specifications above. The inspection and .. tntenance schedule shall be subject to approval by ADfiG. Low water crossings (fords across moving waters where any ~tle ground equipment Is moved on the water cou~se) shall be designed, constructed, .. tntatned and resto~ed to standa~ds contained fn the project Erosion Cont~ol Plan. Low-water crossings shall be used only where 1 stream will not be subject to construction traffic. Such crossings shall conform to the slope of the undisturbed st~eambed and shall be constructed of .. tertals that will preclude water pe~colatlng through rather than over the~~. 15. T~ansmission Corridors In all locations where clea~lng Is not required for access, wtnte~ construction or access shall not commence until 1 f~ost depth of six Inches (6") has occur~ed and vehicles not exceeding fou~ (41 psi shall be used. T~ansmisston corrtdo~ development shall not create an alternate access route fo~ all-te~raln vehicles. T~ansmisston towe~s shall not be placed In active noodplatns and shall avoid streams and lakes by 1 minimum of ~00 feet. Herbicides shall not be used for vegetation control along t~ansmisslon co~~ldors. 16. Implementation Nothing contained In the p~eamble and bo~ of stipulations shall prohibit tne Licensee fo~ applying for 1 waiver or modification to any stipulation on a site specific, case-by-case basts. Sucn application shall be submitted In writing to the concerned State and Federal resou~ce managing agencies for review and comment. i j