Supplemental Agriculture Environmental...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service September 2011

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project, Alaska

Chugach National Forest Alaska

For Information Contact: Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor 3301 C Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3998

(907) 743-9500 Mailroom r10 [email protected]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Supplemental Environmental Assessment Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project, Alaska DRAFT

i

Table of Contents

List of acronyms .............................................................................................................. ii

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 Document Structure ...................................................................................................... 4 Project History and Background .................................................................................... 4

1 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................. 5 1.1 Project Purpose .................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Proposed Action .................................................................................................. 6 1.3 Decision Framework ........................................................................................... 7 1.4 Public Involvement .............................................................................................. 7 1.5 Issues .................................................................................................................. 7

2 Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Proposed Action Mitigation ............................................................................... 13 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................... 14

3 Environmental Consequences to Roadless Area Characteristics ................ 14 3.1 High Quality of Undisturbed Water, Air, and Soil .............................................. 14 3.2 Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities ...................................................... 20 3.3 Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of

dispersed recreation ......................................................................................... 29 3.4 Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites/Cultural Resources .............. 33 3.5 Other locally identified unique characteristics ................................................... 35

4 Consultation and Coordination ........................................................................ 36

References ..................................................................................................................... 37 Figures Figure 1. Project Area and Vicinity .................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Action Alternative ............................................................................................. 11 Figure 3. No Action Alternative ........................................................................................ 12 Tables Table 1. Comparison of the Alternatives ......................................................................... 14

Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project, Alaska Supplemental Environmental Assessment DRAFT

ii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources APE Area of potential effect BMP Best Management Practice Chugach Chugach Electric Association CAPA Central Alaska Power Association EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Ft feet HDPE high-density polyethylene HPMP Historic Preservation Management Plan IRA inventoried roadless area KPB Kenai Peninsula Borough MWh megawatt hours NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS National Forest System NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPS National Park Service NWI National Wetlands Inventory ORV Off-road vehicle ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ROW Right-of-way SEA Supplemental EA SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SOP standard operating procedure TCP traditional cultural property USFS USDA Forest Service USGS US Geological Survey USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service


1

INTRODUCTION

The USDA Forest Service (USFS), Chugach National Forest is considering a proposal to issue three special use permits to Chugach Electric Association (Chugach), the project proponent, for specific elements of the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project that affect Chugach National Forest lands. The decision on whether to issue the special use permits is subject to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures. The three special use permits would authorize the occupancy and use of USFS lands. The permits are for the following project activities:

Proposed Stetson Creek diversion project facilities Existing Cooper Lake Dam Access Road Existing transmission line between Quartz Creek and Anchorage substations

To meet NEPA obligations, the USFS is:

1) Adopting the 2006 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project Environmental Assessment (EA) and

2) Supplementing the EA to account for: inventoried roadless area designations; proposed diversion dam, access road and ancillary infrastructure modifications; transfer of transmission line out of FERC’s jurisdiction; and any new information or changed circumstances since the completion of the 2006 FERC EA.

The project area is located on Cooper Lake, Cooper Creek, Stetson Creek and Kenai Lake, near the community of Cooper Landing within the Kenai Peninsula Borough in Southcentral Alaska. Land ownership within the project area is a combination of state and federal land with much of the proposed project components located within Chugach National Forest. National Forest lands near Cooper Lake are a part of the Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs)1 of the National Forest System. The project area and vicinity is depicted on Figure 1.

On August 31, 2005, Chugach filed a comprehensive Settlement Agreement for relicensing the project which includes 19 proposed license articles that the settlement parties recommend FERC include in a new license. A settlement agreement is a written agreement among the license applicant and stakeholders about how the project will operate and what environmental measures will be implemented over the term of the license. FERC encourages applicants and stakeholders to reach a settlement.

Ten of the proposed license articles are project-specific environmental measures, while 9 articles deal with administrative issues of the Commission or use of National Forest System lands. The Settlement Agreement was intended to resolve all issues associated

1 The Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 294) applies to the National Forest system. In general, roadless areas were inventoried by the USFS nationwide beginning in the 1970s. Inventories and evaluations in part examine the suitability of such areas for possible future designation as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (Federal Wilderness).


2

with issuing a new license. The parties to the Settlement Agreement include: Chugach, USFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Park Service (NPS), Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), Kenaitze Indian Tribe, Alaska Center for the Environment, Fish for Cooper Creek Coalition, and Alaska Fly Fishers. FERC issued a license to Chugach on August 24, 2007 and it included the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.

The proposed action, as described herein, is needed to allow for the construction and operation of the Stetson Creek diversion facilities and access road which were part of the FERC license Settlement Agreement. The special use permit authorizations will also fulfill one of the required land use agreements to allow the transmission line from Quartz Creek to Anchorage to be removed from FERC’s jurisdiction. See the 2006 FERC EA, section V.C.4., for more information on jurisdictional changes to the transmission line.

In addition to the proposed action alternative (described below in section 2.1), the USFS also evaluated the no action alternative. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether or not to issue Special Use Permits.


3

Figure 1. Project Area and Vicinity


4

Document Structure ______________________________ The USFS has prepared this Supplemental EA (SEA) in compliance with the NEPA and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This SEA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and the no action alternative. The document is organized into four sections:

Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need through its decision framework. This section also details how the USFS informed the public of the proposal and includes the issues analyzed in the document.

Alternatives: This section presents the alternatives, mitigation, and a summary table of the associated environmental consequences.

Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the action and the no action alternatives. This analysis is organized by roadless area characteristics. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the action and no action alternatives.

Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies and other interested stakeholders consulted during the development of the SEA.

To provide the reader with sufficient detail, pertinent portions of the 2006 FERC EA are included in this SEA. The goal is to allow the reader to gain an understanding the affected environment and potential impacts without having to rely solely on referencing the 2006 FERC EA. Specific section numbers of the 2006 FERC EA are provided for those seeking more background and detail.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Chugach National Forest Supervisor’s Office in Anchorage, Alaska.

Project History and Background ____________________ The concept of the Cooper Lake hydroelectric project was first suggested by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1915. The USGS published a second study of developing a hydroelectric facility near Kenai Lake, which included a study of Cooper Lake and three other near-by sites. Ultimately, Cooper Lake was selected as the most feasible site of the four studied in 1955, and the design of the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project was started in June 1955 after the former Federal Power Commission, which is now FERC, issued Chugach a Preliminary Permit for the sole purpose of maintaining priority of application for a license for the project under the terms of the Federal Power Act. The former Federal Power Commission, granted Chugach Electric Association a license for the project on May 27, 1957, and construction began in September of 1958. The completed project was operational and brought online in April of 1961.

In 2003 Chugach began a re-licensing effort for the facility and in November 2006, the FERC issued an EA and a determination that licensing the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Chugach proposes to continue to operate the Cooper


5

Lake Hydroelectric Project largely in the same manner as it has since inception; however, a new diversion structure, pipeline and outlet works are proposed that would divert flows from Stetson Creek, a tributary of Cooper Creek, into Cooper Lake. A new outlet structure would be added to the Cooper Lake Dam to release the warmer lake water to Cooper Creek to improve fish habitat conditions downstream. Generation flows would continue to be withdrawn through an intake structure on Cooper Lake and directed to a powerhouse on the shores of Kenai Lake. Since publication of the 2006 FERC EA, engineering design refinements have resulted in minor modifications to the proposed Stetson Creek diversion dam, access road and ancillary infrastructure.

In conformance with federal requirements for implementing NEPA and meeting the requirements of USFS policy, this SEA will address the impacts of the project on USFS Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) and any new information, changed circumstances, and/or design modifications to address environmental concerns that have a bearing on the Chugach proposed action and impacts described in the 2006 FERC EA. It is the intention of the USFS to adopt the 2006 FERC EA and this SEA so that issuance of the Special Use Permits to Chugach may occur.

The Stetson Creek diversion project, 3.3 miles of the existing 4.7-mile-longCooper Lake Dam Access Road, and approximately 11.6 miles of the existing 90.4 miles of transmission line are located on IRA. Nationally, IRAs comprise 58.5 million acres, or 31% of NFS lands. These areas possess social and ecological values and characteristics. While NFS IRAs represent about 2% of the total land base of the United States, they provide unique opportunities for dispersed recreation, sources of clean drinking water, and large undisturbed landscapes that offer privacy and seclusion. In addition, these areas provide a bulwark against the spread of nonnative invasive plant species, support a diversity of habitats for native plant and animal species, conserve biological diversity, and provide opportunities for study, research, and education (USFS, 2000).

1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Project Purpose ______________________________ The Cooper Lake Hydroelectric facility licensed by FERC included a goal to improve fish habitat conditions for Chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon and rainbow trout in Cooper Creek. To accomplish this goal, the Settlement Agreement parties, including the USFS, supported the construction of a diversion structure on Stetson Creek. This work requires a Special Use Permit from the USFS. Existing Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project infrastructure, specifically the Cooper Lake Dam Access road and the transmission line between Quartz Creek and Anchorage substations require Special Use Permits as well. Chugach is currently planning for replacement and reconstruction of certain sections of the existing transmission line, as needed, based on infrastructure age and condition. According to Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW and Access Management Plan, these projects will be developed as part of a Chugach’s long range business plan and would be incorporated into their Five Year Capital Improvement Plan.


6

Design is incomplete for any section upgrades and any new construction or reconstruction will require review of the existing FERC License/permit and may require additional environmental review and amendment to the existing permit. Upcoming transmission line replacement and reconstruction projects will be analyzed at a later date and are not addressed in this SEA.

The purpose of the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric facility has not changed since publication of the 2006 FERC EA. The purpose is to generate hydroelectric energy. Other re-licensing goals include energy conservation; protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat (including related spawning grounds and habitat); the protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of environmental quality (FERC, 2006).

The Cooper Lake Hydroelectric facility has generated an average of 48,500 megawatt hours (MWh) of electric energy per year under recent historical operating conditions. FERC issued a license for the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project (No. 2170) to Chugach on May 27, 1957. The electric energy generated by the project is conducted via Chugach’s transmission and distribution system and is used to meet the power needs of Chugach’s customers in Southcentral Alaska. Chugach is Alaska’s largest electric utility, supplying power to nearly 75% of Alaska’s residents through wholesale and retail power sales. The company serves more than 75,750 metered retail locations in a service territory extending from Anchorage to the northern Kenai Peninsula and from Whittier, on Prince William Sound, to Tyonek, on the west side of Cook Inlet. The Cooper Lake Hydroelectric facility provides about 2% of the annual energy required to meet Chugach’s generation needs and represents about 15% of Chugach’s total hydroelectric capacity (FERC, 2006).

According to the 2006 FERC EA, replacement power for the Railbelt area would likely come from the natural gas-fired Bernice Lake Power Plant, located near Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula. The Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project makes an important contribution to Chugach’s base power supply. The project helps displace fossil-fueled electric power generation that the region now uses, thereby conserving non-renewable fossil fuels and reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and other byproducts caused by fossil-fuel combustion. The project has a total authorized capacity of 19.4 megawatt project would eliminate the need for an equivalent amount of energy and capacity derived from fossil fuel, helping to conserve these nonrenewable resources and limit atmospheric pollution.

The 2002 Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan lists standards and guidelines for hydroelectric and other water diversion proposals (among others). FERC took these standards and guidelines into consideration during the development of the 2006 FERC EA.

1.2 Proposed Action ______________________________ The Proposed Action is the same as described in the 2006 FERC EA and includes all of the license provisions. Minor changes to the action are described in the section 2 Alternatives.


7

1.3 Decision Framework __________________________ Given the purpose and need, the USFS deciding official will review the proposed action and the no action alternative to make the decision whether or not to issue the Special Use Permits.

1.4 Public Involvement ____________________________ FERC followed its own internal public involvement guidance during preparation and completion of the relicensing EA in 2004 - 2006.

This proposal was listed in the USFS’ Schedule of Proposed Actions in August 2011. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping. On behalf of the USFS and Chugach, HDR Alaska, Inc. sent a supplemental scoping letter with a project figure to agencies and other interested parties by e-mail on August 22, 2011 and the scoping comment period concluded on September 22, 2011.

The scoping comment period concluded on September 22, 2011. One comment was received from the public:

Opposes the project. Stetson Creek currently provides nesting habitat for harlequin ducks and dippers. Doubts the creek diversion will result in better fish habitat. Wildlife and fisheries habitat as well as potential environmental consequences of the proposed action are described in Sections 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.7 and 3.2.8 of this document.

1.5 Issues ______________________________________ The USFS identified roadless characteristics—and the resources described within them—as issues to be addressed in this SEA. The following section describes the roadless characteristics that are examined in greater detail in subsequent sections of this document.

This Supplemental EA addresses impact categories as they pertain to the “roadless area characteristics” as defined by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Roadless area characteristics analyzed in this document include many of the impact categories typically addressed in a NEPA analysis, i.e., impacts to wetlands and water bodies, fish and wildlife, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, air quality, and water quality. The proposed action alternative was determined to have no effect on several impact categories and they were therefore dismissed from further analysis. Those categories include noise, social impacts (environmental justice), economic impacts, farmland impacts, floodplain impacts, and hazardous waste sites.

1.5.1 Roadless Characteristics

1.5.1.1 High quality or undisturbed, water, air, and soil

Water, air, and soil resources are the foundation that supports all other resources, characteristics, and values in roadless areas. Proper watershed management is critical to


8

the health of people because watersheds can be the source areas of drinking water for local communities. Maintaining and improving air quality is another important goal in managing national forests. Air resources include visibility; quality components such as dust, smoke, pH, and nitrogen oxide; and atmospheric components including global climate change and carbon sequestration. Finally, the amount of ground-disturbing activity caused by road construction and timber harvest is a good way to estimate effects on water, soil and air resources. Changes in water yield, flood flows, sediment volumes, and water quality are examples of measures used to assess effects on these resources.

1.5.1.2 Diversity of plant and animal communities and habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land

Inventoried roadless areas provide large, relatively undisturbed blocks of habitat for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and plants, including threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Inventoried roadless areas can function as biological strongholds and refuges for a number of species, and they play a key role in maintaining native plant and animal communities and biological diversity.

1.5.1.3 Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation

These recreation classes of dispersed recreation often provide outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing and cross-country skiing. Although areas with these recreation opportunities may have many wilderness-like attributes, they often allow the use of mountain bikes and other mechanized means of travel, in contrast to designated wilderness areas. Primitive, semi-primitive motorized, and semi-primitive non-motorized areas can also take pressure off heavily used wilderness areas by providing additional solitude and dispersed recreation opportunities.

1.5.1.4 Reference landscapes The body of knowledge about the effects of management activities over long periods of time and on large landscapes is very limited. Reference landscapes can provide comparison areas for evaluation and monitoring. These areas provide a natural setting that may be useful as a comparison to study the effects of more intensely managed areas.

1.5.1.5 Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality High-quality scenery, especially scenery with natural-appearing landscapes, is a primary reason that people choose to recreate. Quality scenery contributes directly to real estate values in neighboring communities and residential areas.

1.5.1.6 Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites Roadless areas may contain traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and sacred sites. Traditional cultural properties are places, sites, structures, districts, or objects that are historically significant in the beliefs, customs, and practices of a community. Sacred sites are places that are determined sacred by virtue of their established religious significance to or ceremonial use by an Indian religion. Federal agencies are to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and are to avoid adversely affecting traditional cultural properties and sacred sites when practicable.


9

1.5.1.7 Other locally identified unique characteristics IRAs may offer locally-identified unique characteristics and values, which may be dependent on the roadless character of the landscape. Examples of unique characteristics and values include uncommon geological formations, which are valued for their scientific and scenic qualities, or unique wetland complexes. While some of the unique characteristics may only have local importance, others could have regional or even global significance, such as roadless areas that provide important stopover spots for long-ranging migratory birds.

2 ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes and compares the action and no action alternatives considered for the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public.

2.1 Alternatives __________________________________

2.1.1 Action Alternative

The Proposed Action is depicted in Figure 2. The Proposed Action is the same as described in the 2006 FERC EA with the following proposed modifications:

1) Revised location for the Stetson Creek diversion dam. The new location is approximately one-quarter mile farther upstream on Stetson Creek, just above a small waterfall to take advantage of the elevation. This revised location will:

a. Lengthen the underground pipeline between Stetson Creek and Cooper Lake to approximately 11,910 feet compared to approximately 11,000 feet as disclosed in the 2006 FERC EA.

b. Lengthen the access/maintenance road built within the pipeline bench between Stetson Creek and Cooper Lake to approximately 11,910 feet compared to approximately 11,000 feet as disclosed in the 2006 FERC EA.

c. Improve the pipeline’s hydraulic characteristics and reduce exposure to steep slopes within the Stetson Creek drainage.

2) Revised outlet location at Cooper Lake Dam. The new location runs through the existing Cooper Lake Dam spillway compared to the 2006 plan to run through the main Cooper Lake Dam.

3) Modified pipeline type and size between Stetson Creek and Cooper Lake. The 2006 plan was for steel pipe; however, the new design is for high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe. The inside diameter of the HDPE pipe would be 36.25 inches; the previous plan for steel pipe had a 36-inch diameter.

4) Two borrow sites have been identified. 5) About ½-acre area will be cleared for construction of the diversion dam and an

associated vehicle turnaround/materials staging area.


10

6) Six acres near the existing Cooper Lake Dam will be cleared and used for construction staging and extraction of mineral materials for use in construction.


11

Figure 2. Action Alternative

2.1.2 No Action Alternative

If the USFS did not issue the special use permits then Chugach would not have the necessary authorization to construct the Stetson Creek diversion dam, access road and pipeline within the IRA. Chugach would still have a FERC license containing USFS 4(e) conditions and would follow the process set out in the FERC license to resolve the issue of being unable to obtain necessary approvals to meet the license requirements. An alternative to the Stetson Creek diversion could be identified, but the ultimate resolution is not known at this time.

For the purpose of this SEA, it is assumed that under the No Action Alternative Chugach would continue to operate the Cooper Lake Project as it does today, with no Stetson Creek diversion facility or access road included as part of the FERC licensed project. The No Action Alternative is depicted in Figure 3. The transmission line from Quartz Creek substation to the Anchorage substation would stay under FERC’s jurisdiction. Regular maintenance and access as described in Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line Right-of-Way (ROW) and Access Management Plan, which was prepared in consultation with and approved by agencies with jurisdiction over project area resources, including the USFS, would continue to be part of the existing project as described in the license.


12

Figure 3. No Action Alternative


13

2.2 Proposed Action Mitigation _____________________ Sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the Federal Power Act require FERC to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. When reviewing a hydropower project, FERC considers water quality, fish and wildlife, recreational, and other non-developmental values of the involved waterway equally with its electric power and other developmental values. Accordingly, any license is issued along with a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses. The USFS participated on the interagency action committee with FERC throughout the relicensing process and suggested several strategies to avoid and minimize potential impacts.

In response to public comments on the proposal, mitigation measures were developed to ease some of the potential impacts the various alternatives may cause. The mitigation measures are applicable to the action alternative. Refer to sections III.A.6. and III.A.7. of the 2006 FERC EA for details on the mitigation measures proposed by Chugach.

In addition to the Settlement Agreements provisions that are part of FERC’s license for the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC also included the following additional 4(e) conditions stipulated by the USFS: (1) requirements for annual consultation; (2) development of a hazardous substance plan, (3) restrictions on the use of explosives, (4) restrictions on the use of pesticides, (5) development of a fire prevention plan, and (6) development of a noxious weed management plan. During final design and permitting, Chugach would evaluate options to minimize or avoid adverse effects on wetlands, such as re-aligning pipeline segments to avoid wetlands, minimizing the extent of disturbance at stream crossings, stockpiling wetland soils and replacing them following construction, restoring wetland hydrology and vegetation, and monitoring the sites to ensure that invasive, non-native plants do not establish and spread as a result of construction activities. Further, Condition No. 7 of the license 4(e) Terms and Conditions requires that a USFS-approved vegetation/noxious weed management plan shall be filed with FERC prior to ground-disturbing activity. This plan would identify areas for re-vegetation or rehabilitation, with native species to be used, a planting plan, and methods to control and monitor noxious weeds. Finally, Chugach proposes bear den and nesting bird surveys, which would be conducted prior to any ground-disturbing activities. These surveys would identify areas where Chugach would restrict construction during the winter to prevent disturbance to bear dens, and during spring/early summer to prevent disturbance to birds, thus minimizing construction-related disturbance and alteration of habitats important to bears and migratory birds.


14

2.3 Comparison of Alternatives _____________________ This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 1 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 1. Comparison of the Alternatives

2006 FERC EA Proposed

Alternative Proposed Action

Alternative No Action Alternative

Water minor impact no change from 2006

FERC EA no change from 2006

FERC EA

Soil 17.2 acres disturbed 25.2 acres disturbed no change from 2006

FERC EA

Air no impact no impact no change from 2006

FERC EA

Vegetation 17.2 acres disturbed 25.2 acres disturbed no change from 2006

FERC EA

Wildlife minor impact no change from 2006


FERC EA

Fish positive impact no change from 2006


FERC EA

Recreation minor impact no change from 2006


FERC EA

Visual minor impact no change from 2006


FERC EA

Cultural no impact no impact no change from 2006

FERC EA

3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES TO ROADLESS AREA CHARACTERISTICS

This section focuses on the potential impacts of the alternatives to IRA characteristics. In general, the 2006 FERC EA addresses impacts of the proposed alternatives to project area resources in greater detail and should be referenced to supplement impact discussions under each subsequent topic. This section summarizes the affected environment of the IRA and the potential changes to the IRA due to design modifications of the action alternative as well as the no action alternative. Potential impacts of new ground- disturbing activities (Stetson Creek Diversion and access road) are presented first and then potential impacts of existing infrastructure (transmission line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road) are presented. This section also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in Table 1, above.

3.1 High Quality of Undisturbed Water, Air, and Soil

3.1.1 Water Quality Affected Environment

According to the 2006 FERC EA, in general, water quality within the IRA is good and meets applicable water quality standards for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and total


15

dissolved gas in all samples collected. (See section V.C.1.a. of the 2006 FERC EA for more information).

Two-thirds of homes in Cooper Landing use individual water wells and septic tank systems and are completely plumbed. The local school has its own well water system. The remainder of residences haul water or have water delivered and use privies. There are no local surface water sources (ADCCED, 2011).

3.1.2 Water Quality Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative

3.1.2.1 Stetson Creek Diversion and Access Road

Although Chugach proposes minor changes to the Stetson Creek diversion and access road due to engineering refinements, potential water quality impacts would remain the same as those described in the 2006 FERC EA. (See section V.C.1.b. of the 2006 FERC EA for more information on impacts to water quality). Construction of the facility, including the approximate 6 acres for staging and material borrow supply near the Cooper Lake Dam, would result in approximately 25.2 acres of disturbance. To minimize the potential for sediment laden run-off and to encourage infiltration post-construction, Chugach will promote re-vegetation of the road by spreading topsoil on the gravel roadbed and seed it using native grasses. Surface runoff from the pervious unpaved road is expected to be minimal. Potential for erosion from vehicular travel on the road is expected to be minimal as Chugach expects to access the diversion dam quarterly to monthly. Chugach will maintain the road to ensure it remains passable, including periodic patching and clearing of debris caused by weather events or seasonal breakup. Chugach will not plow or sand the road in the winter. The Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project does not have the potential to affect sources of public drinking water in Cooper Landing or the surrounding IRAs.

Indirect and cumulative impacts: As described in the 2006 FERC EA, indirect and cumulative adverse effects to project area water quality can be attributed to historical and current activities related to mining, off-road vehicle use, timber harvest, road building, among others. The project is not expected to induce changes in land use patterns, population, density or growth rates, or create related water quality impacts. To evaluate the changes and ensure compliance with state water quality standards, Chugach proposes to monitor water quality in Cooper Creek as described in Settlement Agreement Proposed Article 405, Aquatic Biota Monitoring Program.

Construction impacts: Construction of the Stetson Creek diversion structure, pipeline, and access road could cause short-term adverse effects on water quality. The use of approved erosion control methods during construction and re-vegetating disturbed areas following construction will minimize the potential for loose soils eroding and entering waterways.

3.1.2.2 Transmission Line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road The 2006 FERC EA does not specifically discuss potential water quality impacts from maintenance and operations of the transmission line and the Cooper Lake Dam Access Road. Project operations and project-related activities (including transmission line and


16

access road vegetation clearing and maintenance, driving on soft access roads, washout of access roads) that disturb soils or vegetation create conditions that could result in erosion and affect water quality. Chugach proposes to maintain the Cooper Lake Dam Access Road as needed including periodic patching and clearing of debris caused by weather events or seasonal breakup. Chugach does not intend to plow or sand the road in the winter. The Proposed Action includes periodic maintenance and operational activity along the transmission line as detailed in Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW and Access Management Plan and does not include reconstruction or large ground disturbing activities which are directly related to water quality. Water quality impacts from transmission line maintenance activity are expected to be temporary and minor. Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW and Access Management Plan contains Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that detail best practices that Chugach will use when undertaking activity in the field. Chugach seeks to ensure, in both its planned and emergency activities, that the methods and techniques it uses are consistent with all federal and state requirements and good land management practices relating to the protection of property, vegetation, water, wetlands and wildlife in the areas traversed by personnel and equipment. The plan contains SOPs to protect water quality.

3.1.3 Water Quality Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative

If the USFS did not issue the special use permits, then Chugach would continue to operate the Cooper Lake Project as it does today, with no Stetson Creek diversion facility or access road included as part of the FERC licensed project, as described in section 2.1.2, No Action Alternative. The transmission line between Quartz Creek and Anchorage substations would stay under FERC’s jurisdiction. Maintenance and operations activities would be consistent with Chugach approved methods and procedures. Water quality impacts under the No Action Alternative would be temporary and minor associated with periodic maintenance of the hydroelectric facility and existing transmission line.

3.1.4 Air Quality Affected Environment

No air quality studies or reports were prepared or required during the FERC relicensing effort. The 2006 FERC EA did not contain a section detailing current air quality conditions. According to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), air quality within the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) is generally considered good. All areas in the KPB, including Cooper Landing, meet or exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide, airborne particulates, airborne lead, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and nitrogen dioxide set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The project area is not located within a federally-designated air quality non-attainment area, maintenance area, or an ADEC air quality area of concern for carbon monoxide or particulate material (ADEC, 2011). Airborne dust from natural and manmade sources is a common air pollutant on the Kenai Peninsula. Sources of dust include gravel pits, unpaved and paved roads, and natural floodplains. Other air pollutants include volcanic ash and smoke from forest fires and


17

prescribed burns. During fire season, typically from March to October, the ADEC issues air quality advisories for portions of the Kenai Peninsula when smoke conditions could affect public health. Vehicle emissions and smoke from operating woodstoves usually disperse and typically do not reach hazardous levels within the IRAs.

3.1.5 Air Quality Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative

3.1.5.1 Stetson Creek Diversion and Access Road Air quality impacts associated with the Stetson Creek diversion and access road were not discussed in the 2006 FERC EA. Airborne dust from the new unpaved Stetson Creek diversion dam access road is expected to be negligible when considering that the diversion and access road would be entirely re-vegetated. The Cooper Lake hydroelectric facility overall helps displace fossil-fueled electric power generation, thereby conserving non-renewable fossil fuels and reducing the emission of noxious byproducts caused by fossil-fuel combustion. The 2006 FERC EA and scoping for this supplemental EA did not identify climate change as an issue. However, the Stetson Creek Diversion is not expected to impact or be impacted from climate change. To a small extent (48,500 megawatt/year), the operation of the hydroelectric facility will create power that could otherwise be generated through fossil-fuel combustion. For this reason, hydroelectric facilities generally do not influence climate change to the extent that fossil-fuel combustion does. However, no models exist to estimate the local effects of climate change or that estimate the potential site-specific effects of climate change on the project area. In addition, climate change is not expected to meaningfully influence operation of the Cooper Lake hydroelectric facility because it is not solely depended on glaciers or other sources of water that could be influenced by climate change.

Indirect and cumulative impacts: The project is not expected to induce changes in land use patterns, population density or growth rates, or have negative air quality impacts. In addition, because the Stetson Creek diversion is not expected to impact or be impacted by climate change, there are no indirect or cumulative impacts.

Construction impacts: Construction of the Stetson Creek dam diversion and access road would have a minor, direct, and short-term effect on air quality, primarily due to fugitive dust emissions associated with earthmoving activities and construction equipment traveling over unpaved areas. During the construction period, construction equipment engine exhaust would generate emissions of particulate matter and gaseous pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxides and carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds but these amounts would not reach significant levels and would be short-term.

3.1.5.2 Transmission Line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road Air quality associated with the maintenance and operations of the transmission line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road was not specifically discussed in the 2006 FERC EA.


18

Maintenance activities involving ground disturbance and earth moving equipment would have minor, direct, short-term effect on air quality, as described in the preceding section.

3.1.6 Air Quality Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative

If the USFS did not issue the special use permits then Chugach would continue to operate the Cooper Lake Project as it does today, with no Stetson Creek diversion facility or access road included as part of the FERC licensed project, as described in section 2.1.2, No Action Alternative. The transmission line between Quartz Creek and Anchorage Substations would stay under FERC’s jurisdiction. Air quality impacts under the No Action alternative would be temporary and minor associated with periodic maintenance of the hydroelectric facility and existing transmission line. Maintenance and operations activities would be consistent with methods and procedures approved in the 2006 FERC EA.

As the Stetson Creek diversion, transmission line, and dam access road do not impact climate change; impacts from and to climate change would be the same as that described for the Action Alternative.

3.1.7 Soil Quality Affected Environment

A detailed geotechnical analysis was conducted in 2010. Refer to the Stetson Creek Diversion and Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Geotechnical Feasibility Study (MWH, 2010) for more information. Surface conditions along the diversion pipeline and access road can be divided into two reaches (Stetson Creek and Cooper Creek) divided by the ridgeline between the two drainage basins. The Stetson Creek reach of the diversion pipeline and access road alignment is characterized by a gorge that is on the order of 200 feet deep. The southern slopes of the gorge generally dip downward toward Stetson Creek at an average rate of 1.4H:1V to the northwest. Slopes located immediately adjacent to the stream are commonly steeper than 1H:1V. Surface indications of slope instability are present including scars from recent sloughing. Hummocky topography is common along the diversion pipeline and access road alignment within the Stetson Creek gorge. Signs of slope instability were observed at four distinct locations along the alignment. Vegetation along the Stetson Creek reach of the alignment is dominated by areas that alternate between alders with tall grass and stands of coniferous trees. Subsurface conditions at the diversion dam and the Stetson Creek reach of the diversion pipeline and access road were not investigated. The second reach of the diversion pipeline and access road consists of the Cooper Creek reach. This portion of the alignment extends to the outfall at Cooper Lake. The pipeline and access road alignment within the Cooper Creek reach transects relatively moderate to flat slopes in comparison with the Stetson Creek reach. Slopes within the Cooper Creek reach generally dip downward to the northeast at rates ranging from 3H:1V to 6H:1V, with steeper slopes in localized areas. Observations along this alignment revealed that shallow sloughing failures and hummocky surface topography, which can be an indicator


19

of slope instability, are present at one distinct location. In addition, a separate potential debris flow deposit was observed. Vegetation along the Cooper Creek reach is similar to the Stetson Creek reach, varying between areas predominated by alder vegetation with tall grass and stands of coniferous trees. In general, the surveys along the Cooper Creek reach of the diversion pipeline and access road indicate the presence of shallow bedrock mantled by a thin layer of overburden at most locations. Interpretations of seismic velocities indicate that overburden materials likely consist of variable layers of organic material, unconsolidated sediment, and glacial till (MWH, 2010).

3.1.8 Soil Quality Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative

3.1.8.1 Stetson Creek Diversion and Access Road The areal extent of potential soil impacts under the Action Alternative is expected to be approximately 25.2 acres. This includes 19.2 acres of disturbance to construct the diversion dam, turnaround area, and access road, and 6 acres of disturbance for the staging and borrow areas near the Cooper Lake Dam. The diversion pipeline and access road are considered generally feasible in their currently proposed alignment. It is noted that the alignment crosses multiple areas of irregular or hummocky topography that may be an indicator of slope instability. According to Chugach the project proponent, slopes will be stabilized using proven methods and meeting industry standards. Slope stability issues are considered to be minor (MWH, 2010).

Indirect and cumulative impacts: The project is not expected to result in indirect soil quality impacts. Over the life of the permit, periodic erosion (as described in the water quality section) along the road is expected due to extreme weather events and seasonal breakup but is not expected to reach significant levels.

Construction impacts: Construction of the new project facilities (Stetson diversion, pipeline, and access road) would disturb soils in the IRA, potentially increasing the amount of erosion or sediment loading into project-affected waters. Effects from construction would be short term, lasting less than three years for all ground-disturbing activities associated with the diversion structure, pipeline, and access road. Water bodies most susceptible to sediment inputs include Stetson Creek, Cooper Lake, and Cooper Creek. Developing and implementing erosion control plans would limit the amount of soil erosion during and following construction activities, assuming adequate protective measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are adopted. Re-vegetating disturbed areas following construction would further protect the loose soils from eroding and entering project-affected waters.

3.1.8.2 Transmission Line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road The 2006 FERC EA does not specifically discuss potential soil quality impacts from maintenance of the transmission line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road. The Proposed Action includes periodic maintenance and operational activity along the transmission line as detailed in Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW and Access Management Plan


20

and does not include reconstruction or large ground-disturbing activities. Soil quality impacts from maintenance activity are expected to be temporary and minor. Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW and Access Management Plan contains SOPs that detail best practices Chugach will use when undertaking activity in the field. Chugach seeks to ensure, in both its planned activity and emergency activities, that the methods and techniques it uses are consistent with all federal and state requirements and good land management practices relating to the protection of property, vegetation, water, wetlands and wildlife in the areas traversed by personnel and equipment.

3.1.9 Soil Quality Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative

If the USFS did not issue the special use permits then Chugach would continue to operate the Cooper Lake Project as it does today, with no Stetson Creek diversion facility or access road included as part of the FERC licensed project, as described in section 2.1.2, No Action Alternative. The transmission line from Quartz Creek to Anchorage Substations would stay under FERC’s jurisdiction. Ground-disturbing activities associated with regular operations and maintenance are expected to be minor and result in negligible, direct, short-term effect on soil quality. Maintenance and operations activities would be consistent with Chugach approved methods and procedures.

3.2 Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities Diverse plant and animal communities exist within the IRAs, but the diversity is not considered unusual for the Kenai Peninsula or the transmission line corridor. The USFS in its Roadless Areas appendix to the Forest Plan EIS lists several Alaska Region sensitive plant species known or suspected to occur within the IRAs. No threatened or endangered species or proposed or candidate species of plants or animals occur in the project area. The Kenai brown bear population is a USFS Management Indicator Species, and is dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land. Other species that depend on large land areas that agencies have noted as important indicator species in the project area include moose, gray wolf, lynx, wolverine, black bear, and Dall sheep (USFS, 2002). The 2006 FERC EA cited no ESA-listed wildlife species as occurring in the project area.

3.2.1 Vegetation Affected Environment

As part of the 2006 FERC EA effort, Chugach evaluated botanical resources within the study area2 through vegetation cover type mapping, wetland inventory, and an assessment of reservoir shoreline processes. Chugach conducted sensitive plant and exotic plant surveys on NFS lands occupied by project features or affected by project operations. Refer to section V.C.2.a. of the 2006 FERC EA for more information on vegetation.

2 The terrestrial resource study area included Cooper Lake, Cooper Creek, the powerhouse site at Kenai Lake, the transmission line ROW, access routes associated with the project, the proposed diversion site on Stetson Creek, and the 100-foot corridor along the pipeline/access route between the diversion site and the outlet structure at Cooper Lake.


21

The shoreline at the head of Cooper Lake is relatively flat. Grass and forb meadows along the lake margin gradually transition to willow and alder thickets, then to cottonwood stands, and then to spruce-hemlock forest as elevations increase. In the central section of Cooper Lake, steep slopes, bedrock, and sparse vegetation characterize much of the shoreline. The northern end of the lake is a mix of moderate slopes, steep slopes, and flats. The northern shoreline supports a mosaic of spruce/hemlock forests, alder thickets, and grass and forb meadows. The valley just below Cooper Lake Dam has gradual slopes, and the stream gradient is low. The combination of gentle topography, reduced flows and beaver dams has allowed cottonwood stands, willow thickets and forb meadows to develop along Cooper Creek in this vicinity. Farther downstream, Cooper Creek runs through a steep, narrow canyon, where alder and other understory shrubs form a continuous band along the banks. The valley widens again near Cooper Creek’s confluence with the Kenai River, and the alluvial floodplain supports a large stand of cottonwoods. Vegetation along the proposed diversion pipeline and access road between Stetson Creek and Cooper Lake is composed primarily of hemlock stands and alder thickets. Four small wetlands (totaling approximately 4.2 acres in size) are also present within the 100-foot-wide corridor studied during the relicensing effort. Mapping showed that the proposed pipeline would cross two small palustrine emergent wetlands (0.3 and 0.2 acre); one scrub-shrub/emergent wetland (0.2 acre); and one scrub-shrub wetland (0.3 acre). The pipeline would also cross 13 perennial streams, including Stetson Creek and 12 smaller unnamed creeks, totaling 0.7 acres. The 200-foot mapped area around the outlet of the diversion includes 2.5 acres of Cooper Lake. The transmission line between the Quartz Creek and Anchorage substations crosses a variety of habitat types, elevations, and plant communities. The most common plant communities within the cleared ROW are mixed forb and grass meadows3. Patches of wetlands are present at stream crossings and several low areas. The transmission line ROW enters a large complex of wetlands, streams and water bodies in the vicinity of the Placer River, Portage Creek, and Twenty Mile River. This area includes estuarine wetlands along the shore of Turnagain Arm (FERC, 2006).

3.2.1.1 Special Status Plants / Exotic Plants No plants that are federally listed as threatened or endangered occur in Southcentral Alaska, but several species designated as sensitive in USFS Region 10 may be present. To evaluate potential project effects on these species, Chugach conducted intensive plant surveys along the Cooper Lake shoreline, Cooper Creek, the site of the proposed diversion on Stetson Creek, and along the pipeline/access road. To evaluate the occurrence of sensitive species on NFS lands along the Cooper Lake Dam Access Road

3 The overall ROW width is 100 feet along the transmission line. Vegetation is cleared within the ROW as needed. The cleared width varies within the ROW but is generally not cleared to the full 100 foot width.


22

and Quartz Creek to Anchorage Substations transmission line and associated access roads, Chugach relied on sampling of representative sites. Surveyors encountered only one sensitive plant species, the pale poppy (Papaver alboroseum), growing along the southeast shoreline of Cooper Lake. Two populations were observed in 2003. One of them (numbering over 400 individuals) could not be relocated in 2004, while the other had increased from about 50 to about 72 plants. Chugach identified exotic plant occurrences in conjunction with sensitive plant surveys, evaluating the same portions of the study area. In addition, Chugach conducted targeted sampling along the Quartz Creek to Anchorage transmission line at sites on NFS lands with a high likelihood of exotic plant occurrence (i.e., where disturbed soils would promote their establishment). Surveyors observed 22 exotic plants. The most common species were dandelion, Kentucky bluegrass, annual bluegrass, common plantain, yarrow, and pineappleweed. Yellow toadflax and annual bluegrass were the only species found that occur on the State of Alaska restricted noxious weeds lists; no prohibited noxious weeds were documented (FERC, 2006).

3.2.2 Vegetation Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative

3.2.2.1 Stetson Creek Diversion and Access Road The Action Alternative would require clearing of approximately 25.2 acres of several vegetation cover types. The 2006 FERC EA disclosed that the construction of the Stetson Creek diversion, pipeline and access road would require clearing approximately 17.2 acres: 11.3 acres of spruce/hemlock forest and 5.9 acres of alder thicket. Based on the design modifications an additional area of approximately 1.5 acres of alder tall scrub would be cleared for the 910 feet of pipeline and access road extension.4 The two borrow sources located near Cooper Lake totaling approximately 6 acres would affect areas predominantly classified as barren/sparsely vegetated, with negligible impacts to alder tall scrub and, to an even smaller degree, to hemlock/spruce and graminoid herbaceous cover types. After the pipeline is buried, the access road would be re-vegetated with a mix of forbs and grasses along the entire length of the alignment. The access road is intended for continued access by Chugach and would not grow back to its natural cover. No additional impacts to wetlands are anticipated beyond the 4.2 acres disclosed in the 2006 FERC EA. Mapped wetlands of the project area (HDR 2005) and NWI wetland mapping (USFWS) were examined to determine if locations of the design modifications had the potential to impact wetlands. The mapped area along the Stetson Creek reach of the diversion pipeline and access road, including the 910 feet of lengthened access road, consists entirely of uplands. Locations of the two borrow sources identified near Cooper Lake Dam would be located in uplands and outside of any mapped wetland area.

4 Vegetation cover types for the new areas of impact were determined by reviewing the 2005 vegetation mapping and aerial imagery.


23

Chugach recognizes that project operations (including reservoir fluctuation) and project-related activities (including transmission line and access road vegetation clearing and maintenance, driving on soft access roads, and washout of access roads) that disturb soils or vegetation create conditions that promote the establishment of non-native plants (FERC, 2006). In the 2006 FERC EA, Chugach included BMPs and measures that would be used to minimize the spread of exotic plants in existing disturbed areas and into new areas of ground disturbance. BMP measures are also included as provisions in Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW Corridor and Access Management and Maintenance Plan. These same management protocols would still be implemented based on the proposed design modifications.

Indirect and cumulative impacts: The project is not expected to induce changes in the pattern of land use, population, density or growth in the area that will affect vegetation. Over the life of the project, periodic vegetation maintenance is expected to ensure the project remains operational. This vegetation maintenance is not expected to reach significant levels.

Construction impacts: Construction of the new project facilities (Stetson diversion, pipeline, and access road) would remove vegetation in the IRA. Effects from construction would be temporary and short term, lasting less than three years for all ground-disturbing activities associated with the diversion structure, pipeline, and access road. Re-vegetating disturbed areas following construction would serve to decrease potential erosion and minimize adverse effects to project-affected waters.

3.2.2.2 Transmission Line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road The 2006 FERC EA does not discuss specific vegetation impacts from maintenance of the transmission line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road. Chugach would continue to encourage re-vegetation along the road. Chugach would continue to perform periodic road spot maintenance as needed to ensure access. Chugach would not grade, plow or sand the road. The Proposed Action only includes periodic maintenance and operational activity along the transmission line as detailed in Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW and Access Management Plan and does not include reconstruction or large ground-disturbing activities. The plan has been approved by agencies, including USFS, with jurisdiction over the transmission line resources. It includes a detailed agency and landowner coordination process Chugach has agreed to use for planned maintenance and vegetation management activities and access route usage. The plan also contains SOP that detail best practices Chugach will use when undertaking activity in the field. Chugach seeks to ensure, in both its planned activity and emergency activities, that the methods and techniques it utilizes are consistent with all federal and state requirements and good land management practices relating to the protection of property, vegetation, water, wetlands and wildlife in the areas traversed by personnel and equipment (Chugach, 2008).

3.2.3 Vegetation Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative

If the USFS did not issue the special use permits then Chugach would continue to operate the Cooper Lake Project as it does today, with no Stetson Creek diversion facility or


24

access road included as part of the FERC licensed project, as described in section 2.1.2, No Action Alternative. The transmission line from Quartz Creek to Anchorage Substations would stay under FERC’s jurisdiction. The vegetation control methods required for the continuous management of the vegetation growth in the transmission line ROW still would occur, per approved techniques outlined in Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW Corridor and Access Management and Maintenance Plan.

3.2.4 Wildlife Affected Environment

For the 2006 FERC EA effort, a number of wildlife field surveys were conducted, including mammals, landbirds, raptors, and waterbirds. Refer to section V.C.2.a. of the 2006 FERC EA for more information on wildlife. Chugach field surveys observed 22 mammal species. In the vicinity of Cooper Lake and Cooper Creek, the most common observations included moose, red squirrels and black bears. Surveyors reported two brown bears. While fall berry foraging areas for bears and winter denning sites are present in the IRAs, no salmon are present in Cooper Lake, upper Cooper Creek, or Stetson Creek that would provide a concentrated forage resource for bears at any time of the year. Chugach conducted point count surveys to document landbirds, observing 63 species. The most common species were pine siskin, dark-eyed junco, hermit thrush, ruby-crowned kinglet, and black-capped chickadee. Surveyors confirmed nesting for 11 species, including American dipper, black-billed magpie, boreal chickadee, goldencrowned sparrow, ruby-crowned kinglet, savannah sparrow, and varied thrush. Of the nine species of raptors observed, surveyors considered bald eagles and great horned owls to be most common year-round. They found golden eagle, Harlan’s red-tailed hawk, merlin, northern goshawk, and rough-legged hawk to be rare to uncommon. Sharp-shinned hawks were common during spring and fall. In September, 2003, Chugach conducted two surveys from a vantage point overlooking the Portage Valley, where the transmission line crosses the upper end of Turnagain Arm. The valley serves as a migration route for a number of raptors and waterbirds. During the surveys, observers documented 6 sandhill cranes and 15 Canada geese, in addition to a few bald eagles, red-tailed hawks, northern harriers, rough-legged hawks, and one merlin. Chugach conducted an aerial survey in April 2003 to identify bald eagle nests. They documented six active nests. Five were located along the transmission line corridor at distances ranging from 700 feet to a little over 2,000 feet from the powerline, and one was observed adjacent to the Snug Harbor Road. They also observed four inactive nests, including one located at the south end of Cooper Lake. Chugach conducted waterbird surveys at Cooper Lake in 2002 and 2003 to document nesting activity and nest success. They observed a total of 15 species, including three gull species, an arctic tern, seven ducks, three shorebirds (spotted sandpiper, least sandpiper and semi-palmated plover) and one wading bird, the lesser yellowlegs. Formal nest


25

surveys in 2003 confirmed nesting by six species, although the presence of chicks later in the season indicated that four other species also nested at Cooper Lake or nearby. Gulls accounted for most nests, with 223 counted in 2003. Other species accounted for 26 nests. Chugach documented nesting by harlequin ducks in Cooper Creek during the 2003 waterbird and wildlife surveys. Surveyors observed four broods between the Stetson Creek confluence and the mouth of Cooper Creek (FERC, 2006).

3.2.5 Wildlife Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative

3.2.5.1 Stetson Creek Diversion and Access Road There would be no threatened and endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive wildlife species impacted by the project (FERC, 2006). There would be an increase in the amount of vegetation and habitat cleared based on the proposed design modifications as compared to that originally disclosed in the 2006 FERC EA. The 2006 FERC EA stated the loss of 17.2 acres of vegetation cover types (such as spruce/hemlock forests and alder thickets) would have a small effect on terrestrial resources, when considered on a landscape level. Based on the proposed design modifications, the loss of vegetation cover types would now be approximately 25.2 acres (see section 3.2). Impacts to wildlife habitat as described in the 2006 FERC EA are likely to remain unchanged based on the design modifications. For some species, roads and powerline corridors can act as barriers, fragmenting populations. Prey species that use areas close to road corridors are at a higher risk of predation because many predators may be using the corridors for travel. For other species, the corridors can provide valuable habitat, but the value is influenced by the width of the corridor, the nature of the corridor vegetation, maintenance practices and other uses in the corridor, and the abruptness of the forest edge (HDR, 2004). Habitat for forest interior species, such as northern goshawk and brown creeper, would be slightly reduced, while habitat for species associated with forest openings and edges (e.g., Wilson’s warbler and alder flycatcher) would be slightly increased. Many of the wildlife species that occur in the project area are habitat generalists. These species (e.g., moose and black bear) use both closed canopy and open meadow cover types, and if vehicle traffic is limited, often travel along primitive forest roads as they move between foraging areas and cover. Based on ROW/permit and encroachment agreements as outlined in the 2006 FERC EA and subsequent Settlement Agreements, Chugach would employ access restrictions to the new facilities, prohibiting public access for motorized vehicles. Access would be limited to non-motorized traffic only and, along with the vegetation BMPs and minimal, selective clearing of ROW, impacts to wildlife from implementation of the Action Alternative are expected to be minor and unchanged from what was reported in the 2006 FERC EA.

Indirect and cumulative impacts: Although the existing Cooper Lake Dam access road provides non-motorized access to the Cooper Lake basin, improved access into Stetson Creek could foster additional public access to fish and wildlife habitats and may subject


26

fish and wildlife populations to additional hunting and fishing pressures. Over the life of the permits, wildlife impacts are not expected to reach significant levels.

Construction impacts: Construction of the Stetson Creek diversion, pipeline and access road would cause temporary noise disturbance to wildlife that may be present in the project area during the summer construction season. Many species, such as moose and black bear, would temporarily avoid the construction site. Species that are more tolerant of human activity (e.g., jays, magpies, red squirrel) would likely continue to use the area during construction. Species would respond similarly to small increases in disturbance resulting from project operation and maintenance.

3.2.5.2 Transmission Line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road The 2006 FERC EA does not discuss specific wildlife impacts from maintenance and operations of the transmission line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road. The Proposed Action includes periodic maintenance and operational activity along the transmission line as detailed in Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW and Access Management Plan and does not include reconstruction or large ground disturbing activities. Wildlife impacts associated with the transmission line would be similar to those described in Section 3.2.2.2 for vegetation. Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW and Access Management Plan contains SOPs that detail best practices Chugach will use when preparing to undertake activity in the field. Chugach seeks to ensure, in both its planned activity and emergency activities, that the methods and techniques it uses are consistent with all federal and state requirements and good land management practices relating to the protection of property, vegetation, water, wetlands and wildlife in the areas traversed by personnel and equipment.

3.2.6 Wildlife Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative

If the USFS did not issue the special use permits then Chugach would continue to operate the Cooper Lake Project as it does today, with no Stetson Creek diversion facility or access road included as part of the FERC licensed project, as described in section 2.1.2, No Action Alternative. The transmission line from Quartz Creek to Anchorage Substations would stay under FERC’s jurisdiction. Continual transmission line and hydroelectric facility maintenance and access would occur, per approved techniques outlined in Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW Corridor and Access Management and Maintenance Plan.

3.2.7 Fish Affected Environment

The Kenai River system, one of the most productive salmon rivers in the world, supports 34 anadromous and resident fish species, including five species of Pacific salmon - Chinook, coho, sockeye, pink (O. gorbuscha), and chum (O. keta). Other important salmonids present in the Kenai River and its tributaries include resident rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, lake trout (S. namaycush), Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), and round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum). Anadromous rainbow trout (steelhead) do not occur


27

in the Kenai River basin (ADNR, 1998). Refer to section V.C.1. of the 2006 FERC EA for more information on fisheries and aquatic resources. Cooper Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for juvenile and sub-adult Dolly Varden, as well as limited spawning habitat for a very small number of sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon, and rainbow trout. Stetson Creek, the only major tributary to Cooper Creek below the dam, joins Cooper Creek approximately 1.5 miles downstream from Cooper Lake. In the summer of 2005, Chugach conducted a detailed investigation of fish habitat and fish populations in a 159-foot-long reach of Stetson Creek located between the Cooper Creek confluence and the impassable falls on Stetson Creek (the lower reach). Upstream from the impassible falls (the upper reach) Chugach sampled for resident fish presence or absence and collected macroinvertebrate samples. The lower reach of Stetson Creek has a straight and steep stream channel with an average gradient of 5 to 6%. Cascades are the dominate habitat type with two significant plunge pools and one small backwater pool. The dominant substrates are boulders, cobble, and bedrock; however, gravel is also present in limited low velocity areas (less than 100 square feet). Only one fish was observed in the lower reach, a 14- to 18-inch Dolly Varden. The upper reach of Stetson Creek is uniformly steep, with cascades and additional falls further limiting fish movement. No fish were captured or observed in this reach of Stetson Creek; however, it does support an abundant and diverse macroinvertebrate assemblage indicating good stream health and water quality.

3.2.8 Fish Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative

3.2.8.1 Stetson Creek Diversion and Access Road A substantial amount of analysis was conducted for the 2006 FERC EA regarding instream flow, water temperature and associated impacts to fisheries and habitat. Accounting for proposed design modifications, impacts to fish would generally remain the same as those disclosed in the 2006 FERC EA. Project-induced effects in Cooper Creek likely would result in an increase in use by salmon species such as Chinook and coho. Under Proposed Article 403, CEA would release flow into Cooper Creek to benefit rainbow trout and Chinook, sockeye, pink and coho salmon spawning, egg incubation, and rearing. In its April 26, 2006, letter to the FERC, the USFS included 4(e) condition no. 13 that supported this instream flow measure. The USFWS, NPS, ADFG, ADNR, and NMFS also recommended full inclusion of the Settlement Agreement, including its instream flow provisions, in any new license for the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project. Consistent with what was described in the 2006 FERC EA, the Proposed Action would not adversely affect the EFH for the Kenai River, Porcupine Creek or Cooper Creek.


28

Overall, the measures included in the Proposed Action would improve sockeye and coho salmon EFH in Cooper Creek. Construction of the Stetson Creek diversion and Cooper Lake water release outlet would improve aquatic habitat conditions by improving stream flow conditions and increasing water temperature to levels better suited to the life history requirements of coho and sockeye salmon.

Indirect and cumulative impacts: Improved access into Stetson Creek due to the diversion dam access road could foster additional public access to fish habitats. Additional pressure on fish habitat and populations is expected to be minimal, however, due to the access already provided by the existing Cooper Creek Dam and Stetson Creek Trail. Over the life of the permits, fisheries impacts are not expected to reach significant levels.

An increase in fish in Cooper Creek could lead to an increase in bear activity along lower Cooper Creek, potentially leading to an increase in bear-human encounters. This could potentially have a net benefit by reducing the already commonplace human-bear encounters on nearby Kenai and Russian rivers.

Construction impacts: Some short-term adverse effects on EFH could occur during construction of the Stetson Creek diversion and the Cooper Lake Dam water release structures. In-water excavation and construction could cause increased turbidity or sedimentation downstream in Cooper Creek (FERC, 2006). The expected long-term beneficial impacts for fish appear to far outweigh the potential adverse impacts.

3.2.8.2 Transmission Line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road The 2006 FERC EA does not specifically discuss potential impacts to fish from maintenance and operations of the transmission line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road. The Proposed Action only includes periodic maintenance and operational activity along the transmission line as detailed in Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW and Access Management Plan and does not include reconstruction or large ground-disturbing activities directly related to fish habitat and water quality. Chugach has mapped and documented all fish bearing streams along the transmission line ROW, and impacts to fish habitat from maintenance activity are expected to be temporary and minor. Chugach seeks to ensure, in both its planned and emergency activities, that the methods and techniques it uses are consistent with all federal and state requirements and good land management practices relating to the protection of property, vegetation, water, wetlands and wildlife in the areas traversed by personnel and equipment. The plan contains SOPs that could help to protect fish bearing streams. In the Stream Crossings SOP Chugach commits to using the following procedure when encountering steams in the transmission line and related access ROW:

Consideration for use of an alternate route to avoid streams. If that is not possible then:

o Stream crossings without the use of temporary culverts or bridges. If that is not possible then:

o Stream crossings using temporary culverts or bridges


29

3.2.9 Fish Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative

If the USFS did not issue the special use permits then Chugach would continue to operate the Cooper Lake Project as it does today, with no Stetson Creek diversion facility or access road included as part of the FERC licensed project, as described in section 2.1.2, No Action Alternative. The transmission line from Quartz Creek to Anchorage Substations would stay under FERC’s jurisdiction. Continual transmission line and hydroelectric facility maintenance and access would occur, per approved techniques outlined in Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW Corridor and Access Management and Maintenance Plan.

3.3 Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation

3.3.1 Recreation Affected Environment

According to the 2006 FERC EA (refer to section V.C.4.), Cooper Lake, Cooper Lake Dam, and much of the transmission line route occupy lands within the Chugach National Forest, which defines a Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification for lands it manages. The ROS identifies the character of the setting and the general type of recreation appropriate to that setting. The south and southwest sides of Cooper Lake, which include no project facilities except the lake itself, are designated Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, although motorized vehicles are allowed in winter. Within this ROS category, lands are natural-appearing and roadless, and visitor use is low. The north and northeast sides of the lake, including the Cooper Lake Dam access road and Stetson Creek, are in an area designated Semi-Primitive Motorized. Areas within this classification are also natural-appearing, possibly penetrated by local roads, with few users. The existing Cooper Lake Dam Road and Stetson Creek Trail provide recreational access from the Sterling Highway and community of Cooper Landing, principally for hiking. Some mountain biking may occur. Motorized use by the general public for recreation is not allowed on this road and trail, but permitted users such as holders of mining claims and Chugach are allowed motorized access. The southeast part of Cooper Lake, the area of the intake, tunnel, penstock, powerhouse, primary transmission line and Quartz Creek substation, is state-owned land, without a ROS designation. This area is a popular recreational access point for the Russian Lakes Trail and for winter snowmobile access to areas lying to the south. The Russian Lakes Trail runs about 23 miles to the Kenai-Russian River confluence and includes popular lakes and USFS recreation cabins for public use. The trail is popular for hiking and mountain biking. An intersecting primitive trail runs south to the Exit Glacier area near Seward. Other uses in the general Cooper Lake area include camping, hunting, fishing, off-road vehicle (ORV) use, horseback riding and gold panning.


30

Much of the Quartz Creek to Anchorage Substations transmission line is on Chugach National Forest land that is designated as Roaded Natural areas. Motorized use is allowed in these areas, and modifications to the environment are evident. Recreation activities along the 90.4-mile-long Quartz Creek to Anchorage Substations transmission line include hiking, dispersed camping, snowmobiling, hunting and cross country skiing. In addition, the transmission line parallels the Seward and Sterling Highways and frequently is visible from the highways. Both are designated Scenic Byways. Driving for pleasure is an important recreational activity on these highways, and the mountain, forest and water views are an important visual resource (see subsection 3.3.4). There are no project-developed recreation facilities on this route, but transmission line maintenance/access spur roads from the main highway enable recreationists to reach the cleared power corridor and the forest beyond. ORV use is limited by the steep terrain (Chugach, 2005a). The northernmost segment of the line passes through Chugach State Park, where the transmission line access road is an 11-mile trail known as the Powerline Pass Trail, connecting a trailhead at Indian with trailheads on the Anchorage Hillside area. The trail is popular for mountain biking, hiking and cross country skiing, particularly on the Anchorage side of Powerline Pass. A portion of the trail is open to snowmobilers (FERC, 2006).

3.3.2 Recreation Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative

3.3.2.1 Stetson Creek Diversion and Access Road Recreational impacts described in the 2006 FERC EA would remain the same. Continued operation of the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project under the Proposed Action would modify land use in the Cooper and Stetson creek drainages. A new road, diversion structure and pipeline would introduce permanent structures to the Stetson Creek basin where currently human occupation is evident only by the remains of historic mining operations and the existing Stetson Creek Trail on the opposite side of the drainage. Chugach assessed potential water and land-based recreation opportunities associated with the Proposed Action. Chugach and its contractors are allowed motorized access for maintenance activities. For the public, only non-motorized access is allowed on the Cooper Lake Dam Road, and this policy would be extended to the new Stetson Creek diversion road due to the difficulties of maintaining safe passage for motorized vehicles and the absence of unique destinations revealed in studies Chugach completed for the 2006 FERC EA.

Indirect and cumulative impacts: The road extension into the Stetson Creek basin was examined for potential multiple uses; however, no unique or compelling attractions were identified that might attract visitors to the area. The project is not expected to induce changes in population, density or growth rate, and indirect recreation impacts are not foreseeable. Over the life of the permit cumulative effects to recreation are expected to be insignificant.

Construction impacts: Construction may result in temporary disruptions in access to recreation resources in the area.


31

3.3.2.2 Transmission Line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road

The Proposed Action includes periodic maintenance and operational activity along the transmission line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road. Recreational opportunities would continue as they do today. Maintenance activities likely will continue to disturb some recreational activity, but maintenance activities are intermittent. No negative or positive impacts are expected compared to existing conditions.

3.3.3 Recreation Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative

If the USFS did not issue the special use permits then Chugach would continue to operate the Cooper Lake Project as it does today, with no Stetson Creek diversion facility or access road included as part of the FERC licensed project, as described in section 2.1.2, No Action Alternative. The transmission line from Quartz Creek to Anchorage Substations would stay under FERC’s jurisdiction. Recreational opportunities would continue as they do today, and no negative or positive impacts would be expected. Continuous transmission line and hydroelectric facility maintenance and access would occur, per approved techniques outlined in Chugach’s 2008 Transmission Line ROW Corridor and Access Management and Maintenance Plan.

3.3.4 Reference Landscapes and Natural Appearing Landscapes with High Scenic Quality (Visual) - Affected Environment

Reference landscapes provide comparison areas for evaluation and monitoring. These areas provide a natural setting that may be useful as a comparison to study the effects of more intensely managed areas. High-quality scenery, especially scenery with natural-appearing landscapes, is a primary reason that people choose to recreate. Quality scenery contributes directly to real estate values in neighboring communities and residential areas. The Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project vicinity is highly scenic, with mountains rising higher than 5,000 feet, numerous alpine valleys, meadows, lakes and snowfields. Views from primary transportation corridors are of a highly intact landscape with relatively little evidence of human activity. The upper Kenai River basin includes many scenic streams that flow through steep canyons. Refer to section V.C.5. for more information on visual aesthetics. The transmission line extends 90.4 miles from Quartz Creek substation to the Anchorage substation in a corridor spanning an average of 100 feet. With one exception, the line is supported by wooden poles. The exception is the segment between Bird Point and Girdwood, adjacent to Turnagain Arm, where the line is supported on large metal lattice structures. Seward Highway, which extends from Seward to Anchorage, has been designated an All-American Road under the National Scenic Byways program, a National Forest Byway, and an Alaska State Scenic Byway. The project transmission line parallels or is visible from this corridor adjacent to Turnagain Arm, through Chugach State Park and parts of the Chugach National Forest. Through forested areas, the line itself is barely visible, although where the corridor is cleared or vegetation trimmed, human influence is


32

apparent. Generally, this corridor is partially screened from view of Seward Highway crossings by the terrain and vegetation. Chugach’s evaluation of line visibility by highway travelers revealed multiple short exposure periods (10 to 60 seconds) (FERC, 2006).

3.3.5 Visual Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative

3.3.5.1 Stetson Creek Diversion and Access Road The proposed design modifications to the Stetson Creek diversion and access road are minor and will not result in any changes to visual impacts as detailed in the 2006 FERC EA. The basis of this evaluation and determination was USFS criteria for scenic attractiveness. The diversion structure would be located in an approximately 200-foot-deep ravine, with the initial 0.5 mile segment of the gravity flow pipeline descending the side of the ravine. Vegetation would be cleared in this area, creating a contrast with the surrounding forest. The pipeline and access road would share a 35- to 70-foot-wide cleared corridor extending to Cooper Lake. The visibility of the corridor from various locations along the Stetson Creek trail and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road would be limited by the topography, thick vegetation, and elevation differences. Using the USFS criteria, Chugach defines the character of the affected area as common, lacking defining or unique elements in the context of the IRAs and Chugach National Forest. The visual effect of these new elements would be apparent primarily to hikers on the Cooper Lake Dam Access Road and to non-motorized winter trail users. Due to the terrain and vegetation patterns, even these views would be limited.

Indirect and cumulative impacts: Induced changes in the pattern of land use, population, density or growth rate and related effects on visual resources are not expected. Cumulative effects on visual resources are not expected to reach significant levels.

Construction impacts: Visual effects during construction would include fresh cuts in the earth and movement of construction equipment, both of which would be more visible than permanent effects once vegetation grew in. These effects would be temporary and minor.

3.3.5.2 Transmission Line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road

The Proposed Action would include periodic maintenance and operational activity along the transmission line and Cooper Lake Dam Access Road. It would not include major reconstruction activities that would affect visual qualities. During the relicensing effort few significant negative comments were generated about the transmission line along the Seward and Sterling highways. Impressions of the 90.4-mile-long transmission line were neutral to positive. The exception to this was the response to images of the metal latticework towers along Turnagain Arm. These structures are outside of the IRA and Chugach National Forest and are therefore considered to be a non-issue in relation to the issuance of a Special Use Permit.


33

3.3.6 Visual Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative

If the USFS did not issue the special use permits then Chugach would continue to operate the Cooper Lake Project as it does today, with no Stetson Creek diversion facility or access road included as part of the FERC licensed project, as described in section 2.1.2, No Action Alternative. The transmission line from Quartz Creek to Anchorage Substations would stay under FERC’s jurisdiction. Visual quality would remain as it is today and no negative or positive impacts would be expected compared to existing conditions.

3.4 Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites/Cultural Resources

Traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are places, sites, structures, art, or objects that have played an important role in the cultural history of a group. Sacred sites are places that have special religious significance to a group. TCPs and sacred sites may be eligible for protection under the National Historic Preservation Act.

3.4.1 Cultural Affected Environment

Section 106 consultation occurred in association with the development of the 2006 FERC EA. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(a)(3), the project’s area of potential effect (APE) for archaeological and historic resources was generally defined as lands within the FERC project boundary and areas where project-related actions could affect cultural resources. Refer to section V.C.3. of the 2006 FERC EA for more information on cultural resources. Initially, this definition included the following areas that were targeted for cultural resources field surveys by Chugach:

Cooper Lake and recreational use areas around the lake

Cooper Creek and recreational use areas around the creek

Cooper Lake Dam Access Road and recreation areas accessible from this road

Project-related spur roads off of the Snug Harbor Road

Transmission line corridor and access routes

As surveys progressed in 2003-04, the APE was reduced based on recommendations provided by archaeologists conducting fieldwork. The transmission line corridor from the Quartz Creek substation to the Anchorage substation was found to be highly disturbed, and in consultation with agency archeologists and tribal representatives, it was removed from the survey program and the APE. However, numerous transmission line access routes used by Chugach maintenance remained in the APE. Sites identified around Cooper Creek were determined not to be project-related, and the area was eliminated from the APE. The APE was expanded to encompass the area associated with the proposed Stetson Creek diversion structure and two-mile long pipeline/access road to Cooper Lake.


34

In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), out of the 37 properties that were identified as potentially eligible for the National Register, 27 were determined to be eligible for listing. These sites are identified thoroughly in the 2006 FERC EA (pp.103-113) and also in the 2008 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP). Chugach developed the HPMP in consultation with the USFS and specifically addressed the management of cultural resources on project lands under USFS jurisdiction.

For the 2006 FERC EA, the APE considered for TCPs was larger than the APE for archeological and historical sites. As such, it included the general project area surrounding the Cooper Creek watershed, the Sterling and Seward Highway corridors from Kenai Lake to Indian, and the western margin of the Chugach Mountains above Anchorage. Consultation conducted by Chugach did not identify the presence of any TCPs within the Cooper Creek APE. As part of its relicensing effort, Chugach consulted with Kenaitze Indian Tribe, the Native Village of Eklutna, Salamatof Native Association, Ninilchik Traditional Council, the Kenai Natives Association and the Cook Inlet Region, Inc. to obtain information about properties of traditional cultural or religious significance within the APE. Researchers did not identify any potential TCPs in the area. No one was located that had any direct memory of the traditional uses of the project area.

3.4.2 Cultural Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative

3.4.2.1 Stetson Creek Diversion and Access Road The 2006 FERC EA disclosed that no cultural resources were identified within the APE for the Stetson Creek diversion, pipeline, and access road. The design modifications to the proposed Stetson Creek diversion and associated features remain within the original APE and do not affect any known National Register-eligible sites (FERC, 2006).

Indirect and cumulative impacts: No indirect or cumulative effects to cultural resources are expected.

Construction impacts: No construction effects to cultural resources are expected. Should ground disturbance reveal previously unidentified cultural resources, construction will be halted in the affected area and consultation initiated with the SHPO, interested tribal entities and the USFS.

3.4.2.2 Transmission Line While the 2006 FERC EA cited several National Register-eligible trail segments and historic mining associated locations occurring within the transmission line corridor, the EA determined there would be no impacts to TCPs or sacred sites associated with the transmission line. Chugach would continue to implement its HPMP to reduce or avoid adverse effects on known and potentially unidentified cultural resources.

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative

If the USFS did not issue the special use permits then Chugach would continue to operate the Cooper Lake Project as it does today, with no Stetson Creek diversion facility or access road included as part of the FERC licensed project, as described in section 2.1.2, No Action Alternative. The transmission line from Quartz Creek to Anchorage


35

Substations would stay under FERC’s jurisdiction. Chugach would continue to implement its HPMP to reduce or avoid adverse effects to known and potentially unidentified cultural resources as employees and contractors continued to access the transmission line for maintenance.

3.5 Other locally identified unique characteristics

3.5.1 Affected Environment

As part of the 2006 FERC EA effort, Chugach prepared more than a half dozen technical studies. These studies were undertaken in consultation and coordination with resource experts from the following: USFS, USFWS, ADFG, SHPO, the Kenaitze Indian Tribe, the Native Village of Eklutna, and interested non-governmental organizations. None of the studies or agency and stakeholder coordination identified uncommon geologic formations, unique wetland complexes, or areas or sites of local or global significance within the IRAs.

The Kenai Peninsula is a region renowned for outdoor recreation opportunities. Abundant fish and wildlife and the rugged mountainous setting attract visitors from around the world. These features are commonly found in Alaska. The Kenai River, one of Alaska’s most popular sport fisheries, is recognized as one of the best-managed and conserved waterways in the world. The Kenai River is known to some as the best recreational angling in the world. While the Kenai River is not located within the IRA, the IRA supports the preservation of this river corridor.

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative

3.5.2.1 Stetson Creek Diversion and Access Road As previously stated, the diversion structure is expected to result in a net benefit to fish habitat and enhance the area’s fisheries.

Indirect and cumulative impacts: No indirect impacts are expected. Over the life of the license, fish habitat and populations are expected to improve.

Construction impacts: Please refer to the water quality section.

3.5.2.2 Transmission Line In some areas, the transmission line runs parallel to the Seward Highway, which is classified as an All-American Road. This classification is bestowed to only the most outstanding highways in the nation. The All-American designation is chosen because it provides an overall scenic, recreational, cultural, historic, and geologic quality of a highway corridor that are unique. With that said, the transmission line has been in its location since 1962. Other than the maintenance and continuous transmission line upkeep, no additional changes will occur to the transmission line at this time. Therefore, the distinctive landscape and characteristics would not be affected.

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative

If the USFS did not issue the special use permits then Chugach would continue to operate the Cooper Lake Project as it does today, with no Stetson Creek diversion facility or


36

access road included as part of the FERC licensed project, as described in section 2.1.2, No Action Alternative. The transmission line from Quartz Creek to Anchorage Substations would stay under FERC’s jurisdiction. As Chugach continues to access the transmission line for maintenance, the unique characteristics of the environment would remain unchanged.

4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The USFS consulted the following individuals, federal, state, and local agencies, tribes and non-USFS persons during the development of this SEA:

4.1.1 LIST OF PREPARERS

Project Management and Review

Peter Poray, Chugach

Trey Acteson, Chugach

Susan Truskett, Chugach

Consultant Project Management

Julianne Hanson, HDR Alaska, B.S. Civil and Environmental Engineering; B.A. International Relations/Economics; 20 years planning and management

Environmental Assessment

Julianne Hanson, HDR Alaska, see above

Jon Schick, HDR Alaska. MS Environmental Science. 8 years environmental planning.

Leslie Robbins, HDR Alaska. B.A., Communications. 10 years environmental planning

John Wolfe, HDR Alaska. BA English/Environmental Studies. 19 years environmental planning.

4.1.2 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES:

On behalf of the USFS and Chugach, HDR Alaska, Inc. sent a scoping letter to the following agencies and interested parties by email on August 22, 2011:

4.1.3 Federal

USFWS

NMFS

NPS

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers


37

4.1.4 State

ADNR

ADFG

4.1.5 Local

Kenai Peninsula Borough

Municipality of Anchorage

4.1.6 Tribes

Kenaitze Indian Tribe

4.1.7 Others

Alaska Center for the Environment

Fish for Cooper Creek Coalition

Alaska Flyfishers

Alaska Railroad Corporation

REFERENCES

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (ADCCED) 2011. Alaska Community Database Online, Cooper Landing community summary. http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.cfm?Comm_Boro_Name=Cooper+Landing&Data_Type=facilitiesUtitlies&submit2=Get+Data. Accessed August 15, 2011.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 2011. Air Pollution in

Alaskan Communities. http://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/comm/comm.htm. Accessed August 15, 2011.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) 1998. Kenai River Comprehensive

Management Plan. Prepared by Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land and Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation; in conjunction with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division; and the Kenai Peninsula Borough.

Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Chugach) 2008. Transmission Line Right-of-Way

Corridor and Access Management and Maintenance Plan, Cooper Lake Power Project (FERC 2170). September 2008.


38

Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC 2008. Cultural Resources Study: Historic Properties Management Plan, Cooper Lake Project (FERC No. 2170). Anchorage, Alaska. February 2008.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 2006. Cooper Lake Hydroelectric

Project, Alaska, Project No. 2170-029. Washington, D.C. November, 2006 HDR 2005. Proposed Stetson Creek Diversion 2005 Studies Technical Memoranda

Cooper Lake Project (FERC No. 2170) Final Report. Anchorage, AK. http://www.chugachelectric.com/pdfs/relicensing/StetsonCreekDiversionStudyTechMemo082605.pdf. August 2005.

___2004. Terrestrial Wildlife Study Cooper Lake Project (FERC No. 2170) Final Report.

Anchorage, AK. June 2004. MWH 2011. Stetson Creek Diversion and Cooper Lake Dam Facilities, Feasibility

Report. Broomfield, CO. March 14, 2011. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) 2000. Forest Service Roadless

Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary. November 2000. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5057894.pdf. Accessed on August 15, 2011.

___2002. Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Anchorage, Alaska. May 2002.

Supplemental Agriculture Environmental...

Documents

Transcript of Supplemental Agriculture Environmental...