UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Ketchikan Public Utilities Project No Alaska NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (July 2, 2008) In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380, Commission staff has reviewed the application for an original license for the proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No ) and has prepared a final environmental assessment (final EA) for the project. The project would be located on Whitman Creek, approximately 4 miles east of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska. The project would occupy acres of lands of the United States, 155 acres administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and 0.8 acres administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. On February 8, 2008, Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) filed a multi-party Settlement Agreement. In addition to KPU, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Water Resources Section, and the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association were signatories to the Settlement Agreement. The final EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Copies of the final EA are available for review in Public Reference Room 2-A of the Commission s offices at 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC. The final EA may also be viewed on the Commission s Internet website ( using the "elibrary" link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. Additional information about the project is available from the Commission s Office of External Affairs, at (202) , or on the Commission s website using the elibrary link. For assistance with elibrary, contact FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866) ; for TTY contact (202)

2 Project No For further information, contact Kenneth Hogan at (202) or by at Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.

3 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC July 2, 2008 To the Agency or Individual Addressed: Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Enclosed is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission s (Commission) final environmental assessment (final EA) for Ketchikan Public Utilities application for an original license for the proposed Whitman Lake Project. The final EA has been prepared pursuant to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Commission s regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR Part 380). The final EA contains staff s analysis of the environmental effects of the proposal. Staff concludes that approval, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Before the Commission makes a licensing decision, it will take into account all concerns relevant to the public interest. The final EA will be part of the record from which the Commission will make its decision. Enclosure

4 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WHITMAN LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA (Project No ) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC July 2008

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES...iv LIST OF TABLES...v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...vi SUMMARY...viii I. APPLICATION...1 II. III. IV. PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER...1 A. PURPOSE OF ACTION...1 B. NEED FOR POWER...2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES...3 PROPOSED ACTION Existing Project Facilities.3 2. Proposed Project Facilities Present Operation of Existing Project Facilities Proposed Project Operation Proposed Environmental Measures...5 B. STAFF S ADDITIONAL MEASURES (STAFF ALTERNATIVE)....9 C. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE...11 D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY...12 CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE...12 A. AGENCY CONSULTATION Scoping Interventions and Comments June 2007 Environmental Assessment Settlement Agreement...14 B. COMPLIANCE Water Quality Certification Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions...15 i

6 3. Coastal Zone Management Act Section 4(e) Conditions Endangered Species Act National Historic Preservation Act Section 10(j) Recommendations...18 V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS...19 VI. VII. A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PROJECT...19 B. SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS Geographic Scope Temporal Scope...21 C. PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES Geological Resources Water Resources Aquatic Resources Terrestrial Resources Threatened and Endangered Species Recreational Resources Land Use and Aesthetic Resources Cultural and Historic Resources...98 D. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS A. POWER AND ECONOMIC BENIFITS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT B. COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES C. POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Proposed Project Staff Alternative Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions..120 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT & RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE A. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ii

7 B. DISCUSSION VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES IX. A. RECOMMENDATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10(J) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT 150 B. RECOMMENDATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10(A) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT XI. XII. LITERATURE CITED LIST OF PREPARERS APPENDIX A-FIGURES APPENDIX B-COMMENTS ON THE JUNE 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT APPENDIX C-SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUGGESTED ARTICLES iii

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Project location (Source: KPU, 2004a, as modified by staff) Schematic of proposed Whitman Lake project (not to scale) (Source: KPU, as modified by staff) 167 Habitat mapping, wetted perimeter transect locations, fish sample sites, and water quality sites surveyed in the Whitman Creek and Herring Cove Creek drainages. (Source: KPU, 2004b, as modified by staff) Annual Whitman Lake levels from 1997 to (Source: KPU, 2004b) 169 Estimated weekly Whitman Lake levels under proposed project operations, based on the historic 28-year period of record. (Source: KPU, 2008b).170 Whitman Lake reservoir operations, incorporating the Southern Southeast Aquaculture s full water withdrawals needed for Whitman Fish Hatchery operations and minimum instream flows under normal hydrologic conditions for lower Whitman Creek (Source: KPU, 2008a) Extended Deer Creek elevation profile into Whitman Lake; estimated from 1997 bathymetric survey by Seavisual Consulting and along a straight line extension of Deer Creek into Whitman Lake. (Source: KPU, 2008b, as modified by staff) Annual flow duration curve for lower Whitman Creek, below the confluence with Achilles Creek, comparing stream flows under current conditions and under KPU s proposal for normal conditions. (Source: KPU, 2004b).173 Wetted-perimeter versus discharge relationships for the three transects in Whitman Creek, and for all transects combined. (Source: KPU, 2004b).174 Wetted-perimeter versus discharge relationships for the three transects in Achilles Creek, and for all transects combined. (Source: KPU, 2004b) 175 iv

9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Estimated average monthly flow (cfs) diverted from Whitman Lake to the Whitman Fish Hatchery. (Source: KPU, 2004a, as modified by staff)...46 Table 2. Estimated flow exceedance (in cfs) for stream flow in Whitman Creek from Whitman dam to the confluence with Achilles Creek (Source: Staff, 2008).46 Table 3. Estimated flow exceedance (cfs) for stream flow in Achilles Creek at the location of the proposed diversion. (Source: Staff, 2008)...48 Table 4. Thermal stratification and water temperatures recorded within Whitman Lake. (Source: KPU, 2004b, as modified by staff) 50 Table 5. Total coliform per 100 ml sample taken from Whitman and Achilles creeks. (Source: KPU, 2004b, as modified by staff)...51 Table 6. Proposed minimum instream flow releases for lower Whitman Creek during normal hydrological conditions. (Source: ADFG, 2006, as modified by staff) 52 Table 7. Frequency (percent of time) of daily water levels within RSC levels. (Source: KPU, 2008b).54 Table 8. Minimum instream flow releases for lower Whitman Creek when Whitman Lake levels are below El. 363 msl. (Source: KPU, 2008)..54 Table 9. Estimated flow exceedance (cfs) for stream flow in Achilles Creek downstream of the Achilles diversion pursuant to KPU s minimum flow proposal (Source: Staff, 2008)..58 Table 10. Fish species collected during fish population surveys in Whitman Lake, Whitman Creek, Achilles Creek, and Herring Cove Creek. (Source: KPU, 2004b, as modified by staff).72 Table 11. List of vascular plant species observed in the project area, August (Source: KPU, 2004b, as modified by staff).96 Table 12. Mammals and birds known to occur or suspected to occur in the project area. (Source: KPU, 2004b, as modified by staff).98 Table 13. Land that would be disturbed by the proposed project. (Source: Staff, 2008) 102 Table 14. Staff assumptions for economic analysis of the project. (Source: Staff, 2008) Table 15. Summary of capital costs, annual costs and total annualized costs of environmental measures proposed by KPU, agencies and staff. (Source: Staff, 2008) Table 16. Summary of the annual net benefits for KPU s proposal, Staff Alternative and Staff Alternative with mandatory conditions for the project. (Source: Staff, 2008) 140 Table 17. Analysis of fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the project. (Source: Staff, 2008) 175 v

10 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ºC degrees Celsius ºF degrees Fahrenheit ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources Advisory Counsel Advisory Counsel on Historic Preservation AMHT Alaska Mental Health Trust APE area of potential effect Applicant Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practice cfs cubic feet per second Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Connectivity Plan Terrestrial Species Connectivity Plan Council Advisory Council on Historic Preservation CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DO dissolved oxygen EA environmental assessment ECM environmental compliance monitor El. elevation ESA Endangered Species Act ESCP Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan FC fecal coliform Final EA final environmental assessment FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service FPA Federal Power Act Fps feet-per-second FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GWh gigawatt hour HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan ICD Initial Consultation Document Interior U.S. Department of the Interior KEC Ketchikan Electric Company KGB Ketchikan Gateway Borough KPU Ketchikan Public Utilities kw kilowatt vi

11 kwh kilowatt hour mg/l milligrams per liter MOU memorandum of understanding ms/cm milliseimens per centimeter msl mean sea level MWh megawatt hour NEFCO New England Fish Company NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS National Forest System NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places PA programmatic agreement Ppm parts per million ph potential hydrogen (a measure of acidity and alkalinity) Project Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project psi pounds per square inch ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SCORP State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan SD1 Scoping Document 1 SD2 Scoping Document 2 Settlement Settlement Agreement SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SPNM Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized TDG total dissolved gas TNF Tongass National Forest Tribes Ketchikan Indian Community μg/l microgram/liter USGS U.S. Geological Survey VOQ Visual Quality Objectives vii

12 SUMMARY On September 10, 2004, Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU or Applicant) filed an application for an original license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) for the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed 4.6 megawatt (MW) Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project (project). The proposed project would have an estimated average annual generation of 16,500 megawatt-hours (MWh). The project would be located on Whitman Creek, in Ketchikan Gateway Borough, approximately 4 miles east of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska. The project would occupy acres of lands of the United States; 155 acres administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service), and 0.8 acres administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). On February 8, 2008, KPU filed a multi-party Settlement Agreement (Settlement) with the Commission that replaces the proposed action outlined in the license application and analyzed in the June 2007 Environmental assessment. 1 The terms of the Settlement include new proposals for project facilities and project operations during dry conditions, and a range of measures to be included within the license for the proposed Whitman Lake Project. Some of KPU s new proposals contained in the Settlement include the construction of a single powerhouse, construction of a head tank to supply water to the Whitman Fish Hatchery, and alternative instream flow releases for lower Whitman Creek during dry conditions. In this final environmental assessment (final EA), we assess the effects of issuing an original hydropower license for the construction and operation of the proposed hydropower project: (1) with no project (No-action Alternative); (2) as proposed by KPU in the Settlement (Proposed Action); and (3) as proposed by KPU with additional and modified measures proposed by staff (Staff Alternative). For any license issued, the Commission must determine that the project adopted will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the waterway. In addition to the power and development purposes for which licenses are issued, the Commission must give equal consideration to energy conservation and the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife, aesthetics, cultural resources, and recreational opportunities. This final EA for the Whitman Lake Project reflects the Commission staff s consideration of these factors. 1 Signatories to the Settlement include the Alaska Department of Fish and Game; the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Water Resources Section; and the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association. viii

13 The key potential effects associated with the proposed Whitman Lake Project include a reduction in the quantity of water available to meet the Whitman Fish Hatchery s needs, false attraction of salmonids at the location of the proposed tailrace discharge, and reduced Whitman Lake levels that could prevent adult Dolly Varden from accessing spawning habitat in Deer Creek. Based on our analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, we recommend licensing the project as proposed by KPU in the Settlement, with additional measures proposed by staff. The recommended staff modifications and additional measures include, or are based in part on, recommendations made by federal and state agencies and other entities that have an interest in the resources potentially affected by project construction and operation. We recommend most of the measures proposed by KPU for the protection and enhancement of environmental resources in the project area. Staff s modifications to KPU s proposed measures appear in italics. Our recommended measures include: Geological Resources Minimize the clearing width and disturbance to vegetation within existing and new pipeline corridors, and revegetate disturbed areas. Develop for Commission approval, after consultation with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), and the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP) with Best Management Practices that includes turbidity monitoring on a daily basis, upstream and downstream of all construction and discharge points from the commencement of construction until there is no risk of turbid runoff resulting from project construction, in Whitman and Achilles creeks. Implement a Spoil Disposal Plan. Water and Aquatic Resources Provide the following continuous minimum instream flows of between 6 and 11 cfs to lower Whitman Creek during normal hydrologic conditions: Date Flow (cfs) November 16-April 30 6 May 1-September 15 8 September 16-November ix

14 Provide the following continuous minimum instream flows of between 2 and 7 cfs to lower Whitman Creek during dry hydrologic conditions when the reservoir elevation is below 363 msl: Date Flow (cfs) November 16-April 30 2 May 1-September 15 4 September 16-November 15 7 Implement a Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol, containing the provisions described below, that would undergo a performance assessment after five years to determine the need for any necessary modifications. Reservoir Status Code Green Reservoir Reservoir Level Lower Whitman Creek Minimum Instream Flows Unit 1 Action Team Convened Above El. 367 msl Normal flows of On-line No between 6 to 11 cfs Off-line Yes Yellow Between El. 367 and 363 msl Red Below El. 363 msl, operating in siphon mode Normal flows of between 6 to 11 cfs, unless reservoir action team decides modifications are necessary to protect hatchery flows Reduced as necessary by reservoir action team to protect hatchery flows, or flows of between 2 to 7 cfs are released if consensus is not reached Off-line Yes Implement ramping rates no greater than 1 inch per hour from March 1 to May 31, and no greater than 2 inches per hour from June 1 to February 28/29 for minimum instream flows in lower Whitman Creek. Provide an annual channel and riparian maintenance flow of 150 cfs to lower Whitman Creek for a continuous 24-hour period between June 1 and August 15. Implement ramping rates of no greater than 2 inches per hour for channel maintenance flows in lower Whitman Creek. x

15 Allow flows in excess of 20 cfs to overtop the Achilles Creek diversion. Provide a year-round minimum instream flow of 1.5 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion. Operate Unit 1 within the range of reservoir El to 370 msl. Modify the existing deep water intake to include a siphon and vacuum pump to allow reservoir levels to be drawn down to El. 343 msl during dry conditions and operate Unit 2 year-round to supply Southern Southeast Aquaculture with water needed for hatchery operations. Construct a new intake for Unit 1 that is screened to meet juvenile fish criteria as specified by NMFS. Replace the existing variable intake, if necessary, with a new variable intake. Upon request from the agencies, provide stream flow data, within 30 days of the request. Provide reservoir level readings at both the Whitman Lake powerhouse and the KPU control center with reports being made available to ADFG, ADNR, Southern Southeast Aquaculture, and the Forest Service, upon request. Install a new valve house at the base of Whitman dam to control flow to Unit 2 and the Whitman Hatchery s 12-inch incubation water supply pipeline. Develop a plan after consultation with Southern Southeast Aquaculture to determine how water temperature requirements at the Whitman Fish Hatchery will be met using a mix of water withdrawals from the variable and deep water intakes. This plan should be filed with the Commission for approval and should clearly describe how KPU and Southern Southeast Aquaculture will work in conjunction with each other to ensure water temperature will be maintained at the hatchery utilizing the valve house and how the volume of flows provided to Unit 2 will remain within the sole control and discretion of KPU. Install a head tank to collect Unit 2 discharge that would provide the Whitman Fish Hatchery with the water pressure needed for hatchery operations. Install a pressure reduction valve that is capable of accommodating flows up to 32 cfs, allowing Unit 2 penstock flows to bypass Unit 2, and flow directly to the head tank Install water flow recording devices at the Unit 1 and 2 penstocks, the Whitman Hatchery s 12-inch incubation water supply line, and the primary hatchery supply line from the head tank. Minimize fish attraction flow velocities from the proposed powerhouse and create a physical barrier to fish by constructing a concrete weir at El. 18 msl, a baffle wall and smooth-finished bars with one-inch openings along the bottom of the baffle wall. Develop and implement a Hazardous Substance Plan that includes treating and removing oil and contaminants from project discharge. xi

16 Develop and implement a Biotic Monitoring Plan that includes monitoring adult salmonid behavior from August 1 to November 30, annually, at the location of the proposed tailrace discharge, commencing at project start-up, for a period of two years. Implement the Whitman Lake Dam and Reservoir Operations and Maintenance Plan. Implement the Achilles Creek Diversion Operations and Maintenance Plan. Periodically sluice sediments from above the Achilles Creek diversion during high flows and complete this measure on an annual basis, sluicing sediments for a continuous 24 hour period from behind the Achilles Creek diversion when instream flows are at least 34 cfs. Terrestrial Resources Develop and implement a Terrestrial Species Connectivity Plan that includes site-specific plans for wildlife crossings along the Achilles Creek pipeline and wildlife crossing effectiveness monitoring. Develop and implement a Vegetation Management Plan that includes identifying areas needed for revegetation, a list of native species to be used, and methods to control and monitor noxious weeds. Develop and implement a Nesting Survey Plan to include surveying for any newly constructed marbled murrelet, goshawk, and bald eagle nests prior to construction. Avoid any large trees, boulders, rock outcrops, and any sensitive vegetated areas during construction of the proposed diversion pipeline from Achilles Creek. Recreation Resources Develop a trail plan in conjunction with the Forest Service that avoids the pipeline and penstock corridor. Land Use and Aesthetic Resources Develop and implement a Scenery Management Plan. Cultural Resources Revise and Implement the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) and conduct a HABS/HAER for the adversely affected NRHP eligible shed. After evaluating KPU s proposal and recommendations from resource agencies and other interested parties, we considered what, if any, additional environmental measures would be necessary or appropriate to include in any license xii

17 issued for the Whitman Lake Project. For reasons outlined in sections V, Environmental Analysis, and VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of this final EA, we recommend the following additional measures: General Provide state and federal resource agency personnel access to project facilities and lands upon adequate notice. Coordinate and consult with fish and wildlife agencies on the need for an annual project review meeting and file with the Commission evidence of the consultation and any recommendations made by the agencies. Notify ADFG, the Forest Service, ADNR, FWS, NMFS, and the Commission as soon as possible, but within 12 hours, of the beginning or detection of a noncompliance event. Water and Aquatic Resources Obtain Forest Service approval prior to using pesticides on Forest Service lands. Provide an Environmental Compliance Monitor during project construction. File a report with the Commission detailing the five year review of the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol. Notify the Commission within 10 days of a change in the RSC code or upon any modification to project operations such as minimum instream flows based on decisions made by the Reservoir Action Team. Construct, operate, and maintain two stream gages that meet USGS standards, have real-time capability, and record at no less than 15-minute intervals, including: one stream gage immediately downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion and one immediately downstream of the instream flow release valve from the Unit 2 penstock in lower Whitman Creek. Upon construction of the stream gages, file a report with the Commission detailing the gaging equipment installed, drawings of the gage, and exact locations of the gages. Install a valve at the base of Whitman dam, and when reservoir elevations are above El. 364 msl, release minimum instream flows to lower Whitman Creek directly below Whitman dam. Install adjustable valves to allow for any necessary adjustments needed to release minimum instream flows or channel maintenance flows to Whitman or Achilles creeks. Upon transferring minimum instream flows from being released at Whitman dam to 700 feet downstream, from the Unit 2 penstock, or vice versa, ramp flows in the 700-foot bypassed reach at rate no greater than 1 inch per hour from March 1 to May 31, and 2 inches per hour from June 1 to February 28 /29. xiii

18 Provide a minimum instream flow downstream of the mouth of Achilles Creek of 0.77 cfs as measured by summing the Achilles and Whitman Creek stream gages, to provide Ketchikan Gateway Borough with 0.77 cfs for consumptive purposes. Perform, at a minimum, weekly inspections and cleanings of the new Unit 1 intake screen for the first two years of project operations (absent when Whitman Lake is frozen over), and file a report detailing monitoring results after two years proposing a recommended cleaning schedule based on the results. Terrestrial Resources Develop and implement a Fire Prevention Plan. Recreational Resources Develop and implement a trail plan and obtain any necessary easements. For reasons discussed in Section VII Comprehensive Development, we do not recommend the KPU be required to obtain the necessary easements for governmental administrative access to all project facilities, or for public use of portions of the proposed Achilles Mountain trail, that do not occur on National Forest Service lands as required by the Forest Service in its 4(e) condition no. 9. Additionally, in Section VIII Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, we make a preliminary determination that installing two of the four stream gages (below the confluence of Achilles Creek with Whitman Creek and immediately upstream of any municipal water supply diversion) recommended by the ADFG, may be inconsistent with the public interest standard of section 4(e) and the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) of the FPA; and therefore, we do not recommend their installation. The environmental measures included in KPU s proposal, with additional staff recommended measures would protect/enhance water quality, fisheries, recreation, and historical resources, within the project boundary and adjacent area. In addition, the electricity generated by the Whitman Lake Project would be beneficial, because it would continue to reduce the use of fossil-fueled, electric generating plants, conserve nonrenewable energy resources; and continue to reduce atmospheric pollution. In section VI, Developmental Analysis, we estimate the annual net benefits of operating and maintaining the project as proposed by KPU and as recommended by staff. Our analysis shows that as proposed by KPU, the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project would generate an average of 16,500 MWh of electricity annually; have an annual power value of $5,954,600, and total annual costs of $1,570,500, resulting in a net annual benefit of $4,384,100. However, as recommended by staff with mandatory conditions, the project would generate an average of 16,500 MWh of electricity annually; have an xiv

19 annual power value of $5,954,600, and total annual costs of $1,577,100 resulting in a net annual benefit of $4,377,500. On the basis of our independent analysis, including consideration of all relevant economic and environmental concerns, we conclude that issuing an original major license for the proposed action with additional staff-recommended measures would not be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. xv

20 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No Alaska I. APPLICATION On September 10, 2004, Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU or Applicant) filed an application for an original license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) for the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed 4.6 megawatt (MW), Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project (project). On February 8, 2008, KPU modified its proposal with the filing of a multi-party Settlement Agreement (Settlement). The proposed project would be located on Whitman Creek, in Ketchikan Gateway Borough, approximately 4 miles east of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska and have an estimated average annual generation of 16,500 megawatt-hours (MWh) (see appendix A, figure 1). The project would occupy acres of lands of the United States, 155 acres administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) and 0.8 acres administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). II. PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER A. PURPOSE OF ACTION The Commission must decide whether to issue an original hydropower license to Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) and what, if any conditions should be placed on any issued license. This final environmental assessment (final EA) assesses the effects associated with operation of the proposed project and alternatives to the proposed project; makes recommendations to the Commission on whether to issue an original license; and if so, recommends terms and conditions to become a part of any license issued. In deciding whether to issue a license for a hydroelectric project, the Commission must determine that the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the waterway. In addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are issued (e.g., flood control, irrigation, and water supply), the Commission must give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and - 1 -

21 habitat), the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. In this final EA, we assess the environmental and economic effects of: (1) KPU s proposal as outlined in the Settlement (Proposed Action); (2) KPU s proposal with additional staff-recommended measures (Staff Alternative); and (3) not constructing the proposed project (No-action Alternative). The principle issues addressed in this final EA include: (1) erosion and sedimentation control; (2) water quality; (3) minimum instream flows; (4) Whitman Lake levels; (5) project operations under dry conditions; (6) fish protection; (7) false attraction flows; (8) Whitman Fish Hatchery operations; (9) recreation; (10) aesthetics; and (11) cultural resource protection. B. NEED FOR POWER KPU is the utility division of the City of Ketchikan. KPU buys, generates and resells all of the electricity consumed in the City of Ketchikan and Ketchikan Gateway Borough. KPU is an isolated electrical network with no interconnection to any other utility or transmission system outside their service territory, except for the Four Dam Pool Agency s Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2911). 2 KPU would use the power generated by the 4,600-kW Whitman Lake Project to help meet their power needs. To assess the need for power, KPU s current resources and the projected regional need for power were reviewed. Presently, KPU obtains its power from the Ketchikan Lakes Project FERC No. 420, Beaver Falls Project FERC No. 1922, Swan Lake Project FERC No. 2911, and Silvis Hydro Project. The hydroelectric projects have a total generating capacity of 39,000 kw. KPU also has 23,700 kw of diesel generators that provide peaking and standby capacity. The average annual generation of KPU s existing hydroelectric resources amounts to about 154,300,000 kwh annually. Whenever KPU s energy demand exceeds the capability of the combined hydropower resources, diesel units are operated to meet the difference. KPU currently requires approximately 145,000,000 kwh to 150,000,000 kwh of electrical energy per year to meet existing load. KPU estimates near-term load growth of 14,000,000 kwh to 25,000,000 kwh. KPU hydroelectric system is near peak load. Since all energy in excess of 154,300,000 kwh per year must be generated using diesel-fired generators; a clear need for the project power output to offset this fuel generation exists. 2 The Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No is licensed to the Four Dam Pool Agency, but operated by KPU

22 Power from the Whitman Lake Project would be useful in meeting a portion of KPU s projected power needs. The project would displace diesel-fueled electric power generation and, thereby conserve nonrenewable fossil fuels and reduce the emission of noxious byproducts caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. If the project license is denied, the project s capacity would have to be replaced with diesel generation. A. PROPOSED ACTION III. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES On February 8, 2008, KPU filed a multi-party Settlement Agreement (Settlement) modifying its proposal for the proposed Whitman Lake Project. The Settlement outlines provisions for project operations, as they relate to periods of low precipitation and the project s operational relationship with the Whitman Lake Fish Hatchery. The Settlement was signed by KPU, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Water Resources Section (ADNR), and the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (Southern Southeast Aquaculture), owner of the Whitman Lake Fish Hatchery. The Settlement is presented in Appendix C. 1. Existing Project Facilities Existing features of the proposed project site consist of: a 39-foot-high, 220-footlong concrete gravity arch dam with a 40-foot-wide Ogee spillway (Whitman dam); a reservoir (Whitman Lake) with a normal maximum water surface elevation of feet mean sea level (msl) and 148 surface acres; two 2,260-foot-long steel pipelines, the larger pipeline is a 24-inch-diameter pipe reduced to 18-inch-diameter over the lower 900-feet, and the smaller pipeline is a 11-inch-diameter pipe reduced to 8-inch-diameter over the lower 900-feet; two 36-inch-diameter outlets at El. 348 msl (one currently not in use); a deep-water intake that extends 1,500 feet into Whitman Lake and draws water from El. 285 msl, utilizing the 36-inch-diameter outlet and; a 42-inch-diameter outlet at El. 354 msl that draws water via a variable intake at Whitman dam. Appendix A, figure 2 illustrates existing project facilities. 2. Proposed Project Facilities The proposed project facilities would consist of: a 40- by 40-foot powerhouse; a 3,900 kw horizontal Francis turbine/generator (Unit 1) with a maximum hydraulic capacity of 150 cfs; a 700 kw horizontal or vertical Francis turbine/generator (Unit 2) with a maximum hydraulic capacity of 32 cfs; a new 60-inch-diameter, 2,450 foot-long penstock beginning at Whitman dam and ending at Unit 1 with a new screened intake; a - 3 -

23 new 36-inch-diameter, 2,450-foot-long penstock beginning at Whitman dam and ending at Unit 2; a 36-inch-diameter, 1,500-foot-long, new deep water intake with a siphon and vacuum pump; a 7.5-foot-high, 25-foot-long concrete diversion structure on Achilles Creek with an 8-inch-diameter instream flow release pipe and a 3-foot-wide sluice pipe; a 2,500-foot-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to divert up to 20 cfs from the Achilles Creek diversion to Whitman Lake; a tailrace channel with a 30-foot-wide concrete barrier weir; a 15- by 15-foot-wide valve house; a 30-foot-diameter by 20-foot-high head tank; a Unit 2 pressurized supply line to pass water from above the powerhouse via a pressure reducing valve to the head tank; a 20-foot-wide, 2,500 foot-long access road from the powerhouse to Whitman dam; a 12-foot-wide, 3,800-foot-long access road from the upper penstock to the Achilles diversion; a switchyard; a 1,500-foot-long 34.5 kilovolt transmission line. 3 Appendix A, figure 2 illustrates proposed project facilities. 3. Present Operation of Existing Project Facilities Currently, no hydroelectric generation exists at Whitman Lake and the current infrastructure serves only to supply water to the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Water is conveyed from Whitman Lake via the 24- and 11-inch pipelines for the purpose of supplying up to 39 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the Whitman Fish Hatchery Proposed Project Operation KPU proposes to operate the proposed project utilizing water stored within Whitman Lake to generate power and to supply the Whitman Fish Hatchery with water. Total generating capacity of the proposed project would be 4.6 megawatts (MW), with 16,500 MWh produced in an average year. KPU proposes to divert flows of up to 20 cfs to Whitman Lake through the proposed 24-inch-diameter, 2,500-foot-long, Achilles Creek diversion. A year-round 3 The primary transmission line consists of 200 feet of new 34.5 kv line and 1,300 feet of 34.5 kv line mounted on top of a reconfigured existing kv distribution line. The existing kv distribution line would continue to provide service to the hatchery and other customers along the alignment. 4 Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (Southern Southeast Aquaculture) has a 39 cfs water right for the Whitman Fish Hatchery. A copy of the water right certification was filed in the Commission s record for the proceeding on February 16,

24 minimum instream flow of 1.5 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, would be released downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion to protect aquatic resources. KPU proposes to operate Unit 1 between reservoir El. 370 and feet msl for the primary purpose of generating power. Unit 1 would obtain water via the 60-inchdiameter penstock through a new screened intake and would have a minimum hydraulic capacity of 50 cfs and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 150 cfs. Flows discharged from Unit 1 would enter the project tailrace and discharge into Herring Cove. KPU proposes to operate Unit 2 on year-round basis for the primary purpose of supplying Southern Southeast Aquaculture with water. Water would be delivered to Unit 2 via the 36-inch-diameter penstock. KPU proposes to construct a valve house at the base of Whitman dam that would allow for Southern Southeast Aquaculture to control the temperature of flows drawn from the existing variable intake and the new deep water intake. Once reservoir levels dropped below El. 363 msl, a vacuum pump connected to the deep water intake would be utilized to ensure reliable operation of the siphon down to El. 343 msl. Unit 2 would have a minimum hydraulic capacity of 12 cfs and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 32 cfs. Discharge from Unit 2 would enter the 30-foot-diameter head tank via a pressurized tailrace. Flows from the head tank would then be controlled by Southern Southeast Aquaculture for use at the Whitman Fish Hatchery. KPU also proposes to construct a pressure reducing valve that would be routed to the head tank in the event Unit 2 goes off-line. Any overflow from the head tank or Unit 2 flow in excess of hatchery demand would discharge into the project tailrace. KPU proposes to release between 6 and 11 cfs (depending upon the time of year) 700 feet downstream of Whitman dam from the Unit 2 penstock to lower Whitman Creek during normal conditions. During dry conditions, KPU proposes to implement a Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan that would reduce minimum instream flows to lower Whitman Creek once reservoir levels drop below El. 363 msl. Once levels drop below El. 363 msl, minimum instream flows would be reduced to flows agreed upon by a Reservoir Action Team, or to between 2 to 7 cfs, depending upon the time of year, if a consensus is not reached Proposed Environmental Measures KPU proposes the following environmental measures consistent with its Settlement. 5 The Reservoir Action Team would be composed of representatives from KPU, Southern Southeast Aquaculture, ADFG, ADNR, and the Forest Service

25 Geological Resources Minimize the clearing width and disturbance to vegetation within existing and new pipeline corridors, and revegetate disturbed areas. Develop for Commission approval, after consultation with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), and the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP) with Best Management Practices. Implement a Spoil Disposal Plan. Water and Aquatic Resources Provide the following continuous minimum instream flows of between 6 and 11 cfs to lower Whitman Creek during normal hydrologic conditions, at a location 700 feet downstream of Whitman dam off the Unit 2 penstock: Date Flow (cfs) November 16-April 30 6 May 1-September 15 8 September 16-November Provide the following continuous minimum instream flows of between 2 and 7 cfs to lower Whitman Creek during dry hydrologic conditions, at a location 700 feet downstream of Whitman dam off the Unit 2 penstock: Date Flow (cfs) November 16-April 30 2 May 1-September 15 4 September 16-November 15 7 Develop after consultation with Southern Southeast Aquaculture, ADNR, ADFG, and the Forest Service, and file for Commission approval, a Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan, incorporating the provisions described below, that would undergo a performance assessment after five years to determine the need for any necessary modifications. Lower Whitman Creek Reservoir Status Code Reservoir Level Minimum Instream Flows Unit 1 Green Above El. 367 msl Normal flows of On-line No Reservoir Action Team Convened - 6 -

26 between 6 to 11 cfs Yellow Between El. 367 Normal flows of Off-line Yes and 363 msl between 6 to 11 cfs, unless reservoir action team decides modifications are necessary to protect hatchery flows Red Below El. 363 msl, operating in siphon mode Reduced as necessary by reservoir action team to protect hatchery flows, or flows of between 2 to 7 cfs released if consensus is not reached Off-line Yes Implement ramping rates no greater than 1 inch per hour from March 1 to May 31, and no greater than 2 inches per hour from June 1 to February 28/29 for minimum instream flows in lower Whitman Creek. Provide an annual channel and riparian maintenance flow of 150 cfs to lower Whitman Creek for a continuous 24-hour period between June 1 and August 15. Implement ramping rates of no greater than 2 inches per hour for channel maintenance flows in lower Whitman Creek. Allow flows in excess of 20 cfs to overtop the Achilles Creek diversion. Provide a year-round minimum instream flow of 1.5 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion. Develop and implement an Instream Flow Release and Ramping Rate Monitoring Plan after consultation with ADNR, ADFG, and Southern Southeast Aquaculture Construct that includes constructing, operating, and maintaining three stream gages that meet USGS standards and record at no less than 15-minute intervals, including gages at: the instream flow release point off of the Unit 2 penstock, the confluence of Achilles and Whitman Creeks, and upstream of any municipal water supply diversion on Whitman Creek. Construct, operate, and maintain a stream gage that meets USGS standards and records at no less than 15-minute intervals, downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion. Operate Unit 1 within the range of reservoir El to 370 msl. Modify the existing deep water intake to include a siphon and vacuum pump, to allow reservoir levels to be drawn down to El. 343 msl during dry conditions - 7 -

27 and operate Unit 2 year-round to supply Southern Southeast Aquaculture with water needed for hatchery operations. Construct a new intake for Unit 1 that is screened to meet juvenile fish criteria as specified by NMFS. Replace the existing variable intake, if necessary, with a new variable intake. Upon request from the agencies, provide stream flow data, within 30 days of the request. Provide reservoir level readings at both the Whitman Lake powerhouse and the KPU control center with reports being made available to ADFG, ADNR, Southern Southeast Aquaculture, and the Forest Service, upon request. Install a new valve house at the base of Whitman dam to control flow to Unit 2 and the Whitman Hatchery s 12-inch incubation water supply pipeline. Develop a plan after consultation with Southern Southeast Aquaculture to determine how water temperature requirements at the Whitman Fish Hatchery will be met using a mix of water withdrawals from the variable and deep water intakes. Develop after consultation with Southern Southeast Aquaculture, ADNR, ADFG, and the Forest Service, and file for Commission approval, a Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting Plan that would specify data reporting requirements and schedules for constructing monitoring equipment and other project facilities. Install a head tank to collect Unit 2 discharge that would provide the Whitman Fish Hatchery with water pressure needed for hatchery operations. Install a pressure reduction valve allowing Unit 2 penstock flows to bypass Unit 2, and flow directly to the head tank. Install water flow recording devices at the Unit 1 and 2 penstocks, the Whitman Hatchery s 12-inch incubation water supply line, and the primary hatchery supply line from the head tank. Minimize fish attraction flow velocities from the proposed powerhouse and create a physical barrier to fish by constructing a concrete weir at El. 18 msl, a baffle wall and smooth-finished bars with one-inch openings along the bottom of the baffle wall. Develop and implement a Hazardous Substance Plan. Develop and implement a Biotic Monitoring Plan. Implement the Whitman Lake Dam and Reservoir Operations and Maintenance Plan. Implement the Achilles Creek Diversion Operations and Maintenance Plan. Periodically sluice sediments from above the Achilles Creek diversion during high flows

28 Terrestrial Resources Develop and implement a Terrestrial Species Connectivity Plan that includes site-specific plans for wildlife crossings along the Achilles Creek pipeline and wildlife crossing effectiveness monitoring. Develop and implement a Vegetation Management Plan that includes identifying areas needed for revegetation, a list of native species to be used, and methods to control and monitor noxious weeds. Develop and implement a Nesting Survey Plan to include surveying for any newly constructed marbled murrelet, goshawk, and bald eagle nests prior to construction. Avoid any large trees, boulders, rock outcrops, and any sensitive vegetated areas during construction of the proposed diversion pipeline from Achilles Creek. Recreation Resources Develop a trail plan in conjunction with the Forest Service that avoids the pipeline and penstock corridor. Land Use and Aesthetic Resources Develop and implement a Scenery Management Plan. Cultural Resources Implement the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) (filed on November 15, 2005). B. STAFF S ADDITIONAL MEASURES (STAFF ALTERNATIVE) In addition to, or in lieu of KPU s proposed measures, the Staff Alternative contains the following measures: General Provide state and federal resource agency personnel access to project facilities and lands upon adequate notice. Coordinate and consult with fish and wildlife agencies on the need for an annual project review meeting and file with the Commission evidence of the consultation and any recommendations made by the agencies. Notify ADFG, the Forest Service, ADNR, FWS, NMFS, and the Commission as soon as possible, but within 12 hours, of the beginning or detection of a noncompliance event

29 Water and Aquatic Resources As part of the ESCP, conduct turbidity monitoring on a daily basis, upstream and downstream of all construction and discharge points from the commencement of construction until there is no risk of turbid runoff resulting from project construction, in Whitman and Achilles creeks. As part of the Hazardous Substance Plan, treat and remove oil and contaminants from project discharge. Obtain Forest Service approval prior to using pesticides on Forest Service lands. Provide an Environmental Compliance Monitor during project construction. Implement the protocol contained in the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol. File a report with the Commission detailing the five year review of the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol. Notify the Commission within 10 days of a change in the RSC code or upon any modification to project operations such as minimum instream flows based on decisions made by the Reservoir Action Team. Construct, operate, and maintain two stream gages that meet USGS standards, have real-time capability, and record at no less than 15-minute intervals, including: one stream gage downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion and one downstream of the instream flow release valve from the Unit 2 penstock in lower Whitman Creek. Upon construction of the stream gages, file a report with the Commission detailing the gaging equipment installed, drawings of the gage, and exact locations of the gages. Install a pressure reduction valve around Unit 2 such that it can accommodate flows up to 32 cfs. Annually sluice sediments for a continuous 24 hour period from behind the Achilles Creek diversion when instream flows are at least 34 cfs. Install a valve at the base of Whitman dam, and when reservoir elevations are above El. 364 msl, release minimum instream flows to lower Whitman Creek directly below Whitman dam. Install adjustable valves to allow for any necessary adjustments needed to release minimum instream flows or channel maintenance flows to Whitman or Achilles creeks. Upon transferring minimum instream flows from being released at Whitman dam to 700 feet downstream, from the Unit 2 penstock, or vice versa, ramp flows in the 700-foot bypassed reach at rate no greater than 1 inch per hour from March 1 to May 31, and 2 inches per hour from June 1 to February 28 /29. File a plan detailing how water temperature requirements will be met at Whitman Hatchery with the Commission for approval and clearly describe how

30 KPU and Southern Southeast Aquaculture will work in conjunction with each other to ensure water temperature will be maintained at the hatchery utilizing the valve house and how the volume of flows provided to Unit 2 will remain within the sole control and discretion of KPU. Provide a minimum instream flow downstream of the mouth of Achilles Creek of 0.77 cfs as measured by summing the Achilles and Whitman Creek stream gages, to provide Ketchikan Gateway Borough with 0.77 cfs for consumptive purposes. As part of the biotic monitoring plan, monitor adult salmonid behavior from August 1 to November 30, annually, at the location of the proposed tailrace discharge, commencing at project start-up, for a period of two years. Perform, at a minimum, weekly inspections and cleanings of the new Unit 1 intake screen for the first two years of project operations (absent when Whitman Lake is frozen over), and file a report detailing monitoring results after two years proposing a recommended cleaning schedule based on the results. Terrestrial Resources Develop and implement a Fire Prevention Plan. Avoid any large trees, boulders, rock outcrops, and any sensitive vegetated areas during construction of the proposed diversion pipeline from Achilles Creek. Recreational Resources Develop and implement a trail plan and obtain any necessary easements. Cultural Resources Revise and implement the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) (filed on November 15, 2005) and conduct a HABS/HAER for the adversely affected NRHP eligible shed. C. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the no-action alternative, KPU would not be issued a license for the project, the proposed project would not be built, and the site would remain as it currently exists. As a result, KPU would not be able to supplement its generation resources or displace its dependency on fossil fuel generation. 6 The no-action alternative is the benchmark from which we compare the proposed action. 6 On January 25, 2006, Ketchikan Electric Company requested that the Commission consider the purchase of power from their Mahoney Lake Project No as an

31 D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY None. A. AGENCY CONSULTATION IV. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE The Commission s regulations require applicants to consult with appropriate state and federal environmental resource agencies, Native American tribes, and the public before filing a license application. This consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), and other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation must be completed and documented in accordance with the Commission s regulations. When the Commission issues a notice that the application is ready for environmental analysis, formal comments may be submitted by concerned entities in accordance with section 4.34(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Federal Power Act (FPA). The comments provided by concerned entities are made part of the record and are considered during review of the proposed project. 1. Scoping Before preparing this final EA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) scoping was conducted by KPU to determine issues and alternatives to be considered for the proposed project. An Initial Consultation Document (ICD) and Scoping Document (SD1) were distributed to interested agencies and others on January 11, Two scoping meetings were held in Ketchikan, Alaska on March 3, 1999, to request oral comments on the project. The meetings were noticed in the Federal Register on February 11, 1999, and advertised in the Ketchikan Daily News on February 17, A court alternative to the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project proposal. However, the purchase of power from the Mahoney Lake Project is, at most, a possible result of adoption of the No-Action Alternative, not a distinct alternative to be considered in this case, as the Mahoney Lake Project has not been built

32 reporter recorded all comments and statements made at the scoping meetings, and these are part of the Commission s public record for the proposed project. A site visit by resource agencies, tribal and native corporation representatives and other interested parties occurred on March 4, The notice set May 3, 1999, as the deadline for filing written comments. Comments were received from the following entities: Commenting Entities Date of Letter State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, April 1, 1999 Dam Safety and Construction Unit National Marine Fisheries Service April 13, 1999 Herring Bay Water User s Association April 14, 1999 Catherine Fallon April 14, 1999 Alaska Department of Fish and Game April 30, 1999 Jim Rottschafer April 30, 1999 Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association May 3, 1999 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service May 10, 1999 U.S. Forest Service May 19, 1999 A revised Scoping Document 2 (SD2), addressing these comments, was issued on September 22, Interventions and Comments On November 30, 2005, the Commission issued a notice of application and applicant prepared EA accepted for filing, soliciting motions to intervene and protests, and soliciting comments, and final terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions. That notice set January 30, 2006, as the deadline soliciting comments. The following entities filed for intervenor status and/or filed comments: Intervenor Date Filed Alaska Department of Fish and Game January 20, 2006 Ketchikan Electric Company January 25, 2006 U.S. Forest Service January 26, 2006 Only Ketchikan Electric Company filed their intervention in opposition to the proposed project

33 Commenting Entities Date Filed Ketchikan Electric Company January 25, 2006 U.S. Forest Service January 27, 2006 Alaska Department of Fish and Game January 30, 2006 We discuss their comments and recommendations in section V.C., Proposed Action and Action Alternatives. 3. June 2007 Environmental Assessment The June 2007 EA was issued for public comment on June 19, The notice of availability of environmental assessment set July 19, 2007, as the deadline for filing written comments on the June 2007 EA. In a letter filed June 29, 2007, KPU filed a request for a 30-day extension of time to file comments on the June 2007 EA. On July 12, 2007, we granted a 15-day extension for comments on the June 2007 EA, which resulted in comments being due August 3, On July 30, 2007, KPU requested an additional extension of time until August 20, 2007, to file comments on the June 2007 EA. On August 1, 2007, we granted this request. The following entities filed letters of comment on the June 2007 EA. Commenting Entities Date Filed U.S. Forest Service August 20, 2007 Ketchikan Public Utilities August 20, 2007 Alaska Department of Natural Resources August 20, 2007 Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association August 20, 2007 We provide a summary of these comments and our responses in appendix B of this final EA. In a letter filed September 28, 2007, a public meeting notice was issued, scheduling a meeting to clarify comments received on the June 2007 EA. The meeting was held on October 10, 2007, at the Commission headquarters in Washington, D.C., with a teleconference line also made available. A court reporter recorded all comments and statements made at this meeting. Transcripts of the meeting are part of the Commission s public record for the proposed project. 4. Settlement Agreement On February 8, 2008, KPU filed with the Commission a Settlement Agreement (Settlement) for the proposed project. Commission staff issued a public notice of the Settlement and soliciting comments on February 11, That notice set Monday, March 3, 2008 and Wednesday, March 12, 2008, as the deadline for the filing of

34 comments on the Settlement and the applicant s reply comments, respectively. Only the Forest Service filed comments on the Settlement. Their comments were late filed on March 19, As a result of the Forest Service s late filed comments, we provided KPU until April 14, 2008, to file their reply comments in response to the Forest Service s comments. KPU filed their reply comments April 14, Upon review of the Settlement, we issued an additional information request to KPU on February 29, 2008, providing KPU until April 14, 2008, to respond to our request. KPU filed their response to our additional information request on April 14, On April 30, 2008, Commission staff issued a notice soliciting comments on KPU s response to the additional information requests. The notice set May 30, 2008, as the deadline for filing said comments. No comments were filed. B. COMPLIANCE 1. Water Quality Certification Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 7 the Commission may not issue a license for a hydroelectric project unless the state certifying agency has either issued or waived water quality certification for the project or has failed to act on a request for certification within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year. 8 On May 20, 1999, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) filed a letter with the Commission waiving all water quality certifications for hydroelectric projects. Further, on December 8, 2005, ADEC, referring to the proposed project, stated "ADEC does not certify (under the section 401 Water Quality Certification program) or take part in FERC licenses process." 9 As a result, we are considering the 401 water quality certificate for the proposed Whitman Hydroelectric Project to be waived. 2. Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions U.S.C. 1341(a)(1). Under Section 401(a)(1), an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters must obtain from the state in which the discharge originates certification that any such discharge would comply with applicable water quality standards. 9 communication from Mr. Jim Powell of ADEC to Mr. Don Thompson (Consultant for the Applicant), December 8,

35 Section 18 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 811, states that the Commission shall require construction, maintenance and operation by a licensee of such fishways as the Secretaries of the Department of Commerce or the Department of the Interior (Interior) may prescribe, as appropriate. Neither department submitted section 18 prescriptions for the proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project. 3. Coastal Zone Management Act Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 10 the Commission cannot issue a license for a project within or affecting a state s coastal zone, unless the state CZMA agency concurs with the license applicant s certification of consistency with the state s CZMA program or the agency s concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of receipt of the applicant s certification. The project is located within the coastal zone boundary; therefore, KPU must certify that the project is consistent with the state's Coastal Zone Management Program. On October 9, 2003, Ketchikan provided Alaska DNR with a completed Coastal Project Questionnaire and Certification Statement required by Alaska s CZMP to initiate the CZMA certification process. On November 6, 2003, Ketchikan received correspondence from Alaska DNR dated October 31, 2003, which addresses Alaska DNR s review of the project s consistency certification. The letter states, as follows: A review of the project for consistency with the ACMP will occur when final PA consultation is complete, all permit applications are received by the coordinating agency, FERC has public noticed that the final application is complete, called for final comments and conditions... Alaska DNR s request for additional information was timely. 11 On November 30, 2005, the Commission issued a notice of application and applicant prepared EA accepted for filing, soliciting motions to intervene and protests, and soliciting comments, and final terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions; resulting in a CZMA consistency determination due date of May 29, In a letter filed November 13, 2007, ADNR stated they will be conducting a review of consistency with the ACMP. To date, Alaska DNR has not filed a consistency determination. 4. Section 4(e) Conditions U.S.C. 1456(3)(A) Id

36 The Forest Service filed their preliminary section 4(e) terms and conditions for the project on December 15, These conditions were filed pursuant to section 4(e) of the FPA and 18 C.F.R (b). On January 27, 2006, the Forest Service filed their final 4(e) conditions. The Forest Service filed 21 final conditions under the provisions of section 4(e) of the FPA. In summary, these conditions are as follows: condition no. 1 requires Forest Service special-use authorization; condition no. 2 requires Forest Service approval on final design plans; condition no. 3 requires Forest Service approval of changes after initial construction; condition no. 4 requires annual consultation; condition no. 5 requires restoration of National Forest System lands upon surrender of license or transfer of ownership; condition no. 6 requires a hazardous substances plan; condition no. 7 requires obtaining Forest Service requirements when using explosives; condition no. 8 requires administrative access easement acquisition; condition no. 9 requires public access easement acquisition; condition no. 10 requires maintenance of improvements; condition no. 11 requires safety during project construction; condition no. 12 requires pesticide use restrictions; condition no. 13 requires a heritage resource protection plan; condition no. 14 requires a scenery management plan; condition no. 15 requires a diversion operation plan for Achilles Creek, including a schedule and maintenance program and methods to minimize erosion; condition no. 16 requires an erosion control plan; condition no. 17 requires a spoil disposal plan; condition no. 18 specifies a fire prevention plan; condition no. 19 specifies a noxious weed management plan; condition no. 20 requires a guaranteed priority flow bypass device and gaging device to be installed on Achilles Creek; and condition no. 21 provides that the Forest Service reserves the authority to modify its 4(e) terms and conditions. In their August 20, 2007, comment letter on the June 2007 EA, the Forest Service states that in the June 2007 EA our recommendations regarding certain Forest Service 4(e) conditions needed to be clarified. These clarifications have been incorporated into the final EA. Although portions of the land within the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project boundary are on lands of the United States managed by the BLM, they did not file any section 4(e) conditions for this project. 5. Endangered Species Act Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. No federally-listed species are known to occur in the project area

37 6. National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the NHPA (section 106) requires that federal agencies consider the effects of their actions along with actions that they may assist, permit, or license, on historical properties, and that those agencies give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such actions. Section 106 applies to properties that have been listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), properties that have been determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register and that may be eligible but which have not yet been evaluated. We consider project effects on the NHPA in section V.C.8, Cultural and Historic Resources. 7. Section 10(j) Recommendations Under section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. The Commission is required to include these conditions unless it determines that they are inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an agency recommendation, the Commission is required to attempt to resolve any such inconsistency with the agency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency. All recommendations are addressed in the specific resource sections of this final EA. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) included 13 10(j) recommendations in its comments dated January 27, The agency-recommended measures include water quality monitoring, sedimentation and erosion control measures, employing an environmental compliance monitor (ECM), minimum instream flows, ramping rates, monitoring and measures to ensure compliance with instream flow requirements, channel maintenance flows, fish screening, a biotic monitoring plan, measures to control pollutants associated with project operation, project lands and works access, and measures to coordinate and inform interested agencies of project related operations. On April 23, 2008, ADFG revised its 10(j) recommendation no. 6 which recommended yearround minimum instream flow releases to lower Whitman Creek of between 6 to 11 cfs, depending upon the time of year, a 24 hour channel maintenance flow of 150 cfs between May 1 and August 15, and a ramping rate of no greater than 2 inches per hour for the channel maintenance flow. ADFG revised this recommendation to be consistent with Articles A401 and A402 of the Settlement. Article A401 proposes a Dry Condition/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan would be developed and implemented to address project operations during dry conditions and A402 proposes an Instream Flow Release and Ramping Rate Monitoring Plan would be developed and implemented to address the installation of stream gages, minimum instream flows, channel maintenance flows and

38 ramping rates in Whitman and Achilles creeks. In section VIII of this final EA, we discuss how we address the agency recommendations and compliance with section 10(j). Table 17 lists each of the recommendations subject to section 10(j), and whether the recommendations are adopted under the Staff Alternative. V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS In this section, we first describe the general environmental setting in the vicinity of the proposed project and any environmental resources that could be cumulatively affected by licensing the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project. Then, we address each affected environmental resource. For each resource, we first describe the affected environmentthe existing condition and the baseline against which to measure the effects of the proposed project and any alternative actions-and then the environmental effects of the proposed project, including proposed enhancement measures. Our final recommendations regarding each resource are found in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Unless otherwise stated, the information in the following sections is from the license application, the applicant prepared EA, and the Settlement (KPU, 2004a, 2004b, 2008a). Only the resources that would be affected, or about which comments have been made by interested parties, are included in detail in this final EA and discussed in this section. A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PROJECT The proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project would be located on the southeast end of Revillagigedo Island in Southeastern Alaska, approximately 4 miles east of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska (appendix A, figure 1). The Whitman Lake and Achilles Creek watersheds are surrounded by undeveloped coniferous forests, consisting of mountainous ridges and peaks located almost entirely within the Tongass National Forest (TNF). The project area has a maritime climate characterized by cool summers. Typical summer temperatures range from 50 to 65 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) and winter temperatures range from 29 to 39 ºF. Average annual precipitation is 155 inches. Whitman Lake has several small, unnamed tributaries, with only one significant tributary, Deer Creek. Deer Creek is 2.3 miles long and enters Whitman Lake from the northwest. Whitman Lake was a naturally formed lake prior to impoundment. However, construction of the concrete dam in 1927 increased the reservoir in total area to

39 square miles (148 acres) in size. The Whitman Lake watershed is 4.11 square miles, providing an average annual inflow of 75 cfs into the lake. Whitman Lake tapers from its widest point of 2,200-feet in the west to its narrowest point of 100-feet wide at Whitman dam in the east. Whitman Creek exits Whitman Lake at the dam and continues for 4,000- feet until its mouth at George Inlet. Achilles Creek originates northeast of Whitman Lake and enters Whitman Creek approximately 900-feet downstream from Whitman dam. The 0.92 square mile Achilles Creek watershed provides an average annual flow of 17 cfs. Southeast of Whitman Lake is Herring Cove, which is supplied by Herring Cove Creek, a major tributary entering from the west. Project History In 1907, the New England Fish Company (NEFCO) installed a timber crib dam to generate hydroelectric power at the outflow of Whitman Lake. NEFCO diverted approximately 75 cfs from Whitman Lake for hydroelectric power purposes. Prior to the installation of the timber crib dam, which raised the level of the lake from El. 359 to 367 msl, Whitman Lake was a naturally formed lake. In 1927, the NEFCO constructed the current 39-foot-high concrete gravity dam downstream of the existing timber crib dam. The timber crib dam presently remains in place, submerged within Whitman Lake, behind what is today Whitman dam. Whitman dam raised the level of the lake to its current maximum elevation of El msl. In 1957, the City of Ketchikan purchased the hydroelectric facilities and shortly thereafter retired them. The original powerhouse and its penstock have since been removed. We discuss the project history in greater detail in section V.C.8, Cultural and Historic Resources. B. SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (50 CFR ), an action may cause cumulative impacts on the environment if its impacts overlap in space and/or time with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities. We ve identified aquatics as a resource area that could potentially be cumulatively affected by the proposed Whitman Lake Project

40 The potential cumulative effects on aquatic resources are discussed in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources. Final recommendations regarding each resource are found in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. 1. Geographic Scope The geographic scope of our analysis defines the physical limits or boundaries of the proposed action s effects on the resources. Due to the proposed projects isolated location, we limited the geographic scope of analysis to Herring Cove, Whitman Creek from its mouth with George Inlet to Whitman Lake, the Whitman Lake watershed and the Achilles Creek watershed, and adjacent lands surrounding the hatchery and proposed powerhouse site. 2. Temporal Scope The temporal scope of our cumulative effects analysis in the final EA includes past, present, and future actions and their possible cumulative effects on each resource. Based on the license term, the temporal scope will look 30 to 50 years into the future, concentrating on the effect of reasonably foreseeable future actions on the resources. The historical discussion would, by necessity, be limited to the amount of available information for each resource. C. PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Geological Resources a. Affected Environment: General Geology of Southeast Alaska Southeast Alaska is underlain by Quaternary surficial deposits and by sedimentary, volcanic, intrusive and metamorphosed rocks that range in age from Quaternary to Precambrian. Southeast Alaska is also within an active tectonic belt that borders the north Pacific Basin. Late Mesozoic and Tertiary deformation and intrusive events have caused the bedrock outcrop pattern now present in this area. Continental plate colliding is responsible for most of the tectonic activity and physical manifestations of bedrock that compose the northwest-southeast orientation of major mountain ranges and waterways in Southeast Alaska. The area surrounding the proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project falls into the Taku terrain classification, one of five fault bounded rock assemblages found in the Ketchikan area. This terrain is composed mainly of Tertiary gabbro and Cretaceous

41 granodiorite and quartzdiorite igneous intrusive rocks, Mesozoic or Paleozoic metasedimentary rocks and Mesozoic or Paleozoic metavolcanic rocks. Project Area Geology Whitman dam is keyed into bedrock. The bedrock outcropping at the base of the dam is a hard dense metagraywacke with garnet inclusions. The apparent bedding strikes 276 degrees and dips 80 degrees north. This structural orientation is nearly perpendicular to the axis of the dam. Whitman Creek is located within a bedrock canyon with steep sides. This bedrock is a relatively massive metagraywacke with fractures spaced 1-to 10-feet apart. Overall, this rock is generally hard, unweathered and strong, but can part along preferred cleavages. The existing pipelines and pipeline corridor are laid over shallow bedrock, generally less than 2-feet-deep. The overburden typically consists of thin organics and roots over shallow colluvial angular coble sized rocks, intermixed with silt and sand. The proposed diversion at Achilles Creek would be located in a steep-sided canyon of exposed and shallow depth bedrock. Bedrock and cobble to boulder size angular rock make up the streambed in Achilles Creek. The proposed Achilles pipeline route would cross through areas of shallow bedrock with overburden depth ranging from a few inches to 4-feet-deep. At the proposed powerhouse site soils are thin and bedrock is shallow, covered with colluvium and blocky boulders to 6-feet-deep. b. Environmental Effects: Erosion and Sedimentation Construction activities related to building the proposed project facilities could increase erosion and sedimentation in disturbed areas such as the proposed diversion site on Achilles Creek, pipeline corridors, the proposed tailrace site at Herring Cove, the proposed location for the powerhouse, and any construction access routes. Construction activities may also result in sediment deposition in Whitman Lake, Whitman and Achilles creeks, and Herring Cove. Because sedimentation of waterbodies may also impact aquatic resources, we further discuss the effects of erosion and sedimentation in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources

42 In the Settlement Agreement (Settlement) KPU proposes to install a new valve house and hatchery head tank, which could cause additional erosion and sedimentation to occur at these locations, potentially affecting lower Whitman Creek and Herring Cove. However, it is also likely sedimentation and erosion would be reduced under KPU s current proposal to build a single 40-foot by 40-foot powerhouse located at the North end of the Whitman Fish Hatchery grounds, as opposed to KPU s original proposal for two powerhouses as described in their license application. Additionally, KPU s proposal to increase reservoir drawdown and increase reservoir level fluctuations, could increase shoreline erosion and affect water quality, as further discussed in section V.C.2, Water Resources. KPU proposes to prepare and implement an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP) that would minimize erosion and sedimentation in construction areas. KPU proposes the plan would describe Best Management Practices (BMP s) to be employed at construction areas and would address measures to control erosion, sedimentation, and dust and soil mass movement as specified by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) in their 4(e) condition no. 16. As recommended by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) in 10(j) recommendation no. 1, KPU also proposes to prepare the ESCP after consultation with ADFG, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), and the Forest Service. KPU also proposes to implement the Achilles Creek Diversion and Operations Maintenance Plan, consistent with Forest Service 4(e) no. 15, and the Whitman dam and Reservoir Operations and Maintenance Plan. Both of these plans were filed with the Commission on November 11, KPU proposes in these plans that debris would be removed from the Whitman Lake dam spillway and the Achilles Creek diversion to ensure no clogging occurs. KPU proposes to implement these plans every three months within two weeks of January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year, with special inspections to occur at the Achilles Creek diversion during high precipitation events. We further discuss these plans in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources. KPU further proposes to implement the Spoil Disposal Plan filed on November 11, Consistent with Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 17, this plan identifies spoil areas, addresses the contouring of spoils piles to conform to adjacent landforms, addresses measures to prevent erosion and sedimentation at these spoils piles, identifies methods to stabilize and revegetate spoil areas, and includes a schedule and maintenance program for this plan

43 Lastly, KPU proposes to minimize the clearing width and disturbance to vegetation within the existing and new pipeline corridors, and to revegetate disturbed areas to minimize erosion and sedimentation caused from project construction and operation. Our Analysis Under current conditions, the bedrock geology and extensive vegetation in the proposed project area keeps erosion and sedimentation levels low. However, land disturbing activities associated with this proposed project are likely to increase erosion and sedimentation. Site-specific erosion and sedimentation measures that pertain to each area of proposed construction would help to protect against erosion resulting from any construction and or project operations. Addressing any project-related erosion and sedimentation concerns within the ESCP and by applying BMP s during ground disturbing activities, as proposed by KPU and specified in Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 16, would help minimize any adverse effects. Additionally, consulting with resource agencies on the development of the ESCP, as recommended by ADFG in their 10(j) recommendation no. 1, would ensure this plan would be effective in minimizing project related erosion and sedimentation. Also, implementing the Spoil Disposal Plan proposed by KPU, as specified in Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 17, would likely reduce potential erosion and sedimentation from spoil areas created during construction. Implementing the Whitman Lake Dam and Reservoir Operations and Maintenance Plan and the Achilles Creek Diversion and Operations Maintenance Plan consistent with Forest Service 4(e) no. 15, as proposed by KPU would ensure that the Whitman Lake dam spillway and the Achilles Creek diversion are free of debris. This would prevent any inadvertent increase in lake levels or water levels behind the Achilles Creek diversion. Any increase in water levels could possibly lead to an increase in erosion and sedimentation within Whitman Lake or behind the Achilles Creek diversion, and potentially cause fish stranding along the margins of Whitman Lake, as further discussed in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources. Implementing these plans would ensure spill over Whitman dam and the Achilles Creek diversion is not being impeded and all excess flows could be passed downstream. A large portion of the Whitman Lake shoreline is comprised of bedrock with little amounts of fine materials being present. Therefore, even though lake level fluctuations may occur more frequently and in greater magnitude (potentially down to an elevation as low as 343 msl during dry conditions) with the proposed operation of the hydroelectric project, it is likely that some increase in turbidity within the lake would occur. However, this increase would likely only result when reservoir elevations are below the current normal low elevation of approximately El. 363 msl during dry periods. KPU estimates

44 that although the reservoir would be capable of operating down to El. 343 msl, the 28- year period of record indicates that with proposed project operations, the greatest reservoir drawn down that would occur is El. 347 msl and that reservoir levels would drop below El. 363 msl infrequently, only once every seven years as demonstrated in table 7, as discussed in section V.C.2, Water Resources. Therefore, given that the Whitman Lake shoreline is comprised primarily of bedrock and that any substantial increase in the lake s shoreline area would likely only occur infrequently and would be limited to dry periods with below normal precipitation, an increase in the turbidity of Whitman Lake as a result of project operations would be minimal and only for short periods. KPU s proposal to minimize the clearing width and disturbance to vegetation within the existing and new pipeline corridors would limit areas in which erosion could occur. Also, KPU s proposal to revegetate disturbed areas would help to quickly reestablish vegetation and would decrease the potential for further erosion. Overall, construction activities associated with building the project could result in minor, shortterm increases in erosion and sedimentation. KPU s proposal to build one 40-foot by 40-foot powerhouse located at the North end of the Whitman Fish Hatchery grounds instead of the two powerhouses as originally proposed, would likely result in less erosion and sedimentation as the footprint for this one powerhouse would be 1600 square feet, as opposed to 2,350 square feet. Incorporating the construction of the head tank and valve house within the ESCP and Spoil Disposal Plan, as described above, would ensure their construction would contribute minimal erosion and sedimentation to lower Whitman Creek and Herring Cove. We discuss the cost of developing and implementing measures relating to erosion and sediment control in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We present our final recommendations pertaining to erosion and sediment control in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. c. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: No unavoidable adverse effects have been identified. 2. Water Resources a. Affected Environment: Water Quantity Whitman Lake has had a regulated outflow since 1907, when a timber crib dam was installed by the New England Fish Company (NEFCO) for hydropower purposes

45 The timber dam raised the level of Whitman Lake 8-feet to El. 367 msl. The timber crib dam contains a notch in the weir which is approximately 6-feet-wide and extends to the bottom of the timber crib dam (KPU, 2007a). The existing concrete dam on Whitman Lake, constructed in 1927, submerged the timber crib dam and raised the lake level to El msl, creating a 148 acre reservoir (Whitman Lake). The dam currently includes an ungated spillway that allows excess water to spill into lower Whitman Creek, the proposed project s bypass reach. As shown in appendix A, figure 3, Whitman Lake has eight small tributaries, and one major tributary, Deer Creek. Deer Creek is 2.3 miles long and enters Whitman Lake from the northwest. The eight smaller tributaries of Whitman Lake are either ephemeral or have vertical confluences with lake. The Whitman Lake watershed at Whitman dam has a drainage area of 4.11 square miles. Water exits Whitman dam and flows directly into lower Whitman Creek. Lower Whitman Creek is 4,000-feet-long and flows in a straight path before entering tidewater at George Inlet. Whitman Creek is composed primarily of cascade (>60 percent) and riffle (34 percent) habitat, and is dominated by larger substrates, mainly bedrock, boulders and cobble. Approximately 900-feet downstream of Whitman dam, Achilles Creek discharges into Whitman Creek from the north. The Achilles Creek watershed, above the proposed diversion structure, to be located 2,000-feet upstream from the mouth of Achilles Creek, has a drainage area of 0.92 square miles. Achilles Creek, like Whitman Creek, contains an abundance of habitat types associated with steep terrain, including riffles (32 percent), cascades (21 percent), pools (17 percent), and falls (15 percent), and has a substrate composition dominated by bedrock, boulders, and course gravel. Both the Achilles and Whitman creek watersheds have similar topography, are heavily forested, and are surrounded on all sides by mountains. South of Whitman Lake is Herring Cove, an 8 acre, intertidal environment that discharges into George Inlet. Herring Cove has diurnal tides that generally fluctuate between 10-to 15-feet daily in the cove. Annual maximum high tide is usually approximately 19-feet above mean lower low water, and annual minimum low tide is usually -4-feet. The only significant tributary to Herring Cove is Herring Cove Creek, which enters the cove from the west. Currently, the Whitman Fish Hatchery diverts approximately 30 cfs from Whitman dam via a 24- and 11-inch pipeline and has done so since 1979 (table 1). Directly below Whitman dam a valve house is used by Southern Southeast Aquaculture to regulate temperature to the 24- and 11-inch pipelines supplying the Whitman Fish Hatchery with

46 water. Currently, the plumbing system for the hatchery operates under head pressure from the lake that is reduced to 60 psi for the raceways and 20 psi to the incubation head box where the water travels through a packed column for gas reduction before entering the hatchery and incubators (Southern Southeast Aquaculture, 2007). After exiting the Whitman Fish Hatchery, the water is released into Herring Cove before flowing into George Inlet. Table 1. Estimated average monthly flow (cfs) diverted from Whitman Lake to the Whitman Fish Hatchery. (Source: KPU, 2004a, as modified by staff) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec The only stream gage in either Whitman or Achilles creeks was installed by KPU in November 1999, 2,700-feet downstream of Whitman dam. Staff generated estimated natural stream flow data for Whitman Creek, prior to the impoundment of Whitman Lake. This estimated stream flow data, minus current water allocation to the Whitman Fish Hatchery (table 1), was used to estimate the current monthly flows in Whitman Creek (table 2) from Whitman dam to its confluence with Achilles Creek. Table 2. Estimated flow exceedance (in cfs) for stream flow in Whitman Creek from Whitman dam to the confluence with Achilles Creek (Source: Staff, 2008). Percent Time Exceedanc No De e Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct v c < <1 <1 < <1 <1 < <1 <1 < <1 70 <1 <1 <1 < < <1 80 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 90 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 100 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 21 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 The flow duration analysis for Whitman Creek from Whitman dam to the confluence with Achilles Creek was generated using available data from two nearby United States Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations, including No. 26 (USGS has renumbered the station number as No ) Beaver Falls Creek near Ketchikan

47 and Mahoney Creek (USGS gage No ). An approximate 10.5 year period of record (August 1917, September 1917, September 1920 to December 1925, and October 1927 to September 1932) was available for Beaver Falls Creek and an approximate 26 year period of record was available for Mahoney Creek (September , September 1926 to October 1933, October 1947 to September 1958, and October 1977 to September 1981). Using the Mahoney and Beaver Falls creeks to generate stream flow data was considered appropriate because all three basins are very similar in proximity to one another, share a common watershed boundary line, have a similar east-west orientation, have similar soils and vegetation, and are similar in size. Whitman, Beaver Falls, and Mahoney creeks have watershed areas of 4.11, 5.8, and 5.7 square miles, respectively. Generating mean monthly flows was done by multiplying the daily recorded flow at the Beaver Falls Creek or Mahoney Creek gage by the ratio of the respective drainage area for the Whitman Lake watershed (4.11 square miles) to the Beaver Falls Creek (5.8 square miles) or Mahoney Creek watershed (5.7 square miles), depending upon which drainage was used. 12 In instances where there was daily discharge data for both Beaver Falls and Mahoney creeks, the lower discharge data reading of these two drainages was used to synthesis flow data to be conservative. Based on KPU s estimates, they state the average annual inflow to Whitman Lake and the Achilles Creek watershed (above the proposed diversion) is approximately 75 and 17 cfs, respectively. Because KPU did not provide a flow duration analysis for Achilles Creek, staff generated estimated natural stream flow data for Achilles Creek at the location of the proposed Achilles Creek diversion using the same method staff used to generate flows for Whitman Creek, as previously described. Specifically, this analysis was completed by multiplying the lesser of the daily stream flows at the Beaver Falls Creek or Mahoney Creek gage by the ratio of the respective drainage area for the watershed area above the proposed Achilles Creek diversion (0.92 square miles) and the Beaver Falls Creek watershed (5.8 square miles) or the Mahoney Creek watershed (5.7 square miles). The estimated natural stream flow data generated for Achilles Creek is contained in table In the June 2007 EA, we utilized Ketchikan s Beaver Falls Creek watershed area estimate of 5.96 square miles as opposed to the USGS s estimate of 5.8 square miles because it resulted in more conservative stream flow estimates. However, for the purposes of the final EA we generated the synthesized stream flows based on the 5.8 square mile estimate because KPU recognized the drainage area of the Beaver Falls Creek drainage as 5.8 square miles during the October 10, 2007, technical conference and to maintain consistency with the Mahoney Creek drainage estimates (FERC, 2007)

48 Table 3. Estimated flow exceedance (cfs) for stream flow in Achilles Creek at the location of the proposed diversion. (Source: Staff, 2008) Percent Time Exceeded Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec <1 <1 < <1 1 <1 <1 Whitman Lake Levels Current annual lake level operations typically keep lake levels between El msl (spillway crest) to approximately El msl (minimum pool level) with annual drawdowns being the greatest from January to May. Annual Whitman Lake levels from 1997 to 2002 are indicted in appendix A, figure 4. The historical minimum elevation on record is approximately El. 363 msl, which occurred in April A bathymetry study by KPU indicated that drawing down water levels from El to msl cause approximately 15 acres of the Deer Creek delta, or 3.5 to 10 percent of the total lake bottom, to become exposed annually. Whitman Dam Intakes Whitman dam currently contains three outlets, two 36-inch outlets at El. 348 msl and one 42-inch outlet at El. 354 msl. Currently, one of the 36-inch and the 42-inch outlets are in use to provide water to the Whitman Fish Hatchery. KPU provided clarification on the Whitman dam intake structures in their comments on the June 2007 EA and at the October 10, 2007, meeting to discuss comments on the June 2007 EA. The first is a variable intake which utilizes the 42-inch outlet and can draw water from Whitman Lake at El. 370 to 360 msl and can operate down to approximately El. 363 msl. The variable intake is composed of a 36-inch culvert that is capable of swiveling up or down via a steel cable that is attached to a crank at the surface of the dam. This variable intake currently supplies the Whitman Fish Hatchery with approximately 30 cfs via the 24-inch pipeline. A second, deep water intake extends 1,500-feet into Whitman Lake via

49 a high-density polyethylene pipe and draws water from El. 285 msl, utilizing one of the 36-inch outlets. This deep water intake is capable of providing all the necessary flows to the Whitman Fish Hatchery. The 11-inch pipeline, which utilizes water drawn from the deep water intake, supplies the Whitman Fish Hatchery with cold water for incubation purposes (FERC, 2007). Water Rights A small concrete diversion structure on lower Whitman Creek, approximately 2,800-feet downstream of Whitman dam, diverts 0.15 cfs for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough (KGB). 13 This diversion is 100-feet downstream of KPU s stream gage. Currently, KGB has a water right for up to 100,000 gallons per day (0.15 cfs) from Whitman Creek for a domestic water supply that is used to serve area homes. However, Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) in its comments on the June 2007 EA, states that KGB has applied for an additional water right from this source in the amount of 400,000 gallons per day (0.62 cfs), which if approved would be a total water right of 500,000 gallons per day (0.77 cfs). Southern Southeast Aquaculture holds a water right for up to 39 cfs from Whitman Lake, used to provide the Whitman Fish Hatchery with water. However, during the meeting to clarify comments on the June 2007 EA, Southern Southeast Aquaculture stated that since 1983 they have not utilized more than 36 cfs from Whitman Lake (FERC, 2007). Water Quality Whitman Lake is an oligotrophic, dimictic lake with a maximum depth of 140-feet. Water temperatures within Whitman Lake were measured on July 18 to 20, Results indicate that Whitman Lake exhibits thermal stratification (table 4) ADNR, in their comments on the June 2007 EA, indicated that this water right for 0.15 cfs, which was previously held by the Herring Bay Water User s Association, has since been transferred to KGB. 14 The surface of Whitman Lake freezes in late December or early January, and rises in temperature to about 5 ºC by May 1, depending upon snowpack levels. Through the month of June, temperatures rise to about 13 ºC, with temperatures peaking in August between 14.5 to 16 ºC, before gradually cooling until freezing occurs

50 Table 4. Thermal stratification and water temperatures recorded within Whitman Lake. (Source: KPU, 2004b, as modified by staff) Depth From Surface Temperature (ºC) (Feet) Epilimnion 10 to Metalimnion 15 to Hypolimnion > Continuously recording water temperature loggers were deployed from July 2000 to January 2001, in Whitman Creek, and July 2000 to December 2000, in Achilles Creek, and measured average daily water temperatures at each location. In Whitman Creek the logger was placed directly below Whitman dam and recorded average daily water temperatures generally below 12ºC, with a peak temperature of 15.5 ºC in early August, and a low temperature of 2.5 ºC in January. In Achilles Creek the temperature logger was placed directly below the proposed diversion structure site and recorded average daily water temperatures below 12 ºC with a high temperature of 14 ºC occurring in early September. The low water temperature for Achilles Creek occurred in early November at a temperature of 0 ºC. In Whitman Lake, two water quality stations were set up to monitor ph, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity throughout the water column from July 18 to 20, The first station was located in the western quadrant of Whitman Lake about mid-way in a north-south orientation (WG-1), and the second was in the eastern quadrant of Whitman Lake closer to the dam (WG-2) (appendix A, figure 3). Results indicated that Whitman Lake ph ranged between 5.9 to 6.5, dissolved oxygen (DO) levels ranged between 10 to 12 parts per million (ppm), and conductivity ranged from to 0.02 ms/cm. Transparency was also measured with a Secchi disc at both sites and values ranged from 18.7-to 26-feet at WG-1 and 21- to 26-feet at WG-2. In Whitman and Achilles creeks ph was measured on October 11, 1999, and was reported to be 6.5 for both creeks. Measurements were taken again on September 28, 2000, in Achilles Creek and ph was reported to be 6.6. DO was measured in Achilles Creek on October 11, 1999, and September 28, 2000, and was reported to be 11.3 and 10.5 ppm, respectively. Water samples were taken on September 27 and 28, 2000, from lower Whitman Creek, 180-feet upstream of KPU s stream gage (2,700-feet below dam) with a stream flow of 2.1 cfs, and from Achilles Creek, 800-feet downstream of the proposed diversion structure with a stream flow of 4 cfs. Water samples were analyzed for the presence of inorganic chemicals and bacteria. The week prior to the first sample being taken there was no spill occurring at the dam, resulting in <1 cfs flow in lower Whitman Creek

51 between the dam and its confluence with Achilles Creek. The second sample taken the following day occurred after a light rain. Results from the water samples indicated no detectable amounts of principal inorganics, negligible amounts of cadmium, and actual fecal coliform (FC) levels of 57 and 12 for Whitman and Achilles creeks, respectively (table 5). The Alaska water quality standards for freshwater lakes and streams designated as aquaculture require that the geometric mean of FC should not exceed 200 FC/100 ml in a 30-day period, and that not more than 10 percent of the samples should exceed 400 FC/100 ml. 15 Table 5. Total coliform per 100 ml sample taken from Whitman and Achilles creeks. (Source: KPU, 2004b, as modified by staff) Actual Coliform Possible Coliform Other Bacteria Location Date Flow Whitman Creek, 180 feet above stream gage 9/27/ cfs Achilles Creek, 800 feet below proposed diversion site 9/28/ cfs b. Environmental Effects: Minimum Instream Flows for Lower Whitman and Achilles Creeks KPU proposes up to 20 cfs would be diverted from Achilles Creek and discharged into Whitman Lake via the proposed Achilles Creek diversion to provide additional water to meet the needs of generating hydropower, minimum instream flows, and hatchery flows. Therefore, operation of the proposed project could result in the dewatering of not only lower Whitman Creek, but also Achilles Creek below the proposed diversion. This has the potential to result in negative impacts to the aquatic communities within the dewatered reaches of both Whitman and Achilles creeks, as discussed in section V.C.3, 15 Water Quality Standards, 18 AAC 70, (last amended December 28, 2006)

52 Aquatic Resources. Project operation also has the potential to reduce the amount of water available to the Whitman Fish Hatchery, and for KGB s consumptive water use. KPU has proposed minimum instream flows for lower Whitman Creek ranging from 6 to 11 cfs, depending upon the time of year (table 6). In KPU s August 20, 2007, comment letter on the June 2007 EA and in the Settlement, it clarified their proposal that this instream flow regime presented in table 6 would occur only during normal hydrologic conditions. In KPU s October 26, 2007, letter in response to FERC s clarifying questions, KPU states that providing the minimum instream flows in table 6, during dry conditions, which they define as occurring January 1 to April 15, may prevent the Whitman Fish Hatchery from obtaining the amount of water needed for hatchery operations during this time of year. During low run runoff periods, KPU proposes that the project would be operated according to the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan, as identified in the Settlement. Table 6. Proposed minimum instream flow releases from Whitman dam for lower Whitman Creek during normal hydrological conditions. (Source: ADFG, 2006, as modified by staff) Period Flow (cfs) Rationale November 16 April 30 6 To protect Dolly Varden overwintering, incubation, and passage to overwintering habitat. May 1 September 15 8 To protect Dolly Varden for rearing and passage to feeding and rearing areas. September 16 November To protect Dolly Varden for spawning, incubation, and spawning passage The Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan provides for performance monitoring of the protocol during the first 5 years of project operation. Following the 5 years of monitoring, the protocol performance would be evaluated and may be revised based on monitoring results. Specifically, the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan defines three Reservoir Status Codes (RSC): Green, Yellow, and Red. Table 7 illustrates the frequency of RSC codes under proposed project operations. A RSC of Green would occur when reservoir levels are at or above El. 367 msl, indicating normal operating conditions. The instream flow releases prescribed for normal hydrologic conditions in table 6 would be made to lower Whitman Creek. A RSC of Yellow would occur when reservoir levels are below El. 367 msl, but greater than El. 363 msl. Because KPU proposes to cease operation of Unit 1 once reservoir levels drop below El. 370 msl, under RSC of Yellow, Unit 1 would be offline and an immediate notification advising that reservoir storage is at risk would be sent to the Reservoir Action Team and followed

53 by a meeting(s) with the team. 16 Again, under a RSC of Yellow, instream flow releases prescribed for normal hydrologic conditions would be made and reservoir operations would be maintained. However, in this situation, the Reservoir Action Team could decide to modify the minimum flows identified in table 6 as they deem necessary in order to preserve reservoir storage to protect hatchery operations. A RSC of Red would occur when reservoir levels are below El. 363 msl and siphon operation is being used to supply water to Unit 2 and the Whitman Hatchery. 17 Under a RSC of Red, Unit 1 would remain offline and instream flows would be reduced as necessary as determined by the Reservoir Action Team. However, if the Reservoir Action Team is unable to reach consensus on the instream flow reduction, the flows would be reduced to the flows specified in table 8, until reservoir elevation returns to El. 367 msl and normal project operations resume. Table 7. Frequency (percent of time) of daily water levels within RSC levels. (Source: KPU, 2008b) RSC Level Month Green Yellow Red WL > < WL < 367 WL < 363 January February March April May June July August September October November December Pursuant to the Settlement, the Reservoir Action Team would be composed of representatives from KPU, ADFG, ADNR, the Forest Service, and Southern Southeast Aquaculture. 17 When reservoir levels are below El. 363 msl, the deep water intake may act as a siphon. This occurs when the crown of the pipe is above the pressure line, which results in a vacuum or some negative pressure within the pipe

54 Table 8. Minimum instream flow releases for lower Whitman Creek when Whitman Lake levels are below El. 363 msl. (Source: KPU, 2008) Period Flow (cfs) November 16-April 30 2 May 1-September 15 4 September 16-November 15 7 KPU also proposes to release annual channel maintenance flows of 150 cfs for a continuous 24-hour period between June 1 and August 15 from Whitman dam, which is discussed in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources. The proposed minimum instream flows for normal hydrologic conditions (table 6) and channel maintenance flows for Whitman Creek are consistent with Alaska Department of Fish and Game s (ADFG) revised 10(j) recommendation no Also, consistent with ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6 and Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 20, KPU proposes to release a minimum instream flow of 1.5 cfs, or inflow, which ever is less, downstream of the proposed Achilles Creek diversion and to allow flows in excess of 20 cfs to overtop the diversion to flush sediments and maintain ecological functions in Achilles Creek. KPU proposes to install a remotely-operated 8-inch diameter throttling valve from Unit 2 penstock to provide the instream flow releases to Whitman Creek. This valve would be located approximately 700 feet downstream of Whitman dam. KPU proposes to make minimum instream flow releases at this location because they state the elevation of the release point must be lower than the minimum expected elevation of the reservoir to ensure sufficient pressure to physically discharge the required flow. ADFG recommends that both the Whitman Creek and Achilles Creek bypasses include adjustable valves. The Forest Service in 4(e) condition no. 20 requires that KPU maintain a priority stream flow device as part of the Achilles Creek diversion structure that would automatically release the 1.5 minimum instream flow through this device prior to diverting any flow into the diversion. 18 On April 23, 2008, ADFG revised its 10(j) recommendation no. 6 to be consistent with Articles A401 and A402 of the February 8, 2008, Settlement

55 Our Analysis The 900-foot reach of lower Whitman Creek immediately downstream of Whitman dam to its confluence with Achilles Creek typically becomes dewatered (<1 cfs) approximately 35 percent of the time, as indicated in table 2. This dewatering occurs when water diverted to the Whitman Fish Hatchery is greater than inflow to Whitman Lake, resulting in the water levels in the lake falling below the spillway crest. During these times, the only flow present in this reach of Whitman Creek results from leakage from the dam or accretion, and is typically less than 1 cfs. Alternatively, if inflow to Whitman Lake is greater than the flows being diverted to the hatchery, water levels in the lake will rise, and may result in spill flows over the spillway crest. KPU proposes to release the minimum instream flows described below to lower Whitman Creek at a location 700 feet downstream of Whitman dam from a valve on the Unit 2 penstock. KPU states that the design of the minimum instream flow release point must be at a lower elevation than the minimum expected elevation of the reservoir so as not to break the vacuum necessary for siphon system operations of the deep water intake at reservoir elevations of 363 msl or lower. As a result, under KPU s proposal, any minimum instream flow releases to Whitman Creek would only affect the reach downstream of this instream flow release point. As figure 5 in appendix A demonstrates, proposed minimum flows would minimize spill over Whitman dam, and on an average year no spill at Whitman dam would occur. Therefore, on an average year, it is likely the 700-foot-long reach of lower Whitman Creek immediately below the dam which currently goes dry approximately 35 percent of the time, would go dry nearly 100 percent of the time. However, according to table 7, minimum expected reservoir elevations of 363 msl or lower based on proposed project operations would occur infrequently, only once every seven years as demonstrated in table 7. As a result, rather than releasing minimum flows 700 feet below Whitman dam, minimum flows could be released directly from the dam the majority of the time without jeopardizing the siphon system. Consistent with ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6, KPU proposes to release minimum instream flows between 6 and 11 cfs to lower Whitman Creek depending upon the time of year, as indicated in table 6, during normal hydrologic conditions. Under KPU s proposal, these minimum flows would prevent the dewatering of a 200-foot reach of lower Whitman Creek immediately upstream of the confluence with Achilles Creek during normal runoff periods. However, in KPU s October 26, 2007, letter in response to FERC s clarifying questions, KPU states that providing the proposed minimum instream flows in table 6, during dry conditions, which they define as occurring January 1 to April 15, may prevent the Whitman Fish Hatchery from obtaining the amount of water needed for hatchery operations during this same period. KPU also

56 provided a figure in their October 26, 2007, letter that demonstrates the relationship between our recommended rule curve (El. 375 to 370 msl) in the June 2007 EA, and historic operation of the reservoir by Southern Southeast Aquaculture based on a 28-year period of record (see appendix A, figure 6). To ensure that the Whitman Fish Hatchery receives the flow necessary for operations during dry periods, KPU proposed the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan described in detail below. This plan included in the Settlement would monitor project operations for a period of five years after project start-up. Specifically, this plan would identify any necessary changes to project operations and minimum instream flows for lower Whitman Creek that would occur during dry conditions, when reservoir levels fall below El. 367 msl. This plan would ensure a protocol is in place and necessary stakeholders (the Reservoir Action Team) would be informed of dry conditions and included on discussing changes to project operations and minimum flows during these times. Operating the project such that Unit 1 would be shut down when reservoir levels are below El. 370 msl would ensure water is being drawn from Whitman Lake only to meet minimum instream flows in lower Whitman Creek and to supply the Whitman Fish Hatchery with water. Further, modifying the instream flows (RSC Red) as proposed by KPU, when reservoir levels drop below El. 363 msl, would reduce the rate in which the reservoir is drafted, conserving Whitman Lake water to allow for its use by the Whitman Fish Hatchery. These minimum instream flows of 2 to 7 cfs (see table 8) would provide less flow than under KPU s proposed minimum instream flows during normal conditions but would continue to ensure the reach downstream of the instream flow release point in lower Whitman Creek does not go dry. This alternative flow regime during dry conditions is consistent with ADFG s revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6, in which ADFG adopted the terms of the Settlement. KPU provided an annual flow duration curve for Whitman Creek below the confluence with Achilles Creek. This flow duration curve compares Whitman Creek stream flows under current conditions to stream flows under KPU s proposal for minimum flow releases made under normal hydrologic conditions (appendix A, figure 8). Figure 8 indicates that under KPU s proposal, instream flow releases during normal hydrologic conditions would result in greater flows compared to current conditions approximately 35 percent of the time. These increased flows would occur only during dry times of the year (winter) when instream flows may be less than 7.5 cfs in Whitman Creek, below the confluence with Achilles Creek. However, as also indicated in figure 8, during normal hydrologic conditions, instream flows would be reduced compared to current conditions in Whitman Creek below the confluence with Achilles Creek the majority (approximately 65 percent) of the time. This reduction would occur as a result of diverting 20 cfs from Achilles Creek to Whitman Lake, and diverting a maximum of 182 cfs from Whitman Lake for hatchery

57 and hydropower purposes. Under KPU s proposal, the minimum instream flows in this reach would not drop below 7.5 cfs throughout the course of the year provided hydrologic conditions are normal. This 7.5 cfs would result from the combination of a minimum instream flow releases of 1.5 and 6 cfs from Achilles and Whitman creeks, respectively. We discuss the effects associated with increased and decreased instream flows on aquatic organisms in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources. Under dry conditions, KPU proposes that the project would be operated based upon the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan provided in the Settlement, possibly resulting in a decrease in lower Whitman Creek proposed minimum instream flows (table 8). However, implementing the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan would be done to conserve storage in Whitman Lake to ensure an adequate supply of water to meet the Whitman Fish Hatchery s water needs. As discussed above, the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan could reduce the minimum instream flows from 6, 8 and 11 cfs, to 2, 4 and 7 cfs (table 8), depending upon the time of year or even lower if determined appropriate upon the consensus of the Reservoir Action Team. Based upon KPU s proposal, it is possible that during dry conditions, the Reservoir Action Team may decide to cease minimum instream flows to lower Whitman Creek to conserve water for the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Therefore, under such conditions, the only flows available to meet KGB s 0.77 cfs consumptive water needs in lower Whitman Creek would be originating from Achilles Creek, from leakage at Whitman dam, or accretion flows. As indicated in table 9, it is possible that during dry conditions, KGB may not receive their consumptive water needs because of inflows to Achilles Creek may be less than 0.77 cfs. Consistent with ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6 and the Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 20, KPU proposes to provide a 1.5 cfs minimum instream flow, or inflow, which ever is less, to Achilles Creek below the proposed diversion. Achilles Creek has a mean annual flow of 17 cfs. Table 9 demonstrates that flows above the proposed 1.5 cfs minimum flow would occur approximately 26 percent of the time. ADFG s recommendation for adjustable valves at both the Whitman Creek and Achilles Creek bypasses would allow for any necessary adjustments needed to release minimum instream flows or channel maintenance flows to both of these creeks. Also, the Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 20 that requires KPU to maintain a priority stream flow device as part of the Achilles Creek diversion would ensure the 1.5 minimum instream flow release would be made below the diversion prior to any flows being diverted to Whitman Lake

58 Table 9. Estimated flow exceedance (cfs) for stream flow in Achilles Creek downstream of the Achilles diversion pursuant to KPU s minimum flow proposal (Source: Staff, 2008). Percent Time Exceeded Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec <1 <1 < <1 1 <1 <1 We discuss the cost of developing and implementing measures related to minimum instream flows and channel maintenance flows in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We present our final recommendations pertaining to water resources measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Stream Flow Monitoring Compliance measures such as flow monitoring allow the Commission to ensure that a licensee complies with the environmental requirements of a license. Currently, flow measurements are made 2,700-feet downstream of Whitman dam at an existing gage operated by KPU. ADFG in their 10(j) recommendation no. 7 recommends that within 6 months of obtaining a license, KPU should consult with resource agencies on an instream monitoring and compliance plan for instream flow requirements. ADFG states this plan would address the installation and maintenance of a stream gage, or alternate measures to measure stream flow in the fish-bearing reaches of Whitman Creek. ADFG further recommends that the stream gage must meet USGS standards. Additionally, in their 4(e) condition no. 20, the Forest Service specifies that KPU should develop plans to install and monitor a water measurement control section with a continuous recording gage to demonstrate compliance with the required instream flows

59 and to confirm Best Management Practices (BMP s) are being met on Achilles Creek. The Forest Service specifies this plan should be developed after consultation with ADFG, the Forest Service, and USGS. Through the Settlement, KPU proposes to develop after consultation with ADFG, ADNR, Southern Southeast Aquaculture, and the Forest Service, and implement, an instream flow release and ramping rate monitoring plan. KPU s proposed plan would include the installation, maintenance, and data reporting schedule of three stream gages at the following locations: (1) the instream flow release point from Whitman Lake Unit 2 penstock; (2) the confluence of Achilles and Whitman creeks; and (3) upstream of any municipal water supply diversion on Whitman Creek. KPU proposes these gages would comply with USGS standards and record stage/flows at a frequency no greater than 15- minute intervals. This plan would also include: (1) a schedule for installing the gages; (2) the location, type, sampling frequency and cost of the gaging equipment; (3) a provision for providing stream flow data to ADFG within 30 days from their request; and (4) drawings of the gage. This proposal by KPU is consistent with ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 7 and is also consistent with ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6, which supports the Settlement s instream flow release and ramping rate plan. As part of the Settlement, but separate from the instream flow release and ramping rate monitoring plan, KPU also proposes to install and maintain a fourth continuous recording stream gage below the Achilles Creek diversion that would meet USGS standards and record at no greater than 15 minute intervals. This proposal by KPU is consistent with Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 20. Our Analysis KPU s proposal contained in the Settlement to develop and implement an instream flow release and ramping rate monitoring plan is consistent with ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 7 and Forest Service 4(e) no. 20. Implementing this plan would provide for a stream gage installation schedule, details of the equipment to be installed, and a provision for providing stream flow data to ADFG. Additionally, the locations of the three stream gages in lower Whitman Creek and one in Achilles Creek as indicated in the Settlement would provide for thorough monitoring of minimum instream flow releases and channel maintenance flows in both creeks. The four stream gages proposed by KPU via the Settlement may be excessive. One instream flow gage in Whitman Creek below KPU s minimum instream flow release point, 700 feet downstream of the dam, would be sufficient to determine compliance with instream flows released from the dam or the Unit 2 valve, ramping rates, and channel maintenance flows. Also, one stream gage below the Achilles Creek diversion would allow for sufficient monitoring of instream flows below the diversion. Stream gages in

60 Whitman and Achilles creeks would also document that an adequate supply of water is being made available for the KGB domestic water supply diversion. We discuss the cost of developing and implementing measures to monitor instream flows in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We present our final recommendations pertaining to water resources measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Whitman Lake Levels KPU proposes to allocate water from Whitman Lake to meet many objectives, including hatchery use, instream flows, domestic water needs, and power generation. Allocating water from Whitman Lake for hydropower generation increases the likelihood of over-drafting the lake and potentially negatively affecting other water users (i.e. Southern Southeast Aquaculture and KGB) and natural resources, especially during dry conditions. Because lake level fluctuations may affect aquatic fauna, we further discuss proposed lake levels on aquatic organisms in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources. While typical reservoir operations would occur between El and 367 msl, in the Settlement, KPU proposes to modify the deep water intakes to be able to drawdown Whitman Lake to an elevation of 343 msl during dry periods. KPU proposes to use the existing variable intake, which can operate down to El. 363 msl, if it can be operated reliably. Otherwise, KPU proposes to replace the variable intake with an intake that satisfies the temperature regulation requirements of the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Additionally, while the existing deep water intake may function with reservoir levels at or above El. 363 msl, the reservoir bottom profile may require the creation of a siphon condition in the pipeline when reservoir levels drop below this elevation. Siphon conditions occur when the crown of the pipe is above the pressure line, which results in a vacuum or negative pressure within the pipeline. Therefore, to allow for the drafting of Whitman Lake to El. 343 msl, KPU proposes to replace the existing deep water intake with an intake that can be operated in a siphon mode. Operating the deep water intake in siphon mode would allow the Whitman Fish Hatchery to continue to obtain the water necessary for their operations during dry periods and allow for the use of Whitman Lake s storage for hydroelectric power generation. During the October 10, 2007, meeting on the June 2007 EA, KPU clarified their proposal to use a remote monitoring device to monitor reservoir levels, the Whitman Fish Hatchery flow demands and stream flows. This information would be used to dictate operational changes to protect other water users such as KGB and Southern Southeast Aquaculture

61 ADFG recommends that an operating procedure be developed to address situations where refill of Whitman Lake is significantly below normal after the proposed project has operated at least one year. ADFG further recommends that discussion of project operations and needs of the hatchery, occur between interested agencies as soon as dry conditions become evident. To help ensure compliance with lake elevations, Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 4 specifies that KPU shall provide a record of daily lake levels for Whitman Lake, annually. As a result of the Settlement, KPU proposes that Unit 1 would only be operated when reservoir elevations are between El and 370 msl and that Unit 1 operations would be coordinated with Unit 2 so that reservoir levels are sufficient to provide continuous delivery of water to the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Also, while Unit 2 would operate at all times (except for scheduled and unscheduled outages), the water from Unit 2 would be delivered to the Whitman Fish Hatchery. KPU proposes that water for Unit 2 will be diverted from the variable and deep water intakes and operate between El. 370 and 343 msl to allow for mixing of the water to result in the desired temperatures to support hatchery operations as dictated by Southern Southeast Aquaculture. Lastly, as part of the Settlement, KPU also proposes to make reservoir level readings available at both the Whitman Lake powerhouse and the KPU control center, with reports available to ADFG, ADNR, the Forest Service and Southern Southeast Aquaculture. Our Analysis KPU proposes that Unit 1 would be operated within the range of El to 370 msl and Unit 2 would be operated at all times to supply water to the Whitman Fish Hatchery, down to the proposed minimum reservoir elevation of 343 msl. The use of Whitman Lake s water for hydroelectric power generation would result in lake level fluctuations that would be more frequent and in greater magnitude than current conditions (appendix A, figure 4). However, KPU s proposal to operate Unit 1 only when Whitman Lake levels were between El to 370 msl would ensure power was being generated at this powerhouse only when ample water is available, ensuring that when lake levels drop below El. 370 msl water from Whitman Lake would only be used to operate Unit 2, to meet the water requirement needs of the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Under KPU s proposal Whitman Lake levels could drop as much as 36.8 feet from the crest of the dam, and 21.8 feet lower than the current normal minimum regulated elevation of El msl. However, as indicated in appendix A, figure 5, based on the 28 year period of record, the lowest reservoir elevation that would occur under proposed project elevations is at El. 347 msl. Also, as indicated in table 7, reservoir elevations under proposed project operations would be below El. 363 msl infrequently, only once every seven years as demonstrated in table 7. We discuss the potential for KPU s

62 proposal for lower lake levels to impact aquatic organisms in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources. Implementing KPU s proposed Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan as defined by the Settlement would allow for the minimum flows to lower Whitman Creek to also be reduced, as determined by the Reservoir Action Team, to conserve water storage in Whitman Lake and to ensure adequate supplies remain available to meet the Whitman Fish Hatchery s water supply needs. Installing the reservoir level sensing device, as proposed by KPU, would aid in project operations and help operators to maintain target reservoir levels, which will protect minimum instream flows, hatchery flows, and help to optimize turbine efficiency. Installing a reservoir level sensing device and making reservoir level readings available at both the Whitman Lake powerhouse and the KPU control center would also allow for the recording of daily lake levels and reporting for the previous year to the Forest Service, as specified in Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 4, as well as support KPU s proposed five year review of the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan. We discuss the cost of developing and implementing measures to manage and monitor Whitman Lake levels, in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We present our final recommendations pertaining to water resources measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Timber Crib Dam As a result of proposed project operations, KPU states that Whitman Lake may be drawn to El. 343 msl to provide Southern Southeast Aquaculture with at least 39 cfs needed to operate the hatchery. As discussed above, submerged behind the Whitman Lake Dam is the New England Fish Company s timber crib dam that originally controlled the outflow of Whitman Lake starting in Because the crest of the timber crib dam is at El. 367 msl, it could act as a barrier and prevent KPU from drawing the necessary amount of water into the variable intake which can operate down to El. 363 msl.. Our Analysis As discussed during the October 10, 2007, meeting on the June 2007 EA, the timber crib dam was notched during the installation of the existing deepwater intake. This notch is approximately 6-feet-wide and extends to the bottom of the dam. Therefore, we do not anticipate any negative effects created by the presence of the timber crib dam on KPU s ability to draw water from the reservoir

63 Whitman Fish Hatchery s Water Supply Currently, water is provided to the Whitman Fish Hatchery from Whitman Lake via a 24- and 11-inch pipeline. Southern Southeast Aquaculture currently operates the Whitman Fish Hatchery using head pressure from the lake that is reduced to 60 psi for the raceways and 20 psi to the incubation head box where water travels through a packed column for gas reduction before entering the hatchery and incubators (Southern Southeast Aquaculture, 2007). As discussed above, KPU s proposal to operate the project would allocate water to meet many needs, which could put Whitman Fish Hatchery s water supply in jeopardy. Also, under KPU s proposed project operations, water would first flow through Unit 2, which could result in KPU providing the hatchery with a low-head pressure water supply, potentially negatively affecting hatchery operations. In their August 20, 2007, comment letter on the June 2007 EA, Southern Southeast Aquaculture states the current configuration needed to supply appropriate water pressure to the hatchery needs to be maintained. Southern Southeast Aquaculture further states that the proposed project would likely provide the hatchery with a low-head water supply, which would require a major refitting of the piping system, which is a cost they are unable to incur. Under KPU s proposal contained in the Settlement, the 36-inch-diameter pipeline would first serve Unit 2, which has a proposed hydraulic capacity of 32 cfs, before the water is routed to a proposed 30-foot-diameter by 20-foot-high head tank where the Whitman Fish Hatchery would withdraw its water flows necessary for hatchery operations. KPU states that the location of the head tank will be such that it will provide adequate water pressure to the Whitman Fish Hatchery upon discharge and that discharges from the head tank would be controlled by Southern Southeast Aquaculture. KPU also proposes to install a pressure reducing valve on the Unit 2 penstock allowing flows to bypass Unit 2 and be delivered directly to the head tank during outage periods for Unit 2. Our Analysis KPU s proposal to only operate Unit 1 between El and 370 msl and Unit 2 on a continuous year-round basis would ensure storage within Whitman Lake is conserved for providing minimum instream flows and for providing Southern Southeast Aquaculture with water needed for hatchery operations. Additionally, KPU s proposal to modify the existing deep water intake, allowing it to function in a siphon mode, would extend the useful range of the reservoir and its storage down to El. 343 msl. These provisions would ensure that the hatchery would receive water even during dry periods

64 Construction and operation of the project has the potential to prohibit Southern Southeast Aquaculture from obtaining the necessary water pressures needed to efficiently operate the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Constructing a head tank at the appropriate elevation, as proposed by KPU would ensure a constant and reliable pressure could be provided and that project operations would not have a negative affect on water pressure at the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Also, KPU s proposal to install a pressure reducing valve would enable the Whitman Fish Hatchery to obtain flows even if Unit 2 were tripped offline. Constructing this pressure reducing valve such that it has a capacity of equal to or greater than 32 cfs would allow for all potential Unit 2 flows to enter the proposed head tank as needed. We discuss the cost of developing and implementing measures pertaining to supplying the Whitman Fish Hatchery with their water needs in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We present our final recommendations pertaining to water resource measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Whitman Fish Hatchery Water Temperature KPU proposes to construct a new valve house immediately below Whitman dam that would control flow to Unit 2 and the 12-inch hatchery water supply pipeline. KPU proposes that Southern Southeast Aquaculture would have control over the valves to regulate temperature to the raceways (via Unit 2) and the 12-inch pipeline by mixing water drawn from the variable or deep water intakes. KPU proposes to work with Southern Southeast Aquaculture to develop a plan to provide Southern Southeast Aquaculture with the ability to determine the appropriate mix of withdrawals from Whitman Lake from the variable intake and the deep water intake to control the temperature of water delivered to the hatchery. Our Analysis Currently, Southern Southeast Aquaculture utilizes the valve system located in the valve house directly below Whitman dam to regulate temperatures from the variable and deep water intakes prior to being diverted to the hatchery. With KPU s proposal to construct a new valve house at the base of the dam, the temperature of the water delivered to the hatchery through Unit 2 or the 12-inch hatchery supply pipeline could continue to be regulated to meet the Whitman Fish Hatchery s needs. Also, KPU s proposal in the Settlement to work with Southern Southeast Aquaculture to develop a plan to determine how withdrawals from Whitman Lake would be provided to the Whitman Fish Hatchery, at the appropriate temperatures needed, would ensure project operations do not negatively affect the ability to regulate hatchery water temperatures

65 We discuss the cost of developing and implementing measures to provide the Whitman Fish Hatchery with appropriate water temperatures in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We present our final recommendations pertaining to water resources measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting KPU proposes to develop after consultation with ADFG, ADNR, the Forest Service, and the Southern Southeast Aquaculture Association, and implement, a Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting Plan. The Settlement states this plan would include providing information on a real-time basis to the extent practicable and a schedule for installing the reservoir elevation monitoring device, stream gages in Whitman and Achilles creeks (including Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 20), the valve house and head tank, and the system flow monitoring and recording devices indicated below. The plan would also include how information would be made available and identify the frequency of recording and reporting. Flow recording devices would be installed at: the Unit 1 penstock, Unit 2 penstock, Hatchery incubation line, and the primary hatchery supply line from the head tank. The data from these recoding devices will be displayed at various locations including the KPU powerhouse and the Whitman Fish Hatchery Control panels. Our Analysis The installation of the proposed recording devices would ensure flows to the Whitman Fish Hatchery and Units 1 and 2 could be monitored and interruptions as a result of any malfunctions could be quickly identified, promoting a timely response minimizing any negative effects to the Whitman Fish Hatchery or the project s operations. However, we question the need for a plan that would provide a schedule for the installation of various project related stream gages and devices, and identify the frequency with which data would be made available to stakeholders. Alternatively, it seems appropriate that the installation of the stream gages be completed before the project goes online and that data from the gages be recorded on 15-minute intervals and that KPU provide an annual operations report to stakeholders that capture these and other operational data. We discuss the cost of developing and implementing measures to provide system flow monitoring, recording, and reporting in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We present our final recommendations pertaining to water resources measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative

66 Water Quality Reducing flows in Achilles Creek, below the proposed diversion, and in lower Whitman Creek, would increase water travel time, and therefore potentially increase water temperature and decrease dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. To minimize these negative effects, KPU proposes to release minimum instream flows of 6 to 11 cfs (table 6) to Whitman Creek during normal hydrologic conditions and a year-round 1.5 cfs minimum instream flow to Achilles Creek, or inflow (which ever is less), to prevent dewatering and to maintain ecological functions. Additionally, KPU proposes to provide a 150 cfs channel maintenance flow for a 24-hour period between June 1 and August 5 below Whitman dam. KPU proposes that all minimum instream flow releases made to lower Whitman Creek would be made from a valve on the Unit 2 penstock, approximately 700 feet downstream of Whitman dam. KPU has also developed a Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan they propose to implement when hydraulic conditions are below normal. Under this plan, when reservoir levels drop below El. 363 msl, minimum instream flows may be reduced to 2, 4, or 7 cfs, depending upon the time of year to conserve water within Whitman Lake to ensure Southern Southeast Aquaculture can obtain the 39 cfs needed for hatchery operations (see table 8). Further reductions to these minimum flows could be implemented upon a concensus of the Reservoir Action Team. With the proposed construction and operation of the project, there is the potential for contamination of waterways from the introduction of hazardous materials such as petroleum products resulting from accidental spills, equipment leakage, etc., and from the use of pesticides to control terrestrial and/or aquatic vegetation, insects, and other organisms. Additionally, construction activities in the project area as discussed in section V.C.1, Geological Resources, and more frequent water level fluctuations in Whitman Lake (see Water Quantity section above) have the potential to increase short-term turbidity levels within Achilles and Whitman creeks, Whitman Lake, Herring Creek Cove, and George Inlet. As previously discussed in section V.C.1, Geological Resources, KPU proposes to develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, implement the Achilles Creek Diversion Operations and Maintenance Plan, the Whitman dam and Reservoir Operations and Maintenance Plan, and the Spoils Disposal Plan to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and subsequent turbidity in all construction areas. KPU proposes to develop and implement a Hazardous Substance Plan for construction activities associated with the project to prevent the contamination of local waterways. Also, consistent with ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 4, the Forest Service specifies in their 4(e) condition no. 6, that KPU develop a final fuel and hazardous substances spill plan. ADFG recommends in their 10(j) recommendation no. 5 that

67 condensate and leakage from turbines and other equipment in the powerhouse be treated to remove oil and other contaminants prior to being discharged. Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 12 further specifies that KPU obtain approval for use of pesticides on National Forest System (NFS) lands. ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 3 recommends that KPU consult and obtain approval from resource agencies prior to the start of any land disturbance or land clearing activities to develop a final plan to employ a qualified environmental compliance monitor (ECM). ADFG states the ECM would monitor project construction activities, ensure compliance with environmental measures, and ensure environmentally-related measures are effective. ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 2 recommends that daily water quality samples be taken in Whitman and Achilles creeks, upstream and downstream of all construction and discharge points from initial construction until there is no risk of turbid runoff from the site. ADFG further recommends that these samples be analyzed to ensure compliance with Alaska State Water Quality standards for turbidity (18 AAC Chapter 70). Our Analysis KPU does not propose to monitor water quality after the start of project operations and does not propose any measures to improve water quality besides releasing minimum instream flows to Whitman and Achilles creeks. During sampling in 2000, Whitman Lake, as well as Achilles and Whitman creeks, was determined to have relatively high water quality, with low temperatures, and high DO levels. Given the steep topography of Whitman and Achilles creeks, their densely forested canopies, the proposed minimum instream flow of 6 to 11 cfs in lower Whitman Creek during normal hydrologic conditions, and a year-round minimum instream flow of 1.5 cfs for Achilles Creek, water would continue to flow quickly downstream of the minimum instream flow release point in lower Whitman Creek and downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion. Therefore, it is unlikely that water quality would be degraded from current conditions and not experience conditions conducive to warming water temperatures in these stream reaches based on KPU s proposal. The provision in the Settlement for an alternate flow regime during dry conditions (see table 8) in lower Whitman Creek would prevent this reach downstream of the minimum instream flow release point from becoming dewatered. It is likely that these minimum instream flows during dry conditions may experience some temperature warming; however, the presence of these flows would be an improvement over current conditions in which the reach between Whitman dam and the confluence with Whitman Creek goes dry 35 percent of the time and would be a benefit to aquatic organisms within this reach of lower Whitman Creek

68 KPU proposes minimum instream flow releases would be made to lower Whitman Creek from the Unit 2 penstock, approximately 700 feet downstream of Whitman dam. As appendix A, figure 5 indicates, under proposed project operations, spill over Whitman dam would be minimized and on average, the reach between Whitman dam and the instream flow release point would be dry 100 percent of the time. Under current conditions, the reach of lower Whitman Creek between Whitman dam and Achilles Creek becomes dewatered 35 percent of the time, during dry times of year. Therefore, it is likely water quality would become degraded in this reach if minimum instream flow releases to lower Whitman Creek were made 700 feet downstream of Whitman dam because based on figure 5 in an average year no spill would occur at Whitman dam under proposed project operations and the only water in this reach would be a result of leakage from the dam (typically < 1 cfs) and accretion flows. It is likely that under these conditions, water temperatures would increase and dissolved oxygen levels would decrease as a result of less water being available in this 700-foot reach. A large portion of the Whitman Lake shoreline is comprised of bedrock with little amounts of fine materials being present. Therefore, even though lake level fluctuations may occur more frequently and in greater magnitude (potentially down to an elevation as low as 343 msl during dry conditions) with the proposed operation of the hydroelectric project, it is likely that some increase in turbidity within the lake may occur. However, this modest increase would likely only result when reservoir elevations are below the current normal low elevation of El msl and only during dry periods. However, as indicated in appendix A, figure 5, based on the 28 year period of record, the lowest reservoir elevation that would occur under proposed project elevations is at El. 347 msl. Also, as indicated in table 7, reservoir elevations under proposed project operations would be below El. 363 msl infrequently, only once every seven years as demonstrated in table 7. Therefore given that the Whitman Lake shoreline is comprised primarily of bedrock and that any substantial increase in the lake s shoreline area would likely only occur on a ten year cycle and would be limited to dry periods with below normal precipitation, an increase in the turbidity of Whitman Lake as a result of project operations would be minimal and only for a short periods. As discussed in section V.C. 1, Geological Resources, we conclude that KPU s proposal to develop and implement the ESCP, implement the Achilles Creek Diversion Operations and Maintenance Plan, the Whitman dam and Reservoir Operations and Maintenance Plan, and the Spoils Disposal Plan would be effective in minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and therefore also minimize any increase in turbidity in waterbodies located within the project area. Analyzing daily water quality samples for turbidity from Whitman and Achilles creeks, as recommended in ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 2, upstream and

69 downstream of all construction and discharge points, from initial construction until there is no risk of turbid runoff from the site, would help to determine if construction activities were contributing to turbidity. This monitoring would enable problem areas to be quickly identified and appropriate measures to be taken to ensure corrective measures are taken. The development and implementation of a Hazardous Substances Plan as proposed by KPU, required by the Forest Service in their 4(e) condition no. 6, and recommended by ADFG in their 10(j) recommendation no. 4, would serve as a reference for procedures to be followed in the event of a hazardous materials spill, potentially minimizing impacts associated with a spill. ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 5 to remove oil and other contaminants from condensate and leakage from turbines and other equipment in the powerhouse would likely prevent the introduction of pollutants into Herring Cove, George Inlet, and the Pacific Ocean. Also, Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 12 that specifies KPU obtain approval for the use of pesticides on NFS lands would assist in preventing the unauthorized use of potentially hazardous pesticides in the project areas which could potentially degrade water quality. Overall, the combination of minimum instream flow releases to Whitman and Achilles creeks, monitoring for turbidity in construction areas, implementing the measures pertaining to erosion and sediment prevention and control, described in section V.C. 1, Geological Resources, developing and implementing a Hazardous Substances Plan, removing contaminates from condensate and leakage, and obtaining approval on the use of pesticides on NFS lands, would be effective in minimizing any impacts to water quality in the project area. Given the remote nature of the proposed project, if these environmental measures were to be implemented, ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 3 for KPU to develop a plan to provide an ECM would help ensure compliance with these measures, and that the measures are effective. We discuss the cost of developing and implementing measures pertaining to water quality monitoring in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We present our final recommendations pertaining to water resource measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Agency Consultation ADFG recommends in its 10(j) recommendation no. 11 that KPU consult with the relevant resource agencies regarding the need for an annual project review meeting. The purpose of the annual meeting would be to review fish and wildlife related issues and to ensure compliance with license stipulations, as well as to coordinate on any problematic issues. In its 4(e) condition no. 4, the Forest Service specifies annual consultation with regard to measures needed to ensure the protection and utilization of the NFS lands and resources affected by the project. Under this condition, the applicant would be required

70 to file with the Commission evidence of the consultation and any recommendations made by the Forest Service. The Forest Service reserves the right to revise their conditions that require measures necessary to accomplish protection and utilization of NFS lands and resources. Our Analysis Annual consultation would provide a means for coordinating water resource issues at the project. In the case that ADFG, the Forest Service, or other agencies request consultation, a summary of the consultation and any recommendations, filed with the Commission, would ensure that the information is made available on the public record. We discuss the costs of annual agency consultation in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We make our final recommendation pertaining to water resource measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. c. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: No unavoidable adverse effects have been identified. 3. Aquatic Resources a. Affected Environment: Fisheries surveys were conducted by Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) in Whitman Lake, Whitman Creek, Achilles Creek, and Herring Cove Creek between July and August Table 10 lists the fish species collected by KPU during these surveys. The following section provides additional information on the distribution and abundance of key species

71 Table 10. Fish species collected during fish population surveys in Whitman Lake, Whitman Creek, Achilles Creek, and Herring Cove Creek. (Source: KPU, 2004b, as modified by staff) Location Herring Cove Creek u/s of Falls Sub-total Herring Cove Creek d/s of Falls a Percentage of Stream Subtotal Total Percentage of Sub-total Achilles Creek u/s of Falls Sub-total Whitman- Achilles Creek d/s of Falls Sub-total Whitman Creek d/s of Dam Sub-total Whitman Lake Number Species Captured Brook Trout 64 Dolly Varden Coho salmon Cottus spp. Cutthroat trout No Fish Captured 0 Dolly Varden Dolly Varden 141 Dolly Varden Rainbow trout b Sub-total 422 Total 866 a Although not captured during sampling, Herring Cove Creek is also known to support chum and pink salmon. b It is unknown whether there is a viable population of rainbow trout in Whitman Lake or whether this individual is the result of an unknown previous stocking event

72 Coho salmon. Coho salmon are an adaptable species of anadromous fish found throughout coastal waters of Alaska, and are raised at the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Adult migration and spawning for coho salmon typically occurs from July to November, hatching occurs in early spring, and fry emerge from the gravel typically in May or June. Coho salmon then migrate to sea after spending one to three winters in freshwater. Usually, coho salmon spend up to 18 months at sea before returning to their natal streams to spawn (ADFG, 2006). Chinook salmon. In North American, chinook salmon are found from the Monterey Bay area of California to the Chukchi Sea area of Alaska, and are raised at the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Typically, the adult spawning migration for chinook salmon occurs from May to July, eggs hatch in late winter and early spring, and rearing occurs from May to June. After spending one year in their natal streams, chinook salmon migrate to sea during the spring. Chinook then reach sexually maturity anywhere from their second to seventh year, resulting in a wide range of ages for returning, spawning adults (ADFG, 2006). Dolly Varden. Dolly Varden, which are abundant in all Alaskan coastal waters, are present in Whitman Lake, Whitman Creek, and Herring Cove Creek. Dolly Varden can have resident or anadromous life cycles. Spawning typically occurs from mid-august to November, with hatching occurring 4 to 5 months after fertilization. Fry will then emerge from the gravel in April or May. Dolly Varden fry typically rear in streams before migrating to sea at 3 to 6 years of age. Adults typically migrate to sea in May or June, but small numbers have been noted to migrate in September or October (ADFG, 2006). Whitman Lake and Tributaries Whitman Lake has eight small tributaries that are absent of fish. These eight tributaries are either ephemeral or have vertical confluences with the lake, which likely prevent fish inhabitance. However, Whitman Lake, as well as its only major tributary, Deer Creek, both support populations of Dolly Varden. Sampling of Whitman Lake occurred between July 18 and 20, A total of 407 Dolly Varden were captured from Whitman Lake, while 14 were captured from Deer Creek (see appendix A, figure 3 for sampling locations). Average lengths of Dolly Varden captured in Whitman Lake and Deer Creek ranged from 79.5 to 211 mm, and average weights ranged from 14.1 to 18.4 g. One rainbow trout, 322 mm in length, was also captured by KPU via angling from Whitman Lake. Brook trout have also been reported to occur within Whitman Lake, but no brook trout were captured during fish surveys (Hoffman, 1996)

73 Both the northern and southern shorelines of Whitman Lake are steep-sided and intercept bedrock outcroppings. The shallowest gradient areas occur in the northwestern (Deer Creek delta) and eastern quadrants of the lake (near Whitman dam). From the mouth of Deer Creek, extending approximately 365 feet into Whitman Lake, the Deer Creek delta has a gradually sloping grade, as demonstrated in appendix A, figure 7. With lake levels at El. 374 msl, KPU did not observe any barriers to fish passage at the mouth of Deer Creek. Under current conditions, as lake levels drop from El msl (maximum pool level) to 365 msl (minimum pool level), 15 acres of littoral habitat become exposed. Lower Whitman Creek On August 4 and 5, 2000, KPU conducted fisheries sampling in lower Whitman Creek at seven different locations below Whitman dam (see appendix A, figure 3 for sampling locations). A total of 143 Dolly Varden, ranging in average lengths from to mm, were captured. A habitat survey for lower Whitman Creek was conducted from Whitman dam to its confluence with saltwater in August Lower Whitman Creek is located in a steep bedrock canyon, with substrate consisting of bedrock, boulders, and large cobble. Overall, Whitman Creek contains approximately 60 percent cascade and 34 percent riffle. Cascade habitat was found to be more prevalent in Whitman Creek above its confluence with Achilles Creek, comprising 79 percent of all habitat in this reach. Cascade habitat in Whitman Creek is also typically associated with plunge pools, which are located immediately downstream of most cascade areas. Approximately 200-feet upstream from the mouth of Whitman Creek at George Inlet, there is a steep cascade, including a vertical fall approximately 6-to 8-feet-high, with a horizontal chute at its lower end. This is a complete barrier to the upstream migration of anadromous fish from George Inlet into Whitman Creek. In addition, there are four other 5 to 10-foot-high falls in Whitman Creek that prohibit upstream movement of Dolly Varden. To determine the effects of different flow releases on the amount of habitat available for fish and macroinvertebrates, KPU utilized the wetted perimeter method (Annear and Conder, 1984). The wetted perimeter method uses a hydraulic relationship between discharge and the wetted area of the streambed as an index of area available for macroinvertebrate production and, to a lesser extent, for fish, in riffles. As discharge increases, the wetted cross section of the channel increases. Although results vary depending on the shape of the channel cross-section, the wetted perimeter typically increases rapidly with increasing discharge, until water covers the entire channel bottom. The wetted perimeter then increases more slowly with discharge after the channel bottom

74 is inundated. An inflection point occurs in the plot of wetted perimeter versus flow when there is an abrupt change of wetted perimeter with small changes in flow. Usually, there are one to two inflection points in a wetted perimeter versus discharge curve. Flow recommendations are often based on the single inflection point, or on a flow between two inflection points (if present). When the wetted perimeter method is used, it is assumed that the protection of riffles ensures that the spawning and rearing habitat required by fish would also be protected. A wetted perimeter analysis also provides information about the depth of flow across the channel and the proportion of the stream cross section achieving a particular depth at a given flow (to help assess fish passage over shallow riffles). The wetted perimeter analysis conducted by KPU in August 2000 and July 2001, used three transects in Whitman Creek that were representative of areas containing the necessary requirements for rearing, spawning, and food production for Dolly Varden. KPU determined that the reach of Whitman Creek between the confluence of Achilles Creek and the KGB diversion was the area most favorable to Dolly Varden reproduction in lower Whitman Creek. All three transects for this wetted perimeter analysis were located in this reach, while areas upstream and downstream of this reach were steep, contained many cascades, and therefore considered unfavorable for Dolly Varden reproduction under any flow. Results from the wetted perimeter analysis in Whitman Creek indicated that there was little change in wetted perimeter from flows extending from 50 cfs down to approximately 10 cfs for the three transects combined (appendix A, figure 9). For Transect 1, there was a slight inflection point at approximately 24 cfs, and a more noticeable inflection point at approximately 2.5 to 3 cfs. For Transect 2, a slight inflection point occurred at 10 cfs with wetted perimeter decreasing approximately 3-feet as flows dropped from 10 to 0 cfs. And for Transect 3, there was an inflection point at 9 cfs, and wetted perimeter decreased by 6-feet as flows decreased from 9 cfs to approximately 6.5 cfs. There was also another inflection point for Transect 3 at 5 cfs, with flows decreasing 3- to 4-feet as flows are reduced from 5 to 3 cfs. Because water for the Whitman Fish Hatchery is diverted from Whitman Lake, coho and chinook salmon returning to the hatchery are often falsely attracted to the mouth of Whitman Creek. Anadromous fish will gather near the mouth of lower Whitman Creek. However, with the barrier at the mouth of Whitman Creek, further upstream migration is prevented. This has created a popular recreational fishery for coho and chinook salmon (see section V.C.6, Recreational Resources). Achilles Creek Fisheries surveys conducted by KPU on August 4 and 5, 2000, reported that no fish inhabit Achilles Creek. A 30- to 40-foot-high falls extends for 180-feet at the mouth

75 of Achilles Creek. This serves as a barrier for fish migration from Whitman Creek into Achilles Creek. To determine the effects of flow on the available habitat for macroinvertebrates in Achilles Creek, KPU conducted a wetted perimeter analysis of Achilles Creek in August 2000 and July 2001, and used three transects that were representative of Achilles Creek. All three transects were located between the proposed diversion site, and the falls near the mouth of Achilles Creek. The third transect in this study was not able to be relocated in July Therefore, KPU relied only on data collected from the August 2000 survey for this third transect. As demonstrated in appendix A, figure 10 for Transect 1, there was a gradual reduction in wetted perimeter over a range of flows from 30 cfs down to approximately 6 cfs, where an inflection point occurs. With a 1 cfs reduction in flows, wetted perimeter then decreases by about 3-feet down to 5 cfs, at which point wetted perimeter decreases slightly down to a third inflection point at approximately 1.5 cfs. For Transects 2 and 3, there was little change in wetted perimeter from flows deceasing from 50 cfs to 3 cfs. At 3 cfs a slight inflection point occurs for both transects. At approximately 1 to 1.5 cfs, another inflection point occurs for both Transects 2 and 3. Herring Cove Creek A barrier, 800-feet upstream from the mouth of Herring Cove Creek, prevents any further upstream migration of anadromous species. KPU conducted fisheries sampling in Herring Cove Creek from August 4 to 5, 2000, at four locations below the barrier, and one site above the barrier (see appendix A, figure 3 for sampling locations). Fisheries sampling by KPU in the lower section of Herring Cove Creek captured sculpin, and three species of anadromous fish, including coho salmon, Dolly Varden, and sea-run cutthroat trout. The two most upstream sites (HC-3 and HC-4) in the lower section of Herring Cove Creek captured the most coho salmon (43 fish total), ranging in size from 49 to 132 mm. A single cutthroat trout, 107 mm in length, was captured at the most downstream site (HC-1). A total of 28 Dolly Varden, ranging in size from 72 to 262 mm, were also captured in the lower section of Herring Cove Creek (HC-1-4). A total of 64 brook trout, ranging in size from 82 to 157 mm, were captured in the upper section of Herring Cove Creek (HC-5). Whitman Fish Hatchery The Whitman Fish Hatchery, owned and operated by the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (Southern Southeast Aquaculture), is located on the northern shore of Herring Cove. Southern Southeast Aquaculture came into existence through fishermen in the 1970 s who taxed themselves 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of

76 their harvest to fund salmon enhancement activities through the formation of a regional aquaculture association, which to date has totaled approximately $34 million dollars. The Whitman Fish Hatchery functions as a central incubation facility supporting programs at Neets Bay Hatchery located northeast of Ketchikan and the Crystal Lake Hatchery in Petersburg. Southern Southeast Aquaculture also has several contracts with ADFG to produce Chinook salmon for relatively urban areas in Alaska. In their comments on the June 2007 EA, Southern Southeast Aquaculture states the impact of the hatchery is substantial not only to Ketchikan, but also the communities of Petersburg, Wrangell and Prince of Wales Island. In their August 20, 2007, comment letter on the June 2007 EA, Southern Southeast Aquaculture provided additional information on the Whitman Fish Hatchery operations and the value of fish production. Southern Southeast Aquaculture states approximately 750,000 king and 300,000 coho salmon are incubated, reared and released at the Whitman Fish Hatchery; 300,000 king and 2,000,000 coho salmon that are incubated and reared for approximately a year and a half at the site and then released elsewhere; and 30,000,000 summer chum salmon that are incubated at the site and are transported to a remote release site (Kendrick Bay, Anita Bay or Nakat Inlet) after fry emergence. Southern Southeast Aquaculture further states that adult returns to the Whitman Fish Hatchery that are in excess to brood stock are harvested and make up a portion of Southern Southeast Aquaculture s cost recovery, providing as much as $100,000 annually. It is estimated that Southern Southeast Aquaculture fish production is worth $3 million dollars a year to the Ketchikan economy. The estimated common property value of Whitman Lake-produced Chinook salmon harvested by commercial fisheries was estimated at $799,000 in Using an estimated value of $900 per Chinook salmon, Whitman Lake-produced sport-caught chinook are worth an estimated $2 million dollars per year. For coho salmon, the average commercial common property harvest of Whitman Lake-produced coho over the past five years has been about 130,000 fish, worth approximately $1,800,000 a year to commercial fisherman. In the Ketchikan area alone, it is estimated that 12,000 Whitman Lake-produced coho are caught a year via sportfishing, with a value of approximately $1 million dollars. For chum salmon it is estimated that the annual commercial harvest of Whitman Lake-produced coho is approximately $4,200,000 dollars a year to commercial fisherman. Although not listed as a sport species, Whitman Lake-produced chum salmon support the sport charter fleet in Ketchikan during July and August and provide an additional benefit to the sport-fishing community (Southern Southeast Aquaculture, 2007). Returning adult fish are allowed access to the hatchery from a fishway that enters Herring Cove Creek at the eastern end of the hatchery. Adult anadromous fish returning from sea must first pass by 11, 12-inch-diameter hatchery water effluent pipes before

77 reaching the fishway entrance. Each pipe has an outflow of approximately 1.2 cfs and discharges above the annual maximum high tide elevation. These discharges create an area of false attraction for returning anadromous fish. The hatchery s fishway is provided with approximately 17 cfs that is collected from the 6 most easterly raceways into a single pipe to provide attraction flows for fish. This flow creates a velocity of about 6 to 8 feetper-second (fps) over a one-foot-width through the fishway. The Whitman Fish Hatchery obtains its water from Whitman Lake and uses these flows in the rearing of salmonids at the hatchery. Whitman dam contains two 36-inch outlets at El. 348 msl and one 42-inch outlet at El. 354 msl. Currently, one of the 36-inch outlets is not used, with the remaining 36-inch outlet and the 42-inch outlet used to divert approximately 30 cfs via two pipelines to the Whitman Fish Hatchery. The first intake is a variable intake which can take water from Whitman Lake at El. 370 to 360 msl and can operate down to approximately El. 363 msl. This variable intake is used to manipulate water temperatures at the hatchery by drawing warmer water from near the surface of Whitman Lake. The 42-inch intake is screened with a steel plate containing 1.5 to 2-inch diameter perforations and was cleaned once, in 1997 or 1998, with little debris accumulation observed. Water is drawn into the 36-inch intake through a 1,500-foot-long high-density polyethylene pipe upstream of Whitman dam. The intake is located 120-feet below (El. 285 msl) the normal maximum lake level and is comprised of a 5-foot-diameter by 5-footlong cylinder that is screened with 3/16 by 1-inch slots. This intake can is used to supply the Whitman Fish Hatchery with cold water for incubation purposes (FERC, 2007). This intake was cleaned once in the mid-1990 s, with no debris accumulation observed. Currently, both the 36-inch and 42-inch intakes can operate properly until Whitman Lake elevations drop to approximately El. 358 msl (KPU, 2004b). b. Environmental Effects: Fish Entrainment and Impingement Entrainment and impingement of fish at hydroelectric dam intakes can injure or kill fish. Currently, Southern Southeast Aquaculture reports that approximately 25 to 30 Dolly Varden, ranging in size from 3 to 9 inches, are entrained annually while supplying water to the Whitman Fish Hatchery The existing variable and deep water intakes are used to supply water to the Whitman Fish Hatchery

78 KPU proposes to use the deep water intake and the existing variable intake, if possible, to supply water to Unit 2 and the Whitman Fish Hatchery. KPU also proposes to install a new intake on the currently unused 36-inch outlet, to supply Unit 1 with water. KPU does not propose to screen the deep water intake, or the variable intake, if it remains in an adequate operating condition. However, KPU does propose that if the existing variable intake needs to be replaced, it would be replaced with a suitable variable intake that meets temperature regulation requirements and is complete with a single new Hendricks drum screen, sized to meet juvenile fish screening criteria as specified by NMFS (1995). KPU also proposes to screen the new Unit 1 intake with a Hendricks dual-drum screen, sized to meet NMFS (1995) juvenile fish screening criteria. KPU proposes that any screens installed on the new intake, and possibly the variable intake, would include an approach velocity of 0.8 fps, and screen openings of 0.25-inches-diameter, with screening material providing a minimum of 40 percent open area as described by Bates and Nordlund (2001). This proposal by KPU is consistent with ADFG 10(j) recommendation no However, ADFG also recommends that the intake screening be: (1) located offshore to minimize fish contact with the facility; (2) have an automatically operated cleaning system to prevent clogging; and (3) if fry (< 60 mm) are documented in the intake area, the fish screen should have an approach velocity of 0.4 fps, with 3/32-inch mesh holes and 1.75 mm profile bar material. Our Analysis Entrainment associated with drawing water into the turbines has the potential to cause fish mortality at hydropower projects. Within Whitman Lake, Dolly Varden, particularly fry and juveniles of this species with slower swimming speeds, may not be able to avoid turbine intakes, resulting in entrainment or impingement related mortality. However, installing a fish screen on the new intake, based on NMFS criteria (1995) for juveniles, as proposed by KPU and recommended by ADFG in their 10(j) recommendation no. 10, would help to prevent any project related entrainment and impingement mortality. During fisheries surveys conducted in July and August 2000, when Dolly Varden fry would be expected to be encountered, only one Dolly Varden fry (59 mm) was 20 ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 10 references the proposed project s diversion intake. We assume ADFG is referencing the new intake for Unit 1; however, we note as part of the Settlement KPU is also proposing to also replace the variable intake if its condition warrants

79 captured in Whitman Lake near the mouth of Tributary 8 (see appendix A, figure 3), and two were captured in Deer Creek (26 and 31 mm). Dolly Varden typically spawn in tributaries with fry rearing in the tributaries in which they hatch. Given the life history of Dolly Varden, it is unlikely many fry inhabit Whitman Lake itself. Additionally, Deer Creek, the only significant tributary to Whitman Lake, is located in the northwest quadrant of the lake, opposite Whitman dam and the intakes, which are located in the far eastern quadrant of the lake. Dolly Varden fry are therefore more likely to rear within Deer Creek or near its mouth, and are unlikely to migrate into the lake, which contains steep shorelines and poor habitat. Additionally, no young-of-the-year Dolly Varden (smaller than 75 mm) have been observed among fish entrained at the Whitman Fish Hatchery. As such, it is likely rare that Dolly Varden fry are found in the vicinity of the project s intakes. Under KPU s proposal a maximum of 182 cfs would be drawn from Whitman Lake for hatchery and hydropower operations. Currently, approximately 30 cfs is drawn through the variable and deep water intakes, and result in approximately 25 to 30 Dolly Varden (3- to 9-inches in length) becoming entrained each year at the Whitman Fish Hatchery. KPU s proposal would result in up to an additional 152 cfs being diverted from Whitman Lake, with 150 cfs being diverted through the new Unit 1 intake. With such a substantial increase in water quantity proposing to be diverted from Whitman Lake, there is an increased possibility for entrainment, impingement, and clogging of the new Unit 1 intake. Because the depth of the deep water intake, 95-feet below the crest of Whitman dam (El msl), it is unlikely that Dolly Varden would be subjected to entrainment or impingement at this location as productivity levels at these depths are likely minimal and as a result, unlikely inhabited by Dolly Varden. However, as discussed in section V.C.2, Water Resources, the new intake and the variable intake draws water from much closer to the surface of the reservoir, and may have the potential to entrain adult and juvenile Dolly Varden that reside there. However, it is unclear if any increase in flows drawn from Whitman Lake and a subsequent increase in entrainment would have any adverse effects on the Dolly Varden populations in Whitman Lake. It is unlikely that screening the variable intake to meet juvenile fish criteria would be necessary, as is currently proposed by KPU. Similar quantities of water would be drawn through the variable intake as compared to current conditions. Currently, with approximately 30 Dolly Varden a year becoming entrained at Whitman dam, screening the variable dam to meet juvenile fish criteria as proposed, would result in little overall benefit to fish populations within Whitman Lake. KPU s proposal is consistent with ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 10, to install a fish screen on the intake based on NMFS criteria for juvenile salmonids, with an approach velocity of 0.8 fps, and screen openings of 0.25-inches. This would minimize any juvenile and adult entrainment and impingement resulting from project

80 operations. However, if fry are present and are documented in the intake area ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 10 further recommends the installation of a fish screen with an approach velocity of 0.4 fps that includes 3/32-inch mesh holes and 1.75 mm profile bar material and for the intake to be located offshore to minimize fish contact with the facility. We conclude these measures would not likely be necessary to preclude entrainment or impingement of fry because fry have not been documented near the intake area and the life history of Dolly Varden suggest fry prefer stream habitat over lake habitat. ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 10 to have an automatically operated cleaning system on the fish screen to prevent clogging, would likely not be necessary given the two current intakes have only been cleaned once in their existence and at that time, little debris accumulation was observed. However, as discussed above, a greater volume of water will be drawn through the intakes than has historically been drafted from Whitman Lake in the past, likely resulting in a greater rate of debris accumulation. Further, with the inclusion of a fish screen on the new intake it is likely that these screen will require cleaning on a more frequent basis. We discuss the cost of developing and implementing measures to minimize fish entrainment and impingement in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We present our final recommendations pertaining to fisheries and aquatic resource measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Lower Whitman Creek and Achilles Creek Instream and Channel Maintenance Flows Operating a hydroelectric project could result in the dewatering of bypassed reaches. Currently, no minimum instream flow releases are made from Whitman dam into lower Whitman Creek, resulting in dewatering of the bypassed reach of Whitman Creek from Whitman dam to its confluence with Achilles Creek approximately (<1 cfs) 35 percent of the time, as observed in table 2. Dewatering alters the natural flow regime of Whitman Creek and decreases the quantity and quality of aquatic habitat for Dolly Varden and other aquatic organisms. As discussed in section V.C.1, Geological Resources, proposed construction activities could also increase sedimentation, and altering the natural flows of a system could affect the natural sediment transport characteristics of a watershed. Altering the natural sediment transport characteristics of a watershed by eliminating or reducing the magnitude of flushing flows may result in sediment buildup. Excessive buildup of sediments can then adversely affect macroinvertebrate populations and decrease spawning and rearing habitat for resident fish species, which need clean gravel substrates for spawning

81 In agreement with ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6, KPU proposes to release minimum instream flows into lower Whitman Creek of 6 cfs from November 16 to April 30, 8 cfs from May 1 to September 15, and 11 cfs from September 16 to November 15 during normal hydrologic conditions. 21 KPU proposes these minimum instream flows in Whitman Creek to provide Dolly Varden with adequate spawning and rearing habitat as well as year-round passage. However, during dry conditions KPU states that the project would not be able to meet their proposed minimum flows, the flow requirements of the Whitman Fish Hatchery, and the domestic water supply needs, as shown in appendix A, figure 6. As such, KPU proposes to implement the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan, identified in the Settlement and discussed above in section V. C. 2, Water Resources. Also, KPU proposes that all minimum instream flow releases to lower Whitman Creek would be made from the Unit 2 penstock, 700 feet downstream of Whitman dam. ADFG recommends in their 10(j) recommendation nos. 6 and 8, that KPU implement a ramping rate of 1 inch per hour from March 1 to May 31, and 2 inches per hour from June 1 to February 28/29 for lower Whitman Creek. ADFG states a 1 inch per hour ramping rate from March 1 to May 31 would protect emergent Dolly Varden Fry, and a 2 inch per hour ramping rate the remainder of the year would protect spawning and rearing Dolly Varden. In agreement with ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6, KPU proposes to release a channel maintenance flow of 150 cfs for a continuous 24 hour period between June 1 and August 15. Consistent with KPU s proposal, ADFG further recommends in their revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6, that KPU implement ramping rates for channel maintenance flows of no greater than 2 inches per hour. Further in agreement with ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6, KPU proposes to release a year-round minimum instream flow of 1.5 cfs below the proposed diversion structure on Achilles Creek, and states that flows in excess of 20 cfs would be allowed to overtop this diversion to provide channel maintenance flows. No ramping rates are proposed by KPU for Achilles Creek. As discussed in section V.C.1, Geological Resources, KPU proposes to implement the Achilles Creek Diversion Operations and Maintenance Plan filed on November 11, This plan is consistent with the requirements of Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 21 On April 23, 2008, ADFG revised its 10(j) recommendation no. 6 to be consistent with Articles A401 and A402 of the February 8, 2008, Settlement

82 15. This plan specifies that sediment collected behind the proposed diversion structure would be sluiced through a gate located at the base of the diversion. KPU states that sluicing sediments would occur by opening the proposed sluice gate during high flow events to flush any trapped sediment and move it downstream with other sediments mobilized during high flow. Also, inspections of the Achilles Creek diversion would occur every three months, on or around, January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. KPU also proposes to make additional inspections during high precipitation events, or when the diversion is not operating properly. These inspections would include monitoring for any abnormalities to the diversion, and removing any debris on the trashrack, logboom, and spillway. As discussed in section V.C.2, Water Resources, KPU proposes to implement the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan included with the Settlement. Implementation of this plan would allow for a reduction in the minimum instream flow releases when reservoir levels were below El. 363 msl. Specifically, the minimum instream flows could be reduced to a range from 2 to 7 cfs, depending upon the time of year, as shown in table 8, or lower upon approval of the Reservoir Action Team. This alternative minimum instream flow regime is consistent with ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6. Our Analysis The timing and magnitude of flows in lower Whitman Creek have been altered from natural conditions. The minimum instream flow releases proposed by KPU for normal hydrologic conditions, and recommended by ADFG in their revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6, would be released 700 feet downstream of the dam and would provide year-round flows to lower Whitman Creek, below the minimum instream flow release point from the Unit 2 penstock. These minimum instream flows for lower Whitman Creek would re-water the 200-foot reach immediately above the confluence with Achilles Creek that has been consistently dewatered 35 percent of the time under current conditions. These dewatered periods of Whitman Creek occur when flows are less than 1 cfs, as illustrated in table 2. The proposed minimum instream flows for lower Whitman Creek would increase habitat for Dolly Varden by making available an additional 200-feet of habitat downstream immediately upstream of the Achilles Creek confluence, compared to current conditions. Additionally, these flows would provide a more stable environment for Dolly Varden and other aquatic organisms in this reach of lower Whitman Creek, as discussed below. As stated above, KPU proposes to release the minimum instream flow to lower Whitman Creek at a location 700 feet downstream of Whitman dam. Therefore, any minimum instream flow releases to Whitman Creek would only affect the reach downstream of the minimum instream flow release point. As figure 5 in appendix A

83 demonstrates, proposed project operations would minimize spill over Whitman dam, and on an average year no spill at Whitman dam would occur. As a result, on an average year, it is likely the 700-foot-long reach of lower Whitman Creek immediately below the dam which currently goes dry approximately 35 percent of the time, would go dry nearly 100 percent of the time. We recognize the design of the minimum instream flow release point must be at a lower elevation than the minimum expected elevation of the reservoir so as not to break the vacuum. However, according to table 7, the minimum expected reservoir elevation of 363 msl would occur infrequently, only once every seven years as demonstrated in table 7. As a result, releasing minimum instream flow directly from Whitman dam to lower Whitman Creek rather than releasing flows 700 feet downstream could potentially be accomplished the majority of the time based on table 7. This would ensure aquatic resources in the entire 900-foot bypassed reach of lower Whitman Creek from the dam to the confluence of Achilles Creek would be protected, as described below. Under KPU s proposal, during normal hydrologic conditions, lower Whitman Creek flows below the confluence with Achilles Creek would not drop below 7.5 cfs due to the 6 cfs being released from the Unit 2 penstock and the 1.5 cfs being released from the Achilles Creek diversion. However, compared to current conditions, this reach would have reduced flows approximately 65 percent of the time. Appendix A, figure 8, which compares the flow duration curves of existing conditions to proposed conditions in this reach, illustrates this reduction. According to the wetted perimeter analysis conducted by KPU in lower Whitman Creek, there was little change in wetted perimeter for flows decreasing from 50 to 10 cfs (appendix A, figure 9). Additionally, when all three transects from the study are combined, appendix A, figure 9 indicates that two noticeable inflection points are present, one at approximately 10 cfs and the other at 2 cfs. Based on the wetted perimeter analysis in Achilles Creek, two inflection points occur, at 6 and 1.5 cfs, respectively, when the three transects from the survey are combined (figure 10). The wetted perimeter method uses a hydraulic relationship between discharge and the wetted area of the streambed as an index of area available for macroinvertebrate production and, to a lesser extent, for fish, in riffles. As discharge increases, the wetted cross section of the channel increases. Although results vary depending on the shape of the channel cross-section, the wetted perimeter typically increases rapidly with increasing discharge, until water covers the entire channel bottom. The wetted perimeter then increases more slowly with discharge after the channel bottom is inundated. An inflection point occurs in the plot of wetted perimeter versus flow when there is an abrupt change of wetted perimeter with small changes in flow. Usually, there are one to two inflection points in a wetted perimeter versus discharge curve. Flow recommendations

84 are often based on the single inflection point, or on a flow between two inflection points (if present). When the wetted perimeter method is used, it is assumed that the protection of riffles ensures that the spawning and rearing habitat required by fish would also be protected. A wetted perimeter analysis also provides information about the depth of flow across the channel and the proportion of the stream cross section achieving a particular depth at a given flow (to help assess fish passage over shallow riffles). With the potential for a minimum flow of 7.5 cfs to occur in Whitman Creek during normal hydrologic conditions, below its confluence with Achilles Creek, this flow would be between the two inflection points (2 and 10 cfs) indicated from the wetted perimeter study results. Therefore, a flow of 7.5 cfs should be sufficient in protecting the spawning and rearing habitat for Dolly Varden, and macroinvertebrates. This also indicates that the minimum instream flow of 6 cfs for lower Whitman Creek during normal conditions between the dam and its confluence with Achilles Creek would also be a sufficient flow. For Achilles Creek, KPU s minimum instream flow proposal of 1.5 cfs is also the lower of two inflection points that occurs when the results from the three transects are combined. As previously discussed, 1.5 cfs would be in the lower range of flows considered acceptable when analyzing wetted perimeter results. However, we note that Achilles Creek is absent of fish, and flows in excess of those KPU proposes to divert (20 cfs) to Whitman Lake would occur approximately 26 percent of the time, and can occur during any month of the year, as depicted in table 9, thereby contributing additional flows to the 1.5 cfs minimum instream flow. Therefore, based upon the wetted perimeter analysis and the biological characteristics of Achilles Creek, a 1.5 cfs minimum flow would be adequate with the presence of natural periodic flow increases to protect ecological processes. KPU, through the signing and filing of the Settlement, proposes an alternative flow regime that would reduce instream flows in lower Whitman Creek in order to conserve water for the Whitman Fish Hatchery during dry conditions when reservoir levels were below El. 363 msl. This protocol would reduce instream flows from 6 to 11 cfs, to between 2 and 7 cfs, depending upon the time of year. However, if this alternative instream flow regime was instituted, according to the wetted perimeter analysis above, flows ranging from 2 to 7 cfs in lower Whitman Creek above the confluence with Achilles Creek, and 3.5 to 8.5 cfs below the confluence would still fall between the two inflection points of 2 and 10 cfs. This indicates that these flows would still be suitable for Dolly Varden spawning and rearing, although perhaps on the low end of suitable flows. However, we note that the area of lower Whitman Creek that contains the majority of Dolly Varden spawning habitat is below the confluence of Achilles Creek with Whitman Creek, which would not have minimum instream flows less than 3.5 cfs during dry conditions unless otherwise dictated by the Reservoir Action Team. Implementation of

85 the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan would not occur often, only when reservoir levels dropped below El. 363 msl (only once every seven years as demonstrated in table 7), and would be done as an alternative to compromising water for the hatchery. KPU, using the Tennant (1975) method, estimated that a flow of approximately 150 cfs would be sufficient to mobilize the sediments within Whitman Creek that could lead to siltation of fish habitat. 22 Given that the mean annual instream flow for Whitman Creek is 75 cfs, and based on the Tennant method, 200 percent of the mean annual instream flow is needed to flush accumulated sediments within a stream, a flushing flow of 150 cfs, as proposed by KPU and recommended by ADFG in revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6, would be considered sufficient. Also, because lower Whitman Creek has a substrate mainly of bedrock, boulders and large cobble, and is composed of 60 percent cascade and 34 percent riffle, indicating a steep gradient, it is likely that this proposed channel maintenance flow would be sufficient in flushing sediments through this reach. Confining this channel maintenance flow in Whitman Creek to a continuous 24 hour period between June 1 and August 15 should also minimize impacts to Dolly Varden spawning, which occurs between September and mid-november. Egg incubation for Dolly Varden occurs between October and late April, so negative impacts associated with this channel maintenance flow on egg incubation would also be minimized because these events would not coincide. As part of the Achilles Creek Diversion Operations and Maintenance Plan, KPU proposes to annually sluice sediment from behind the Achilles Creek diversion during a high flow event. Based on the Tennant method, as described above, an appropriate flushing flow for Achilles Creek would require an instream flow of 34 cfs for a period of 24 continuous hours. Estimated monthly flows for Achilles Creek (table 9) indicate that flows may meet or exceed the necessary 34 cfs channel maintenance flow during any month of the year. Additionally, because Achilles Creek, like Whitman Creek, has a relatively steep gradient and contains mostly large substrates, accumulated sediment is likely to be minimal and easily flushed from the system. Quickly ramping down the water levels in Whitman Creek associated with instream flow releases and channel maintenance flows has the potential to strand juvenile salmonids and macroinvertebrates along sloping bars, side channels, and stream margin areas (Hunter 1992). Conversely, quickly ramping up flows could also dislodge adult and juvenile Dolly Varden, their eggs, and macroinvertebrates. The ramping rate for minimum instream flows proposed by KPU and recommended by ADFG in 10(j) 22 The Tennant (1975) method is a technique for qualitatively evaluating instream flows based on a percentage range of the average annual flow. This method suggests an appropriate flushing flow equals 200 percent of the average annual flow

86 recommendation nos. 6 and 8 for the bypassed reach of Whitman Creek is based on the State of Washington Department of Fisheries analyses of hydropower flow fluctuations on salmonids (Hunter, 1992). These ramping rates would likely minimize impacts to Dolly Varden and protect the various life stages of this species throughout the year in Whitman Creek. Therefore, as recommended in ADFG recommendation nos. 6 and 8, a 1 inch per hour ramping rate would be sufficient to protect emergent Dolly Varden fry between March 1 to May 31, and a maximum ramping rate of 2 inches per hour would also be sufficient to protect spawning and rearing Dolly Varden between June 1 to February 28/29. Also, ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6, to ramp channel maintenance flows in Whitman Creek up and down at a rate no greater than 2 inches per hour would help to minimize negative affects to aquatic organisms associated with these large releases. Although no ramping rates are proposed for Achilles Creek, rapid water level fluctuations when sluicing sediments from above the diversion structure into lower Achilles Creek could negatively affect macroinvertebrates downstream within Achilles Creek, and fish and macroinvertebrates in Whitman Creek, below its confluence with Achilles Creek. However, because KPU proposes to sluice sediments from the Achilles diversion only during natural high flow events, no ramping of flushing flows should be necessary as flows would be attenuated by the natural hydrograph. We discuss the cost of developing and implementing minimum instream flow releases and channel maintenance flows in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We present our final recommendations pertaining to fisheries and aquatic resource measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Whitman Lake Level Fluctuations The current typical minimum pool elevation in Whitman Lake is El. 370 msl and the historic minimum elevation is El. 363 msl. KPU proposes to operate Unit 1 within a range of El to 370 msl. However, during below normal hydrologic conditions, KPU proposes to potentially draw down reservoir levels down to El. 343 msl to supply the Whitman Fish Hatchery with water

87 Fluctuations in water levels within Whitman Lake as a result of these proposed project operations have the potential to negatively affect Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, and macroinvertebrate populations. Under KPU s proposal, a drawdown of Whitman Lake surface elevation to 343 msl could prevent access to spawning habitat in Deer Creek. The Forest Service echoed this concern in their letter filed on March 19, 2008, in which they provided comments on the Settlement. Reservoir drafting may also increase the potential for fish stranding, limit productivity within the littoral margins of the lake, and decrease potential juvenile habitat in littoral areas. Additionally, water level fluctuations within Whitman Lake could increase bank erosion and increase turbidity, which could negatively affect Dolly Varden and other aquatic species, as discussed in section V.C.2, Water Resources. Our Analysis Surveys conducted by KPU suggest that the only tributary likely to support Dolly Varden spawning is Deer Creek. As demonstrated in appendix A, figure 7, KPU s bathymetry survey results at Deer Creek delta indicate that the Deer Creek delta has a gradual slope of about 5.4 % from El. 380 to 360 msl, with sharper slope from El. 360 to 500 msl. Under KPU s proposal, reservoir levels could be drawn down to El. 343 msl, which would likely only occur during the dry period of the year (January through April). However, reservoir levels approaching El. 343 msl are unlikely given that based upon the 28-year period of record, the lowest reservoir level with proposed project operations is estimated at El. 347 msl (see figure 5, appendix A). Also, as demonstrated in figure 5, the lowest reservoir elevation that would occur under proposed project operations during the spawning migration of Dolly Varden (September 1 to November 15) would be El. 362 msl. According to appendix A, figure 7, a reservoir elevation of 362 msl, is unlikely to create any barriers to migrating Dolly Varden as the slope of the Deer Creek delta at that elevation is gradual at 3.4 percent. Under current conditions, dropping Whitman Lake levels from El msl (maximum pool level) to 370 msl (minimum pool level) results in the loss of 10 acres of littoral habitat. Under KPU s proposal, typical reservoir fluctuations would occur between El and 367 msl and under dry conditions may drop as low as El. 343 msl, although unlikely, exposing additional littoral habitat. The loss of most of this littoral habitat would mainly occur in the area of the Deer Creek delta and the vicinity of the Whitman Lake dam, because these areas have a shallow gradient, unlike the remainder of the lakeshore which is comprised of steep bedrock. However, the greatest drawdown under project operations would likely occur during the dry periods of year, January through April, when there would be little production in the littoral areas. Further, the

88 majority of Dolly Varden fry, which would be the lifestage most susceptible to these drawdowns, would be inhabiting Deer Creek, and not influenced by these drawdowns. Under KPU s proposed project operations, lake level fluctuations would occur more frequently and be drawn down further than current conditions. However, because a large portion of the shoreline is comprised of bedrock it is unlikely the proposed reservoir operation for Whitman Lake, or operations specified under the Settlement, would increase long-term turbidity levels and sedimentation. Therefore, no negative affects on the aquatic community of Whitman Lake are anticipated. We discuss the cost of developing and implementing measures regarding Whitman Lake levels in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We present our final recommendations pertaining to fisheries and aquatic resource measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Fish Passage The presence of dams and diversions such as Whitman dam and the proposed Achilles Creek diversion structure on stream reaches have the potential to negatively impact resident and anadromous fish species. Diversion structures can block upstream and/or downstream fish passage. Our Analysis Fisheries surveys conducted by KPU indicated that Achilles Creek does not contain any fish (table 10). This absence of fish is likely due to the presence of a water fall, creating a natural fish barrier located at the mouth of Achilles Creek which prevents any fish migration from Whitman Creek into Achilles Creek under all flow conditions. Therefore, the proposed diversion structure on Achilles Creek would not inhibit movement corridors of resident or migratory fish because no fish are present. Habitat surveys conducted by KPU in Whitman Creek indicate that approximately 200-feet upstream from its mouth at George Inlet, there is an upstream barrier to anadromous fish passage. Additionally, in four separate locations on Whitman Creek, there are falls ranging in height from 5-to 10-feet high that likely prohibit the upstream passage of Dolly Varden. Whitman dam also prevents all upstream movement of Dolly Varden from lower Whitman Creek into Whitman Lake, and beyond. However, when Whitman Lake levels are above the spillway crest, the resulting spill flows may allow for the passage of fish downstream. Given the presence of several natural upstream fish passage barriers in Whitman Creek, fish passage is already limited. Therefore, the presence of anthropogenic barriers likely has little effect on the health of lower Whitman Creek s fishery resources

89 We present our final recommendations pertaining to fisheries and aquatic resource measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Whitman Fish Hatchery False Attraction of Returning Salmon The fishway that allows spawning fish to return to the Whitman Fish Hatchery is located 600-feet downstream from the location of the proposed tailrace discharge area. Currently, 11 raceways discharge approximately 17 cfs via separate 12-inch pipes into Herring Cove, downstream of the fishway entrance. This water is discharged at El. 20 msl, which is above high tide elevation, creating an area of attraction flow for anadromous fish returning to the hatchery. The proposed project could potentially release over 150 cfs into Herring Cove, upstream of the fishway entrance, potentially creating an area of false attraction flow for fish attempting to return to the hatchery. 23 KPU s proposal to divert up to 182 cfs from Whitman Lake into Herring Cove, bypassing lower Whitman Creek would likely reduce flows at the mouth of Whitman Creek approximately 65 percent of the time, as illustrated in appendix A, figure 8. This reduction in flow could reduce the attraction flows for anadromous fish at the mouth of Whitman Creek, a popular sport fishery, and would likely increase the attraction of these fish to Herring Cove, the hatchery and potentially the project s tailrace area. 24 We further discuss the project s potential to reduce the number of chinook and coho salmon that gather at the mouth of Whitman Creek and its subsequent effects on recreational fishing opportunities in section V.C.6, Recreational Resources. Consistent with ADFG s recommendation, KPU proposes to design the tailrace so that it will provide a physical barrier to any fish attempting to enter the tailrace. Water exiting Unit 1 would flow into a rectangular concrete channel and then spill over a concrete weir at El. 18 msl. A baffle wall and floor would be used to dissipate the water s energy and slow its velocity to 2.5 fps before discharging into Herring Cove. 23 Discharge from Unit 1 (maximum hydraulic capacity of 150 cfs), overflow from the head tank, and flows in excess of hatchery demand from Unit 2 would be discharged into the project tailrace. 24 Herring Cove is closed to recreational sport fishing

90 Also, smooth-finished bars, with one-inch openings, would be installed in the bottom of the baffle wall floor to act as an additional barrier to fish. ADFG recommends, that the weir crest and baffle should be designed to prevent fish from entering the tailrace at all tide stages, either by jumping or entering under the baffle, accounting for tidal backwater effects on Herring Cove Creek. In their letter to KPU s consultant dated November 4, 2003, and their comment letter on the June 2007 EA filed on August 20, 2007, Southern Southeast Aquaculture comments that they are concerned with potential false attraction at the location of the proposed tailrace and the effects this may have on their ability to collect brood stock. Our Analysis KPU states that the flows from the fish ladder are more directed and have a velocity of 6 to 8 fps, compared to flows of 2.5 fps that would be discharged from the tailrace. However, because the proposed tailrace and its discharge would be located upstream of the fishway and discharged flows (over 150 cfs) would be far greater than those provided in the fishway (17 cfs), returning anadromous fish could potentially be falsely attracted to the proposed tailrace. Installing a tailrace weir consisting of a baffle wall and floor that would dissipate the water s energy, reduce turbulence, and slow its velocity to 2.5 fps, before entering Herring Cove, would likely minimize any false attraction at the projects tailrace. Also, the smooth-finished bars with one-inch openings that KPU proposes to install in the bottom of the baffle wall floor would prevent anadromous fish from entering the tailrace. Having the weir crest and baffle designed to prevent fish from entering the tailrace at all tidal stages, as noted by ADFG, would further ensure fish could not enter the tailrace during high tides. We further discuss developing and implementing a biotic monitoring plan to determine performance of the mitigation measures that KPU proposes to minimize false attraction created from the proposed tailrace below. False attraction flows are also present at the mouth of Whitman Creek because coho and chinook are attracted to this water source, which is the same as that used at the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Coho salmon typically return from sea to spawn during July to November, and chinook return from July to August. As previously discussed, and as indicated in appendix A, figure 8, mean and high flows would now be reduced under KPU s proposal, resulting in less water available to attract these two species to the mouth of Whitman Creek. However, because these species do not spawn in Whitman Creek, effects associated with reducing flows in Whitman Creek would be limited to a potential reduction in the numbers of fish returns to this area. This could potentially reduce recreational fishing opportunities in the area, but may also increase the number of adult returns and minimize delays in returns to the Whitman Fish Hatchery as these fish would not be falsely attracted to this location

91 We discuss the cost of developing and implementing measures to maintain fish returns to the Whitman Fish Hatchery in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We present our final recommendations pertaining to fisheries and aquatic resource measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Biotic Monitoring Plan Consistent with ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 12, KPU proposes to prepare and implement a biotic monitoring plan after consultation with fishery resource agencies. KPU specifies this plan would monitor project effects on fish returning to the fishway and whether or not project operations are falsely attracting fish or delaying their arrival to the hatchery. ADFG further recommends in their 10(j) recommendation no. 12, that within 6 months of obtaining a project license, KPU should consult and obtain approval from resource agencies on developing a biotic monitoring plan for fishery resources in Whitman Creek. ADFG states that a biotic monitoring plan would be used to evaluate the effects of the proposed instream flow modifications on fishery resources in Whitman Creek. ADFG further recommends in their 10(j) recommendation no. 12 that this biotic monitoring plan should include: (1) monitoring populations of Dolly Varden within the Whitman Creek bypass for five years after project construction to determine whether changes in instantaneous instream flow are needed to protect Dolly Varden; (2) monitoring (from August 1 to November 30 annually) the behavior of any returning adult salmon at the proposed tailrace discharge for a period of five years after construction to determine if behavior differs from adult salmon returning to the fish ladder or the mouth of Herring Cove; (3) a schedule for distributing monitoring results to ADFG and other resource agencies; and (4) schedules for implementing the monitoring program, consultation with ADFG and other resource agencies, and filing the results, agency comments, and KPU s response to agency comments with the Commission. Southern Southeast Aquacultures in their comments on the June 2007 EA state that the implementation of a biotic monitoring plan whether a 5-year plan as recommended by ADFG or a 2-year plan as recommended by Commission staff in the June 2007 EA, does nothing to protect the hatchery s ability to recruit or harvest brood stock if false attraction were to occur during the monitoring period. They recommend that if false attraction does occur, immediate steps be taken, such as the shutdown of Unit 1, to eliminate the false attraction. To address any false attraction issues as part of the Settlement, KPU agreed that if project operations attract fish to the tailrace discharge in a manner materially and negatively affecting Southern Southeast Aquaculture s collection of broodstock such that

92 the hatchery s ability to spawn fish and maintain its operations are economically impacted, than Southern Southeast Aquaculture would describe such negative affects in a letter to KPU. KPU then proposes both parties would promptly meet to discuss whether the effects are a result of project operations, whether project operations could be altered to mitigate the issue, and otherwise exchange information that would assist in resolving the condition. KPU further states that if both parties agree on a method to mitigate an attraction problem caused by project operations through means other than by changing project operations, KPU and Southern Southeast Aquaculture would share the costs of such mitigation facility equally, provided in no event shall KPU be required to contribute more than $175,000 during the term of any license issued. Our Analysis The development and implementation of a biotic monitoring plan, as proposed by KPU and recommended by ADFG in their 10(j) recommendation no. 12, would likely help to determine the performance of the mitigation measures that KPU proposes to minimize any false attraction created from the proposed tailrace. ADFG s recommendation to monitor (from August 1 to November 30 annually) the behavior of returning adult salmon at the proposed tailrace discharge for a period of five years after construction would determine the need to alter project facilities or project operations in a manner that would lessen any false attraction. Developing this plan after consultation with ADFG, as recommended in 10(j) recommendation no. 12, and with Southern Southeast Aquaculture, would ensure appropriate measures regarding salmonid monitoring are incorporated into the plan. KPU s proposal as contained in the Settlement to work with Southern Southeast Aquaculture to identify any false attraction problems associated with project operations would further assist in developing a solution to any identified problems. As previously discussed, we find that KPU s proposed minimum instream flow releases for Whitman and Achilles creeks, the channel maintenance flow for Whitman Creek, and ramping rates would be protective of the aquatic habitat for Dolly Varden for all life stages and macroinvertebrates and would increase the total available and reliable habitat in lower Whitman Creek. Even though mean and high flows in all of lower Whitman Creek would be reduced, KPU s proposed instream flow measures should not adversely affect Whitman Creek s Dolly Varden or macroinvertebrate populations. We question the need for Dolly Varden population monitoring as results from population monitoring studies for resident fish can be subjective. Various natural or anthropogenic activities within a watershed can have significant effects on a fishery. Therefore, it can be very difficult to delineate a clear cause and effect relationship between any single environmental factor and changes to the population characteristics of a fishery

93 We discuss the cost of developing and implementing the biotic monitoring plan in section VI, Developmental Analysis. We present our final recommendations pertaining to fisheries and aquatic resource measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. c. Cumulative Effects Discharging flows from project operations into Herring Cove could create an area of false attraction for salmonids attempting to return to the Whitman Fish Hatchery fishway. Preventing or delaying fish from entering the fishway may cause these salmonids to utilize stored energy reserves, which may result in pre-spawning mortality. Or, if mortality does not occur, the spawning ability of these fish may be reduced, causing a reduction in the productivity of these fish. KPU s proposal to design the project tailrace with fish barriers and measures to decrease the water velocity from the tailrace entering Herring Cove would help to minimize false attraction. Additionally, KPU s proposed biotic monitoring plan would identify any negative behavioral responses by returning salmonids as a result of project operations and would allow for modifications to project operations or facilities to ensure affects on these returning fish are limited. d. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: None. 4. Terrestrial Resources a. Affected Environment: Vegetation General Area. Revillagigedo Island, where the proposed project would be located, and the other surrounding islands are forested by a variety of conifer forest types ranging from mature and old growth stands to managed stands of younger generation trees. The most common native species of conifer include western hemlock, Alaska-cedar, western red cedar, and Sitka spruce, with mountain hemlock, subalpine fir, pacific silver fir, and shorepine occurring in lesser amounts. Deciduous tree species include red alder and black cottonwood, and common understory shrub species include huckleberry and blueberry, devil s club, rusty menziesia, salmonberry, western thimbleberry, and bunchberry. Prevalent herbaceous species are skunk cabbage, fern-leaved goldthread, and a variety of ferns, mosses, grasses, and sedges. Proposed project area. During August 1999, surveys were conducted for sensitive plant species in the proposed project area. All plant species encountered were identified

94 and are listed in table 11. No species on the Forest Service Sensitive Species list were found within the project area. Several small areas of muskeg bogs 25 and fens 26 occur within the project area. According to the Alaska Vegetation Classification System, these wetland areas are classified as Palustrine Systems, which include all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, and emergent mosses or lichens. Approximately 0.3 acres of wetlands classified as PFO4Bg (dominated by western hemlock, western redcedar, Alaska yellow cedar, blueberry, and skunk cabbage) occur in areas of the proposed pipeline from Achilles Creek to Whitman Lake, penstocks, and the powerhouse. Another approximately 0.3 acres of wetlands classified as PSS4Bg (dominated by dwarf coniferous trees, including western hemlock, Alaska yellow cedar, western redcedar, Labrador tea, bog laurel, crowberry, bog cranberry, and mosses) also lie in the path of the proposed pipeline from Achilles Creek to Whitman Lake, penstocks, and the powerhouse. The estuary at Herring Cove contains intertidal wetlands dominated by emergent grasses and sedges, but is outside of the area likely to be affected by the proposed project (Krosse, 2005). Existing pipeline vicinity. The existing pipeline corridor bisects the surrounding old growth forest. Considerable herbaceous and shrub vegetation has developed within the corridor, including lady fern, salmonberry, skunk cabbage, hemlock and cedar saplings. There is a small area about midway up the pipeline corridor that contains species typical of muskeg bogs, such as Labrador tea, deer cabbage, and Menzies burnet, as well as common fern species, such as false hellebore and Mertens sedge. Proposed new penstock and powerhouse. The route of the proposed new 60-inchdiameter, 2,450-foot-long penstock from the dam to the powerhouse would cut through a closed stand of western red cedar and has very little understory in the first 500-feet uphill from the proposed powerhouse. The proposed location of the tailrace, extending from the powerhouse to the estuary, is currently a material and equipment storage area, void of most vegetation. 25 Bogs are freshwater wetlands characterized by spongy peat deposits and a floor covered by sphagnum moss (EPA, 2004); muskegs are acidic bogs common to Revillagigedo Island (Ketchikan, 2004b). 26 Fens are freshwater peat-forming wetlands covered mostly by grasses, sedges, reeds, and wildflowers (EPA, 2004)

95 Table 11. List of vascular plant species observed in the project area, August (Source: KPU, 2004b, as modified by staff) Trees red alder western red cedar Alaska (yellow) cedar western hemlock Sitka spruce Shrubs Salal red elderberry Labrador tea western mountain ash rusty menziesia Alaska blueberry devil s club oval-leaved blueberry thimble berry red huckleberry salmonberry Grasses, Sedges, and Rushes northern reedgrass soft rush yellow sedge dagger-leaved rush long-awned sedge small-fruited bulrush Mertens sedge Forbs, Ferns, and Fern Allies maidenhair fern oak fern clasping arnica twin flower lady fern western twayblade deer fern running clubmoss Siberian spring beauty skunk cabbage ox-eye daisy (introduced weed) false lily-of-the-valley fern-leaved goldthread slender bog orchid Canadian bunchberry licorice root foxglove (introduced weed) creeping buttercup shield fern Menzies burnet northern willow herb clasping twistedstalk fireweed northern beech fern deer cabbage three-leaved foamflower large-leaved avens false hellebore Proposed Achilles Creek diversion pipeline. The proposed diversion route from Achilles Creek to Whitman Lake would follow a fairly steep hillside on the north abutment of the Whitman Lake dam. This area is mostly old growth forest, including alder, Sitka spruce, and western red cedar. A few boggy areas with typical palustrine wetland species occur where the land is more level

96 Reservoir Shoreline. The shoreline is characterized by steep slopes and mature conifer forest. Palustrine emergent wetlands may exist along the shoreline in some areas, and bogs may exist along coves or tributaries, in locations where the topography levels out. Wildlife The project vicinity provides a variety of wildlife habitat types, including upland forest, riparian forest, wetlands, estuary, and open water. A list of mammals and birds either observed, known to occur, or suspected to occur in the project area are found in table 12. Bald eagle. Whitman Lake and Herring Cove provide feeding grounds for bald eagles that utilize the area. Several individuals were observed foraging in and around the Herring Cove estuary and Whitman Lake over a two-day period in July of While no nest sites were observed near the project area, it is possible that some of these individuals nest in the vicinity. The bald eagle population in Southeast Alaska is denser than in any other area of North America. In 1992, the population was estimated at over 13,000 adult birds. Their nesting habitat is primarily old growth trees along the coast and within riparian areas. The Bald Eagle Protection Act prohibits molesting or disturbing bald eagles, their nests, eggs, or young. The FWS and Forest Service maintain an interagency agreement for bald eagle habitat management in the Alaska Region and stipulate a 330-foot radius protective habitat management zone around all identified nesting trees, and a 660-foot radius for construction disturbance between March 1 and August 31. In addition, there is a quartermile radius buffer for repeated helicopter flights, and a half-mile radius buffer for any blasting. Shoreline habitat around Whitman Lake is managed by the Forest Service. Sitka black-tailed deer. Although only one deer, a doe, was seen near Whitman dam during a field survey in July 1999, they are known to be prevalent on Revillagigedo Island. During the winter months when the upland regions have accumulated snowfall, deer are driven to lower elevations like that of the Whitman Lake area. During extreme snow accumulation, deer congregate in heavily timbered stands at lower elevations. The multi-layered canopy found in the project area provides good winter habitat because it intercepts much of the snowfall but still provides enough light in some portions for the growth of forage plants used by deer

97 Table 12. Mammals and birds known to occur or suspected to occur in the project area. (Source: KPU, 2004b, as modified by staff) Birds Mammals Bald Eagle* Red-tailed hawk Alexander Archipelago wolf* Barred owl Rock ptarmigan Beaver Blue grouse Ruffed grouse Black bear* Boreal owl Saw-whet owl Flying squirrel Chestnut-backed chickadee Screech owl Mink Great horned owl Sharp-shinned hawk Mountain goat Mallard duck Spruce grouse Muskrat Mallard duck Vancouver Canada goose Pine marten Marbled murrelet* Varied thrush Red squirrel Northern goshawk* White-tailed ptarmigan River otter Peregrine falcon Willow and rock ptarmigan Sitka black-tailed deer* Pygmy owl Short-tailed weasel * Species discussed below Black bear. During the July 1999 field survey, one bear was sighted on the Tongass Highway near the Whitman Creek bridge, and signs of bear (clusters of scat) were observed in two locations along the penstock corridor. This species is important to local residents as a primary game species. The riparian zone along Whitman Creek, Herring Cove, and the forest opening created by the penstock corridor provide foraging opportunities. Bear are also attracted by the thousands to anadromous fish returning each fall to Herring Cove. Bears like to feed in the cool of the early morning or evening and will seek shade from the sun during mid-day. The forest throughout the project area can provide mid-day shade, making this area reasonably good bear habitat. Alexander Archipelago (Gray) Wolf. The Alexander Archipelago wolf is a high profile species suspected to occur in the vicinity of the project area. Although no individuals or signs of individuals were seen during the 1999 field survey, the Whitman Lake area likely contains a population of wolves, although the population density is not known. In Southeast Alaska, Sitka black-tailed deer are one of their most important food sources. Marbled Murrelet. Although there is suitable habitat for nesting, there are no recorded sightings of marbled murrelet in the project area. This species is a small sea bird that nests in coastal forests of the Pacific Northwest, and is listed as a federally threatened species in Washington, Oregon, and California. Although marbled murrelets are abundant in Southeast Alaska, numbering at least in the low hundreds of thousands, they are believed to be dependent on old-growth forests for nesting and may be at increasing risk due to current harvest practices, including extensive harvesting of old

98 growth forests in the Tongass National Forest (TNF) and clear-cutting on private lands (Forest Service, 1996). Northern Goshawk. There have been three recorded sightings of what was believed to be a single goshawk, between April and June of No goshawk individuals or nest sites were located during the 1999 surveys. The proposed project area provides habitat suitable for goshawks, which require large trees with significant canopy closure for nesting, as well as significant amounts of open understory for foraging. b. Environmental Effects: Project Wetlands The effects of a flow reduction on any riparian wetlands between the proposed diversion structure on Achilles Creek and Achilles Creek s confluence with Whitman Creek, along with the bypassed reach of Whitman Creek, could be a potential issue. KPU proposes a year-round minimum flow of 1.5 cfs downstream from the proposed diversion to protect existing ecological functions. ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 6 and Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 20 is consistent with this proposal. Flows in Achilles Creek downstream of the proposed Achilles Creek diversion would therefore be potentially decreased. The effect of project operation on shoreline vegetation, including any wetlands, was not identified as an issue. However, KPU s proposal to increase reservoir drawdown and increase reservoir level fluctuations would dewater shoreline vegetation occurring below El 370. Our Analysis Because Achilles Creek is narrow and steep, water from the creek does not significantly affect the species composition of the adjacent plant communities. In addition, water from the creek does not contribute to the hydrology of the adjacent soils. Rather, adjacent vegetation, including any wetland plants, receives water from the 155- inches of average annual precipitation that occurs in the Ketchikan vicinity each year. Although rainfall is frequent, periods of no rainfall do occur. However, it is very uncommon for these dry periods to result in any dryness of soils (Krosse, 2005). Similarly, the small areas of wetland vegetation that occur throughout the proposed project area have characteristics of bogs and fens, which do not rely on input from streams. Because these wetlands rely on the abundant rainfall of the region, no change in the seasonality, frequency, or duration of inundation of wetlands would be likely to occur

99 from the proposed project operations. It is not likely that the proposed operation would affect overall vegetation types, species composition, or structural attributes. However, a small amount of wetlands would be disturbed during construction activities, and 0.6 acres would be permanently lost due to the proposed permanent structures and pipeline corridors. The Vegetation Management Plan, described below, would help to rehabilitate any native wetlands that are temporarily damaged by construction. Under proposed project operations, lake level fluctuations may occur more frequently and in greater magnitude, potentially down to an elevation as low as 343 msl during dry conditions. This may result in the dewatering of any existing fringe wetlands or other hydraulically connected vegetation below the current normal low elevation of approximately E. 363 msl (during the dry season). However, KPU estimates that the 28- year period of record indicates that the greatest reservoir draw down that would occur is El 347 msl and that reservoir levels would drop below El. 363 infrequently, only once every seven years as demonstrated in table 7. Water levels would be maintained above El. 370 msl from mid-may through September on an average year, with levels dropping below 370 msl in mid-august only during very dry years (below the 10 th percentile). Because water levels would be stable throughout the growing season during most years, negative effects of project operation on any shoreline wetlands are minimal. Vegetation Management KPU s proposal would affect vegetation in the proposed project area, through disturbance and displacement during and after construction. KPU therefore proposes to prepare a Vegetation Management Plan as described by the Forest Service in its comments on the applicant prepared EA. These measures include those listed in the final 4(e) condition, listed below. In addition, KPU proposes to minimize the clearing of old growth forest adjacent to the existing cleared penstock route and along the Achilles diversion pipeline. The Forest Service specifies in their 4(e) condition no. 19 that KPU prepare and implement a Noxious Weed Management Plan, also referred to as a Vegetation Management Plan. The Forest Service specifies that the plan would be approved by the Forest Service, filed with the Commission and would: (1) identify and prioritize all inadequately vegetated areas to be revegetated or rehabilitated along with an implementation schedule; (2) list the native species to be used along with planting locations, methods, and densities; (3) identify methods for prevention and control of noxious weeds, to be initiated immediately (for highest priority weeds) upon Commission approval; (4) develop a monitoring plan to evaluate the effectiveness of noxious weed control measures; and (5) develop procedures for identification of additional measures

100 that KPU would implement if monitoring reveals that noxious weed control is not successful or does not meet intended objectives. ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 1, concerning an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP), likewise includes measures for revegetating all disturbed areas including: (1) locations of treatment areas; (2) plant species and methods to be used; (3) planting densities; (4) fertilizer formulations; (5) seed test results; (6) application rates; and (7) locations and density of willow plantings. The recommended ESCP includes an implementation schedule and details for monitoring and maintenance programs. The Forest Service in their 4(e) condition no. 17 specifies the development of a Spoil Disposal Plan to be approved by the Forest Service and filed with the Commission. Components of the Spoil Disposal Plan that are relevant to project vegetation include provisions to contour any storage piles to conform to adjacent landforms and slopes, and the stabilization and rehabilitation (including re-vegetation) of all spoil sites. The Forest Service in their 4(e) condition no. 18 specifies the development of a Fire Prevention Plan to be approved by the Forest Service and filed with the Commission. The Forest Service specifies this plan would analyze fire prevention needs to ensure that prevention equipment and personnel are available, identify fire hazard reduction measures, and provide the Forest Service with a list of the location of available fireprevention equipment and the location and availability of fire-prevention personnel. Our Analysis KPU s proposal to avoid large trees, boulders, rock outcrops, and any sensitive vegetated areas during construction of the proposed diversion pipeline from Achilles Creek, and to utilize the existing pipeline corridor for the proposed pipeline replacement and part of the proposed new penstock, would greatly decrease the amount of forested land affected by the proposed project. However, the proposed construction activities would require cutting through approximately 2,500-feet of old growth forest, in order to construct the proposed Achilles Creek diversion pipeline and new penstock. In addition, KPU proposes to expand the existing pipeline corridors for purposes of construction and to build new structures where there is currently vegetation. Table 13 describes and quantifies the amount of upland and wetland vegetation that would likely be disturbed for each proposed construction activity, as assembled from information in the applicant prepared EA, our estimates given KPU s proposal, and the report on wetland and riparian areas (Krosse, 2005)

101 Table 13. Land that would be affected by the proposed project. (Source: Staff, 2008) Proposed Construction Activity Construction of the diversion structure at Achilles Creek Construction of the 24-inchdiameter, 2,500-foot-longpipeline from Achilles Creek diversion structure to Whitman Lake Construction of the new penstocks from the dam to the Powerhouse Effects of Proposed Construction Activity Clearing and disturbance of vegetation Approximate area displaced: 0.01 acres (All non-wetland) Clearing and disturbance of old growth forest and some wetland vegetation in the 15-foot-wide clearing for the pipeline corridor Approximate area disturbed: 0.86 acres (0.75 non-wetland acre, 0.11 wetland acre) Clearing and disturbance of old growth forest in the first 500-feet uphill from the powerhouse (primarily western hemlockwestern redcedar/blueberry community) Clearing and disturbance of ground cover along the existing pipeline corridor Clearing and disturbance of some palustrine wetlands Construction of the Powerhouse. Approximate area disturbed: 1 acres ( 0.60 non-wetland acre, 0.40 wetland acre) Clearing and disturbance of palustrine forested wetlands; Approximate area displaced: 0.06 acres (all wetlands)

102 Proposed Construction Activity Construction of a 20-footwide, 2,500 foot-long compact gravel access road from the powerhouse to Whitman dam Effects of Proposed Construction Activity Clearing of old growth forest (primarily western hemlock-western redcedar/blueberry community in the lower half, and western hemlock-alaska yellow cedar/blueberry, with or without devil s club as the dominant shrub species, in the upper half); this estimation assumes the proposed access road lies adjacent to the penstocks and therefore affects the same habitat as was previously assessed Clearing and disturbance of some palustrine wetlands Construction of a 12-footwide, 3,800-foot-long compact gravel access road from the upper penstock to the Achilles diversion Approximate area displaced: 1.15 acres: 0.69 non-wetland acre, 0.46 wetland acre (estimated, assuming road is parallel to and adjacent to the penstocks and therefore affects the same habitat as was previously assessed for penstock) Clearing of old growth forest, primarily western hemlock-alaska yellow cedar/blueberry and some wetland vegetation Approximate area displaced: 1.05 acres: primarily upland, but unknown amount of palustrine wetlands may be affected TOTAL AREA AFFECTED: Approximately 4.13 acres: approximately 2.27 acres displaced by structures and roads (at least 0.52 of these are wetlands), and 1.86 acres disturbed by pipeline corridors (approximately 0.51 are wetlands) In order to move the necessary building materials into place during the proposed construction phase, KPU would rely on equipment to travel back and forth through the penstock and diversion pipeline corridors. This may require many trips and several trucks. It is assumed that the equipment will reach the Achilles Creek diversion and pipeline corridor through the proposed access roads; disturbance from access road construction is estimated in table 13. This disruption due to access and transportation needs, as well as displaced land resulting from the construction of project components (see table 13), would have direct effects on the vegetation in these areas (i.e., damage

103 through trampling, soil compaction, and puddling; displacement through vegetation clearing and the placement of permanent structures and pipeline corridors; an alteration in the species composition along pipeline and penstock corridors, resulting from the opening in the canopy; and an increase in the potential for noxious plants to colonize the disturbed areas). The total area of affected lands is anticipated to include about 4.13 acres. Areas that would be disturbed but would likely experience some later regeneration include about 1.86 acres of land (including approximately 0.51acre of wetlands) that are located along the proposed penstocks and pipeline. Approximately 2.27 acres would be permanently displaced by structures and roads (at least 0.52 acre of these are wetlands). Both the ADFG-recommended ESCP and the Forest Service-specified Vegetation Management Plan would provide measures to expedite the restoration of habitat disturbed by the proposed construction activities. In addition to these measures, a monitoring program, as included in the ESCP, would help to evaluate the effectiveness of plantings and rehabilitation measures. In the case that re-vegetation is unsuccessful, additional procedures may be necessary and could be developed for inclusion in the Vegetation Management Plan. Including KPU s proposed measures for the avoidance of large trees and other significant vegetation would help to preserve old growth forest. Noxious plants can displace native, beneficial plants, resulting in ecosystem disruptions that could cause severe harm to native wildlife. By treating existing noxious plants in the area prior to conducting ground-disturbing activity, as specified in the Forest Services Vegetation Management Plan, KPU would greatly decrease the probability of spreading noxious weeds throughout the proposed project during construction activities. The plan also specifies development of a monitoring program that would evaluate the effectiveness of the noxious weed control measures and procedures for additional measures if necessary. With these prevention measures in place, any rehabilitated or revegetated area would likely provide suitable habitat for native wildlife. The species composition and cover type along these new canopy breaks would likely be different from the existing old growth forest. However, due to the small amount of land affected, this would have minimal effects on the overall forest composition. There would be some benefits to wildlife grazing along these routes, resulting from the herbaceous plants and smaller shrubs that would quickly colonize the areas no longer shaded by the canopy. The Spoil Disposal Plan specified by the Forest Service in their 4(e) condition no. 17 would complement the Vegetation Management Plan by providing measures to contour spoil piles created by construction to the natural shape of the land, as well as to stabilize and rehabilitate all sites that would be disturbed. The Fire Prevention Plan specified by the Forest Service in their 4(e) condition no. 18 would ensure fire prevention measures, equipment, and personnel are in place to

104 minimize and control any project related fires that could negatively affect vegetation within the project area. By implementing these plans, the majority of the disturbance to project wetlands would be short-term, rather than prolonged or permanent. Implementation of both plans would help to facilitate the re-growth of native vegetation around any construction sites, pipeline corridors, and transportation routes. Therefore, though approximately 1.8 acres of vegetation would likely be permanently damaged or displaced due to construction activities and pipeline corridors, any other damaged areas would likely be rehabilitated. We discuss the costs of vegetation management measures in section VI, Development Analysis. We make our final recommendation pertaining terrestrial resource measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Wildlife KPU s proposal would affect wildlife habitat, including potential nesting sites and overall connectivity between different habitat types at the proposed project. In order to address issues concerning the movement of wildlife, KPU proposes to prepare a Terrestrial Species Connectivity Plan (Connectivity Plan) with the following measures: (1) develop site-specific site plans for wildlife crossings and underpasses along the Achilles Creek diversion pipeline; (2) design a minimum of six wildlife crossings at a width of 3-feet and provide suitable habitat components (large and small wood, etc.) to facilitate use by all classes of terrestrial species at the crossings within one year from license issuance at locations approved by the Forest Service; (3) develop and implement a monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of the wildlife crossings for use by all classes of terrestrial species and to determine locations along the waterways or penstocks where additional crossings may be required for particular classes of terrestrial species; and (4) install additional crossings if the Forest Service determines that monitoring results indicate that project waterways or penstocks continue to unduly restrict movement by terrestrial species. In order to address the proposal s effect on nesting habitat, KPU also proposes to conduct an additional survey for marbled murrelet, goshawk, and bald eagle nests prior to the beginning of construction to assure that no new nest sites near the project area have been established. If nest sites are found, KPU proposes to protect these sites, as recommended by FWS and the Forest Service. Protection measures in this case would include limiting construction activities from August 31 to March 1 in order to avoid the nesting season. In the Forest Service s comments on the June 2007 EA, they note that the Forest Plan allows for protection around all raptor nests (including owls and other hawks) and great blue heron nests in addition to the species that KPU plans to survey for. The

105 Forest Service states that, prior to clearing the corridor, any large stick nest should be reported so that it can be determined by the agencies biologists what the species and its activity status. Our Analysis Several of the bird and mammal species listed in table 12 prefer large areas of forest, particularly old growth forest. Such species include, but are not limited to, pine marten, red-breasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, and brown creeper. Old growth forest in the project area provides cover, snow interception, and denning and nesting sites for these species. The project area also provides some areas of open understory along creeks and existing pipelines, which provide valuable forage for bear, deer, small mammals, and birds, and also benefits the predators that rely on some of these animals, such as pine martin and wolves. A relatively small amount of both old growth and early-successional vegetation (approximately 4.13 acres) would be disturbed by the proposed action. The proposed Vegetation Management Plan would help to avoid the harvesting of large-diameter trees and to rehabilitate any disturbed wildlife habitat around the proposed structures. There would likely be some benefit to wildlife due to an increase in habitat diversity and resulting foraging opportunities along the proposed pipeline and penstocks. Because the largest area of habitat alteration would be along the access roads and penstock and diversion pipeline corridors, the loss of potential nesting trees would be a concern. Although no marbled murrelet or northern goshawk nest sites were found, new nest sites could be established between now and the beginning of construction. KPU s proposal to conduct an additional survey for marbled murrelet, goshawk, and bald eagle nests just prior to the beginning of construction would trigger the implementation of ADFG-, FWS- and Forest Service-recommended protection measures, such as limiting construction from August 31 to March 1 if active nests are found. Expanding this survey to include all raptor and great blue heron nests would be consistent with the Forest Plan. With such measures in place, proposed construction activities are less likely to hinder nesting of these species of special concern. Wildlife that are dependent on multiple habitat types that exist at the proposed project require the ability to move between these areas. The corridor created by existing pipelines provides a migration path for deer, bear, and other animals that are attracted to openings within the forest, as would the corridor that would be created by the proposed Achilles Creek pipeline and penstock corridors. In this case, the presence of a cleared strip through the forest would be a benefit. Animals that require movement across pipeline corridors, however, could be hindered by the presence of the above-ground pipelines. The existing pipelines have created an obstruction, but not a complete barrier,

106 to larger animals for almost 100 years. The two current pipelines are generally elevated between 4 to 12-inches above ground, though the rugged terrain creates several spots where larger gaps between the ground and pipes occur. These larger gaps provide access points for large and small animals to cross under the pipelines at approximately 280, 380, and 600-feet downstream of the dam. In addition, a portion of the pipeline between 900- to 1,100-feet downstream of the dam is elevated from 2-to 5-feet. Under KPU s proposal, about 200-feet of pipeline would be buried, and the above ground segments of the proposed penstock and pipeline would be elevated to provide wide and easy access underneath the penstock at strategic locations. The proposed Connectivity Plan, developed after consultation with the Forest Service, would further ensure that adequate passage points are provided throughout the proposed penstock and pipeline routes. Though these structures would create a partial barrier, with the presence of passage points in place the project would not prohibit animal migration from one area of the project to another. In summary, though a small amount of habitat would be displaced by the proposed project construction and facilities, the Vegetation Management Plan, Connectivity Plan, and additional surveys for nesting sites would help to enhance and protect wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the proposed project. We discuss the costs of wildlife management measures in section VI, Development Analysis. We make our final recommendation pertaining to terrestrial resource measures in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. c. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Approximately 2.27 acres of vegetation will be permanently damaged or displaced due to construction of new facilities. Local wildlife will be temporarily disturbed by increased human presence and construction activities. 5. Threatened and Endangered Species No threatened or endangered species are likely to be affected by this project because none were found within the project area

107 6. Recreational Resources a. Affected Environment: The proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project is surrounded by the Tongass National Forest (TNF), the largest forest in the National Forest System. The TNF encompasses 17 million acres, or about 80 percent of the entire land mass of Southeast Alaska. Many of the region s outdoor recreation facilities and trails are located within the TNF. Due to its large size, the TNF (Forest Service Plan) provides a wide variety of recreation settings and opportunities. Under the Forest Service s developed Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 27, the ROS designation around most of Whitman Lake and the proposed Achilles Creek diversion and pipeline is Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized. The designation at the lower end of Whitman Lake is Rural. Recreation and tourism in Ketchikan and Southeast Alaska has increased significantly over the past 20 years, primarily due to an increased popularity in cruise ship vacations to the area. Recreation within the Ketchikan area occurs year-round, but is heaviest in the summer months. Ketchikan is Alaska s fifth largest city with a 2003 population of approximately 8,000. During the summer months, however, when cruise ships dock at the port, the population increases dramatically. In 2003, nearly 500,000 cruise ship tourists visited Ketchikan compared to approximately 135,000 in Major recreation activities in the region include picnicking, camping, scenic driving, wildlife viewing, hiking and walking, fishing, hunting, and boating/kayaking. As noted in section V.C.4, Terrestrial Resources, numerous wildlife species occur in this area, providing excellent opportunities for wildlife viewing. The spectacular scenery produced by the mountains, waters, and forests also provides for excellent sightseeing opportunities. Additionally, deer and black bears attract hunters to the area. A popular sport fishery exists at the mouth of Whitman Creek for coho and chinook salmon. 28 Sport fishing is one of the most popular recreation activities in Southeast Alaska. There are more than 40 saltwater and 20 fresh water sport fishing locations to be found within the Southeast region. 29 Several of these sport fisheries USDA Forest Service s 4(e) report filed on January 27, The sport fishery was identified in a letter filed by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game on May 23, Source: Alaska Department of Fish & Game publication Sport fishing the Ketchikan, Alaska Area. Retrieved from:

108 including Tongess Narrows, Mountain Point, Ward Cove, and Carbanna Lake are located within the Ketchikan area. Ketchikan itself is known as a premier salmon and halibut fishing destination. Twenty-two miles east of the project area is Misty Fiords National Monument. Misty Fiords consists of 2,142,907 acres that occupy the eastern block of land between the southern tip of Alaska and British Columbia. Opportunities abound for camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, kayaking, and sightseeing. However, due to the difficult geography of the area and the lack of roads, more developed facilities with campgrounds, picnic areas, and beaches are found generally near population centers, such as Ketchikan and near saltwater access points. Located just two miles east of Whitman Lake is Deer Mountain/John Mountain/Silvis Lake trail system. The trail starts in downtown Ketchikan and continues from Deer Mountain, along the alpine ridge, past Blue Lake to John Mountain and Lower and Upper Silvis Lakes. There are two Forest Service shelters and picnic facilities are located along this trail system. There are no developed recreation facilities or recreation trails located at the proposed Whitman Lake project area. Access to Whitman Lake is limited with the most plausible route being to hike up the steep slope along the existing pipeline corridor from the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Previously, one could take an animal path across Whitman dam and up the slope toward Achilles Mountain. This path, approximately 4 miles long, provided alpine scenery at the top of Achilles Mountain and extended to the Silvis Lake trail system. However, this trail is no longer in existence, even in rustic form. Access to Whitman Lake can also be made by driving to Ketchikan Gateway Borough s (KGB) water diversion on lower Whitman Creek and hiking upstream. However, access to Whitman Lake from the diversion site is also difficult due to the steep terrain. Local hunters are known to use the KGB s diversion site to gain access to Whitman Creek where they hike up to the confluence with Achilles Creek and bushwhack into the Achilles Creek drainage. There are no developed trails or rustic paths into this area. Recreational Use According to a 2001 study for the Alaska Visitors Statistics Program, most summer visitors to Alaska were generally older and arrived by cruise ship. However, (February 15, 2007)

109 visitors to Alaska and the region are getting younger and becoming increasingly independent. These visitors tend to spend less time in the state than in the past given that these visitors are younger and more likely to be employed. Consequently, they are likely to demand more action and activity oriented products, such as wildlife viewing and independent travel options. Resident recreationists in Southeast Alaska may be similar to independent visitors in terms of recreation use. They use coastal areas year-round during periods of favorable weather, but the majority of their recreation activity occurs during the mild spring, summer, and fall seasons, and the concurrent fishing seasons. During the winter months, many local residents also cross-country ski and snowmobile. Recent trends in recreational activities demonstrate an increase in dispersed recreation and nonconsumptive activities, such as snowmobiling, canoeing, cross-country skiing, motorboating, downhill skiing, and camping. At this time, no documented recreation usage data exists for the Whitman Lake project area. Conversations were held with locals familiar with the area to assist in estimating the existing recreation use. It was estimated that recreationists took advantage of the Whitman Lake area between a half dozen to two-dozen days-per-year, with most activity occurring during the summer months and hunting seasons (deer hunting season ranges from August 1 to December 31). From this estimate it is predicted that the annual total recreation use of the Whitman Lake area is 24 user-days. Recreationists taking advantage of the project area access the area via the pipeline corridor route or via Whitman Creek, near the KGB s diversion. These are the only two plausible routes to access the project. Recreation Demand Several studies and local plans have identified a strong demand for recreation access opportunities in the form of hiking trails in the Southeast Alaska/Ketchikan Gateway Borough region. These plans include the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Parks and Recreation Plan, and the Ketchikan Trails Plan. Released in 1993, a Ketchikan Gateway Borough Parks and Recreation Plan indicated that the current capacity and range of both outdoor and indoor facilities did not meet demand in the Ketchikan area and identified strong community interest in roaded recreation opportunities and accessible hiking trails. While the plan proposed several parks and trails near Ketchikan, no facilities were proposed to be located within the project area

110 Developed in 1995 by Ketchikan Outdoor Recreation and Trails Coalition, in collaboration with other recreation organizations and federal, state, and local agencies, this plan used public input to identify trail needs and locations in the Ketchikan area. The final product included a recommendation for trail access to Achilles Mountain (Achilles Mountain trail), starting at Tongass Highway and then following Whitman Creek and the Achilles Creek drainage north of Whitman Lake to Achilles Mountain. The Ketchikan Trails Plan was approved, however, has not been implemented. According to the SCORP, issued in 1999 by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), surveys reported high trail usage throughout the state but a low number and miles of trails in the Southeast (Alaska Panhandle) region of Alaska. The SCORP listed trails as one of the top three priorities for outdoor recreation in the state of Alaska. This includes building new trails, designating existing trails, and adding more signage. Alaska s biggest trail barriers are funding, maintenance, and lack of connecting trails. b. Environmental Effects: Construction of the project has the potential to result in noise, dust, exhaust emissions, and additional project related traffic on the Tongass Highway and the powerhouse road, which could cause minor inconveniences to recreationists in the area. Staging of construction and construction activities could also impede or prevent recreation visitation to the area. Additionally, fishing opportunities in the mouth of Whitman Creek may be affected by the project s alteration of flows in Whitman Creek and by water releases being discharged by the powerhouse, as discussed in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources. This could potentially reduce the number of fish (chinook and coho salmon) that gather at the mouth of Whitman Creek and therefore reduce fishing opportunities in this area. Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 8 specifies that KPU obtain the necessary easements for governmental administrative access to all project facilities that KPU will construct that are not located on National Forest System land. Further, Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 9 specifies that KPU obtain an easement for public use of portions of the proposed Achilles Mountain trail that do not occur on National Forest Service lands. However, the Forest Service maintains KPU will not have to construct or maintain the trail developed on the selected route. KPU would prefer to divert public access away from the project facilities due to concerns for public safety and vandalism. However, KPU has proposed to work with the Forest Service in concurrence with 4(e) condition no

111 Our Analysis Nearby residents and the Southern Southeast Aquaculture, as well as visiting recreationists, may be affected by construction activities. However, these impacts would only be short-term in nature. Existing recreation opportunities will only be minimally impacted through construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project due to the limited recreational activities occurring near Whitman Lake. Fishing opportunities may be reduced at the mouth of Whitman Creek due to the project s alteration of flows in Whitman Creek. However, due to the vast amount of sport fishing locations within the Ketchikan area there would be minimal effect on sport fishing opportunities. There are no developed recreation facilities or recreation trails located at the proposed Whitman Lake project area. At this time, recreationists can only access the lake via the pipeline corridor route or by way of Whitman Creek, near the KGB s diversion. Several studies and local plans have been identified to increase recreation access opportunities in the Ketchikan area in the form of potential trail routes. One such plan, the Ketchikan Trails Plan, provides for a trail starting at Tongass Highway via the planned Achilles Mountain trail. A developed trail leading to Whitman Lake from the proposed project area would improve access for recreationists to Whitman Lake and would provide residents with more recreation opportunities, such as fishing, hunting, and sightseeing within the project area. Further, it would facilitate the development of the proposed Achilles Mountain trail. Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 9 specifies that KPU obtain an easement would be consistent with the Ketchikan Trails Plan and would facilitate the construction of the Achilles Mountain trail in the Herring Cove area. However, the Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 9 would not allow recreationists direct access to Whitman Lake. KPU s desire to limit vandalism by consulting with the Forest Service on a trail route that avoids project facilities is valid. However, we note that there are several methods that may be employed to limit vandalism, such as fencing, and that these additional measures could be considered in the decision making process pertaining to the proposed trail route. At this time, no documented recreation usage data exists for the Whitman Lake project area. Conversations were held with locals familiar with the area to assist in estimating the existing recreation use. It was estimated that recreationists took advantage of the Whitman Lake area between a half dozen to two-dozen days-per-year, with most activity occurring during the summer months and hunting seasons (deer hunting season ranges from August 1 to December 31). From this estimate it is predicted that the annual total recreation use of the Whitman Lake area is 24 user-days

112 c. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: No unavoidable adverse effects have been identified. 7. Land Use and Aesthetic Resources a. Affected Environment: Land Ownership The project will occupy approximately 155 acres of federal lands located within the Tongass National Forest (TNF) and administered by the Forest Service. In addition, approximately 0.8 acres of land within the project boundary are public lands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Whitman Fish Hatchery operated by the Southern Southeast Aquaculture occupies an intertidal area on the north side of Herring Cove, from Powerhouse Road. The hatchery leases lands from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Alaska Mental Health Trust (AMHT), and the BLM. The proposed powerhouse site and the lower portion of the penstocks would be located on the AMHT and DNR lands that are leased by the hatchery. As with Whitman dam and the intake structures, the upper portion of the proposed penstock route would be on State of Alaska Community Grant lands. Lands across Herring Cove from the hatchery include a sawmill, several privately owned residential parcels, and a parcel owned by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, with additional private residential parcels located near the mouth of Herring Cove. Almost all of the facilities proposed for construction would be located on State of Alaska and Ketchikan Borough lands. The exceptions are the proposed Achilles Creek diversion and pipeline, which would be on National Forest Service land, and a short length of 60-inch penstock that will be located in the existing pipeline corridor. All lands surrounding Whitman Lake are a part of the TNF. Nationally Designated Lands Whitman Creek has not been designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There are no National Trail Systems located in the proposed project area; however, the Deer Mountain Trail, including the portion that follows along the western ridge line of the Whitman Creek watershed, and the Naha Trail, located north of Ketchikan within the Naha River drainage, have been designated as National Recreation Trails. The proposed hydroelectric project would not be located within any

113 wilderness area boundaries. The nearest wilderness area is Misty Fiords National Monument, approximately 22 miles east of Ketchikan. Land Management Designations Whitman Lake is located on lands designated by the Forest Service as Old- Growth Habitat and the proposed Achilles diversion structure and its pipeline would be located on land with the same designation. According to the Forest Service, the primary goal of the Old-Growth Habitat land use designation is to achieve and maintain oldgrowth forest characteristic structure and composition based on site capacity. Within Old-Growth Habitat designations, permitted improvements are to be limited, when feasible, to those compatible with management objectives. However, while new roads are generally inconsistent with Old-Growth Habitat designation objectives, they may be constructed if no feasible alternative is available. Ketchikan Gateway Borough has classified the State and BLM owned lands that are leased by the hatchery as Heavy Industrial Zone. The powerhouse and the lower portion of the penstocks are within this classification. The mid- and upper portion of the penstocks, Whitman dam, Whitman Lake, and the Achilles Creek diversion and pipeline are all within lands classified by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough as Future Development Zone. Under both classifications, hydroelectric generation is considered a permitted use. Roadless Area Resource Report In their Roadless Area Resource Report filed January 26, 2006, the Forest Service analyzes the impacts of the proposed project on the Revilla Roadless Area # and requests that this environmental assessment (EA) briefly discuss the report. The report notes that approximately 1.0 acres of land would require clearing to construct the proposed Achilles Creek diversion structure and pipeline. Approximately 300-feet of the existing penstock occurs within this roadless area; the corridor for this penstock may require widening by an additional 10-feet. Together, these construction activities may result in approximately 1.2 acres of timber harvested within the roadless area. In addition, no new roads are proposed for construction in the roadless area, no need exists 30 This roadless area is located on the southwest quarter of Revilla Island. It encompasses the proposed Achilles Creek diversion structure and pipeline corridor and approximately 300 feet of the existing pipeline corridor that runs from Whitman Lake to Herring Bay

114 to remove any large diameter trees at the Achilles Creek diversion, and the proposed diversion pipeline corridor would avoid significant geographic and vegetation features. Aesthetics Southeast Alaska is characterized by lush, temperate rain forests of Sitka spruce at the base of rugged, glaciated peaks and thousands of miles of coastline convoluted by fjords, inlets, and islands. The Whitman Lake basin is part of a larger region classified as the Coastal Hills. This is one of six broad regional landscapes on the TNF. Each is characterized generally by primary landform features. This character type is identified for the most part by rounded or rolling mountain tops and ridges with higher elevations averaging around 2,000 to 2,500-feet. Some areas display higher and more rugged, angular ridges and peaks, with most of these areas being densely forested. The National Forest Visual Management System rates the inherent scenic quality of all National Forest System (NFS) lands by putting them as one of three Variety Class categories ranging from a high degree of landscape variety, Class A, to having a minimal degree of diversity, Class C. The Whitman Lake basin is part of a large, very scenic, and rugged mountainous area north of Ketchikan that is rated as a Variety Class A. The project area consists of mostly western hemlock-sitka forests that begin at the edge of Whitman Lake and extend from the tidewater to the treeline. Riparian forest areas exist near Whitman Lake and both Whitman and Achilles creeks. The existing dam structure and upper water supply pipelines to the hatchery, as well as the lower end of the existing pipelines, are located within forested and riparian habitat. The proposed Achilles Creek diversion pipeline would cross mostly dense forest and a large area of shrub species located midway along the alignment. This rugged area is visible from the air and by those who hike to the lake. There are no trees within the existing pipeline corridor, although the opening has been naturally revegetated with shrubs and small plants. The lower portion of the pipelines, extending down the hill to the hatchery, can be seen from the hatchery and from residences located across Herring Cove. The Forest Service has adopted Visual Quality Objectives (VQO s) for each area of the TNF, depending on the land use allocation assigned to that area. The four VQO s, in rank order, allows increasing amount of alteration of the natural landscape character. The Forest Plan identified the VQO for this area as Retention. Under the Retention objective, development activities should not be visually evident to the casual observer; however, exceptions for small areas of non-conforming developments may be made on a case-by-case basis

115 b. Environmental Effects: Construction has the potential to cause minor related impacts through increased traffic, noise, dust and exhaust emissions from construction. The existing ground will be disturbed along the existing pipeline corridor and areas surrounding the Achilles Creek diversion in order to construct the new penstock and access the other areas of the project. Trees will need to be removed through an approximate 20-foot wide corridor for construction of the penstocks. The applicant proposes to revegetate all disturbed areas, except for a 2-foot wide trail that will provide access to the penstock, Whitman Lake Dam, the Achilles Creek diversion and the associate pipeline. Construction of proposed facilities and recreation trail has the potential to permanently change the visual landscape within the project area. The proposed powerhouse and switchyard will be located at the base of the hill and will be visible from the hatchery and residential homes within the project area. Additionally, the alteration in flows into Whitman and Achilles creeks could provide a different visual experience than what currently exists. Our Analysis Land Use The land management goal of the Forest Service is to maintain old-growth forests and their associated natural ecological processes; however, construction of the proposed Achilles Creek diversion structure and associate pipeline would not meet that goal. Replacing existing pipelines, installing new ones for the diversion, constructing Achilles Creek diversion structure, and maintaining conditions for their effective use, will result in a visual quality objective that corresponds more closely to that of maximum modification, as opposed to retention. However, as noted in the KPU s application and by the Forest Service in their 4(e) conditions, some exceptions are allowed on a case-by-case basis for small areas of non-conforming developments and this project meets the case for such an exception. The proposed work in the existing penstock corridor does not affect the nonconforming visual condition that exists already. The powerhouse and transmission facilities would be constructed on land designated as a Heavy Industrial Zone by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Therefore, designated land use would not be impacted. In addition, the mid- and upper portion of the penstocks, Whitman dam, Whitman Lake, and the proposed Achilles Creek diversion and pipeline are located in the Future Development zoned land, which would also not impact the Ketchikan Borough land designations. Under both classifications, hydroelectric generation is considered a permitted use

116 Roadless Area Resource Report Given the small amount of acreage involved, efforts to avoid removal of large diameter trees, rehabilitation of disturbed ground, and the proximity of other development in the Herring Bay area, the effects of the proposed project construction to the roadless characteristics of this area would be very minor. Aesthetics Construction of the proposed Whitman Lake project would cause short-term impacts to the aesthetics of the area in terms of noise, vegetation loss, and increased human influence on the natural environment. The proposed operational changes to create a hydroelectric project, as well as the construction of the Achilles diversion and the associated pipeline would permanently change the current aesthetics at the lake with the addition of a new structure that didn t previously exist. Additionally, the development of the proposed trails would alter the natural environment by increasing human activity in the area. While the project will permanently alter the visual and natural setting around Whitman Lake, most of the changes would be temporary during the construction period. Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 14, under the Scenery Management Plan, specifies proper measures designed to mitigate the impacts of the construction, such as designing the site to blend with the natural environment, restricting vegetation clearing to a minimum, and reclaiming the disturbed area to return it as close as possible to natural. KPU proposes to avoid large trees, boulders, rock outcrops, and any sensitive vegetated areas when possible. Construction of a powerhouse, transmission line, penstocks and apparatus could affect the visual resources in the area. However, many of these activities for the Whitman Lake project would occur in an area that already has an industrial look due to the presence of the Whitman Fish Hatchery. KPU has proposed to construct the powerhouse in a similar form to the hatchery facilities and use similar lines, colors, and textures to minimize negative impacts. While noise, dust, and increased traffic would cause construction related impacts to hatchery workers and nearby residents, the impacts would be short-term. The construction of the Achilles diversion and the diversion pipeline would occur in the existing penstock corridor in an area that has been classified as Old Growth by the Forest Service, and directs designs on it to conform to a visual quality objective referred to as retention. Because the proposed work would not occur in locations visible from the Forest Service s designated Visual Priority Routes, use areas, or by the casual observer, the Forest Service stated in their filing dated January 27, 2006, that the proposed work in

117 the existing penstock corridor would not affect the non-conforming visual condition that already exists. The transmission line would use the existing distribution line serving the hatchery and several residences along the Powerhouse Road, and intertie with the Beaver Falls transmission line along Tongass Highway, therefore reducing the need to create a new transmission system and associated easements. After construction, KPU s proposal to revegetate the disturbed areas would limit the permanent visual impacts of the new pipelines. Most of the pipeline construction (excluding the Achilles diversion pipeline) would not be visible to the public, nor would the public have access to the pipeline after construction, which would limit the aesthetic impacts. c. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: With proper consultation and development of plans, only minor visual impacts would occur. 8. Cultural and Historic Resources a. Affected Environment: Definition of Cultural Resources, Historic Properties, and Area of Potential Effects (APE) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires that the Commission evaluate the potential effects on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Such properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register are called historic properties. In this document we also use the term "cultural resource" for properties that have not been evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register. Cultural resources represent things, structures, places, or archeological sites that can be either prehistoric or historic in origin. In most cases, cultural resources less than 50 years old are not considered historic. Section 106 also requires that the Commission seek concurrence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on any finding involving effects or no effects to historic properties, and allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) an opportunity to comment on any finding of effects to historic properties. If Native American properties have been identified, Section 106 also requires that the Commission consult with interested Indian Tribes that might attach religious or cultural significance to such properties

118 Cultural Historic Context 31 While early prehistoric sites, dating from 9,000-10,000 years ago, have been found at several locations throughout the Alexander Archipelago of Southeastern Alaska, no sites of this age have been found thus far on Revillagigedo Island. Although currently undiscovered and undocumented, an early occupation of the island still is possible. As identified through ethnohistoric data, two Tlingit tribes, the Tankakwan and Sanyakwan, were the first to have ties to the region. The Tantakwan and the Sanyakwan came into frequent contact, which led to disputes, warfare, and territory relocation. The Sanyakwan Tlingit stated that all of the Revillagigedo Island was originally their territory, but conflicts with the Tantakwan resulted in the latter s claim to the southern and western shores of the island. The project is located in this territory. Ketchikan Territory The area occupied by the city of Ketchikan, prior to the establishment of a cannery there in 1887, was that of a year round Tantakwan Tlingit village site built adjacent to Fish (Ketchikan) Creek. The City of Ketchikan reportedly takes its name from the Tlingit name Kitschkhin, meaning eagle wing river for a boulder at the falls of the river that caused the water to flow to either side like the spread wings of an eagle. Saxman Territory The Sanyakwan occupied the mainland along the Revillagigedo Channel and west and south along Behm Canal, including Cleveland Peninsula and most of the Revillagigedo Island. Sanyakwan left Cape Fox, one of their main villages, in 1893 to move to the present community of Saxman, on Revillagigedo Island. The village of Saxman, prior to its occupation by the Sanyakwan, had been a camp site and not as important as a resource area as the area adjacent to Ketchikan Creek. The town of Saxman was listed as a native village in 1894 and named after Samuel Saxman, a school teacher. Project Area-Specific Occupation The growth of the community at Herring Bay was associated with the original hydroelectric station at Whitman Lake, built by the New England Fish Company (NEFCO) in As the name of the company implies, the company was 31 Taken from Archeological Survey of Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project and Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project; Robert E. Ackerman and Jeffrey Rasic;

119 established in Gloucester, MA in 1868 to process Atlantic halibut. Atlantic halibut was plentiful throughout the 1880 s, but by the 1890 s had begun to decline. The company shifted operations to the Pacific Northwest (Vancouver, BC) in 1894 to supplement the declining Atlantic halibut stocks. NEFCO constructed a freezing and cold storage facility in Ketchikan in 1907, along with wharves and other buildings. The next year, electrical power was provided by the hydroelectric station established in Herring Bay. Excess electricity was sold to local residents, many of whom also worked at the NEFCO facilities. The NEFCO hydroelectric station was in operation between 1908 and 1957; however, during the latter part of its operation, the NEFCO power station at Herring Bay had not been updated and the facility had begun to deteriorate. During the 1940 s, the City of Ketchikan constructed the Beaver Falls hydroelectric plant with a transmission line running from Beaver Falls to Ketchikan. The Beaver Falls transmission line paralleled the NEFCO line from Herring Bay to Ketchikan. Given that the facility has begun to deteriorate and because of the availability of other electric power, NEFCO sold the Herring Bay hydroelectric plant to the Utilities Board of Control of the City of Ketchikan, at which time the Herring Bay community also became customers of Ketchikan. Following the acquisition of the NEFCO power plant by Ketchikan, the facility was retired from service. Following retirement in 1957, the hydroelectric plant and associated buildings and pipeline continued to deteriorate. The Ketchikan Volunteer Fire Department set fire to the powerhouse in 1963 and again in 1964 as part of fire control exercises and the structure was allowed to burn completely down to its foundation. Three additional houses were located in the area, but two were torn down in 1959, and the third was demolished sometime between 1962 and The sites of the houses and powerhouse were eventually taken over by pioneering vegetation. In 1977, the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (Southern Southeast Aquaculture) applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a 25-year recreation and public purposes lease to permit the construction of a fish hatchery (Whitman Fish Hatchery) on the land formerly occupied by the NEFCO powerhouse. The remaining NEFCO powerhouse facilities were demolished in Project s Area of Potential Effects Pursuant to Section 106, the Commission must take into account whether any historic property could be affected by a proposed new license within the project's area of potential effects (APE). The APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. No distinct APE was defined for this proposed project, so the areas surrounding the proposed construction and project sites,

120 plus any lands where project operations may affect the character or use of historic properties or cultural resources was defined as the surveyed APE. Project Facilities While 12 sites located around the town of Ketchikan are listed in the NRHP, no sites within the proposed project s APE are listed or awaiting listing. However, Ketchikan s Cultural Resources Report draft Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) identified three sites within the proposed project area that might be eligible for listing in the NRHP due to age and possible historic significance to the community. The sites are the Whitman dam, the submerged timber crib dam, and a wooden shed located next to the existing pipelines within the pipeline corridor. Whitman Lake Dams The 148-acre Whitman Lake is naturally formed, but the construction of a 20-foot-high timber crib dam (KET-00796) in 1908 by the NEFCO raised the surface elevation of the lake by 8-feet. The crest length of this dam was 138-feet and formed a reservoir of 145 acres at an elevation of 340-feet above sea level. Although completely submerged during recent historic evaluations, photos from 1978 indicate the timber crib dam has deteriorated and the rock fill within the timber cribs has been largely removed. In addition, Ketchikan states that a portion of the dam was demolished in the early 1980s. In 1927, the timber crib dam was replaced by a 39-foot-high concrete arch dam (KET-00797) downstream from the timber crib dam, which raised the water level in Whitman Lake by an additional 18-feet. 32 The dam runs north/south between steep sided valley walls and is approximately 215-feet long and feet high (at its middle). A 38.3-foot spillway is located near the dam s northern end and a walkway with two 3-foot galvanized metal pipe rails run the length of the dam on either side of the walkway. From a historic property perspective, the concrete dam appears to be in good shape due to regular maintenance and repair. Whitman Lake Tool Shed An old wood stave conduit and tramway had been associated with the former NEFC power station, but was removed during the installation of the two Southern Southeast Aquaculture fish hatchery steel conduits. As observed during the site visit, an 32 Although the cultural resources inventory states that the dam is 46-foot-high, the application states that the concrete-arch dam is 39-foot-high; therefore, we use 39-foothigh for our analysis purposes

121 abandoned shed is located at the crest of the current pipeline corridor. While unknown when the shed was built, it appears by its location to have been associated with the construction of the wood stave conduit and tramway associated with the NEFCO power station. According to the Forest Service report on eligibility, the site is a 15-foot by foot shed-style structure. The west side is high and slopes to 6 6 on the east side. The walls are constructed from 6-foot by 6-foot posts and the roof is galvanized, corrugated metal. The shed appears to have been maintained and is in good condition, although modern piles of trash and debris, and some graffiti, are evident in and around the structure. Determinations of Historical Significance In its 2004 report, the Forest Service determined that the concrete dam at Whitman Lake (KET ) and the shed at the crest of the pipeline corridor (KET-00798) are considered significant at the local level under Criterion A 33 because of their association with the NEFCC. In addition, both sites appear to be in good condition and their overall physical integrity continue to convey the historic identity, design, materials, workmanship, feelings, and association, or visibility and focus of a hydroelectric dam and one of its support buildings; therefore, both sites are eligible for nomination to the NRHP. We concur with this determination. The Forest Service also evaluated the timber crib dam (KET-00796), but while its age and historical significance might allow for it to be eligible for nomination, its physical integrity has been comprised due to its underwater context and the deterioration illustrated in the documented photos. The Forest Service determined, therefore, that the Whitman Lake timber crib dam is not eligible for nomination to the NRHP and we concur with this determination. 33 Criterion A: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history

122 b. Environmental Effects: Effects on cultural resources within the APE can result from project-related activities such as reservoir operations, modifications to existing project facilities, or other project-related, ground-disturbing activities. Effects also can result from other forces such as wind and water erosion, recreational activities, vandalism, and private and commercial development. The type and level of effects on cultural resources can vary widely, depending upon the setting, size, and visibility of the resource, as well as whether there is public knowledge about the location of the resource. In their draft HPMP, developed at the request of the Commission and filed on November 15, 2005, Ketchikan states that if any previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during project implementation, a Forest Service archaeologist would be notified immediately and all land clearing, land disturbing, or spoil producing activities would be stopped in the vicinity of the identified resource until evaluation could occur. As proposed by Ketchikan, a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP), prepared after consultation with the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, would be developed if previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during project implementation. The CRMP, as proposed by Ketchikan, would set forth the procedures for documenting each discovered site, evaluating the site for NHRP eligibility, describing the potential effects of the project on the site, and identifying the proposed mitigation measures for each site. Forest Service final 4(e) condition no. 13, filed on January 26, 2006, specifies that Ketchikan shall not initiate any construction, development, or modification/replacement of any project works or other facilities at the project without first consulting with the Forest Service and Alaska SHPO, conducting a heritage resources survey of the disturbed areas, and filing an CRMP, for Commission approval, that identifies ways to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to any historic properties or cultural resources identified during the survey. In addition, the Forest Service specifies that Ketchikan should enter into an Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) with the Organized Village of Saxman, the Cape Fox Corporation, the Ketchikan Indian Corporation, or the Tongass Tribal Council (Tribal Governments in Ketchikan), the Forest Service, and the Alaska SHPO to address the procedures that must be followed if the unexpected discovery of cultural resources occurs during project-related work. The Forest Service specifies that the MOU should be part of the CRMP. Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 13 also specifies a report detailing the results of the heritage resource survey and containing the CRMP, a description of the three identified NRHP-eligible sites, the potential effects of the project on the NRHPeligible sites, the measures to avoid or mitigate the effects on the NRHP-eligible sites,

123 documentation of consultation, and a schedule for mitigating effects and conducting additional studies, if needed. Our Analysis Construction of the proposed powerhouse and penstocks near the Southern Southeast Aquaculture hatchery would occur at a site that has been modified numerous times; because this area has been heavily impacted from previous construction, contains little remaining evidence of prehistoric use, and does not retain its historic value, the proposed construction and operation of the project should not impact cultural resources. Construction of the penstock, however, would adversely affect the shed at the crest of the pipeline corridor. This shed has been evaluated and is considered eligible for nomination to the NRHP. Mitigation for this impact could include documentation of the structure through the Historic American Buildings Survey/ Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) prior to the start of any project related activities. This HABS/HAER documentation should occur after consultation with the Alaska SHPO and be taken into account in the final, Commission-approved HPMP. While destruction of the shed is not ideal, the documentation of the structure through the HABS/HAER process would provide a permanent record of this historic structure. As the Whitman Lake timber crib dam has already experienced deterioration and its physical integrity has been comprised, it is not considered eligible for the NRHP. In addition, due to the structure s already comprised integrity, Ketchikan s proposed removal of the structure will not affect a historic property. The Whitman Lake dam, on the other hand, does continue to maintain its integrity and is considered historically significant. Ketchikan s proposal involving general maintenance and repair, however, is a necessary aspect of work for continued use of a historic dam. These activities should not affect the significance of the historic property. Little evidence of historical human activity was evident in the area of the proposed Achilles diversion, most likely due to the steep terrain and lack of access to the area. As a result, no cultural resource impacts are foreseen; however, disturbances caused by the construction of the diversion structure and associated pipeline could uncover previously unidentified cultural resources, which would result in the need to notify the proper authorities to ensure proper handling of the resources. A CRMP, as proposed by Ketchikan and specified by the Forest Service, would require consultation with appropriate agencies and provide for proper handling of any identified resources. As set forth in Ketchikan s draft HPMP, however, the CRMP would not be prepared unless any previously unidentified cultural resources were discovered during construction of the project. This approach is flawed because it does not allow for

124 surveys to identify resources and develop mitigation measures prior to the commencement of construction. In addition, Ketchikan s proposal does not address site-specific procedures for protecting already identified resources. Unlike the proposal in Ketchikan s HPMP, Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 13 calls for a plan that requires a heritage resource survey to identify properties prior to construction, as well as an MOU with the Alaska SHPO, the Forest Service, and the Tribal Governments to address proper resource handling, ensures any existing properties were protected prior to construction, and sets forth the proper procedure for handling, avoiding, and/or mitigating effects on cultural resources. A final HPMP, 34 developed under the guidance of the Commission s Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects, and that incorporates Forest Service specifications, SHPO and Tribal consultation, as well as aspects of Ketchikan s proposed CRMP, would better address the appropriate measures to identify and protect cultural resources at the proposed Whitman Lake project. c. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Implementation of a final, Commission-approved HPMP (through the execution of a final Programmatic Agreement between the Commission and the Alaska SHPO) over the term of a new license would ensure proper management of significant cultural resources within the APE of the Whitman Lake project and also provide for addressing any potential project-related adverse effects. D. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be built, resulting in no changes to the existing environment. None of the environmental measures proposed by KPU, or recommended by staff or others that were analyzed in this assessment would be implemented. 34 The Forest Service and Ketchikan refer to the HPMP using the name Cultural Resource Management Plan; however, the Commission and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have developed Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects that went into affect on January 11, We and the Council have agreed to use the term "HPMP" to denote such management plans intended for the purposes of preserving, protecting, or mitigating the effects to historic properties

125 VI. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS In this section, we analyze the project s use of the water resources of Whitman Creek to generate power, estimate the economic benefits of the proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, and estimate the cost of various environmental measures and the effects of these measures on project operation. Under its approach to evaluating the economics of hydropower projects, as articulated in Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division (72 FERC 61,027, July 13, 1995), the Commission employs an analysis that uses current costs to compare the costs of the project and likely alternative power with no consideration for potential future inflation, escalation, or deflation beyond the license issuance date. The Commission s economic analysis provides a general estimate of the potential power benefits and costs of a project and reasonable alternatives to project-generated power. The estimate helps to support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest with respect to a proposed license. A. POWER AND ECOMONIC BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT When its hydroelectric power is not available or sufficient, Ketchikan uses diesel generators to meet its power needs. The cost of diesel generation, therefore, is a reasonable proxy for project value for our economic analysis. Our economic studies are used to provide a basis of measuring the economic benefits of continued project operation. For our economic analysis of alternatives, we used the assumptions, and values shown in table

126 Table 14. Staff assumptions for economic analysis of the project. (Source: Staff, 2008) Assumption Value Source Economic factor: Period of analysis 30 years Staff Cost of money 5 percent KPU Capital cost $16,391,000 KPU Federal and state taxes None Staff FERC compliance $75,000 KPU Operations & Maintenance (O&M) $160,000 KPU cost Insurance $15,000 KPU Alternative cost for diesel generators: Diesel fuel cost: $4.341 per gallon 1 Staff Energy content 12.0 kwh/gallon of diesel Staff 1 The fuel cost is based on the June 2008 fuel cost of $4.878 per gallon reported by the Energy Information Administration. The fuel cost is reduced to account for taxes. B. COST OF ENVIROMENTAL MEASURES The environmental measures proposed by KPU, agencies and staff would affect project economics by requiring capital outlays for construction and equipment, as well as annual operation and maintenance costs. Table 15 is a summary of the environmental measures and the estimated costs for the environmental measures we consider in this final EA

127 Table 15. Summary of capital costs, annual costs and total annualized costs of environmental measures proposed by KPU, agencies and staff. (Source: Staff, 2008) Recommendation General Entity Capital Cost Annual Cost Annualized Cost of Measure Adopted by Staff? Provide state and federal resource agency personnel access to project facilities and lands upon adequate notice. Acquire an administrative access easement. Coordinate and consult with fish and wildlife agencies and the Forest Service on the need for an annual project review meeting and file with the Commission evidence of the consultation and any recommendations made by the agencies. Notify ADFG, the Forest Service, ADNR, FWS, NMFS, and the Commission as soon as possible, but within 12 hours, of the beginning or detection of a non-compliance event. Geological, Water, and Aquatic Resources ADFG $0 $0 $0 Yes FS (4(e) no. 8) ADFG, FS(4(e) no. 4) $10,000 $700 No $1,000 $1,000 Yes ADFG $0 $0 $0 Yes 108

128 Recommendation Develop and implement an erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP). Entity KPU, ADFG, FS (4(e) no. 16) Capital Cost Annual Cost Annualized Cost of Measure Adopted by Staff? $1,500 $850 1 $950 Yes Obtain Forest Service approval prior to using pesticides on Forest Service lands. FS (4(e) no. 12) $0 $100 $100 Yes Monitor turbidity upstream and downstream of all construction and discharge points from initial construction until there is no risk of turbid runoff resulting from project construction, in Whitman and Achilles creeks. Implement the Achilles Creek diversion operations and maintenance plan. Implement the Whitman Lake dam and reservoir operations and maintenance plan. ADFG $1,000 $2,000 $2,070 Yes KPU, FS (4(e) no. 15) $1,000 $1,000 Yes KPU $1,500 $1,000 $1,220 Yes 109

129 Recommendation Implement the spoil disposal plan during construction. Entity KPU, FS (4(e) no. 17) Capital Cost Annual Cost Annualized Cost of Measure Adopted by Staff? $180 2 $180 Yes Minimize clearing width and disturbance to vegetation within existing and new pipeline corridors, and revegetate disturbed areas. Develop and implement a hazardous substances plan. Treat and remove oil and contaminates from discharge. Develop and implement a plan to provide an environmental compliance monitor during project construction. Develop and implement a Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan and file a report with the Commission detailing the five year review and any necessary modifications. KPU $5,000 $350 Yes KPU, ADFG, FS (4(e) no. 6) $1,500 $500 $610 Yes ADFG $500 $500 Yes ADFG $1,500 $4,840 3 $4,950 Yes; however, we conclude developing a plan is not necessary. KPU, ADFG $2,000 $2,000 $2,140 Yes; however, we only recommend that KPU implement the protocol as described in the Settlement and file the five year 110

130 Recommendation Notify the Commission within 10 days of a change in the Reservoir Status Code or upon any modification to project operations such as minimum instream flows based on decisions made by the Reservoir Action Team. Entity Capital Cost Annual Cost Annualized Cost of Measure Adopted by Staff? review report. $0 $0 $0 Yes Install recording devices at the Unit 1 and 2 penstocks, the Whitman Hatchery s 12-inch incubation water supply line, and the primary hatchery supply line from the head tank, as specified in the Settlement. Provide continuous minimum instream flows of between 6 and 11 cfs to lower Whitman Creek during normal hydrologic conditions. Provide continuous minimum instream flows of between 2 and 7 cfs to lower Whitman Creek during dry hydrologic conditions. Provide a year-round minimum instream flow of 1.5 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, downstream of the Achilles Creek KPU $20,000 $600 $2,000 Yes KPU, ADFG $0 $0 $0 Yes KPU, ADFG $0 $0 $0 Yes KPU, ADFG $0 $0 $0 Yes 111

131 Recommendation diversion and allow flows in excess of 20 cfs to overtop the Achilles Creek diversion. Provide a minimum instream flow downstream of the mouth of Achilles Creek of 0.77 cfs as measured by summing the Achilles and Whitman Creek stream gages, to provide Ketchikan Gateway Borough with 0.77 cfs for consumptive purposes. Implement ramping rates no greater than 1 inch per hour from March 1 to May 31, and no greater than 2 inches per hour from June 1 to February 28/29 for minimum instream flows in lower Whitman Creek. Provide an annual channel and riparian maintenance flow of 150 cfs to lower Whitman Creek for a continuous 24- hour period between June 1 and August 15 and ramp flows at rates no greater than 2 inches per hour. Periodically sluice sediments from above the Achilles Creek diversion during high flows. Entity Capital Cost Annual Cost Annualized Cost of Measure Adopted by Staff? $0 $0 $0 Yes KPU, ADFG $0 $0 $0 Yes KPU, ADFG $0 $0 $0 Yes KPU $0 $0 $0 Yes; however, we also recommend this 112

132 Recommendation Install a valve at base of dam, and when reservoir elevations are above El. 364, release lower Whitman Creek minimum instream flows from Whitman dam Install a pressure reducing valve to provide flows from the Unit 2 penstock to the head tank. Develop and implement an Instream Flow Release and Ramping Rate Monitoring Plan that includes the installation and maintenance of three stream gages in Whitman Creek and one in Achilles Creeks that meet USGS standards. (Proposal for gage in Achilles Creek is consistent with FS 4(e) no. 20) Construct, operate, and maintain two stream gages than meet USGS standards, record at no less than 15- Entity Capital Cost Annual Cost Annualized Cost of Measure Adopted by Staff? sluicing occur annually for a continuous 24 hour period with flows of at least 34 cfs. $42,400 $0 $2,970 Yes KPU $40,000 $2,800 Yes KPU, ADFG $210,000 $40,000 $54,690 No $100,000 $20,000 $27,000 Yes 113

133 Recommendation minute intervals, and have real time capability including: one stream gage downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion (consistent with FS 4(e) no. 20) and one downstream of the instream flow release valve from the Unit 2 penstock in lower Whitman Creek. Upon construction of the stream gages, file a report with the Commission detailing the gaging equipment installed, drawings of the gage, and exact locations of the gages. Install adjustable valves to allow for any necessary adjustments needed to release minimum instream flows or channel maintenance flows to Whitman or Achilles creeks. 8 Upon request from the agencies, provide stream flow data, within 30 days of the request. Install a new valve house at the base of Whitman dam as specified in the Settlement. Develop and implement a plan in consultation with Southern Southeast Entity Capital Cost Annual Cost Annualized Cost of Measure Adopted by Staff? $1,500 $0 $110 Yes ADFG $7,000 $0 $490 Yes KPU $250 $100 $120 Yes KPU $120,000 $2,000 $10,400 Yes KPU $5,000 $500 $850 Yes 114

134 Recommendation Aquaculture to determine how water temperature requirements at the Whitman Fish Hatchery will be met using the valve house, as specified in the Settlement. Develop and implement a Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting Plan. Install a head tank to collect Unit 2 discharge that would enable the Whitman Fish Hatchery to be supplied with the pressure of water needed for hatchery operations, as specified in the Settlement. Modify the deep water intake to allow the reservoir to be drawn down to El. 343 msl during dry conditions. Develop and implement a biotic monitoring plan for five years after project construction in Herring Cove and lower Whitman Creek. Develop and implement a biotic monitoring plan for Herring Cove. Entity Capital Cost Annual Cost Annualized Cost of Measure Adopted by Staff? KPU $5,000 $1,000 $1,350 No KPU $150,000 $10,000 $20,490 Yes KPU $250,000 $10,000 $278,480 Yes ADFG $4,000 $17,120 5 $17,400 No KPU $2,500 $180 Yes 115

135 Recommendation Develop and implement a biotic monitoring plan to monitor returning anadromous fish for two years after the start of project operations in Herring Cove. Screen new Unit 1 intake at Whitman dam to meet NMFS criteria for juvenile salmonids. Screen new Unit 1 intake at Whitman dam to meet NMFS criteria for salmonid fry. If a new variable intake is constructed, screen it to meet NMFS criteria for salmonid fry. Perform, at a minimum, weekly inspections and cleanings of the new Unit 1 intake screen for the first two years of project operations (absent when Whitman Lake is frozen over), and file a report detailing monitoring results Entity Capital Cost Annual Cost Annualized Cost of Measure Adopted by Staff? $2,500 $8,180 6 $8,350 9 Yes KPU, ADFG $175,000 $12,240 Yes ADFG $275,000 $19,230 No ADFG $150,000 $10,490 No; Commission staff supports screening any new variable intake only to current 1.5-to 2- inch specifications. $1,000 $4,000 $4,070 Yes 116

136 Recommendation after two years discussing a recommended cleaning schedule based on the results Develop and implement a plan to automatically clean the new Unit 1 intake screen. Terrestrial Resources Avoid large trees, boulders, rock outcrops, and any sensitive vegetated areas. Develop and implement a vegetation management plan. 7 Develop and implement a terrestrial species connectivity plan. Develop and implement a nesting survey plan. Develop and implement a Fire Prevention Plan. Recreation Resources Develop, implement, a trail plan in consultation with the Forest Service that shall include design, construction, and Entity Capital Cost Annual Cost Annualized Cost of Measure Adopted by Staff? ADFG $100,000 $1,000 $7,990 No KPU $0 $0 Yes KPU, FS $10,000 $1,500 $2,200 Yes (4(e) no. 19) KPU $2,000 $500 $640 Yes KPU $3,500 $240 Yes FS (4(e) no. 18) $2,000 $500 $640 Yes $39,500 $900 $3,660 Yes 117

137 Recommendation maintenance of a trail that provides access between the hatchery complex area and Whitman Lake, and trailhead parking for 6 vehicles and appropriate signage. Acquire an easement for the proposed trail. Land Use and Aesthetic Resources Prepare and implement a scenery management plan. Cultural Resources Prepare a final historic properties management plan. Conduct and implement a Historic American Buildings Survey and a Historic American Engineering Record for the adversely affected NRHP eligible shed along the pipeline corridor. Entity FS (4(e) no. 9) FS (4(e) no. 14) FS (4(e) no. 13) Capital Cost Annual Cost Annualized Cost of Measure Adopted by Staff? $25,000 $1,750 No $2,500 $500 $680 Yes $5,000 $500 $850 Yes $2,000 $0 $140 Yes 1 This is the equivalent annual cost based on implementing the erosion and sediment control plan during construction at a cost of $7,000 per year for the first two years. 2 This is the equivalent annual cost based on implementing the spoil disposal plan during construction at a cost of $1,500 per year for the first two years. 118

138 3 This is the equivalent annual cost based on employing an environmental compliance monitor at a cost of $40,000 per year for the first two years. 4 The cost of this item is included in the KPU s project cost estimate. 5 This is the equivalent annual cost based on implementing a biotic monitoring plan after project construction at a cost of $67,000 per year for the first five years in Herring Cove and lower Whitman Creek. 6 This is the equivalent annual cost based implementing a biotic monitoring plan after project construction at a cost of $60,000 per year for the first two years in Herring Cove. 7 FS 4(e) no. 19 requires a noxious weed management plan and also refers to it as a vegetation management plan. 8 An adjustable valve already exists at the base of Whitman dam. 9 Staff s biotic monitoring plan is a continuation of KPU s plan. KPU s capital of $2,500 is included in this cost. 119

139 C. POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT In this section, we compare the project benefits, alternative costs and net benefits for the KPU s Proposal and the Staff Alternative. We use a consistent set of economic assumptions as presented in table Proposed Project As proposed by KPU, the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project would generate an average of 16,500 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of $5,954,600 ( mills/kwh), and total annual costs of $1,570,500 (95.2 mills/kwh), resulting in a net annual benefit of $4,384,000 (265.7 mills/kwh). 2. Staff Alternative Under the Staff Alternative (KPU s Proposal with staff-recommended measures), the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project would generate an average of 16,500 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of $5,954,600 (360.9 mill/kwh), and total annual costs of $1,574,700 (95.5 mills/kwh), resulting in a net annual benefit of $4,379,900 (265.4 mills/kwh). 3. Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions Under the Staff Alternative with the Mandatory Conditions, the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project would generate an average of 16,500 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of $5,954,600 (360.9 mill/kwh), and total annual costs of $1,577,100 (95.6 mills/kwh), resulting in a net annual benefit of $4,377,500 (265.3 mills/kwh). Table 16 compares the power value, annual costs, and net benefits of KPU s Proposal, Staff Alternative and Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project. Table 16. Summary of the annual net benefits for KPU s proposal, staff alternative and staff alternative with mandatory conditions for the project. (Source: Staff, 2008) KPU s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions Installed capacity (kw) 4,600 4,600 4,

140 KPU s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions Annual generation 16,500 16,500 16,500 (MWh) Annual power value $5,954,600 $5,954,600 $5,954,600 (mills/kwh) Annual cost $1,570,500 $1,576,200 $1,577,900 (mills/kwh) Annual net benefit $4,384,000 $4,378,400 $4,376,600 (mills/kwh) In section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the Staff Alternative and explain why we conclude the environmental benefits are worth these costs. We weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against other proposed measures. VII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which the project is located. When reviewing a hydropower project, we consider the 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 issued shall be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses. This section contains the basis for, and a summary of, our recommendations to the Commission for the licensing of the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project. We weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against other proposed measures. A. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Based on our independent review and evaluation of KPU s proposal; the Staff Alternative (i.e., KPU s proposal with additional staff-recommended 121

141 measures); and the No-action Alternative, we select the Staff Alternative as the preferred alternative. The Staff Alternative includes elements of KPU s proposed measures, ADFG 10(j) recommendations, the Forest Service s FPA final section 4(e) conditions, and some additional staff recommended environmental measures. We recommend this alternative because issuance of a license would allow KPU to displace its use and dependency on fossil fuel generation. By minimizing the use of fossil fuel generation, KPU will help to conserve non-renewable resources and reduce the generation of unwanted byproducts associated with fossil fuels. Lastly, the recommended environmental protection and enhancement measures would protect or enhance water, fish and terrestrial resources, enhance public access and recreational opportunities, and maintain and protect historic and archaeological resources within the area affected by the project. Finally, for reasons outlined below, we do not recommend including two of the final 4(e) conditions specified by the Forest Service in any license issued for the proposed project. We do not recommend including: (1) Forest Service s 4(e) condition no. 8 which requires KPU to obtain an easement to all lands occupied by the project in the name of the United States government, to allow for governmental administrative access through the project area; and (2) Forest Service s 4(e) condition no. 9 which specifies that KPU obtain an easement in the name of the United States for the location and governmental and public use of portions of the proposed Achilles Mountain trail that do not occur on National Forest System land. We do not recommend these 4(e) conditions because first, we conclude that our recommendation contained in the Staff Alternative for KPU to provide access to project facilities and lands for agency personnel upon request with adequate notice would meet the objectives of 4(e) condition no. 8; and second the proposed easements of condition no. 9 do not relate to recreation at the project and we fail to see a nexus between the required easements and the proposed project. We do recognize; however, that the Commission is required to include valid 4(e) conditions in any license issued for the project. Additionally, as discussed in Section VIII Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, we make a preliminary determination that installing two of the four stream gages (below the confluence of Achilles Creek with Whitman Creek and immediately upstream of any municipal water supply diversion) recommended by ADFG, may be inconsistent with the public interest standard of section 4(e) and the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) of the FPA; and therefore, we do not recommend their installation. 122

142 The environmental measures we recommend including in any license the Commission issues for the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project are as follows. Staff s modifications to KPU s proposed measures appear in italics. Measures Proposed by KPU: Geological Resources Minimize the clearing width and disturbance to vegetation within existing and new pipeline corridors, and revegetate disturbed areas. Develop for Commission approval, after consultation with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), and the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP) with Best Management Practices that includes turbidity monitoring on a daily basis, upstream and downstream of all construction and discharge points from the commencement of construction until there is no risk of turbid runoff resulting from project construction, in Whitman and Achilles creeks. Implement a Spoil Disposal Plan. Water and Aquatic Resources Provide the following continuous minimum instream flows of between 6 and 11 cfs to lower Whitman Creek during normal hydrologic conditions: Date Flow (cfs) November 16-April 30 6 May 1-September 15 8 September 16-November Provide the following continuous minimum instream flows of between 2 and 7 cfs to lower Whitman Creek during dry hydrologic conditions: Date Flow (cfs) November 16-April 30 2 May 1-September

143 September 16-November 15 7 Implement a Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol, containing the provisions described below, that would undergo a performance assessment after five years to determine the need for any necessary modifications. Reservoir Status Reservoir Code Level Green Above El. 367 msl Yellow Between El. 367 and 363 msl Red Below El. 363 msl, operating in siphon mode between 6 to 11 cfs Normal flows of between 6 to 11 cfs, unless reservoir action team decides modifications are necessary to protect hatchery flows Reduced as necessary by reservoir action team to protect hatchery flows, or flows of between 2 to 7 cfs are released if consensus is not reached Lower Whitman Creek Minimum Instream Flows Unit 1 Normal flows of Online Offline Offline Reservoir Action Team Convened No Yes Yes Implement ramping rates no greater than 1 inch per hour from March 1 to May 31, and no greater than 2 inches per hour from June 1 to February 28/29 for minimum instream flows in lower Whitman Creek. Provide an annual channel and riparian maintenance flow of 150 cfs to lower Whitman Creek for a continuous 24-hour period between June 1 and August 15. Implement ramping rates of no greater than 2 inches per hour for channel maintenance flows in lower Whitman Creek. 124

144 Allow flows in excess of 20 cfs to overtop the Achilles Creek diversion. Provide a year-round minimum instream flow of 1.5 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion. Operate Unit 1 within the range of reservoir El to 370 msl. Modify the existing deep water intake to include a siphon and vacuum pump, to allow reservoir levels to be drawn down to El. 343 msl during dry conditions and operate Unit 2 year-round to supply Southern Southeast Aquaculture with water needed for hatchery operations. Construct a new intake for Unit 1 that is screened to meet juvenile fish criteria as specified by NMFS. Replace the existing variable intake, if necessary, with a new variable intake. Upon request from the agencies, provide stream flow data, within 30 days of the request. Provide reservoir level readings at both the Whitman Lake powerhouse and the KPU control center with reports being made available to ADFG, ADNR, Southern Southeast Aquaculture, and the Forest Service, upon request. Install a new valve house at the base of Whitman dam to control flow to Unit 2 and the Whitman Hatchery s 12-inch incubation water supply pipeline. Develop a plan after consultation with Southern Southeast Aquaculture to determine how water temperature requirements at the Whitman Fish Hatchery will be met using a mix of water withdrawals from the variable and deep water intakes. This plan should be filed with the Commission for approval and should clearly describe how KPU and Southern Southeast Aquaculture will work in conjunction with each other to ensure water temperature will be maintained at the hatchery utilizing the valve house and how the volume of flows provided to Unit 2 will remain within the sole control and discretion of KPU. Install a head tank to collect Unit 2 discharge that would provide the Whitman Fish Hatchery with water pressure needed for hatchery operations. Install a pressure reduction valve that is capable of accommodating flows up to 32 cfs, allowing Unit 2 penstock flows to bypass Unit 2, and flow directly to the head tank 125

145 Install water flow recording devices at the Unit 1 and 2 penstocks, the Whitman Hatchery s 12-inch incubation water supply line, and the primary hatchery supply line from the head tank. Minimize fish attraction flow velocities from the proposed powerhouse and create a physical barrier to fish by constructing a concrete weir at El. 18 msl, a baffle wall and smooth-finished bars with one-inch openings along the bottom of the baffle wall. Develop and implement a Hazardous Substance Plan that includes treating and removing oil and contaminants from project discharge. Develop and implement a Biotic Monitoring Plan that includes monitoring adult salmonid behavior from August 1 to November 30, annually, at the location of the proposed tailrace discharge, commencing at project start-up, for a period of two years. Implement the Whitman Lake Dam and Reservoir Operations and Maintenance Plan. Implement the Achilles Creek Diversion Operations and Maintenance Plan. Periodically sluice sediments from above the Achilles Creek diversion during high flows but complete this measure on an annual basis, sluicing sediments for a continuous 24 hour period from behind the Achilles Creek diversion when instream flows are at least 34 cfs. Terrestrial Resources Develop and implement a Terrestrial Species Connectivity Plan that includes site-specific plans for wildlife crossings along the Achilles Creek pipeline and wildlife crossing effectiveness monitoring. Develop and implement a Vegetation Management Plan that includes identifying areas needed for revegetation, a list of native species to be used, and methods to control and monitor noxious weeds. Develop and implement a Nesting Survey Plan to include surveying for any newly constructed marbled murrelet, goshawk, and bald eagle nests prior to construction. Avoid any large trees, boulders, rock outcrops, and any sensitive vegetated areas during construction of the proposed diversion pipeline from Achilles Creek. 126

146 Recreation Resources Develop a trail plan in conjunction with the Forest Service that avoids the pipeline and penstock corridor. Land Use and Aesthetic Resources Develop and implement a Scenery Management Plan. Cultural Resources Revise and Implement the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) and conduct a HABS/HAER for the adversely affected NRHP eligible shed. Additional Measures Recommended by Staff: General Provide state and federal resource agency personnel access to project facilities and lands upon adequate notice. Coordinate and consult with fish and wildlife agencies on the need for an annual project review meeting and file with the Commission evidence of the consultation and any recommendations made by the agencies. Notify ADFG, the Forest Service, ADNR, FWS, NMFS, and the Commission as soon as possible, but within 12 hours, of the beginning or detection of a non-compliance event. Water and Aquatic Resources Obtain Forest Service approval prior to using pesticides on Forest Service lands. Provide an Environmental Compliance Monitor during project construction. File a report with the Commission detailing the five year review of the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol. Notify the Commission within 10 days of a change in the RSC code or upon any modification to project operations such as minimum instream flows based on decisions made by the Reservoir Action Team. Construct, operate, and maintain two stream gages that meet USGS standards, have real-time capability, and record at no less than 15- minute intervals, including: one stream gage immediately downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion and one immediately 127

147 downstream of the instream flow release valve from the Unit 2 penstock in lower Whitman Creek. Upon construction of the stream gages, file a report with the Commission detailing the gaging equipment installed, drawings of the gage, and exact locations of the gages. Install a valve at the base of Whitman dam, and when reservoir elevations are above El. 364 msl, release minimum instream flows to lower Whitman Creek directly below Whitman dam. Install adjustable valves to allow for any necessary adjustments needed to release minimum instream flows or channel maintenance flows to Whitman or Achilles creeks. Upon transferring minimum instream flows from being released at Whitman dam to 700 feet downstream, from the Unit 2 penstock, or vice versa, ramp flows in the 700-foot bypassed reach at rate no greater than 1 inch per hour from March 1 to May 31, and 2 inches per hour from June 1 to February 28 /29. Provide a minimum instream flow downstream of the mouth of Achilles Creek of 0.77 cfs as measured by summing the Achilles and Whitman Creek stream gages, to provide Ketchikan Gateway Borough with 0.77 cfs for consumptive purposes. Perform, at a minimum, weekly inspections and cleanings of the new Unit 1 intake screen for the first two years of project operations (absent when Whitman Lake is frozen over), and file a report detailing monitoring results after two years and proposing a recommended cleaning schedule based on the results. Terrestrial Resources Develop and implement a Fire Prevention Plan Recreational Resources Develop and implement a trail plan and obtain any necessary easements. 128

148 B. DISCUSSION The following is a discussion of the basis for our major recommended measures. General Project Access Consistent with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) 10(j) recommendation no. 13, we recommend that KPU provide access to project facilities and lands for state and federal agency personnel upon request with adequate notice. This access would allow resource agencies to monitor and enforce requirements under state and federal permits and conduct any needed field inspections. Also, notifying ADFG, the Forest Service, Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as soon as possible, but within 12 hours of a non-compliance event, as recommended by ADFG in 10(j) recommendation no. 9, would help to minimize any potential negative affects on aquatic resources in the project area. We also recommend that KPU provide this notification to the Commission. We estimate the annual costs associated with these recommendations would be marginal and conclude that the benefits justify this cost. Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 8 would also require Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) to obtain an easement to all lands occupied by the project in the name of the United States government to allow for governmental administrative access through the project area. We find that it is unnecessary for KPU to secure such an easement because as discussed above, we are recommending that KPU provide access to project facilities and lands for agency personnel upon request with adequate notice. Therefore, we conclude that the objectives of Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 8 would be met; and hence, find that an easement in the name of the U.S. Government or the cost of securing such as easement is not warranted. Annual Project Consultation We recommend, consistent with ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 11 and Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 4, that KPU consult with the relevant resource agencies regarding the need for an annual project review meeting. 129

149 The purpose of the annual meeting would be to provide an opportunity to discuss data collected during the previous year and pursuant to our recommendations below; including but not limited to results of the biotic monitoring plan and, water resource issues at the project. We further recommend that KPU file with the Commission evidence of the consultation and any recommendations made by the agencies. We estimate the annual cost of this measure is approximately $1,000 and conclude that the benefits justify this cost. Water Resources Water Quality Erosion and Sediment Control We recommend several measures to minimize and prevent erosion and sedimentation in the project area associated with project construction and operation. We recommend that KPU develop for Commission approval, after consultation with ADFG, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), and the Forest Service, as recommend by ADFG in 10(j) recommendation no. 1, their proposed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), complete with Best Management Practices (BMP s). This plan should include measures specified by the Forest Service in 4(e) condition no. 16 including: (1) a description of the actual site conditions, including any existing erosion or sedimentation problems from access during construction, stream crossings, trails, or other facilities; (2) detailed descriptions, design drawings, and specific topographic locations of all control measures; (3) measures to divert runoff over disturbed land surfaces, including sediment ponds at the diversion site; (4) a monitoring and maintenance schedule; and (5) any other measures the Forest Service and KPU mutually identify as needing care to ensure resource protection. We also recommend turbidity monitoring to be included in the ESCP, to occur upstream and downstream of all construction and discharge points, from the commencement of construction until there is no risk of turbid runoff from the site as recommended by ADFG in 10(j) recommendation no. 2. We find that the annual cost of developing and implementing this plan and conducting turbidity monitoring would be approximately $3,000, and conclude that the environmental benefits of implementing this plan would justify this cost. 130

150 We recommend, consistent with KPU s proposal, the implementation of the Achilles Creek Diversion Operations and Maintenance Plan, the Whitman Lake Dam and Reservoir Operations and Maintenance Plan, and the Spoil Disposal Plan, as required by the Forest Service in 4(e) condition nos. 15 and 17. We also recommend KPU s proposal to minimize the clearing width and disturbance to vegetation within existing and new pipeline corridors, and to revegetate disturbed areas. These measures would minimize and prevent shortand long-term erosion, and sedimentation related to construction activities and project operations. We estimate that the total annual cost of implementing these measures would be about $2,650, and conclude that the environmental benefits resulting from reducing erosion and sedimentation in the project area would justify this cost. Hazardous Substances To prevent the introduction of hazardous materials such as petroleum products from entering nearby waterways, we recommend that KPU develop and implement a Hazardous Substances Plan. This recommendation is consistent with KPU s proposal, ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 4, and Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 6. We further recommend that this plan include the measures contained in Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 6, including: (1) an outline of KPU s procedures for reporting and responding to releases of hazardous substances, including names and phone numbers of all emergency response personnel and their assigned responsibilities; (2) provisions for maintaining in the project area, a cache of spill cleanup equipment suitable to contain any spill from the project; (3) provisions to inform the Forest Service of the location of the spill cleanup equipment on Forest Service lands and of the location, type, and quantity of oil and hazardous substances stored in the project area; and (4) provisions to inform the Forest Service, ADFG, and ADNR quarterly of the nature, time, date, location, and action taken for any spill. This plan should also address treating and removing all oil and other contaminates from condensate or leakage prior to discharge, consistent with ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 5. Treating this condensate and leakage would prevent petroleum products, resulting from project operations and construction activities, from being discharged into project waters. 131

151 The plan should be submitted to the Commission for approval. We estimate that the total annual cost of developing and implementing this plan, complete with measures to address contaminate removal from condensate and leakage, would be about $1,110, and conclude that the environmental benefits justify this cost. Additionally, we recommend that KPU obtain Forest Service approval prior to using pesticides on Forest Service lands, consistent with Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 12. Obtaining approval from the Forest Service would ensure that only pesticides approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would be used and that they would be used properly. Proper authorized usage of pesticides would ensure that their use would not lead to the degradation of water quality and would not result in negative impacts to aquatic or terrestrial resources in the project area. We find that the cost of this measure is minimal and conclude that the environmental benefits justify this cost. Environmental Compliance Monitor ADFG recommends in 10(j) recommendation no. 3 that KPU develop a plan to employ an Environmental Compliance Monitor (ECM) to monitor project construction activities, ensure compliance with environmental measures, and ensure environmental measures are effective. Given the remote nature of the project, it would be appropriate for KPU to have an ECM on-site during project construction for the reasons identified by ADFG above. The ECM should have the authority to stop construction activities in the event KPU is not in compliance with environmental measures or measures are ineffective. Therefore, we support ADFG s recommendation for KPU to provide an ECM but conclude that developing a plan is unnecessary, as ample information regarding the specifics of ECM duties are contained in ADFG s 10(j) recommendation no. 3. We conclude that the potential environmental benefits of this measure justify the estimated annual cost of $4,950. Water Quantity Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan KPU proposes to utilize water drawn from Whitman Lake to provide minimum instream flows to lower Whitman Creek, provide up to 39 cfs to the Whitman Fish Hatchery and generate power. Allocating water to meet all of 132

152 these needs could result in water storage shortages within Whitman Lake, creating situations where water would not be available to meet all the proposed needs. In the June 2007 EA, we recommended the development and implementation of a Reservoir Operations Plan and a Dry Conditions Contingency Plan to address project operations during dry conditions. The Settlement included our June 2007 EA s recommendation for the development of a Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan. KPU explains this plan would address project operations during dry conditions and use a three-level reservoir status code (RSC) and a Reservoir Action Team, comprised of representatives from Southern Southeast Aquaculture, ADNR, Forest Service, and ADFG, to help guide project operations during dry conditions. As discussed in section V.C.2, Water Resources, this protocol would guide project operations such that a RSC of Green would occur when reservoir levels are at or above El. 367 msl and would trigger lower Whitman Creek instream flow releases prescribed for normal hydrologic conditions (table 6). A RSC of Yellow would occur when reservoir levels are below El. 367 msl, but greater than El. 363 msl and would trigger a shutdown of Unit 1 and an immediate notification advising the Reservoir Action Team that reservoir storage is at risk. Again, instream flow releases prescribed for normal hydrologic conditions would be made and reservoir operations would be maintained unless the Reservoir Action Team decides modifications to lower Whitman Creek minimum instream flows are necessary to protect hatchery operations. A RSC of Red would occur when reservoir levels are below El. 363 msl and would trigger siphon operation of the deep water intake to supply water to the hatchery. Under a RSC of Red, Unit 1 would remain offline and lower Whitman Creek instream flows would be reduced as necessary. If the Reservoir Action Team is unable to discuss and reach consensus on a reduction of instream flows, the flows would be reduced to the flows specified in table 8 until reservoir elevation returns to El. 367 msl. Lastly, the Settlement states the performance of this protocol will be reviewed after five years to determine if modifications to project operations are deemed necessary. Because ample information regarding the specifics of the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol have been provided in the Settlement, we conclude that developing a plan is unnecessary. We therefore, recommend that KPU implement the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol. Additionally, we recommend that upon any change in the RSC code or any modification to project operations, such as minimum instream flows, based on decisions made 133

153 by the Reservoir Action Team, KPU should notify the Commission within 10 days of the change. We find that this recommendation would ensure project operations do not interfere with Whitman Fish Hatchery s operations and that water and aquatic resources would be protected in Whitman Lake and lower Whitman Creek. Additionally, reviewing the protocol after the first five years of its implementation would allow flexibility for the protocol to be modified after its real world implementation. We recommend that this report detailing the five year review be filed with the Commission and that the report also contain any proposed modifications to the protocol or project operations. We note that any proposed modifications to the protocol would need to be approved by the Commission. We estimate the annual cost of implementing the protocol to be approximately $2,140, and conclude that the environmental benefits of implementing the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol justify this cost. Instream Flow Releases and Ramping Rate Monitoring Plan In the Settlement, KPU proposes to develop after consultation with ADFG, ADNR, Southern Southeast Aquaculture, and the Forest Service, and implement, an Instream Flow Release and Ramping Rate Monitoring Plan. KPU proposes the plan would address monitoring compliance with instream flow requirements in Whitman and Achilles creeks. KPU s proposal for this plan in the Settlement is similar to our recommendations in the June 2007 EA in which we recommended that KPU consult with the Forest Service, ADFG, and ADNR regarding a plan to continuously monitor and ensure compliance with minimum instream flow releases from Whitman dam and the Achilles Creek diversion. This plan is further consistent with our recommendation in the June 2007 EA because it addresses the installation and maintenance of continuous recording stream gages that meet USGS standards, and is consistent with ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 7 and Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 20. The proposed plan would include provisions to install three stream gages on lower Whitman Creek that would record stream flow data at no less than 15 minute intervals. These gages would be located at the instream flow release point from Whitman Lake Unit 2 penstock (700 feet downstream of Whitman dam), the confluence of Achilles and Whitman creeks, and upstream of any municipal water supply diversion on Whitman Creek. KPU also proposes a continuous recording gage to be installed downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion structure. 134

154 However, to determine compliance with our recommended minimum instream flows, we find that having more than one gage in lower Whitman Creek is redundant and not necessary. In fact, only two stream gages would be necessary to monitor compliance of minimum stream flow requirements for the project. A single stream gage located downstream of the instream flow release point from the Whitman Lake Unit 2 penstock and another on Achilles Creek, downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion, would be adequate for compliance monitoring. As a result, we do not recommend a license requirement that KPU install the additional Whitman Creek stream gages at the confluence of Achilles Creek and upstream of any municipal water supply diversion(s) on Whitman Creek as proposed in the Instream Flow Release and Ramping Rate Monitoring Plan. However, recognizing that KPU has agreed to the installation of the additional stream gages in the Settlement, we would not object to their installation. We also note that our recommendation for installing only two stream gages is inconsistent with ADFG s revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6, as described in section VIII, Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. As such, we recommend that KPU construct, operate, and maintain two stream gages that meet USGS standards, record at no less than 15 minute intervals, and have real-time capability. One gage should be located in Whitman Creek immediately below the instream flow release point from the Unit 2 penstock and the other gage should be located immediately downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion. The Achilles Creek diversion should also contain a priority stream flow device, as specified by Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 20, to ensure a 1.5 cfs minimum instream flow release, or inflow (which ever is less), would be made downstream prior to diverting any flow to Whitman Creek. We find that developing an Instream Flow Release and Ramping Rate Monitoring Plan as proposed by KPU in the Settlement is not necessary, as ample information regarding the specifics of staff recommended gages have already been provided. Upon construction of these two stream gages, a report detailing the gaging equipment installed, drawings of the gage, and exact locations of the gages should be filed with the Commission. These two stream gages would assist in determining compliance with minimum instream flows, ramping rates, and channel maintenance flows in lower Whitman and Achilles creeks. We also recommend, consistent with KPU s proposal, that upon request, KPU provide streamflow data to the agencies within 30 days of the 135

155 request. We estimate the annual costs of this measure to be about $27,000 and conclude that the environmental benefits justify this cost. Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting Plan KPU proposes in the Settlement to develop a Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting Plan which would provide information to ADFG, ADNR, the Forest Service, and Southern Southeast Aquaculture. Elements of this plan would include provisions for providing information on a real-time basis, to the extent practicable, and a schedule for installing a reservoir elevation monitoring device, KPU s proposed stream gages in Whitman and Achilles creeks (including requirements of Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 20), the proposed valve house and head tank, and the proposed system flow monitoring and recording devices. KPU also proposes this plan would also include how information would be made available and identify the frequency of recording and reporting. The intent of KPU s Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting Plan appears to be redundant with other recommendations supported under the Staff Alternative. We recommend that information gathered from the four proposed flow meters, reservoir elevation sensing device and stream gages be collected on a real-time and will be used to evaluate the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol, as previously discussed. Data collected from these water monitoring devices will also be used to determine the need for the annual project review meeting discussed above. Additionally, it is our recommendation that each of these water monitoring devices be functional when project operations commence. Therefore, we conclude that, with the implementation of our recommended measures noted above, KPU s proposed Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting Plan is not needed; and we do not find that the estimated annual cost of $1,350 to develop and implement this plan is justified. Whitman Fish Hatchery Water Supply and Water Pressure In the Settlement, KPU proposes that Unit 2 would have a maximum hydraulic capacity of 32 cfs and that discharge from Unit 2 would enter a proposed 30-foot-diameter by 20-foot-high head tank. Discharge into the head tank could occur via Unit 2, directly from the Unit 2 penstock, through a pressure reducing valve, bypassing the unit, or in combination of the two methods. If Unit 2 is off-line, flow to the head tank would be provided through the pressure reducing valve. Water for the hatchery would then be stored in the 136

156 head tank and discharged to the hatchery by Southern Southeast Aquaculture. KPU proposes to locate the head tank such that it will provide adequate water pressure to the Whitman Fish Hatchery upon discharge. We recommend that KPU construct the head tank as proposed and described in the Settlement. This would ensure Southern Southeast Aquaculture could obtain the appropriate water pressures needed to operate the Whitman Fish Hatchery on a year-round basis. We also recommend that the pressure reducing valve, which is described in the Settlement as being able to supply the head tank with water during a Unit 2 shut down, be able to accommodate flows up to 32 cfs. This would ensure that if Unit 2 went offline, Southern Southeast Aquaculture would continue to be able to acquire 32 cfs from Whitman Lake to support the hatcheries water supply needs. We also note that any additional water up to 17 cfs would be able to be supplied from the 12-inch incubation pipeline to enable Southern Southeast Aquaculture to obtain up to 39 cfs needed for hatchery operations. We estimate the annual cost of these measures to be about $23,290, and conclude that the environmental benefits of this plan would justify this cost. KPU also proposes to modify the deep water intake by adding a vacuum pump and vacuum tank, which would extend the useful range of the reservoir down to approximately El. 343 msl during dry conditions. As described in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, based on the 28-year period of record, reservoir surface elevations would be drawn below El. 363 msl infrequently, and at a rate not greater than once every seven years as demonstrated in table 7. Nevertheless, to allow for the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol to be fully implemented as recommended under all possible hydrological conditions, we recommend that the deep water intake be modified with the addition of a vacuum pump and vacuum tank as described by the Settlement. During dry conditions, Southern Southeast Aquaculture may still need up to 39 cfs for hatchery operations and by modifying the deep water intake in this manner, an additional 20 feet of storage would be available during dry conditions. We estimate the annual cost of this measure to be approximately $278,480, and conclude that protecting the Whitman Hatchery s water supply justifies the cost of this measure. Whitman Fish Hatchery Water Temperature Successful operation of the Whitman Fish Hatchery depends upon the hatchery receiving water at specific temperatures throughout the year. Because 137

157 project operations have the potential to influence water temperature, we recommend KPU s proposal in the Settlement to construct a new valve house at the base of Whitman Dam that allows for flows being provided to Unit 2 to be mixed from the deep water and variable intakes. This would aid in the regulation of water temperature delivered to the hatchery. Although Southern Southeast Aquaculture would have operational control of the mixing valves, as proposed by KPU, they shall not have any control over the volume of water delivered to Unit 2 from Whitman Lake. Therefore, with this caveat, we recommend that KPU develop after consultation with Southern Southeast Aquaculture, a plan that describes the proposed valve house and its operation. This plan also should clearly describe how KPU and Southern Southeast Aquaculture will work in conjunction with each other to ensure water temperature will be maintained at the hatchery utilizing the valve house and how the volume of flows provided to Unit 2 will remain within the sole control and discretion of KPU. This plan should be filed with the Commission for approval. We estimate the annual cost of this plan is $850 and conclude that the benefits justify this cost. Ketchikan Gateway Borough (KGB) Consumptive Water Needs Based upon KPU s proposed, and staff supported Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol, it is possible that during extreme dry conditions, the Reservoir Action Team may decide to cease minimum instream flows to lower Whitman Creek to conserve water for the Whitman Fish Hatchery, as previously described. Therefore, under such conditions, the only flows available to meet KGB s 0.77 cfs consumptive water needs in lower Whitman Creek would be originating from Achilles Creek, leakage at Whitman dam, and accretion. As a result and as indicated in table 9, it is possible that during dry conditions, KGB may not receive their water because of low inflow in Achilles Creek and little to no flow originating from Whitman dam leakage. Therefore, we recommend that KPU be required to provide a minimum instream flow downstream of the mouth of Achilles Creek of 0.77 cfs as measured by summing the Achilles and Whitman Creek stream gages, to provide Ketchikan Gateway Borough with 0.77 cfs for consumptive purposes. While we note that leakage from Whitman dam, which is typically <1cfs, and flows <1 cfs in Achilles Creek, which are rare, would almost always provide adequate flow to meet KGB s consumptive water needs ensuring that these are met are critical to KGB s domestic water supply. Therefore, we 138

158 conclude that the environmental benefits associated with requiring this minimum instream flow is justified. Aquatic Resources Minimum Instream Flows and Channel Maintenance Flows In agreement with ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6, KPU is proposing to release minimum instream flows into lower Whitman Creek of 6 cfs from November 16 to April 30, 8 cfs from May 1 to September 15, and 11 cfs from September 16 to November 15 during normal hydrologic conditions. Also consistent with ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6, KPU is proposing to provide a year-round minimum instream flows of 1.5 cfs, or inflow (which ever is less), below the Achilles Creek diversion and release a channel maintenance flow of 150 cfs into lower Whitman Creek for a period of 24 continuous hours between June 1 and August 15. We recommend KPU s proposed, and ADFG s recommended, minimum instream flow releases for Whitman and Achilles creeks during normal hydrologic conditions, and their 150 cfs channel maintenance flow for Whitman Creek. We also recommend, consistent with ADFG s recommendation, that KPU install adjustable valves to allow for any necessary adjustments needed to release minimum instream flows or channel maintenance flows to Whitman or Achilles creeks. As discussed in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, we find these minimum instream flows for lower Whitman and Achilles creeks and the channel maintenance flow for lower Whitman Creek would be sufficient to protect aquatic habitat within these stream reaches affected by project operations. Additionally, we recommend KPU s proposal to sluice sediments behind the Achilles Creek diversion using the proposed sluice gate during high flows. However, to ensure an adequate flushing flow capable of transporting accumulated sediment in Achilles Creek occurs, we further recommend that this sluicing event occur for a period of at least 24 continuous hours, and that this sluicing event occur when flows in Achilles Creek are at least 34 cfs, as described in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources. Therefore, we conclude that the environmental benefits associated with providing these minimum instream flows and ramping rates are justified. Minimum Instream Flow Release Location 139

159 To allow for KPU s proposed deep water intake to operate in a siphon mode, the elevation of the minimum instream flow release point for lower Whitman Creek must be lower than the minimum expected elevation of the reservoir. Because the reservoir could potentially be drafted to an elevation as low as 343 feet msl, the minimum instream flow release must be located at an elevation that will support siphon operations. KPU has identified the proximity of a discharge point 700 feet downstream of Whitman dam that will satisfy this elevation needed. KPU proposes to finalize the location and exact elevation of the release point during the final design process. Currently, the 900-foot reach of lower Whitman Creek immediately downstream of Whitman dam to the confluence of Achilles Creek becomes dewatered approximately 35 percent of the time. As illustrated in figure 5, in an average precipitation year, no spill would occur at Whitman dam under proposed project operations. Therefore, KPU s proposal to release minimum instream flows releases at a location 700 feet downstream of the dam would cause this part of the reach immediately below the dam to go dry on a yearround basis, with only leakage flows being provided. This would likely result in an overall reduction of aquatic habitat for resident Dolly Varden and other aquatic organisms as compared to current conditions. However, as described in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, based on the 28-year period of record, reservoir levels would only drop below El. 363 msl once every seven years, as demonstrated in table 7. As a result, we recommend that when reservoir elevations are above El. 363 msl (when the intake does not need to be operated in a siphon mode), the minimum instream flow releases to lower Whitman Creek should be made directly from Whitman dam and not 700 feet downstream. This would ensure the entire 700-foot reach immediately below Whitman dam would remain watered, protecting habitat for fish and aquatic organisms in all but the most extreme dry periods. During these driest periods, as reservoir elevations approach El. 363 msl, it would be appropriate to transition to KPU s proposed release point 700 feet downstream of the dam to ensure that the Unit 2 penstock can then be operated in a siphon mode. Therefore, we recommend that when the reservoir reaches an elevation of 364 feet msl, minimum flow releases being made at the base of the dam be ramped down according to our recommended ramping rate schedule while they are simultaneously ramped up at KPU s proposed release point 700 feet downstream of the dam or vice versa when returning the minimum flow release 140

160 point to the base of the dam following an extreme dry period. This would allow for a smooth transition in the location of the minimum flow release to protect fish and aquatic resources from stranding and to allow for the deepwater intake to serve in a siphon mode when needed. Recognizing that this reach currently goes dry 35 percent of the time under current conditions, and under our recommendation this frequency would be reduced to 14 percent of the time, we consider this measure to be an improvement over current conditions and to KPU s proposal. We conclude that the environmental benefits of releasing minimum instream flows directly from Whitman dam when reservoir elevations are above El. 364 msl justify the annual cost of $2,970 needed to install an instream flow release valve at the base of Whitman dam. Ramping Rates Rapid fluctuations in stream flow associated with any minimum instream flow releases and channel maintenance flows have the potential to strand fish and other aquatic organisms in shallow, low-gradient areas and offchannel habitats (causing immediate or delayed mortality). Therefore, consistent with KPU s proposal and ADFG 10(j) recommendation nos. 6 and 8, we recommend a ramping rate for lower Whitman Creek that does not exceed 1 inch per hour from March 1 to May 31, and 2 inches per hour from June 1 to February 28 /29. We also recommend in accordance with revised ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 6 that channel maintenance flows be ramped up and down at a rate no greater than 2 inches per hour. We find that these ramping rates, which were developed in accordance with the State of Washington Department of Fisheries analyses of hydropower flow fluctuations on salmonids (Hunter, 1992), would be protective of Dolly Varden (at all life stages) and other aquatic organisms in Whitman Creek. If providing the ramping rates would require unanticipated changes to project structures, such as gates or valves, KPU should provide detailed design drawings and the estimated cost associated with the inclusion of said structures to the Commission for approval. We conclude that the environmental benefits of these recommended ramping rates justify the minimal annual cost. 141

161 False Attraction KPU proposes to discharge approximately 152 cfs into Herring Cove from the proposed project tailrace. These flows would be released upstream of the existing Whitman Fish Hatchery ladder and may create an area of false attraction, preventing Southern Southeast Aquaculture from obtaining their broodstock. To minimize attraction to the tailrace discharge, KPU proposes to minimize attraction velocities and design the tailrace to provide a physical barrier to fish attempting to enter the tailrace. KPU proposes to discharge flow into a rectangular concrete channel and spill over a concrete weir at El. 18 msl with spill dissipated by a baffle wall and floor before discharging over a sill and into Herring Cove. KPU also proposes to install smooth-finished bars with one-inch openings along the bottom of the baffle wall to the floor to provide an additional barrier to any fish attempting to enter the tailrace. We recommend that KPU construct the proposed project with their proposed measures designed to eliminate false attraction. We find that these measures would likely eliminate false attraction as a result of proposed project operations and would enable Southern Southeast Aquaculture to continue to obtain all necessary broodstock from Herring Cove. For these reasons described above, we do not find there would be a need to shut down Unit 1 to reduce false attraction as recommended by Southern Southeast Aquaculture in their comments on the June 2007 EA. Biotic Monitoring Plan KPU also proposes to develop and implement a biotic monitoring plan after consultation with fishery resource agencies that would include monitoring project related effects on anadromous fish returning to the hatchery fish ladder in Herring Cove. In their 10(j) recommendation no. 12, ADFG also recommends a biotic monitoring plan, that includes: (1) monitoring project effects on resident fish populations in the Whitman Creek bypass reach for five years after project construction to determine if instream flow changes are necessary to protect aquatic species; and (2) monitoring adult salmon behavior at the proposed project tailrace in Herring Cove for five years after project construction between August 1 to November 30, annually. In their 10(j) recommendation no. 12, ADFG recommends that as part of a biotic monitoring plan, KPU should monitor project effects on Dolly Varden populations in the bypassed reach of Whitman Creek for a period of five years 142

162 after project construction. As discussed in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, we conclude that KPU s proposed minimum instream flow releases for Whitman and Achilles creeks, channel maintenance flows for Whitman Creek, and ramping rates would protect the aquatic habitat for resident Dolly Varden and macroinvertebrates. Therefore, it is unlikely that the currently healthy populations of Dolly Varden in lower Whitman Creek would be negatively affected as a result of KPU s proposal. Additionally, results from population monitoring studies for resident fish can be very subjective. Various natural or anthropogenic activities within a watershed can have significant effects on a fishery. Therefore, it can be very difficult to correlate a clear cause and effect relationship between any single environmental factor and changes to the population characteristics of a fishery. As a result, we do not recommend that KPU conduct monitoring of Dolly Varden populations in lower Whitman Creek. ADFG further recommends in 10(j) recommendation no. 12, that KPU monitor adult salmon behavior at the proposed tailrace discharge for a period of five years after construction, during August 1 to November 30, annually. As discussed above, we find that KPU s proposed tailrace design would likely minimize false attraction at the tailrace discharge. However, we find that monitoring salmonid behavior at the proposed tailrace discharge would help determine the performance of KPU s mitigative measures. Additionally, if project operations have a negative effect on salmon returning to the Whitman Fish Hatchery (i.e. false attraction of salmon to the proposed project s tailrace), monitoring results would be used to inform decisions to correct the negative effects on hatchery operations; potentially including the alteration of project facilities, operations, or hatchery facilities (upon agreement of the Southern Southeast Aquaculture). Conducting this monitoring for two years after the start of project operations, rather than the five years recommended by ADFG, during August 1 to November 30, would be sufficient in determining if false attraction were occurring. If the results of monitoring after two years are inconclusive, we may recommend additional monitoring as recommended by ADFG in their July 3, 2007 letter. We estimate the annual cost of staff s recommended biotic monitoring plan would be about $8,350 and that the environmental benefits would justify this cost. We estimate the annual cost of ADFG recommended biotic monitoring plan would be about $17,400 and conclude that the additional minor benefit provided by monitoring Dolly Varden populations in the Whitman Creek bypassed reach, and monitoring for false attraction for five 143

163 years, as opposed to the staff recommended two years, would not justify the additional cost. The plan should be submitted to the Commission for approval Fish Entrainment As displayed in table 10, of the 422 fish sampled in Whitman Lake, 420 were adult Dolly Varden. Fish entrainment and impingement at Whitman Lake could potentially result in mortality or injury to individual Dolly Varden and to the Dolly Varden fishery as a result of drawing water from the lake for project operations. ADFG in 10(j) recommendation no. 10, recommends the intake be: (1) located offshore to minimize fish contact with the structure; (2) designed to have an automatically operated cleaning system; and (3) designed to have an approach velocity of 0.4 fps with 3/32-inch mesh holes (perforated plate and woven wire) and 1.75 mm for profile bar material if fry are documented in the intake area. 35 Of the 422 fish sampled in Whitman Lake, only one was a Dolly Varden fry, and it was not captured near Whitman dam (the location of the proposed new intake structure at Whitman dam). Habitat preferences of Dolly Varden fry are tributaries and shallow lake shore habitats. The only likely spawning habitat for the adult Dolly Varden population residing in Whitman Lake is Deer Creek, located on the opposite end of the lake from the dam. Between Deer Creek and Whitman dam, there are deep water areas along steep sections of the northern and southern shorelines that likely act as a behavioral barrier to fry, reducing the numbers of fry that would traverse these areas and inhabit Whitman Lake in the vicinity of the dam and intake structure. As a result, we find the annual cost of approximately $19,240 that would be needed to design and install a fish screen on the new Unit 1 intake to preclude fry entrainment is not worth the minimal environmental benefits. Although KPU does not propose to screen the Unit 1 intake for fry, it does propose to screen the new Unit 1 intake with a Hendricks dual-drum screen that meets NMFS juvenile fish screening criteria. Given the maximum 35 ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 10 references the proposed project s diversion intake. We assume ADFG is referencing the new intake for Unit 1; however, we note as part of the Settlement KPU is also proposing to replace the variable intake if its condition warrants. 144

164 hydraulic capacity of this new intake is 150 cfs, it is likely an additional unknown amount of entrainment could occur to juvenile and adult Dolly Varden inhabiting the location of this intake. Therefore, we recommend, consistent with KPU s proposal and ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 10, that this new Unit 1 intake be screened to meet NMFS juvenile salmonid criteria. The proposed screen would prevent fish entrainment and protect project works from entrained debris; therefore, we conclude that these benefits justify the annual cost of $12,240. In addition to the proposed Unit 1 intake, KPU proposes to utilize the existing variable intake depending on its condition, or to construct a replacement variable intake. If KPU chooses to replace the intake, it proposes to do so complete with the installation of a Hendricks drum screen, sized for juvenile fish screening criteria. Because the existing or a new variable intake would utilize approximately the same quantity of water as compared to current conditions it is likely that Dolly Varden would continue to experience entrainment rates of approximately 25 to 30 individuals per year if no changes to the current screen design were made. However, current data suggest these existing entrainment rates are not having a negative effect on Dolly Varden populations within Whitman Lake or lower Whitman Creek. Therefore, screening a new variable intake to meet juvenile fish criteria as specified by NMFS would have only minimal benefits. While we support replacing the variable intake if its condition warrants, we conclude the benefits of screening any new variable intake beyond the specifications of the current steel plate which contains 1.5 to 2-inch diameter perforations, does not justify the additional annual cost of $10,490. We do not recommend ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 10 to have KPU install an automatically operated cleaning system for the new Unit 1 intake screen. Historically, little debris has been found to accumulate at the existing variable and deep water intakes. The variable intake draws warmer water from the surface of Whitman Lake, while the deep water intake draws cooler water from approximately 95-feet below the crest of Whitman dam. Currently, the variable intake is screened with a perforated steel plate with 1.5 to 2-inch diameter perforations, while deep water intake is screened by a 5- foot-long cylinder with 3/16 by 1-inch slots. Both screens have only been cleaned once, with little debris accumulation being observed at that time. We recognize that by recommending a smaller screen size to be installed on the new Unit 1 intake, and by having up to 150 cfs drawn through this 145

165 intake for hydropower purposes, debris may accumulate more rapidly than experienced in the past. Therefore, we recommend that KPU conduct, at least, weekly inspections of the new Unit 1 intake screen for the first two years of project operations (absent when Whitman Lake is frozen over), and clean the screens as needed. Based upon the results of this two year monitoring period, the frequency of cleaning needed to keep the new intake free of debris may be determined. After completing the two years of monitoring, KPU should file a report detailing their monitoring results and propose a cleaning schedule based on those results. The report should be filed with the Commission for approval. We estimate the annual cost of this monitoring to be about $4,070, 36 compared to an annual cost of approximately $7,990 for an automatically operated intake cleaning system, and conclude that the environmental benefits of this plan would justify the cost. Also, for the reasons identified above, we find that the frequency of current inspections and cleanings for the deep water and variable intakes are sufficient. Terrestrial Resources Vegetation Management Plan We recommend that KPU develop and implement a vegetation management plan which would include measures to minimize impacts to old growth forest during planning and construction activities. Additionally, we recommend this plan include the following measures: (1) identify and prioritize all inadequately vegetated areas to be revegetated or rehabilitated along with an implementation schedule; (2) list the native species to be used along with planting locations, methods, and densities; (3) identify methods for prevention and control of noxious weeds; (4) provisions for monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of noxious weed control measures; and (5) develop procedures for identification of additional measures that KPU would implement if monitoring reveals that noxious weed control is not successful or does not meet intended objectives. This plan would need to be filed with the Commission for approval. This recommendation is consistent with KPU s proposal and Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 9. We estimate the annual cost 36 This estimated cost assumes weekly monitoring and cleaning as needed for the duration of any license issued and annualized over 30 years. 146

166 of this measure would be about $2,220 and conclude that the benefits are worth this cost. Terrestrial Connectivity Plan Because the project s penstocks and pipelines may inhibit movement of terrestrial species, we recommend that KPU consult with the Forest Service and ADFG to develop and implement a Terrestrial Species Connectivity Plan to ensure the ability of wildlife to move across the project area. We recommend this plan include the following measures: (1) develop site-specific site plans for wildlife crossings and underpasses along the Achilles Creek diversion pipeline; (2) design a minimum of six wildlife crossings at a width of 3-feet and provide suitable habitat components (large and small wood, etc.) to facilitate use by all classes of terrestrial species at the crossings within one year from license issuance; (3) develop and implement a monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of the wildlife crossings for use by all classes of terrestrial species and to determine locations along the waterways or penstocks where additional crossings may be required for particular classes of terrestrial species; and (4) install additional crossings if the Forest Service determines that monitoring results indicate that project waterways or penstocks continue to unduly restrict movement by terrestrial species. The plan should be submitted to the Commission for approval. This recommendation is consistent with KPU s proposal and estimated to have annual cost of $640. We conclude the benefits of this measure are worth this cost. Nesting Survey Plan We recommend surveying the access road and pipeline and penstock corridors for the presence of marbled murrelet, raptor (including goshawk and bald eagle), and great blue heron nests immediately prior to beginning construction. We therefore recommend a Nesting Survey Plan, to be developed after consultation with ADFG, FWS, and the Forest Service that would describe: (1) survey methods, including timing and geographic scope; (2) measures to consult with the agencies in the event that a nest is found; and (3) potential mitigation measures in the event that active nesting occurs. The plan should be submitted to the Commission for approval. This recommendation is consistent with KPU s proposal and estimated to have an annual cost of $240. We conclude the benefits of this measure are worth this cost. 147

167 Fire Prevention Plan We agree with Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 18 that requires KPU to develop and implement a Fire Prevention Plan that would ensure appropriate measures are in place to minimize and control any project related fires. We therefore recommend a Fire Prevention Plan, to be developed after consultation with ADFG, FWS, and the Forest Service that would: (1) analyze fire prevention needs to ensure that prevention equipment and personnel are available: (2) identify fire hazard reduction measures; and (3) provide the Forest Service with a list of the location of available fire-prevention equipment and the location and availability of fire-prevention personnel. The plan should be submitted to the Commission for approval. This recommendation has an estimated cost of $640 and we conclude the benefits of this measure are worth this cost. Recreational Resources Whitman Lake Trail As discussed in section V.C.6, Recreational Resources, Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 9 specifies that KPU obtain an easement in the name of the United States for the siting, and governmental and public use of, portions of the planned Achilles Mountain trail that do not occur on National Forest System land. The prescribed easement would traverse private land holdings and allow for the construction of the planned Achilles Mountain trail providing access to Achilles Mountain from Tongass Highway, following the Whitman Creek and the Achilles Creek drainages. While there is a need to improve access to the project area in order to increase recreational opportunities, the Forest Service s prescribed easement does not relate to recreation specific to the Whitman Lake Project. Therefore, we fail to see a nexus between the Forest Service s required acquisition of the easement and KPU s proposed Project. Alternatively, to improve recreational access and increase recreation opportunities within the project area, we recommend that KPU develop a trail from within the vicinity of the Whitman Fish Hatchery/project complex to Whitman Lake (Whitman Lake trail). This trail would provide recreationists with a safe, reliable route to Whitman Lake. 148

168 As a result, we recommend that KPU develop the Whitman Lake Trail Plan after consultation with the Forest Service. The plan should identify the trail s route that connects the Whitman Fish Hatchery/project vicinity at Herring Cove and Whitman Lake. The plan should also include provisions for avoiding Southern Southeast Aquaculture s leased federal lands and, to the extent possible, project facilities. The development of this trail route should take into consideration the Forest Service s effort to coordinate trail planning with organizations like the Ketchikan Outdoor Recreation and Trails Coalition. The plan should also provide for parking facilities for 6 vehicles and a kiosk with a trail map at the trailhead. The plan should be submitted to the Commission for approval. We estimate the annual cost of this measure to be between $3,770 and $5,590, dependant on whether or not KPU will need to secure easements for the trail. We conclude the benefit of providing recreation access to Whitman Lake would be worth this cost. Land Use and Aesthetics As discussed previously in section V.C.7, Land Use and Aesthetics Resources, Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 14 specifies that KPU develop and implement a Scenery Management Plan. This plan would ensue proper measures are designed to mitigate the impacts of project construction. KPU has proposed to avoid large trees, boulders, rock outcrops, and any sensitive vegetated areas when possible. KPU has also proposed to revegetate any disturbed areas. Construction of the powerhouse will be in a similar style to the hatchery facilities and use similar lines, colors, and textures to minimize negative impacts. We recommend that KPU develop and implement a Scenery Management Plan as specified by the Forest Service that would incorporate KPU s proposed measures to minimize the negative visual effects associated with the construction and operation of the project. The plan should be submitted to the Commission for approval. We estimate the annual cost of this measure would be about $680 and conclude the benefits are worth this cost. Cultural Resources With the implementation of a final, Commission-approved HPMP over the term of a new license, all potential adverse effects to historic properties should be avoided. We recommend; therefore, that the licensee consult with the Forest Service, Alaska SHPO, and the Native Alaskans, conduct a heritage resource survey of the APE, and file a revised, final HPMP for Commission approval, as specified by the Forest Service in final 4(e) condition no. 13. In 149

169 addition, in order to resolve the adverse effect of the proposed penstock construction on the NRHP-eligible shed, we recommend that the applicant mitigate the effect by completing HABS/HAER documentation of the structure, in cooperation with the Alaska SHPO and the Forest Service, prior to any ground disturbing activities. This adverse effect and mitigation measure should be taken into account in the final HPMP filed with the Commission. We estimate the annual cost of this measure would be about $1,010 and conclude that the benefits are worth this cost. Furthermore, pursuant to our responsibilities under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission executed a programmatic agreement (PA) with the SHPO and the Advisory Council to implement the final, Commission-approved HPMP. A draft PA was issued for the Whitman Lake project on November 22, 2006 and a final PA was issued June 6, On July 20, 2007, we issued a revised final PA incorporating recommendations made by the Alaska SHPO, who returned the signed signatory page on August 2, VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES A. RECOMMENDATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10(J) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT Under the provisions of section 10(j) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided by the federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. Section 10(j) states that, whenever the Commission believes that any fish and wildlife recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of the agency. On January 30, 2006, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) filed section 10(j) recommendations for the project. However, on April 23, 2008, the ADFG revised their 10(j) recommendation no. 6 to adopt the provisions of articles A401 and A402 of the Settlement, filed on February 8, Table 17 summarizes ADFG s recommendations, our conclusions on 150

170 whether or not the recommendations are within the scope of section 10(j), and whether or not we recommend adopting the measures. Recommendations we consider to be outside the scope of section 10(j) have been considered under section 10(a) of the FPA. In the June 2007 EA, we determined that portions of two recommendations within the scope of 10(j) may be inconsistent with the purpose or requirement of the FPA or other applicable law. We also determined that three recommendations were outside the scope of section 10(j) and that we did not recommend their adoption under section 10(a) of the FPA. We sent a letter to ADFG on June 20, 2007, informing ADFG of the inconsistencies. In a letter filed July 3, 2007, ADFG responded to our letter of inconsistency and concluded that ADFG supported the FERC alternative recommendations in the June 2007 EA. Therefore, we consider the issues identified in our June 20, 2007, letter resolved. However,upon our review of the amended 10(j) recommendation no 6, we make a preliminary determination, as discussed below, that part of recommendation no. 6, (to install four stream gages) is inconsistent with the public interest standard of section 4(e) and the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) of the FPA. Intake Screening In the June 2007 EA, we recommended Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU s) proposal, and the portion of ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 10 that recommended the installation of a fish screen on the new Whitman Lake intake that would meet juvenile salmonid criteria (NMFS, 1995). 37 However, in the June 2007 EA, we did not recommend ADFG s further recommendations in 10(j) recommendation no. 10 to design the fish screen with an automatically operated cleaning system, to locate the fish screen off shore, or to design the fish screen to meet the criteria necessary to exclude fry. As discussed in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, of this final EA, we find having an automatically operated cleaning system to prevent clogging 37 ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 10 references the proposed project s diversion intake. We assume ADFG is referencing the new intake for Unit 1; however, we note as part of the Settlement KPU is also proposing to replace the variable intake if its condition warrants. 151

171 would not likely be necessary given the two current intakes have only been cleaned once each with little debris accumulation observed at the time of these cleanings. However, we do recognize that by recommending a smaller screen size to be installed on the new Unit 1 intake, and by increasing flows being drawn from Whitman Lake for hydropower purposes, debris may accumulate more rapidly than experienced in the past. Therefore, as discussed in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, we recommend that KPU conduct weekly inspections of the new Unit 1 intake screen for the first two years of project operations (absent when Whitman Lake is frozen over), and cleaning the screen as needed. Based upon the results of a two year monitoring period, the frequency of cleaning needed to keep the intakes free of debris may be determined. After completing the two years of monitoring, we are recommending that KPU file a report detailing their monitoring results and forwarding a recommended cleaning schedule based on those results. The report should be filed with the Commission for approval. Additionally, life history traits of Dolly Varden suggest fry rear in the tributaries in which they hatch. Because Deer Creek is the only tributary to Whitman Lake suitable for Dolly Varden spawning, and it is located at the opposite end of Whitman Lake, it is unlikely Dolly Varden fry inhabit the intake area. Whitman Lake is also comprised mainly of steep bedrock shorelines, which would provide poor habitat for Dolly Varden fry, and no entrained Dolly Varden fry have ever been observed at the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Therefore, screening the Whitman Lake intakes to exclude fry, having an automatically operated cleaning system, and locating the intake offshore, would be unnecessary given the unlikelihood of Dolly Varden fry to occupy the area and does not justify the total annual cost of $ 28,276. We, therefore, made a preliminary determination that the portions of ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 10 to have an automatically operated cleaning system, having the intake screens designed to exclude fry, or locating the intakes offshore, is inconsistent with the public interest standard of section 4(e) and the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) of the FPA. In their July 3, 2007 response letter, ADFG stated they agree that an automated screen cleaning system is not warranted, provided regular inspections and manual cleaning occurs. In this letter, ADFG also stated that upon their review of study results and Dolly Varden life history, it is unlikely fry inhabit the area of the intakes and screening to protect fry is not needed. Therefore, we consider this issue resolved. 152

172 Biotic Monitoring Plan In the June 2007 EA, we supported the portion of ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 12 that recommends KPU consult and obtain approval from the resource agencies regarding a biotic monitoring plan that included monitoring (from August 1 to November 30 annually) the behavior of returning adult salmon at the proposed tailrace discharge to determine if behavior differs for adult salmon returning to the fish ladder or the mouth of Herring Cove as a result of the tailrace discharge. However, in the June 2007 EA, we did not support ADFG s recommendations that this monitoring occur for a period of five years, or that KPU monitor populations of Dolly Varden within the Whitman Creek bypass for five years after project construction to determine whether changes in instantaneous instream flow are needed to protect Dolly Varden. As discussed in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, of this final EA, to minimize attraction to the tailrace discharge, KPU proposes to minimize attraction velocities and design the tailrace to provide a physical barrier to fish attempting to enter the tailrace. KPU proposes to have discharge flow into a rectangular concrete channel and spill over a concrete weir at El. 18 with spill to be dissipated by a baffle wall and floor before being discharged to Herring Cove over a sill. KPU also proposes to install smooth-finished bars with oneinch openings along the bottom of the baffle wall to the floor to provide an additional barrier to any fish attempting to enter the tailrace. We recommend that KPU construct the proposed project with their proposed measures designed to eliminate false attraction. We conclude that these measures would likely eliminate false attraction as a result of project operations and would enable Southern Southeast Aquaculture to continue to obtain all necessary broodstock from Herring Cove. However, to confirm our conclusions and ensure false attraction will only be limited as a result of project operations, we recommend KPU s proposal, and the portion of ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 12 that recommends the preparation and implementation of a biotic monitoring plan after consultation with resource agencies that would monitor project affects on anadromous fish returning to the fishway and determine whether or not operation of the project is falsely attracting fish or delaying their arrival to the Whitman Fish Hatchery. We further recommend ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 12 to complete this monitoring from August 1 to November 30, annually. However, we do not recommend monitoring returning anadromous fish for a 153

173 period of five years after project construction as recommended by ADFG in 10(j) recommendation no. 12. We find that monitoring returning anadromous fish for two years after project construction would be sufficient in determining if false attraction were occurring and would allow for corrective action to be taken earlier. We also do not recommend the portion of ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 12 that recommends monitoring Dolly Varden populations in Whitman Creek as part of this biotic monitoring plan. We find that because various natural or anthropogenic activities within a watershed can have significant effects on a fishery, results from population monitoring studies for resident fish are often ambiguous. Therefore, it can be very difficult to delineate a clear cause and effect relationship between any single environmental factor and changes to the population characteristics of a fishery. As discussed previously in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, we conclude that KPU s proposed minimum instream flow releases for Whitman and Achilles creeks, the channel maintenance flow for Whitman Creek, and ramping rates would protect aquatic habitat for Dolly Varden and macroinvertebrates. Further, we concluded that KPU s proposal to construct the tailrace with measures in place to minimize discharge velocity and prevent migrating salmonids from entering the proposed tailrace, and our recommended two year biotic monitoring plan, would protect returning salmonids and ensure Southern Southeast Aquaculture s fish collection would not be negatively impacted as a result of project operations. We estimated the annual cost of staff s recommended biotic monitoring plan would be about $6,770 and that the environmental benefits would justify the costs. We also estimated the annual cost of ADFG s recommended biotic monitoring plan would be about $17,410 and that the additional minor benefit provided by monitoring Dolly Varden populations in the Whitman Creek bypassed reach, and monitoring for false attraction for five years, as opposed to the staff recommended two years, would not justify the additional costs. We, therefore, made a preliminary determination that the portion of ADFG 10(j) recommendation no. 12 to monitor Dolly Varden populations in Whitman Creek and to monitor false attraction for five years may be inconsistent with the public interest standard of section 4(e) and the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) of the FPA. In their July 3, 2007 response letter, ADFG stated they agree that monitoring Dolly Varden populations in the Whitman Creek bypass is not 154

174 necessary, as such monitoring is unlikely to produce conclusive results. ADFG also stated that a shorter monitoring period for false attraction is reasonable, provided that if the two years of monitoring indicate false attraction is occurring, yet results are inconclusive, additional years of monitoring would we required. We have made this recommendation for additional monitoring if results are inclusive in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Therefore, we consider this issue to be resolved. Minimum Instream Flows In the June 2007 EA, we recommended KPU s proposal, and ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6 for minimum instream flows of 6, 8, and 11 cfs, depending upon the time of year. However, in the final EA, as discussed in section V.C.2 and V.C.3, Water and Aquatic Resources, respectively, during dry conditions, providing these minimum instream flows may constrain Southern Southeast Aquaculture from obtaining the 39 cfs needed for hatchery operations. Therefore, in the final EA, we are recommending that KPU implement their proposed Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol, as described in the Settlement. In the final EA, we are recommending KPU implement the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol in order to conserve water for the Whitman Fish Hatchery during dry conditions. Specifically, when reservoir elevations drop below El. 363 msl, minimum instream flows would be reduced from the minimum instream flows 6, 8, and 11 cfs during normal conditions and the Reservoir Action Team would discuss and attempt to reach a consensus on how much to reduce these flows. If no consensus is reached, minimum instream flows would be reduced to 2, 4, and 7 cfs, depending upon the time of year. These alternative flow regimes during dry conditions would reduce the minimum instream flows as originally recommended by ADFG in 10(j) recommendation no. 6. However, ADFG s April 23, 2008, letter, changed their 10(j) recommendation no. 6 to adopt the provisions of articles A401 and A402 of the Settlement filed on February 8, 2008, which incorporate the proposed flows and the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan. Therefore, our recommendation in the final EA is consistent with the portion of ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6 that addresses minimum instream flows. In addition, ADFG revised 10(j) recommendation no. 6 also recommends article A402 of the Settlement, which provides for the installation of a stream gage below the confluence of Achilles Creek with Whitman Creek 155

175 and the installation of a stream gage immediately upstream of any municipal water supply diversion. We find that installation of a stream gage downstream of the minimum instream flow release point from the Unit 2 penstock in lower Whitman Creek and downstream of the Achilles Creek diversion would be sufficient to determine compliance with required minimum instream flow releases. Providing the additional two stream gages would not materially protect fish or wildlife resources; and therefore, the additional annual cost of $27,690 is not justified. As such, we are making a preliminary determination that ADFG s recommendation no 6, to install four stream gages is, in part, inconsistent with the public interest standard of section 4(e) and the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) of the FPA and that installation of only two of the four gages (as discussed above) is appropriate. B. RECOMMENDATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10(a) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT Section 10(a)(1) requires that any project for which the Commission issues a license shall be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit on interstate or foreign commerce; for the improvement and use of waterpower development; for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, recreation, and other purposes. We find that 3 of the 13 recommendations listed in table 17 are outside of the scope of section 10(j) because they are recommendations for measures that are not specific measures to protect fish and wildlife resources (recommendation nos. 9, 11, and 13). We consider these measures under section 10(a) of the FPA. However, based on our environmental analysis, we adopt each of these recommendations. 156

176 Table 17. Analysis of fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the project. (Source: Staff, 2008) Recommendation Within Scope Annualized Cost Staff Recommendation of 10(j)? 1. Develop and implement a final erosion and Yes $ 960 Yes sediment control plan. 2. Conduct turbidity monitoring upstream and Yes $3,570 Yes downstream of all construction activities and discharge points in Whitman and Achilles creeks to ensure erosion and sediment control measures are effective. 3. Develop and implement a plan to employ an Yes $ 4,950 Yes; however, environmental compliance monitor (ECM). development of a plan is not necessary. 4. Develop and implement a final fuel and Yes $ 610 Yes hazardous substances spill plan. 5. Treat and remove oil and other contaminates Yes $ 500 Yes from condensate and leakage. 6a. Implement Articles A401 of the Settlement. Yes N/A Yes Article A401 describes the Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan 157

177 6b. Implement Articles A402 of the Settlement Article A402 describes an Instream Flow Releases and Ramping Rate Monitoring Plan, and recommends the installation and maintenance of three stream gages in Whitman Creek and one in Achilles Creeks that meet USGS standards. 7. Develop and implement a plan to install and maintain a stream gage in Whitman Creek that meets USGS standards. 8. Ramping rates in the bypassed reach of Whitman Creek shall not exceed the following: March 1 to May 31 1 inch per hour June 1 to February 28/29 2 inches per hr. 9. Notify interested parties within 12 hours at the beginning or detection of non-compliance event. 10. Install a fish screen on the diversion intake in Whitman Lake that is sized for juvenile salmonids or fry, if they are documented in the intake area, is located offshore to minimize contact with fish, and has an automatically operated cleaning system. Yes $54,690 Yes; however, we recommend the implementation of the protocol and installation of only two stream gages. Yes $ 18,537 Yes; however, we do not recommend the development of a plan. Yes N/A Yes No minimal Yes Yes $ 12,729 to $20,002 1 Resolved. ADFG now agrees screening the intake for juveniles is sufficient and that an automatically operated cleaning screen located offshore is unnecessary. 158

178 11. Coordinate and consult with fish and wildlife agencies of the need for an annual project review meeting. 12. Develop and implement a biotic monitoring plan for five years after project construction that includes monitoring Dolly Varden populations in Whitman Creek and adult salmon behavior in relation to project related attraction flows in Herring Cove. 13. Free and unrestricted access for ADFG and ADNR representatives to, through, and across all project lands and works. No $1,000 Yes Yes $17,410 2 Resolved. ADFG now agrees Dolly Varden population monitoring is unnecessary and that monitoring adult salmon behavior for two years is sufficient. No minimal Yes; however, not without prior notification to KPU. 1 Designing the screen to exclude juvenile salmonids and fry would cost approximately $12,730 and $20,000, respectively. 2 Cost includes monitoring Dolly Varden populations in bypassed for five years post project construction. 159

179 IX. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C section 803(a)(2)(A), requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. Under section 803(a)(2)(A) of the FPA, federal and state agencies filed 27 comprehensive plans that address various resources in the state of Alaska. We determined that 5 comprehensive plans are relevant to the Whitman Lake project. We found no inconsistencies. Alaska Alaska Department of Fish and Game Atlas to the catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fishes. November Juneau, Alaska. Six volumes. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fishes. November Juneau, Alaska. Six volumes. Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska's Outdoor Legacy: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) Juneau, Alaska. July Alaska Water Study Committee South central Alaska water resources study: Anticipating water and related land resource needs. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, Anchorage, Alaska. October 1, pp. and appendices. Forest Service Tongass National Forest land and resource management plan. Department of Agriculture, Ketchikan, Alaska. May pp. and appendices. 160

180 X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT We've prepared this final environmental assessment for the Whitman Lake Project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of Implementing the protection described in this environmental assessment would ensure that the environmental effects of the project would remain insignificant. There would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts. Based on this analysis, issuing a license for the project would not be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. With our recommended measures, environmental resources would be protected during the license term. 161

181 XI. LITERATURE CITED Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Comments on Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project No Environmental Assessment. Dated August 20, 2007, filed with FERC on August 20, Annear, T.C. and Conder, A.L Relative bias of several fisheries instream flow methods: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 4, p Bates, K. and B. Norlund Fish protection screen guidelines for Washington State. Draft Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Environmental Projection Agency, Office of Water Wetlands Overview. December. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Transcript of the October 10, 2007, Teleconference held in Washington DC re the Whitman Lake Project under P Filed on October 10, Forest Service [Shaw, Charles G. and Anthony R DeGange] A Conservation Assessment for the Marbled Murrelet in Southeast Alaska. Portland, OR. December. Hatch Energy Alaska-British Columbia Feasibility Study, Southeast Alaska, Draft Final Report. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. April. Hoffman, S., G. Freeman, and S. Levesque Ketchikan area sportfishing guide. Prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish. Ketchikan, Alaska. Hunter, M.A Hydropower flow fluctuations and salmonids: a review of the biological effects, mechanical causes, and options for mitigation. State of Washington Department of Fisheries Technical Report Number 19. Olympia, Washington. 46 pp. 162

182 Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). 2004a. Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project final license application, FERC No KPU. Ketchikan, Alaska. September. Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). 2004b. Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project draft environmental assessment, FERC No KPU. Ketchikan, Alaska. September. Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) Comments of KPU in Response to Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Request for Stay to Conclude Settlement Negotiations. Whitman Lake Project, FERC Project No Prepared by Spiegel & McDiarmid, Washington, DC. Dated August 20, 2007, filed with FERC on August 20, Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). 2007a. Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No , Response to FERC Schedule A- Clarifying Questions Discussed with FERC Staff on October 10, Dated October 26, 2007, filed with FERC on October 26, Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). 2008a. Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No , Update on Settlement Agreement Process. Dated December 27, 2007, filed with FERC on December 27, Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). 2008b. Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No , KPU response to the February 29, 2008, FERC Request for Additional Information and March 19, 2008, Forest Service Comments on the Settlement Agreement for the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project under P Dated April 11, 2008, filed with FERC on April 11, Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). 2008c. Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No , Licensing Settlement Agreement for the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project under P Dated February 7, 2008, filed with FERC on February 8, Krosse, P. Report on wetland and riparian area descriptions for the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, Ketchikan, Alaska [Filed November 15, 2005 to satisfy additional information request] 163

183 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Juvenile fish screen criteria. Developed by National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental and Technical Services Division. Portland, Oregon. Riparian Standards and Guidelines of the 1997 Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, and 2003 Final SEIS. State of Alaska Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan. Juneau, AK. October. Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (Southern Southeast Aquaculture) Comments on Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project No Environmental Assessment. Dated August 20, 2007, filed with FERC on August 20, United States Forest Service (Forest Service) Comments on Whitman Lake Hydroelectic Project No Environmental Assessment. Dated August 20, 2007, filed with FERC on August 20, WESTCORP Hydrology of the Whitman Creek Basin, Ketchikan, Alaska. Prepared for Ketchikan Public Utilities, Ketchikan, Alaska. 164

184 XII. LIST OF PREPARERS Kenneth Hogan Environmental Assessment Coordinator (B.T., Fisheries Management and Aquaculture). Aaron Liberty Co-coordinator Water and Fishery Resources (M.S., Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences). Emily Carter Cultural Resources (B.A., Environmental Studies). Timothy Looney Need for Power and Developmental Resources (B.S., Engineering). Kristen Murphy Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species (B.S., Biology). Shana Murray Recreation and Land Use, and Aesthetics (M.S., Recreation, Tourism, and Park Management). 165

185 APPENDIX A-FIGURES Figure 1. Project location (Source: KPU, 2004a, as modified by staff) 166

186 Figure 2. Schematic of proposed Whitman Lake project (not to scale). (Source: KPU, as modified by staff) 167

187 Figure 3. Habitat mapping, wetted perimeter transect locations, fish sample sites, and water quality sites surveyed in the Whitman Creek and Herring Cove Creek drainages. (Source: KPU, 2004b, as modified by staff) 168

188 Figure 4. Annual Whitman Lake levels from 1997 to (Source: KPU, 2004b) 169

189 Figure 5. Estimated weekly Whitman Lake levels under proposed project operations, based on the historic 28-year period of record. (Source: KPU, 2008b). 170

190 Figure 6. Whitman Lake reservoir operations, incorporating the Southern Southeast Aquaculture s full water withdrawals needed for Whitman Fish Hatchery operations and minimum instream flows under normal hydrologic conditions for lower Whitman Creek (Source: KPU, 2008a). 171

191 Figure 7. Extended Deer Creek elevation profile into Whitman Lake; estimated from 1997 bathymetric survey by Seavisual Consulting and along a straight line extension of Deer Creek into Whitman Lake. (Source: KPU, 2008b, as modified by staff) 172

192 Figure 8. Annual flow duration curve for lower Whitman Creek, below the confluence with Achilles Creek, comparing stream flows under current conditions and under KPU s proposal for normal conditions. (Source: KPU, 2004b) 173

193 Wetted Perimeter (ft) Figure A-4, Whitman Creek, All Transects Wetted Perimeter, Max Q=50cs Transect-2 Transect-1 25 all transects combined 20 Transect Q (cfs) Figure 9. Wetted-perimeter versus discharge relationships for the three transects in Whitman Creek, and for all transects combined. (Source: KPU, 2004b) 174

194 Wetted Perimeter (ft) 30 Figure A-9, Achilles Creek, All Transects Wetted Perimeter, Max Q=50cfs 25 Transect-1 20 all transects combined 15 Transect-3 Transect Q (cfs) Figure 10. Wetted-perimeter versus discharge relationships for the three transects in Achilles Creek, and for all transects combined. (Source: KPU, 2004b) 175

195 APPENDIX B COMMENTS ON THE JUNE 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Project No AK The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its June 2007 Environmental assessment (EA) for the licensing of the Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project on June 19, The Commission requested comments be filed by July 19, In this appendix, we summarize the comments received; provide responses to those comments; and indicate, where appropriate, how we have modified the text of the final EA. We grouped the comment summaries and responses by topic for convenience. The following entities filed comments on the June 2007 EA: Commenting Entities Date Filed U.S. Forest Service August 20, 2007 Ketchikan Public Utilities August 20, 2007 Alaska Department of Natural Resources August 20, 2007 Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association August 20, 2007 We address all issues raised by commenters, as appropriate, in the final EA. Comments regarding purely editorial issues are addressed in the final EA and are not summarized below. General and Procedural Comment 1: Forest Service (pg 2) comments that terms and conditions are usually listed in their entirety in FERC NEPA documents; however, this was not done in the Whitman Lake June 2007 EA so it is unclear which terms and conditions are being proposed. Specifically, the Forest Service (pg 1) states that the list of 4(e) terms and conditions on pg 13 of the June 2007 EA does not include condition no. 12 (Pesticide Use Restrictions) and that 4(e) condition no. 8 (Administrative Access Easement Acquisition) and no.18 (Fire Prevention Plan) are not discussed in the body of the June 2007 EA. Response: Pesticide Use Restrictions, Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 12, is discussed on pg 39 of the June 2007 EA and in section V.C.2, Water Resources, in the final EA. This condition is supported as part of the staff recommended alternative, as discussed in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, in the June 2007and final EAs. Also, we agree with the Forest Service that 4(e) condition nos. 8 and 18 were omitted from discussion 176

196 in the June 2007 EA and have provided a discussion of each of these conditions in the final EA in sections V.C.6, Recreational Resources, and V.C.4, Terrestrial Resources, respectively, and in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Comment 2: Forest Service comments they do not have access to the portions of the project on National Forest System lands. To provide lawful and unrestricted access the Forest Service, in its 4(e) condition no 8, requested that Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) obtain an easement necessary for governmental administrative access through the project area in the name of the United States. Forest Service comments that it is unclear if 4(e) condition no. 8 was carried forward in the June 2007 EA. Response: It is unclear why the Forest Service would not have access to the project facilities located on National Forest System lands or would need to require with 4(e) condition no. 8, that KPU obtain an easement in the U.S. Government s name. We understand the intent of 4(e) condition no. 8 is to provide the Forest Service with access to project facilities. It is apparent to us that KPU will need to secure a right-of-way across all non-kpu land holdings necessary to access and construct project facilities. As specified in the June 2007 EA and in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EA, we recommend that KPU provide access to all agency personnel, including the Forest Service, upon request with adequate notice. Therefore, we conclude it is not necessary for KPU to provide an easement in the U.S. Government s name in order to provide the Forest Service access to the project. However, we recognize the mandatory nature of Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 8. Water Resources Comment 3: The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) (pgs 1, 2, and 3) comments that the Herring Bay Water Users Association s (HBWUA) water right of 100,000 gallons per day (~0.15 cfs) from lower Whitman Creek is being transferred to Ketchikan Gateway Borough (KGB). KGB has also applied for additional water rights from this source in the amount of 400,000 gallons per day, for a total of 500,000 gallons per day (~0.77 cfs). Response: We appreciate this supplemental information. Commission staff has incorporated this updated information into section V.C.2, Water Resources, of the final EA. Comment 4: ADNR (pg 1) comments because this application is for public water supply, it qualifies for preference under Alaska Statutes , and its 177

197 adjudication will therefore precede the adjudication of KPU s application for the hydroelectric project, notwithstanding the senior priority dates of KPU s applications relative to KGB s application. If the water right application for the Whitman Lake project is granted, they would be subordinated to the public water supply right of KGB. Project operation priorities must harmonize with those of the various Whitman Creek drainage water rights, as modified by the statutory preference for public water supply, established under the Water Use Act. ADNR (pg 1) also urges the adoption of a plan to operate the project on a priority use basis that places the KGB s public water supply water rights for lower Whitman Creek superior to hydroelectric operation. Response: As discussed in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EA, consistent with KPU s proposal, we are recommending for lower Whitman Creek, minimum instream flows between 6 to 11 cfs under normal hydrologic conditions and minimum instream flows between 2 to 7 cfs under dry conditions once Whitman Lake levels fall below El. 363 msl. As discussed in section V.C.2, Water Resources, these minimum instream flows would provide ample water for KGB s water needs during all but extreme dry periods. We also recommend that if during dry conditions stream flow in Achilles Creek is less than 0.77 cfs at the location of the new stream gage in Achilles Creek, at a minimum, the difference between 0.77 cfs and the flows present at the stream gage in Whitman Creek should be released into lower Whitman Creek to provide KGB with 0.77 cfs for consumptive purposes. Comment 5: Section V.C.2, Water Resources, of the June 2007 EA describes the 1978 agreement between Southern Southeast Aquaculture and KPU that agrees to subordinate, grant, assign, sublease, or abandon any and all rights or interests it may have in the water from Whitman Lake in favor of KPU for its purpose of constructing and operating a hydroelectric power generating facility at Herring Cove. ADNR (pg 2) comments that they do not object to this water right but that the agreement and the subordination of Southern Southeast Aquaculture s water right has not been approved by ADNR, and the water rights mentioned in the agreement, or their respective priorities, therefore have not been transferred or changed as required by the Water Use Act. Response: We appreciate ADNR providing this additional information on water rights. Comment 6: ADNR (pg 2) comments that various places in the June 2007 EA describe the 1.5 cfs priority bypass flow at the Achilles Creek diversion as a provided minimum instream flow or minimum bypass flow. However, table 7.a. of the June 2007 EA contradicts this by indicating the Achilles Creek bypass 178

198 flow may drop below 1.5 cfs. ADNR suggests the term 1.5 cfs priority bypass flow be used. Response: We appreciate ADNR pointing out this discrepancy in table 7.a. of the June 2007 EA. Table 7.a. in the June 2007 EA should have read that when flows in Achilles Creek go below 1.5 cfs, inflow would be released. We note that KPU s proposal, and the staff recommended alternative in the final EA, is for a yearround flow of 1.5 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, to be provided downstream of the proposed Achilles Creek diversion, as indicated in table 9 of the final EA. Comment 7: ADNR (pg 3) comments that the drought protocols could be strengthened by caveats to the Whitman Lake minimum release flow requirement, to provide releases only have to match reservoir inflows when reservoir inflows are less than scheduled release flow amounts. Response: As discussed in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EA, we are recommending, consistent with KPU s proposal, that a Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol be implemented. This protocol would address modifications to project operations such as ceasing power generation at Unit 1 once reservoir elevations are below El. 367 msl, and a reduction in minimum instream flows once reservoir levels are below El. 363 msl. As a result of implementing this protocol, we find that Southern Southeast Aquaculture s and KGB s water needs would not be compromised, and aquatic and water resources would be protected; therefore, we do not find that reservoir releases would necessarily have to match reservoir inflows when inflow is less than the scheduled release amount. Comment 8: ADNR (pg 3) comments that the Water Resources Section of ADNR should be included after consultations on preparing a drought protocol and in notification to agencies when drought conditions are anticipated. Response: We note that ADNR Water Resources was a signatory to the Settlement which contained KPU s proposal for a Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan. In section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, we recommend this protocol be implemented and note that ADNR Water Resources is a member of the Reservoir Action Team that would be consulted with during dry conditions as described by this protocol. Comment 9: ADNR (pg 3) comments that the June 2007 EA (pg 36) should clarify the reasons why KPU s proposal to supply water to the hatchery may constrain the hatchery to a maximum hydraulic capacity of 30 cfs, unless the remainder is provided from low-level colder water. ADNR states that there 179

199 appears to be an unstated assumption that none of Southern Southeast Aquaculture s water can be supplied by Powerhouse 1; therefore, the reasons for this should be stated. Response: As described in section III.A, Proposed Action, since issuance of the June 2007 EA, KPU has altered their proposed project facilities and operations, as contained in the Settlement Agreement. Under KPU s current proposal, a single powerhouse would house a 3,900 kw (Unit 1) and a 700 kw (Unit 2). KPU proposes that water allocated to Unit 1 would be discharged to Herring Cove and would not be available for the Whitman Fish Hatchery. The Unit 2 penstock would have a maximum hydraulic capacity of 32 cfs, and a Unit 2 bypass would be capable of providing up to 32 cfs if Unit 2 went off-line. KPU also proposes that water discharged from Unit 2 would enter a proposed head tank and would be used to meet the water needs of the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Any flows in addition to 32 cfs needed by the Whitman Fish Hatchery could also be provided by the 12- inch pipeline, which has a capacity of 17 cfs, ensuring Southern Southeast Aquaculture s 39 cfs water needs are not compromised as a result of project operations. Comment 10: ADNR (pg 4) comments that Commission staff recommends the Powerhouse 2 bypass system s capacity be increased to be able to provide all flows necessary for the Whitman Fish Hatchery operations, and recognizes Southern Southeast Aquaculture s 39 cfs water right. ADNR states the recommendation also restates the maximum hydraulic capacity of Powerhouse 2 is 30 cfs. ADNR asks for clarification on whether the constraint on the hydraulic capacity is the penstock or turbine. ADNR also asks us to clarify how this recommendation would work unless the 11 inch pipeline has a hydraulic capacity of at least 39 cfs and could deliver 9 cfs of that capacity around the turbine while the turbine operated at a limit of 30 cfs. Response: See our response to comment 9. Comment 11: KPU (pg 7) comments that operating the project on a priority basis, with minimum instream flow releases to Whitman and Achilles creeks being first priority, supplying the Whitman Fish Hatchery with water as second priority, and generating power as a third priority, would not permit the maintenance of the Whitman Fish Hatchery during extended periods of low runoff. Sending all available flows to meet minimum instream flow requirements in Whitman Creek could mean insufficient flows for the hatchery. KPU (pg 7) comments further consultation would also help determine an appropriate balance between resource values of Whitman Creek and the Whitman Fish Hatchery. 180

200 Response: We agree with KPU that providing minimum instream flows to Whitman Creek in the range of 6 to 11 cfs during dry conditions may prevent Southern Southeast Aquaculture from obtaining their full water amounts needed for hatchery operations. This is why we recommended the development and implementation of a Dry Year Contingency Plan, as discussed on pg 110 of the June 2007 EA. As discussed in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EA, we are recommending that KPU implement a Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol that would alter project operations, including minimum instream flows, during dry conditions to ensure the Southern Southeast Aquaculture receives their full water needs. Comment 12: KPU (pgs 6, 8, and 9) comments that they concur with Commission staff s recommended Dry Year Contingency Plan and Reservoir Operations Plan and will develop these plans after consultation with Southern Southeast Aquaculture, HBWUA, ADFG and ADNR. Response: We note that developing and implementing a Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan after consultation with Southern Southeast Aquaculture, ADFG, ADNR, and the Forest Service was contained as a proposal in the Settlement Agreement. We are recommending as part of the staff recommended alternative discussed in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EA that KPU implement this protocol. Comment 13: KPU (pg 6) states that they are prepared to accept the instream flows (6 cfs between November 16-April 30, 8 cfs between May 1-September 15, and 11 cfs between September 16-November 15) under normal hydrologic conditions. However, the project cannot meet the proposed flow requirements for the hatchery, domestic needs, and instream releases in addition to power production during low runoff periods. Response: We agree with KPU that minimum instream flows for lower Whitman Creek between 6 and 11 cfs would be adequate during normal hydrologic conditions. We also agree with KPU that the project would not be able to meet Southern Southeast Aquaculture s water needs, domestic needs, and instream flow releases in addition to power generation during dry conditions. As a result, we recommended the development and implementation of a Dry Year Contingency Plan as discussed on pg 110 of the June 2007 EA. We also note a Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol Plan was contained in the Settlement Agreement. We are supporting the implementation of this protocol as part of the staff recommended alternative in the final EA to address project operations during dry conditions, as discussed in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. 181

201 Comment 14: Forest Service (pg 1) comments that the terminology sluicing sediments on pg 55 of the June 2007 EA is unfamiliar and requests more clarification/definition. The Forest Service further asks if sluicing sediments means flushing or bypassing sediments from above the structure to below the structure, and if so, how this will be done? Response: Sluicing refers to KPU opening the proposed 36-inch sluice gate on the Achilles Creek diversion during high flow events to flush any trapped sediment above the diversion and mobilize it downstream during these high flows. We have provided additional information on sluicing sediments in Achilles Creek in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, of the final EA. Comment 15: On pg 55 of the EA, we state, KPU proposes to sluice sediments from the Achilles diversion only during natural high flow events. Forest Service (pg 1) requests clarification on whether or not all sediment sizes will be sluiced and requests clarification on whether these natural high flow events will be dictated by a particular flow in cfs or by a yearly occurrence interval. Response: We have clarified in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, of the final EA, that sediment sluicing in Achilles Creek should occur annually at a flow equal or greater to 34 cfs at the location of the Achilles Creek diversion, for a period of 24 continuous hours. Based upon the Tennant (1975) method, this would be sufficient to mobilize sediments of all sizes behind the Achilles Creek diversion. Comment 16: KPU (pg 2) comments that license terms and conditions must make a careful distinction between periods of normal runoff and periods of low runoff, especially where there are the substantial variations present here. Response: In the final EA we have provided defined periods of normal and low runoff based upon reservoir elevations in KPU s proposed, and our recommended Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol. Conditions where reservoir levels are above El. 367 msl would be defined as normal runoff periods and reservoir levels below El. 367 msl would be defined as low runoff or dry conditions. Comment 17: KPU (pg 3) comments that the Dry Conditions Contingency Protocol should be resolved prior to the issuance of a license in order to fashion a workable license. Response: We note that on February 8, 2008, KPU filed a Settlement Agreement that included a Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Contingency Protocol Plan be developed for Commission approval and implemented. In section VII, 182

202 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EA, we are recommending that the protocol be implemented as described. Comment 18: KPU (pgs 3 and 8) comments that Commission staff s analysis fails to address the fact that while operation of Powerhouse 1 operates within the range El. 370 to 375 msl for power generation, Powerhouse 2 operates within the historic range of Whitman Lake drawdown (El msl) for hatchery water supply. KPU proposes operation of both powerhouses during normal runoff conditions, and during sub-normal conditions only Powerhouse 2 may be operated, which would also serve the Whitman Fish Hatchery. KPU (pg 8) comments extended periods of runoff will require an additional ten to 12-feet of drawdown to the historic levels of El. 358 to 360 msl. Response: We thank KPU for clarifying their proposal regarding project operations; however, as described in section III.A, Proposed Action, since issuance of the June 2007 EA, KPU has altered their proposed project facilities and operations, as contained in the Settlement Agreement. As a result, in sections V.C.2, Water Resources, and V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, of the final EA, we have analyzed KPU s current proposal to operate Unit 1 between Whitman Lake El to 370 msl and to operate Unit 2 year-round for the primary purpose of supplying Southern Southeast Aquaculture with their water needs. In the final EA, we have provided an analysis of operating the reservoir down to El. 343 msl during dry periods. Comment 19: KPU (pg 4) comments that their June 2007 EA and FERC s June 2007 EA recommend development of a Long-Term Coordinated Operations Plan after a license has been issued. KPU comments that current discussions with affected parties have led KPU to conclude that the Operations Plan for the project and hatchery operations should be agreed upon in advance of license issuance. Response: We thank KPU for providing this comment and note that on February 8, 2008, KPU filed a Settlement Agreement that described their proposed operations of the project and that it was developed after consultation with the parties to the Settlement Agreement, including Southern Southeast Aquaculture. We have analyzed the Settlement Agreement and its proposed operations for the project in the final EA. Comment 20: KPU (pgs 4, 9, and 10) comments successful operation of the project will require a bypass valve for each powerhouse to accommodate hydraulic transients within each pipeline during a sudden loss of load. The bypass valve for the 700 kw unit in Powerhouse 2 will also be used to supply water to the Whitman Fish Hatchery when the unit is offline. KPU (pg 10) comments that the design of 183

203 Powerhouse 2 will provide for the estimated average monthly flows (Table 2, pg 23 of the June 2007 EA) for the hatchery through the 24-inch pipeline. The 24- inch pipeline can supply up to 32 cfs, with additional water required for temperature control supplied through the 11-inch diameter pipeline, which has a capacity over 7 cfs at all times. Response: As described in section III.A, Proposed Action, since issuance of the June 2007 EA, KPU has altered their proposed project facilities and operations, as contained in the Settlement Agreement. Under KPU s current proposal, a single powerhouse would house a 3,900 kw (Unit 1) and a 700 kw (Unit 2). We agree with KPU that Unit 1 and 2 should contain automated bypasses, and that the bypass at Unit 2 should be capable of providing at least 32 cfs to the proposed head tank. Aquatic Resources Comment 21: Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pgs 1 and 2) comments that their ability to recruit brood stock must not be diminished by the proposed project. Southern Southeast Aquaculture expresses concern over the 150 cfs to be discharged upstream of Southern Southeast Aquaculture s fish ladder and notes that the 17 cfs currently discharged from raceways above the fish ladder already causes false attraction. Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pg 2) comments the biotic monitoring plan proposed by KPU does nothing to address false attraction during the first year of project operation. If false attraction impacts the ability to collect brood stock, steps will need to be taken immediately to remedy the situation. Southern Southeast Aquaculture suggests power generation from Unit 1 be suspended until sufficient brood stock have been collected. 184

204 Response: We agree that Southern Southeast Aquaculture s ability to recruit brood stock must not be diminished by operation of the proposed project. To minimize attraction to the tailrace discharge, KPU proposes to minimize attraction velocities and design the tailrace to provide a physical barrier to fish attempting to enter the tailrace. KPU proposes to have discharge flow into a rectangular concrete channel and spill over a concrete weir at El. 18 with spill to be dissipated by a baffle wall and floor before being discharged to Herring Cove over a sill. KPU also proposes to install smooth-finished bars with one-inch openings along the bottom of the baffle wall to the floor to provide an additional barrier to any fish attempting to enter the tailrace. As described in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EA, we recommend that KPU construct the proposed project with their proposed measures designed to eliminate false attraction. We conclude that these measures would likely eliminate false attraction as a result of project operations and would enable Southern Southeast Aquaculture to continue to obtain all necessary broodstock from Herring Cove. For these reasons described above, we also do not find there would be a need to shut down Unit 1 as recommended by Southern Southeast Aquaculture to reduce false attraction. However, in the June 2007and final EA, we also recommend that KPU monitor the behavior of adult salmon at the location of the proposed tailrace for a period of two years as part of a biotic monitoring plan. This monitoring would likely confirm our conclusions and ensure any false attraction occurring at the site of the proposed tailrace as a result of project operations would be identified. If false attraction were occurring, these monitoring results would be used to inform decisions on correcting the problem. Comment 22: Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pg 1) comments that adult fish returning to the Whitman Fish Hatchery represent Common Property Fisheries, and that these fish are excess brood stock harvested to make up a portion of Southern Southeast Aquaculture s cost recovery, providing as much as $100,000 annually. Southern Southeast Aquaculture expresses concern that any loss of fish attributed to false attraction is a financial loss. Southern Southeast Aquaculture further notes that falsely attracted fish may die from exhaustion and increase bear activity, resulting in more tourist activity and more dead fish fouling local beaches. The best way to minimize these problems is to insure fish have a direct path to the Whitman Fish Hatchery or can be easily harvested below the tailrace. Response: We appreciate this supplemental information that Southern Southeast Aquaculture has provided on the economics of the Whitman Fish Hatchery and have incorporated this information into section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, of the final EA. Also, please see our response to comment

205 Comment 23: In section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, pg 59 of the June 2007 EA, we state, In response to comment no. S-3 from Southern Southeast Aquaculture, KPU stated that an alternative location for the powerhouse and tailrace was evaluated. This alternate location would have discharged next to the existing fish ladder and incorporated the new tailrace into the hatchery s fishway. This option was rejected by Southern Southeast Aquaculture and locating the powerhouse upstream of the hatchery was deemed more appropriate. Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pg 2) comments this alternative location would have placed the tailrace discharge in front of the hatchery building and disturbed the entire yard piping to the Whitman Fish Hatchery, adult ponds and raceways. Southern Southeast Aquaculture states they were never presented with any conceptual drawings illustrating how this could be accomplished without impacting the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Response: We appreciate this supplemental information that Southern Southeast Aquaculture provides and have taken this additional information into consideration in final EA. Comment 24: Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pg 3) comments a minimum instream flow of 6 cfs in upper Whitman Creek would significantly jeopardize their ability to maintain sufficient flows through the Whitman Fish Hatchery and that historically flows have not met the ADFG recommended minimum instream flows. During periods of low flow into Whitman Lake there is often no extra water available to crest the spillway of the Whitman Lake Dam and during periods of low flow the hatchery still requires in excess of 30 cfs to operate. Whitman Lake can drop as much as 0.2 meters per day during dry periods in the winter that are combined with cold temperatures. Response: We appreciate Southern Southeast Aquaculture providing this additional information regarding hatchery operations and reservoir levels. Also, see our response to comment 11. Comment 25: Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pg 3) comments enhancing fish stocks in Whitman Creek beyond the status quo of the past 30 years should not be done at the expense of the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Southern Southeast Aquaculture states the hatchery provides an important role in various communities and functions as a central incubation facility for multiple hatcheries. Southern Southeast Aquaculture states increasing minimum instream flows beyond current conditions will put the Whitman Fish Hatchery at risk and should be secondary in priority to hatchery operations. 186

206 Response: We agree with Southern Southeast Aquaculture that fish production at the Whitman Fish Hatchery should not be put at risk as a result of proposed project operations. We find that implementing our recommended Dry Conditions/Low Reservoir Protocol, as described in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EA, would enable storage within Whitman Lake to be conserved, which would enable Southern Southeast Aquaculture to secure water needed for hatchery operations on a year-round basis. Comment 26: Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pg 3) comments the following species depend on the Whitman Fish Hatchery: king and coho salmon are incubated, reared and released at the Whitman Fish Hatchery, king and coho salmon are incubated and reared for approximately a year and a half at the hatchery and released elsewhere, and summer chum salmon are incubated at the hatchery and transported to a remote release site after fry emergence. Approximately 750,000 king salmon and 300,000 coho salmon are released directly from the Whitman Fish Hatchery, 300,000 king salmon and 2,000,000 coho salmon that are incubated and reared at the Whitman Fish Hatchery are released elsewhere, and 30,000,000 summer chum smolt are incubated at Whitman Lake and moved to a remote release site. Southern Southeast Aquaculture states they do not have the water, space or permitted capacity to do this fish production elsewhere. Response: We appreciate this supplemental information that Southern Southeast Aquaculture provides on the importance of fish production at the Whitman Fish Hatchery. We have incorporated this additional information into section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, of the final EA. We find the staff recommended alternative contained in the final EA would enable the proposed project to operate without affecting operations at the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Comment 27: Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pg 4) comments they annually identify Southern Southeast Aquaculture produced fish in common property harvest through the recovery of coded wire and thermal tags from harvested salmon. This information is used to determine Southern Southeast Aquaculture s portion of common property harvest. The ex-vessel value of this harvest is determined by using information from ADFG on the prices paid to fishermen for harvest. Southern Southeast Aquaculture has detailed information on the harvest and value of fish captured for corporate cost recovery. Southern Southeast Aquaculture also has detailed information from ADFG on the sport harvest of Southern Southeast Aquaculture produced fish. Southern Southeast Aquaculture states they have provided a report attached to their comments entitled, Economic Impacts of the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association. Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pgs 4-5) further provides a detailed economic analysis of the Whitman Fish Hatchery produced salmon. 187

207 Response: We appreciate this supplemental information that Southern Southeast Aquaculture provides on the importance and economics of fish species produced at the Whitman Fish Hatchery. We have incorporated this information into the final EA in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources. Comment 28: Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pg 5) comments that they came into existence through fishermen voluntarily assessing themselves 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of their harvest to fund salmon enhancement through the formation of a Regional Aquaculture Association. For more than 30 years fishermen have continued to tax themselves and currently the commercial fishermen of Southern SE Alaska have taxed themselves more than $34,000,000 dollars towards the successful development of this program. The long-term existence of this tax also serves as collateral when loans are needed to build the facilities such as those operated by Southern Southeast Aquaculture. Whitman Lake is a critical piece at the core of the complex production program at Southern Southeast Aquaculture. Southern Southeast Aquaculture comments they are concerned that by diminishing production at the Whitman Fish Hatchery or a failure of the facility during production would have a strong negative impact on this investment and to a lesser extent it would diminish the ongoing tax structure as harvest and ex-vessel value would be decreased. Response: We appreciate this supplemental information that Southern Southeast Aquaculture provides on the importance and economics of fish species produced at the Whitman Fish Hatchery. We have incorporated this additional information into the final EA in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources. Comment 29: Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pg 6) comments they have several contracts with ADFG to fund the production of chinook salmon in relatively urban areas in SE Alaska where naturally produced fish are not abundant. Southern Southeast Aquaculture is concerned that without a fully functioning Whitman Fish Hatchery, Southern Southeast Aquaculture could not produce fish to meet the desires of ADFG, a need that is directly funded by the users though sale of fishing licenses and King Salmon Tags. A failure of production at the hatchery because of competing water usage would constitute a breach of contract by Southern Southeast Aquaculture related to this agreement. Response: As discussed in the final EA, the Whitman Fish Hatchery would continue to be supplied with the quantity and quality of water needed to operate at correct production levels. As discussed in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EA, the staff recommended alternative recommends a number of measures to protect Southern 188

208 Southeast Aquaculture that ensures they will be able to receive their year-round water need of 39 cfs. Comment 30: Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pg 6) comments that head pressure needs to be maintained and that they have not seen any design work indicating how water will be supplied from Powerhouse 2 to their raceways, adult holding ponds and the hatchery building. The current plumbing operates under head pressure from Whitman Lake that is reduced to 60 psi for the raceways and 20 psi to the incubation head box. Southern Southeast Aquaculture is concerned that project operations would provide low-head water supply that will require an expensive refitting of the piping system that Southern Southeast Aquaculture can not afford. Response: As described in section III.A, Proposed Action, since issuance of the June 2007 EA, KPU has altered their proposed project facilities and operations, as contained in the Settlement Agreement. KPU currently proposes to construct a 30- foot-diameter head tank that would collect discharge from Unit 2 and be used to provide the Whitman Fish Hatchery with water. Also, consistent with KPU s proposal, we recommend that the elevation of the head tank be designed to provide water to the Whitman Fish Hatchery at an adequate pressure. Comment 31: Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pg 6) comments the location of the Powerhouse 1 tailrace will transit their existing lease and result in the loss off valuable real estate used for storage. Response: We recommend that KPU work with Southern Southeast Aquaculture on the final design of the project to minimize any impacts to Southern Southeast Aquaculture s storage space. Comment 32: Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pg 7) states that they are opposed to installing a smaller mesh size on the intake screens because the current screen has served well since Current entrainment numbers are not significant enough to warrant a smaller mesh size or more frequent cleanings, and pose a higher risk to the Whitman Fish Hatchery. Response: As discussed in section V.C.3, Aquatic Resources, in the June 2007and final EA, current entrainment of Dolly Varden at Whitman dam is shown to be relatively low (25 to 30 fish per year). Commission staff agrees with Southern Southeast Aquaculture that the current intake screens have operated well with low entrainment observed at the hatchery and little intake clogging occurring. However, under KPU s proposal, up to 182 cfs would be drawn from Whitman Lake which is a six fold increase over current conditions. As a result, we expect 189

209 the level of entrainment to increase over current conditions and are therefore recommending that the new Unit 1 intake be designed to protect juvenile salmonids with a maximum approach velocity of 0.8 fps with a fish screen mesh not greater than 0.25-inch measured in the narrowest direction. We also expect that installing a smaller mesh size would increase the potential for clogging which could impact Southern Southeast Aquaculture s ability to draw water from Whitman Lake. Therefore, we are also recommending in the final EA that KPU conduct, at a minimum, weekly inspections of the new Unit 1 intake for the first two years of project operations (absent when Whitman Lake is frozen over). Based upon the results of this monitoring, the frequency of cleaning needed to keep the intakes free of debris would be determined. Comment 33: KPU (pg 2) comments that there appears to have been some misunderstanding in the June 2007 EA regarding the operation of the Whitman Fish Hatchery. KPU (pgs 2 and 9) states that the hatchery s operation is complex and involves not only water quantity, but also water temperature and pressure. The physical configuration of the conduit system and its relationship to the combined hydropower and hatchery operations may not have been clearly understood. Response: We believe that the meeting on October 10, 2007, to clarify KPU s comments on the June 2007 EA, and KPU s response to these clarifying questions filed on October 26, 2007, helped Commission staff and all stakeholders involved gain a better understanding of the complexity of not only the proposed project, but also of current Whitman Fish Hatchery operations. We agree with KPU that the operation of the Whitman Fish Hatchery is very complex and is dependent upon sufficient water quantity, at the correct temperatures and pressure. As discussed in the final EA, we have taken into consideration the complexity of operating the proposed project, its relationship to the Whitman Fish Hatchery, and how the needs of Whitman Fish Hatchery should be provided for. Terrestrial Resources Comment 34: The Forest Service notes that the Tongass National Forest Plan (Forest Plan) allows for protection around all raptor nests (including owls and other hawks) and great blue heron nests in addition to the species that KPU plans to survey for, which include murrelet, goshawk, and bald eagle. The Forest Service states that, prior to clearing the corridor, any large stick nest should be reported so that it can be determined by the agencies biologists what the species is and its activity status. 190

210 Response: When conducting the nesting survey, KPU would have to report any large nest, so including raptors and herons does not increase the level of effort of KPU in conducting the nesting survey. We have revised the nesting survey plan in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EA to include raptors and great blue heron, consistent with the Forest Service plan. Recreational Resources Comment 35: Southern Southeast Aquaculture (pg 7) states they do not believe public access to Whitman Lake will negatively impact the operation of the hatchery; however, Southern Southeast Aquaculture further comments the proposed trail access cannot be through the hatchery grounds, nor will they provide public parking and that these facilities must be developed elsewhere and not on property leased by Southern Southeast Aquaculture. Southern Southeast Aquaculture states they do not intend to allow public access to the hatchery due to concerns over security, fish health considerations, interruption of hatchery operations and a lack of staff to monitor public access. Southern Southeast Aquaculture further states that they are concerned with vandalism of hatchery facilities. Response: We recognize Southern Southeast Aquaculture s concerns, and have revised the text in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EA to recommend KPU develop a trail plan after consultation with the Forest Service to identify a location and trail route that would connect the Whitman Fish Hatchery area at Herring Cove and Whitman Lake, but not go through Southern Southeast Aquaculture leased lands without the permission of Southern Southeast Aquaculture. Land Use and Aesthetic Resources Comment 36: The Forest Service comments that they are unclear how the proposed recreation trail has the potential to permanently change the visual landscape within the project area. Response: Construction of a recreation trail would change the visual landscape of the project by removing vegetation to clear a path for the trail and attracting more visitors to the area. 191

211 Comment 37: The Forest Service comments that on pg 87 of the June 2007 EA, nothing in the first paragraph identifies this project as a non-conforming use or whether there is no feasible alternate location. The Forest Service requests more clarification. Response: The Forest Service is correct. The proposed work would be occurring in the existing penstock corridor and does not affect the nonconforming visual condition that exists already. Therefore, we did not feel it necessary to evaluate an alternate location for the Achilles Creek diversion structure and associate pipeline. We have revised the text in section V.C.7, Land Use and Aesthetic Resources, of the final EA to clarify the visual quality objective and reflect the analysis found on pg 25 of the Forest Service s 4(e) Report filed with their 4(e) conditions. Comment 38: The Forest Service comments that it is not clear if the Visual Quality Objectives can be modified for Old Growth Habitat as worded on pg 88 of the June 2007 EA. The Forest Service requests the final EA to be more clear and accurate on what is being changed. Response: The Visual Quality Objective for Old Growth Habitat would not need to be modified. The proposed work in the existing penstock corridor would not affect the non-conforming visual condition that already exists because it would not occur in locations visible from the Forest Service s designated Visual Priority Routes, use areas, or by the casual observer. We have revised the text on in section V.C.7, Land Use and Aesthetic Resources, of the final EA to reflect the analysis found on pg 25 of the Forest Service s 4(e) Report filed with their 4(e) conditions to provide further clarification. Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative Comment 39: Page 109 of the June 2007 EA states, Obtaining approval would ensure that pesticide use would not lead to the degradation We find that the cost of this measure is minimal. Forest Service (pg 2) comments that this statement should be reworded because obtaining approval does not ensure these results. It is difficult, plus time and money consuming, to get this approval. Response: We agree with the Forest Service that the wording of this statement in the June 2007 EA is confusing and have changed it accordingly in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EA. We agree with the Forest Service that obtaining this approval would not be easy and that it would require time and money to accomplish. 192

212 Comment 40: Forest Service (pg 2) comments that 4(e) condition no. 9, which requires public access easement acquisition, discussed on pg 86 of the June 2007 EA, indicates this condition includes some exceptions which are not mentioned on pg 13 of the June 2007 EA. Response: The list of section 4(e) conditions found on pg 13 of the June 2007 EA, and in section IV.B.4, Consultation and Compliance, of the final EA, are meant to serve as a brief list of all conditions filed with the Commission for the project. The intent of this list is not to serve as a full description of each condition. Each condition is discussed in detail in the appropriate resource section, along with our recommendations of whether or not to accept each condition in section VII, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EA. 193

213 APPENDIX C SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUGGESTED ARTICLES 194

214 195

215 196

216 197

217 198

218 199