UNITED STATES OF AMERICAFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Alaska Energy Authority Project No. 8221-094

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

(July 13, 2016)

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission or FERC’s) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 Federal Register [FR] 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Alaska Energy Authority’s application for a non-capacity amendment to the license for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 8221), located on the south shore and near the head of Kachemak Bay, 22.5 miles east, northeast of the city of Homer, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska. The project currently occupies a total of 5,498 acres of federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

Staff prepared a final environmental assessment (EA), which analyzes the potential environmental effects of constructing and operating a new diversion on the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek that would divert water to Bradley Lake and thereby increase generation at the project. The final EA concludes that authorizing the amendment, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission’s web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 202-502-8659.

You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Project No. 8221-094 2

For further information, contact Steven Sachs by telephone at 202-502-8666 or by email at Steven.Sachs@ferc.gov.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR A NON-CAPACITY-RELATED AMENDMENT TO LICENSE

Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project—FERC Project No. 8221-094 Alaska

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance

888 First Street, NEWashington, D.C. 20426

July 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................iii

LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................11.1 APPLICATION.............................................................................................11.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER..................................1

1.2.1 Purpose of Action............................................................................11.2.2 Need for Power................................................................................2

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS..........................51.3.1 Federal Power Act............................................................................51.3.2 Clean Water Act...............................................................................81.3.3 Endangered Species Act..................................................................81.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act........................................................81.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act..................................................81.3.6 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act....9

1.4 PRE-FILING PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION......................111.4.1 Consultation...................................................................................111.4.2 Comments on the License Amendment Application and

Interventions..................................................................................121.4.3 Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment.....................12

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES...................................................132.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE..................................................................13

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities..............................................................132.1.2 Existing Project Operation.............................................................142.1.3 Existing Environmental Measures.................................................15

2.2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY’S PROPOSAL...................................152.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities and Construction Activities................152.2.2 Proposed Operational Modifications.............................................202.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures................................................202.2.4 Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions. .22

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE.............................................................................222.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVES.........................................................................22

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.........................................................................233.1 GENERAL SETTING.................................................................................233.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS.................................23

i

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION.................................................................................243.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources.........................................................243.3.2 Aquatic Resources.........................................................................293.3.3 Terrestrial Resources.....................................................................793.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species.............................................933.3.5 Cultural Resources.........................................................................98

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE................................................................101

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS.......................................................................1034.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE................................................................1034.2 PROPOSED ACTION...............................................................................1034.3 STAFF-RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE..........................................104

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................1065.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES....................................................1065.2 SUMMARY OF SECTION 10(J) RECOMMENDATIONS AND 4(E)

CONDITIONS...........................................................................................1095.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS.................................................1145.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS............................114

6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.......................................................116

7.0 LITERATURE CITED.........................................................................................117

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS........................................................................................121

APPENDIX A..................................................................................................................A-1

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Location of proposed diversion.....................................................................3Figure 1-2. Location of Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project...........................................4Figure 2-1. Location of proposed stilling basin and modifications to East Fork Upper

Battle Creek channel....................................................................................17Figure 2-2. Existing project boundary and proposed addition.......................................18Figure 2-3. Proposed addition to project boundary........................................................19Figure 3-1. Sediment size distribution in Battle Creek..................................................25Figure 3-2. Battle Creek study reaches and locations of temperature data loggers

deployed in Battle Creek in 2011 (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012, as modified by staff)........................................................................................................34

Figure 3-3. Upper Battle Creek basin (Source: staff).....................................................35Figure 3-4. Mean daily water temperature recorded in the South Fork of Battle Creek,

Reach 4, and at the Martin River Access Road Bridge...............................36Figure 3-5. Mean daily water temperature recorded in the Skirmish Creek beaver pond

in 2011.........................................................................................................37Figure 3-6. Mean daily water temperature at Skirmish Creek confluence with Lower

Battle Creek and at the South Fork of Battle Creek confluence with the mainstem......................................................................................................37

Figure 3-7. Mean daily streamflow at Skirmish Creek confluence with Lower Battle Creek and at the South Fork of Battle Creek confluence with the mainstem.....................................................................................................................38

Figure 3-8. Water temperature recorded near the Skirmish Creek confluence (USGS Gage No. 15238986) and Battle Creek below the glacier (USGS Gage No. 15238982)....................................................................................................38

Figure 3-9. Locations of discrete water quality monitoring sites in Battle Creek in 2010 and 2011......................................................................................................39

Figure 3-10. Sampled location within Battle and Skirmish Creeks during the 2010 and 2011 fish surveys.........................................................................................45

Figure 3-11. Locations of adult salmon and salmon redds observed during the 2010 and 2011 spawning surveys................................................................................46

Figure 3-12. Monthly average flows for pre- and post-diversion conditions...................52Figure 3-13. Mean daily water temperatures within Reach 2 of Battle Creek before and

after the proposed diversion becomes operational......................................57Figure 3-14. Pre- and post-diversion flow duration curve for the May through October

diversion operation seasonal at the USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater gage. Also shown are Alaska DFG target conservation flows of 80 cfs and 120 cfs..........................................................................................................64

Figure 3-15. Reach 2 of Battle Creek wetted perimeter-discharge relationship..............68Figure 3-16. Land cover types and acreages in the Battle Creek diversion study area....80

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Summary of USGS gage information..........................................................31Table 3-2. Combined monthly flow data (cfs) for USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater

gage and USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage for 1991 to 1993 and 2010 to 2013.........................................................................................32

Table 3-3. Alaska DEC water quality standards for fresh water..................................33Table 3-4. Water quality monitoring results in Battle Creek........................................40Table 3-5. Turbidity and suspended solids concentrations in Bradley Lake................41Table 3-6. Water quality data collected in the Upper Bradley River and Kachemak

Creek............................................................................................................41Table 3-7. Fishes collected within Battle and Skirmish Creeks in 2010 and 2011.......46Table 3-8. Adult coho salmon counts in Battle and Skirmish Creeks..........................47Table 3-9. Macroinvertebrate taxa surveyed in Reaches 1 through 4 in Battle Creek. 48Table 3-10. Summary statistics for macroinvertebrate surveys in Reaches 1 through 4 in

Battle Creek.................................................................................................49Table 3-11. Environmental bypass flow schedule..........................................................51Table 3-12. Comparison of instream flow alternatives for the proposed diversion

structure for the Bradley Lake Project.........................................................63Table 3-13. Average monthly flows in Lower Battle Creek pre- and post- diversion....65Table 3-14. Mean reduction in wetted perimeter post-diversion in Reach 3 of Battle

Creek............................................................................................................66Table 3-15. Counts of adult coho salmon, Dolly Varden, and redds observed in Lower

Battle Creek during foot surveys performed in 2010 and 2011..................72Table 3-16. Bird species of concern in Alaska that have been recorded or may occur in

the Battle Creek diversion vicinity..............................................................83Table 3-17. Federally listed as threatened or endangered plant and wildlife species in

Alaska under the ESA..................................................................................94Table 5-1. Alaska DFG recommendations for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project

...................................................................................................................110

iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEA Alaska Energy AuthorityAlaska DEC Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationAlaska DFG Alaska Department of Fish and GameAlaska SHPO Alaska State Historic Preservation OfficerAPE area of potential effectsBLM Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practice°C degrees CelsiusCFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per secondCommission Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionCorps U.S. Army Corps of EngineersDO dissolved oxygenEA environmental assessmentEFH essential fish habitat ESA Endangered Species ActESCMP Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan FERC Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionFPA Federal Power Actfps feet per second FWS U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife ServicekV kilovoltMBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mg/L milligrams per literMWh megawatt-hourNational Register National Register of Historic PlacesNHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966NMFS National Marine Fisheries ServiceNTU nephelometric turbidity unitRM river mileTDS total dissolved solids USGS U.S. Geological Survey

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On March 12, 2015, as supplemented, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA or licensee) filed an application for a non-capacity amendment of license for the Bradley Lake Project (project).

To increase water available for generation, the licensee proposes to construct a diversion on the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek to divert flows to Bradley Lake. The licensee would construct an underground pipeline adjacent to the proposed diversion dam access road, to connect the new diversion with the existing Upper Battle Creek diversion outlet channel. The dam would serve as a diversion point for creek flows but would not create an impoundment.

The underground pipeline would extend from the head works to a riprap outlet stilling basin, and a new outlet canal would be constructed to convey flows from the East Fork Upper Battle Creek around the stilling basin and into a pond feature downstream of the existing Battle Creek diversion through which diverted water flows to Bradley Lake. The licensee would widen an existing natural channel that carries flows from the pond to Bradley Lake to accommodate the additional flows from the diversion. The licensee would construct a total of 2.9 miles of new access roads to support operations and maintenance of the new project facilities.

The stilling basin, canal, a portion of the pipeline, and a portion of the new access roads would be located on lands that are currently included within the licensed project boundary. The remainder of the proposed project features would be located on lands to be added to the project boundary. The proposed project would add approximately 765 acres of lands owned by the State of Alaska to the project boundary.

The licensee proposes to implement a number of environmental measures to limit the effects of the new diversion and agreed to incorporate all 13 of Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s (Alaska DFG’s) 10(j) recommendations into its proposed measures. To minimize effects on water quality and aquatic resources during construction, the licensee proposes to implement its Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan and Fuel and Hazardous Substances Management Plan and to develop an instream construction flow plan. The licensee proposes to implement its Diversion Flow Release Management Plan, under which it would release flows at the diversion to provide minimum flows to Battle Creek and provide channel maintenance flows to transport bedload in Battle Creek. To monitor flows at the project and in Battle Creek, the licensee would develop a stream gaging plan. To monitor project effects on fish habitat in Lower Battle Creek, the licensee would implement its Fish and Habitat Management Plan.

To minimize effects of vegetation clearing on nesting birds, the licensee would follow U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) guidelines, which recommend avoiding all vegetation clearing between May 1 and July 15. If an

vi

active nest is encountered, it would be left in place until the young hatch and depart. The licensee would further minimize harm to wildlife by prohibiting employees and contractors from hunting, trapping, and fishing in the project area; implementing its Bear Safety Management Plan; and minimizing use of helicopters or airplanes near mountain sides adjacent to Bradley Lake and Battle Creek and, if mountain goats are observed, maintaining a 1,500-foot vertical or horizontal clearance.

To ensure environmental measures are followed in accordance with agency recommendations, the licensee would employ an environmental compliance monitor, notify agencies following any non-compliance events, and allow Alaska DFG representatives to access the site.

The proposed project would not affect threatened or endangered species because the only listed species identified in the project vicinity (Steller’s eider, Cook Inlet beluga whale, and short-tailed albatross) are coastal species and do not occur in the area of the proposed construction. Changes in operations associated with the proposed amendment would also have no effect on these species.

To minimize effects of project construction on cultural resources, the licensee would stop construction and consult with a qualified archaeologist and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer if any previously unidentified or unrecorded archaeological or historical sites are discovered during construction. The licensee also would provide an environmental compliance monitor to ensure license requirements related to cultural resources are met during construction of the project.

Under the staff alternative, the project would be constructed and operated as proposed with the following modifications and additional measures.  Our recommended modifications and additional environmental measures include, or are based on, recommendations made by federal and state resource agencies that have an interest in resources that may be affected by construction and operation of the proposed project. The staff alternative would require the licensee to: (1) modify the Diversion Flow Management Plan to include the specific seasonal flow releases recommended by National Marine Fisheries Service and FWS below the diversion in October, and AEA and Alaska DFG recommended flow releases the rest of the year; (2) modify the proposed stream gaging plan to include installation of a stream flow gage at the diversion and at Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth (at Battle Creek river mile 1.15), and monitoring of water temperature at the Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage for the duration of the license; and (3) modify the draft Fish and Habitat Management Plan to include monitoring habitat connectivity for juvenile salmon between side channel rearing habitat and main channel habitat, with adaptive management provisions, based on resource agency consultation, to implement additional protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures, based on the results of the monitoring, to help ensure protection of coho salmon essential fish habitat.

vii

Based on our analysis, staff recommends approval of the amendment of license as proposed by the licensee with staff’s additional measures. Staff finds that approval of the license amendment, to include the modifications and environmental measures summarized above, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

viii

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionOffice of Energy Projects

Division of Hydropower Administration and ComplianceWashington, D.C.

Bradley Lake Hydroelectric ProjectFERC Project No. 8221-094—Alaska

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 APPLICATION

Application Type: Amendment of License

Date Filed: March 12, 2015, and supplemented on August 14, 2015, September 18, 2015, September 22, 2015, October 1, 2015, December 18, 2015, and January 19, 2016

Applicant’s Name: Alaska Energy Authority

Water Body: Bradley River and Battle Creek

County and State: Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska

Federal Lands: The project occupies 5,498 acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Under this proposal, no federal lands would be added or removed from the project.

1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER

1.2.1 Purpose of Action

The Alaska Energy Authority (licensee or AEA) owns and operates the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (Bradley Lake Project or project).1 The licensee proposes to construct a new diversion on the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek and a 1.9-mile-long conveyance system, comprising a 1.7-mile-long buried pipeline and 1,000-foot-long open canal, to transport water to Bradley Lake (figure 1-1). The diversion would provide for increased generation with no proposed increases in storage or installed capacity.

1 Alaska Power Authority, 33 FERC ¶ 62,495 (1985) and Alaska Energy Authority, 106 FERC ¶ 62,215 (2004).

1

The Bradley Lake Project consists of a 20-foot-high diversion dam on the Middle Fork Bradley River diverting flow through an underground pipe to Marmot Creek, a tributary to Bradley Lake; a low diversion dike on the upper Nuka River immediately below the Nuka Glacier, diverting flow from the glacier pool into the upper Bradley River; a low diversion dam on the East Fork Upper Battle Creek that diverts water to an unnamed tributary to Bradley Lake; a 125-foot-high dam that raises the natural water level of Bradley Lake by 100 feet; and a 18,610-foot-long power tunnel that caries water from Bradley Lake to the powerhouse, located on the south shore and near the head of Kachemak Bay, about 22.5 miles east northeast of Homer, Alaska (figure 1-2). The powerhouse includes two 45-megawatt (MW) generating units.2 Access to the facility is limited to aircraft or marine craft due to the remote location and lack of connection to the state road system. Travel to the site is generally by air from the Homer airport. The project commenced commercial operation in 1991.

1.2.2 Need for Power

To assess the need for project power, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) staff reviewed the licensee’s present and anticipated future use of project power. The Bradley Lake Project currently generates an average of 380,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) annually. The licensee provides power to the Alaska Railbelt region.3

The Railbelt electrical grid is defined as the service areas of six regulated public utilities that extend from Fairbanks to Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. These public utilities are Golden Valley Electric Association; Chugach Electric Association; Matanuska Electric Association, Homer Electric Association; Anchorage Municipal Light & Power; and the City of Seward Electric System. Power also comes from Aurora Energy, LLC, which is an independent, power-producing utility. Sixty-five percent of the Alaskan population lives within the Railbelt region.4

2 Alaska Power Authority, 33 FERC ¶ 62,495 (1985) and Alaska Energy Authority, 106 FERC ¶ 62,215 (2004).

3 The Alaska Railbelt includes developments along the Alaska railroad between the Kenai Peninsula and Fairbanks. The region includes the Mat-Su Valley, Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula, Talkeetna, and Fairbanks and is home to approximately 65 percent of the state’s population.

4 http://energy-alaska.wikidot.com/railbelt (accessed October 19, 2015).

2

Figure 1-1. Location of proposed diversion (Source: AEA, 2015a, as modified by staff).

3

Figure 1-2. Location of Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (Source: staff).

4

The southern portion of the Railbelt—Mat-Su Valley, Anchorage, and the Kenai Peninsula—are highly dependent on natural gas as a source of electricity and heat. The northern portion of the Railbelt, including Fairbanks and other communities in the interior, relies on petroleum fuels in addition to natural gas, coal, and hydroelectric power imported from the south.

Nearly all of the thermal generating capacity in the Railbelt is almost 25 years old, and much of it is more than 35 years old. The majority of the generation is combustion turbine generation.5

By producing hydroelectricity, the Bradley Lake Project displaces the need for other power plants, primarily fossil-fueled facilities, to operate, thereby avoiding some power plant emissions and creating an environmental benefit. The present and future use of power from the Bradley Lake Project, its displacement of nonrenewable fossil-fueled generation, and contribution to a diversified generation mix support a finding that the power from the project would help meet both the short- and long-term need for power for the Railbelt region.

The proposed modification of the Bradley Lake Project would increase average annual generation by approximately 36,160 MWh from 380,000 to 417,000 MWh, which would help the Railbelt region meet its projected loads.

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

A non-capacity amendment for the Bradley Lake Project is subject to numerous requirements under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and other applicable statutes described in the following section.1.3.1 Federal Power Act

1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions

Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission is to require construction, operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretaries of Commerce or the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior). No fishway prescriptions were filed by Interior or the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

1.3.1.2 Section 4(e) Conditions

Section 4(e) of the FPA provides that any license issued by the Commission for a project within a federal reservation will be subject to and contain such conditions as the

5 http://energy-alaska.wikidot.com/railbelt; ages updated by staff to 2015 (accessed October 19, 2015).

5

Secretary of the responsible federal land management agency deems necessary for the adequate protection and use of the reservation. The BLM has not filed any 4(e) conditions for the proposed license amendment.

1.3.1.3 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 proposed project. On July 1, 2015, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Alaska DFG) filed preliminary terms and conditions recommended under section 10(j). These conditions are summarized below:

1. Provide instream flow releases into the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek from the diversion structure based on the following schedule: July 1–September 15, 15 cubic feet per second (cfs) or inflow, whichever is less, plus all flows exceeding 615 cfs; September 16–October 7 (or until conveyance drain is opened), 5 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, plus all flows exceeding 605 cfs; October 8–October 23 (or until conveyance drain is opened), 30 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, plus all flows exceeding 630 cfs; October 24–October 31 (or until conveyance drain is opened), 20 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, plus all flows exceeding 620 cfs; conveyance drain opening–June 30, 5 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, plus all flows exceeding 605 cfs.

2. Prepare a final diversion release plan that includes: (1) a detailed description and drawings illustrating the procedures and any equipment that will be used to provide the instream flow release requirements; and (2) a schedule for plan implementation.

3. Prepare a final stream gaging plan that includes: (1) a schedule for re-establishing a gage at the location of the former U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage (USGS No. 15238986); (2) temperature monitoring at the gage for 5 years; and (3) maintenance of the gage to meet USGS stream gage standards.

4. Provide channel maintenance flow releases, consisting of an instantaneous peak flow of 800 cfs and duration of 8 hours, a minimum of 3 years out of each 10-year moving average of project operation.

5. Provide notification to resource agencies within 10 days of the detection of an event not in compliance with the conditions of a license.

6

6. Prepare a biotic monitoring plan that includes: (1) monitoring project effects on resident and anadromous fish; (2) defined sampling methods, dates, and locations; (3) timing and protocols for review meetings with resource agencies; and (4) an implementation schedule for consultation, fieldwork, and reporting.

7. Prepare an erosion and sediment control plan that includes: (1) a description of soil and groundwater conditions; (2) preventative measures based on site-specific conditions; (3) detailed descriptions of revegetation measures and other erosion control measures; (4) locations, plant species, methods, and schedule for revegetation measures; and (5) identification of disposal areas for overburden and treatment of those areas to prevent wasting and erosion.

8. Prepare a fuel and hazardous substance spill plan that includes: (1) designation of specific areas for the maintenance and refueling of vehicles and equipment; (2) provisions to remove oil and other contaminants from condensate and leakage from equipment; and (3) contingencies with appropriate measures for containment and cleanup in the event of an accident.

9. Prepare a bear safety plan that includes: (1) measures to keep construction sites and refuse areas clean of substances that attract bears; (2) installation of bear-proof garbage receptacles and other measures during construction to prevent bears from obtaining food or garbage; (3) operating practices when in bear country that minimize possible conflict; (4) measures for dealing with problem bears; and (5) notification to Alaska DFG of any bear-human conflicts.

10. Minimize use of helicopters or airplanes near mountain sides adjacent to Bradley Lake and Battle Creek. If mountain goats are observed, maintain a 1,500-foot vertical or horizontal clearance.

11. Employ a designated environmental compliance monitor for the duration of construction to ensure compliance with license.

12. Notify Alaska DFG in writing at least 10 days prior to any complete or partial diversion of instream flow, and prohibit instream construction activities in the absence of the environmental compliance monitor.

13. Provide representatives of Alaska DFG free and unrestricted access to the project lands and waters and project works in the performance of their official duties, upon appropriate advance notification.

7

1.3.2 Clean Water Act

Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a license applicant must obtain certification from the appropriate state pollution control agency verifying compliance with the Clean Water Act. On May 20, 1999, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (Alaska DEC) filed a letter with the Commission waiving all water quality certifications for FERC jurisdictional hydroelectric projects in Alaska.

1.3.3 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. In a letter dated January 12, 2016 and filed January 27, 2016, Interior provided a list of federally listed species that may occur in the project area. Staff also referred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) information, planning, and conservation system website (FWS, 2016) to gather recent information on the potential presence of federally listed threatened and endangered species within the project area. Three federally listed species are known to occur in the Bradley Lake Project vicinity: the threatened Steller’s eider, endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale, and endangered short-tailed albatross. All three species are coastal species and do not occur in the area of the proposed construction. Changes in operations associated with the proposed amendment would also have no effect on these species. As such, we conclude the project would have no effect on endangered or threatened species.

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act

Section 307 (c)(3) of the Coastal Zone Management Act requires that all federally licensed and permitted activities be consistent with approved state coastal zone management programs. If the project is located within a coastal zone boundary, or if a project affects a resource located in the boundaries of the designated coastal zone, the applicant must certify that the project is consistent with the state coastal zone management program. As of July 1, 2011, Alaska no longer has a federally approved coastal management program or defined coastal zone, so federal consistency does not apply to Alaska.

1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires that every federal agency “take into account” how each of its undertakings could affect historic properties. Historic properties are districts, sites, buildings, structures, traditional cultural properties, and objects significant in American history, architecture, engineering, and culture that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register).

8

Article 38 of the existing license requires the licensee to implement its cultural resources management plan to avoid impacts on the historic Hilmar Olsen Fox Farm site and the Jansen-Zanitowski Fox Farm site, as described in the mitigation plan filed with the Commission on November 22, 1985. Article 38 also requires the licensee to consult with a qualified archaeologist and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (Alaska SHPO) if any previously unrecorded archaeological historical sites are discovered during the construction of project facilities.

In response to the licensee’s January 14, 2013, request, the Commission designated the licensee as a non-federal representative for the purposes of conducting section 106 consultation under the NHPA on November 24, 2015. Pursuant to section 106, and as the Commission’s designated non-federal representative, the licensee consulted with the Alaska SHPO and affected Indian tribes to locate, determine National Register eligibility, and assess potential adverse effects on historic properties associated with the project. On March 23, 2015, the licensee submitted a cultural resources report to the Alaska SHPO and a request for concurrence with a finding of no historic properties affected. The licensee mailed the request for concurrence letter to the Seldovia Village Tribe; Nanwalek Indian Reorganization Act Council; Port Graham Village Council; Kenaitze Tribe; English Bay Corporation; Port Graham Corporation; Seldovia Native Association, Inc.; Chugach Alaska Corporation; and Cook Inlet Regional, Inc. on April 1, 2015. The Alaska SHPO responded back by letter dated April 2, 2015, concurring with the licensee’s findings, and ultimately concluded that no historic properties would be affected by the federal license amendment action. As a result of the licensee’s findings and the Alaska SHPO’s concurrence that no historic properties would be affected by the project, the drafting of a Programmatic Agreement to resolve adverse effects on historic properties will not be necessary.

1.3.6 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions that may adversely affect EFH for federally-managed marine and anadromous fish species. . EFH is defined as “those waters and substrates necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Marine EFH in Alaska includes estuarine and marine areas from tidally submerged habitat to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Freshwater EFH includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other bodies of water currently and historically accessible to salmon. EFH has been designated for coho salmon in Battle Creek and its tributaries. In the project area, Kachemak Bay provides designated marine EFH habitat for pink salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and sockeye salmon. Battle Creek and its tributaries provide designated freshwater EFH habitat for coho salmon and sockeye salmon.

9

In a letter issued November 24, 2015, the Commission designated the licensee as its non-federal representative for EFH consultation. On January 14, 2016, NMFS filed a copy of a letter it sent to the licensee regarding EFH.6 In its letter, NMFS notes that two salmon species, sockeye and coho, were observed in Battle Creek in 2010 and 2011, and its EFH evaluation of the licensee’s amendment application focuses on instream flows necessary to protect EFH for coho salmon. NMFS finds, in its letter, that the proposed amendment would have adverse effects on juvenile coho salmon in Battle Creek. NMFS indicates that it has worked with the licensee, FWS, and Alaska DFG regarding the licensee’s Diversion Flow Release Management Plan for the proposed West Fork Upper Battle Creek diversion, but an agreement has not been reached regarding specific flows under the plan. NMFS then provides conservation recommendations for specific seasonal flow releases for the point of diversion. On January 21, 2016, Commission staff responded to NMFS, stating that it would fully consider NMFS’ EFH conservation recommendations in its EA.7

On May 2, 2016, NMFS filed comments on the March 29, 2016 draft EA. NMFS indicated that it could not concur with the draft EA’s determination that the FERC staff alternative would not adversely affect EFH, because it appeared that its flow recommendations for habitat for juvenile coho salmon would not be followed. NMFS therefore recommended that the licensee determine final minimum flows when finalizing its plans in consultation with the resource agencies.

We review and consider NMFS’ EFH flow release recommendations in in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, and we make recommendations regarding flows in section 5.1, Comparison of Alternatives. As explained in those sections, we conclude that use of the licensee’s Diversion Flow Release Management Plan, with our recommended modifications, including adopting NMFS’ flow recommendation for October, would have minimal effects on EFH for juvenile coho salmon, and would have some beneficial effects through increasing water temperature in Battle Creek and reducing turbidity, thereby improving conditions for coho egg incubation and juvenile rearing in Lower Battle Creek. We also recommend modification of the licensee’s Fish and Habitat Management Plan to include monitoring habitat connectivity for juvenile salmon between side channel rearing habitat and main channel habitat, with adaptive management provisions based on agency consultation, to implement additional protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures, based on the results of the monitoring to help ensure protection of coho salmon EFH.

6 Letter to Bryan Carey, AEA, Anchorage, Alaska, from Dr. James W. Balsiger, Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, Juneau, Alaska

7 Letter to Dr. James W. Balsiger, , NMFS, from B. Peter Yarrington, Environmental and Project Review Branch, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, FERC, Washington, D.C.

10

1.4 PRE-FILING PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION

The Commission’s regulations (18 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] § 4.38) require that licensees consult with appropriate resource agencies, tribes, and other entities before filing an application for a non-capacity amendment to a license. This consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, ESA, NHPA, and other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation for a non-capacity amendment must be complete and documented according to the Commission’s regulations.

1.4.1 Consultation

In its pre-filing consultation, the licensee consulted with Alaska DFG, Interior, FWS, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, BLM, the Alaska SHPO, National Park Service, NMFS, the Homer Electric Association, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the public using the Commission’s Alternative Licensing Process. Beginning in 2010, in consultation with Alaska DFG, NMFS, and FWS, the licensee conducted fisheries, aquatics, and hydrology studies in Battle Creek. On September 2, 2011, the licensee distributed an initial consultation document to agencies and stakeholders reporting the results of these studies and held a joint meeting and site visit on September 20, 2011. The licensee received comments from Alaska DFG, the National Park Service, and NMFS. On February 14, 2012, the licensee hosted a resource agency and stakeholder consultation meeting to present the results of 2010 and 2011 studies, discuss the draft diversion design, and present study plans for terrestrial resource studies proposed for 2012.

On May 11, 2012, the licensee conducted a second field visit with the agencies to the Battle Creek area to discuss issues raised in comment letters and the design of the diversion. The licensee then held an agency workshop on May 15, 2012, providing presentations and additional discussion on hydrology, fisheries, and other resource issues raised.

On November 5, 2010, the licensee circulated a draft amendment application to the resource agencies and received comments from the Corps, Alaska DFG, and FWS. On July 22, 2013, the licensee hosted a joint meeting to discuss the agencies’ comments and proposed environmental measures. Prior to the meeting, the licensee distributed a response to comments document that provided additional hydrological information and a summary of proposed environmental measures. Following the meeting, the licensee continued consultation with resource agencies and further modified the proposed measures to address agencies’ comments regarding proposed project operations. The licensee filed its final amendment application on March 12, 2015, and supplemental information on August 14, 2015, September 18, 2015, September 22, 2015, December 18, 2015, and January 19, 2016.

11

1.4.2 Comments on the License Amendment Application and Interventions

On April 13, 2015, the Commission issued a notice that the licensee’s application for amendment of license had been accepted for filing and solicited comments, motions to intervene, and protests. Alaska DFG and FWS were the only entities that filed a written response to the notice. Alaska DFG filed a notice of intervention on June 12, 2015, and comments and 10(j) recommendations on July 1, 2015. FWS filed comments on June 30, 2015. The licensee filed reply comments on August 14, 2015.

1.4.3 Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment

On March 29, 2016, the Commission issued the draft EA and requested that comments be filed by April 28, 2016. Written comments on the draft EA were received from the following entities:

Commenting Entity Date Filed

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers April 18, 2016

Chugach Electric Association, Inc. April 25, 2016

Homer Electric Association, Inc. April 26, 2016

Alaska Department of Fish and Game April 26, 2016

Alaska Energy Authority April 28, 2016

National Marine Fisheries Service May 2, 2016

Appendix A summarizes the written comments received on the draft EA; provides responses to those comments; and indicates where the text of the final EA has been modified.

12

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The no-action alternative is amendment denial with the currently licensed project remaining unchanged. Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate under the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. We use the no-action alternative as the baseline environmental condition for comparison with the proposed action and alternative.

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities

The existing Bradley Lake Project8 consists of the following facilities: (1) a low diversion dike at the outlet of the Nuka Glacier pool into the upper Nuka River and a rock cut, diverting flow into the upper Bradley River; (2) a 20-foot-high diversion dam with a spillway crest elevation of 2,2049 feet on the Middle Fork Bradley River, which diverts flow through a 1,900-foot-long, 6-foot-diameter underground pipe to Marmot Creek, a tributary of Bradley Lake; (3) a low diversion dam on the East Fork Upper Battle Creek that diverts water to an unnamed tributary to Bradley Lake; (4) a 125-foot-high concrete-faced rockfill dam with crest elevation 1,190 feet and a 4-foot-high parapet wall on the crest; (5) an ungated ogee spillway located on a saddle feature 150 feet east of the dam with crest elevation 1,180 feet; (6) the existing Bradley Lake, which is raised 100 feet to a usable storage capacity of 315,500 acre-feet and a surface area of 3,820 acres at the maximum operating water surface elevation of 1,180 feet; (7) a 470-foot-long, 18-foot-nominal diameter horseshoe-shaped tunnel through the east abutment for instream flow releases; (8) a 360-foot-long intake channel; (9) a 42-foot-long intake structure with removable trashracks; (10) an 11-foot-diameter, concrete lined power tunnel consisting of: (a) a 950-foot-long horizontal section with dual gates 800 feet downstream of the intake, operated through a vertical gate shaft; (b) an 810-foot-long inclined section; and (c) a 16,850-foot-long main section with steel lining on the downstream 2,400 feet; (11) a steel penstock consisting of a 9- foot-diameter roll-out section and a manifold section with three 5-foot-diameter outlets, one capped and two with 30 to 40-foot-long branches; (12) a 138-foot-long, 66-foot-wide, 112-foot-high reinforced concrete powerhouse containing two 45-MW generating units; (13) a tailrace channel with a bottom width of 67 feet discharging into Kachemak Bay; the 13.8-kilovolt (kV) generator leads; (14) a 13.8/115-kV transformer; (15) a 20-mile-long, 115-kV, double circuit transmission line from the substation adjacent to the powerhouse to the Homer Electric Association line between Fritz Creek and Soldotna; (16) access facilities including a barge basin and ramp

8 Alaska Power Authority, 33 FERC ¶ 62,495 (1985) and Alaska Energy Authority, 106 FERC ¶ 62,215 (2004).

9 All elevations are presented in project datum (project datum equals mean sea level minus 4.02 feet).

13

and project roads connecting powerhouse, lower and upper construction camps, and the dam; (17) recreation facilities consisting of camp sites near the barge basin dock and near Bradley Lake; and (18) appurtenant facilities.

The project boundary encloses all the facilities described above. Access to the facility is limited to aircraft or marine craft due to the remote location and lack of connection to the state road system. Travel to the site is generally by air from the Homer airport.

2.1.2 Existing Project Operation

The primary function of the Bradley Lake reservoir is to regulate streamflow and provide carryover storage for producing energy, in a peaking mode, throughout the year. The normal maximum operating range of the reservoir is between elevations of 1,080 feet and 1,180 feet. The project is operated and monitored by remote control.

The project currently diverts water from the Middle Fork Bradley River, Nuka River, and East Fork Upper Battle Creek into Bradley Lake. Water is released from the lake through a 3.5-mile-long power tunnel to the project powerhouse, which is located near the shore of upper Kachemak Bay. Water from the powerhouse is released directly into Kachemak Bay via the tailrace channel. Project operation also includes minimum flow releases into the Lower Bradley River from Bradley Lake dam. On December 6, 1991, the Commission issued an Order Amending Minimum Flow Regime,10 which established the following minimum flows as measured at the Bradley River near Tidewater gage (USGS No. 15239070), located at river mile (RM) 1.65 on the Lower Bradley River.

May 12—September 14 100 cfs

September 15—23 Decrease flow 5 cfs per day to 50 cfs

September 24—October 31 50 cfs

November 1 Decrease flows 5 cfs per day to 40 cfs

November 2—April 30 40 cfs

May 1—11 Increase flows 5 cfs per day to 100 cfs

The minimum flow may be temporarily modified if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of the licensee, and for short periods upon agreement between the licensee and Alaska DFG. On September 15, 2010, the Commission approved the licensee’s request to conduct a 5-year test to evaluate the feasibility of releasing flows downstream of the project that are 7.5 percent less than the required

10 Alaska Energy Authority, 57 FERC ¶ 62,188 (1991).

14

minimum flows, provided that the 24-hour rolling average flow is maintained at or above the required minimum flows (FERC, 2010).

On September 9, 2015, the Commission extended the minimum flow test period until September 14, 2020.11

2.1.3 Existing Environmental Measures

As a component of the modified minimum flow test period, the licensee monitors intra-gravel water temperature at the Tidewater gage (RM 1.65 on Lower Bradley River) and in documented salmon spawning areas. The licensee also continues to follow its cultural resources management plan, filed on November 22, 1985.

2.2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY’S PROPOSAL

2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities and Construction Activities

The licensee proposes to construct a diversion on the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek which would divert flows to Bradley Lake via a conveyance system. The conveyance system would consist of a pipeline installed below ground adjacent to the proposed diversion dam access road, connecting to the existing Upper Battle Creek diversion outlet channel. The diversion would consist of a concrete weir wall with sluiceways, a low flow outlet, and an inlet structure for the pipeline. The diversion dam would be approximately 16 feet in maximum height with a crest length of approximately 60 feet and a top of dam elevation at 1,702 feet. The dam would serve as a diversion point for creek flows, but would not create an impoundment.

Control structures at the diversion and head works would include: (1) a 40-foot-wide, 5-foot-high primary bypass spillway in the dam to allow water to bypass the head works and continue downstream to Battle Creek; (2) a 4-foot-wide by 5-foot-high sluice gate at the inlet to the sluiceway through the dam for flushing accumulated sediments; (3) a 2-foot-wide by 4-foot-high conservation release gate regulating the environmental bypass flow through an opening in the diversion dam; (4) a 4-foot-wide sediment sluiceway located at the right dam abutment, controlled by stop logs, to prevent sediment from entering the pipeline; and (5) three 4-foot-wide, 10-foot-high bays across the pipeline inlet with stop logs or slide gates to control flow into the diversion pipeline.

The 6-foot-diameter steel underground pipeline would extend about 9,100 feet from the head works to a riprap outlet stilling basin at elevation 1,360 feet. Due to the length and profile of the pipeline, five air valves and four access port manholes would be installed on the pipeline. A drain port would be installed at the low point of the pipeline to allow water to be removed from the pipeline in the off-season or for maintenance.

11 Alaska Energy Authority, 152 FERC ¶ 62,161 (2015).

15

The stilling basin would be constructed where the East Fork Upper Battle Creek currently flows into an existing pond. A 500-foot-long, trapezoidal outlet canal would be constructed to convey flows from East Fork Upper Battle Creek around the stilling basin and into the pond. The canal would have a bottom width of 10 feet, with 3-foot-vertical (V) to 1-foot-horizontal (H) side slopes (figure 2-1).

An existing natural channel carries flows from the pond to Bradley Lake. A 500-foot-long, trapezoidal outlet canal would be constructed in the upstream portion of the natural channel to enlarge the channel to accept the higher flows. The canal would have a bottom width of 20 feet, with 1.5V to 1H side slopes on the north side and 2V to 1H side slopes on the south side. From the end of the proposed canal, the last four-tenths of a mile of the natural channel to Bradley Lake has a steeper gradient and does not need to be enlarged.

A total of 2.9 miles of new, 16-foot-wide, shot rock-surfaced access roads would be constructed to support operations and maintenance of the new project facilities. An approximately 1-mile-long road segment would extend from the existing Bradley Lake Access Road to the stilling basin. At the stilling basin, the road would split into two segments. The south segment would extend about 9,100 feet from the stilling basin to the new diversion, and the north segment would extend approximately 700 feet from the stilling basin along the new outlet canal.

Five temporary staging areas would be used during construction. Staging area 1 along the existing dam access road would encompass 55,780 square feet. Staging area 2 on the proposed access road between the existing dam access road and the stilling basin would encompass 76,910 square feet. Staging areas 3, 4, and 5 along the proposed access road from the stilling basin to the new diversion would encompass 178,030 square feet, 85,415 square feet, and 35,845 square feet, respectively.

The stilling basin, canal, a portion of the pipeline, and a portion of the new access roads would be located on lands that are currently included within the licensed project boundary. The remainder of the proposed project features would be located on lands to be added to the project area. The proposed project would add approximately 765 acres of lands owned by the State of Alaska to the project area (figures 2-2 and 2-3).

16

Figure 2-1. Location of proposed stilling basin and modifications to East Fork Upper Battle Creek channel (Source: AEA, 2015b, as modified by staff).

17

Figure 2-2. Existing project boundary and proposed addition (Source: AEA, 2015a, as modified by staff).

18

Figure 2-3. Proposed addition to project boundary (Source: AEA, 2015a, as modified by staff).

19

2.2.2 Proposed Operational Modifications

The proposed amendment does not include any changes to existing operating schedules or storage capacity in Bradley Lake. However, the proposed diversion would increase the volume of water that is diverted into Bradley Lake and result in increased generation.

2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

To minimize the environmental effects of the proposed project modifications, the licensee would:

Implement its Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan (ESCMP), filed January 19, 2016, that includes: (1) identifying construction limits, staging, and erosion and sediment control impact areas; (2) identifying and committing to erosion and sediment control permit requirements; (3) developing erosion and sediment control measures following best management practices (BMPs) for soil stabilization, slope protection, and maintenance; (4) establishing sediment and turbidity monitoring standards and techniques; (5) developing erosion and sediment control measures following BMPs for soil stabilization, slope protection, and maintenance; (6) establishing sediment and turbidity monitoring standards and techniques; (7) developing daily and weekly reporting procedures; (8) incorporating local agency permit requirements; (9) developing a schedule for erosion and sediment control implementation measures and removal of the erosion and sediment control facilities; (10) identifying the duties and authorities of the environmental compliance monitor as they relate to the ESCMP; (11) identifying notifications and timing of notification of non-compliance events; and (12) identifying follow-up actions to be taken due to a non-compliance event.

Implement its Fuel and Hazardous Substances Management Plan filed January 19, 2016.

Provide an environmental compliance monitor to ensure license conditions are followed during construction and ensure that no instream work is conducted without supervision.

Notify Alaska DFG 10 days prior to any diversion or reduction of flows in Battle Creek, and prohibit any instream work in the absence of the environmental compliance monitor.

Design the proposed West Fork Battle Creek diversion to provide periodic sluicing of sediment through the sluice gates at the diversion dam primary bypass spillway.

20

Implement its Diversion Flow Release Management Plan, filed January 19, 2016, to: (1) provide channel maintenance flows to Battle Creek by releasing flows of 800 cfs a minimum of 3 years out of each moving 10-year average of project operation; and (2) provide minimum flows to the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek, including:

o 15 cfs from the diversion sluice gate, plus any additional flow exceeding the pipeline capacity of 600 cfs from July 1 through September 15; and

o 5 cfs from the diversion sluice gate, plus any additional flow exceeding the pipeline capacity of 600 cfs from September 16 through June 30.

Develop and implement a stream gaging plan that includes: (1) identifying diversion gates and how they will be operated; (2) identifying an instream flow compliance method; (3) compliance requirements; (4) monitoring measures and procedures; (5) re-activation of the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage; (6) reporting requirements; (7) an implementation schedule; and (8) reporting requirements that identify notifications and timing of notification of non-compliance events.

Implement its Fish and Habitat Management Plan, filed January 19, 2016, which includes: (1) fish and fish habitat monitoring in the first 1.8 miles of Battle Creek 1 to 2 years prior to initiation of construction activities that affect instream conditions during the open water season; (2) coho salmon foot surveys every year after construction for 5 years and once every 5 years for the duration of the license, if initial monitoring indicates population decline; (3) juvenile salmon sampling at least once before construction and once by the fifth year of project operations, and once every 5 years for the duration of the license, if initial monitoring indicates population decline; and (4) consultation with resource agencies to finalize all sampling methods, data analyses, and reporting requirements prior to conducting the proposed field studies.

Consult with agencies regarding the appropriate timing and location of site clearing to minimize any effects on migratory birds potentially nesting in the area. Contractors would follow the FWS guidelines (FWS, 2009), which recommend all vegetation clearing be avoided between May 1 and July 15 to protect nesting birds. If an active nest is encountered at any time it would be left in place until the young hatch and depart.

Minimize harm to wildlife by prohibiting employees and contractors from hunting, trapping, and fishing in the project area.

Implement its Bear Safety Plan, filed January 19, 2016, that includes: (1) identifying practices that would minimize possible bear-human conflicts

21

while working in areas frequented by bears, including installation of bear-proof garbage receptacles and other measures during construction to prevent bears from obtaining food or garbage; (2) identifying practices employed during field activities associated with various monitoring plans to minimize conflicts and provide guidance to contractors; (3) establishing procedures on handling problematic bears; and (4) reporting requirements for any bear-human conflicts.

Minimize use of helicopters or airplanes near mountain sides adjacent to Bradley Lake and Battle Creek. If mountain goats are observed, maintain a 1,500-foot vertical or horizontal clearance.

Stop construction and consult with a qualified archaeologist and the Alaska SHPO if any previously unidentified unrecorded archaeological or historical sites are discovered during construction.

2.2.4 Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions

Neither NMFS, FWS, BLM, nor Alaska DEC filed mandatory conditions for the proposed license amendment.

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE

The staff alternative includes the proposed action and staff-recommended modifications and additional measures. Staff-recommended modifications are: (1) modifying the Diversion Flow Release Management Plan to include the specific seasonal flow releases recommended by NMFS and FWS for October, and the releases identified by the licensee and recommended by Alaska DFG for the rest of the year; ; (2) developing a stream gaging plan to include installation of a streamflow gage at the diversion, reinstallation of the USGS stream flow gage at Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage, and monitoring of water temperature at the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage for the duration of the license; and (3) modifying the Fish and Habitat Management Plan to include monitoring habitat connectivity for juvenile salmon between side channel rearing habitat and main channel habitat, with adaptive management provisions based on resource agency consultation, to implement additional protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures, as needed, based on the results of monitoring to help protect coho salmon EFH.

2.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVES

Commenting entities and Commission staff did not identify any other reasonable alternatives.

22

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS12

3.1 GENERAL SETTING

Battle Creek and the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project are located near the head of Kachemak Bay on the Kenai Peninsula, approximately 25 miles northeast of Homer, Alaska (see figure 1-2). The area is remote and undeveloped with the exception of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project facilities. Battle Creek and the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project lie within the Kenai-Chugach Mountain physiographic system, a heavily glaciated area characterized by steep, mountainous terrain. Primary tributaries to Bradley Lake are the Upper Bradley River, Kachemak Creek, and Marmot Creek. The lake is also fed by diversions from the Middle Fork Bradley River, Nuka River, and East Fork Upper Battle Creek. Outflows from Bradley Lake include Lower Bradley River and the project power tunnel.

Battle Creek is an 8.3-mile-long stream originating from the informally named Battle Glacier at an elevation of approximately 2,300 feet. Battle Creek flows generally to the northwest down high-gradient, bedrock-dominated alpine slopes, following fault lines through narrow gorges before emerging onto the coastal floodplain. The total drainage basin area for Battle Creek is 21.6 square miles. Battle Creek is listed in Alaska DFG’s Anadromous Waters Catalog as stream 241-14-10610.

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR § 1508.7), a cumulative effect is the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts 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.

Through agency consultation, and our independent analysis we have identified no resources that would be cumulatively affected by the proposed Battle Creek Amendment to the Bradley Lake Project. The project is located in a very small watershed with very little existing or planned future development other than the existing hydro project.

12 Unless otherwise indicated, our information is taken from the application for amendment of license for this project (AEA, 2015a); the draft environmental impact statement for the project (FERC, 1985), and additional information filed by the licensee (2015b, 2015d, 2015e, and 2016).

23

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION

In this section, we discuss the effects of the project alternatives on environmental resources. For each resource, we first describe the affected environment, which is the existing condition and baseline against which we measure effects. We then discuss and analyze the specific environmental issues. Only the resources that would be affected, or about which comments have been received, are addressed in detail in this EA. Based on this, we have determined that geologic and soils, aquatic, terrestrial, and cultural resources may be affected by the proposed action and action alternatives. We have not identified any substantive issues related to recreation, land use, aesthetics, or socioeconomics associated with the proposed action, and, therefore, these resources are not assessed in this EA. We present our recommendations in section 5.1, Comparison of Alternatives.

3.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment

Battle Creek lies within the Kenai-Chugach Mountain physiographic province near the head of Kachemak Bay on the Kenai Peninsula. This remote and undeveloped area is characterized by steep, mountainous, and heavily glaciated terrain. Immense compressional forces generated by the plate tectonic activity in the Kenai region have resulted in deformation of the upper crust materials of the Battle Creek basin in the form of folds, joints, and faults. The Eagle River Fault crosses through the northeastern portion of the Battle Creek basin. Like other faults in the region, the Eagle River Fault strikes in the general NE-SW direction.

Upper Battle Creek is the portion of Battle Creek upstream of RM 5.4. The predominant lithologies in this area are argillite and greywacke with geologic features such as joints, fracture zones, shear zones, and faults. Exposed bedrock dominates the proposed diversion area for the project. It is mapped as the Cretaceous age McHugh Complex, a deformed tectonic assemblage of argillite, tuff, greywacke, basalt, chert mesoscale mélange, conglomerate, gabbro, and limestone. The rock is classified as hard to very hard, and slightly weathered to fresh. Several shear zones exist on the left bank downstream of the proposed diversion site.

Soils in the Upper Battle Creek region are poorly developed and are characterized as unconsolidated glacial, alluvial, and colluvial deposits. Soils along the project corridor typically consist of a varying thickness of colluvial deposits. These materials consist of silty gravel with sand to silty sand with gravel. In several lowland areas, soils consist of thin surficial alluvial deposits or organic soils. The area is generally free of permafrost except for isolated locations at higher elevations.

24

Similar to other glacial stream systems in Alaska, sediment is frequently mobile in Battle Creek during the summer months. Mean sediment size varies from medium to very coarse gravels. A small percentage of the sediment is classified as fine gravel and smaller or large cobble and larger. The variability in size distribution along Battle Creek varies with local channel geometry. Figure 3-1 shows sediment distribution throughout the Battle Creek basin.

Figure 3-1. Sediment size distribution in Battle Creek (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012).

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects

Construction-related Effects

Construction of the proposed West Fork of Upper Battle Creek diversion dam and associated conveyance structures would affect underground and surface geology and soils. Construction would produce spoils consisting of overburden (organic and soil-related inorganic material) from initial surface stripping and rock from excavation, blasting, and other activities. Limited amounts of overburden and rock may be retained at or near their origin and replaced soon after construction.

Project development would result in the construction of a 2.9-mile-long access road, beginning at the existing Bradley Lake Road at about mile marker 8.0. Portions of the roadway that are steep would be constructed by drill and blast methods. The proposed pipeline conveyance system would consist of a 1.7-mile-long, 6-foot-diameter

25

steel pipe. The pipeline would be buried and adjacent to the proposed access road. The conveyance system would empty into a newly constructed stilling basin lined with riprap. In addition, a 500-foot-long canal to handle flows from the East Fork of Upper Battle Creek would be constructed a short distance upgradient of the existing Upper Battle Creek diversion, which would become obsolete because East Fork water would be diverted to the pond (see figure 2-1).

As part of construction, the licensee proposes to construct five staging areas throughout the project area. Staging areas 2, 3, and 4 would be constructed with excavated material associated with construction. The staging areas would be used for staging of construction equipment and for the storage of excavated materials during the final construction phases of the project. Staging area 1 would be used as a material storage site along the existing Bradley Lake Road and have a surface area of 55,780 square feet. Staging areas 2, 3, and 4, located near the existing diversion structure, near the East Branch of Middle Fork Upper Battle Creek, and 2,500 feet northeast of the proposed diversion site, respectively, would have a total combined surface area of 340,355 square feet. Staging area number 5 would be located near the proposed diversion and used for pipeline and access road riprap staging. During construction, road embankment slope flattening and widening are also options for disposal of excess rock excavation materials.

On November 12, 1985, the licensee filed a Project Mitigative Plan for the construction of Bradley Lake. This plan includes the erosion, sedimentation, and slope stability control plan for the entire project. Erosion and sediment control measures presented in the mitigative plan reflect resource agency comments; the original license application; the draft environmental impact statement, issued March 1, 1985; and various other documents. Article 35 of the original project license requires the licensee to consult with appropriate resource agencies during the preparation and implementation of a detailed erosion, sedimentation, and slope stability plan.

The draft ESCMP was filed with the Commission on January 19, 2016. According to the draft plan details, the licensee would manage erosion and sedimentation by: (1) identifying construction limits, staging, and erosion and sediment control impact areas; (2) identifying and committing to erosion and sediment control permit requirements; (3) developing erosion and sediment control measures following BMPs for soil stabilization, slope protection, and maintenance; (4) establishing sediment and turbidity monitoring standards and techniques; (5) developing erosion and sediment control measures following BMPs for soil stabilization, slope protection, and maintenance; (6) establishing sediment and turbidity monitoring standards and techniques; (7) developing daily and weekly reporting procedures; (8) incorporating local agency permit requirements; (9) developing a schedule for erosion and sediment control implementation measures and removal of the erosion and sediment control facilities; (10) identifying the duties and authorities of the environmental compliance monitor as they

26

relate to the ESCMP; (11) identifying notifications and timing of notification of non-compliance events; and (12) identifying follow-up actions to be taken due to a non-compliance event.

Additionally, the draft ESCMP includes several iterations of contractor submittal and licensee review before final approval of any construction activities. Onsite construction would begin with the implementation of protection and containment measures, and the initiation of plan monitoring.

Our Analysis

Construction of the staging areas, proposed diversion dam, access road, and conveyance pipe would require significant excavation in the vicinity of Upper Battle Creek and its tributaries. Construction is estimated to take 2 years to complete.

Staging areas 2, 3, and 4 have the potential to contribute to sediment runoff. These sites would act as the primary disposal sites for construction-related activities. The licensee would store sediments on-site until they can be transported to an offsite location. Located near the confluence of the East and West Branch of Middle Fork Upper Battle Creek, staging area number 3 is the only staging area in the vicinity of a stream channel. Proposed BMPs would control effects on the proposed spoil areas. Maintaining a sufficient distance between spoil piles and the stream channel and maintaining low-gradient slopes would effectively manage sediment releases from the spoil piles during storm runoff events.

The proposed project construction would moderately alter the stream banks of the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek in the immediate area of the proposed diversion dam. Placement of the cofferdam and subsequent dewatering likely would cause short-term sediment mobilization. In addition, upon removal of the cofferdam, short-term sediment mobilization could occur until the proposed diversion structure area becomes stabilized during project operations. Additional effects would be minimal, however, and proposed BMPs would prevent any substantial erosion.

Significant excavation would occur along the proposed routes for both the access road and conveyance pipe. Construction of the proposed access road and conveyance pipe would have the largest effects on the soil resources in the area. Due to the rugged terrain and seismicity associated with the project area, construction of the road and conveyance pipe could result in significant soil and slope instability in areas adjacent to road cuts and embankments. Using current embankment section design practices during construction would ensure embankment stability. We expect that the BMPs listed in the draft ESCMP developed by the licensee and consulting agencies would be adequate to avoid most effects on soil resources during the construction phase of the proposed project. Construction could result in short-term and moderate effects on local soil

27

resources. The approval of a site compliance plan before any construction would ensure that all practices would comply with the requirements of the ESCMP.

Operation-related Effects

The licensee states that the operation of the proposed diversion would not have significant impacts on nearby geology. During the proposed operating period of mid-May through late-October, the licensee notes that proposed diversion flows would be confined along the length of the conveyance pipe, and the project outfall would be lined with riprap to minimize potential for erosion. Additionally, the licensee recognizes that the operation of the diversion structure would alter instream sediment transport and the downstream sediment composition in Battle Creek.

Following consultation with resource agencies, the licensee conducted a sediment transport analysis of Battle Creek in 2011 to determine (1) under what flow conditions sediment is currently transported down the lower reaches of Battle Creek, and (2) how sediment transport may change when peak summer flows are reduced by the proposed diversion. Based on this analysis, the licensee concluded that the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek flows through gorges and cascades and into less confined channels containing gravelly islands, bars, and extensive gravel floodplains. The portion of Battle Creek immediately upstream from Kachemak Bay is a historically unstable delta landform with a shifting main channel, indicating relatively frequent sediment deposition. As such, the licensee proposes to use a channel maintenance flushing flow schedule to maintain sediment mobilization throughout the lower reaches of Battle Creek. In coordination with Alaska DFG, channel maintenance flows would be released a minimum of 3 years out of each moving 10-year average of project operation. The channel maintenance flow event would have an instantaneous peak flow of 800 cfs for a minimum duration of 8 hours, and compliance would be measured at the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage. However, the licensee noted that it does not have control over how long and intense local storms are. As a result, if a storm of 800 cfs instantaneous or greater is determined to have occurred at the Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage, the licensee states that event should satisfy the channel maintenance condition even if the event does not remain above 800 cfs for a continuous 8 hours.

Our Analysis

The proposed diversion would divert and convey stream flow from the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek to Bradley Lake from mid-May through late-October each year. Similar to other glacial systems in Alaska, sediment is frequently mobile in Battle Creek during summer, especially in the lower reaches of Battle Creek close to Kachemak Bay. Transport of the mean sediment size through the middle reaches of Battle Creek occurs during flows over 200 cfs (HDR Alaska, 2012). These flows currently occur about 25 percent of the time, causing small-scale sediment movement during the summer. During operation, the frequency of flows over 200 cfs at the Battle Creek near Tidewater

28

gage (USGS No. 15238985) would reduce by 77 percent.13 Operation of the proposed diversion would result in the additional storage of sediment in the lower reaches of Battle Creek and a finer sediment size distribution between large events. The active fan area near the mouth of Battle Creek at Kachemak Bay that is currently characterized by multiple, shifting channels, may stabilize as less sediment is flushed down from the Upper Battle Creek reach and flows in the overflow channels are less frequent.

The licensee would design the proposed diversion structure to allow periodic sluicing of headwater pool sediment through the sluice gates at the diversion dam primary bypass spillway. As such, the licensee’s plan to preserve large-scale mobilization of bed sediment and replenishment of sediment during the operation of the diversion structure would transport new sediment into Battle Creek from above the diversion structure, and mobilize bed sediment in the lower reaches of Battle Creek, mimicking natural conditions. However, we recognize that the licensee does not have control over the duration of naturally occurring high flow events. As such, we agree that sediment transporting flows lasting less than 8 hours could count toward compliance with this measure, provided the licensee consults with Alaska DFG following the storm event and Alaska DFG approves the flow levels recorded at the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage. Within implementation of these measures, effects on downstream sedimentation would be long-term and moderate in impact.

3.3.2 Aquatic Resources

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment

Water Quantity and Flows

Bradley Lake

Bradley Lake is a 3,820-acre water body impounded by Bradley Lake dam. The lake was created by glacial activity, and the depth and extent of the reservoir was increased when Bradley Lake dam was constructed in the early 1990s. Prior to construction, Bradley Lake was a 1,568-acre lake with a water surface elevation of 1,080 feet. Currently, the maximum depth of Bradley Lake is about 368 feet. Bradley Lake dam has an active storage of 284,150 acre-feet at the minimum operating pool elevation of 1,080 feet. At the full normal operating pool elevation of 1,180 feet, Bradley Lake has a surface area of 3,820 acres and impounds an additional 31,350 acre-feet. Bradley Lake can be drawn down to elevation 1,060 feet for maintenance and seasonal variations. Bradley Lake is primarily fed by glacial runoff from the Nuka Glacier and tributaries north of the lake. The Nuka Glacier feeds the Upper Bradley River which flows into

13 Flow percentage decreases in the lower reaches of Battle Creek were computed from combined data obtained from both USGS gages Battle Creek near Tidewater (No. 15238985) and Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth (No. 15238986).

29

Bradley Lake from the southeast. Glacially fed Kachemak Creek enters Bradley Lake from the east-southeast. Marmot Creek and the Middle Fork Bradley River Diversion enter Bradley Lake from the north. Bradley Lake empties into Lower Bradley River, ultimately flowing into Kachemak Bay (see figure 1-2).

Battle Creek

Battle Creek is located about 2 miles southwest of Bradley Lake and extends about 8.3 miles from the present terminus of the Battle Glacier to the mouth of Battle Creek at Kachemak Bay, draining an area of 21.9 square miles (see figure 1-1 and figure 3-1). Battle Creek does not directly flow into Bradley Lake or the Bradley River, except via the existing Upper Battle Creek diversion. Runoff patterns are dominated by glacial runoff in the summer months and base flow in the winter months. The South Fork of Battle Creek, the largest tributary to Battle Creek, has no glacial influence and meets the main stem of Battle Creek near RM 1.8.

The portion of Battle Creek above RM 5.4 is referred to as Upper Battle Creek. The West Fork of Upper Battle Creek is the largest tributary to Upper Battle Creek and is the proposed location for the new diversion dam and head works. The Middle and East Forks of Upper Battle Creek do not contribute much flow to the lower portion of Battle Creek. The existing Upper Battle Creek diversion structure diverts water easterly through natural channels and small lakes to Bradley Lake.

Stream gaging was conducted in the Battle Creek Basin from 1991 to 1993 at the USGS Battle Creek below Glacier gage and USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater gage sites and from 2010 to 2013 at the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage and USGS Battle Creek below Glacier gage.

Battle Creek has an average annual flow of about 134 cfs as measured at USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage. Average monthly flows range from a low of about 24 cfs from November to April to a high of 229 cfs occurring from May to October each year, depending on rainfall and snowmelt. Recorded maximum flow in Battle Creek at the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage was 1,820 cfs in 2012. Recorded minimum flow in Battle Creek at the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage was 5 cfs in 2013. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the USGS gage characteristics for Battle Creek Basin. Table 3-2 provides combined monthly data from 1991-1993 and 2010-2013 for the USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater gage and USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage.

30

Table 3-1. Summary of USGS gage information (Source: USGS, 2015a, b, and c, as modified by staff).

Gage NameBattle Creek below

GlacierBattle Creek near

Tidewater

Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above

Mouth

Gage Number 15238982 15238985 15238986

Elevation

(feet-msl)

780 90 60

Drainage Area

(sq-mi)

10.9 19.1 21.9

River Mile (RM) 4.60 1.65 1.15

Dates of Operation

July 23, 1991 through October 13, 1993; August 1, 2010 –September 30,

2013

September 24, 1991 through September 30,

1993

July 1, 2010 through

September 30, 2013

Mean Flow November – April (cfs)

10.30 27.93 23.81

Mean Flow May – October

(cfs)

147.80 219.44 228.85

Maximum Flow (cfs)

1,230 1,100 1,820

Minimum Flow (cfs)

2.00 7.00 5.00

31

Table 3-2. Combined monthly flow data (cfs) for USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater gage and USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage for 1991 to 1993 and 2010 to 2013 (Source: USGS, 2015a,b, as modified by staff).

Flows Exceedance Values

Month Min. Mean 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% Max.

Jan. 9 21 40 24 17 12 10 105

Feb. 9 15 20 15 13 10 10 50

March 6 10 13 10 9 8 7 45

April 5 33 77 54 20 9 6 133

May 23 117 220 178 88 62 40 293

June 112 236 340 277 227 179 146 489

July 153 280 365 314 275 228 196 536

Aug. 101 307 483 380 275 187 147 1,110

Sept. 19 249 522 348 183 82 51 1,820

Oct. 14 106 216 128 67 36 27 795

Nov. 10 42 68 40 26 18 13 650

Dec 8 32 65 35 19 14 10 300

Water in the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek is not currently used by other water users. The existing Upper Battle Creek diversion contributed an average annual flow of 4 cfs to Bradley Lake from 1993 to 2014 (USGS, 2015e).

Water Quality

Neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nor Alaska DEC have currently listed project waters for any impairments. Additionally, neither Battle Creek nor Bradley Lake are listed in Alaska DEC’s current approved integrated water quality monitoring and assessment report (Alaska DEC, 2010). However, Alaska DEC acknowledges in its updated report, which is pending U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approval, that there is insufficient data or information on Battle Creek to determine whether or not the state water quality standards for any designated use are attained (Alaska DEC, 2013). Applicable water quality criteria for project waters are presented in table 3-3.

32

Table 3-3. Alaska DEC water quality standards for fresh water (Source: Alaska DEC, 2003).

Parameter Aquatic life

Temperature May not exceed 20 degrees Celsius (°C) at any time. The following maximum temperatures may not be exceeded, where applicable: Migration routes 15°C Spawning areas 13°C Rearing areas 15°C Egg & fry incubation 13°CFor all other waters, the weekly average temperature may not exceed site-specific requirements needed to preserve normal species diversity or to prevent appearance of nuisance organisms.

Dissolved oxygen (DO)

DO >7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in waters used by anadromous or resident fish, DO ≥5 mg/L for waters not used by anadromous or resident fish. In no case may DO be less than 5 mg/L to a depth of 20 centimeters in the interstitial waters of gravel used by anadromous or resident fish for spawning. In no case may DO be greater than 17 mg/L or exceed 110 percent of saturation at any point of sample collection.

pH May not be less than 6.5 or greater than 8.5. May not vary more than 0.5 pH unit from natural conditions.a

Turbidity May not exceed 25 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) above natural conditions. For all lake waters, may not exceed 5 NTU above natural conditions.

Total dissolved solids (TDS)

TDS may not exceed 1,000 mg/L. A concentration of TDS may not be present in water if that concentration causes or reasonably could be expected to cause an adverse effect on aquatic life.

Mercury 2.4 µg/L acute and 0.012 µg/L chronic (both as total recoverable).a Natural condition means any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological condition

existing in a waterbody before any human-caused influence on, discharge to, or addition of material to, the waterbody.

In 2011, AEA collected continuous water temperature data in the Skirmish Creek beaver pond and Lower Battle Creek, from the South Fork of Battle Creek confluence with the main stem to the Martin River Access Road Bridge (figure 3-2). The South Fork water temperature reached a peak mean daily value of 8.5 degrees Celsius (°C) on August 14, 2011; Upper Battle Creek at Reach 4 reached a peak mean daily temperature of 5.4°C on June 24, 2011. The Martin River Access Road Bridge logger reached a peak mean daily temperature of 6.2°C in late-June (figure 3-3), and the Skirmish Creek beaver pond reached a peak mean daily temperature of about 11°C in mid-July (figure 3-4).

33

Figure 3-2. Battle Creek study reaches and locations of temperature data loggers deployed in Battle Creek in 2011 (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012, as modified by staff).

34

Figure 3-3. Upper Battle Creek basin (Source: staff).

35

Figure 3-4. Mean daily water temperature recorded in the South Fork of Battle Creek, Reach 4, and at the Martin River Access Road Bridge (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012).

USGS recorded water temperature data at two gages from May 16 to September 30, 2013, in Lower Battle Creek: in the South Fork of Battle Creek immediately upstream of the confluence with the main stem (USGS No. 15238984), and in Battle Creek approximately 1 mile upstream of the mouth, near Skirmish Creek (USGS No. 15238986). Temperatures in Battle Creek near Skirmish Creek reached a peak mean daily value of 6°C in mid- to late-July. Temperatures in the South Fork of Battle Creek reached a peak mean daily value of 9.5°C in late-July (figure 3-5). Figure 3-6 shows mean daily discharge rates at the same gages during this period. Fall to winter (August to December) 2011 temperature data are available at the same gage near Skirmish Creek and Battle Creek below Glacier gage (USGS No. 15238982; figure 3-7).

To evaluate existing water quality, the licensee measured discrete parameters including water temperature, DO, pH, specific conductivity and turbidity in Battle Creek Reaches 1 through 4 from August 30 to September 1, 2010, and at six locations in Battle and Skirmish Creeks on September 8 and October 9, 2011 (figure 3-8). Table 3-4 shows the results of the water quality monitoring.

36

Figure 3-5. Mean daily water temperature recorded in the Skirmish Creek beaver pond in 2011 (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012).

5/16/2

013

5/21/2

013

5/26/2

013

5/31/2

013

6/5/2

013

6/10/2

013

6/15/2

013

6/20/2

013

6/25/2

013

6/30/2

013

7/5/2

013

7/10/2

013

7/15/2

013

7/20/2

013

7/25/2

013

7/30/2

013

8/4/2

013

8/9/2

013

8/14/2

013

8/19/2

013

8/24/2

013

8/29/2

013

9/3/2

013

9/8/2

013

9/13/2

013

9/18/2

013

9/23/2

013

9/28/2

0130

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Lower Battle Creek near Skirmish Creek (USGS 15238986)South Fork of Battle Creek (USGS 15238984)

Tem

pera

ture

(°c)

Figure 3-6. Mean daily water temperature at Skirmish Creek confluence with Lower Battle Creek and at the South Fork of Battle Creek confluence with the mainstem (Source: USGS, 2015b, d).

37

5/16/2

013

5/22/2

013

5/28/2

013

6/3/2

013

6/9/2

013

6/15/2

013

6/21/2

013

6/27/2

013

7/3/2

013

7/9/2

013

7/15/2

013

7/21/2

013

7/27/2

013

8/2/2

013

8/8/2

013

8/14/2

013

8/20/2

013

8/26/2

013

9/1/2

013

9/7/2

013

9/13/2

013

9/19/2

013

9/25/2

0130

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

135

150

Lower Battle Creek near Skirmish Creek (USGS 15238986)South Fork of Battle Creek (USGS 15238984)

Low

er B

attle

Cre

ek M

ean

Disc

harg

e (c

fs)

Sout

h Fo

rk M

ean

Daily

Disc

harg

e (c

fs)

Figure 3-7. Mean daily streamflow at Skirmish Creek confluence with Lower Battle Creek and at the South Fork of Battle Creek confluence with the mainstem (Source: USGS, 2015b, d).

Figure 3-8. Water temperature recorded near the Skirmish Creek confluence (USGS Gage No. 15238986) and Battle Creek below the glacier (USGS Gage No. 15238982) (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012).

38

Figure 3-9. Locations of discrete water quality monitoring sites in Battle Creek in 2010 and 2011 (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012).

39

Table 3-4. Water quality monitoring results in Battle Creek (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012).

SiteSampling

Period

Water Temperature

(oC) pH

DO mg/L (percent

saturation)Turbidity

(NTU)

Reach 1 Aug. 30 – Sept. 1,

2010

5.03 6.69 9.45 (74.2) -

Reach 2 5.68 6.72 9.30 (74.2) -

Reach 3 4.22 6.79 9.43 (72.4) -

Reach 4 3.54 6.52 9.63 (72.5) -

WQ1 Sept. 8, 2011

3.13 6.68 10.0 0.7

WQ2 6.20 7.19 9.8 34.0

WQ3 4.70 7.42 12.6 463.0

WQ4 3.66 7.39 10.2 -

WQ1 Oct. 9, 2011

4.90 6.43 - 0.73

WQ2 5.78 6.45 - 0.32

WQ3 3.30 7.43 - 2.39

WQ5 3.22 7.19 - -

WQ6 2.79 7.00 - -

The Corps recorded water temperature profiles in Bradley Lake during 1980 and showed that the lake generally remained isothermal, 6° to 7°C, during the ice-free months, although occasionally the lake exhibited a weak temperature stratification with 8° to 10°C water in the top 20 feet of the water column. During ice cover (November through May), water temperatures ranged from 0°C near the surface to 2 to 2.5°C at lower depths. Table 3-5 shows turbidity and suspended solids concentrations in Bradley Lake, and table 3-6 shows water quality data collected in the two main tributaries of Bradley Lake: Upper Bradley River and Kachemak Creek.

40

Table 3-5. Turbidity and suspended solids concentrations in Bradley Lake (Source: AEA, 2016).

Bradley Lake Inlet Bradley Lake Center Bradley Lake Outlet

Turbidity (NTU)

Suspended Sediment

(mg/L)Turbidity

(NTU)

Suspended Sediment

(mg/L)Turbidity

(NTU)

Suspended Sediment

(mg/L)

10/18/1979 145 170.0 170 201.0 170 208.0

5/1/1980 - - 74 50.2 78 46.3

8/3/1980 62 5.8 51 6.5 55 4.8

9/29/1980 61 48.3 55 46.5 50 44.1

Table 3-6. Water quality data collected in the Upper Bradley River and Kachemak Creek (Source: AEA, 2016).

Turbidity (NTU)

Suspended Sediment

(mg/L)

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L)

Ortho-Phosphate

(mg/L)

Upper Bradley River (Lake Inlet)10/3/1979 155.0 508.0 12.33 0.00 0.660

5/1/1980 1.2 0.9 - 0.01 0.005

8/3/1980 37.0 91.4 8.78 0.08 0.340

9/29/1980 54.0 111.0 9.48 0.02 0.270

Kachemak Creek (Lake Inlet)10/3/1979 190.0 2,566.0 12.20 0.00 2.500

5/1/1980 1.5 4.5.0 9.69 0.01 0.025

8/3/1980 89.0 36.5 9.76 0.08 0.410

9/29/1980 83.0 399.0 9.62 0.02 0.360

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

Aquatic Habitat

To evaluate potential effects, the licensee surveyed aquatic habitats of the Battle Creek basin in 2010 and 2011. Study areas included the 8.3-mile portion of Battle Creek that extends from the mouth of Battle Creek at tidewater to the terminus of Battle Glacier,

41

and includes Skirmish Creek and the South Fork of Battle Creek. The mainstem of Battle Creek from tidewater to the terminus of Battle Glacier was separated into five reaches for surveying and study. The five reaches are the same as those used during water quality monitoring, with an additional fifth reach.

Starting at tidewater and moving upstream:

Reach 1 extends about 2,600 feet upstream from tidewater at the approximate edge of marsh grasses to the Martin River Access Road Bridge. This reach is partially tidally influenced and consists of braided channels and abandoned distributaries in the floodplain and has a high ratio of undercut banks. Salt marsh grasses are the dominate vegetation in the lower portion switching to alder thickets in the upper portion of the reach. The lower portion consists of undercut bank with overhanging vegetation. Riffles are the dominant mesohabitat type in this reach followed by glides, scour pools, and slough pools.

Reach 2 extends from the Martin River Access Road Bridge upstream about 3,600 feet to the Skirmish Creek confluence. This reach is sinuous with some instream islands and has the largest amounts of large woody debris. Riparian vegetation includes alder thickets with some large cottonwood and spruce trees. Substrate in this reach consists of sand and cobble. Riffles are the dominant mesohabitat type in this reach followed by scour pools, glides, backwater pools, and slough pools.

Reach 3 extends from the Skirmish Creek confluence upstream about 3,500 feet to the confluence with South Fork of Battle Creek. The Battle Creek channel in this reach is relatively confined and straight compared to Reaches 1 and 2. Substrate in this reach consists of coarse gravel, boulders, and bedrock. Riparian vegetation includes alder thickets and large cottonwood and spruce trees. Riffles are the dominant mesohabitat type followed by scour pools, glides, and cascades.

Reach 4 extends about 13,300 feet (2.5 miles) upstream from the South Fork confluence to about the 690-foot elevation contour. Most of Reach 4 consists of deep gorge cascades, and swift white water. There are two gorge-like canyons with an intermediate flat reach between them. The channel is constricted in several areas creating high velocity and steep gradient cascades. The intermediate section between the two gorge-like canyons has riffle and cascade habitats and mostly cobble on the left bank and exposed bedrock along the right.

Reach 5 extends about 22,900 feet (4.3 miles) upstream from approximately the 690-foot elevation contour to the terminus of Battle Glacier. The proposed

42

West Fork Upper Battle Creek diversion is located about 2 miles upstream from the boundary between Reaches 4 and 5. Reach 5 also contains gorge-like canyons and flat open areas, similar to Reach 4. Reach 5 contained highly turbid waters with riffle habitat and substrate varying from fines to boulders.

Reaches 1, 2, 3, and 4 are listed as anadromous waters in Alaska DFG’s Anadromous Waters Catalog, which extends upstream to the base of an impassable waterfall at RM 4.1, approximately 2 miles downstream of the proposed West Fork Upper Battle Creek diversion. The habitats within the anadromous reach most valuable to fish production are found within the first 1.8 miles upstream from tidewater.

Skirmish Creek, a small tributary, enters Battle Creek at the boundary between Reach 2 and Reach 3. The creek is fed from several springs in a densely vegetated area below the Bradley Lake Access Road. Water in Skirmish Creek is clear. During 2010, surveyors observed that a beaver dam created an approximately 1.5-acre pond at the confluence with Battle Creek. High flows in 2012 altered the stream channel and washed out the beaver dam, consequently draining the pond. However, beavers rebuilt the dam by spring 2015. From the source of Skirmish Creek downstream about 100 feet, the substrate is mainly small cobble covered by moss and occasional boulders. Downstream from this segment the creek opens up into grass covered marsh with substrate principally being small moss covered cobble. Thirty percent of this reach consists of undercut bank. The next 85 feet downstream from this segment contains smaller substrate of coarse gravel with fines and organics mixed. Within the beaver pond, substrate largely consisted of silt mixed with organics.

Battle Creek’s one major tributary, the South Fork of Battle Creek (South Fork), joins the main stem of Battle Creek at RM 1.8, the upstream end of Reach 3 and serves as the boundary between Reaches 3 and 4. The South Fork has no glacial influence, and has a drainage basin area of approximately 6.1 square miles or 28 percent of the entire Battle Creek drainage basin. Because the South Fork does not receive glacial runoff, it is typically warmer and less turbid than the mainstem of Battle Creek. Surveyors observed a significant amount of periphyton covering the substrate. The South Fork is not listed in the Anadromous Waters Catalog, and upstream of the South Fork confluence, Battle Creek transitions to a confined, high-gradient channel with cascades and waterfalls.

Fisheries

There are no fishes in Bradley Lake (AEA, 2015c). To document fish species distribution and habitat use throughout the Battle Creek drainage, the licensee conducted fisheries studies in 2010 and 2011 using sampling sites within the same study reaches used for habitat assessment. Figure 3-2 shows the entire spatial extent of the study reaches, and figure 3-10 shows the locations of fish sampling within each study reach. Collection methods included backpack electrofishing, baited minnow traps, seines, and

43

snorkeling. Seven fish species were collected across all methods and years in Reaches 1 through 3 (table 3-7). No fish were found in the farthest upstream reaches, Nos. 4 and 5. These two reaches are likely inaccessible to migrating salmon because of high velocities, waterfalls, and large boulders associated with the steep gorge terrain in these areas. Following the initial July 2010 surveys, consulted agencies concluded that Reaches 4 and 5 lacked suitable habitat to warrant further surveys.

Dolly Varden was the most common species observed in the Battle Creek drainage, accounting for 61 percent of the total individuals. Dolly Varden was the only species observed in the South Fork drainage. Multiple size and age classes of Dolly Varden, including young-of-year, were observed in Battle Creek, South Fork Battle Creek, and Skirmish Creek. Dolly Varden occurred most frequently in backwater pool/backwater eddy, scour pool/side channel and riffle/side channel habitats. Coho salmon were the second most common species observed, accounting for 26 percent of the total individuals and represented by multiple size and age classes. Juvenile coho salmon occupied a variety of habitats but most frequently occupied riffle/backwater slow pockets and riffle/side channels in the lower three reaches. Juvenile coho salmon were also abundant in the tidally-influenced habitats in Reach 1. However, most of these individual juvenile coho salmon were likely young-of-the-year displaced from Reaches 2 and 3 during high flow events in 2010 and 2011, where they were likely spawned. Most coho salmon redds were observed in Reaches 2 and 3 during both survey years, and a majority of juvenile salmon collected were less than 80 mm fork length, indicating they were young-of-the-year (Alaska DFG, 2016). Sockeye salmon were also collected, but all sockeye were young-of-the-year individuals, collected by seine during the July and September 2010 surveys. Surveys in 2011 did not collect sockeye salmon.

The licensee conducted foot surveys of the lower reaches, Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and part of Skirmish Creek, in 2010 and 2011 to better understand the spawning timing and distribution of adult coho and sockeye salmon and Dolly Varden in Battle Creek. Table 3-8 and figure 3-11 show the foot survey results. High turbidity often prevented observations. Surveyors observed salmon redds on October 28, 2010, in riffles and not in the scour pools where coho salmon were observed holding, and again on October 9, 2011, in the tailouts of scour pools.

44

Figure 3-10. Sampled location within Battle and Skirmish Creeks during the 2010 and 2011 fish surveys (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012).

45

Table 3-7. Fishes collected within Battle and Skirmish Creeks in 2010 and 2011 (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012).

Species

Reach South Fork1 2 3 4 5 Skirmish Total

Coho salmon 158 26 3 - - 373 560

Dolly Varden 384 512 89 - - 346 9 1,340

Sockeye salmon 3 - - - - 78 - 81

Ninespine stickleback 99 6 - - - 70 - 175

Threespine stickleback 4 - - - - - - 4

Sculpin 9 10 2 - - 4 - 25

Starry flounder 10 - - - - - - 10

Total 667 554 94 - - 871 9 2,195

Figure 3-11. Locations of adult salmon and salmon redds observed during the 2010 and 2011 spawning surveys (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012).

46

Table 3-8. Adult coho salmon counts in Battle and Skirmish Creeks (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012).

Date Intertidala

Reach Skirmish Creekb Total Comment1 2 3

7/26/2010 0 n/sc n/s n/s n/s 0 Too turbid for visual observation

8/30/2010 0 1d n/s n/s n/s 1 Turbid – fyke net fished in Reach 1

9/28/2010 0 0 140 90 n/s 230 Water clarity good-65 Dolly Varden in Reach 3

10/28/2010 0 0 9 28 n/s 37 Water clarity good – 24 salmon redds in Reach 3

5/17/2011 0 0 0 0 n/s 0 Water clarity good

7/20/2011 0 n/s n/s n/s n/s 0 Turbid

8/2/2011 0 n/s n/s n/s 0 0 Battle Creek: turbid Skirmish Creek: clear

9/7/2011 0 n/s n/s n/s 0 0 Battle Creek: turbid Skirmish Creek: clear

10/9/2011 0 0 144 80 10 234 Water clarity good - 24 salmon redds in Reach 2, 3, and Skirmish Creek.

11/2/2011 0 3 0 18 6 27 Water clarity gooda Foot surveys were conducted to tidewater in Reach 1 even when water visibility was

poor. Observers looked for finning and fish wakes as an indication of adult salmon entering the creek, and looked for carcasses washed up in bars or in the grass banks. A “0” denotes that no evidence of adult salmon was observed.

b The uppermost 120 meters of Skirmish Creek were surveyed by foot.c n/s–denotes no survey was conducted.d A single coho salmon was captured by fyke net in Reach 1.

47

Macroinvertebrates

In August 2004, the licensee conducted surveys for benthic macroinvertebrates, sampling one site each in Reaches 1 through 4. Surveyors collected five subsamples at each site, using a Surber sampler in riffle habitats. Non-biting midges, family Chironomidae, were the dominant taxon at each site, and mayflies, family Baetidae, were the second-most dominant taxon in Reaches 2 through 4. Black flies, family Simuliidae, were the second most dominant taxon in Reach 1 (table 3-9). Reach 2 had the highest average population density followed by Reaches 4, 3, and 1 respectively (table 3-10).

Table 3-9. Macroinvertebrate taxa surveyed in Reaches 1 through 4 in Battle Creek (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012, as modified by staff).

Order Genus Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4

Ephemeroptera Baetis 22 35 35 33

Ephemeroptera Epeorus 21 11 12 15

Ephemeroptera Cinygmula - - 1 4

Plecoptera Haploperla 6 24 13 17

Plecoptera Suwallia 5 1 - 1

Plecoptera Neaviperla - 1 5 1

Plecoptera Utaperla - - 2 -

Plecoptera Zapada 5 2 8 -

Plecoptera Perlodidaea - - 2 -

Plecoptera Taenionema - 1 - 2

Trichoptera Rhyacophila - - 1 -

Trichoptera Ecclisomyia - - - 2

Diptera Chironomidaea 78 194 107 165

Diptera Simuliium 28 17 13 37

Hemiptera Hemipteraa 1 - - -

Nematodab Nematoda - - 1

Collembolab Collembola - - - 1Note: Not all taxa occurred in each sub-sample thus the range and average in table 3-10

will be lower than the total combined taxon.

48

a Not identified to genus level.b Denote non-order taxonomic classification. Nematoda is phylum classification and

Collembola is subclass classification.Table 3-10. Summary statistics for macroinvertebrate surveys in Reaches 1 through 4 in

Battle Creek (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012).

SiteDominant Taxon

(%)

Second Dominant Taxon (%)

Taxa Richness Range/

Average

Population Density Range/Average

(per ft2)

Reach 1 Chironomidae (47)

Simuliium (17) 3-7/5.4 26-41/34

Reach 2 Chironomidae (68)

Baetis (12) 3-7/5.0 29-75/57

Reach 3 Chironomidae (48)

Baetis (17) 6-10/7.4 19-57/40

Reach 4 Chironomidae (61)

Baetis (15) 5-9/6.8 28-94/54

Essential Fish Habitat

In the general project area, Kachemak Bay provides designated marine EFH for pink salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and sockeye salmon. Battle Creek and its tributaries, on which the proposed diversion would be located, provide designated freshwater EFH for coho and sockeye salmon. As noted under Section 1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements, NMFS’ EFH focus in this proceeding is on coho salmon EFH in Battle Creek. Records of juvenile and adult coho salmon, and coho salmon spawning redds, in Battle Creek are summarized above.

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects

Water Quantity and Flows

Construction-related Effects

Construction related to the applicant’s proposal would temporarily change local hydrology and water quantity levels downstream of the proposed diversion structure (sampling Reaches 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 discussed above). Activities include instream construction practices such as the placement and removal of cofferdams. To minimize potential for stream dewatering, Alaska DFG-recommended the licensee employ an environmental compliance monitor, to remain on staff for the duration of construction.

49

Under the Alaska DFG recommendation, the environmental compliance monitor would document compliance of the licensee with the conditions of the license and prepare weekly construction reports that would be filed with FERC, Alaska DFG, and other requesting agencies. The instream construction provision also would require notifying Alaska DFG at least 10 days prior to any complete or partial diversion of streamflow, so that staff could be present. Any instream construction activity would be prohibited unless the project environmental compliance monitor is on-site. The licensee has agreed to both the recommended instream construction provision and the environmental compliance monitor provision and incorporated these measures into its proposed project.

Our Analysis

Areas of the channel immediately downstream from the diversion may become dewatered when the upstream cofferdam is put in place. Requirements of the proposed instream construction provision and environmental compliance monitor plan would adequately address water quantity issues related to the construction of the proposed diversion structure. Both would minimize effects on the lower portions of Battle Creek and maintain instream flows throughout the proposed construction period. Therefore, we expect limited and short duration effects on water quantity and flows in the portions of Battle Creek downstream of the proposed diversion site during construction.

Construction-related activities would have little to no effect on Bradley Lake because construction would not require any modifications to current reservoir operation. Effects on water quantities in Battle Creek and Bradley Lake would be short-term and minor.

Operation-related Effects

The licensee proposes to operate the proposed diversion from mid-May to late-October. The proposed operating period would capture flows during the peak precipitation and run-off seasons, while maintaining stream flows for aquatic resources in the lower reaches of Battle Creek. The licensee would operate the project in accordance with its Diversion Flow Release Management Plan filed on January 19, 2016, and a stream gaging plan, developed in coordination with the resource agencies. The stream gaging plan would include an implementation plan to detail requirements for the planning, installation, monitoring, and reporting of instream flow after construction of the diversion structure. Plan measures would include: (1) identifying diversion gates and how they will be operated; (2) identifying an instream flow compliance method; (3) compliance requirements; (4) monitoring measures and procedures; (5) reporting requirements; (6) an implementation schedule; and (7) reporting requirements that identify notifications and timing of notification of non-compliance events. The proposed stream gaging plan would re-activate the Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage (USGS No. 15238986) to monitor the relationship between the environmental flow release at the proposed diversion and flows in the main stem of Battle Creek.

50

In normal operation, the project diversion structure and head works are designed to divert up to 600 cfs, without spilling, and convey that flow to Bradley Lake. Flows that exceed the capacity of the pipe conveyance inlet would bypass the diversion and flow into Battle Creek by way of the 40-foot wide by 5-foot deep ungated spillway with a capacity of 1,460 cfs. The combined capacity of the two sluice gates is 387 cfs at the spillway crest. Flows at the diversion that exceed the capacity of the pipe conveyance, spillway, and sluice gates (2,447 cfs total) would overtop the concrete structure. Therefore, the licensee notes that normal operations would reduce flows in the reaches of Battle Creek downstream of the proposed diversion point.

Over the operating period, the licensee estimates flows in the lower reaches of Battle Creek would fall below 80 cfs 36 percent of the time, an increase from 20 percent in the pre-diversion condition. Flows would remain above 120 cfs approximately 36 percent of the time, which is a substantial decrease from current flows being above 120 cfs 73 percent of the time. The licensee estimates that pre-project flows in the lower reaches of Battle Creek from May through October are between 80 cfs and 120 cfs 6 percent of the time. The licensee estimates post-project flows would fall between 80 cfs and 120 cfs about 27 percent of the time.

To mitigate for in-stream flow reductions during low flow periods, the licensee proposes to operate the diversion to provide continuous environmental bypass flows. Table 3-11 provides proposed environmental bypass flow schedule for the project.

Table 3-11. Environmental bypass flow schedule (Source: AEA, 2015a).

Start Date End Date Bypass Flow (cfs)

September 16 June 30 5

July 1 September 15 15

Our Analysis

The project as proposed would decrease flows annually in the lower reaches of Battle Creek, by as much as 27 percent in May to as much as 63 percent in August.14 Changes in flow regime would also likely have effects on off-channel reaches. These areas could be dewatered under some flow conditions. Figure 3-12 depicts mean monthly flows at the downstream USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater gage for pre- and post-diversion conditions under the licensee’s proposed flow regime.

14 Flow percentage decreases in the lower reaches of Battle Creek were computed from combined data obtained from both USGS gages Battle Creek near Tidewater (No. 15238985) and Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth (No. 15238986).

51

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Mean Monthly Flows

Pre-Diversion Post-Diversion

Disc

harg

e (c

fs)

Figure 3-12. Monthly average flows for pre- and post-diversion conditions at the downstream USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater gage (No. 15238985) (Source: staff).15

Similar to existing conditions, with the proposed action, the highest stream flows would occur in the summer months based on snowmelt and runoff. While the stream flow in the lower reaches of Battle Creek would be less on average under proposed conditions, summer storms, flows from the downstream drainage area (14.5 square miles), and the proposed environmental bypass flow would ensure relatively constant flow levels near the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage.

During normal operation, the proposed diversion would capture 7.4 square miles of Battle Creek’s drainage, diverting an average volume of 37,000 acre-feet of water over the normal operating period. At its lowest level of 1,060 feet, Bradley Lake impounds an estimated 278,888 acre-feet of water. Between this level and Bradley Lake’s normal operating level of 1,180 feet, Bradley Lake can impound an estimated additional 36,700 acre-feet of water. Because the volume of water diverted at the proposed diversion would be spread out over the mid-May to late-October operating period, the volume of water diverted by the proposed diversion would not exceed the available storage capacity in Bradley Lake. We expect little to no effect on the lake levels of Bradley Lake.

15 Flow percentage decreases in the lower reaches of Battle Creek were computed from combined data obtained from both USGS gages Battle Creek near Tidewater (No. 15238985) and Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth (No. 15238986).

52

We expect the proposed Diversion Flow Release Management Plan and stream gaging plan to minimize operational effects on downstream water quantity and flows. The Diversion Flow Release Management Plan would provide coordinating agencies (FWS, NMFS, and Alaska DFG) with a schedule of instream flow releases and a list of the equipment that would be used to adjust and monitor flows. The plan would also address the channel maintenance flows needed for adequate sediment movement in the lower reaches of Battle Creek. The proposed stream gaging plan would re-activate the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage (No. 15238986). The re-activation of this gage would allow the applicant and resource agencies to effectively monitor the operation of the diversion and its effects on the lower reaches of Battle Creek. Effects would be long-term and moderate.

Water Quality

Effects of Construction Activities on Water Quality of Battle Creek

Construction of the new diversion structure, pipeline, material borrow and disposal sites, access road, and the filling of about 200 to 300 feet of existing East Fork of Battle Creek and rerouting the East Fork of Battle Creek around the stilling basin into the existing pond would disturb soils and increase the potential for soil erosion and sediment loading in adjacent waters.16 In addition, the presence and operation of construction equipment would increase the potential for fuel and hazardous substance spills. The licensee developed an ESCMP and Fuel and Hazardous Substance Management Plan in response to staff’s additional information request dated October 19, 2015. The purpose of these plans is to prevent or reduce possible construction impacts on water quality. The licensee proposes a two-step process of first preparing management plans that are process oriented, and then implementation plans that contain site-specific details of plan activities. The implementation plans would be developed in consultation with resource agencies, would be based on project details developed during final design of the proposed diversion, and would be filed at least 6 months prior to any land-disturbing activities. Alaska DFG recommends that the licensee prepare, in consultation with Alaska DFG and other requesting agencies, a final erosion and sediment control plan [10(j) recommendation 7] and a final fuel and hazardous substance plan [10(j) recommendation 8], which would be filed with the Commission at least 6 months prior to any land-disturbance activities.

Our Analysis

Construction of proposed project facilities and filling and rerouting of the East Fork Upper Battle Creek would potentially increase the amount of erosion or sediment loading into project-affected waters, which include Battle Creek and 1.8 acres of

16 Adjacent water bodies include wetlands, unnamed intermittent and ephemeral streams that are nearby, traversed by, or parallel to the new diversion structure, pipeline, material borrow and disposal sites, access road and staging areas.

53

wetlands. The presence and use of heavy machinery could also introduce fuels and lubricants into the Battle Creek watershed, posing a potential risk of spills into project area waters. The licensee’s proposed ESCMP and Fuel and Hazardous Substance Management Plan describe general requirements it would include in the final plans. The licensee would integrate the final ESCMP and final Fuel and Hazardous Substance Management Plan into its implementation plan, to be distributed to Alaska DFG and other requesting resource agencies for review. Developing the implementation phase of the final ESCMP and final Fuel and Hazardous Substance Management Plan in consultation with Alaska DFG and other agencies, would allow development of measures that would limit the amount of soil erosion during and following construction activities, would help mitigate for the presence and use of hazardous substances during project construction, and be consistent with Alaska DFG and other agency recommendations. As a result of this process and development of appropriate measures, potential construction effects on water quality would be minimized and limited to the immediate areas of disturbance. Effects from construction would be short-term. Implementation of the licensee’s proposed ESCMP and Fuel and Hazardous Substance Management Plan would ensure that the adverse effects of construction activities on water quality would be short-term and minor.

Effects of Flow Diversion on Water Quality in Bradley Lake

Operation of the proposed diversion on Upper Battle Creek would provide additional water of glacial origin into Bradley Lake and potentially affect water quality and sedimentation within Bradley Lake. Neither the licensee nor any resource agency proposed or recommended mitigation for the protection of water quality in Bradley Lake.

Our Analysis

The licensee would primarily operate the proposed diversion during the period of higher glacial melt. Results of the licensee’s water quality monitoring study in the upper reaches of Battle Creek near its confluence with the South Fork indicate that turbidity levels range between 2.4 and 463 NTU. Although the most recent water quality data for Bradley Lake are from studies performed during the initial licensing of the Bradley Lake Project in the 1980s, no changes have occurred to the predominantly glacial lake inflows so current turbidity and water quality within the lake are likely similar (Upper Bradley River and Kachemak Creek). During initial licensing, turbidity levels of waters entering Bradley Lake from the Upper Bradley River and Kachemak Creek ranged from 1.2 to 155 NTU and 1.5 to 190 NTU, respectively, while turbidity levels throughout the lake ranged from 50 to 170 NTU. These baseline levels are similar to the range of turbidity seen in Upper Battle Creek in 2011, although Battle Creek turbidity showed somewhat higher levels. With the addition of water from Battle Creek to Bradley Lake, it is likely that a delta would form where Battle Creek flows enter Bradley Lake, consisting of coarse material, a similar effect to that observed where the Upper Bradley River and Kachemak Creek enter the lake. Finer sediments would likely remain suspended and

54

contribute to the overall sediment loading to the lake. There is the potential for some increase in turbidity where Battle Creek flows would enter the lake, although that effect would likely dissipate at some distance away from the entry point. Further, the duration and significance of increased turbidity where Battle Creek flows would enter the lake would be dependent on operation of the proposed diversion.

Water temperature data from the original licensing studies in Bradley Lake indicate temperatures range from 4°C in the spring, to 6 to 10°C in summer, to less than 2°C in winter. The licensee’s temperature monitoring in upper reaches of Battle Creek indicate summer water temperatures range between 3 and 5°C. With the addition of cooler waters during the summer, the water temperature near the outlet of the proposed diversion would likely be moderately cooler than existing conditions for the life of the project.

Effects of Flow Diversion on Water Quality in Battle Creek

Under existing conditions, Battle Creek water temperatures, DO, pH, and turbidity meet state water quality standards. However, operation of the proposed diversion at a mean rate of 108 cfs diverted into Bradley Lake from mid-May through October would reduce flows below the diversion approximately 52 percent on average, and this reduction in downstream flows would affect water temperature and water quality, which could in turn, affect fisheries and aquatic resources. The licensee proposes no specific environmental measures to address possible changes in the temperature regime or water quality of Battle Creek downstream of the proposed diversion, but does propose to provide environmental bypass flows from mid-May through October (see section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Effects on Instream Flows on Salmon Habitat in Battle Creek).

Our Analysis

As described in section 3.3.2.1, Affected Environment (see figure 3-3), peak daily mean temperatures within the reach of Battle Creek from the proposed diversion site to the confluence with the South Fork (Reach 4) seldom exceed 5°C. The South Fork of Battle Creek has no glacial influence and mean daily temperatures are frequently above 6°C to 8°C during the summer. When the cool glacial waters of Battle Creek mix with the warmer, non-glacial waters of the South Fork Battle Creek, baseline summer temperatures within the downstream reaches of Battle Creek (the bridge station shown in figure 3-3) range from about 4 to 6°C.17

Operation of the proposed diversion would reduce the amount of glacial melt water released downstream. Flows downstream of the diversion would include a

17 The bridge station is the Martin River access road bridge that crosses Battle Creek at RM 0.49 (see figure 3-8).

55

minimum flow from the diversion,18 accretion flows from groundwater, surface runoff, and minor tributary contributions. As a result, Battle Creek downstream of the diversion would experience physical and climatic influences that would make it more susceptible to warming. For example, additional warming could occur when glacial meltwater flows from the Upper West Fork of Battle Creek combine with the warmer non-glacial waters at the confluence of the South Fork of Battle Creek. Further, when the beaver dam and pond are present on Skirmish Creek, flows from Skirmish Creek could be above ambient Lower Battle Creek water temperatures resulting in additional warming.19

Figure 3-13 shows pre- and anticipated post-construction mean daily temperatures in Lower Battle Creek. During operation of the proposed diversion, mean daily water temperatures in the lower reaches of Battle Creek would likely increase 3.5°C from late-May to early-September, average daily water temperatures would reach near 9°C, and maximum hourly temperatures would approach 12°C. When the diversion is not operating during winter and early spring, the licensee would pass all flows downstream through the diversion; therefore, existing temperatures and post-construction temperatures during this period would not change. Given the local climate and proposed minimum flows, which would provide some cold glacial melt water buffered by the warmer waters of the South Fork, the lower reaches of Battle Creek would experience slightly warmer water temperatures, which would increase the potential for exceedance of the state water quality standard for temperature (13°C) during operation of the proposed diversion, but those exceedances would be rare, if they occur at all.20 The Alaska DFG recommendation of incorporating temperature monitoring into the stream gaging plan would provide the means for the licensee and the resource agencies to monitor temperature compliance with state water quality standards.

18 The minimum flow proposal is: (1) 15 cfs plus any flow exceeding the proposed pipeline capacity of 600 cfs from July 1 through September 15; (2) 5 cfs plus any flow exceeding 600 cfs from September 16 to June 30; and (3) pipe drain water up to 20 cfs, the capacity of the drain, from October to June.

19 The beaver dam on Skirmish Creek was washed out during high flows in 2012, but rebuilt in 2015.

20 Alaska surface water quality standards are presented in section 3.3.2.1, Affected Environment, Water Quality.

56

Figure 3-13. Mean daily water temperatures within Reach 2 of Battle Creek before and after the proposed diversion becomes operational (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012).

During the 2010 and 2011 studies, the licensee collected water quality data at different locations, time of year, and flow conditions. Overall, Battle Creek is well-oxygenated with DO concentrations that ranged from 9.3 mg/L to 12.6 mg/L. DO concentrations within Battle Creek would likely remain high and meet state water quality standards because aeration would continue to occur over the many riffles and cascades in the creek despite reduced flows and anticipated water temperature increases. No additional sources of biological oxygen demand would occur as a result of the proposed operation of the diversion.

Operation of the proposed diversion would trap glacial sediment and divert that sediment into Bradley Lake, resulting in a reduction of existing turbidity levels in downstream reaches of Battle Creek. In addition, pH, which now ranges from slightly acidic (6.52) to slightly basic (7.42), may increase as a consequence of increased photosynthetic activity from increased water clarity, but not to the levels that would violate state water quality standards. Skirmish Creek, which provides habitat for sockeye salmon and empties into Battle Creek, exhibited pH values as low as 6.43 and as high as 7.39. The low pH value of 6.43 occurred near an existing beaver pond and is likely an effect of organic acids produced by decaying vegetation. Operation of the proposed

57

diversion would not affect water quality within Skirmish Creek because the creek does not receive inflows from Battle Creek.

To promote channel maintenance, the licensee would release flows a minimum of every 3 years out of each 10-year moving average period. Those flows would have an instantaneous peak volume of 800 cfs and would continue for a minimum of 8 hours. The purpose of the channel maintenance flow is to mobilize a significant portion of the channel bed in Reaches 1 and 2 of Lower Battle Creek. FWS, however, recommends that a channel maintenance flow be released every other year and have a peak flow of 1,000 cfs. Additionally, the licensee proposes to release annual flushing flows of a minimum of 150 cfs and typically 200 cfs below the diversion for an 8-hour duration. The purpose of the annual flushing flow is to release sediment that has built-up behind the proposed diversion and pass it down the West Fork of Battle Creek. Under either channel maintenance flow or annual flushing flow scenarios, turbidity levels would likely reflect existing conditions during equivalent high flow events and would meet Alaska State water quality standards. Channel maintenance flows and flushing flows are discussed and analyzed in Geologic and Soil Resources, Environmental Effects, Operation-related Effects.

Implementation of Alaska DFG’s recommendation for water temperature monitoring in Lower Battle Creek would record long-term overall warming effects during the proposed diversion operation period, ensuring any adverse effects are identified. Further, with the implementation of the licensee’s proposed channel maintenance and flushing flows, water quality within Lower Battle Creek would reflect existing water quality conditions under current flows of similar magnitude and duration. Any increase in turbidity as a result of the channel maintenance and flushing flows beyond that of ambient levels would be short-term and minor.

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

Effects of Instream Flow on Salmon Habitat in Battle Creek

Under existing conditions, the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek flows into the lower reaches of Battle Creek, joining the South Fork of Battle Creek 4.3 miles downstream of the proposed diversion site. Mean monthly flows in the lower reach of Battle Creek currently range from 10 cfs in March to 307 cfs in August, as measured at the USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater gage, and the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage (see table 3-2). The licensee proposes to annually divert flow from the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek to Bradley Lake starting approximately mid-May through October. During the May through October period, mean flows range from 117 cfs in May to the maximum of 307 cfs in August to a low of 106 cfs in October. The altered flow regime would affect sediment transport, aquatic biota, and aquatic habitat, especially those habitats within the designated anadromous reach of Battle Creek, where coho

58

salmon, sockeye salmon, and Dolly Varden occur. Without the release of minimum flows below the diversion, accretion from ground water, surface runoff, and discharges from the South Fork of Battle Creek and Skirmish Creek, which are not glacially influenced, would provide flows in the lower reaches of Battle Creek.

The licensee proposes to release the following post-construction environmental bypass flows:21

Starting July 1 through September 15: 15 cfs from the diversion sluice gate, plus any additional flow exceeding the pipeline capacity of 600 cfs, into the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek;

Starting September 16 through June 30: 5 cfs from the diversion sluice gate, plus any additional flow exceeding the pipeline capacity of 600 cfs, into the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek; and

Starting October through June: Up to 20 cfs from the pipe drain.22

The licensee’s proposed environmental bypass flows are based on the wetted perimeter method to assess flow-habitat relationships, following Swift (1979), over a range of flows modelled by a one-dimensional HEC-RAS model. According to Swift (1979), the relationship between wetted perimeter and discharge can suggest the preferred discharges that maintain critical habitat for salmon rearing by identifying the inflection point in the relationship, or the point of greatest curvature. The relationship between wetted perimeter and discharge is a hydraulic method for estimating minimum flows. In practice, two criteria are generally used to specify minimum flow requirements using hydraulic methods. The first identifies a point of inflection in the wetted perimeter-discharge relationship, as in Swift (1979), whereby wetted-perimeter usually increases with flow. The point of inflection occurs when flows are confined by the banks and the channel base begins to fill. The other is based on the percentage of habitat retained at mean flow such that a specific percentage of habitat reduction is the maximum allowable amount of habitat loss (Jowett, 1997).

The licensee used modeled water velocity and water depths at the surveyed transects along with habitat suitability curves developed for the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2170-029) relicensing, to infer post-diversion effects of the licensee’s proposed flow regime on coho salmon and Dolly Varden spawning and

21 The licensee, NMFS, and FWS recommended environmental bypass flows include language stating bypassed flows were from a particular date through an end date. Staff replaced the word “from” with “starting” to clarify compliance with the flow requirement for the licensee, NMFS, and FWS recommended bypass flows.

22 The drain to be installed in the proposed pipeline would be located at the lowest point in the pipeline and would drain into the East Fork of Battle Creek (figure 1-1).

59

rearing habitats (Kent and Morsell, 2004). Alaska DFG’s recommended minimum flows were based on its own analysis of the hydrological record, transect data, and habitat suitability criteria for coho salmon and Dolly Varden. Alaska DFG limited its evaluation to conservative flows (those that would result in optimum habitat suitability) and only considered main channel characteristics during the spawning period and side channel habitat for fry and juvenile rearing.23 Alaska DFG concluded that flows between 80 and 120 cfs during the proposed operation period in the lower reach of Battle Creek would provide adequate protection for the target species.

The licensee also proposes to implement post-construction flushing flows by passing 100 percent of all flow at the proposed diversion for a duration of 8 hours into the Battle Creek channel downstream of the diversion from July 15 through August 31. During this period, the licensee expects flows between 150 and 200 cfs; therefore, between 99 and 132 acre-feet of water would be provided to the lower reaches of Battle Creek over the 8-hour flushing duration. As such, the licensee proposes to release channel maintenance flows a minimum of every 3 years out of each 10-year moving average period, which would have an instantaneous peak volume of 800 cfs. The purpose of the channel maintenance flow is to mobilize a significant portion of the channel bed in Reaches 1 and 2 of Lower Battle Creek (see Geology and Soil Resources, Environmental Effects, Operation-related Effects).

Alaska DFG agrees with proposed environmental bypass flows except from September 16 through October 31, and comments that flows can quickly drop during this time period, potentially adversely impacting coho salmon and Dolly Varden spawning. Therefore, Alaska DFG recommends the following bypass flows such that flows in the lower reaches of Battle Creek would be between 80 and 120 cfs during the period of project operation:

Starting July 1 through September 15: 15 cfs or inflow from the diversion sluice gate, whichever is less, plus all flows exceeding 615 cfs;

Starting September 16 through October 7 or until the conveyance drain is opened: 5 cfs or inflow from the diversion sluice gate, whichever is less, plus all flow exceeding 605 cfs;

Starting October 8 to October 23 or until the conveyance drain is opened: 30 cfs or inflow from the diversion sluice gate, whichever is less, plus all flow exceeding 630 cfs;

23 Side channel habitat refers to those habitats that receive water from the main channel and are laterally connected to the main channel.

60

Starting October 24 through October 31 or until the conveyance drain is opened: 20 cfs or inflow from the diversion sluice gate, whichever is less, plus all flow exceeding 620 cfs; and

Starting when the conveyance drain is opened through June 30: 5 cfs or inflow, whichever is less plus all flow exceeding 605 cfs.

Alaska DFG also recommends a channel maintenance flow consistent with the licensee’s proposed channel maintenance flow of 800 cfs released a minimum of 3 years out of each 10-year moving average. However, Alaska DFG comments the licensee should release the channel maintenance flows between August 1 and September 15 to reflect existing peak flows and to avoid peak salmon spawning periods.

By letter filed January 14, 2016, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS recommended instream flows to protect coho salmon EFH below the proposed diversion. NMFS stated that the licensee should maintain 20 percent of the streamflow in the stream at the point of diversion to maintain the coho population in Lower Battle Creek. NMFS also recommends release of the following instream flows at the point of diversion:

May 16–30: 5 cfs;

June 1–30: 10 cfs;

July 1–31: 30 cfs;

August 1–31: 45 cfs;

September 1–15: 20 cfs;

September 16–October 31: 25 cfs or all available flow;

November 1–30: 5 cfs plus ½ of any additional flow; and

December 1–May 15: diversion closed.

The NMFS recommendations focus on providing necessary low-velocity summer rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon and fall spawning habitat for adult coho. NMFS indicates that its recommendations do not include sockeye salmon habitat because there is little sockeye habitat present in the area that would be affected by the proposal. (We note that NMFS does not consider effects on Dolly Varden because the species is not under its regulatory responsibility.) In support of its recommendation, NMFS states that, starting May 15 through June 30, adequate flows are generally available in Lower Battle Creek due to melting snow and groundwater, so a minimum flow release of only 5 to 10 cfs should be needed to provide juvenile rearing habitat in most years, although 10 cfs should be provided in June because 5 cfs may not be sufficient in all years. Using available flow data from 2011, 2012, and 2013, NMFS estimates the flow that would occur in Lower Battle Creek in July, August, and September with the licensee’s proposed minimum flow. NMFS concluded that adequate connectivity to side channel habitat important for rearing

61

coho salmon would require higher minimum flow releases (30 to 45 cfs) during those months, particularly during a drought year. In early September, however, NMFS would reduce the minimum flow to 20 cfs, because September is normally a lower-flow month, and coho parr would be larger in size by September and able to use main channel habitat.24 As such, NMFS recommends a minimum flow of 25 cfs or all available inflow for September 16 through October 31 to provide adequate spawning habitat, noting that this recommendation is simpler than Alaska DFG’s recommended tiered flow (see table 3-12). NMFS recommends a minimum flow of 5 cfs, in November, plus splitting the remaining flow between the diversion and the stream, which would also assist in providing channel maintenance flows.25

Additionally, NMFS recommends automation of the diversion gates to more precisely control flow releases into Battle Creek, which should also provide more water for power generation without compromising salmon habitat.

By letter filed January 27, 2016, FWS stated it agrees with the instream flows NMFS recommends for EFH. In addition, FWS recommends channel maintenance flows of at least 1,000 cfs every other year, as necessary to mimic natural events and adequately maintain anadromous fish habitat over time.

Our Analysis

The licensee has proposed a seasonal minimum flow regime for Battle Creek below the proposed diversion, and Alaska DFG, NMFS, and FWS have each recommended alternative flow regimes. In table 3-12 we summarize and compare the proposed flow regime and the alternatives. We then use data provided by the licensee to develop our recommendation for instream flows for the proposed diversion structure, focusing on the differences among the alternative proposals.

Table 3-12. Comparison of instream flow alternatives for the proposed diversion structure for the Bradley Lake Project (Source: staff).

Month AEA Proposal (cfs)a

Alaska DFG Recommendation (cfs)c

NMFS and FWS Recommendation (cfs)e

January 5 5 - d

February 5 5 -March 5 5 -

24 Parr is a freshwater life stage for salmonid fishes between fry and smolt. Parr are distinguishable by dark band markings on the body, feeding on larger prey items, and rapid growth.

25 However, the licensee is not planning to operate the diversion during the month of November, so most of the stream flow would be passed downstream of the diversion anyway.

62

Month AEA Proposal (cfs)a

Alaska DFG Recommendation (cfs)c

NMFS and FWS Recommendation (cfs)e

April 5 5 -May 5 5 5 (May 16 – 31 only)June 5 5 10July 15 15 30August 15 15 45September 15 (thru

September 15)5 (beginning

September 16)

15 (thru September 15)5 (beginning

September 16)

20 (September 1 – 15)25 or all available flow,

whichever is less (September 16 – 30)

October 5b 5 (thru October 7)30 (October 8 – 23)20 (October 24 – 31)

25 or all available flow, whichever is less

November 5 5 5 plus ½ of additional flowDecember 5 5 -a The licensee would also provide any flow greater than 600 cfs when diversion is in

operation.b Flows up to 20 cfs would be released through the pipe drain to East Fork of Battle

Creek October through June when the diversion is closedc Alaska DFG’s overall objective is a flow of 80 to 120 cfs in Lower Battle Creek

during the period of project operation. Alaska DFG also recommends passing any flow greater than 605 cfs when the minimum flow is 5 cfs, any flow greater than 615 cfs when the minimum flow is 15 cfs, any flow greater than 620 cfs when the minimum flow is 20 cfs, and any flow greater than 630 cfs when the minimum flow is 30 cfs, until the pipe drain is opened and the diversion is shut down. Alaska DFG also recommends release of channel maintenance flows of 800 cfs between August 1 and September 15 to reflect existing peak flows.

d FWS and NMFS do not provide minimum flow recommendations for the period when the diversion is closed, December 1 through May 15.

e From NMFS EFH conservation recommendation in letter filed January 14, 2016, and FWS instream flow recommendation in letter filed January 27, 2016.

The licensee performed hydrological analyses, conducted a sediment transport study, and a habitat-flow relationship study to determine potential effects of operation of the proposed diversion on the flow regime and aquatic habitat in Battle Creek downstream of the proposed diversion and in lower reaches of Battle Creek. Diversion of flows from Battle Creek into Bradley Lake, with contributions of proposed environmental

63

bypass flows, would reduce average monthly flows in the lower reaches of Battle Creek, and would attenuate seasonal high flows. The proposed diversion would reduce median flows in the lower reach by 50 percent from approximately 200 cfs to 100 cfs over the operation season (figure 3-14). In July and August, when highest seasonal flows occur, the diversion would reduce flows in the lower reach by 55.8 and 55.0 percent, respectively (table 3-13).

Figure 3-14. Pre- and post-diversion flow duration curve for the May through October diversion operation seasonal at the USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater gage. Also shown are Alaska DFG target conservation flows of 80 cfs and 120 cfs (Source: AEA, 2015a).

Table 3-13. Average monthly flows in Lower Battle Creek pre- and post- diversion (Source: AEA, 2015a; as modified by staff).26

Month Pre-Diversion Flow (cfs)

Post-Diversion Flow (cfs)

Percent Change (%)

May 117 86 -26.5

26 Data are combined from the records of two USGS gages: Battle Creek near Tidewater and Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth.

64

June 236 121 -48.7

July 274 121 -55.8

August 307 138 -55.0

September 249 128 -48.6

October 106 75 -29.2

Adult Spawning Habitat: In Battle Creek, coho salmon and Dolly Varden spawn in riffles and tailwaters of pools over gravel and cobble substrate. In Reaches 2 and 3, a substantial amount of spawning habitat is available to Dolly Varden and coho salmon under the existing flow regime. The licensee’s studies recorded adult Dolly Varden and coho salmon in Reaches 1, 2, and 3, but the majority of spawning activity and redd construction occurred in Reaches 2 and 3 and the upper most 120 meters of Skirmish Creek (HDR Alaska, 2012).27 Average monthly flows during the months of peak spawning activity (September and October) ranged from 106 to 249 cfs as measured within Lower Battle Creek. Under the licensee’s proposed minimum flow regime, mean monthly flows during these two months of peak spawning activity would be 128 and 75 cfs, respectively. This reduction in flow would correspond to a 7.5- to 12.5-percent reduction in wetted habitat in Reach 3, meaning that from 87.5 to 92.5 percent of wetted habitat would remain (table 3-14).

27 Only one coho spawning pair was observed in Reach 1.

65

Table 3-14. Mean reduction in wetted perimeter post-diversion in Reach 3 of Battle Creek (Source: staff).

Month

Pre-Diversion Post-Diversion

Change (%)

Mean Flow (cfs)

Mean Wetted Perimeter (ft)

Mean Flow (cfs)

Mean Wetted Perimeter (ft)

May 117 40 86 37 -7.5

June 236 49 121 40 -18.4

July 274 50 121 40 -20.0

Augusta 307 50.9 138 41.9 -17.7

September 249 48 128 42 -12.5

Octobera 106 38.7 75 35.8 -7.5a From table 6-5 of AEA, 2015a.

The flow reduction under the licensee’s proposal as identified above would also result in a reduction in mean water velocities and depth. In October, average post-construction water velocities are expected to average about 2.3 and 3.2 feet per second (fps) in Reaches 2 and 3, respectively, a reduction, on average, of 7.4 percent from existing conditions. These water velocities are generally near the upper limit of the preferred spawning velocities for coho salmon and Dolly Varden of 1.0 to 2.5 fps and 0.5 to 2.5 fps, respectively (Kent and Morsell, 2004). According to Cooper Creek Habitat Suitability Criteria for coho salmon and Dolly Varden, optimal spawning depth is greater than 1 foot for both species; however, coho salmon have been observed to spawn in water depths of 0.5 and 0.6 foot (Swift, 1979; Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). The licensee’s proposed post-diversion flows would reduce mean October water depths by approximately 0.15 foot to 0.85 foot in active spawning areas. Overall, the proposed minimum flows would provide near-optimal average spawning velocities compared to current conditions under an unaltered flow regime, but would reduce the depth available to spawning coho salmon and Dolly Varden. The reduction in water depth would result in a tendency for adult fish to spawn in main channel areas where sufficient spawning depth is maintained. FWS and NMFS proposed minimum flows during the spawning period would provide flows, depths, and water velocities nearest to those provided by the existing flow regime; however, water velocities could exceed those preferred for spawning.

Alaska DFG’s recommended flows during the spawning period (Alaska DFG focuses on the month of October) would provide a level of protection greater than proposed minimum flow release during the spawning period by slightly increasing the

66

average depth, while maintaining near-optimum water velocities. The NMFS flow recommendation for spawning flows is similar to the Alaska DFG recommendation except that NMFS recommends a simpler, single minimum flow of 25 cfs throughout the spawning period (average of 20 and 30 cfs recommended by Alaska DFG), instead of Alaska DFG’s tiered recommendation (see table 3-12). Alaska DFG also focuses on the month of October for the prime spawning period, while NMFS considers the latter half of September as a “shoulder” spawning month. We agree with NMFS and FWS that a single minimum flow requirement (25 cfs) would be appropriate. Since flow adjustments would require manual adjustment of the release gate at the proposed diversion structure, a single adjustment of that gate in early October would simplify operations at the diversion site during a month when weather conditions begin to change toward winter conditions. However, we agree with Alaska DFG that October is the primary spawning period and see no need to include late-September in the flow requirement for spawning. We also agree with Alaska DFG that channel maintenance flows of 800 cfs should be released between August 1 and September 15 to reflect existing peak flows and to avoid potential impacts to salmon spawning.

Juvenile Rearing Habitat: Juvenile coho salmon and Dolly Varden rear throughout Lower Battle Creek in side channel pools, eddies, and riffles with the most important rearing areas for juvenile coho located in Reaches 2 and 3 (HDR Alaska, 2012; Alaska DFG, 2016). Side channel habitat is important for rearing coho salmon and Dolly Varden because these areas provide refuge from higher-velocity main channel areas and are generally more productive (HDR Alaska, 2012). During field surveys in 2010 and 2011, HDR Alaska (2012) determined that important side channel rearing habitats are primarily located in Reaches 1 and 2. The licensee determined the amount of preferred rearing habitat for coho and Dolly Varden following the wetted-perimeter method described above. According to HDR Alaska (2012), flow that provides the preferred amount of rearing habitat in Reach 2 is 115 cfs, which corresponds to a wetted perimeter of 45 feet (figure 3-15). This is within the range of Alaska DFG’s target conservation flows of 80 and 120 cfs for Lower Battle Creek. No clear inflection point was discernible to identify the flow that would provide the preferred amount of rearing habitat within the tidally-influenced Reach 1. Under the licensee’s proposed post-diversion flows, 80 percent or more of the wetted perimeter would remain during months when rearing would occur (table 3-14), and most side channel habitat in Reach 2 would remain connected to the main channel as backwatered pools and sloughs. For instance, Alaska DFG visited the lower reaches of Battle Creek in May 2015 and observed that side channel connectivity was maintained at 68 cfs in Reach 2. When actual flows fall below the predicted mean monthly post-diversion flows under the licensee’s proposed flow regime, side channel connectivity would still exist in Reach 2. Furthermore, NMFS noted in its letter filed January 14, 2016 letter that, if the licensee provides the 15-cfs minimum flow that it proposes and Alaska DFG recommends, flows of about 80 to 225 cfs would occur in Reaches 1, 2, and 3 during July, August, and September. Flows within this range would maintain shallow, side channel habitat. When reduced flows potentially isolate

67

side channel habitats from the main channel, some juveniles may move to deeper mainstem habitats when flows begin declining.

Figure 3-15. Reach 2 of Battle Creek wetted perimeter-discharge relationship (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012).

Our review of transect cross-sections in Reach 2 suggests that side channel juvenile rearing habitat becomes disconnected at flows of 60 cfs and lower. In Reach 1, an ephemeral side channel remains intermittently connected during July and August under existing flows and would frequently become completely disconnected under the licensee’s post-diversion flow regime. The loss of this side channel habitat may not result in a net loss of available rearing habitat because new habitats along the channel margins would become available (HDR Alaska, 2012). Overall, changes in rearing habitat associated with the licensee’s proposed flow regime would reduce total wetted habitat in Lower Battle Creek available to rearing coho salmon and Dolly Varden, even though most side channel habitat would remain connected to the main channel. However, reduced water velocities associated with lower flows may somewhat offset this reduction in wetted area with an increase in suitable habitat in some locations, such as along the channel margins.

The licensee’s proposed minimum flows during the summer rearing period (June through mid-September) are identical to Alaska DFG’s recommended flows (ranging from 5 to 15 cfs). However, NMFS recommends higher flows for rearing during this period (ranging from 10 to 45 cfs), stating that its analysis indicates that a higher

68

minimum flow is necessary in those months to provide adequate connectivity to side channel habitat important for rearing coho salmon. As we discuss above, available data indicate that the licensee/Alaska DFG minimum flows would provide adequate protection of rearing habitat in Lower Battle Creek, and likely attenuate high flow events so that young-of-the year coho salmon would not be displaced from Reaches 2 and 3 into Reach 1, where they would be stressed due to their limited ability to osmoregulate28 in this tidal reach (Alaska DFG, 2016). NMFS provides little data to justify its recommendation.

Adult Rearing Habitat: Adult coho salmon do not rear in Battle Creek; this species dies shortly after spawning. However, both adult resident and anadromous forms of Dolly Varden are present in Lower Battle Creek, and likely rear throughout the anadromous reach of Lower Battle Creek and in the South Fork of Battle Creek (HDR Alaska, 2012). The licensee’s proposed minimum flow regime would reduce potential adult Dolly Varden aquatic rearing habitat downstream of the South Fork confluence (table 3-7). However, the regulated flow regime would reduce the frequency and intensity of high flow events, which could improve overall adult rearing habitat. In addition, proposed channel maintenance and flushing flows would help maintain the existing dynamic habitat structure within Lower Battle Creek (see Geology and Soil Resources, Environmental Effects, Operation-related Effects). The flow regime recommended by Alaska DFG, and those recommended by NMFS and FWS, would have a similar effect and provide thalweg depths deep enough to facilitate upstream and downstream passage and maintain sufficient depths in existing pools. The amount of adult rearing habitat available to Dolly Varden during winter would not change because the proposed diversion would not be operated at that time. NMFS did not specifically comment on adult Dolly Varden rearing in Battle Creek.

Egg Incubation: Successful salmonid egg incubation and fry emergence are dependent on many extragravel and intergravel variables such as water quality, physical habitat, and hydrology (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Under the existing - flow regime, low winter flows are the primary limitation of egg incubation and eventual fry emergence in Battle Creek (HDR Alaska, 2012). During the winter months, average daily minimum flow, as measured at USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage (USGS No. 15238986) is 10 cfs, with the lowest minimum flow recorded of 7 cfs. Successfully-spawning adult fish currently need to utilize areas of upwelling groundwater or locations in the stream channel that remain wetted during low winter flows to avoid freezing or desiccation of eggs. In key spawning areas in Lower Battle Creek, construction of redds in side channel habitats could result in loss of eggs. The licensee’s proposed flow regime would reduce water depths in side channel areas during spawning periods, and any spawning fish utilizing these areas would be more likely to need to shift to main channel areas. Redds constructed within the main channel would have a greater likelihood of

28 Fish in the tidal reach may be exposed to higher salinities at times, and juvenile coho salmon may be unable to regulate the concentration of salt in their bodies, resulting in stress or possible mortality.

69

remaining wet during low winter flows and increase the potential for embryo survival during the winter period.

Macroinvertebrates: Aquatic macroinvertebrates are an important food resource for rearing salmonids. They inhabit streambed areas that remains wetted, and do not colonize areas of the streambed that alternates between wet and dry (Swift, 1979). The diversity of the macroinvertebrate assemblage in Battle Creek is dependent on the amount of available aquatic habitat, the flow regime, and degree of substrate embeddedness (HDR Alaska, 2012). The licensee’s proposed post-diversion flow regime would reduce overall wetted habitat currently available to aquatic macroinvertebrates. However, the increase in flow stability under that flow regime would improve water clarity because a majority of the fine glacial sediment would be deposited behind the diversion and diverted into Bradley Lake. The increased water clarity and more stable flow regime would also allow an increase in periphyton growth because of a reduction in streambed scouring. This would also likely help to increase macroinvertebrate production. Furthermore, the effect of warmer stream temperatures as a consequence of diverting the cold, glacial water to Bradley Lake would likely increase overall macroinvertebrate taxa and biomass (Milner et al., 2001).

Analysis Summary: Following construction of the diversion dam, implementation of the flow regime proposed by the licensee and recommended by Alaska DFG for the months of November through May would provide the same level of protection that currently exists for incubating salmonid eggs. For the period of June through September, the licensee’s proposed and Alaska DFG’s recommended flows would provide suitable habitat for adult and rearing Dolly Varden and rearing juvenile coho salmon. During October, passage of minimum flow regimes recommended by NMFS and FWS would provide adequate migratory and spawning habitat for coho salmon and Dolly Varden. Therefore, with implementation of proposed and Alaska DFG’s recommended minimum flow regime, and with our modifications partially based on NMFS and FWS recommendations, the operation of the proposed diversion would result in major, positive effects on Battle Creek biota, including: increased primary productivity, more suitable stream flows and velocities for spawning and rearing salmonids including EFH species, and increased macroinvertebrate production. These benefits would offset minor, long-term, adverse effects on aquatic resources associated with reductions in stream flow and side channel connectivity.

Instream Flow and Water Temperature Effects on Spawning

Stream discharges, water temperatures, and water quality must be suitable for successful migration and spawning during at least a portion of the spawning migratory season in order for a salmon stock to be successful. Native stocks of salmonids that evolved in stream systems often develop behaviors that enable survival in temporarily unfavorable conditions, such as fluctuations in flow, water temperature and turbidity

70

(Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). However, the adaptability in maturation and migratory timing is not unlimited, and human-induced or naturally-occurring changes in the environment can be large enough to prevent or delay successful completion of maturation and migration to spawning grounds (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991).

FWS comments that fish in Battle Creek evolved under the existing water temperature and flow regime, and it is uncertain what effects the anticipated increase in water temperature and reduced flows during the migratory and spawning season would have on salmonid fish species there. Alaska DFG, comments that diversion of cold glacial waters into Bradley Lake would increase water temperature in Lower Battle Creek and have a beneficial effect on fishery resources. Similarly, NMFS comments that diversion of cold glacial flow would have a small positive effect on fish growth and survival, and that water temperature would not be a limiting habitat element. Alaska DFG recommends [10(j) recommendation 6] that the licensee develop, in consultation with resource agencies, a biotic monitoring plan to monitor and verify expected post-construction effects on resident and anadromous salmonid populations and habitat. The licensee agrees with this recommendation and proposes to develop and implement its Lower Battle Creek Fish and Habitat Management Plan, filed in response to the Commission’s additional information request on October 19, 2015. Alaska DFG’s biotic monitoring plan and the licensee’s Lower Battle Creek Fish and Habitat Management Plan are discussed below in Lower Battle Creek Fish and Habitat Management Plan.

Our Analysis

Fish counts from the licensee’s foot surveys in 2010 and 2011 to document salmon spawning activity in Lower Battle Creek suggest peak spawning activity occurs in late-September into October (table 3-15). Coho salmon could have been entering Battle Creek in August, but high turbidity hindered visual observations (HDR Alaska, 2012). Dolly Varden were also observed in Battle Creek in late-September, but it was not clear if these were resident or anadromous forms.

According to coho salmon and Dolly Varden habitat suitability criteria developed during the Cooper Lake relicensing, optimum water temperatures for spawning range between 3 and 8°C for coho salmon and 3 to 4°C for Dolly Varden. For coho upstream migrations, Bjornn and Reiser (1991) report water temperatures between 7.2 and 15.6°C are adequate. During the migration and spawning period in Battle Creek, current mean daily water temperatures measured throughout Lower Battle Creek ranged from 4 to 5°C from August through September, 2 to 4°C in October, and 2 to 0.5°C from October through November (see figure 3-13). Under the licensee’s proposed flow regime, water temperatures in Lower Battle Creek would likely increase, especially during summer months. From August through early-September, water temperatures within the creek would be 5 to 7°C, while during the peak spawning period in October, water temperatures would be similar to existing conditions (0.5 to 3°C).

71

Table 3-15. Counts of adult coho salmon, Dolly Varden, and redds observed in Lower Battle Creek during foot surveys performed in 2010 and 2011 (Source: HDR Alaska, 2012; as modified by staff).

Date Number of Coho Salmon

Number of Dolly Varden Number of Reddsa

7/26/2010b 0 – –

8/30/2010b 1 – –

9/28/2010 230 65 0

10/28/2010 37 – 24

5/17/2011 0 – –

7/20/2011b 0 – –

8/2/2011b 0 – –

9/7/2011b 0 – –

10/9/2011 224 – 24

11/2/2011 21 – 24

Notes: – = the information was not provided.a Redd counts are approximate.b Water clarity was very turbid.

According to Bjornn and Reiser (1991), coho salmon require as little as 0.6 foot of water depth and water velocities less than 7.9 fps to successfully migrate upstream into natal rivers and streams. For spawning, optimal water depths are greater than 1 foot and water velocities are between 1 and 2.5 fps (AEA, 2015a). When coho salmon are expected to enter and spawn in Battle Creek, mean water velocities range from 4.2 to 2.5 fps under current mean August and October flows of 307 and 106 cfs, respectively. Within this period and range of flows, water depths in the main channel are generally 1 foot or greater and suitable for upstream migration. Diversion of flows into Bradley Lake would reduce mean monthly August and October flows to an estimated 138 and 75 cfs, respectively, which would result in average water velocities from 3.6 to 2.3 fps and main channel depths of 0.85 foot when flows are about 75 cfs, which would still be suitable for upstream migration.

72

The coho salmon and Dolly Varden populations in Battle Creek are likely adapted to fluctuations in flows and cold water temperatures associated with the existing hydrology. Given the proposed flow regime, migrating salmon would continue to encounter adequate depths and water velocities to facilitate upstream movements to spawning areas. Changes in the thermal regime would likely affect earlier portions of the coho salmon spawning migration, but later portions of the run may not be as affected because water temperatures post-diversion under the licensee’s flow regime would be similar to existing water temperatures, especially after flow diversions end in late-October. Similarly, reduced flows and water depths in Lower Battle Creek would likely have a greater effect on the earlier portion of the coho migration because a greater proportion of flow would be diverted in the summer than in the fall. Although there is limited data on timing of salmon migrations within Battle Creek, the licensee’s proposed flow regime would still provide suitable conditions for both migration and spawning within the current window for migration and spawning. Implementation of proposed and Alaska DFG’s recommended minimum flow regime, with our modifications based on NMFS and FWS recommendations, would result in minor, long-term adverse effects on coho and Dolly Varden spawning within Lower Battle Creek. Further, Alaska DFG’s proposed biotic monitoring plan would provide additional information on how the existing salmonid populations within Battle Creek respond to the post-diversion flow regime.

Water Temperature Effects on Egg Incubation and Emergence

Water temperature affects the rate of embryo and alevin development during incubation. In general, higher incubation temperatures result in faster rates of embryo development and a shorter time to emergence (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Because fish in Battle Creek have evolved with the existing temperature and flow regime, FWS comments it is uncertain what effects an increase in water temperature during summer months may have. If increased post-diversion summer water temperatures affect spawning timing, then egg incubation timing, fry emergence timing, and food availability at emergence may also be altered with unknown consequences. However, NMFS comments that water temperature changes would not be a limiting habitat element. Alaska DFG recommends [10(j) recommendation 6] that the licensee develop, in consultation with resource agencies, a biotic monitoring plan to monitor and verify expected post-construction effects on resident and anadromous salmonid populations and habitat. The licensee agrees with Alaska DFG’s recommendation for developing a biotic monitoring plan, and would develop and implement a Lower Battle Creek Fish and Habitat Management Plan, which is discussed below in Lower Battle Creek Fish and Habitat Management Plan.

Our Analysis

Bjornn and Reiser (1991) state that, for Pacific salmon, emergence occurs for 50 percent of the hatch in 115 to 150 days at a water temperature of 4°C, whereas

73

50 percent of the hatch emerges in 35 to 60 days at a water temperature of 12°C. Under existing conditions, most coho salmon and Dolly Varden spawning occurs in late-September through October (HDR Alaska, 2012). Limited water temperature data indicate mean daily water temperatures range from 4 to 5°C in late September/early-October and from 2 to 3°C in late-October (see figure 3-13). During the winter months, water temperatures are at or near freezing. Through the spring, mean daily temperatures reach 3°C in mid-May and fluctuate between 4 and 6°C through the summer. The licensee did not collect data on fry emergence, but during July fisheries surveys in 2010 and 2011, 50 percent of the juvenile coho salmon collected were young-of-the-year less than 39 mm in length, indicating that a portion of the coho fry had emerged from the gravel by July (HDR Alaska, 2012).

Water temperatures for recently fertilized eggs in late-September through October during operation of the diversion as proposed by the licensee would be similar to those under current conditions, and range from 2 to 5°C (figure 3-13). When the diversion is not operating from mid-October through mid-May, water temperatures experienced by developing salmon embryos would be the same as existing conditions. When proposed diversion operations resume in mid-May, mean daily temperatures in Lower Battle Creek would be higher than under existing conditions, with the maximum difference occurring in July and August (see figure 3-13), but this is after most emergence likely would have occurred. These higher water temperatures would likely result in some earlier emergence of salmonid fry in Lower Battle Creek. However, through most of the over-winter incubation period, water temperatures would not be substantially different than current conditions. Implementation of proposed and Alaska DFG’s recommended minimum flow regime, with our modifications based on NMFS and FWS recommendations, would result in minor, long-term effects on egg incubation and fry emergence, as a result of an overall expected increase in water temperature.

Instream Flow and Temperature Monitoring

Flow and temperature monitoring would have two purposes. First, it would allow the Commission and resource agencies to ensure that the licensee complies with related environmental requirements of its license. Second, it would allow the licensee to collect flow and temperature data to assist itself and the resource agencies in the adaptive management of the proposed diversion and ensure the protection of fish migrations, spawning, and rearing habitats in Lower Battle Creek.

The licensee prepared a revised Draft Battle Creek Diversion Flow Release Management Plan, filed with the Commission on January 19, 2016, in response to Commission staff’s additional information request of October 19, 2015. This plan was prepared in consultation with Alaska DFG, NMFS, FWS, and other agencies. It includes a list of key elements for a final implementation plan, which include: a schedule of instream flow releases, equipment to regulate flows, equipment to monitor flows,

74

procedures for monitoring flows, instream flow compliance methods and requirements, and reporting requirements for both normal operations and noncompliance events. Prior to construction, the licensee would prepare an implementation plan for these elements for distribution to Alaska DFG and other requesting resource agencies for review.

Further, the licensee proposes to install a water level data recorder at the beginning of the diversion operation period to monitor water levels behind the diversion and to monitor and calculate flows to the end of the operating season, when the water level data recorder would be removed. The licensee proposes to establish the instream flow compliance point at the diversion structure. The licensee proposes to monitor flows entering Battle Creek by re-activing the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage (No. 15238986). The licensee would use this gage to monitor flow and water temperature in the lower reach of Battle Creek.29

Alaska DFG agrees with the licensee’s proposal to use the proposed diversion site as the instream flow compliance point [10(j) recommendation 1]. In addition, Alaska DFG recommends [10(j) recommendation 2] that the licensee prepare in consultation with Alaska DFG and other agencies and file with the Commission, a Diversion Flow Release Plan. Similar to the licensee’s Revised Draft Battle Creek Diversion Flow Release Management Plan, Alaska DFG’s recommended Diversion Flow Release Plan would contain detailed descriptions and drawings that illustrate procedures and equipment that would be used to provide the instream flow release requirements, as well as the schedule for implementation of the instream flow releases. In addition, Alaska DFG recommends [10(j) recommendation 3] that the licensee prepare and file a stream gaging plan, which would provide a schedule for re-establishing a gage at the location of USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage (USGS No. 15238986) that conforms to USGS stream gaging standards, and operate the gage for the remainder of the license.30

The licensee agrees with the Alaska DFG recommendations, and in its response to agency comments, states that the Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage (USGS No. 1528986) would be re-installed by USGS. Alaska DFG also comments that re-activation of the South Fork Battle Creek gage (USGS No. 15238984) is unnecessary. Operation of the gage at Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth (USGS No. 15238986) would provide sufficient information concerning flow and water temperature for compliance and monitoring purposes. Alaska DFG also recommends [10(j) recommendation 5] that the licensee notify the Commission, Alaska DFG, and other requesting agencies of an event

29 Currently, four inactive USGS stream gages are present in Battle Creek: USGS Battle Creek below Glacier near Homer, Alaska gage (USGS No. 15238982), USGS South Fork Battle Creek near Homer, Alaska gage (USGS No. 15283894), USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater gage (USGS No. 15238985), and USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile Above Mouth near Homer, Alaska gage (USGS No. 1528986).

30 Alaska DFG also states in its rationale for 10(j) recommendation 3 that, “Since USGS has previously operated a stream gage at this site [USGS No. 15238986] and has existing station documentation, a stream gaging plan is not needed.”

75

not in compliance with the requirements of the license within 10 days of the detection of the event.

Our Analysis

Flow and temperature monitoring performed at the diversion and Lower Battle Creek following completion of the diversion would allow the licensee and the resource agencies to understand how operation of the proposed diversion affects flows, water temperature, and aquatic habitat of Battle Creek over the license term. The licensee’s Revised Draft Battle Creek Diversion Flow Release Management Plan, as currently written, is less detailed than Alaska DFG’s recommended plan because the Revised Draft Battle Creek Diversion Flow Release Management Plan provides no detailed description and drawings illustrating the procedures and any equipment to provide the instream flow releases.

Re-establishment of the South Fork Battle Creek gage (USGS No. 15238984), as originally proposed, but Alaska DFG does not recommend, would offer little additional information about accretion flows in the West Fork of Battle Creek and would provide little additional information regarding temperature effects post-diversion. As currently written, the licensee’s Revised Draft Battle Creek Diversion Flow Release Management Plan includes a flow monitoring component. Incorporating Alaska DFG’s recommended stream gaging plan into the licensee’s implementation plan, would ensure adequate monitoring of instream flows and temperature. Aquatic resources within Lower Battle Creek would benefit long-term from the incorporation of Alaska DFG’s recommended stream gaging plan into the licensee’s implementation plan, because any adverse effect on instream flow and water temperature would be detected.

Lower Battle Creek Fish and Habitat Management Plan

Battle Creek from the mouth to 4.1 miles upstream is classified as supporting anadromous fish stocks in Alaska DFG’s Anadromous Waters Catalog (Johnson and Litchfield, 2015). Operation of the proposed diversion would alter the existing flow regime, which could subsequently affect resident and anadromous fish populations and habitat within the designated anadromous reach. Alaska DFG recommends [10(j) recommendation 6] that the licensee develop a biotic monitoring plan to evaluate the effects that flow modifications, project construction, and operation may have on fishery resources in Battle Creek. Alaska DFG recommends the biotic monitoring plan includes coho salmon foot surveys, juvenile salmon sampling, and a coho salmon spawning physical habitat study. Alaska DFG also recommends that the licensee consult with resource agencies prior to the development of study methods, timing, and implementation of the biotic monitoring plan.

In consultation with NMFS, FWS, and Alaska DFG, the licensee prepared a Draft Fish and Habitat Management Plan that provides an implementation process to monitor and evaluate fish and fish habitat within Lower Battle Creek. As part of this plan, the

76

licensee would perform fish and fish habitat monitoring in the first 1.8 miles of Battle Creek 1 to 2 years prior to initiation of construction during the open water season. Every year after construction for 5 years, the licensee would perform coho salmon foot surveys to monitor the coho salmon spawning population. If the population appears to have declined after 5 years, additional foot surveys would be performed once every 5 years until 2035, when the Bradley Lake Project license would expire. In addition, the licensee would conduct juvenile salmon sampling at least once before construction and once by the fifth year of project operations. If juvenile salmon populations appear to have declined, juvenile sampling would also be performed once every 5 years until 2035. Changes to coho salmon physical spawning habitat would also be empirically assessed by the fifth year of operation. The licensee proposes to consult with resource agencies to finalize all sampling methods, data analyses, and reporting requirements prior to conducting the proposed field studies, which would be integrated into an implementation plan.

Because operation of the proposed diversion would reduce flows in Lower Battle Creek, FWS comments that juvenile salmon rearing habitat and connectivity between main channel and side channel rearing habitat are at risk. Therefore, FWS recommends that a sampling approach for annually monitoring salmon rearing habit and connectivity of side channel and main channel habitat be integrated as a component of the Lower Battle Creek fish and fish habitat monitoring.

Our Analysis

As proposed in the licensee’s Fish and Habitat Management Plan, monitoring resident and anadromous fish populations and their habitat within the first 1.8 miles of the designated anadromous reach of Battle Creek before and after construction of the proposed diversion would provide the necessary data to confirm the effects of the proposed diversion operation on resident and anadromous fish species. Collectively, the licensee’s Fish and Habitat Management Plan is consistent with Alaska DFG’s recommended biotic monitoring plan. Furthermore, consultation with the resource agencies regarding sampling methods, data analyses, and reporting would ensure that the necessary data are obtained and analyses are performed to evaluate project-related effects. Incorporating FWS’ recommendation to monitor juvenile salmon side channel rearing habitat connectivity with main channel habitat would help ensure that instream flows are adequate to support rearing juvenile salmon. In addition, integrating an adaptive management response component, as proposed, would benefit aquatic resources within Lower Battle Creek if it is determined that operation of the proposed diversion is adversely affecting aquatic resources in Lower Battle Creek. Additional protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures could be implemented, including modification of the recommended environmental bypass flows, if monitoring indicates there are adverse effects on habitat connectivity. Overall, incorporating FWS’ recommendations into the proposed Fish and Habitat Management Plan would benefit fishery resources within Lower Battle Creek long-term, and ensure appropriate management actions are taken in the event adverse effects on the fishery are detected.

77

Essential Fish Habitat

Construction and operation of the proposed diversion would potentially affect coho salmon EFH through the alteration of the existing flow regime, affecting migration, spawning, egg incubation, and rearing of coho salmon. Effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project are discussed in section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, Water Quality, and section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.

Our Analysis

During project construction, coho salmon EFH within Lower Battle Creek and Kachemak Bay could be subjected to occasional short-term increases in turbidity. Construction activities would also increase the potential for spills of fuel and/or other hazardous substances that could adversely affect EFH. The licensee’s implementation phase of the final ESCMP and final Fuel and Hazardous Substance Management Plan developed in consultation with Alaska DFG and other agencies (discussed in section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, Effects of Construction Activities on Water Quality of Battle Creek), would minimize effects of construction on EFH and ensure that any construction effects on EFH would be at most minor and short in duration.

During periods of operation of the diversion, flows would be reduced from existing conditions and could affect EFH in Lower Battle Creek. Effects of reduced flow and implementation of the licensee’s proposed and agencies’ recommended seasonal minimum flow releases on habitat and life stages of coho salmon are discussed in section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, Effects of Instream Flow on Salmon Habitat in Battle Creek, and section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, Water Temperature Effects on Egg Incubation and Emergence.

The licensee acknowledges that there is uncertainty as to the magnitude and duration of potential effects of operation on coho salmon EFH (R2 and AEA, 2016). In response to the uncertainty of these effects, the licensee proposes to implement its Fish and Habitat Management Plan, which provides a process to monitor and evaluate effects on EFH within Lower Battle Creek. The Fish and Habitat Management Plan as discussed in section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, Lower Battle Creek Fish and Habitat Management Plan, as modified in our staff recommendations to include monitoring of habitat connectivity and adaptive management with the resource agencies to implement additional protection, mitigation, and enhancement based on the results of the monitoring, would reduce any impacts found and help to benefit coho salmon EFH within Lower Battle Creek..

78

3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment

The Bradley Lake Project and Upper Battle Creek diversion lie within the Kenai-Chugach Mountain physiographic system, which is a heavily glaciated area characterized by steep, mountainous terrain. The project area supports montane forest, subalpine, and wetland habitats, and a variety of botanical and wildlife resources.

Vegetation

Vegetation in the project area consists of floodplain, foothill, and mountain slope habitats. The riparian and floodplain communities are characterized by mosaics of mixed coniferous and deciduous woodlands, alder-willow shrub thickets, sedge-grass wet meadows, and unvegetated gravel bars. The foothills and steep mountain slopes are generally covered with mature spruce forests, with subalpine shrub thickets at upper elevations.

In September 2012, the licensee’s field scientists verified vegetation mapping on-site within a study area that included a 400-foot-wide corridor centered on proposed project component locations. They documented eight vegetation types, plus partially vegetated areas, ponds, streams, and sites lacking vegetation because of human disturbance. Figure 3-16 shows the land cover types and acres represented by each land cover type within the study area. Out of the 168.3 acres within the study area, the most represented cover types were alder-willow shrub (140.1 acres) and needleleaf spruce woodland (12.3 acres).

No known noxious or exotic weeds listed by the Alaska Division of Agriculture or tracked in the Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse database were documented during licensing proceedings or during the 2012 vegetation surveys in the Battle Creek diversion vicinity. The closest documented occurrence of a species tracked by the Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse is about 1 mile from the Battle Creek diversion vicinity, near tidewater between the mouths of Battle Creek and the Bradley River.

79

Figure 3-16. Land cover types and acreages in the Battle Creek diversion study area (Source: AEA, 2015a, as modified by staff).

80

Wetlands

Wetlands and waterbodies represent a small proportion of the Battle Creek diversion vicinity. Current National Wetland Inventory data for the Battle Creek diversion area show mostly open-water habitats, including Bradley Lake and small, freshwater ponds (lacustrine). The licensee’s field scientists mapped and surveyed a 263-acre study area for wetlands in September 2012 and determined 1 percent of the study area is wetland or waterbody: 1.8 acres of wetland and 1.8 acres of ponds and streams. The remaining 260 acres (99 percent) are uplands, including 1.3 acres of existing road and previously disturbed land.

The existing wetlands are small and typically located in small depressions in the bedrock-formed landscape. Wet sedge meadows and ponds with floating vegetation are the most common wetland types. The meadows, often located alongside ponds, are dominated by sedges. Ponds, if vegetated, typically support pond-lilies and northern burr-reed. The proposed project components would cross several streams, some bordered by bars partially vegetated with willows and grasses.

Riparian communities in the project vicinity are characterized by broken patterns of mixed coniferous and deciduous woodlands (mixed spruce-balsam-poplar forest), alder-willow shrub thickets, sedge-grass wet meadows, and unvegetated gravel bars. The licensee’s field scientists identified 45.7 acres of riparian habitat along Battle Creek below the point of diversion with willow-shrub representing the greatest coverage (16.7 acres).

Wildlife

Generally, the Bradley Lake area supports the typical wildlife species common in this region of Alaska. The licensee’s review of project licensing documents and results from the 2012 wildlife survey identified 94 species of birds, 27 species of mammals, and one amphibian, the wood frog, as known or likely to occur in or near the Battle Creek diversion vicinity.

Birds

The licensee identified 94 bird species during previous licensing studies, including 39 species of passerines and song birds, 2 upland game species, 12 raptor species, 23 species of waterfowl, 5 larids (gulls and terns), and 13 shorebird species. Common upland song birds that were identified include black-capped chickadee, fox sparrow, dark-eyed junco, kinglets, warblers, and corvids. Raptor species included bald eagle, northern harrier, and red-tailed hawk. Waterfowl and shorebirds included mergansers, buffleheads, scoter, goldeneyes, swan, loons, terns, gulls, greater yellowlegs, and pipers, and dowitchers. Many of these species were found in the Upper Kachemak Bay tidal flats area north of Battle Creek, with waterfowl and raptor numbers peaking during spring

81

and fall migrations. Bradley Lake and stream habitats within the project vicinity, including Lower Battle Creek and Bradley River, provide habitat for several species of waterbirds (waterfowl, loons, and gulls) and shorebirds. The forest, scrub, and tundra habitats provide habitat for landbird species (primarily passerines) and a few species of raptors and shorebirds. Migratory birds primarily nest in southern Alaska from April 15 through July 15 in forested areas and from May 1 through July 15 in treeless habitats (FWS, 2009).

In spring 2012, the licensee performed aerial nesting surveys for bald eagles along the Bradley Lake shoreline within the Battle Creek diversion vicinity and the Battle Creek riparian zone downstream to the tidelands. Two active and one inactive bald eagle nests were found in the Lower Battle Creek area, an area known previously to have had active bald eagle nests. However, the closest nest to the Battle Creek diversion vicinity was found 3.18 miles away. Given the timing of the survey, and the behavior and location of the adult eagles, it is likely that both active nests had eggs that were being incubated. The two active nest locations were ground field verified on May 11, 2012. The inactive nest was built on a wooden platform in a cottonwood tree, and may be in the same location as a previously recorded nest. None of the current nest locations are located in the vicinity of the proposed project.

Mammals

The Battle Creek diversion is within Alaska DFG’s Game Management Unit 15C. Big game species in the area include moose, mountain goats, brown and black bears, and wolves. Of these, population data are available for moose and mountain goats. Smaller mammals and aquatic furbearers known or likely to occur in the project vicinity include red squirrel, lemming, porcupine, beaver, muskrat, mink, weasel, and river otter, as well as various rodents such as voles, moles, and shrews.

In addition, the licensee’s field surveys resulted in a number of incidental observations of wildlife including bear, fox, and marmots, and less frequent sightings of moose and aquatic mammals. Black bear were frequently observed, with multiple sightings near the stilling basin site and one observation in the area of the proposed access road. The licensee conducted aerial surveys for bear dens in the Battle Creek diversion vicinity in 2011 and 2012. These surveys identified one bear den located more than a mile from the project vicinity. Mountain goats are known to move through the Battle Creek diversion vicinity between summer and winter ranges; however, no sightings were reported during the 2012 survey. None of the mammals have special conservation status with state or federal agencies.

Special Status Species

Thirteen bird species (table 3-16) in the project area are considered species of concern, as defined by the Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission and

82

FWS (FERC, 2011). The Kittlitz’s murrelet is a candidate for federal listing under the ESA, and FWS considers it a Birds of Conservation Concern. This species is discussed in section 3.3.4, Threatened and Endangered Species.

Table 3-16. Bird species of concern in Alaska that have been recorded or may occur in the Battle Creek diversion vicinity (Source: AEA, 2015a).

Common Name Designation Occurrences in Vicinity/Habitat Preferences

Bald Eagle Protected - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

Active nests known in Lower Battle Creek; the closest nest to the vicinity of the project is 3.2 miles away.

Peregrine falcon Bird of Conservation Concern for FWS Region 7

Fall migrants recorded over tide flats.

Red-throated loon Bird of Conservation Concern for FWS Region 7

Waterbird Species of High Concern

Prefers breeding in low wetlands, but also uses rugged, mountainous districts up to 3,500 feet. Also nests in bog and forested terrain. Coastal migrant; winters along NW Pacific coast.

Lesser yellowlegs Bird of Conservation Concern for FWS Region 7

Priority Shorebird Species

Seen during spring migration in tide flats. Breeds in northern bogs; frequents marshy ponds, lake and river shores, and mudflats during migration.

Short-billed dowitcher

Priority Shorebird Species

Seen during spring migration in tide flats. Breeds on moist tundra or beside forest pools; visits mudflats, creeks, salt marshes, and tidal estuaries during migration and in winter.

Arctic tern Bird of Conservation Concern for FWS Region 7

Recorded flying over lower Sheep Creek during summer, and tidal areas during spring and fall. Generally nests close to water, frequently on small rocky, gravelly, grassy, or peaty islands; also barrier beaches and sand or gravel spits, gravel bars in rivers, or glacial moraines, as well as marshes, bogs, and grassy meadows.

Rusty blackbird Bird of Conservation Concern for FWS

Breeds in wet coniferous and mixed forest. Frequently found in fens, alder-

83

Common Name Designation Occurrences in Vicinity/Habitat Preferences

Region 7

Priority Species for Conservation in Southcoastal AK

willow thickets and bogs, muskeg, beaver ponds, tall riparian shrub, swampy shores of lakes and streams, and other forest openings.

Northwestern crow

Priority Species for Conservation in Southcoastal AK

Recorded in tidal areas during fall. Coastal beaches, rocky shores, estuaries, coastal ponds and inshore islands. Rarely wanders more than a few miles off the coast, except during salmon runs when it is known to forage upriver.

Varied thrush Priority Species for Conservation in Southcoastal AK

Found mostly in thick, wet, coniferous forests of the coast; also in dense inland mixed forests.

Townsend’s warbler

Priority Species for Conservation in Southcoastal AK

Found in coniferous forests and muskegs.

Golden-crowned sparrow

Priority Species for Conservation in Southcoastal AK

Prefers low to tall alder and willow scrub on hillsides and near tundra. Commonly found in proximity to lakes, streams and bogs.

Harlequin duck Moderately high priority for “breeding need” in WCR 5

Fast-flowing streams in riparian, subalpine, or coastal habitats. Breeding can occur in coastal estuarine sites.

Trumpeter swan High priority for “breeding need” in WCR 5 (Southcoastal AK)

Nesting swans observed in 2010-2011 in beaver pond off Lower Battle Creek. Swan spp. recorded in tidal areas spring and fall; one nest found in lake near Clearwater Slough.

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects

Vegetation and Wetlands

Construction-related Effects

Construction would include installation of a diversion structure, below-ground pipeline and stilling basin, outlet channel, and 2.9 miles of new access road.

84

Construction would also include filling and rerouting the East Fork Upper Battle Creek channel. Vegetation and soil disturbance could alter the composition of existing vegetation communities through clearing, excavation, topsoil stripping and compaction, and grading. These changes could also affect wildlife habitat quality. The licensee estimates construction of the proposed project facilities would result in the temporary loss or alteration of 0.3 acre of wetland and 15.6 acres of upland habitat. Construction would primarily affect alder-willow scrub habitat (14.1 acres). Additional disturbance would occur in needleleaf forest (1 acre), and willow shrub thickets and herbaceous sedge-grass habitat (less than 0.5 acre).

To minimize effects of project construction on vegetation, the licensee proposes to restore the disturbed areas by surface grading, placement of topsoil, and revegetation with a seed mixture of native vegetation suitable for the terrain and climate conditions of the project area, as included in its draft ESCMP. The draft ESCMP was prepared in consultation with Alaska DFG, NMFS, FWS, and other agencies. The plan outlines preventative measures based on site-specific conditions, BMPs, and detailed descriptions of revegetation prescriptions of all control measures. The plan would also include agency-approved measures to prevent and manage erosion and sediment transport into streams, waterways, and wetlands from staging areas, access roads, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities associated with construction.

The licensee would incorporate avoidance of wetlands and minimization of sedimentation and other adverse effects on wetlands into the project design to the extent possible. Additionally, the licensee proposes to have an environmental compliance monitor on-site to enforce compliance with environmental measures and any other related permit conditions.

Alaska DFG [preliminary 10(j) condition 7] recommends an erosion, sediment, and pollution control plan to protect natural resources at the project. The general objectives of Alaska DFG’s recommended plan include:

descriptions of soil and groundwater conditions;

preventive measures based on site-specific conditions;

detailed descriptions of revegetation prescriptions of all control measures (e.g., riprap, stream set back);

prescriptions for revegetation of all disturbed areas including locations of treatment areas, plant species and methods, and an implementation schedule; and

identification of disposal areas for overburden, and treatment of those areas to prevent wasting and erosion of deposited materials.

85

Alaska DFG [preliminary 10(j) condition 11] further recommends designation of a qualified environmental compliance monitor as mentioned previously. This person would oversee the project during construction activities (e.g., vegetation- or land-disturbing activities, or spoil producing activities). The compliance monitor would have the authority to stop work or issue change orders in the field if conditions warrant it.

FWS comments that newly constructed water conveyances, diversion structures, and access roads would result in permanent habitat modification within the West Fork Upper Battle Creek diversion footprint. Similarly, operation of heavy equipment in some areas not directly within the proposed diversion footprint (e.g., laydown sites) may result in disturbance to these areas or conversion to unvegetated habitats. The licensee’s proposed laydown and staging sites are primarily in upland areas previously used for operations or borrow pits.

Our Analysis

Proposed construction would entail clearing vegetation and soil disturbance and transporting heavy machinery and work crews to the site. These activities could alter existing vegetation community composition or structure within the project boundary.

Construction would temporarily remove or alter 0.3 acre of wetland and 15.6 acres of upland habitat. Alaska DFG’s 10(j) condition 7 requires an erosion, sediment, and pollution control plan that would include environmental protection measures to avoid or reduce effects on environmental resources during ground-disturbing activities. The licensee’s draft ESCMP, general construction approach, and description of how the proposed construction would minimize, or avoid, species and habitat disturbance are discussed later in this section under Wildlife.

Implementing the proposed surface restoration measures would reduce construction-related effects on terrestrial resources along access roads and new project structures. Enlisting an environmental compliance monitor during construction would ensure the project is compliant with measures recommended to reduce project-related effects on wetland and upland plant communities. With the implementation of the licensee’s proposed measures, construction of the proposed diversion would have minor, short-term adverse effects on vegetation. Following construction, the licensee’s proposed measure to revegetate temporarily disturbed areas would ensure that long-term, adverse effects are minor.

Operation-related Effects

The licensee estimates the proposed facilities would permanently remove about 0.1 acre of wetland and 30 acres of upland wildlife habitat in the footprints of the proposed diversion and conveyance features and permanent access roads. Operations would primarily affect alder-willow scrub (28 acres), needleleaf forest (1.4 acres), and

86

less than 0.5 acre of willow shrub thickets and herbaceous sedge-grass habitat. To reduce land disturbances, the licensee proposes to co-locate the below-ground pipeline under the access road between the diversion dam and stilling basin.

Our Analysis

The licensee’s proposal to co-locate the below-ground pipeline under the proposed diversion dam access road would reduce the amount of disturbance to vegetation associated with the pipeline route. Because the pipeline would be underground beneath the access road and share a corridor, regular maintenance activities, such as mowing, would not be required.

Alteration of wetlands due to operations in the project footprint represent a negligible effect on the overall wetland and riparian resources of the project vicinity. Operational disturbances to wetland vegetation along the access roads and pipeline route would likely be minimal. However, potential reductions in flows and altered downstream hydrology could affect the location and extent of riparian vegetation in Battle Creek downstream of the diversion, due to reductions in scouring processes and lower flows. Because the proposed diversion would reduce disturbance frequencies in riparian habitats along Battle Creek, total vegetation cover could increase, with some habitats transitioning toward facultative or upland vegetation over time. With implementation of proposed measures, operation of the proposed diversion would have minor, long-term beneficial effects on upland vegetation and a negligible, long-term effect on wetland vegetation.

Wildlife

Potential threats to wildlife resulting from proposed construction activities during the almost 2-year construction period include behavioral disturbances, attraction of scavengers, and habitat fragmentation. To minimize these effects, the licensee would use heavy machinery to clear existing vegetation, excavate the diversion and conveyance sites, and transport workers and materials to the construction sites during project construction. Construction and operation would also require increased human presence within the project boundary as well as increased levels of noise from blasting, drilling, and low-level aircraft flights, heavy equipment traffic, increased lighting, and human activity associated with project construction. The increase of activity in each project area could disturb local wildlife, resulting in an increased risk of nest abandonment for birds and small mammals and interference with foraging and resting.

Our Analysis

Most wildlife species would likely avoid construction areas because of habitat disturbance and noise during construction. The construction sites do not provide unique habitat in the area, and these wildlife species are likely to use other nearby habitats. Mobile species would likely leave the area and return when construction is complete. Some small, dormant, ground-dwelling, or less-mobile species, such as rodents,

87

amphibians, and reptiles that use these habitats could be affected more than larger, more mobile and active species, because of vegetation removal and construction traffic. Once construction is completed, wildlife species are expected to re-establish the restored area.

Construction-related Effects on Sensitive Species

Sensitive species, such as bald eagles, could use the project area while foraging or traveling to foraging areas. Noise disturbance or human presence related to construction activities could interfere with these movements.

None of the potential sensitive species would be limited to the immediate project area for foraging or nesting habitat and higher quality habitat is readily available adjacent to the project. Because of the small size of the project area, the proposed action would not likely affect any species at a population scale.

To reduce construction effects on sensitive wildlife, the licensee proposes to consult with Alaska DFG, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, FWS, and NMFS to develop measures to minimize disturbance to wildlife during sensitive periods. In particular, the licensee would consult with the resource agencies regarding the appropriate timing and location of site clearing to minimize any effects on special status species or migratory birds potentially nesting in the area. To minimize or avoid impacts to migratory birds, the licensee would adhere to FWS recommendations that specify vegetation clearing activities would not occur between May 1 and July 15. If an active nest is encountered at any time, including outside of the local migratory bird timing window, it would be left in place until the young hatch and depart.

In addition, FWS recommends that the licensee consult with the resource agencies to develop measures to minimize disturbance to wildlife during sensitive periods, such as avoiding vegetation clearing from May 1- July 15.

Our Analysis

Construction activities such as blasting, drilling, low-level aircraft flights, heavy equipment, and other human activities would result in temporary disturbance to birds present in the diversion vicinity. This disturbance could be particularly harmful if it occurs during periods that could be stressful, such as during the winter migration period or during breeding season. Few birds would be negatively affected by disturbance during winter, so any increased activities would affect sensitive bird species primarily during nesting or, for some waterbirds, through brood-rearing and molting.

FWS commented that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) does not distinguish between “intentional” and “unintentional” take, and, in Alaska, all native birds except grouse and ptarmigan (which are managed as small game by the State of Alaska) are protected under the MBTA. During the local nesting season, which naturally peaks

88

between May 1 and July 15 in south central Alaska, “take” of migratory birds can occur when wooded areas and/or vegetation is cleared. To avoid take, FWS recommends that clearing and other site preparation activities be timed to occur outside of the local bird nesting season.

While FWS guidance recommends avoiding clearing between May 1 and July 15, nesting birds may be encountered outside of this window. If an active nest at any time is encountered, including before or after the local migratory bird timing window, FWS encourages construction staff to protect it and leave it in place until young hatch and depart.

In its reply comments, the licensee provided an updated draft construction schedule and narrative to clarify the general construction approach and describe how the proposed construction would minimize or avoid disturbance of special-status species, including restricted timing for vegetation clearance (AEA, 2016). To minimize or avoid impacts on these bird species of concern, the licensee would not clear vegetation between May 1 and July 15, as recommended in the FWS publication Land Clearing Timing Guidance for Alaska for the South Central Region. In accordance with FWS’ recommendation, the licensee would leave any active nests in place until the young hatch and depart, regardless of time of year, including periods outside of the local migratory bird timing window.

The draft schedule includes clearing commencing on July 16, 2017. Clearing operations would stay ahead of access road construction, working toward the diversion in a linear fashion from the Bradley Lake Dam access road to the diversion at the upper end. The exception to this would be special access provisions to begin work on the diversion foundation. Construction workers would access the diversion foundation and associated clearing areas using special measures, likely light equipment airlifted by helicopter. Because project access would occur through the relatively slow progress of road construction, the pace would provide opportunity for wildlife to either leave the project area or allow sensitive species to complete their nesting and rearing stages.

Construction activities would result in some removal and alteration of bird habitat for all species affected. Most of the affected non-riparian habitats are abundant in the basin, however, and habitat loss is unlikely to affect the abundance of any bird species. For raptors, seabirds, and all other landbirds, the effects of habitat loss would be negligible. Regionally, the bird species affected by habitat loss associated with the project are common, and their habitats widespread. The need for year-round access to the diversion structure during project operation may result in a negligible level of behavioral disturbance to wildlife. The frequency of required access has not been described but likely would require no more than several visits annually, and effects on birds and other sensitive wildlife would be negligible.

89

As discussed above, we agree with FWS that it would be beneficial to establish appropriate timing and location of site clearing to minimize any effects on sensitive species or migratory birds potentially nesting in the area. Although construction activities are not expected to affect bald eagles, because of the distance to the known nests (the closest nest is 3.2 miles from the diversion) and available nest trees in Lower Battle Creek, the licensee has agreed to consult with FWS to ensure all construction and maintenance activities are in compliance with the MBTA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. This could be accomplished through the use of an environmental compliance monitor assigned to the site during construction. Overall, with implementation of the proposed measures and agency recommendations, construction and operation of the proposed diversion would have short-term, minor adverse effects on wildlife. 

Human-Wildlife Interaction during Construction

Bears. To minimize potential human-bear conflicts, the licensee proposes to implement its Bear Safety Plan, which includes measures to minimize human-bear encounters by: (1) identifying practices that would minimize possible bear-human conflicts while working in areas frequented by bears, including installation of bear-proof garbage receptacles and other measures during construction to prevent bears from obtaining food or garbage; (2) identifying practices employed during field activities associated with various monitoring plans to minimize conflicts and provide guidance to contractors; (3) establishing procedures on handling problematic bears; and (4) reporting requirements for any bear-human conflicts.

Alaska DFG also recommends a bear safety plan [10(j) condition 9] which includes the same requirements as the proposed plan, including provisions to consult with FWS and Alaska DFG.

Our Analysis

Both brown and black bears are present in the proposed diversion area, and black bears in particular are very abundant and have been frequently observed. Increased human activity associated with the proposed diversion increases the potential for conflicts in areas frequented by bears. Problems with bears can arise if safe practices are not followed. Attraction to the project construction site and increased interaction with humans creates the potential for mortality from control measures (i.e., killing problem animals), vehicle strikes, or ingestion of toxic substances.

The licensee’s proposed and Alaska DFG’s recommended Bear Safety Plan identifies measures to avoid or minimize conflicts with bears, educates contractors and licensee personnel, and would minimize situations that could precipitate a bear-human conflict. The draft Bear Safety Plan provides appropriate measures to help reduce the

90

attraction of scavengers, such as bears, to the project vicinity during construction and operation of the project. Implementation of the measures in the plan would reduce the risk of bear-human encounters and thus ensure the safety of the bear populations in the project area as well as the safety of onsite workers. Overall, with the implementation of proposed measures and agency recommendations, adherence to the Bear Safety Plan during construction and operation of the proposed diversion would have long-term, beneficial effects on the interaction of bears and humans at the project. 

Mountain Goats and Contractor Conduct. To protect local wildlife populations from increased harassment and hunting pressure associated with construction contractors, the licensee proposes to minimize harm to wildlife by prohibiting employees and contractors from hunting, trapping, and fishing in the project area. In addition, the licensee proposes to protect mountain goat populations by minimizing the use of helicopters or airplanes near mountain sides adjacent to Bradley Lake and Battle Creek. If mountain goats are observed, a 1,500-foot vertical or horizontal clearance would be maintained.

Alaska DFG 10(j) condition 10 recommends minimizing the use of helicopters or airplanes near mountainsides adjacent to Bradley Lake and Battle Creek to protect mountain goat populations from increased harassment associated with construction. If mountain goats are observed, a 1,500-foot vertical or horizontal clearance should be maintained.

Our Analysis

It is expected that the project would have a minimal impact on most wildlife, with the exception of mountain goats, which are extremely susceptible to disturbance by helicopters. Disturbed mountain goats may abandon their subalpine and alpine habitats in the area and disperse to higher or farther locations outside of the basin. Mountain goats have been recorded as passing through the Upper Battle Creek diversion vicinity during late May through mid-June. Construction activities would likely affect mountain goat movements through this area during the two consecutive summer construction seasons. Early work at the proposed diversion (before the access road is completed) would require helicopter flights to carry equipment, personnel, and supplies to the diversion site. Once the access road reaches the diversion, these flights would no longer be required.

It is difficult, however, to predict the distance at which mountain goats may react to project activities. Goats would habituate somewhat to normal construction activities because most construction activities would be predictable and nonthreatening. However, mountain goats can be particularly sensitive to helicopter disturbance, so restrictions on helicopter activities would be appropriate. Minimizing the use of helicopters or airplanes near mountainsides adjacent to Bradley Lake and Battle Creek would protect mountain goat populations from increased harassment associated with construction. If mountain

91

goats are observed, a 1,500-foot vertical or horizontal clearance should be maintained. With appropriate restrictions of helicopter traffic, unavoidable impacts related to behavioral disturbance of mountain goats would be minor and temporary during project construction.

In addition to limiting disturbance by helicopters, the licensee proposes to restrict project personnel, including contractors, from fishing, hunting, and trapping on the project site to minimize harm or harassment to wildlife during construction. The diversion is unlikely to become an important location for hunting or trapping due to its high elevation, the limited availability of game animals, and the relatively small total area of the drainage. However, personnel working at the site would have enhanced access to the project area, and therefore could directly affect wildlife resources. Proposed measures to restrict hunting and trapping by project personnel would protect wildlife resources from this advantage. Although some disturbance from helicopters is likely and unavoidable, implementing the licensee’s proposed measures and agency recommendations for mountain goats during construction and operation of the proposed diversion would provide moderate, beneficial effects on the mountain goats at the project. 

Operation-related Effects on Wildlife

The proposed project would divert flows from the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek to Bradley Lake through a conveyance system. The 16-feet-high, 60-feet-long diversion dam, with a low flow outlet and an inlet structure, would serve as a diversion point for creek flows into the pipeline. The below-ground pipeline would be co-located under the proposed diversion dam access road and would use the existing Upper Battle Creek diversion outlet channel.

Because the original proposal included an open canal to convey water from the diversion to the stilling basin, FWS was initially concerned with potential for the canal to affect wildlife movement in the project area. To alleviate this concern, FWS recommended that the canal be designed as stream-like as possible to alleviate potential effects on wildlife crossing in the area. The licensee has since redesigned the conveyance canal to a below-ground pipeline. As such, there is no need for naturalization of the channel.

Our Analysis

Operation of the proposed diversion and conveyance system has the potential to affect some terrestrial wildlife movement in the immediate project area. However, given the small scale of the diversion, the overall effect on wildlife movement is expected to be limited in scope and degree. Additionally, the licensee notes that the upper portions of Battle Creek have steep canyon walls and high water velocities that provide a natural impediment to current lateral migration; reduced upper Battle Creek

92

flows after diversion construction may enable wildlife to cross the existing channel more easily.

The proposed diversion structure would serve as a point for creek flows into the pipeline, but would not create an impoundment that would pose a hazard to wildlife in the area. The licensee’s redesigning of the conveyance system to include a below-ground pipeline eliminates the potential threat of an open canal system to wildlife, allowing for unobstructed movement along the 9,100 foot-long pipeline. Burying the pipeline, as proposed, would prevent any impedance of wildlife movement between the dam and the stilling basin and would reduce habitat fragmentation.

Pipeline flow would terminate at an outlet stilling basin lined with riprap with 2-foot-vertical to 1-foot-horizontal side slopes. Flows would then discharge directly into an existing pond and 1,000-foot-long canal. The canal would have a bottom width of 10 feet, with 3-foot-vertical to 1-foot-horizontal side slopes and would be constructed from riprap material. The stilling basin, existing pond, and East Fork Upper Battle Creek do not have any fish, so these water sources would not likely attract foraging wildlife. Both the licensee and Alaska DFG concur that the conveyance and diversion designs would limit resource interactions along the canal and would not pose a major hazard to wildlife.

Following construction, the need for year-round access to the diversion structure during project operation may result in some negligible level of ongoing behavioral disturbance of wildlife. The frequency of required access has not been described, but is anticipated to be no more than several visits annually based on the proposed operating period (mid-May to late-October), and would cause negligible effects on mammals. Similarly, the licensee would schedule maintenance activities that may require vegetation clearing to occur outside of the May 1 to July 15 nesting period. With the implementation of proposed measures and agency recommendations, operation of the proposed diversion would have long-term, minor adverse effects on wildlife. 

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment

In a letter filed January 27, 2016, Interior identified federally listed species that may occur in the project area. Staff also referred to FWS’ information, planning, and conservation system website (FWS, 2016) to gather recent information on the potential presence of federally listed threatened and endangered species within the project area. There are eight terrestrial or seabird species managed by FWS and five marine species managed by NMFS in Alaska currently listed under the ESA (NMFS, 2012, as cited in AEA, 2015a; FWS, 2016). Steller’s eider and short-tailed albatross were the only species that Interior identified with the potential to occasionally occur near the project vicinity.

93

No federally listed aquatic species were identified. Table 3-17 lists the species and their potential to occur in the project area or within the influence of project operation.

Table 3-17. Federally listed as threatened or endangered plant and wildlife species in Alaska under the ESA (Source: AEA, 2015a, as modified by staff).

Species Federal Status Range Documented

Occurrence

Aleutian shield fern

(Polystichum aleuticum)

endangered Known to exist only on Adak Island in the central Aleutian Islands.

No; outside historical range

Steller’s eider

(Polysticta stelleri)

threatened Population occurs in two distinct regions, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in western Alaska, where only a few birds may nest, and the Arctic Coastal Plain, primarily near Barrow.

No, but potential to winter in Cook Inlet

Spectacled eider

(Somateria fischeri)

threatened Northern Russia through northern and western Alaska in wet tundra regions.

No; outside historical range

Short-tailed albatross

(Phoebastria albatrus)

endangered Ranges from Japan east to the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska and south to California. The seabirds are typically found near islands and mainland coastlines as opposed to mid-ocean regions.

No; seabird does not nest in vicinity.

Eskimo curlew

(Numenius borealis)

endangered Nests in arctic tundra areas approximately 250 miles north of project area.

No; outside historical range

94

Species Federal Status Range Documented

OccurrenceNorthern sea otter

(Enhydra lutris kenyoni)

threatened Southcentral population spans from west of Glacier Bay to the eastern edge of Cook Inlet. Southwest population stretches from the western edge of Cook Inlet out the Aleutian islands.

Within historical range, but no species observed

Polar bear

(Ursus maritimus)

threatened Occur throughout the northern polar region with denning in northern Alaska coast/Beaufort Sea.

No; outside historical range

Wood bison

(Bison athabascae)

endangered Lower Yukon/Innoko River near the community of Shageluk.

No; outside historical and reintroduced ranges, north of project area.

Steller sea lion

Western DPS

(Eumetopias jubatus)

endangered East along the Aleutian chain and into the central Bering Sea, through the Gulf of Alaska, south through southeastern Alaska.

Within historical range, but no species observed

Cook Inlet beluga whale

(Delphinapterus leucas)

endangered Inhabit arctic and subarctic waters in the US, Canada, Greenland, and Russia; found in open ocean, continental shelf, coastal, estuary, and river waters.

Within historical summer and winter range, but no species observed

Blue whale

(Balaenoptera musculus)

endangered Inhabit coastal and pelagic environments, and are found most frequently along the edges of continental shelves.

No; outside historical range

95

Species Federal Status Range Documented

OccurrenceBowhead whale

(Balaena mysticetus)

endangered Spend entire lives near sea ice in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas.

No; outside historical range

Sperm whale

(Physeter catodon)

endangered Found offshore in submarine canyons at the edge of the continental shelf or in water deeper than 655 feet.

No; outside historical range

Steller’s eider—The threatened Alaska-breeding population of Steller’s eider occurs in disjointed coastal and marine areas in northern and western Alaska. Although formerly locally common in portions of western and northern Alaska, they have nearly disappeared from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in western Alaska, and only hundreds or low thousands exist in the Arctic Coastal Plain of northern Alaska. They nest in the terrestrial environment, but they spend the majority of the year in shallow, nearshore marine waters. FWS indicated that this species occurs mainly north of the proposed project, but may be encountered in marine waters in Kachemak Bay during the winter. This area was not included in the critical habitat designation.

Short-tailed albatross—The endangered short-tailed albatross is an oceanic species ranging widely throughout the North Pacific rim, inhabiting the Sea of Okhotsk, a broader region of the Bering Sea, the west coast of North America, and the oceanic waters between Hawaii and Alaska. The highest concentrations of short-tailed albatross are found in the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea (primarily outer shelf) regions of Alaska, and along the continental shelf break in the Gulf of Alaska. Recent ongoing telemetry studies of short-tailed albatross have documented primarily juvenile albatross using marine waters closer to shore and some of these birds may enter Kachemak Bay (AEA, 2016).

Cook Inlet beluga whale—Of the marine species, many have historical ranges within the Cook Inlet and Gulf of Alaska, but are not found in the immediate project area. Cook Inlet beluga whale occurs in marine habitats in the general locale of the Upper Battle Creek diversion because Kachemak Bay is part of its summer range, and is included in the critical habitat designation for the species (NMFS, 2012).

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects

The proposed diversion would divert water from West Fork Upper Battle Creek to Bradley Lake during a portion of the year. No direct effects on Steller’s eider, short-

96

tailed albatross, or Cook Inlet beluga whale would occur because the proposed diversion footprint is well-removed from these marine species and their habitats.

The potential for the diversion to negatively affect Cook Inlet beluga whale prey species is limited because the staff recommended minimum flow regime would maintain salmon spawning habitat and side channel connectivity in Lower Battle Creek, and salmon productivity may potentially increase post-construction (as discussed in section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, Effects of Instream Flow on Salmon Habitat in Battle Creek, and section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, Water Temperature Effects on Egg Incubation and Emergence). The modification of freshwater flows from either Battle Creek or Bradley River into marine waters is not expected to affect any listed species.

The licensee expects construction activities to occur over about a 2-year period with a peak of activity during May through October of each year. The licensee indicates that the majority of noise generated by construction activities, such as blasting and excavation to start construction of the access roads and pipeline route, would occur in the first year and would not conflict with sensitive species timing restrictions. This noise would be mostly confined to the immediate project area and would not affect marine species.

During the 2 years of construction, it is anticipated that an additional barge per month may deliver supplies during the open water period (April to October) and would travel from Homer to the dock at the project site. It is unlikely that the Steller’s eider, short-tailed albatross, or any of the marine species would be impacted by the increased boat traffic across Kachemak Bay during construction. Steller’s eider may inhabit Kachemak Bay during the winter, but are not present during the breeding season. In the event Steller’s eider or short-tailed albatross are present and a barge is encountered, the birds would move away and avoid harm. As such, FWS concluded that the onshore facilities and the limited barge traffic associated with the project would have no effect on short-tailed albatross that may visit Kachemak Bay and would have no effect on Steller’s eider. It is also likely that the construction activities would have no effect on the Cook Inlet beluga whale or its critical habitat. This species would not likely be encountered during the open-water supply transport period because it has rarely been seen south of the Forelands during the last 20 years.

Because no federally listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat would be directly affected by proposed project operation, no further consultation with FWS or NMFS is required, unless the project is modified or new information indicates that listed species may be affected.

97

3.3.5 Cultural Resources

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment

Pursuant to section 106 of the NHPA, the Commission must take into account whether any historic property could be affected by a proposed undertaking within a project’s area of potential affects (APE). “Undertakings” include activities that require a federal permit, license, or approval (36 CFR 800.16[y]). The APE, which is determined in consultation with the Alaska SHPO, 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” (36 CFR 800.16[3]). For the amendment application, the APE includes all areas within or outside of the project boundary that would be affected by construction, demolition, and new operation activities. In its amendment application, the licensee defined the APE for the West Fork Upper Battle Creek diversion (project APE) as “the project footprint (lands affected by the diversion and conveyance structures and access roads) in addition to a ¼ mile buffer zone surrounding project features.” The buffer zone would encompass all necessary landing and staging areas required for the project.

By letter dated March 23, 2015, the licensee consulted with the Alaska SHPO on the definition of the APE and the results of cultural resources studies completed within the APE boundary (letter from B. Carey, Project Manager, AEA, Anchorage, Alaska, to J. Bittner, State of Alaska Office of Historic Preservation, filed September 18, 2015). On April 2, 2015, the Alaska SHPO stamped the letter “No Historic Properties Affected” thereby also approving the proposed project APE (letter from J. Bittner, Alaska SHPO, State of Alaska Office of Historic Preservation, Anchorage, Alaska, to B. Carey, Project Manager, AEA, filed September 18, 2015).

On November 24, 2015, the Commission designated the licensee as its non-federal representative for the purpose of conducting consultation with the Alaska SHPO, appropriate Indian tribes, and other consultation parties pursuant to the regulations at 36 CFR §800.2(c)(4) implementing section 106 of the NHPA. However, the Commission remains ultimately responsible for all findings and determinations made pursuant to section 106.

Cultural Context (adapted from AEA, 2015d)

The earliest evidence of habitation in the Kachemak Bay area dates to approximately 3,000 years ago. The Kachemak Tradition, which is associated with the North Pacific Eskimo, reflects a reliance on marine resources and is represented in the archaeological record by toggling harpoons, barbed darts, ground slate, and chipped stone artifacts. Along the Kenai River, the record dating to between 2,000 and 1,000 years ago indicates a stronger reliance upon terrestrial and inland riverine resources.

98

Documented archaeological sites suggest that Kachemak traditions continued in the region until 1,000 years ago. At this time, Dena’ina Athabascan archaeological sites are more commonly found in the archaeological record. Both traditions are represented by semi-subterranean structures, but Dena’ina Athabascan houses contained multiple-rooms with a central hearth and separate food storage areas. Additionally, artifact assemblages indicate a shift from stone tools toward wood and bone implements. Evidence of trade and European contact is reflected by the presence of artifacts made of glass and copper.

While Russian forts were later established on the Kenai Peninsula, European exploration of the region began in 1778 with Captain James Cook. Conflicts between the indigenous Dena’ina and Russian settlers often occurred, but trade between them led to an expansive fur trade. Fox-fur farming was a major economic activity in the region well into the 20th century. Fur farming in the immediate vicinity of the Bradley Lake Project is evidenced by the presence of two abandoned fox-fur farms near Kachemak Bay. These two farms date back to the 1920s and 1930s.

Some early Russian settlers also sought their living in coal and gold mining activities. Peter Doroshin started the first gold explorations at the mouth of the Kenai River in 1850 and was also retained by the Russian-American Company to look for coal. Additional prospecting in the region occurred in the 1880s when gold was found at several creeks on the Kenai Peninsula.

Cultural Resources Located in the Area of Potential Effects for the Proposed Amendment

In March 2012, the licensee researched records housed at the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey to determine if any cultural resource sites had been previously identified within the project APE. This research did not result in the identification of any documented cultural resource sites within the project APE. Lands within the larger Bradley Lake Project license boundary were previously surveyed for cultural resources in 1979, 1980, and 1983 in support of the project licensing effort. These studies consisted of both pedestrian surveys and low-elevation helicopter flight reconnaissance. Shovel tests were also employed in strategic locations that would be affected by reservoir inundation. The pedestrian surveys identified five previously recorded archaeological sites, and the helicopter effort resulted in the identification of two historic fox-fur farms, both of which were determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register. All seven of these resources are located more than 1 mile outside of the project APE and would not be affected by the proposed amendment.

The licensee also conducted a cultural resources field survey of accessible portions of the project APE in September 2012. Prior to fieldwork, low, helicopter overflights were used to identify specific areas that contained a high potential for intact cultural

99

deposits. Pedestrian surveys were undertaken in upland locations near ponds and wetlands, in areas with clear ground visibility, and in areas where heavy ground disturbance associated with the proposed project would occur, including the locations of three proposed bridges, the diversion structure, two staging areas, and a material source location. A total of seven subsurface shovel probes were excavated, and wetland soil tests were undertaken to identify the presence or absence of buried cultural materials. Several snow patches within the project APE were also examined to determine if they might be similar to perennial snow patches containing cultural materials that are found at Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. The surveyed snow patches did not appear to be perennial, and no cultural materials were observed in any of them. The results of the field survey were presented in a report submitted to the Alaska SHPO on March 23, 2015 (AEA, 2015d). The report was subsequently filed with the Commission on September 18, 2015.

In addition, the licensee consulted with a number of other agencies, organizations, and tribal groups to determine if they had interest or concerns regarding the proposed amendment. Section 9.1.1 of the licensee’s application states that, in addition to providing the cultural re(sources report to the Commission and Alaska SHPO, the licensee would also distribute the report to the BLM, the Pratt Museum in Homer, local governments including the City of Homer, City of Seldovia, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and tribal governments and Alaska Native corporations, including Seldovia Village Tribe, Nanwalek Council Indian Reorganization Act, Port Graham Village Council, Kenaitze Tribe, English Bay Corporation, Port Graham Corporation, Seldovia Native Association, Inc., Chugach Alaska Corporation, and Cook Inlet Regional, Inc. This statement implies that the report had not yet been distributed when the application was filed. However, in a letter dated April 1, 2015, the licensee provided these organizations with a description of the proposed project and APE, the results of its efforts to identify historic properties, and the rationale behind its section 106 recommendations. The letter states that copies of the actual survey report would be provided upon request (letter from B. Carey, Project Manager, AEA, Anchorage, AK, to Battle Creek Consultation Distribution List, filed September 18, 2015). No documentation of a tribal request for the survey report or comments on the study have been filed with the Commission.

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects

The cultural resources survey report concludes that the potential for prehistoric cultural materials to be present at the elevation of the proposed project (1,700 feet) is low because most prehistoric sites in the Cook Inlet, Kachemak, and Prince William Sound areas are found at much lower elevations that are closer to shorelines and rivers. Because no prehistoric or historic cultural materials were identified within the project APE during background research or fieldwork, the licensee recommended in its March 23, 2015, letter to the Alaska SHPO that the proposed project would have no effect upon historic

100

properties. As mentioned previously, on April 2, 2015, the Alaska SHPO concurred with this recommendation and returned the licensee’s report cover letter stamped “No Historic Properties Affected.” For this reason, the licensee has not proposed any environmental measures for the project that are specific to cultural resources.

Our Analysis

Commission staff agrees that it is unlikely that the proposed amendment would affect historic properties. For this reason, the preparation of a Historic Properties Management Plan and/or implementation of a Programmatic Agreement to resolve adverse effects on historic properties is not necessary. However, there is always a possibility that project construction, operation, or project-related activities could lead to discovery of previously unknown archaeological resources or human remains in the future. In its application, the licensee states that, if potential archaeological resources are discovered, it would interrupt construction and notify the Alaska SHPO. This action would be consistent with Article 38 of the existing Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project license, which states that, if any previously unrecorded archeological or historical sites are discovered during the course of construction or development of any project works or other facilities at the project, construction activity in the vicinity shall be halted, a qualified archeologist shall be consulted to determine the significance of the sites, and the licensee is to consult with the Alaska SHPO to develop a mitigative plan for the protection of significant archaeological or historical resources. Adherence to this license requirement during construction of the proposed new facilities and over the license term, and inclusion of the current project APE in the overall APE for the Bradley Lake Project, would ensure that historic properties are appropriately considered in accordance with section 106 of the NHPA.

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The affected environment for the no-action alternative would be the same as that described in sections 3.3.1 through 3.3.5 for the proposed action. The no-action alternative would require the licensee to operate the project under the terms of the existing license. The project would not be expanded, and, therefore: (1) the annual generation would not increase from 380,000 MWh to 417,000 MWh; (2) the new diversion would not be installed; (3) the new underground pipeline would not be installed; (4) there would be no changes to the Battle Creek East Fork channel; (5) no equipment access and dam site staging facilities would be developed; and (6) the project boundary would not be expanded.

The no-action alternative would not result in ground disturbance or changes to water quality, sediment transport, or fish and wildlife habitat, and it would not include staff’s recommended measures. Therefore, the licensee’s proposed plans (e.g., ESCMP, Fuel and Hazardous Substances Management Plan, Diversion Flow Release Management Plan, Fish and Habitat Management Plan, or Bear Safety Management Plan) meant to

101

protect environmental resources potentially affected by the project, would not be needed. Further, under the no-action alternative, the project would not provide the 36,160-MWh increase in annual energy generation, and the licensee would be required to increase its reliance on other generating methods, potentially including the use of fossil fuels, such as diesel, to meet projected energy demands.

102

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS

In this section, we look at the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action to compare differences in the project’s costs and power generation. In keeping with Commission policy as described in Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division,31 our economic analysis is based on current costs with no consideration for potential future inflation or escalation.

Our economic analysis helps to support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest with respect to a proposed license amendment. However, our economic analysis is not a determination that any action is reasonable or prudent.

4.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, there would be no change in project facilities or operations and no change to project generation. Therefore, there would be no change in the economics of the project.

4.2 PROPOSED ACTION

The licensee proposes to modify the project facilities and implement environmental enhancement and protection measures at an estimated capital cost of $960,000 (2016 dollars). This cost includes the proposed installation of the new diversion and conveyance system. Additionally, the licensee proposes to: (1) implement its ESCMP; (2) implement its Fuel and Hazardous Substances Management Plan; (3) design the Battle Creek diversion to provide periodic sluicing of headwater pool sediment through the sluice gates at the diversion dam primary bypass spillway; (4) implement its Diversion Flow Release Management Plan to provide channel maintenance flows to Battle Creek; (5) provide minimum flows to Battle Creek, including (a) 15 cfs from the diversion sluice gate, plus any additional flow exceeding the pipeline capacity of 600 cfs from July 1 through September; and (b) 5 cfs from the diversion sluice gate, plus any additional flow exceeding the capacity of the pipeline capacity of 600 cfs from September 16 through June 30; (6) develop a stream gaging plan; (7) implement its Fish and Habitat Management Plan; (8) consult with agencies regarding the appropriate timing and location of site clearing to minimize any effects on migratory birds potentially nesting in the area; (9) minimize harm to wildlife by prohibiting employees and contractors from hunting, trapping, and fishing in the project area; (10) implement its Bear Safety Plan; (11) minimize use of helicopters or airplanes near mountain sides adjacent to Bradley Lake and Battle Creek; if mountain goats are observed, maintain a 1,500-foot vertical or horizontal clearance; (12) provide an environmental compliance monitor to ensure license conditions are followed during construction and ensure no instream work is conducted without supervision; and

31 Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division 72 FERC ¶ 61,027 (1995).

103

(13) stop construction and consult with a qualified archaeologist and the Alaska SHPO if any previously unidentified unrecorded archaeological or historical sites are discovered during construction.

We estimate that the cost of routine operation and maintenance of the modified project on an annual basis would be comparable to the cost to operate and maintain the existing project. The levelized annual cost of the proposed action, including proposed environmental measures, would be approximately $5,247,430.

The licensee estimates that operation of the modified project would result in an increase in annual generation of approximately 36,160 MWh. We compute the value of this increased generation using a regional estimated alternative energy value of $125/MWh, based on the estimated rate for Bradley Lake hydroelectric energy from the draft Alaska Energy Authority Railbelt Transmission Plan (March 2014). This value is greater than the estimated value of natural gas ($65/MWh) and less than the value of heavy atmospheric gas oil ($220/MWh). Based on replacement of project energy, this additional generation (36,160 MWh) would be valued at $4,520,000 annually. Therefore, the annual cost would be $727,430 more than the cost of the incremental power value.

4.3 STAFF-RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

In addition to the licensee’s proposal to modify the project, the staff-recommended alternative includes several modifications and additional environmental mitigation and enhancement measures. These recommended measures would require the licensee to: (1) modify the draft Diversion Flow Management Plan to include the proposed flows, but with the NMFS- and FWS-recommended flows in October (25 cfs), which would reduce the annual generation by 210 MWh [$26,250]); (2) modify the proposed stream gaging plan to include installation of a stream flow gage at the diversion, reinstallation of the USGS 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage, monitoring of water temperature at the 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage, and operation of the 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage for the duration of the license at an estimated incremental levelized annual cost of $1,920; and (3) modify the Fish and Habitat Management Plan to include monitoring juvenile salmon side channel rearing habitat connectivity with main channel habitat at an estimated incremental levelized annual cost of $2,400. This modification to the plan would also include resource agency consultation and adaptive management provisions to implement protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures based on the results of monitoring. However, because the adaptive management provisions may or may not be implemented, we did not estimate a cost for any undefined measures that may be implemented. The total levelized annual cost for these staff-recommended measures would be approximately $4,320. Under the staff-recommended alternative, the incremental additional annual generation would be 35,950 MWh, and its value would be $4,493,750. The total levelized annual cost of the licensee’s proposed action,

104

including staff’s recommended measures, would be approximately $5,251,750. Therefore, the annual cost would be approximately $758,000 more than the cost of the incremental power value.

105

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal consideration to the power development purposes and to the purposes of energy conservation; the protection of, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; the protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. In deciding whether, and under what conditions a hydropower project should be licensed, the Commission must determine that the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the waterway. This section contains the basis for, and a summary of, our recommendations for conditions to be included in any amendment to the license for the Bradley Lake Project.

Based on our independent review of the licensee’s proposed amendment, agency and public comments filed on the licensee’s proposal, and our review of the environmental and economic effects, we select the staff alternative as the preferred option. We recommend this alternative because: (1) approving the licensee’s amendment to the project license would allow the licensee to continue operating the project as a beneficial and dependable source of electric energy; (2) the operation under the amendment would increase project generation by 35,950 MWh, would eliminate the need for an equivalent amount of fossil-fuel-produced energy and capacity, which helps conserve these nonrenewable resources and decreases atmospheric pollution; and (3) the proposed and staff-recommended environmental measures would protect project-area resources.

We recommend including the following environmental measures proposed by the licensee, in any amended license issued by the Commission for the Bradley Lake Project. Our recommended modifications to proposed measures are shown in italics.

Implement its ESCMP, filed January 19, 2016, that includes: (1) identifying construction limits, staging, and erosion and sediment control impact areas; (2) identifying and committing to erosion and sediment control permit requirements; (3) developing erosion and sediment control measures following BMPs for soil stabilization, slope protection, and maintenance; (4) establishing sediment and turbidity monitoring standards and techniques; (5) developing erosion and sediment control measures following BMPs for soil stabilization, slope protection, and maintenance; (6) establishing sediment and turbidity monitoring standards and techniques; (7) developing daily and weekly reporting procedures; (8) incorporating local agency permit requirements; (9) developing a schedule for erosion and sediment control implementation measures and removal of the erosion and sediment control facilities; (10) identifying the duties and authorities of the environmental

106

compliance monitor as they relate to the ESCMP; (11) identifying notifications and timing of notification of non-compliance events; and (12) identifying follow-up actions to be taken due to a non-compliance event.

Implement its Fuel and Hazardous Substances Management Plan filed January 19, 2016.

Provide an environmental compliance monitor to ensure license conditions are followed during construction and ensure that no instream work is conducted without supervision.

Notify Alaska DFG 10 days prior to any diversion or reduction of flows in Battle Creek, and prohibit any instream work in the absence of the environmental compliance monitor.

Design the proposed West Fork Battle Creek diversion to provide periodic sluicing of sediment through the sluice gates at the diversion dam primary bypass spillway.

Implement its Diversion Flow Release Management Plan, filed January 19, 2016, to: (1) include release of channel maintenance flows to Battle Creek of 800 cfs for a minimum of 3 years out of each moving 10-year average of project operation; and (2) include specific seasonal minimum flows to be released to the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek:

o 15 cfs from the diversion sluice gate, plus any additional flow exceeding the pipeline capacity of 600 cfs starting July 1 through September 15;

o 5 cfs from the diversion sluice gate, plus any additional flow exceeding the pipeline capacity of 600 cfs starting September 16 through June 30; and

o 25 cfs or all available flow, whichever is less starting October 1 through October 31.

Storms resulting in flows of 800 cfs for a duration of 8 hours, as measured at the 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage, should count for one channel maintenance flow. Additionally, compliance should include an allowance that local storms count as the required maintenance flow if Alaska DFG is consulted following the storm event and approves the flow levels recorded at the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage.

107

Develop and implement a stream gaging plan that includes: (1) identifying diversion gates and how they will be operated; (2) identifying an instream flow compliance method; (3) compliance requirements; (4) monitoring measures and procedures; (5) re-activation of the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage for the duration of the license; (6) monitoring water temperature at the USGS Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage; (7) reporting requirements; (8) an implementation schedule; and (9) reporting requirements that identify notifications and timing of notification of non-compliance events.

Implement its Fish and Habitat Management Plan, filed January 19, 2016, which includes: (1) fish and fish habitat monitoring in the first 1.8 miles of Battle Creek 1 to 2 years prior to initiation of construction activities that affect instream conditions during the open water season; (2) coho salmon foot surveys every year after construction for 5 years and once every 5 years for the duration of the license, if initial monitoring indicates population decline; (3) juvenile salmon sampling at least once before construction and once by the fifth year of project operations, and once every 5 years for the duration of the license, if initial monitoring indicates population decline; (4) juvenile salmon rearing habitat-main channel habitat connectivity monitoring as recommended by FWS, with adaptive management provisions based on consultation with the resource agencies to implement additional protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures, based on the results of the monitoring; and (5) consultation with resource agencies to finalize all sampling methods, data analyses, and reporting requirements prior to conducting the proposed field studies.

Consult with agencies regarding the appropriate timing and location of site clearing to minimize any effects on migratory birds potentially nesting in the area. Contractors would follow the FWS guidelines (2009), which recommend all vegetation clearing be avoided between May 1 and July 15 to protect nesting birds. If an active nest is encountered at any time, it would be left in place until the young hatch and depart.

Minimize harm to wildlife by prohibiting employees and contractors from hunting, trapping, and fishing in the project area.

Implement its Bear Safety Plan filed January 19, 2016, that includes: (1) identifying practices that would minimize possible bear-human conflicts while working in areas frequented by bears, including installation of bear-proof garbage receptacles and other measures during construction to prevent bears from obtaining food or garbage; (2) identifying practices employed during field activities associated with various monitoring plans to minimize

108

conflicts and provide guidance to contractors; (3) establishing procedures on handling problematic bears; and (4) reporting requirements for any bear-human conflicts.

Minimize use of helicopters or airplanes near mountain sides adjacent to Bradley Lake and Battle Creek. If mountain goats are observed, maintain a 1,500-foot vertical or horizontal clearance.

Stop construction and consult with a qualified archaeologist and the Alaska SHPO if any previously unidentified unrecorded archaeological or historical sites are discovered during construction.

5.2 SUMMARY OF SECTION 10(j) RECOMMENDATIONS AND 4(e) CONDITIONS

Under the provisions of section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project.

Section 10(j) of the FPA states that whenever the Commission believes that any fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency will attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency. In response to our notice, Alaska DFG (letter filed June 30, 2015) submitted 13 recommendations for the project.

Table 5-1 lists the recommendations submitted by Alaska DFG pursuant to section 10(j), and whether the recommendations are adopted under the staff alternative. Recommendations that we consider outside the scope of section 10(j) have been considered under section 10(a) of the FPA, and are addressed in the specific resource sections of this document and in the previous section. Of Alaska DFG’s 13 recommendations, we found nine to be within the scope of section 10(j). We recommend that all 13 recommendations be included in the staff alternative.

109

Table 5-1. Alaska DFG recommendations for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (Source: staff).

RecommendationWithin the Scope of

Section 10(j)?Annualized

Cost Adopted?

1. Provide instream flow releases into Battle Creek from the diversion structure based on the following schedule: July 1–September 15, 15 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, plus all flows exceeding 615 cfs; September 16–October 7 (or until conveyance drain is opened), 5 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, plus all flows exceeding 605 cfs; October 8–October 23 (or until conveyance drain is opened), 30 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, plus all flows exceeding 630 cfs; October 24–October 31 (or until conveyance drain is opened), 20 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, plus all flows exceeding 620 cfs; conveyance drain opening–June 30, 5 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, plus all flows exceeding 605 cfs.

Yes $0a Yes, with modification of October

flows

2. Prepare a final diversion release plan that includes: (1) a detailed description and drawings illustrating the procedures and any equipment that will be used to provide the instream flow release requirements; and (2) a schedule for plan implementation.

Yes, except that the timing of

implementation is an administrative

matter, and therefore, is not a specific fish and wildlife measure

$0 (no additional cost)

Yes

3. Prepare a final stream gaging plan that includes: (1) a schedule for re-establishing a gage at the location of the former Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage (USGS No. 15238986); (2) temperature monitoring at the gage for 5 years; and (3) maintenance of the gage to meet USGS stream gage standards.

Yes $60,000 Yes

110

RecommendationWithin the Scope of

Section 10(j)?Annualized

Cost Adopted?4. Provide channel maintenance flow releases, consisting of an

instantaneous peak flow of 800 cfs and duration of 8 hours, a minimum of three years out of each 10-year moving average of project operation.

Yes $0b Yes

5. Provide notification to resource agencies with 10 days of the detection of an event not in compliance with the conditions of a license.

No, providing notification is not a specific measure to protect or enhance fish and wildlife

$0 (no additional cost)

Yes

6. Prepare a biotic monitoring plan32 that includes: (1) monitoring project effects on resident and anadromous fish; (2) defined sampling methods, dates, and locations; (3) timing and protocols for review meetings with resource agencies; and (4) an implementation schedule for consultation, fieldwork, and reporting.

Yes, except that the timing of

consultation and implementation is an

administrative matter, and therefore, is not a specific fish and wildlife measure

$50,140 Yes

32 We recommend implementing AEA’s proposed Fish and Habitat Management Plan, which includes the same environmental measures and is consistent with Alaska DFG’s recommendation.

111

RecommendationWithin the Scope of

Section 10(j)?Annualized

Cost Adopted?7. Prepare and erosion and sediment control plan that includes:

(1) a description of soil and groundwater conditions; (2) preventative measures based on site specific conditions; (3) detailed descriptions of revegetation measures and other erosion control measures; (4) locations, plant species, methods, and schedule for revegetation measures; and (5) identification of disposal areas for overburden and treatment of those areas to prevent wasting and erosion.

Yes $8,330 Yes

8. Prepare a fuel and hazardous substance spill plan that includes: (1) designation of specific areas for the maintenance and refueling of vehicles and equipment; (2) provisions to remove oil and other contaminants from condensate and leakage from equipment; and (3) contingencies with appropriate measures for containment and cleanup in the event of an accident.

Yes $0 (cost reflected in cost for

erosion and sediment control plan per AEA)

Yes

9. Prepare a bear safety plan that includes: (1) measures to keep construction sites and refuse areas clean of substances that attract bears; (2) installation bear-proof garbage receptacles and other measures during construction to prevent bears from obtaining food or garbage; (3) operating practices when in bear country that minimize possible conflict; (4) measures for dealing with problem bears; and (5) notification to Alaska DFG of any bear-human conflicts.

Yes, except agency notification is not a

specific fish and wildlife measure

$1,330 Yes

10. Minimize use of helicopters or airplanes near mountain sides adjacent to Bradley Lake and Battle Creek. If mountain goats are observed, maintain a 1,500-foot vertical or horizontal clearance.

Yes $0 (no additional cost)

Yes

112

RecommendationWithin the Scope of

Section 10(j)?Annualized

Cost Adopted?11. Employ a designated environmental compliance monitor for

the duration of construction to ensure compliance with license conditions.

No; not a specific measure to protect, mitigate, or enhance

fish and wildlife resources

$36,670 Yes

12. Notify Alaska DFG in writing at least 10 days prior to any complete or partial diversion of instream flow, and prohibit instream construction activities in the absence of the environmental compliance monitor.

No, providing notification is not a specific measure to protect or enhance fish and wildlife

$0 (no additional cost)

Yes

13. Provide representatives of Alaska DFG free and unrestricted access to the project lands and waters and project works in the performance of their official duties, upon appropriate advance notification.

No, providing access is not a specific

measure to protect or enhance fish and

wildlife

$0 (no additional cost)

Yes

a Because the licensee has agreed to provide the bypass flows recommended by Alaska DFG, the lost energy associated with the flows is already accounted for in the proposed generation; no additional cost is shown here.

b Because the licensee has agreed to provide the channel maintenance flows recommended by Alaska DFG, the lost energy associated with the flows is already accounted for in the proposed generation; no additional cost is shown here.

113

5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Construction of the proposed diversion facilities could result in some sediment entering Battle Creek, even with implementation of erosion control measures, resulting in minor, short-term impacts on resident fish and other aquatic resources. The construction would permanently remove about 0.1 acre of wetland and 30 acres of upland wildlife habitat within the footprints of the proposed diversion, conveyance features, and permanent access roads. Construction would also temporarily disturb about 0.3 acre of wetland and 15.6 acres of upland habitat, but these areas would revegetate following construction.

In addition, operation of the proposed diversion would affect primarily alder-willow scrub habitat (28 acres), needleleaf forest (1.4 acres), and less than 0.5 acre of willow shrub thickets with herbaceous sedge-grass habitat. This acreage includes a total of 2.9 miles of new access roads that would be constructed for support of operations and maintenance of the project facilities. Wildlife occupying these habitats would experience short-term disturbance associated with construction noise and human presence. However, similar habitats are ubiquitous in the project area, and long-term effects on wildlife would be minor.

5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C.§803(a)(2)(A), requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with the federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. We reviewed seven comprehensive plans that are applicable to the Bradley Lake Project, located in Alaska. No inconsistencies were found.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2006. Cook Inlet Regional Salmon enhancement planning - Phase II (2006-2025). Soldotna, Alaska. 2006.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Kachemak Bay/Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Areas, December 1993. Juneau, Alaska.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2011. Alaska Anadromous Waters Catalog–South Central Region. Anchorage, Alaska. June 1, 2011.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Alaska's Outdoor Legacy: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): 2009-2014. Anchorage, Alaska.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Kenai Area Plan. Anchorage, Alaska.

114

Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1995. Management plan for Kachemak Bay State Park and Kachemak Bay State Wilderness Park. Anchorage, Alaska. March 1995.

Bureau of Land Management. 1981. South central Alaska water resources study: Anticipating water and related land resource needs. Anchorage, Alaska.

115

6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

If the proposed amendment to the Bradley Lake Project is approved with the staff-recommended measures, the project would continue to operate while providing protection and enhancements to water quality, aquatic, and terrestrial resources.

Based on our independent analysis, approval of the amendment with staff-recommended measures would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

116

7.0 LITERATURE CITED

AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). 2016. Submission of additional information request response for project FERC P-8221. Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage AK. Filed January 19, 2016.

AEA. 2015a. Application for a non-capacity amendment - Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project License–Battle Creek Diversion. Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, AK. Filed March 12, 2015,

AEA. 2015b. Submission of additional information request response for project FERC P-8221. Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, AK. Filed December 18, 2015.

AEA. 2015c. Letter to The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426, Regarding: Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project License Amendment Application Battle Creek Diversion FERC Project No. 8221-094 Reply Comments. August 14, 2015.

AEA. 2015d. Cultural resources report and finding of no historic properties affected. FERC Project No. 8221-094. Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project License Amendment Application Battle Creek Diversion. September 18, 2015. 16 pp.

AEA. 2015e. Revised Battle Creek Exhibit B showing economics and energy under the different diversion schedules. Exhibit E errata. Supplemental Information/Request of Alaska Energy Authority under P-8221-094. September 22, 2015. 22 pp.

Alaska DEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). 2013. Alaska’s final 2012 integrated water quality monitoring and assessment report. December 23, 2013. Available at: https://dec.alaska.gov/water/wqsar/waterbody/docs/2012_Integrated_Report_FINAL_24DEC13.pdf. Accessed October 26, 2015.

Alaska DEC. 2010. Alaska’s final 2010 integrated water quality monitoring and assessment report. July 15, 2010. Available at: https://dec.alaska.gov/water/wqsar/Docs/2010_Integrated_Report_Final_20100715_corrected_july_19.pdf. Accessed October 26, 2015.

Alaska DEC. 2003. 18 AAC 70 water quality standards. July 2003. Available at: http://dec.alaska.gov/Water/wqsar/wqs/pdfs/70mas.pdf. Accessed October 26, 2015.

117

Alaska DFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2016. Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project license amendment, FERC No. 8221 Alaska DFG comments on draft environmental assessment. Available at: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=14219409. Accessed May 13, 2016.Alaska DFG. 2012. Hunting Maps by Game Management Unit (GMU). Available at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=huntingmaps.bygmu&gmu=15. Accessed September 20, 2012.

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. In W.R. Meehan (Ed.), Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 83-138.

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2011. Notice of availability of a memorandum of understanding between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote Conservation of Migratory Birds. Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 65 (April 5, 2011). Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-05/html/2011-8021.htm.

FERC. 2010. Order amending minimum flow for five-year trial period. 132 FERC ¶ 62,165.

FERC. 1985. Environmental impact statement for the Bradley Lake Project. FERC Project No. 8221. March 1.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2016. Information, planning, and conservation system. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed January 4, 2016.

FWS. 2009. Land clearing timing guidance for Alaska: Plan ahead to protect nesting birds. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/fieldoffice/anchorage/pdf/vegetation_clearing.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2016.

HDR Alaska (HDR Engineering, Inc.). 2012. Battle Creek aquatic resources investigation, 2010 and 2011. Appendix B of Amendment Application. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, AK. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc., Anchorage, AK.

Johnson, J. and V. Litchfield. 2015. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fishes–South Central Region, Effective June 1, 2015. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 15-07, Anchorage, AK.

118

Jowett, I.G. 1997. Instream flow methods: A comparison of approaches. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 13: 115-127.

Kent, J. and J. Morsell. 2004. Cooper Creek instream flow study preliminary evaluation of potential aquatic habitat benefits. Cooper Lake Project (FERC No. 2170). Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Anchorage, AK.

Milner, A.M., J.E. Brittain, E. Castella, and G.E. Petts. 2001. Trends of macroinvertebrate community structure in glacier fed rivers in relation to environmental conditions: a synthesis. Freshwater Biology 46: 1833-1847.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2012. Candidate, proposed, and delisted species under the Endangered Species Act. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/other.htm. Accessed September 20, 2012. (not seen, as cited in AEA, 2015a)

R2 and AEA (Resource Consultants and Alaska Energy Authority). 2016. Essential fish habitat and Cook Inlet Beluga Whale informal consultation and preliminary assessment. January 2016. 14 pp.

Swift, C.H. 1979. Preferred stream discharges for salmon spawning and rearing in Washington. U.S. Geological Survey. Report 77-422. Tacoma, WA. 58 pp.

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2015a. USGS 15238985 Battle Creek near Tidewater near Homer, AK. Available at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=15238985. Accessed December 14, 2015.

USGS. 2015b. USGS 15238986 Battle Creek 1 Mile above Mouth near Homer, AK. Available at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=15238986. Accessed December 14, 2015.

USGS. 2015c. USGS 15238982 Battle Creek below Glacier near Homer, AK. Available at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=15238982. Accessed December 14, 2015.

USGS. 2015d. National Water Information System: Web interface. USGS 15238984 SF Battle C NR Homer AK. Available online: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory?agency_code=USGS&site_no=15238984. Accessed October 26, 2015.

USGS. 2015e. USGS 15238978 Battle Creek Diversion above Bradley Lake near Homer, AK. Available at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ak/nwis/inventory/?site_no=15238978&agency_cd=USGS. Accessed December 14, 2015.

119

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Steven Sachs, P.E.–Project Manager (B.S., Environmental Systems Engineering)

CarLisa Linton–Terrestrial Resources (Ecologist; M.S. Marine Estuarine Science and Environmental Science; B.S., Biology)

B. Peter Yarrington–Water Quantity and Quality, Fisheries, Threatened and Endangered Species (Senior Fisheries Biologist; M.S. Fisheries Science and Taxonomy; B.S. Aquatic Ecology)

Louis Berger

Tyler Rychener–Task Management (Environmental Scientist/GIS; M.S., Plant Biology; B.S., Biology)

Matt Burak–Fisheries (Fisheries Biologist; M.S., Wildlife and Fisheries Conservation; B.S., Environmental Science)

Stephen Byrne–Water Quality, Fishery Resources, and Threatened and Endangered Species (Fisheries Biologist; M.S., Marine and Environmental Biology; B.S., Biology)

Peter Foote–Aquatic Resources (Senior Fisheries Biologist; M.S., Fisheries Biology; B.S., Wildlife Biology)

Alynda Foreman–Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species (Ecologist; M.S., Multidisciplinary Environmental Studies; B.A., Biology)

Nicholas Funk–Geology and Soils, Water Quantity, (Hydrologist; M.S., Water Resources Science; B.S., Environmental Science and Policy)

Kenneth Hodge–Need for Power and Developmental Analysis (Senior Engineer; B.S., Civil Engineering)

Alison Macdougall–Cultural Resources (Senior Environmental Manager; B.A., Anthropology)

Denise Short–Editorial Review (Technical Editor; M.S., Agriculture, Food, and the Environment; B.A., English)

120

APPENDIX A

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project—FERC Project No. (8221)–(Alaska)The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its

draft environmental assessment (EA) for the amendment of license for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project on March 29, 2016. The Commission requested comments be filed by April 28, 2016. In this appendix, we summarize the written comments received on the draft EA; provide responses to those comments; and indicate, where appropriate, how we modified the text of the final EA. We group the comment summaries and responses by topic for convenience. We do not summarize comments that point out minor edits to the draft EA; however, we made those edits in the final EA. The following entities filed comments on the draft EA:

Commenting Entity Filing DateU.S. Geological Survey (USGS) April 18, 2016Chugach Electric Association, Inc. April 25, 2016Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Alaska DFG) April 26, 2016Homer Electric Association, Inc. April 26, 2016Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) April 28, 2016National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) May 2, 2016

GENERAL

Comment: Alaska DFG comments that the draft EA does not have a map depicting the boundaries of the existing Bradley Lake Project, or the boundary of the additional area of the requested Battle Creek diversion. A map should be provided as a visual depiction of the areas in question and their relation to each other. Additionally, a map depicting the Battle Creek watershed identifying the various forks and tributaries would also be helpful because it can be confusing to determine the identity, location, and direction of flow.

Response: We added figures 2-2 and 2-3 to the final EA to clearly show the existing and proposed project boundaries. We also added figure 3-3 to provide additional detail of the Upper Battle Creek Basin.

Comment: Alaska DFG notes that, in section 1.2.1, Purpose of Action, and section 2.1.1 Existing Project Features the descriptions of existing project features fail to identify the existing Upper Battle Creek diversion and outflow channel, with which water from the proposed new diversion would intersect and then flow to Bradley Lake. Response: We added text to section 1.2.1 and 2.1.1 to include the Upper Battle Creek diversion in the description of the existing project.

A-1

Comment: Alaska DFG notes that, in the Executive Summary, diverted flows are identified leaving the stilling basin through a constructed channel, and “into the pond.” This pond is not identified. Please add text to identify that the “pond” is a feature downstream of the existing Battle Creek diversion through which diverted water flows to Bradley Lake.

Response: We added the suggested language to the executive summary in the final EA.

Comment: AEA notes that, in section 2.1.3, Existing Environmental Measures, “Lower Battle Creek” should be revised to “Lower Bradley River.”

Response: We revised the text in section 2.1.3 of the final EA.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Comment: Alaska DFG notes that, in section 3.2, Scope of Cumulative Effects, the last paragraph is somewhat confusing because there are two different watersheds that would be affected by the amendment. Alaska DFG suggests replacing the “Bradley Lake Project” in the first sentence, with “Battle Creek Amendment to the Bradley Lake Project.” This revision would then make the watershed statement in the next sentence more realistic and accurate.

Response: We added the suggested language to section 3.2 in the final EA.

AQUATIC RESOURCES

Water Quantity

Comment: Alaska DFG, USGS, and AEA commented that the preferred location for a stream gage to monitor project flow releases is at the Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above the Mouth (USGS gage 15238986) site and not the Tidewater gage, which staff recommended in the draft EA. USGS notes the Tidewater gage is difficult to access and is in a location that does not permit satellite transmission. The Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage has better and safer access via helicopter, is easier to measure at higher flows, has a historical record of water temperature for comparison, and provides the information needed for monitoring regulatory flows.

Response: We made the edit from Tidewater gage to Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage throughout the final EA. Edits have been made in the executive summary, proposed measures, staff measures, environmental analysis (section 3.0), developmental analysis (section 4.0), and conclusion (section 5.0), as appropriate.

Comment: Alaska DFG questions the term “USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater” in section 3.3.2.2. It is unclear whether this refers to (1) USGS gage 15238986 (1.0 Mile above Mouth gage), (2) USGS gage 15238985 (Tidewater gage), or (3) the combined analysis of both gage records. Alaska DFG states that the wording should be clear on which gage records were used.

A-2

Response: We made edits to section 3.3.2.2 of the final EA to address this comment and carried the edits through the rest of the EA. Data used in the final EA are now noted to have been generated through the combined data sets of both USGS gages 15238985 and 15238986.

Comment: Alaska DFG comments on the following statement in section 3.3.2.2, Operation Related Effects, of the draft EA: “The project as proposed would decrease flows annually in the lower reaches of Battle Creek, by as much as 27 percent in May to as much as 63 percent in August at the downstream USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater gage.” Because this statement references flows in the lower reaches, Alaska DFG suggests rewording this sentence to more accurately describe the gage records referenced. Alaska DFG recommends revising the statement to identify that flow percentage decreases in the lower reaches of Battle Creek are computed from combined data obtained from USGS gages 15238985 and 15238986, or whichever gage records were used.

Response: We made edits to section 3.3.2.2, Operation Related Effects, in the final EA, including a new footnote stating that flow percentage decreases in the lower reaches of Battle Creek are computed from data from both USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater gage and Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above Mouth gage.

Comment: Alaska DFG notes that, in section 2.2.3, Proposed Environmental Measures, the release of up to 20 cfs from the pipe drain from October through June should not be considered an environmental measure. This release will be variable and is intended only as freeze protection for the pipeline. Also, footnote 17 in the draft EA states that this release would drain into the East Fork of Battle Creek, but section 2.2.3 states that it would drain into the West Fork. Please clarify this inconsistency. In either case, due to uncertain and intermittent flow, Alaska DFG does not believe that this should be included under environmental flows. Alaska DFG also notes that there is no identification of the drain on any map to show where it is located.

Response: Staff agrees with Alaska DFG’s interpretation that releasing up to 20 cfs from the pipe drain from October through June will be variable and is intended only as freeze protection for the pipeline. We removed this as a proposed environmental measure and revised the text to clarify pipe drain water would empty into the East Fork Battle Creek. We modified figure 1-1 to include the location of the drain.

Comment: NMFS notes that the Executive Summary states: “The staff alternative would require the licensee to: (1) modify the draft Diversion Flow Release Management Plan (DFRMP) to include NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recommended flow releases below the diversion…” NMFS indicates that the Executive Summary initially led it to believe that its flow recommendations would be adopted by FERC, and NMFS could therefore agree with FERC’s “Finding of No Significant Impact.” However, NMFS notes that the discussion in the body of the draft EA then indicates that a decision on minimum flows had not yet been made, and that NMFS flow recommendations were only accepted for October. NMFS indicates that it therefore could not concur that the

A-3

FERC staff alternative would not adversely affect EFH. NMFS therefore recommended that the licensee determine final minimum flows when finalizing its plans in consultation with the resource agencies.

Response: We adopted the NMFS flow recommendation for October, but found that the Alaska DFG and AEA flow proposals would adequately protect coho salmon rearing during summer months. However, we recommend that AEA’s proposed Fish and Habitat Management Plan include adaptive management provisions so that, should monitoring indicate that juvenile salmon main channel/side channel rearing habitat connectivity is not being maintained, adjustments in minimum flow releases under the Diversion Flow Release Management Plan could be made.

Comment: Alaska DFG agrees with the staff alternative item (1) modifying the October minimum flow to 25 cfs, but does not agree with staff alternative item (2) Tidewater gage re-installation as presented in section 2.3, Staff Alternative. Alaska DFG supports the modification of the Fish and Habitat Management Plan to include monitoring connectivity for juvenile salmon between side channel and main channel habitat. Response: We modified section 2.3 of the final EA, and changed “Tidewater gage” to “1.0 Mile above Mouth” gage.

Water Quality

Comment: Alaska DFG questions whether the statement “(RM 1.65 on Lower Battle Creek)” in section 2.1.3, Existing Environmental Measures, is correct and whether these measures are in reference to Bradley River intra-gravel temperature studies. See also table 3-1. Alaska DFG states that, to its knowledge, no intra-gravel water temperature study has been conducted on Battle Creek.

Response: We revised section 2.1.3 to reference the Lower Bradley River gage, not Battle Creek.

Comment: Alaska DFG notes that, in several sections of the draft EA, including on figure 3-3 and elsewhere in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, identification of the Bradley Lake Access Road Bridge is incorrect and should be changed to the Martin River Access Road Bridge across Battle Creek at RM 0.49.

Response: We revised the figure 3-3 title to say Martin River Access Road and made changes to text as appropriate to address this comment.

Comment: Alaska DFG notes that on figure 3-4 it is not clear which year these data represent. Is this 2011 data? Please clarify year of collection.

Response: The data were collected in 2011. We modified the caption for figure 3-4 in section 3.3.2.1 of the final EA accordingly.

Comment: Alaska DFG recommends that on figure 3-6 values should be converted on this figure to a semi-log format to better illustrate and compare the much lower magnitude discharges in South Fork of Battle Creek to the much higher magnitude

A-4

discharges in Lower Battle Creek. Alaska DFG also recommends the legend for “Reach 2/3 near Skirmish Creek” be revised to “Lower Battle Creek near Skirmish Creek” because most reviewers are likely unfamiliar with the reach segments and more general wording would seem to better capture the intent of the figure

Response: We revised figure 3-6 in section 3.3.2.1 to display the lower magnitude discharge in the South Fork of Battle Creek on a secondary y-axis, rather than log transforming a single primary y-axis. We feel this will allow for better interpretation of the lower magnitude discharges in the South Forth of Battle Creek, while at the same time preserving the magnitude of flows from both gages. We also revised the legend for “Reach 2/3 near Skirmish Creek” to read “Lower Battle Creek near Skirmish Creek.”

Fisheries

Comment: Alaska DFG agrees with the FERC staff analyses and discussion on fisheries and aquatic resources, including: (1) that juvenile rearing habitat would benefit from reduced flows during the summer; (2) that regulated flows would benefit macroinvertebrates; (3) the staff recommendation for a 25 cfs instream flow release from the diversion during the month of October; and (4) that it is reasonable to assume that an instantaneous peak flow event over 800 cfs, as measured at USGS gage Battle Creek 1.0 Mile above the Mouth (15238986), should satisfy channel maintenance conditions even if the event does not remain above 800 cfs for a continuous 8 hours.

Response: We note Alaska DFG’s agreement with the staff analysis.

Comment: AEA notes in section 5.1, Staff Recommended Alternatives, that the draft EA recommends implementing the Fish and Habitat Management Plan 1 to 2 years “prior to initiation of construction during the open water season.” AEA anticipates construction to take two years. The first year of construction would be road building and installing the pipe. Construction of the diversion dam would not be until the second year. The instream conditions would not be affected until diversion starts at the end of the second year. Thus, there is no need for monitoring to begin until 1 to 2 years prior to that time (i.e., sometime during that first year of construction). Please add “that affect instream conditions” following “…open water season.”

Response: We added the suggested language to table 5-1 in the final EA.

Aquatic HabitatComment: Alaska DFG notes that in section 3.3.2.1 the identification of only Reach 1, 2, and 3 in the Alaska DFG anadromous water catalog is not accurate. Part of Reach 4 is also listed in the anadromous water catalog.

Response: We added Reach 4 to the listing of reaches within the anadromous water catalog in section 3.3.2.1 of the final EA.

Comment: Alaska DFG comments on this statement in section 3.3.2.2: “Juvenile coho salmon were also abundant in the tidally influenced habitats in reach 1.” Reach 1 should

A-5

be capitalized and the most important rearing area in Battle Creek is actually found within Reach 2 and 3. Text should reflect this.

Response: We made the suggested changes to section 3.3.2.2, Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. We also added text to section 3.3.2.2, clarifying that most juvenile coho salmon likely originated in Reach 2 and 3 because most coho salmon redds were observed in these reaches of Lower Battle Creek, and the juvenile coho collected in Reach 1 were likely displaced from Reaches 2 and 3 during high flow events in 2010 and 2011.

Flow Diversion EffectsComment: In section 3.3.2.2, Effects of Flow Diversion on Water Quality in Bradley Lake, Alaska DFG suggests changing the wording in the first sentence from “Battle Creek” to “Upper Battle Creek” because that is the identified section of Battle Creek to be diverted.

Response: We added the suggested text in section 3.3.2.2 of the final EA to better describe the specific reach of Battle Creek.

Flushing Flows

Comment: Alaska DFG and AEA comment that section 3.3.2.2, Water Quality, mischaracterizes the applicant’s proposed flushing flows as an annual flow in excess of 600 cfs. Alaska DFG and AEA note that the proposed flushing flows would be a minimum of 150 cfs and typically 200 cfs. Alaska DFG also comments that flushing flow duration is not a concern in that the flushing flow is defined as the flow necessary to move all or part of accumulated sediments from behind the diversion, as necessary.

Response: We revised text in section 3.3.2.2, Effects of Flow Diversion on Water Quality in Battle Creek, to state that a minimum flushing flow of 150 cfs and typically 200 cfs is proposed, rather than flows in excess of 600 cfs. We note that in the applicant’s final amendment application (Exhibit B page 2-3), AEA proposes an 8-hour flushing flow and we analyzed the measure accordingly.

Comment: Alaska DFG comments on a sentence in the section regarding effects of instream flow on salmon habitat: “Mean monthly flows in the lower reach of Battle Creek currently range from 10 cfs in March to 307 cfs in August, as measured at the USGS Battle Creek near Tidewater gage (see table 3-2).” Table 3-2 contains blended data from USGS gages 15238985 and 15238986. Alaska DFG recommends correction of the statement to reflect the data presented in table 3-2 of the draft EA.

Response: We revised the appropriate section in the final EA to include the additional USGS gage referenced in table 3-2.

Comment: Alaska DFG comments on this NMFS recommendation in section 3.3.2.2: “In November, NMFS recommends a minimum flow of 5 cfs, plus splitting the remaining flow between the diversion and stream, which would also assist in providing channel

A-6

maintenance flows.” Alaska DFG agrees with staff recommendation of a 5-cfs bypass flow for November and no spilt of flow over 5 cfs. Flows during this period are generally low and decreasing due to onset of winter conditions.

Response: Staff agrees with Alaska DFG’s interpretation of our recommendation.

Comment: Alaska DFG notes that table 3-13 references the “Tidewater Gage.” Please verify if the values shown are combined data from gage’s 15238985 and 15238986. This table is presented in exhibit B (of the amendment application), as a supplement to the 2013 Hydrology Report, and listed as developed from combined gage records. The text also identifies the “Tidewater Gage” in these discussions, which as Alaska DFG has noted previously, should reference actual gage records used.

Response: The data presented in table 3-13 of the draft EA are data from the “Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report” presented in Exhibit B of the amendment application. The data are combined records from gages 15238985 and 15238986. We revised the table title and subsequent text to indicate that these are combined records.

Comment: Alaska DFG acknowledges there may be some minor, long-term adverse effects on aquatic resources. However, overall, Alaska DFG believes the impacts would be major, long-term, and beneficial and would likely have major, positive effects on Battle Creek biota, including: increased primary productivity, more suitable stream flows and velocities for spawning and rearing salmonids, and increased macroinvertebrate production.

Response: We revised our summary paragraph at the end of section 3.3.2.2 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources to include the benefits of the project on aquatic resources.

Comment: AEA comments that reactivation of the South Fork Battle Creek gage (USGS Gage No. 15238984) is not necessary, and states it is unlikely that 3 years of post-diversion temperature monitoring data would result in any changes to project operations.

Response: We removed the South Fork Battle Creek gage reactivation from our recommended gaging plan.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Comment: Alaska DFG notes that, in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, the last paragraph states that grouse and ptarmigan are “protected” by the State of Alaska. These are not protected birds, but are managed by State of Alaska hunting regulations.

Response: We revised the text in the final EA to reflect the correct status of the grouse and ptarmigan.

A-7

SECTION 10 (j) RECOMMENDATIONS AND 4 (E) CONDITIONS

Comment: Alaska DFG notes that table 5-1 states that Alaska DFG instream flow releases under section 10 (j) are adopted. However, the staff recommendation actually modifies the Alaska DFG October instream flow release recommendation. Alaska DFG agrees with the October modification, but suggests the table should say “Yes,” but add a clarifier that acknowledges the October modification.

Response: We added the suggested language to table 5-1 in the final EA.

A-8