juneauhydro.com...2014/05/28 · United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Alaska...

APPLICATION FOR FINAL LICENSE

SWEETHEART LAKE

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

FERC NO. P-13563

VOLUME 5 OF 8

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION

PDEA Appendices R to Y

MAY 2014

JUNEAU HYDROPOWER, INC. PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project 2 FERC Project No. 13563 Copyright © 2014 Juneau Hydropower Inc. exclusive of Government and Third-party Maps May 2014

SWEETHEART LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

VOLUME 5 APPENDICES LIST

Appendix R 2012 Draft Cultural Studies Report. Walking Dog Archaeology. Privileged.

2013 Final Cultural Studies Report, Area of Potential Effects, Addendum, Correspondence Letter, and SHPO Concurrence Letter on Area of Potential Effects. Mark Pipkin, Archeologist, Walking Dog Archaeology. Privileged.

2014 Letter of Record, Methodology, and Intensity of Investigation with a Request for Concurrence of Findings. JHI. Privileged.

2012 Forest Service Letter of Finding of No Affect.

2014 State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Letter of Finding of No Affect.

Appendix S 2013 Draft Scenery Resources Report. August 2013. Corvus Design, Inc.

Appendix T 2014 Final Scenery Resources Report. March 2014. Corvus Design, Inc.

Appendix U 2014 Project Effects Analysis on Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species; Sensitive Species; Management Indicator Species; Migratory Birds; and Subsistence Species. JR Holeman Consulting. March 2014.

Appendix V 2014 Technical Memorandum: Bypass Canyon Reach Habitat Suitability Assessment. Inter-fluve.

Appendix W 2014 Technical Memorandum: Spawning Habitat Assessment and Maintenance. Inter-fluve.

Appendix X 2014 Fish Screen Intake Design Supporting Documents. Inter-Fluve.

Appendix Y 2014 Essential Fish Habitat Documents




FERC PROJECT NO. P-13563

APPENDIX R:

2012 DRAFT CULTURAL STUDIES REPORT. WALKING DOG ARCHAEOLOGY. PRIVILEGED. 2013 FINAL CULTURAL STUDIES REPORT, AREA OF POTENTIAL

EFFECTS, ADDENDUM, CORRESPONDENCE LETTER, AND SHPO CONCURRENCE LETTER ON AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS. MARK PIPKIN, ARCHEOLOGIST, WALKING DOG ARCHAEOLOGY. PRIVILEGED. Privileged Information-Not to be disseminated to the General Public. Please Contact Juneau Hydropower, Inc.

2014 LETTER OF RECORD, METHODOLOGY AND INTENSITY OF INVESTIGATION WITH A REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE OF FINDINGS. JHI. PRIVILEGED. Privileged Information-Not to be disseminated to the General Public. Please Contact Juneau Hydropower, Inc.

2012 FOREST SERVICE LETTER OF FINDING OF NO AFFECT.

2014 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO) LETTER OF FINDING OF NO AFFECT.

PREPARED BY:

Juneau Hydropower, Inc. PO Box 22775

Juneau, AK 99802

MAY 2014



This page intentionally left blank.

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Alaska Region Tongass National Forest Juneau Ranger District

8510 Mendenhall Loop Juneau, AK 99801 Phone: (907) 586-8800 Fax: (907) 586-8808

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 2360 Date: November 9, 2012

Ms. Judith Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer Office of History and Archaeology 550 West 7th Avenue Suite 1310 Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Ms. Bittner:

Please find enclosed the 2012 Cultural Resource Investigation for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project. This was prepared by Mark Pipkin, Walking Dog Archaeology, under contract to Juneau Hydropower Incorporated (JHI) to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. JHI is preparing an environmental document to disclose effects of a proposed project prior to being licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to construct and operate a hydroelectric storage facility south of Juneau, in Southeast Alaska.

We believe this is a reconnaissance level survey and considers the effects to three documented sites within the area of potential effect, and three that are outside the area of potential effect, as currently proposed. The three previously recorded sites are Friday Mine (SUM-097), Sweetheart Creek Cabin (SUM-098), and Sweetheart Creek Stone Fish Trap (SUM-118). The three newly recorded sites, documented in this report are Crystal Mine (SUM-119), Snettisham (SUM-120) and the Frank Cook Cabin (SUM-121).

The Friday Mine (SUM-097), the Crystal Mine (SUM-119) and Snettisham (SUM-120) are outside of the area of potential effect and will not be affected by the proposed undertaking. The Sweetheart Creek Cabin (SUM-098) and the Frank Cook Cabin (SUM-121) are recommended as “not eligible” for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The Sweetheart Creek Stone Fish Trap (SUM-118) is recommended as “eligible” for the National Register under Criterion D, for its potential to add to our understanding of prehistory in Alaska and more specifically Southeast Alaska. The site has good integrity of materials, location, setting, design, workmanship, feeling and association.

Therefore we must consider the effects of the proposed hydroelectric project on the Sweetheart Creek Stone Fish Trap (SUM-118). If the Lower Access Route Alternative is selected, it would come within 450 feet of the stone trap. The stone fish trap is the intertidal zone and can be avoided during construction of the proposed undertaking.

We recommend a determination of “eligible” for the Sweetheart Creek Stone Fish Trap and “not eligible” for the Sweetheart Creek Cabin (SUM-098) and the Frank Cook Cabin (SUM-121). We also recommend a determination of “no historic properties affected” for the proposed project as currently described. However, we will recommend additional intensive archaeological survey and testing if the selected alternative is the lower access route and once it is flagged on the ground.

We seek your concurrence with our determination of eligibility, effect and recommendations for future work. If you have any additional comments or questions, please feel free to contact Myra Gilliam by email at [email protected] or by phone at (907)789-6226.

Sincerely,

/s/ Marti M. Marshall MARTI M. MARSHALL District Ranger cc: Jennifer Berger, Forest Service Enclosure





APPENDIX S:

2013 DRAFT SCENERY RESOURCES REPORT. AUGUST 2013. CORVUS DESIGN, INC.

PREPARED BY:


Juneau, AK 99802

MAY 2014

Corvus Design, Inc. • corvus-design.com

Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project: Draft Scenery Resources ReportFERC No. 13563-002 August 2013 Copyright ©2013 Juneau Hydropower, Inc.

This document was prepared for

Juneau Hydropower Inc.

By Corvus Design, Inc.

August 2013

All rights reserved

119 Seward Street #15Juneau, AK 99801(907) 988-9000www.corvus-design.com

2506-B Fairbanks StreetAnchorage, AK 99503(907) 222-2859

•i•

Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project: Draft Scenery Resources Report

Executive Summ

ary

DRAFT SCENERY RESOURCES REPORTExecutive Summary

In December 2012 Juneau Hydropower, Inc. filed a successive preliminary permit application for a 50-year license to construct and operate the proposed Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility (Project) from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Washington, D.C. The Project is identified as FERC No. 13563-002. The 19.8 megawatt project would be located on Lower Sweetheart Lake and Sweetheart Creek with the transmission corridor running along and under Gilbert Bay approximately 30 miles south of Juneau, Alaska. The transmission line is proposed to tie into Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority’s (AIDEA) existing Snettisham transmission line on the north side of Port Snettisham. The project would be located on federal lands managed by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) as part of the Tongass National Forest. The project is listed as a Power Site Classification #221, Alaska No. 9, as a hydropower classification by a Secretarial Public Land Order 382b approved on May 14, 1929 by authority of the President of United States delegated to the Secretary of Interior. The project is located on Value Comparison Units (VCUs) 610, 570 and 550.

During Initial Consultation and Scoping, Project Stakeholders indicated a concern for the Project impacts on scenic and aesthetics resources on lands managed by the USFS. The USFS requested potential impacts on the scenery resource be inventoried, evaluated and analyzed based on the USFS Handbook for Scenery Management (USFS, 1995) and the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 2008) (Forest Plan). The framework for scenery management included three phases of work: 1) inventory, 2) develop standards and 3) determine the effects of the Project on scenery. Based on this analysis, the effects of the project were evaluated to determine impacts to the existing landscape and whether these impacts to the scenery are acceptable.

The scenery inventory for the Project was carried out in the summer of 2013. The USFS determined it unnecessary to include detailed data for VCU 610 in the detailed analysis due to: 1) Project facilities (dam and tunnel penstock) being located in an unseen landscape and 2) including data for this very large VCU will create an inaccurate perception of the landscape and proposed modifications within the Project area. Based on the inventory, the Project area is defined as having the following scenery attributes:

• 10% Distinctive and 90% Typical Inherent Scenic Attractiveness

• From Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas, the Project area is comprised of 10% foreground, 70% middleground, 0% background, and 20% unseen.

• 97% Very High Existing Scenic Integrity with the remaining being 1% Moderate and 2% Low

• 73% Low Visual Absorption Capacity, 7% Intermediate and 20% High.

The Scenery Management System (SMS) establishes an overall framework for orderly inventory, analysis and management of scenery on lands administered by the USFS. Established scenery guidelines, goals and objectives are listed in the Forest Plan. Scenery guidelines, known as Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs), provide acceptable scenic modifications for human-based activities for all management activities on USFS lands.

The Forest Plan states “Manage the scenery of the Forest in order to achieve the adopted Scenic Integrity Objectives.” SIOs are established in the Forest Plan and are based on Distance Zones and Land Use Designations (LUDs). Visual Comparison Unit (VCU) 610, 570, and 550 are defined by five LUDs: Semi-remote Recreation, Modified Landscape, Old-Growth Habitat, Scenic Viewshed, and Timber Production. The Project is located on three of these LUDS: Semi-Remote Recreation, Timber Production, and Old-Growth Habitat.

It is the intent of the Project to obtain a Transportation and Utility System (TUS) LUD for the project area in the future to have the Land Use Designation conform to and support the development of a public hydroelectric power project and its associated facilities including the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project. A TUS LUD is defined as an “Overlay LUD” where the underlying initial LUDs, remain in effect until a transportation and or utility system is initiated though construction, then this management prescription will apply. Within the TUS corridor, the underlying LUDs continue to exist but are superseded by the TUS only for the allowable uses prescribed by the

•ii•


Executive Summ

ary

TUS. The TUS LUD applies only to the project limits/corridor necessary for the infrastructure and maintenance of facilities required as part of the TUS development. This Report analyzes the impacts on the three existing LUDS that are currently in place (Semi-Remote Recreation, Timber Production, and Old-Growth Habitat) as the basis of the reporting. In addition, this report also addresses a TUS LUD, should it be granted in the future. Portions of this Report that pertain to a possible TUS LUD are indicated in italics and are only relevant should the Project receive a TUS designation.

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) establishes scenery standards for management and the degree to which the landscape must be retained intact or be visually perceived as modified by human activities. SIOs include; High (landscape visually intact), Moderate (landscape appears slightly altered), Low (landscape appears moderately altered with deviations dominating the landscape) and Very Low (modifications dominate the landscape).

Based on the Forest Plan, the adopted SIO for each LUD within the Project Area is as follows (same for each distance zone, unless noted):

Old-Growth Habitat LUD: High SIO

Semi-Remote Recreation LUD: Moderate SIO

Timber Production LUD: Low SIO (foreground), Very Low SIO (middleground and background)

Transportation and Utility System LUD: Low SIO (if TUS LUD is granted in future for project area)

Activities within the High SIO must not be evident to the casual observer while modifications in the Moderate SIO must be subordinate to the character landscape. Low SIO may visually dominate the characteristic landscape, but must have visual characteristics similar to those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area or character type. Following Project completion, SIO should be met within 1 year in the foreground distance zone and within 5 years in the middle and background Distance Zones. Very Low SIO may visually dominate the character landscape. When planning activities, use naturally established form, line, color, and texture found in the landscape. Siting and design of facilities should borrow from naturally occurring patterns in the landscape, and should not be visually dominant when viewed in the background distance zone.

The adopted SIO for each LUD in the Forest Plan does make a provision for the Old-Growth Habitat and Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs where “exceptions for small areas of non-conforming developments …. may be considered in these LUDs on a case-by-case basis.”

To understand the Project effects on Scenic Integrity, three-dimension digital visual simulations were generated to document the expected effects of the Project on scenery on USFS lands. The simulations are based on site photos from established view points. One simulation was created for each view point to show the expected impacts based on the facilities and structures, clearing limits, terrain modifications, and impacts to the landscape as described in Juneau Hydropower, Inc, Exhibit G 4.4 (2013). The simulations were created using ESRI’s ArcMap (GIS) and three-dimensional visualization software for outdoor environments. The simulations were developed to show the expected visual impact of the Project at one year or five years after construction is complete as indicated by the LUD scenery requirements. Only effects within the seen landscape on USFS lands are evaluated.

Based on the expected visual impacts to the landscape on USFS lands shown in the simulations the following are the areas of concern based on the existing LUDs (Semi-Remote Recreation, Timber Production, and Old-Growth Habitat):

VCU 610:None expected. Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be within an unseen landscape.

VCU 570:East Side of Gilbert Bay (Penstock, powerhouse, switchyard, coastal road, utility corridor, quarries, marine access facility, storage yard, maintenance facility and cabin)

•iii•


Executive Summ

ary

Semi-Remote Recreation LUD: Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) and will exceed the visual impacts for a Moderate SIO as allowable in the Forest Plan. This SIO will not be accomplished within one year after completion. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

West side of Gilbert Bay (Submarine and overhead transmission line and transition facility)

Timber Production LUD: Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) and will not exceed the visual impacts for a Very Low SIO as allowable in the Forest Plan.

Expected impacts do not take advantage of existing (both natural and imposed) pattern and texture found in the landscape when viewed in the middleground from VPRs. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

VCU 550:South Side of Port Snettisham (Submarine and overhead transmission line and transition facility)



North Side of Port Snettisham (Submarine and overhead transmission line and transition facility)

Old-Growth Habitat LUD: Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) and will exceed the visual impacts for a High SIO as allowable in the Forest Plan. It is not expected that this objective will be accomplished within 6 months following project completion. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.*

*Small area non-conforming developments may be considered in this LUD by USFS on a case-by-case basis.

Should the Project receive a TUS LUD for the entire corridor the following are the areas of concern:

VCU 610:None expected. Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be within an unseen landscape.

VCU 570:Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) as allowable in the Forest Plan, however, it is not expected to meet the SIO in the first year for the foreground distance zone (east side of Gilbert Bay). This is not consistent with the Forest Plan. The Project is expected to meet the SIO in the middleground (and foreground) in the fifth year or beyond.

Expected impacts to scenery in the middleground distance zone will visually impact the visual landscape due to dissimilar visual characteristics to those of natural occurrences on both side of Gilbert Bay beyond five years. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

VCU 550:Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) as allowable in the Forest Plan and is expected to meet the SIO in the middleground within the fifth year.

Expected impacts to scenery in the middleground distance zone will visually impact the visual landscape due to dissimilar visual characteristics to those of natural occurrences on the south side of Port Snettisham beyond five years. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

•iv•


Executive Summ

ary

Other Potential Areas of Concern:One area of concern has been identified in the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Recreation Resource Study Report (JHI, 2013). The area of concern is the lower portion of Sweetheart Creek that includes a personal use fishery for sockeye salmon and bear viewing area. This is a popular recreation area in July and August. Although not listed as VPR, this use area is used in a limited capacity to gain physical and visual access to the Forest.

Several facilities associated with the Project are not on USFS managed lands and include the dock, a mojority of the marine access facility, and most of the coastal road. Although located on State managed lands, these facilities will result in cumulative visual impacts to the surrounding USFS lands and the landscape character.

Cumulative Effects:Cumulative Effects takes into consideration not only this Project but also other anticipated projects within the area. There are no known other planned projects in the area or anticipated future modifications to the Project, however, development related to this Project on State managed land will result in cumulative effects.

Cumulative Effects analyzes the visual impacts to the whole project area within the reasonable foreseeable future and expected change in the Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) as a result of the Project. ESI is a measure of the degree to which the landscape is perceived as whole, complete, or intact without any alterations or modification to the scenery by human activities. As indicated in the analysis, the ESI for the project area (VCU 610, 570 and 550) is comprised of a Very High (1) rating with all except 3% of the character landscape being intact or unaltered.

Based on analysis of this Project, it would be expected that the following changes will be made to the ESI.

It is expected that the Project will visually impact approximately 3% of the intact landscape or approximately 1,200 acres. 31% of the Project area would be modified from a ESI 1 to a proposed Scenic Integrity of Class 5, Very Low, where the landscape is heavily modified with deviations visually impacting the landscape character. This would be on the east side of Gilbert Bay in VCU 570 where the powerhouse, switchyard, road, marine access facility, quarries, and other related facilities would be located. It is expected that with the proposed mitigation the visual impacts would be reduced to a Class 4, Low, once the revegetation matures in ten years or longer.

32% of the Project area would be modified from a ESI 1 to a proposed Scenic Integrity of Class 4, Low, where the landscape appears moderately altered with deviations beginning to visually impact the landscape character. These areas include the overhead transmission corridors in VCUs 550 and 570.

37% of the Project area would be modified from a ESI 1 to a proposed Scenic Integrity Class 3, Moderate, where the landscape appears slightly altered when noticeable deviations are visually subordinate to the landscape character. This would be along portions of the overhead transmission corridor in VCU 570 and in VCU 550 near Mist Island.

•v•


Contents

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................ i

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1

ANALYSIS/INVENTORY METHODOLOGY ..................................................4

Issues ....................................................................................................5

Guidance .............................................................................................5

INVENTORY OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...............................................6

Landscape Character Types ...............................................................8

Inherent Scenic Attractiveness Classes ...............................................11

Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas ........................................14

Key Viewpoints ....................................................................................14

Distance Zones ....................................................................................16

Existing Scenic Integrity ......................................................................18

Existing Scenic Integrity and Forest Regeneration ..............................20

Visual Absorption Capability ...............................................................22

Other Inventory Information ................................................................24

MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................26

Landscape Character Goals ...............................................................27

Scenic Integrity Objectives .................................................................33

Scenic Integrity Objectives: Specific Guidelines.................................36

Other Scenery Related Goals and Objectives ....................................37

SCENERY EFFECTS ....................................................................................39

Prominence and Sensitivity of Proposed Scenery Effects ...................41

Landscape Character Effects .............................................................45

Scenic Integrity Effects ........................................................................50

Cumulative Effects...............................................................................58

Scenery Protection Measures /Mitigation ...........................................60

LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................63

APPENDIX A- Viewpoint Simulations .......................................................A-1

APPENDIX B- State-Federal and Coastal Road Areas ............................B-1

•vi•


Contents

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND IMAGES

FIGURES

1. Scenery Resource Analysis Area Map ......................................3

2. Inherent Scenic Attractiveness Map .......................................13

3. Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas and Viewpoints Map ..15

4. Distance Zone Map .............................................................17

5. Existing Scenic Integrity Map .................................................19

6. Visual Absorption Capacity Map ............................................23

7. Scenic Integrity Objectives Map ............................................35

TABLES

1. Inherent Scenic Attractiveness...............................................11

2. Inherent Scenic Attractiveness Classes ....................................12

3. Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas ...............................14

4. Distance Zones ...................................................................16

5. Existing Scenic Integrity ........................................................18

6. Visual Absorption Capacity ...................................................22

7. Forest Scenery Goals and Objectives ......................................268. Adopted Scenic Integrity Objectives for Each Distance Zone

Based on Land Use Designation ...........................................31

9. Scenic Integrity Objectives ...................................................34

10. Land Use Designation Related to Distance Zone ......................34

11. Expected Change in Existing Visual Integrity ...........................57

IMAGES

1. Typical ISA, Gilbert Bay ........................................................11

2. Distinctive ISA, Gilbert Creek Mudflats ....................................11

3. VCU 570, Gilbert Bay ............................................................11

4. VCU 550, Port Snettisham ......................................................12

•1•


Introduction

INTRODUCTIONJuneau Hydropower, Inc. (JHI) holds a Preliminary Permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the proposed Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility Project (Project), FERC No. 13563-002, the Project will proceed under steps required by FERC regulations.

During the January 2013 Study Plan Meeting in Juneau, project stakeholders (including state and federal resource agencies) indicated that more work and analysis was needed for the Project’s impact on scenic and aesthetic resources. These concerns were primarily related to Project construction activities and Project features, including the dam, reservoir inundation, powerhouse, transmission line, dock, road and other related facilities. These project related activities and features would occur on lands managed by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). To address these concerns the impacts to scenery resources were to be inventoried, evaluated and analyzed based on current scenery management procedures mandated by the USFS and the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 2008) (Forest Plan).

This study plan describes the analysis used to examine and quantify existing scenery resources and to evaluate potential project-related effects on those resources.

Scenery is defined as the general appearance of a place, general appearance of a landscape, or features of a landscape (USFS, 1995). Scenery is a resource found within the Tongass National Forest (TNF) much like recreation, timber, or wildlife. As a resource, it represents the attributes, characteristics, and features of landscapes that provide varying responses from and varying degrees of benefits to humans (USFS 1995). People who visit public lands are concerned about the quality of the scenery around them and have an impression of what they expect to see when they visit public lands (Newby, 1971). For many visitors and those that live within the TNF there is an expectation that the Forest provides visually appealing scenery, with emphasis on areas seen along the Alaska Marine Highway, tour ship and small boat routes, state highways, Forest roads, and from popular recreation places (USFS, 2008, pp. 2-6).

To understand the significance of the scenery resource for the project area, it needs to be inventoried, classified, and managed with an understanding that the scenery resource might be altered by human based activities. These activities may or may not visually alter the characteristic landscape. Scenery assessment includes the analysis of landscapes that allow informed management decisions based on the Forest Plan (USFS, 2008) and how people value the scenery of the TNF.

This scenery resources report is for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility. The Project is comprised of a 19.8 megawatt hydroelectric dam facility on Lower Sweetheart Lake that includes a 275-foot-long, 111-foot-high concrete and rock face dam, and a 125-foot-wide overflow spillway, constructed at the natural outlet of Lower Sweetheart Lake. The dam is proposed to raise the surface elevation of Lower Sweetheart Lake by a minimum of 25 feet and a maximum of 85 feet. An increase of 25 feet in lake depth would increase the existing lake surface area from 1,260 acres to 1,431 acres. From the dam, a 9,625-foot-long, up to 15-foot-diameter tunnel penstock runs to a 5,460 square foot (sq. ft.) powerhouse and 15,000 sq. ft. fenced switchyard located adjacent to tidewater on Gilbert Bay near Sweetheart Creek. From the powerhouse, a subterranean transmission line is proposed to follow a coastal road/trail heading north along the east shore of Gilbert Bay to a transition facility where the transmission line will become submarine cables. The line will traverse under Gilbert Bay heading west, reemerge at a transition facility on the west side of Gilbert Bay, then travel north as an overland transmission line to Sentinel Point on the south shore of Port Snettisham. The transmission

•2•


Introduction

line will once again enter a transition facility and become submarine cables traveling west under Port Snettisham towards the northern shore of Port Snettisham east of Mist Island on the north shore. The cables will enter a transition facility and become overland facilities that tie into the existing Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority’s (AIDEA) overland Snettisham transmission corridor. In addition to the utility corridor and power generation facilities the project includes: new marine access facilities including a dual-height marine ramp, floating docks for seaplane and boat access, and a staging area adjacent to the docks on the east shore of Gilbert Bay north of the powerhouse. The marine access facility is connected to the powerhouse by a 4,400 foot-long coastal access road. Other related facilities include a 4,225 sq. ft. maintenance/service building, and quarry where approximately 20,000 cubic yards of rock will be removed for providing road construction material. Total disturbed land including marine access, storage yard, quarries, powerhouse, switchyard, transfer stations, and access road totals approximately 12.4 acres. Many of these land based facilities are located on federal lands managed by the USFS. Submarine cables, the dock, and most of the access road are on submerged lands are under the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska and their impacts are not included in this Report (approximately 8.3 acres), except in analysing the cumulative effects of the Project. The Project includes 2.91 miles of overland transmission corridor all of which are on USFS lands and 4.88 miles of submarine cables on State managed land. The Project lies within three Value Comparison Units (VCUs) which are under the management of the USFS: 610, 570 and 550. VCUs are comparable to large watersheds and generally follow major topographic divides. This scenery resource report only includes portions of the Project located on federal lands managed by the USFS where the agency has jurisdictional rights on this Project.

Scenery is evaluated from locations and routes that an observer of the TNF uses to gain physical and visual access to the TNF. These travel ways and use areas are identified as Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas (VPRs). VPRs are inventoried and catalogued by the USFS based on public input and validated through public participation and then listed in the Forest Plan. VPRs for the TNF can be water or land-based. All scenery work is based from these routes and use areas. The landscapes that can be visually accessed from these locations are classified as seen and are included in the analysis areas. The landscape that is not seen from VPRs is not included in the analysis, nor are lands that are not managed by the USFS.

This Report inventories, classifies, and analyzes the scenery resources and expected modifications by the Project to the scenery resources on the federal lands managed by the USFS. The Report is organized as follows:

Analysis/Inventory Methodology: Describes the methodology used for analysis and inventory of scenery resources.

Inventory of Affected Environment (Existing Conditions): Description of Project Area, Landscape Character Types, Inherent Scenic Attractive Classes, Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas, Distance Zones, Key View Points, Existing Scenic Integrity, Site Productivity, and Visual Absorption Capacity for the Project area.

Management Direction and Standards: Description of desired Landscape Character, Scenic Integrity Objectives, and other scenery related goals and objectives.

Scenery Effects Predictions: Proposed Scenery Effects, cumulative effects to Landscape Character, cumulative effects to Scenic Integrity, and mitigation and scenery protection measures.

Figure 1. Scenery Resources Analysis Area for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project.

Introduction

•3•


•4•


Analysis/Inventory M

ethodology

The TNF uses the Scenery Management System (SMS) as the framework for integrating scenery management into all levels of USFS planning. The SMS evolved from and replaced the Visual Management System defined in Forest Service Agriculture Handbook #462 (USFS, 1974). The SMS is described in Agriculture Handbook #701 (USFS, 1995).

SMS is implemented as part of the forest planning process and includes three phases of work to inventory, develop standards, and determine the effects of the Project on scenery. The phases of SMS are as follows:

• Analysis/inventory of existing conditions

• Establishment of management standards and objectives

• Determine extent, magnitude and duration of effects of the Project.

This section looks at the first phase of work, analysis/inventory phase, and catalogues and verifies the existing forest visual characteristics as viewed from Visual Priority Routes (VPRs). The inventory process results in the development of Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) and Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) based on the analysis area and sets resource management guidelines related to impacts on scenery. The management guidelines are found in the following section of this Report. The inventory phase is recorded as mapping and as 35 mm photographs from Key Viewpoints along VPRs. Geographic Information System tools provided assistance in the development of the mapping. The inventory is developed as a sequence of analysis based on SMS and scenery guidelines within the Forest Plan. Work begins in data collection of existing scenery related documents and maps and all information is field verified from VPRs to reflect current existing conditions. The inventory phase consists of the following steps:

• Determine landscape character type of analysis area.

• Determine scenic attractiveness of landscape based on character type.

• Verify Distance Zones from VPRs and use areas identified in Appendix F in the Forest Plan.

• Analyze Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) of existing landscape condition.

• Determine VAC of the landscape.

• Determine SIOs based on Forest Plan, Distance Zones, and Land Use Designation (LUD).

The scenery analysis/inventory was completed in June of 2013.

Scenery work was completed from the Juneau, Alaska office of Corvus Design-Landscape Architects. Corvus Design’s project scenery lead is Christopher Mertl, ASLA, Landscape Architect. Mr. Mertl is a former Forest Service landscape architect on the TNF and since joining private practice has completed several scenery resource reports for a variety of clients who have projects within the Tongass National Forest.

ANALYSIS/INVENTORY METHODOLOGY

•5•



ethodology

Issues

The key issue related to scenery resources is to identify human-based visual disturbances to the existing seen landscape resulting from management activities. The effects of these activities need to be documented and evaluated to determine the impacts to the existing landscape character and whether these impacts to the scenery are acceptable. Scenery guidelines, known as SIOs, set acceptable scenic parameters for human-based modifications for all management activities on National Forest System lands (USFS, 1995). These visual objectives also establish a time line for the modifications to meet the scenery guidelines. All modifications will need to meet the SIOs through coordination between the various resources. In some instances mitigation measures may be required to meet the SIOs and allow the management activity.

Guidance

The TNF has two key adopted documents used in the assessment, analysis, and management of scenery. These consist of the Forest Plan (USFS, 2008) and Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (USFS, 1995). These documents guide the process and management of scenery on the TNF and the level of acceptable degree of deviation from the existing landscape character of the TNF created by human activities or alteration. These documents establish Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for the lands under management of the USFS.

•6•


Inventory of Affected

Environment

The Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility Project is comprised of a 19.8 megawatt hydroelectric facility that would consist of one dam on Lower Sweetheart Lake and penstock tunnel leading to a powerhouse located near tidewater adjacent Gilbert Bay. From the powerhouse, the transmission line would run underground in a northerly direction along a 4,400 foot coastal access road to the marine access facility. The transmission corridor then converts to submarine at the transition facility and travels west under Gilbert Bay to the western shore of the bay where it enters a second transition facility. From here it becomes an overland transmission corridor in a northerly direction to Sentinel Point on Port Snettisham. The corridor converts to submarine at a third transition facility and goes under Port Snettisham toward Mist Island on the north side of the water body. At the shore, the corridor continues north underground to a fourth transition facility within in the existing AIDEA corridor. Here it converts to overland and is proposed to tie into the existing AIDEA Snettisham transmission line. In addition to the dam, powerhouse and utility corridor, the Project includes two quarries, a marine access facility (marine ramp, floating docks, and a staging area), a maintenance service building and a JHI proposed USFS cabin to be located on a refilled quarry just above the dock facility. All Project facilities with the exception of the dock and a majority of the marine access facility, portions of the road and the submarine cables are located on federal lands managed by the USFS. All facilities not on USFS lands are located on State managed lands comprising an area of approximately 8.3 acres. (See Appendix B - State-Federal Land and Coastal Road Areas.)

For the purpose of analyzing scenery resources, the area of analysis consists of all of the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility (Figure 1) within USFS lands that are viewed from Visual Priority Routes. Areas that are unseen from these routes are not included. The analysis area includes the viewsheds surrounding the management activities for hydroelectric power generation and its distribution. The viewsheds encompass the existing resources in areas of direct disturbance and the adjacent seen areas surrounding the disturbance as viewed by an observer of the TNF using travel routes and use areas to gain physical and visual access to the area.

The area potentially affected by the Project is large, including three watersheds (VCUs) transected by the proposed transmission corridor. As shown in Figure 1, new construction in the Sweetheart Lake watershed would include a dam up to 111 feet high at the outlet of Lower Sweetheart Lake and tunnel penstock to the powerhouse. The dam would raise water levels sufficient to create significant additional inundation in Lower Sweetheart Lake. The dam, tunnel, and the visual impacts resulting from raising the lake levels are located in an unseen landscape. The penstock is within a tunnel environment and would not result in visual impacts. All other Project facilities are located in a seen landscape from VPRs.

To evaluate the Project, the affected environment area has been subdivided to correspond with the three VCUs.

VCU 610This is an extremely large VCU (135,900 acres) that includes the Lower and Upper Sweetheart Lakes and the Whiting River drainages and extends to the Canadian border. Project facilities in this VCU include the dam and the tunnel penstock. Impacts would also include raising the lake levels for hydroelectric generation. All facilities are located in an unseen landscape and as such analysis for this VCU will be general in nature.

INVENTORY OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

•7•



Environment

VCU 570This 28,129 acre VCU encompasses the Gilbert Bay drainage and hosts a majority of the Project facilities. Facilities include the tunnel penstock coming down from Lower Sweetheart Lake. Adjacent to Sweetheart Creek and near tidewater are a powerhouse, switchyard, and tailrace consisting of an open after-bay and tunnel extending to Sweetheart Creek is proposed. The powerhouse and switchyard will be located in one of two rock quarries. The quarries will be used to provide material for road construction. A 4,400 foot-long gravel access road will link the powerhouse and switchyard with a new marine access facility to the north. The marine access facility would include a dual-height marine ramp, floating docks for seaplane and boat access, and a staging area adjacent to the docks. Behind the marine access facility will be the second rock quarry. Located at the south of the quarry will be a warehouse/maintenance building. There are discussions with the USFS to also include a public use recreation cabin in or adjacent to the quarry.

At the northeast corner of to the marine facility, the transmission corridor will enter the first transition facility and convert to a submarine cable that travels under Gilbert Bay to the west. Upon reaching land, a transition facility will allow the submarine cable to go to an overland configuration. The 2.90 mile long overhead transmission corridor will travel north perpendicular to the shoreline of Gilbert Bay to Sentinel Point. The corridor exits this VCU at the ridgeline above Sentinel Point.

VCU 550This 22,403 acre VCU encompasses the Port Snettisham drainage and includes two transition facilities, one on the south shore at Sentinel Point and the other on the northern shore east of Mist Island. The overhead transmission corridor enters this VCU from the south above Sentinel Point and runs north to the water’s edge. At the north shore of Sentinel Point the line enters a third transition facility and becomes a submarine corridor and travels under Port Snettisham to the north shore adjacent Mist Island. The transmission corridor continues underground until it reaches the fourth and final transition facility located within the existing clearing limits of AIDEA Snettisham overhead transmission corridor. Here the line converts to an overhead configuration and ties into the existing AIDEA line.

Special Consideration: VCU 610Based on discussions with the USFS coordinator, Carol Jensen (July 2013), data and acreages for VCU 610 will not be included in the analysis of the inventory of existing conditions related to scenery. Project facilities (dam and tunnel penstock) within VCU 610 are located in an unseen landscape. Due to the massive area of this VCU (135,900 acres) and that modifications in this VCU will not be seen by a typical Forest observer, including data for this VCU will create an inaccurate perception of the landscape within the Project area and in calculating any scenery impacts as a result of the Project.

•8•



Environment

The Forest is divided into large ecological units that describe the geology, vegetation, soils, wildlife and other factors that have the same ecological context. Within these ecological units are smaller Landscape Character Types that gives a geographic area its visual and cultural image and consists of the combination of physical, biological and cultural attributes that make each landscape identifiable or unique. Scenery Management System uses Landscape Character Types to categorize the Forest.

The Landscape Character Types recognized for Tongass National Forest (TNF) lands are geographic units of land, each having distinguishing characteristics of landform patterns and features, vegetation patterns, surface water characteristics, and land use patterns or cultural features. Landscape character is usually based on total visual characteristics and not upon any one single characteristic, although landform and vegetation may be most influential at times. Descriptions for the TNF are based largely on the work by Nowacki, Shephard, Krosse, Pawuk, Fisher, Baichtal, Brew, Kissinger, and Brock (2001).

The Project is located within Region 3, the Boundary Ranges/Icefields landscape character type as defined by the USFS (USFS, 2005), which is the source for the following summary.

Landforms

The Boundary Ranges are a spectacular portion of the Coast Mountains running along the U.S.-Canadian border and consisting of high-elevation, angular, ice-capped mountains. High maritime precipitation, mostly as snow, feeds a discontinuous mix of icefields and glaciers separated by river valleys and pierced by nunataks and scree fields. The ranges include several sprawling icefields (e.g., Juneau and Stikine Icefields) – remnants of past ice ages. Among the largest and most well-known glaciers are the Taku, Mendenhall, Meade, Sawyer, Dawes, Baird, and LeConte glaciers. The southernmost tidewater glaciers in North America occur here. Most of these tidewater glaciers meet saltwater at the head or along the sides of deep fiords which penetrate the Boundary Ranges. In addition to the mountains of the Boundary Ranges, the unit includes the mountainous Chilkat Peninsula, which branches south from the St. Elias Mountains to form a picturesque peninsula separating Lynn Canal and Glacier Bay. Although these mountains are not as massive nor as ice-filled, they are similar to the Boundary Ranges in that they are rugged (angular and steep), contain small glaciers and icefields, and are generally snow-clad. Only a few large rivers manage to breach the Boundary Ranges from the Canadian Interior; these include the Stikine and Taku. These rivers carry sediment from the interior, but also pick up much sediment from streams draining the Boundary Ranges. As the rivers meander, sediments erode and redeposit. Because of strong down-valley winds during winter, sand and silt from exposed sediments on river bars and riverbanks are carried down valley. Other relatively large valleys that penetrate deeply into the Boundary Ranges include the valleys of the Katzehin River and its tributaries, and the valleys of the rivers that flow into Berners Bay (Berners, Lace, Antler, and Gilkey). This unit also includes a strip of lower elevation rounded mountains and lowlands between the western edge of the Boundary Ranges and saltwater, north of the Stikine River. The southern two-thirds of this strip is dominated by steep, but rounded mountains, while the northern third is dominated by lowland terraces and scoured hills.

Landscape Character Types

•9•



Environment

Vegetation Patterns

The shallow and rocky soils support low-growing communities of sedges, grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Forests comprise a minor part of the vegetation along coasts and rivers. In the Chilkat Range, alpine snowfields, barrens, and meadows cover much of the area, with hemlock and hemlock-spruce forests covering the lower mountain slopes, valleys, and coastal areas. Timber harvest has occurred in the area near the tip of the Chilkat Peninsula, mostly within the past 20 years. In the Stikine, Taku, and other large river valleys, alder, willow, and cottonwood colonize newly deposited sediments; spruce and hemlock become established if given enough time. Riparian wetlands are abundant. In the rounded mountains portion of the unit between the western edge of the Boundary Ranges and saltwater, the vegetation is characterized by large areas of alpine meadows with forested sideslopes. Some of the lower rounded mountain areas support extensive productive Western Hemlock and Sitka Spruce forests. Timber harvest has occurred in the low elevations near Thomas and Hobart Bays within the past 50 years. Forests near Juneau and other accessible areas along beachfronts and lower slopes that were harvested around a century ago now support second-growth forest stands around 100 years old. Forested wetlands and emergent wetlands, the latter occurring adjacent to large estuaries and cirque lakes, are common in some areas. The lowland terraces and scoured hills in the northern shoreline portions of the character type are dominated by low productive forests and non-forested wetlands.

Water Features

Most mountain streams are clear, high gradient, and contained by the rough terrain. In contrast, glacial meltwater streams are loaded with silt, resulting in a very cloudy appearance. When entering the sea, these glacial streams turn from a brownish tan to a milky or aqua blue.

The Stikine and Taku Rivers are dominant water features where they cross the Boundary Ranges. They drain large portions of interior British Columbia and are fortified by sediment-laden meltwaters as they pass through the Boundary Ranges. River flow is highest in summer as a result of snow and ice melt. The Katzehin, Lace, Berners, Antler, Gilkey, Speel, Farragut, Bradfield, and Unuk represent other important rivers. Long, narrow bays and lakes follow bedrock weaknesses in some areas of this unit. Cirque basin lakes are often tucked in hanging valleys of the lower mountain summits.

Cultural Elements

This rugged, inhospitable landscape has limited the extent of human influence, which is evident only in small areas near saltwater on the edges of the unit, such as in the vicinity of Juneau and Skagway, and in areas with timber management. The only significant timber harvest in the character type took place at the tip of the Chilkat Peninsula, in the Hobart Bay area on private lands, and near Thomas Bay. Roads are frequently seen in the areas of timber management, and roads, buildings, and other structures are present in and near Juneau, Skagway, and smaller developments. There is very little private ownership in the unit, except in some low elevation areas near Juneau, Berners Bay, Hobart Bay, and Thomas Bay, and much of the unit is managed as wilderness. Many forests near Juneau and other accessible areas along beachfronts and lower slopes were harvested to support the mining industry around a century ago. These areas now support older second-growth stands. Kensington Mine (which has had recent exploration and permitting activities), near Berners Bay, is visible from Lynn Canal.

•10•



Environment

Comments

The Boundary Ranges and Icefields is another spectacular character type, which easily “stands on its own” in a visual frame of reference sense.

The visual character of VCUs 570 and 550 is largely comprised of lower elevation rounded mountains rising to just over 3,000 feet with lowlands adjacent to saltwater as indicated in the landscape character type description for Region 3. Upper elevations consist of rounded exposed rock and alpine vegetation with some brushy landslide and avalanche chutes providing textural contrast. The middle and lower elevation slopes are blanketed by Western Hemlock and Sitka Spruce forests with forested wetlands and emergent wetlands populating the lowlands and gentler sloped areas. Shorelines are deficient of energy and transition from land to saltwater with no or little vertical exposed faces. Streams are steep gradient, clear water contained within the terrain and include Sweetheart and Prospect Creeks. At the head of Gilbert Bay is a large tidewater flat fed by Gilbert Creek. This landscape is comprised of a large flat muddy and gravel landscape dominated by grasses and sedges. VCU 550 shows obvious human influence upon the landscape which is evident from the presence of the AIDEA transmission corridor connecting the Snettisham Hydroelectric Facility with the community of Juneau. The tall metal transmission towers and wide clearing limits dominate the landscape character type along the northern shore of Port Snettisham. A small cabin is found on the western shore near the mouth of the Whiting River which is located on private land.

VCU 610 has the more dramatic landscape that is punctuated by the steep bare walls containing the glacial fed Whiting River. Rounded exposed peaks rise from 3,000 to nearly 5,000 feet. Upper elevations are without vegetation and are comprised of bare exposed rock formations and dotted with small icefields. Middle elevations are comprised of alpine vegetation with brushy landslide and avalanche chutes while hemlock-spruce forests cover much of the lower elevations with limited wetlands due to the steep terrain.

Image 1: Distinctive ISA. Gilbert Bay looking south towards the mudflats at the mouth of Gilbert Creek.

Image 2: Typical ISA. Port Snettisham looking north towards Sharp Point.

Image 3: VCU 570, Gilbert Bay looking southwest.

Inherent Scenic Attractiveness Classification

Forest Service Lands Acres (%)

Distinctive (A) 5,070 (10%)

Typical (B) 45,462 (90%)

Indistinctive (C) 0 (0%)

Table 1. Inherent Scenic Attractiveness: Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project

•11•



Environment

Inherent Scenic Attractiveness (ISA) is the primary indicator of the intrinsic beauty of a landscape and of the positive responses it evokes in people. It helps determine landscapes that are important for scenic beauty, as well as those that are of lesser value, based on commonly held perceptions of the beauty of landform, vegetation pattern, composition, surface water characteristics, and land use patterns and cultural features (USFS 1995).

Each landscape character type defined above is subdivided into three scenic attractiveness classes: distinctive (A), typical (B), and indistinctive (C). Each landscape character type has its own indicators of ISA. It is expected that a majority of the landscape will fall within the typical classification. A smaller portion of the landscape will be unique and fall within the distinctive classification or have lower than typical attractiveness rating of indistinctive. Although land use patterns and cultural features are landscape elements that can influence scenic attractiveness classes, the major portion of the Southeast Alaska and the Project landscape shows little to no human influence, with the exception of the existing AIDEA transmission line in VCU 550. Human influence such as a utility corridor is treated as a factor affecting the Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) of an area, and does not typically affect its scenic attractiveness. Table 1 summarizes the total acreage of each class of ISA for the Project area (the analysis area for scenery resources) Table 2 summarizes the ISA classes for Region 3, the Boundary Ranges and Icefields, where the Project is located.

As indicated in Table 1 and Figure 2, the Project area is dominated by a ‘Typical’ Inherent Scenic Attractiveness (ISA) for VCU’s 570 and 550. Ten percent of this landscape includes a ‘Distinctive’ ISA. None of the Project area is represented by an ‘indistinctive’ ISA classification.

VCU 570, Gilbert Bay, contains three areas with a distinctive classification. These areas include the tidewater head of Gilbert Bay and the Gilbert Creek drainage with its expansive mud flats populated by grasses and sedges; the upper blocky mountain ridge to the north of Lower Sweetheart Lake and Sweetheart Creek with its deeply cut vertical walled drainage and series of waterfalls; and the northern exposed steep ridgeline above the mouth of the Whiting River with its massive rock outcrops and sheer glacially scoured escarpments. The landscape is dominated by a typical ISA that includes moderately complex terrain. This terrain tends toward codominance with other objects of the visual field. It includes minor snow fields, secondary peaks and is penetrated by inlets and bays. Vegetation includes moderately varied patterns with some variation in color and texture. Natural forest openings and patches of vegetation are subtly defined. Water features are secondary in nature and tend toward codominance with other objects of the visual field. Features are moderately significant with edge contrasts, spatial definition, and moderate spatial variety.

VCU 550, Port Snettisham, is largely characterized as a typical ISA with moderately complex terrain dominated by angular profiles penetrated by prominent inlets and bays. Geologic features are moderately significant (secondary peaks, escarpments, small snow fields, rock outcrops) which tend toward codominance with other objects of the visual field. Features

Inherent Scenic Attractiveness Classes

Image 4: VCU 550, Port Snettisham looking south.

Source: USFS, 2005

Distinctive (A) Typical (B) Indistinctive (C)Landform patterns and features

Unit characterized by highly complex terrain dominated by massive angular profiles and sharply defined crests frequently penetrated by deep glacial troughs and fiords. Geologic features are numerous and/or highly significant (matterhorn peaks, massive rock outcrops and sheer glacially scoured escarpments, expansive floodplains, large deltas, major examples of mass wasting, and large moraines are typical examples). These features tend to dominate other objects of the visual field. Strong edge contrasts and spatial definition. Moderate spatial variety.

Unit characterized by moderately complex to complex terrain dominated by angular profiles and sharply defined crests often penetrated by prominent inlets and bays. Geologic features are moderately significant (secondary peaks, escarpments, cirques, rock outcrops, and floodplains are typical examples). These features tend toward codominance with other objects of the visual field. Strong edge contrasts and spatial definition. Moderate spatial variety.

Unit characterized by moderately diverse terrain dominated by blocky occasionally angular profiles and well defined crests indented by minor bays and coves. Geologic features are somewhat insignificant (minor peaks, escarpments, rock outcrops, minor examples of mass wasting, and small isolated sand beaches are typical examples). These features are usually subordinate to or are occasionally codominant with other objects of the visual field. Moderate edge contrasts and spatial definition. Little spatial variety.

Vegetation patterns and composition

Unit characterized by a highly varied vegetative pattern (many major plant cover types are apparent). Many variations of the color and texture. Natural forest openings and/or patches of vegetation are sharply defined tending to dominate or share dominance with other objects of the visual field.

Unit characterized by a moderately varied vegetative pattern (a few major plant cover types are apparent). Some variation of color and texture. Natural forest openings and patches of vegetation are subtly defined tending toward codominance with or are subordinate to other objects of the visual field.

Unit characterized by a more or less uniform vegetative pattern (only one major plant cover types are apparent). Little (if any) variation in color and texture. Few (or no) natural forest openings and/or patches of vegetation. Vegetative cover edge contrast tends to be minimal in relation to the visual field.

Surface water characteristics

Unit characterized by numerous and/or highly significant water features (prominent glaciers, snow fields and ice floes, diverse shorelines and associated saltwater features, moderately large lakes, major rivers, waterfalls, and clusters of colorful tarns are typical examples); features that tend to dominate or are codominant with other objects of the visual field.

Unit characterized by moderately significant water features (secondary glaciers, minor snow fields, moderately large streams, small distinctive lakes or clusters of tarns, secondary waterfalls, somewhat diverse shorelines, and associated saltwater features are typical examples); features that tend toward codominance with other objects of the visual field.

Unit characterized by somewhat insignificant water features (shorelines and associated saltwater features of little diversity, minor unfigured lakes, ponds, or bogs, and minor streams are typical examples); these features tend to be subordinate to other objects of the visual field.

Table 2. Inherent Scenic Attractiveness Classes for Region 3, the Boundary Ranges and Icefields

•12•



Environment

have strong edge contrasts and spatial definition with moderate spatial variety. Vegetative patterns have some variety providing moderate variation of color and texture especially at natural forest openings. Water features are secondary in nature with somewhat diverse shorelines that tend toward codominance with other objects of the visual field. A portion of this VCU contains a distinctive ISA and is found in the northern portion where the ridgeline from the Speel Arm enters the VCU. This landscape is described as highly complex terrain dominated by angular profiles and defined crests that dominate other objects of the visual field and provide strong edge contrasts and spatial definition. Vegetation includes many variations of color and texture with natural forest openings sharply defined and sharing dominance with other objects of the visual field.

Figure 2. Inherent Scenic Attractiveness classifications for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project


Environment

•13•


Source: USFS 2008: Appendix F, Forest Plan

Table 3.

Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project

Use AreasDispersed recreation areas Gilbert Creek/Sweetheart Flats, Whiting RiverBoat anchorages Gilbert Bay, Port Snettisham

Travel RoutesAlaska Marine Highway and cruise ship routes Stephens Passage, Juneau To Tracy

Arm via Stephens Passage

Small boat and mid-size tour boat routes Port Snettisham, Gilbert Bay, Whiting Inlet, Whiting River

•14•



Environment

An observer of the TNF uses travel routes and use areas to gain physical and visual access to the TNF. These travel ways and use areas are identified as Visual Priority Routes (VPRs) and are inventoried and catalogued by the USFS. VPRs for the TNF can be water or land-based and include water boating routes, roads, anchorages, recreation areas, communities, trails, and other listed areas used by the public. VPRs are identified in Appendix F of the Forest Plan. VPRs determine typical observer positions and locations where the public views the landscape and identify what areas of the landscape can or cannot be observed by users. Land- and water-based travel ways tend to be linear in nature and allow for movement through large areas of the landscape typically at speed, while use areas are concentrated locations with high viewing use due to the stationary or near stationary viewing. Travel routes for water based activities (Alaska Marine Highway, cruise ships, and small and mid-size boats) are to be catalogued from middle channel (Ouderkirk, 2012). VPRs are used for performing visibility analysis and calculating the Distance Zones of the landscape scenery. The VPRs for the Project are found in Table 3 and Figure 3.

Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas

Viewpoints are established to record and inventory the existing scenic conditions of the landscape at key locations along Visual Priority Routes (VPRs). Each time scenery analysis/inventories are developed for an area, these same viewpoints are to be used and will provide a record of the landscape, its characteristics, and how it has regenerated or been modified over the years. The area around the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project does not have any predetermined viewpoints or photo points established from previous scenery analysis in the region (Jensen, 2013). As such, new points were established (Fig. 3) along Priority Travel Routes and from Use Areas listed above. In total, 7 water-based photo points were established and confirmed by the USFS (Jensen, 2013). Water-based points were from middle channel locations of marine routes, at anchorages, saltwater use areas, or where marine routes intersected another route or adjacent to neighboring use areas. The latitude and longitude of each photopoint were recorded, and a 360-degree panorama image was created for each photopoint using a 35 mm digital single-lens reflex (SLR) camera. A 50 mm lens on a 35 mm SLR film camera replicates the human cone of vision. The field of view on a digital camera is 1.6 greater than a film camera due to the formatting size of the digital image. To obtain the same field of vision using a digital format SLR a 32 mm lens was used to obtain the same field of vision that would have been obtained by a 50 mm lens on a 35 mm film camera.

Key Viewpoints


Environment

•15•


Figure 3. Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas Map with Key Viewpoints for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project

Distance Zone Classification


Foreground 4,822 (10%)

Middleground 35,721 (70%)Background 0 (0%)Unseen 9,989 (20%)

Table 4. Distance Zones:

Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project

•16•



Environment

Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas (VPRs) establish how a user gains physical and visual access to the Forest and establishes landscape visibility. From these VPRs, landscape visibility is subdivided into Distance Zones, based on the distance of the landscape from the viewer. The Scenery Management System uses Distance Zones in the classification, analysis, and inventory of scenery. These Distance Zones consist of foreground, middleground, and background and are identified in the Forest Plan (Fig. 4).

• Foreground: visible landscape ½ mile and closer to the observer on a VPR. The limit of this zone is based upon the distance at which details can be perceived. Typically, objects in the foreground can clearly be identified including details and texture. Individual boughs of trees and larger leaves form texture.

• Middleground: ½ mile to 5 miles of visible landscape from the observer on a VPR. Individual elements can still be perceived if unique to surroundings. Texture is typically characterized by the mass of trees rather than individual elements of the trees. Individual trees are usually only discernible in open landscapes.

• Background: 5 miles to the horizon of visible landscape from the observer on a VPR. Texture of uniform tree cover is generally very weak or non-existent. Texture is seen as large groups or patterns of trees.

The landscape that is not seen from any VPR is classified as unseen (USFS, 1995). Landscapes that are viewed from more than one VPR may have more than one distance zone and would have the closest distance associated with the landscape. Landscape visibility in the foreground are typically more visually sensitive that those in the middleground or background. Those landscapes that are unseen have no impact on scenery as a resource because no observer would be able to view them from a VPR or use area.

Twenty percent of the Project area (VCUs 570 and 550) is classified as unseen and are found in pockets and slopes facing away from VPRs and steeper terrain landscapes at the back of the VCUs (Table 4; Figure 3 ). A majority of the landscape is within the middleground distance zone. This is attributed to the Gilbert Bay and Port Snettisham VPRs penetrating the middle of the two VCUs. Most all slopes that are visible from the shoreline to surrounding ridge lines of the VCUs are classified as middleground. The foreground is limited to the immediate shoreline where anchorages are located (Port Snettisham and Gilbert Bay) and the Gilbert Creek/Sweetheart Creek Flats and Whiting River which are dispersed use areas and provides inland access to the Forest. The water based travel routes (Alaska’s Marine Highway, Tour Ship Routes, and Small Boat and Mid-Size Tour Boat Routes) are located in bodies of water that are wide enough that from the middle of the channel that they do not contribute to the foreground distance zone, except adjacent to Speel Arm in VCU 550.

As an aside, over 64% of VCU 610 is classified as unseen, but not included in calculation.

Distance Zones


Environment

•17•


Figure 4. Distance Zone classifications for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project.

Table 5. Existing Scenic Integrity:


Existing Scenic Integrity Classification

Forest Service Lands Total Acres (%)

Very High (1) 48,727 (97%)High (2) 0(0%)Moderate (3) 652(1%)Low (4) 1,153 (2%)Very Low (5) 0 (0%)

•18•



Environment

Existing Scenic Integrity

Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) is a measure of the degree to which the landscape is perceived as whole, complete, or intact without any alterations or modification to the scenery by human activities (USFS, 1995). These could include but are not limited to roadways, communities, timber harvest, quarries or mines, and the development of recreation areas. ESI is an important tool in planning and understanding the regenerative rate of the forest and restoring landscape character back to its intact state. Understanding the ability and time required for the landscape to return back to its complete visual condition becomes an important factor in evaluating potential modifications and the longevity of the visual impacts on the landscape. The Scenic Management System outlines the five classifications of ESI:

• Very High (1). The characteristic landscape is intact or unaltered.

• High (2). The characteristic landscape appears intact. Deviations may be present, but repeat form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character and at such a scale that they are not evident.

• Moderate (3). The landscape appears slightly altered. Noticeable deviations are visually subordinate to the character.

• Low (4). The landscape appears moderately altered. Deviations begin to dominate the landscape character.

• Very Low (5). The landscape appears heavily altered. Deviations are dominant to the characteristic landscape.

Ninety-seven percent of the Project area has a Very High (1) ESI (Table 5; Figure 5). Overall the Project landscape is largely perceived as whole and intact and this is especially true for VCU 570, Gilbert Bay, where the landscape has a Very High (1) rating except for a very small area (less than 1% ) of moderate ESI (3) is found surrounding the private cabin near the Whiting River. VCU 550, Port Snettisham, is less intact and visual modifications upon the landscape are evident from the AIDEA transmission corridor running parallel with the north shore of Port Snettisham. Depending on the topography and when the corridor was last cleared of vegetation thereby creating visual deviations from the surrounding unaltered landscape, the ESI ranges from Low (4) to Moderate (3) where the modifications begin to dominate the landscape. The total area of modified landscape represents 3% of the overall Project area.


Environment

•19•


Figure 5. Existing Scenic Integrity classifications for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project

•20•



Environment

Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI), the degree to which the landscape is perceived as whole, complete, or intact, is an important tool in understanding the regenerative rate of the Forest. By looking at past modifications that have occurred on the landscape at a variety of time periods provides an understanding of the visual regenerative rate of the Forest within the Project. It also assists in determining the time necessary to restore the landscape character back to its visually intact state. Understanding the ability and time required for the landscape to return back to its complete visual condition becomes an important factor in evaluating potential modifications and the longevity of the expected visual impacts on the landscape. The existing AIDEA transmission corridor on the north side of Port Snettisham provides indicators to the regeneration rate of the Forest in the immediate area. The transmission corridor is routinely maintained where larger wood debris is removed from the clearing limits. Comparing ESI and the duration of time since the last clearing operation within the corridor provides a baseline to understand regeneration. From a scenery perspective this becomes a valuable tool to understand the rate of regeneration of the Forest and the duration to meet the required Scenery Integrity Objective. Based on the AIDEA transmission corridor maintenance schedule and ESI, it would be expected that following the removal of larger woody debris in 35 to 50 years that the Forest would regenerate to a condition where there would no longer be a discerning visual impact to the casual observer, ESI 2 (High), provided the Forest is undisturbed during that period. Areas that have all vegetation removed (heavily altered) would be expected to move from an ESI 5 (Very Low) to an ESI 4 (Low) in approximately 10 to 15 years where exposed soils are no longer visible, shrubby material dominate the ground plane and small trees are present but are visually subordinate. One year after the removal of all plant material, the landscape would maintain its ESI 5 (Very Low) rating where soils are exposed, slash is visually obvious and there would be significant visual contrast between the cleared landscape and surrounding undisturbed landscape. After five years, it would be expected that residual shrubs and herbaceous plant would begin to fill in and cover much of the exposed soils however areas of bare soil may still exist on steep slopes and areas with thin soils. Slash would also still be visible. There would still be significant visual contrast between the cleared landscape and surrounding undisturbed landscape and would result in an ESI 5/4.

Existing Scenic Integrity and Forest Regeneration

•21•



Environment


Table 6.

Visual Absorption Capability:


Visual Absorption Capability Classification


High 9,998 (20%)Intermediate 3,721 (7%)Low 36,814 (73%)

•22•



Environment

Visual Absorption Capability

Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) is the ability of a landscape to absorb human alterations without changing the natural character or scenic condition of the landscape. VAC is an indicator to the ease or difficulty of maintaining the scenic quality of the seen landscape while applying modifications upon the landscape (USFS, 1995). There are three classifications of VAC: low, intermediate, and high (Table 6. Figure 6).

Low VAC landscapes are generally those with steep slopes, minimal terrain variety, and minimal vegetative diversity. Without mitigation measures or design considerations, modifications to low VAC landscapes tend to dominate the landscape character.

High VAC landscapes are those with gentle slopes and/or high terrain, and vegetative diversity. Modifications in a high VAC landscape tend to not be evident to the casual observer even without mitigation or special design considerations. Landscapes that are unseen from Visual Priority Routes (VPRs) are assumed to have a high VAC.

Intermediate VAC landscapes have some variety in terrain and vegetation and intermediate slopes. Depending on the modifications, mitigation and design considerations may or may not be necessary.

VAC is a planning tool that provides direction for understanding management activities and their impacts on scenery due to human alteration. VAC is an indicator of potential costs, mitigation, and efficiency when proposing management activities in the landscape. Those landscapes with a low VAC tend to have higher costs and effort associated with the alteration with higher impacts to the scenic character of the landscape. Modifications in a high VAC area tend to be accomplished easily, at lower costs, and with minimal visual impacts to the scenery.

Visual Comparison Unit (VCU) 570, Gilbert Bay, predominately has a Low VAC due to its high visibility high gradation slopes from numerous VPRs, lack of vegetative diversity, and moderate variety in terrain. This VCU has a small percentage of mosaic Intermediate VAC scattered along its lower and middle elevation slopes. This is attested to natural openings in the forest and intermediate slopes on which modifications would be less apparent than the Low VAC areas. All unseen areas have a High VAC and are found in the higher elevations of the Snettisham Peninsula, upper reaches of Gilbert Creek, Sweetheart Creek, and upper elevations to the north of Lower Sweetheart Lake. All foreground distance zones have a Low VAC in this VCU.

VCU 550, Port Snettisham, has similar qualities to VCU 570. The VCU is dominated by a Low VAC landscape due to its high visibility steep slopes from numerous VPRs, lack of vegetative diversity, and moderate variety in terrain. This VCU has a small percentage of mosaic Intermediate VAC scattered along its lower and middle elevation slopes. High VAC is found in unseen landscapes in the upper elevations above Prospect Creek and pockets above Point Sharp along Port Snettisham. All foreground distance zones also have a Low VAC in this VCU.


Environment

•23•


Figure 6. Visual Absorption Capability classifications for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project

•24•



Environment

Other Inventory Information

This section identifies non-scenery attributes that are not specifically required as part of the analysis and inventory as set forth by Scenery Management. These attributes tend to be social attributes of the ecosystem and landscape that if identified as an important priority for the community and users is included in this section. If appropriate, these social attributes may be carried forward and developed with the interdisciplinary development of desired conditions, goals and alternatives for the Project, although outside of the Scenery Management System. These attributes may include auditory, olfactory, physical contacts, recreation setting, emotional, political, spiritual, economic and other values or considerations that are identified by the public.

Other Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use AreasThis is a popular recreation area for bear viewing and personal use fisheries area during the months of July and August. This is an informal use area that is not a Visual Priority Route (VPRs) as identified in Appendix F of the Forest Plan and is not a facility maintained by the USFS, but Sweetheart Lake is stocked annually by a private non-profit hatchery located in Juneau; Douglas Island Pink and Chum, Inc. (DIPAC) for sockeye. The returning sockeye cannot pass the Sweetheart Creek barrier falls which exist a very short distance from tidewater. The returning sockeye salmon do not successfully spawn and the fishery is therefore completely dependent on the annual lake stocking of sockeye fry by DIPAC. Sweetheart Creek is located in an unseen landscape from listed VPRs, however the lower creek to the upper pool/falls is a popular use area by residents of Juneau and allows people the capacity to gain physical and visual access to the TNF. This informal use area was not used in the preparation of this report, but is addressed in the Juneau Hydropower Recreation Report.

•25•



Environment


Table 7. Forest Scenery Goal and Objectives:


Scenery Goal Scenery ObjectiveProvide Forest visitors with visually appealing scenery, with emphasis on areas seen along the Alaska Marine Highway, tour ship and small boat routes, state highways, major Forest roads, and from popular recreation places; recognize that in other areas where landscapes are altered by management activities, the activity may visually dominate the characteristic landscape.

Manage the scenery of the Forest in order to achieve the adopted Scenic Integrity Objectives.

(USFS 2008, p. 2-6)

•26•


Managem

ent

MANAGEMENTThe second phase of Scenic Management Systems is establishing the management requirements including the development of scenery goals and objectives. This phase references the established guidelines, goals and objectives in the Forest Plan to set standards and thresholds for acceptable levels of modifications to scenery.

The establishment of Forest-wide goals and objectives for the Tongass National Forest is outlined in Chapter Two ‘Goals and Objectives’ in the Forest Plan. The chapter presents the Desired Conditions for the Forest and the Forest-wide goals and objectives. The Forest-wide Desired Conditions for scenery is as follows:

The outstanding scenery of the Forest is a major attraction for resident and nonresident recreation users; a full range of recreation opportunities is present. In some cases, scenic values from certain travel routes, trails, high vista points, or aerial observations are affected by timber harvest or mining activities. Users have the opportunity to experience independence, closeness to nature, solitude, and remoteness. (USFS, 2008, p. 2-2).

The goals of the Forest Plan respond to public issues and the ecosystems of the Forest to obtain desired conditions. These goals and objectives are broad general statements without a specific timeline. The Forest-wide goal and objective related to scenery are found below.

Forest-wide goals and objectives are achieved through the development of Management Prescriptions as found in Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan. These more specific goals represent management from an “ecosystem” perspective, where ecosystems are considered from the “site” to the “Forest” level. Goals are achieved through the development of management requirements for each of the eighteen Land Use Designations (LUDs) found within the Forest and the implementation of the standards and guidelines specified for each LUD. Each LUD has goals, standards and guidelines established for scenery resources. Additional objectives to help accomplish the goals are also found in Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan, and in the Resource Schedules contained in Appendix J (USFS, 2008).

•27•


Managem

ent

Landscape Character Goals

Landscape character is a description for an identifiable area of a national forest or region. Landscape character gives a geographic area its visual and cultural image and consists of the combination of physical, biological and cultural attributes that make each landscape identifiable or unique. Landscape character defines the characteristics of landform patterns and features, vegetation patterns, surface water, and land use patterns or cultural features. The Landscape Character for the Project Area is the Boundary Ranges and Icefields and is summarized previously under Landscape Character. Effects to scenery are referenced back to the Landscape Character of the Project Area and the impacts to its identifiable landscape characteristics (vegetation, landforms, surface water, etc.).

Land Use Designations (LUDs) are management zones within the Forest that define a range of allowable uses and affects upon the landscape and the specific Landscape Character as defined in the Forest Plan. LUDs are only for the management of USFS lands. Visual Comparison Unit (VCU) 610, 570, and 550 are defined by five LUDs: Semi-remote Recreation, Modified Landscape, Old-Growth Habitat, Scenic Viewshed, and Timber Production. The Project traverses three LUDs: Semi-remote Recreation, Old-Growth Habitat, and Timber Production. The goals, objectives, desired condition, and LUD Standards and Guidelines for scenery for the Project LUDs are as follows (USFS 2008, pp. 3-57, 3-63, 3-116).

Semi-remote RecreationGoals

• To provide predominantly natural or natural-appearing settings for semi-primitive types of recreation and tourism, and occasional enclaves of concentrated recreation and tourism facilities.

• To provide opportunities for a moderate degree of independence, closeness to nature, and self-reliance in environments requiring challenging motorized or non-motorized forms of transportation.

Objectives • Manage recreation and tourism use and activities to meet the levels of social encounters,

on-site developments, methods of access, and visitor impacts indicated for the Semi-Primitive ROS classes. Enclaves of concentrated recreation and tourism developments within the Land Use Designation (LUD) or management activities in adjacent LUDs may cause the ROS setting to become Rural.

• Determine on a case-by-case basis whether roads, trails, and other areas should be closed to motorized recreation activities. If so, incorporate into off-highway vehicle (OHV) plans. If not, the use of boats, aircraft, and snowmachines for traditional activities is allowed.

• Permit small-scale, rustic recreation and tourism facilities, and occasional enclaves of concentrated recreation and tourism facilities.

• Apply the Moderate SIO to any developments, facilities, or structures.

• Fish enhancement and wildlife habitat improvement may occur.

Desired Condition Areas in the Semi-remote Recreation LUD are characterized by generally unmodified natural environments. Ecological processes and natural conditions are only minimally affected by past or current human uses or activities. Users have the opportunity to experience a moderate degree of independence, closeness to nature, solitude, and remoteness, with some areas offering motorized opportunities and others non-motorized opportunities (except for the traditional uses of boats, aircraft, and snowmachines). Interaction between

•28•


Managem

ent

users is infrequent. Facilities and structures may be minimal or occasionally may be larger in scale, but will be rustic in appearance, or in harmony with the natural setting.

Scenery1. Design resource activities to remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities

may repeat form, line, color, or texture common to the landscape. New form, line, color, or texture will be subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

2. Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for the Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO).

3. There may be cases where facilities associated with a concentrated recreation or tourism development may not feasibly meet the Moderate objective. After analysis of the proposal and public involvement, the NEPA decision document for this project should determine the specific SIO for the development. The environmental analysis shall also prescribe design guidelines necessary to meet this scenery objective. During the Project’s design phase, the USFS shall be closely involved in the review of design work as it evolves.

4. Design visitor facilities to blend, to the extent feasible, with the natural setting.

5. Rehabilitation techniques may be used to restore disturbed landscapes to be compatible with the Semi-Primitive setting.

Old-Growth Habitat Land Use DesignationGoals

• Maintain areas of old-growth forests and their associated natural ecological processes to provide habitat for old-growth associated resources.

• Manage early seral conifer stands to achieve old-growth forest characteristic structure and composition based upon site capability. Use old-growth definitions as outlined in Ecological Definitions for Old-growth Forest Types in Southeast Alaska (R10-TP-28).

Objectives • Provide old-growth forest habitats, in combination with other LUDs, to maintain viable

populations of

• Native and desired non-native fish and wildlife species and subspecies that may be closely associated with old-growth forests.

• Contribute to the habitat capability of fish and wildlife resources to support sustainable human subsistence and recreational uses.

• Maintain components of flora and fauna biodiversity and ecological processes associated with old-growth forests.

• Allow existing natural or previously harvested early seral conifer stands to evolve naturally to old-growth forest habitats, or apply silvicultural treatments to accelerate Forest succession to achieve old-growth forest structural features. Consider practices such as thinning, release and weeding, pruning, and fertilization to promote accelerated development of old-growth characteristics.

• To the extent feasible, limit roads, facilities, and permitted uses to those compatible with old-growth forest habitat management objectives.

Desired Condition • All forested areas within this LUD have attained old-growth forest characteristics. A diversity of

old-growth habitat types and associated species and subspecies and ecological processes are represented.

Scenery1. Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for High Scenic Integrity Objective. Design activities

to not be visually evident to the casual observer.

•29•


Managem

ent

2. Exceptions for small areas of non-conforming developments, such as recreational developments, transportation developments, log transfer facilities, and mining development, may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Use designs and materials that are compatible with forms, colors, and textures found in the characteristic landscape.

Timber Production Land Use DesignationGoals

• To maintain and promote wood production from suitable forest lands, providing a continuous supply of wood to meet society’s needs.

• To manage these lands for sustained long-term timber yields.

• To seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest that meets the annual and planning-cycle market demand, consistent with the standards and guidelines for this LUD.

Objectives Within this LUD, apply the Scenic Integrity Objectives of Low in the foreground distance zone, as seen from Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas (see Appendix F, Forest Plan). Apply the Very Low Scenic Integrity Objective to all other areas.

Locate and design timber harvest activities primarily to meet timber objectives. Suitable forest lands are available for timber harvest; appropriate silvicultural systems may be used. Other timber management objectives include:

• Seek to reduce clearcutting when other cutting methods will meet land management objectives.

• Identify opportunities for diversifying the wood products industry (e.g., special forest products, and value-added local production).

• Use forest health management to protect resource values.

• Improve timber growth and productivity on commercial forest lands.

• Plan, inventory, prepare, offer, sell and administer timber sales and permits to ensure the orderly development of timber production.

• Emphasize the overall reduction of costs, increase of revenues, and improvement of public service within the timber program.

• Provide a spectrum of recreation and tourism opportunities consistent with the capabilities of this LUD.

• Manage recreation and tourism use to be compatible with timber production objectives. Manage changed recreation settings in accordance with the appropriate Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class.

• Plan a transportation network of roads and helicopter access that will eventually access most of the suitable forest lands for standard logging or helicopter yarding systems and transition to young-growth management.

Desired Condition • Suitable forest lands are managed for the production of sawtimber and other wood products on

an even-flow, long-term sustained yield basis; the timber yield produced contributes to Allowable Sale Quantity. An extensive road system provides access for timber management activities, recreation uses, hunting and fishing, and other public and administrative uses; some roads may be closed, either seasonally or year-long, to address resource concerns. Management activities will generally dominate most seen areas. Tree stands are healthy and with a mix of age classes from young stands to trees of harvestable age, often in 40- to 100-acre stands. Recreation opportunities, associated with roaded settings from Semi-Primitive to Roaded Modified, are available. A variety of wildlife habitats, predominantly in the early and middle successional stages, are present.

•30•


Managem

ent

Scenery1. Timber management activities may dominate the scenic character of the landscape.

2. Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for the Low Scenic Integrity Objective in the foreground distance zone of Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas (see Appendix F, Forest Plan) and the Very Low Scenic Integrity Objective for all other areas. This objective defines the maximum limit of allowable change to the scenic character of the area; less visible evidence of activities is acceptable.

3. Consider roadside cleanup of construction debris and logging slash as a mitigation measure when recreational use is included as a road management objective for the proposed road.

4. In areas visible from Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas, incorporate landscape design techniques in the planning process to the extent that they are compatible with LUD objectives.

Special LUD ConsiderationIt is the intent of the JHI to obtain a new LUD for the Project area in the near future (Mitchell, 2013). The desired designation would be a Transportation and Utility System (TUS) LUD to support the development of state and federal highways, railroads, public hydroelectric power projects and associated facilities, powerlines 66 kV or greater, and pipelines 10 inches or greater in diameter and would include the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project. A TUS LUD is defined as an “Overlay LUD” where the underlying initial LUDs, Timber Production, Old Growth Habitat, and Semi-remote Recreation, remain in effect until that time where the initiation of construction, and during system operation of the TUS facility, this management prescription will apply. Within the TUS corridor, the underlying LUDs continue to exist but are superseded by the TUS only for the allowable uses prescribed by the TUS. The TUS LUD applies only to the project limits/corridor necessary for the infrastructure and maintenance of facilities required as part of the TUS. Outside the TUS corridor, the underlying LUDs remain as the management prescription.

The intent of this Report is to be dynamic in nature and analyze and document the visual impacts related to the current LUDs (Timber Production, Old Growth Habitat, and Semi-remote Recreation) and to also analyze and document the scenery effects should the Project obtain a TUS LUD. All discussion related to the proposed future TUS designation will be indicated by use of italicized text and is only valid should the Project receive the TUS designation in the future. Until that time, the Project will be analyzed, managed, and scenery effects documented as they relate to the current existing three LUDs (Timber Production, Old Growth Habitat, and Semi-remote Recreation) found in the Forest Plan.

The goals, objectives, desired condition, and LUD Standards and Guidelines for the Transportation and Utility System LUD (if obtained in the future) are as follows (USFS, 2008, 3-128 to 3-133).

Transportation and Utility SystemGoals

• To provide for, and/or facilitate the development of, existing and future major public Transportation and Utility Systems, including those identified by the State of Alaska and the Alaska Energy Authority.

Objectives • Apply this management prescription to existing major systems corridors. Use the prescription

as criteria in the planning and design of future system corridors. The corridors shown on the Land Use Designation (LUD) Map (2007) do not include viable routes that may be considered during project analysis. Consideration of alternate routes that meet corridor objectives while reducing costs and/or minimizing resource impacts is encouraged. During the period before

•31•


Managem

ent

actual construction of new systems occurs, the management prescription(s) of the (initial) LUD(s) underlying the corridors will remain applicable. Upon initiation of construction, and during system operation, this management prescription will apply. The Transportation Utility System (TUS) LUD takes precedence over any underlying LUD (subject to applicable laws) regardless of whether the underlying LUD is a TUS Avoidance LUD or not. As such, it represents a “window” through the underlying LUD through which roads and/or utilities can be built.

• For application of this LUD, “major systems” are defined as state and federal highways, railroads, public hydroelectric power projects and associated facilities, powerlines 66 kV or greater, and pipelines 10 inches or greater in diameter.

• Allow special uses and facilities not related to transportation or utility systems, if compatible with present or future systems.

• If the development of systems changes the Recreation Opportunity System (ROS) setting, manage recreation and tourism opportunities in accordance with the new setting. Consider the development of recreation and tourism facilities in conjunction with the planning of state or federal highways or reservoirs.

• Following construction of systems, lands in the right-of-way, if permanently cleared, will be considered unsuitable for timber production.

• Transportation and utility corridors, to the extent feasible, should follow the same route.

• Transportation Utility Systems may dominate the seen foreground area, yet are designed with consideration for the existing form, line, color, and texture of the characteristic landscape.

• Minimize and/or mitigate adverse effects to wildlife habitat and populations to the extent feasible.

• Maintain the present and continued productivity of anadromous fish and other fish habitat to the extent feasible.

Desired Condition Transportation Utility Systems have been constructed in an efficient and economic manner, and have been designed to be compatible with the adjacent Land Use Designation to the maximum extent feasible. The minimum land area consistent with an efficient, safe facility is used for their development. Effects on other resources have been recognized and resource protection has been provided. Other resources uses and activities in the area do not conflict with utility operations. State and federal highways and reservoirs offer new developed recreation opportunities, as appropriate.

Scenery1. The landscape may be dominated by activities associated with Transportation Utility Systems.

Although Transportation and Utility System developments may dominate the seen area, they are designed with consideration for existing form, line, color, and texture found in the characteristic landscape.

2. Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for the Low Scenic Integrity Objective. Perform viewshed analysis in conjunction with project development to provide direction for retaining or creating a visually attractive landscape over time.

3. Work with topographic and vegetative features to screen the development when seen from Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas (see Appendix F, Forest Plan).

4. Consider the following during the design phase of routes, which are, or are seen from, Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas:

a. Vegetation of slopes seen from the road.

b. Providing “planting pockets” or terraces or slopes, where needed.

c. Maintaining landforms through road location and design.

Table 8. Adopted Scenery Integrity Objectives for Each Distance Zone Based on Land Use Designation

Land Use Designation Foreground SIO Middleground SIO Background SIO Seldom Seen SIOSemi-Remote Recreation* Moderate Moderate Moderate ModerateTimber Harvest* Low Very Low Very Low Very LowOld-Growth Habitat* High High High HighScenic Viewshed High Moderate Moderate Very Low

Modified Landscape Moderate Low Low Very Low

Transportation and Utility System**

Low Low Low Low

*LUD within Project Area.

** If obtained.

Source: USFS 2008

•32•


Managem

ent

d. Breaking up the straight line effect of linear corridors by considering special treatment of vegetation on clearing slopes or application of other design techniques and principles.

5. Requiring roadside cleanup of construction debris and logging slash on all roads receiving general public use or expected to have such future use.

•33•


Managem

ent

Scenic Integrity Objectives

A major component of the Scenery Management System (SMS) is the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs). SIOs are used to establish scenery standards for management and the degree to which the landscape must be retained intact or can be perceived as modified by alterations by human activities (USFS 1995). In the Forest Plan, SIOs were adopted that provide direction and objectives for landscape scenery and Distance Zones within each Land Use Designation (LUD) (USFS, 2008, p. 4-57). The long-term future scenic condition for each area is set as a scenic integrity level that defines maximum levels of visual impact desirable from human alterations to the natural landscape character. Associated with each objective is a set of recommended scenery standards and guidelines for each allowable use. These recommendations are guidelines that generally define how much modification can occur and still meet the SIO. Each objective makes recommendations for each distance zone and the time line to meet the SIO (USFS, 2008, pp. 4-57 to 4-59).

SMS and the Forest Plan outline five classifications of SIOs (Figure 7).

• High: The characteristic landscape appears intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such a scale that they are not evident.

• Moderate: The landscape appears slightly altered. Noticeable deviations are visually subordinate to the character.

• Low: The landscape appears moderately altered. Deviations may be dominant, but are shaped to borrow from the natural landform and other visual dominance elements (line, form, texture, color) and are subordinate to the characteristic landscape when viewed as background.

• Very Low: Deviations are dominant, but borrow from the natural terrain and other elements common to the characteristic landscape.

LUD plays a key role in establishing management prescriptions and determining the SIO for the landscape. The Project currently has three LUDs: Timber Production, Old Growth Habitat, and Semi-Remote Recreation. As previously discussed, there is a desire by JHI to obtain a Transportation and Utility Systems (TUS) LUD for the Project. The TUS is an “overlay” LUD where the initial three underlying LUDs remain in effect until initiation of construction and during system operation of the Transportation and Utility System facility, at which point the TUS LUD supersedes the underlying three LUDs. Until a TUS LUD is obtained, the three existing LUDs listed in the Forest Plan determine the SIO for the landscape.

The Forest Plan adopts SIOs that provide direction and objectives for landscapes within each LUD. The long-term desired future scenic condition for a specific area is the maintenance of a scenic integrity level that is at least as high as the adopted SIO for that area. Adopted SIOs for each Distance Zones are listed for each LUD and found below. (USFS, 2008, p. 4-57).

Footnote 4 on the Forest Plan’s Adopted Scenery Integrity Objectives for the Semi-Remote Recreation and Old-Growth Habitat LUDs indicate the following: “Exceptions for small areas of non-conforming developments, such as recreation developments, transportation developments, log transfer facilities, and mining development, may be considered in these LUDs on a case-by-case basis.” (USFS, 2008, p. 4-57).

Visual Comparison Unit (VCU) 570, Gilbert Bay, is comprised of a large tract of Semi-Remote Recreation LUD (both in the foreground and middleground distance zones) on the east side of Gilbert Bay stretching from the southern limit to the north and therefore receives a Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO). The lower and middle elevations along the western side of Gilbert Bay have a Very Low SIO as a result of its Timber Management LUD in the middleground distance zone. Two other LUDS are found in this VCU but outside the Project Area. These

Table 9.

Existing Scenic Integrity Objectives (VCU 550 and 570):


Scenic Integrity Objective Classification


High 6,424 (13%)Moderate 17,940 (36%)Low 15,434 (30%)Very Low 10,673 (21%)

Table 10.

Land Use Designation Related to VCU and Distance Zones:


VCU LUD Foreground Acres (%) Middleground Acres (%) Not Seen Acres (%)570 Semi-Remote Recreation* 2,175 (4%) 11,009 (22%) 1,889 (4%)

Timber Production* 2,246 (4%) 3,823 (7%) 535 (1%)Modified Landscape - 2,075 (4%) 2,664 (5%)Old-Growth Habitat - 494 (1%) 1,191 (2%)

550 Old-Growth Habitat* - 4,596 (9%) 144 (<1%)Timber Production* - 105 (<1%) -

Semi-Remote Recreation - 1,365 (3%) -

Scenic Viewshed - 1,159 (2%) -

Modified Landscape 321 (<1%) 11,113 (22%) 3,711 (7%)

•34•


Managem

ent

include a sliver of Old-Growth Habitat at the southern portion with a High SIO and a Modified Landscape on the upper elevations above the west side of Gilbert Bay. This area receives a Low SIO in the middleground.

VCU 550, Port Snettisham, is made up of an Old-Growth Habitat LUD and middleground distance zone on the north side of Port Snettisham adjacent Stephens Passage and is designated as a High SIO. A small portion of Timber Management is located at Sentinel Point and results in a Very Low SIO in the middleground. Another three LUDs exist in this VCU and are outside the Project Area. The first being the area surrounding Prospect Creek, which has a Modified Landscape LUD and a Low SIO in the middleground and Moderate SIO in the foreground. The second is the south portion of Port Snettisham designated as Scenic Viewshed and has a Moderate SIO due to being in the middleground. The last is a Semi-Remote Recreation LUD (middleground distance zone) and receives a Moderate SIO.

As discussed previously, it is the intent of the JHI to obtain a Transportation and Utility Systems (TUS) Land Use Designation (LUD) that would overlay the Semi-Remote Recreation, Timber Production, and Old-Growth Habitat LUDs. These initial underlying LUDs remain in effect until that time where the initiation of construction and during system operation of the Transportation and Utility System (TUS) facility, at which point the TUS LUD supersedes the underlying LUDs. The TUS is a linear LUD with an undetermined size over the underlying Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO). Until the TUS LUD is obtained, the three existing LUDs will determine the management and SIO of the Project.

Managem

ent

•35•


Figure 7. Scenic Integrity Objective classifications for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project.

•36•


Managem

ent

Scenic Integrity Objectives: Specific Guidelines

High SIO: Old- Growth Habitat LUD (all Distance Zones)Design activities to not be visually evident to the casual observer. This objective should be accomplished within 6 months following Project completion.

Facilities • Keep vegetation clearing to a minimum and within close proximity of the site.

• Select materials and colors that blend with those found in the natural surroundings.

• Screening should be used from viewpoints and travel routes if feasible.

Transportation • Rock Sources. When a forest development road is a Visual Priority Route (VPR), locate rock

sources off the road, when possible. Spur road access may be necessary to minimize the visual impact. Rock source development should not be apparent from the road, use area, or marine travel route to meet this scenic objective.

• Corridor Treatment. Provide roadside cleanup of ground-disturbing activities.

• Depending on site conditions, cut stumps as low as possible and angled away from the viewer. Incorporate this treatment in the timber sale contract.

Moderate SIO: Semi-Remote Recreation LUD (all Distance Zones)

Design activities to be subordinate to the landscape character of the area. This SIO should be accomplished within 1 year of Project completion.


• Emphasize enhancement of views from recreational facilities.


Transportation • Design rock sources to be minimally apparent as seen from VPRs. Rehabilitation is usually

necessary following closure of rock source developments. It may be necessary to modify some ground-disturbing activities seen from the foreground of VPRs.

• Corridor Treatment. Roadside cleanup of ground disturbance activities may be necessary.

Low SIO: Timber Harvest LUD (Foreground Distance Zone) Activities may visually dominate the characteristic landscape, but must have visual characteristics similar to those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area or character type. This SIO should be met within 1 year in the foreground distance zone and within 5 years in the middle and background Distance Zones following Project completion.

When planning activities, use naturally established form, line, color, and texture found in the landscape.

Facilities• Siting and design should borrow from naturally occurring patterns in the landscape, and should

not be visually dominant when viewed in the background distance zone.

•37•


Managem

ent

Transportation • Rock source operations and resulting landform modifications may be evident to the casual

observer as seen from VPRs. However, the quarry location and design should mitigate, to the extent feasible, the apparent visual size and dominance of the activity (e.g., shaping of backwalls, roadside screening, and general orientation of the opening).

Low SIO: Transportation and Utilities System LUD (all Distance Zone)*

Activities may visually dominate the characteristic landscape, but must have visual characteristics similar to those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area or character type. This SIO should be met within 1 year in the foreground distance zone and within 5 years in the middle and background Distance Zones following Project completion.





observer as seen from VPRs. However, the quarry location and design should mitigate, to the extent feasible, the apparent visual size and dominance of the activity (e.g., shaping of backwalls, roadside screening, and general orientation of the opening).

*This LUD is currently not listed with the Project Area in the Forest Plan, however JHI is proposing to obtain this LUD for the Project.

Very Low SIO: Timber Harvest LUD (Middleground and Background Distance Zones)

• Activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, yet when viewed as background, should appear to be a natural occurrence.

• Locate and design management activities to take advantage of existing (both natural and imposed) pattern and texture found in the landscape when viewed in the middleground from VPRs.

• Design activities to resemble natural occurrences as viewed in the background distance zone.

•38•


Managem

ent

Other Scenery Related Goals and Objectives

Design ActivitiesThe Forest Plan also indicates that in designing activities to meet specific Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs), a number of factors must be considered. These factors include the following:

The landscape’s Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) rating is an inventoried condition that rates the degree of change that has already occurred on the ground. It is important to compare the ESI of the Project area to the SIOs assigned by the Forest Plan. Should there be conflicting conditions presently existing and the intent of the Land Use Designation (LUD) is not presently met, it would be appropriate to consider either 1) some specific rehabilitation measures, or 2) Project deferral that would allow the landscapes in the Project area time to regenerate sufficiently.

Visual Absorption Capability (VAC), which is an estimate of the relative ability of a landscape to absorb management activities. High, Intermediate, and Low VAC ratings are used. These ratings reflect the degree of landscape variety in an area, viewing distance, and topographic characteristics. As examples, a Low VAC setting generally has steep slopes, with little landscape variety, while a High VAC setting may be relatively flat and/or has a high degree of variety in the landscape.

Size, shape, orientation to viewer, color, texture, etc. are critical elements in determining whether or not an activity meets the adopted SIO. Consideration for the scenery is essential early on in planning processes, particularly in areas seen from a Visual Priority Route. However, each landscape setting is different, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There may be instances where the SIO can be met while the proposed activity is greater than the guideline, or there also may be cases where the activity must be smaller to meet the intent of the SIO.

•39•


Scenery Effects Predictions

SCENERY EFFECTSThe proposed Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility would include a dam and penstock on Lower Sweetheart Lake with a powerhouse and switchyard adjacent to Sweetheart Creek. A transmission corridor would run along (as overhead cables) and under (as submarine cables) Gilbert Bay and Port Snettisham. The transmission line is proposed to tie into Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority’s (AIDEA) existing transmission line on the north side of Port Snettisham. Additional Project facilities would include an access road, two quarries (of which one will be refilled upon the completion of construction), marine access facility, a maintenance/warehouse building, and a proposed USFS public use cabin on the east side of Gilbert Bay north of the powerhouse. The project would be located on federal lands managed by the USDA Forest Service (USFS) as part of the Tongass National Forest and on lands owned by the State of Alaska. Proposed facilities for each VCU are summarized below.

VCU 610 Project facilities in this VCU include the dam and the tunnel penstock. Impacts would also include raising Lower Sweetheart Lake’s level for hydroelectric generation. All facilities are located in an unseen landscape.

VCU 570Facilities include the tunnel penstock coming down from Lower Sweetheart Lake. Adjacent to Sweetheart Creek and near tidewater is proposed a powerhouse, switchyard, smolt re-entry pool, and tailrace consisting of an open afterbay and tunnel extending to Sweetheart Creek. The powerhouse and switchyard will have berms of rock predominately placed on the western and southern portions of the site. The powerhouse and switchyard will be sited inside a quarry and linked by a 4,400 foot-long access road/trail to the north to a new marine access facility including a dual-height marine ramp, floating docks for seaplane and boat access, and a staging area adjacent to the docks. The marine access facility and most of the coastal road would be primarily located on State of Alaska lands. Behind the marine access facility will be a rock quarry to provide material for the road construction that will be refilled with rock and where a proposed USFS cabin will be located. Located to the south of the quarry will be a warehouse/maintenance building and a possible USFS public use cabin. All facilities, except the penstock, would be located in the foreground distance zone.

Adjacent to the marine facility the transmission corridor will be a submarine cable (approx. 1.76 miles) that travels under Gilbert Bay to the west shoreline. Upon reaching land a transition facility will allow the submarine cable to go to an overhead configuration. The approx. 2.90 mile long transmission corridor will travel north perpendicular to the shoreline of Gilbert Bay to Sentinel Point. The corridor exits this VCU just to the south of Sentinel Point. These facilities would be located in a middleground distance zone.

VCU 550The overhead transmission corridor (approx. 0.1 mile) enters this VCU from the south and becomes a submarine corridor at Sentinel Point and travels approx. 3.10 miles under Port Snettisham to the other transition facility on the northern shore of Port Snettisham east of Mist Island. The transmission corridor continues on land underground for 150’ before entering a transition facility, converting to an overhead configuration and tying into the existing AIDEA overhead transmission corridor. These facilities are located in a middleground distance zone.

•40•



Project wide, overhead transmission structures will be steel T and straight-shaped towers with a typical height of 80 feet. These structures, largely due to the use of guys, can be designed to be relatively light weight allowing setting of the structures with the use of a heavy lift helicopter. The structures are to be supported on micro-pile foundations (JHI Exhibit G 4.4, 2013). The clearing width within the transmission corridor will be 100 feet on either side of the center line resulting in a total of 200 feet cleared for all overhead transmission corridors. All trees will be cleared from the transmission corridor at the initiation of construction and during the existence of the Project to eliminate potential hazards and allow access to the transmission line. Vegetation management will be required as part of the scheduled maintenance of the corridor. The width of the cleared corridor may vary depending on tower placement, existing vegetation, terrain, and slopes, and is determined by the utility engineer.

It is expected that the Project will have the greatest visual impacts immediately after completion of construction. As the Forest naturally regenerates within the transmission corridor, the visual impacts will be reduced. In the middleground and background Distance Zones, visual impacts will be attributed to the deviation in color and texture from the surrounding undisturbed vegetated landscape. In the foreground, the transmission structures, utility lines, and the deviation in vegetation (color and texture) within the corridor will result in visual impacts.

•41•



Prominence and Sensitivity of Proposed Scenery Effects

To fully understand the expected scenery effects from the Project the following details the structures, sizes, spacing and corridor clearing limits for each of the Project segments within each of the Visual Comparison Units (VCUs). The summary also identifies where scenery impacts are expected, the distance zone effected, and those areas that are sensitive including those with a Low Visual Absorption Capacity, Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) of 1-3, and High Inherent Scenic Attractiveness (ISA). The landscape areas that are identified as being sensitive are highlighted in bold text under the prominence and sensitivity summary for each segment.

VCU 610 Dam and PenstockThis VCU includes the Lower Sweetheart Lake dam and the penstock, which will be set within a tunnel. Neither will be visible. Lake levels will be elevated to allow for power generation.

Prominence and Sensitivity of this segment:• Dam, penstock and elevated lake levels: Unseen landscape, High ESI (Class 1), Distinctive ISA, High

VAC.

• Due to facilities being in an unseen landscape and having a High VAC, the sensitivity of these facilities in a High ESI and Distinctive ISA are negligible.

VCU 570Facilities in this VCU include the powerhouse, switchyard, tailrace, two rock quarries, access road, warehouse/maintenance building, marine access facility, and transition facilities. Transmission lines in this VCU include buried, submarine, and overhead configurations.

East Side of Gilbert Bay: Power Generating and Related Support FacilitiesFacilities on this portion of the VCU include the powerhouse, switchyard, tailrace, access road, marine access facility, rock quarries, warehouse/maintenance building, potential USFS cabin, and transition facility. Total disturbed area will be approximately 12.4 acres, of which 8.3 will be on State land. The powerhouse and switchyard will be located in a quarry just north of Sweetheart Creek and within the tree line above the tidal area. The quarry will have a footprint of 75,000 sq. ft. and a total wall height of 80 ft. The wall face will be divided by a 20’ wide ledge 16 feet up, with a wall face on the upper terrace up to 65 feet tall at its highest point. The two-story, 5,460 sq. ft. powerhouse would be set into the landscape with soil berms and vegetation around the perimeter of the structure to assist in screening the facility. One face of the building would be visible towards Gilbert Bay. Adjacent to the powerhouse would be the 15,200 sq. ft. switchyard, and 6,500 sq. ft. smolt re-entry pool flowing into Sweetheart Creek. Earth berms and landscaping would surround the powerhouse and switchyard on the south and west sides to create a visual buffer from Gilbert Bay. From the powerhouse, a 4,400 foot-long gravel access road would travel north just above the high tide line. The road would largely be built on fill material on State lands to get grade above the high tide line. The 20-foot-wide gravel road would have five pull-outs on the water side of the road that would add 16 feet to the width of the roadbed at those locations. It is JHI’s plan to reconstruct the road to a one lane road/Trail upon completion of construction. Each pull out is approximately 200 feet long. These pullouts are also intended to be revegetated upon completion of construction.

•42•



The road clearing limits including road fill limits to cut slopes on the uphill side of the road varies but has a typical width of approximately 75 feet. No vegetation would remain between the road and Gilbert Bay except where revegetation planting is installed adjacent to the pull outs. Larger boulders would be placed at high tide on fill slopes to provide visual variety for the road bed fill slopes. The transmission line would be buried below the road bed and run for approximately 4700’ from the powerhouse to the marine transition facility.

The access road links the powerhouse to the marine access facility. The marine facility includes a dual-height marine ramp (100’ by 14’), a floating dock would provide boat access (141’ length and 24’ width) with a seaplane dock at its terminus (1,500 sq. ft.). These facilities are not on USFS lands. Adjacent to the marine access facility is a level area of fill (31,500 sq. ft.) that would be used for a staging/storage area and is also located on State Land except for a small portion of USFS land totalling 0.1 acres. These facilities would be located in the foreground of one of two rock quarries which will be used for extracting fill for the road construction. The quarries will provide approximately 20,000 cubic yards of material. The footprint of this quarry is 24,000 sq. ft. Once the rock is removed, approximately 10,000 cubic yards of waste material will be replaced in the quarry. The quarry will have an initial back wall height of 60 feet and will be approximately 330 feet long. The waste material placed back into the quarry will bring the base grade up approximately twenty-five feet as a sloped berm. This will reduce the vertical back wall height to approximately 20’. Located within the quarry will be a warehouse/shop and caretaker facility. This two-story structure will have a 4,225 sq. ft. footprint and be accessible from the road. Negotiations with the USFS indicate that a prototypical Forest Service recreation cabin may also be located in the quarry near the dock. A partially buried concrete vault would be located near the marine access facility that allows the underground transmission line to transition to submarine before entering Gilbert Bay.

Prominence and Sensitivity of this segment:All facilities are located in:

• Foreground Distance Zone

• Typical ISA (Class B)

• High ESI (Class 1)

• Low VAC

West Side of Gilbert Bay: Transmission LinesThis segment of transmission lines includes going from a submarine cable exiting Gilbert Bay, entering a transition facility just above high tide and then going to an overhead transmission line. The submarine cable corridor would result in cleared vegetation on land above the buried cables to a width of 30 feet and running approximately 50 feet from the high tide line to the transition facility. The station would be a small secured structure sitting on a cleared pad of approximately 625 square feet. Exiting the station would be a single transmission line with three conductors supported on steel T and straight-shaped towers with an average height of 80 feet. The transmission line will run to the north towards Sentinel Point. The clearing limits for the corridor are estimated at 100 feet on the downhill side and 100 feet on the uphill side, for a total clearing width of 200 feet. The total length of the overhead corridor in this VCU is approx. 2.90 miles.

Prominence and Sensitivity of this segment:• Middleground



•43•



• Low VAC (dotted with Intermediate)

VCU 550The Project in this Visual Comparison Unit (VCU) only includes the hydroelectric transmission lines.

Transmission LinesThis segment of transmission lines includes going from overhead line at Sentinel Point to submarine cable under Port Snettisham and back to overhead line to connect to the existing Snettisham Transmission Line. The overhead transmission line exits VCU 570 on the ridge above Sentinel Point and enters VCU 550 from the south as an overhead line. The transmission line travels approx. 1,000 feet from the edge of the VCU to the south shore of Port Snettisham. The transmission line conductors in this portion of the VCU would be supported by steel T and straight-shaped towers with an average height of 80 feet. The clearing limits for the corridor are estimated at 100 feet on the downhill side and 100 feet on the uphill side, for a total clearing width of 200 feet. At Sentinel Point the transmission line enter a transition facility just above high tide and converts to a submarine cable configuration. The submerged cable travels west 3.1 miles and meets up with the northern shore of Port Snettisham just east of Mist Island. It continues north underground as it heads up the shore by 400 feet to the transition facility located within the existing AIDEA Snettisham transmission corridor. This segment of underground cable runs for 16,000 feet. Both transition facilities would result in cleared vegetation above the buried cables to a width of 30 feet. Both stations would be a small secured structure sitting on a cleared pad of approximately 625 sq. ft. Upon exiting substation adjacent to the AIDEA transmission line the transmission line would convert to an overhead configuration supported on one steel T and straight-shaped tower with a height of 80 feet. The overhead transmission line runs approx. 150 feet from the transition facility to the tie-in with the existing AIDEA overhead transmission lines. The clearing limits for the corridor before connecting to AIDEA’s Snettisham line are estimated at a total clearing width of 30 feet. The total length of the overhead corridor within VCU 550 is 1,150 feet.



• High ESI on the southern portion of the VCU adjacent Sentinel Point. Very Low ESI on northern side of Port Snettisham adjacent Mist Island and AIDEA corridor.

• Low VAC

•44•



Construction and MaintenanceIn addition to the physical features associated with the Project, construction techniques and scheduled maintenance during the operation of the facility will also determine the extent of scenery effects at various time periods during the life time of the Project.

Construction operations within USFS lands includes clearing and grading a portion of the access road, clearing all trees from within the clearing limits of the transmission line corridor, construction of the gravel roadway, and placement of the hydroelectric towers and structures to support the transmission line. The access road will be constructed with typical expected road building techniques and equipment with a specific emphasis to retain the characteristic of the rock and landscape. An example of the emphasis is the technique to build the coastal road/trail with a reverse slope away from the shore. This technique and others to be employed help naturally mask the visual impacts of the roadway. The equipment, personnel and the transmission line towers and structures will be placed with the use of helicopters to minimize disturbance to the ground plane and existing vegetation (Mitchell, 2013). A roadway is not required within the transmission corridor beyond the gravel access road described in VCU 570. This will allow all remaining shrubby and herbaceous vegetation to remain and minimize exposure of bare earth except at the base of structures and where materials may be stockpiled. The greatest impact to scenery is expected just after construction is complete. Select facilities will be routinely cleared of all vegetation and include the switchyard, the area immediately surrounding the powerhouse, the road, service yards adjacent the marine access facility, adjacent the warehouse, and the transmission facilities where the cables go from submarine to overhead. Visual berms are designed to mask most of the switchyard the powerhouse from the VPR. Additionally, vegetation and trees will be transplanted to assist in providing a visual barrier. Other areas will be allowed to revegetate and include the quarry, disturbed cut slopes adjacent facilities, and along the slopes along the roadway.

A component of the Project throughout its life will be maintenance and the removal of hazardous trees within the utility corridor clearing limits that impact the reliability and safety of transmission of power. The width of the clearing limits is described above for each VCU. Vegetation management within transmission corridors is regulated by the National Electrical Safety Code, Section 218: Tree Trimming. The code states:

Trees that may interfere with ungrounded supply conductors should be trimmed or removed. Note: Normal tree growth, the combined movement of trees and conductors under adverse weather conditions, voltage and sagging of conductors at elevated temperatures are among the factors to be considered in determining the extent of trimming/removal required.

Based on the federal requirement, Juneau Hydropower, Inc. has a five year maintenance cycle where hazardous trees are removed from the within the clearing limits of the transmission corridor but smaller height trees and shrubby vegetation are left in place. Removal of trees greater than thirty feet tall within the clearing limits would be part of the expected maintenance (Mitchell, 2013). After completion of construction, the period with the next greatest visual impact will occur after maintenance within the clearing limits.

•45•



Landscape Character Effects

The Landscape Character for the Project Area is the Boundary Ranges and Icefields. Landscape character defines the broad characteristics of landform patterns and features, vegetation patterns, surface water, and land use patterns or cultural features. The effects by the Project to these identifiable landscape characteristics (vegetation, landforms, surface water, etc.) determine the extent and magnitude of the effects on the Landscape Character. Additionally these effects must be analyzed during the life time of the Project from initial construction, to operation and maintenance, and final decommissioning. These cumulative effects of the Project over its entire life/duration must look at reasonable expected actions and effects on scenery and identify impacts that do not meet the Landscape Character Goals. Landscape Character Goals represents the landscape at a macro level and sets the big picture goal.

As identified previously, the Project is located within three Land Use Designations (Semi-remote Recreation, Timber Management and Old-Growth Habitat) however there is a desire by JHI to obtain a TUS LUD for the Project area. Until the TUS LUD is obtained the three existing LUDs shall establish the Landscape Character for the Project. The Landscape Character for a TUS LUD is shown and is only valid should this LUD be obtained in the future.

VCU 570 East Side of Gilbert Bay

Desired Condition: Areas in the Semi-remote Recreation LUD are characterized by generally unmodified natural environments. Ecological processes and natural conditions are only minimally affected by past or current human uses or activities. Users have the opportunity to experience a moderate degree of independence, closeness to nature, solitude, and remoteness, with some areas offering motorized opportunities and others non-motorized opportunities (except for the traditional uses of boats, aircraft, and snowmachines). Interaction between users is infrequent. Facilities and structures may be minimal or occasionally may be larger in scale, but will be rustic in appearance, or in harmony with the natural setting.

Scenery:Design resource activities to remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat form, line, color, or texture common to the landscape. New form, line, color, or texture will be subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for the Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO).

Rehabilitation techniques may be used to restore disturbed landscapes to be compatible with the Semi-Primitive setting.

West Side of Gilbert Bay

Desired Condition:Suitable Forest lands are managed for the production of sawtimber and other wood products on an even-flow, long-term sustained yield basis; the timber yield produced contributes to Allowable Sale Quantity. An extensive road system provides access for timber management activities, recreation uses, hunting and fishing, and other public and administrative uses; some roads may be closed, either seasonally or year-long, to address resource concerns. Management activities will generally dominate most seen

•46•



areas. Tree stands are healthy and with a mix of age classes from young stands to trees of harvestable age, often in 40- to 100-acre stands. Recreation opportunities, associated with roaded settings from Semi-Primitive to Roaded Modified, are available. A variety of wildlife habitats, predominantly in the early and middle successional stages, are present.

Scenery:Timber management activities may dominate the scenic character of the landscape.

Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for the Low Scenic Integrity Objective in the foreground distance zone of Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas (see Appendix F, Forest Plan) and the Very Low Scenic Integrity Objective for all other areas. This objective defines the maximum limit of allowable change to the scenic character of the area; less visible evidence of activities is acceptable.

Consider roadside cleanup of construction debris and logging slash as a mitigation measure when recreational use is included as a road management objective for the proposed road.

In areas visible from Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas, incorporate landscape design techniques in the planning process to the extent that they are compatible with LUD objectives.

VCU 550 South of Port Snettisham (Sentinel Point)

Desired Condition: Suitable Forest lands are managed for the production of saw timber and other wood products on an even-flow, long-term sustained yield basis; the timber yield produced contributes to Allowable Sale Quantity. An extensive road system provides access for timber management activities, recreation uses, hunting and fishing, and other public and administrative uses; some roads may be closed, either seasonally or year-long, to address resource concerns. Management activities will generally dominate most seen areas. Tree stands are healthy and with a mix of age classes from young stands to trees of harvestable age, often in 40- to 100-acre stands. Recreation opportunities, associated with roaded settings from Semi-Primitive to Roaded Modified, are available. A variety of wildlife habitats, predominantly in the early and middle successional stages, are present.





•47•



North of Port Snettisham

Desired Condition: All forested areas within this LUD have attained old-growth forest characteristics. A diversity of old-growth habitat types and associated species and subspecies and ecological processes are represented.

Scenery:Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for High Scenic Integrity Objective. Design activities to not be visually evident to the casual observer.

Exceptions for small areas of non-conforming developments, such as recreational developments, transportation developments, log transfer facilities, and mining development, may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Use designs and materials that

Should the Project receive a TUS LUD in the future the following would apply. Until that time the management listed above is in effect. (All text related to the TUS LUD is in italics.)

Project Wide

Desired Condition:Transportation Utility Systems have been constructed in an efficient and economic manner, and have been designed to be compatible with the adjacent LUD to the maximum extent feasible. The minimum land area consistent with an efficient, safe facility is used for their development. Effects on other resources have been recognized and resource protection has been provided. Other resources uses and activities in the area do not conflict with utility operations. State and federal highways and reservoirs offer new developed recreation opportunities, as appropriate.

Scenery:The landscape character may be dominated by activities associated with Transportation Utility Systems. Although TUS developments may dominate the seen area, they are designed with consideration for existing form, line, color, and texture found in the characteristic landscape.

In summary, the design and engineering of hydroelectric facilities and their linear transmission corridors typically dominate the character landscape by creating strong horizontal visual contrast in line, form and texture across the landscape especially within the clearing limits of the corridor and around the associated facilities. The Landscape Character Goals allows the Project to dominate the seen landscape in some areas, but not in others. The Project will meet the Character Goals in VCU 570 along the west portion of Gilbert Bay (Timber Management LUD) but likely will not on the remaining eastern portion of the VCU (Semi-Remote Recreation LUD) without visual mitigation. However, the dock and adjacent marine ramp and portions of the coastal road/trail are on State of Alaska lands not subject to the Forest Plan. It is not expected that the Project will meet the Landscape Character Goals for VCU 550 north of Port Snettisham, however there is existing precedence with the existing AIDEA transmission line and the Forest Plan does allow small areas of non-conforming development within an Old-Growth Habitat LUD. The Project will meet the Landscape Character Goals for VCU 550 in the area adjacent Sentinel Point where it may dominate the character landscape (Timber management LUD). To best meet, and where possible exceed the Landscape Character Goals, the Project should be designed in consideration of the existing form, line, color and texture found in the Boundary Ranges and Icefields.

•48•



Should the Project receive a TUS LUD, it is expected that the Project will meet the Character Goals in all three VCUs. Some visual mitigation will be required on the eastern portion of VCU 570 (Gilbert Bay) where a majority of the non-State of Alaska tideland facilities and visual impacts will be located.

Landscape Character Goals generated by the three LUDs will be used to evaluate all portions of the project located on lands managed by the USFS. Specifically this includes: the Project facilities, any expected disturbance to the landscape (vegetation, terrain, etc.) associated with the installation of the facilities, and the federal and local clearing limits requirements for the utility corridor. In addition to the physical facilities and modifications upon the landscape, another aspect that must be considered is the expected maintenance of the Project over its lifetime and the natural regeneration of the Forest. The maintenance of the clearing limits and the natural regeneration of the Forest within the clearing limits will result in a dynamic and evolving landscape over time. The extent, magnitude and duration of these effects, both man-made and natural processes, needs to be predicted and evaluated as best possible during the entire life of the Project. The evaluation of reasonable future effects includes expected maintenance and frequency of maintenance, replacement of facilities, and the natural regeneration of the landscape.

It is expected that the Project will have the greatest visual impacts on the Landscape Character related to vegetation patterns and cultural elements. In regard to vegetation patterns, the linear nature of the utility corridor with its managed vegetation within the clearing limits of the corridor will visually contrast with the vegetation characterized by areas of alpine meadows with forested side slopes that support extensive productive Western Hemlock and Sitka Spruce forests. The visual impacts to the existing vegetation will include form, line, color and texture. These will be attributed to the vegetation management within the clearing limits of the corridor which will contrast in color and texture due to the variation in plant species, maturity and height to the surrounding undisturbed landscape. Additionally the development of two quarries, a road, and several structures will require the clearing of native vegetation and create further impacts to color, line and texture. It is expected that the greatest visual impacts to the Landscape Character will be during construction where bare earth and rock will be present as trees and overburden are removed from road corridors, building pads, storage yards, cut slopes around these facilities, and quarry operations are underway and new fill placed. Within the utility corridors, all large trees will be removed with some small patches of bare earth and the Forest understory being exposed within the transmission corridor. Once construction is completed visual impacts to Landscape Character will be lessened as time passes due to the natural regeneration of the Forest. Visual impacts will be the least just prior to management of vegetation within the transmission corridor, along road corridors and around structures when taller trees are removed but other vegetation remains. It is expected that the physical components (towers, transition facilities, and transmission line) within a seen landscape will have minimal impacts to form, line, texture, and color except when viewed in the foreground from a Visual Priority Route.

A visual impact to the Landscape Character is also expected in regard to the cultural elements. The cultural impacts of the Boundary Ranges and Icefields is described as, “the majority of the landscape shows very little human influence.” Notable human influence within the Project is the existing AIDEA transmission corridor; beyond this impact the landscape is largely intact with 97% of the project area having a Very High Existing Scenic Integrity. The greatest human influence will be located on the east side of Gilbert Bay in VCU 570 where a majority of the facilities will be concentrated and include the powerhouse, switchyard, access road, quarry, marine access facility, and other related structures. It is expected that a range of vehicles (boats, float planes, trucks) and personnel will be working at various times in this area to

•49•



operate and maintain the facility. Additionally, the linear layout of the Project’s corridors and visual color and texture contrast, as discussed previously, will result in an increase in human influence within the seen landscape transecting all three Visual Comparison Unit (VCUs).

It is expected that the Project will meet the minimum Landscape Character Goals as set forth by the Timber Management LUD. While it will not meet the minimums for the Old-Growth Habitat, it may be allowable due to the adjacent AIDEA line and the Forest Plan indicating that small non-conforming development may be considered on a case-by-case basis. The greater challenge will be meeting the minimum Landscape Character Goals for the Semi-Remote Recreation LUD (found on the eastern portion of Gilbert Bay VCU 570) especially during and immediately after initial construction of the Project when scenery impacts will be the greatest. The large area associated with the marine access facility, quarry, storage yard, road, and various structures along the water’s edge as well as the linear nature of the hydroelectric facility and its operation makes it difficult to reduce visual impacts and obtain a higher level goal for Landscape Character through incorporating existing form, line, color, and texture during the initial construction period of time. After initial construction and throughout the operation and maintenance, it is expected that the Landscape Character goal will move towards being more compatible with the higher LUD landscape goals. During operation of the Project, revegetation within the transmission and access road corridors will reduce visual contrast (form, line, color, and texture) to the surrounding landscape. Due to scheduled maintenance and removal of large trees within the clearing limits of the corridor it is not expected that the Project will ever obtain these higher goals, but with good maintenance practices it can move away from the lower visual conditions experienced immediately after construction.

•50•



Scenic Integrity Effects

Scenic Integrity is a major component of Scenery Management and is used to establish scenery standards for management and the degree to which the landscape must be retained intact or can be perceived as modified by human activities. Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) provides direction and objectives for landscape scenery and is determined by the Distance Zones within each Land Use Designation (LUD). SIOs establish the long-term future scenic condition of the landscape by defining maximum levels of visual impact allowable from human alterations to the natural landscape character for each allowable use. The objectives also set schedules or periods of time after project completion or conclusion of construction in which the SIOs must be met. The effects by the Project related to the Scenic Integrity on USFS managed lands must determine the extent, magnitude and duration as viewed from areas of concern. Again these effects must be analyzed during the life time of the Project from initial construction to operation and maintenance. These cumulative effects of the Project over its entire life/duration must look at reasonable expected actions and effects on scenery and identify impacts that do not meet the Scenery Integrity Objectives. Scenic integrity represents the landscape at a micro level from areas of concern.

As discussed in Landscape Character, the Project is located within three LUDs (Old-Growth Habitat, Timber production and Semi-remote Recreation) and results in a High, Moderate, Low and Very Low SIO. The Scenery Objectives for each are as follows:

High SIO (Old-Growth Habitat LUD, VCU 550: North side of Port Snettisham)Design activities to not be visually evident to the casual observer. This objective should be accomplished within 6 months following project completion.

Facilities

• Keep vegetation clearing to a minimum and within close proximity of the site.



Transportation

• Rock source development should not be apparent from the road, use area, or marine travel route to meet this scenic objective.

• Corridor Treatment: Provide roadside cleanup of ground-disturbing activities.


Moderate SIO (Semi-Remote Recreation LUD, VCU 570: East Side of Gilbert Bay)Design activities to be subordinate to the landscape character of the area. This SIO should be accomplished within 1 year of project completion.

Facilities




•51•



Transportation

• Design rock sources to be minimally apparent as seen from VPRs. Rehabilitation is usually necessary following closure of rock source developments. It may be necessary to modify some ground-disturbing activities seen from the foreground of VPRs.

• Corridor Treatment: Roadside cleanup of ground disturbance activities may be necessary.

Very Low SIO (Timber Production LUD, VCU 550: West Side of Gilbert Bay and VCU 550: Sentinel Point)Activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, yet when viewed as background, should appear to be a natural occurrence.

Locate and design management activities to take advantage of existing (both natural and imposed) pattern and texture found in the landscape when viewed in the middleground from VPRs.

Design activities to resemble natural occurrences as viewed in the background distance zone.

Should JHI successfully obtain a TUS LUD for the Project area the following Scenery Objective would apply. Until that time, the previously listed SIOs (above) are in effect for this Project.

Low SIO (Transportation and Utility System LUD, Project Wide)Once construction is initiated and throughout the operation and maintenance of the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project, the TUS LUD takes precedence and supersedes the underlying Timber Production, Old-Growth Habitat and Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs. The Scenery Objectives for a TUS LUD and Low SIO are as follows:

Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for the Low Scenic Integrity Objective. Perform viewshed analysis in conjunction with Project development to provide direction for retaining or creating a visually attractive landscape over time.

Work with topographic and vegetative features to screen the development when seen from Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas.

Consider the following during the design phase of routes, which are, or are seen from, Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas:

• Vegetation of slopes seen from the road

• Providing “planting pockets” or terraces or slopes, where needed

• Maintaining landforms through road location and design

• Breaking up the straight line effect of linear corridors by considering special treatment of vegetation on clearing slopes or application of other design techniques and principles

Require roadside cleanup of construction debris and logging slash on all roads receiving general public use or expected to have such future use


• When planning activities, use naturally established form, line, color, and texture found in the landscape.

• Facilities. Siting and design should borrow from naturally occurring patterns in the landscape, and should not be visually dominant when viewed in the background distance zone.

•52•



Should a TUS LUD be granted for the Project, the allowable visual impact upon scenery falls under the Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) where activities may dominate the character landscape in the foreground and middleground. Once construction is complete the Low SIO must be met within the foreground and within five years in the middle and background. The project shall be developed to create a visually attractive landscape overtime through the planning and design that uses naturally established form, line, color, and texture found in the landscape. Use topography and vegetation to screen the development from Visual Priority Routes (VPRs). For linear corridors, break up the straight line edge of the corridor by using non-linear clearing limits and the use of planting pockets on visible slopes.

Each SIO provides guidelines on the acceptable amount of visual impact that is allowable upon the Character Landscape and duration (time period) after project completion when the objective must be met. Additionally each SIO provides specific recommendations to minimize visual impacts for a variety of facilities (quarry, road, timber harvest, etc.). For all SIO’s, to varying degrees, the project shall be developed through the planning and design that uses naturally established form, line, color, pattern, and texture found in the Character Landscape to appear to be a natural occurrence in various prescribed distance zones.

As discussed in Landscape Character, the greatest Project effects on the scenic integrity will be the period between the initiation and completion of construction and a short period of time following (approximately one year) until the Forest can begin to regenerate. These impacts will be the greatest within the seen landscape with a Low Visual Absorption Capacity. As the Forest regenerates within the clearing limits around buildings and facilities, and within transmission and road corridors, these visual impacts will be reduced.

To fully understand the effects on Scenic Integrity, three dimension digital visual simulations were generated to document the expected effects of the Project on scenery from key VPRs. Viewpoints for the simulations corresponded with the photo points used in the inventory phase of the scenery work to verify existing conditions and establish a baseline for the model. All simulations are from established VPRs. Mapping of the visual simulations viewpoints and the simulations are found in Appendix A of this Report. Each simulation shows the existing conditions and the expected impacts based on the facilities and structures, clearing limits, terrain modifications, and impacts to the landscape as described in the work by Juneau Hydropower, Inc , Exhibit G 4.4 (2013).

The simulations were created with raw geospatial data provided by the USFS that was compiled and verified in ESRI’s ArcMap (GIS). The data included shapefiles for hydrology and infrastructure, color maps, and a digital elevation model. The files were then imported into three-dimensional visualization software for outdoor environments. The resulting graphics were verified against the GIS data and imagery of the existing landscape taken from recorded photo points to verify accuracy. LiDAR data (Light Detection And Ranging data) was provided by Aero-Metric. It was used to create a detailed ground plane in the model. The ecotypes within the project are based on vegetation and canopy cover color maps and height is based on field observation and USFS records for the area. The utility infrastructure (towers, transition facilities, roads, etc.) in the model is based on data provided by Juneau Hydropower, Inc. Three-dimension models of the infrastructure elements and the clearing limits were inserted into the model. One set of renderings were generated from viewpoints that would best record the expected impacts to scenery. They model the proposed Project effects of the Project with expected regeneration after 1 year or 5 years as dictated by each LUD. Regeneration was modeled on expected growth rates for the Gilbert Bay/Port Snettisham area, based on USFS documentation and photographs of adjacent clearing operations within the AIDEA Transmission Corridor. Color, texture, line and form of the regeneration were derived from images of existing conditions taken in the field and previous discussion under Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI). The image locations in the model align with geo-referenced images captured

•53•



during Corvus Design’s field work in 2013.

The visual simulations were developed using a one or five year duration after completion of construction as indicated for each LUD in the Forest Plan. This is a point in which modifications to the landscape are to obtain the required SIO in the middleground and foreground as mandated by scenery requirements in the Forest Plan. Each simulation documents the expected effects upon scenery and forms the basis of the discussion below. No visual simulations or descriptions of areas of concern were developed for VCU 610 as proposed facilities are located in an unseen landscape.

VCU 570 Visual Simulation Photo Points: 1 through 5This Visual Comparison Unit (VCU) includes the hydroelectric generation facility including the penstock, powerhouse, switch yard, transition facility, and a combination of underground, submarine and overland transmission lines. Other facilities associated with the Project include the access road, marine access facility, quarry, storage yard, USFS cabin, and the warehouse/shop. These facilities are located on the east side of Gilbert Bay (Semi-Remote Recreation LUD). The dock and a majority of the marine access facility and most of the road are located on fill placed on submerged lands and are under management of the State of Alaska and are not included in the effects analysis, however, will result in cumulative effects. The west side of Gilbert Bay (Timber Production LUD) has a transition facility and both submarine and overhead transmission lines.

East Side of Gilbert Bay (Semi-Remote Recreation LUD)Facilities include a 5,460 sq. ft. two story powerhouse and 15,000 sq. ft. switchyard located in a new quarry adjacent to tidewater on Gilbert Bay near Sweetheart Creek. Earth berms and revegetation would surround these facilities making them visible only from Gilbert Bay. From the powerhouse, a 4,400 foot long and 20 foot wide, back-sloped gravel coastal road /trail heads north along the east shore of Gilbert Bay to a new marine access facility that includes a dual-height marine ramp, floating docks for seaplane and boat access, and a staging area adjacent to the docks on the east shore of Gilbert Bay north of the powerhouse. Other related facilities include a public use USFS cabin and a two story 4,225 sq. ft. maintenance/service building located in a new quarry where approximately 20,000 cubic yards of rock will be removed for providing road construction material. Unsuitable fill and rock removed from tunnel spoils will be placed back into the quarry to reduce visual impacts. These facilities are located on the water’s edge and would be fully visible from VPRs. The quarry and segments of the access road would be revegetated using native plant material and soil on the waterside to reduce visual impacts. Total disturbed USFS land including marine access, storage yard, quarries, powerhouse, switchyard, transfer stations, and access road is approximately 12.4 acres. Approximately 8.3 acres are on State Managed Lands.

The transmission lines in this portion of the VCU include underground lines beneath the roadbed from the powerhouse to the transition vault near the marine access facility where the line becomes submarine and heads west into Gilbert Bay. The underground lines, vault and first 50’ feet of submarine cable are located on USFS managed lands while the remaining submarine cable segment is located on state-owned lands.

Impacts to Scenic Integrity of VCU 570 East Side of Gilbert Bay:• Hydroelectric Facilities and Structures: Foreground, located within Low Visual Absorption

Capacity (VAC).

• Structures, facilities and related clearing limits will be visible from VPRs and will dominate the

•54•



character landscape.

• Transmission Lines: Foreground (largely unseen due to buried and submarine configuration), located within Low VAC. Only vault structure will be visible in the foreground.

• Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) and will exceed the visual impacts for a Moderate SIO as allowable in the Forest Plan. This SIO will not be accomplished within one year after completion. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

West Side of Gilbert Bay (Timber Production LUD)Transmission lines include submarine and overhead configuration and a transition facility. The transition facility and the last 50’ feet of submarine cable are located on USFS managed lands while the lower extent of submarine cable is located on state-owned lands. From the transition facility the lines go to an overhead configuration. This segment of overhead transmission line includes poles 1 through 36 and runs along the west shore of Gilbert Bay to the ridge above Sentinel Point. The poles are 80’ in height with spans ranging from 265’ to 946’. The wire support structures will be steel T and straight-shaped towers. The clearing width is anticipated to be 100’ on either side of the center line, for a total width of 200’.

Impacts to Scenic Integrity of VCU 570 West Side of Gilbert Bay:• Middleground, within a Low VAC and patches of Intermediate VAC along corridor.

• A large portion of the corridor clearing limits and some of the upper portions of the transmission structures may be visible from VPRs as it cuts across the landscape in a horizontal orientation.

• Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) and will not exceed the visual impacts for a Very Low SIO as allowable in the Forest Plan.

• Expected impacts do not take advantage of existing (both natural and imposed) pattern and texture found in the landscape when viewed in the middleground from VPRs. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

Area of Concern for VCU 570:Gilbert Bay and Sweetheart Flats VPRs: On the east side of Gilbert Bay within the Semi-Remote Recreation LUD, the facilities and structures will exceed the allowable scenic effects of a Moderate SIO. Impacts are expected to be consistent with a Very Low SIO within one year where modifications will dominate the landscape character. This SIO is not expected to meet the one year duration requirement and may be challenged to meet a Moderate SIO during the operation of the Project without additional mitigation. After five years revegetation/mitigation efforts should elevate the SIO to Low. Expected impacts include both landscape character and cultural. Landscape effects include clearing limits around facilities, large yards cleared of vegetation, a coastal road along the shoreline, and a variety of large structures visible from VPRs that creates contrast to the surrounding undisturbed landscape. This results in contrast in color, line and texture found in the character landscape. Cultural effects include a waterfront development with a variety of structures, a quarry, and periodic human and vehicular activity for operation of the facility. The quarry adjacent the marine access facility is not expected to meet the requirement to be “minimally apparent as seen from VPRs” within the one year period. Proposed project mitigation includes berming and revegetation around the powerhouse, switchyard, and at locations along the coastal road, as well as placing unsuitable fill into the quarry and revegetating to cover a majority of the backwall. These mitigation measures elevate the Project in this area from an expected Very Low SIO to the expected Low SIO identified once revegetation becomes established (five or more years).

Gilbert Bay VPR: On the west side of Gilbert Bay within the Timber Production LUD, the facilities include overland transmission lines and associated clearing limits. The linear nature of the facilities and horizontal orientation of the clearing limits contrast with the undisturbed landscape and do

•55•



not take advantage of pattern and texture found in the landscape when viewed as middleground.

Lower Sweetheart Creek: Although not listed as a Visual Priority Route (VPR), this is a recreational use area during the months of July and August for fishing and bear viewing. If included in the future as a VPR, portions of the Project adjacent the creek would become part of the seen landscape as foreground in this VCU.

Should the Project receive a Transportation and Utilities System LUD for the entire corridor the following summarizes the Impacts to Scenic Integrity and Areas of Concern for VCU 570.

Impacts to Scenic Integrity of VCU 570 (TUS LUD):• Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO)

as allowable in the Forest Plan however it is not expected to meet the SIO in the first year for the foreground distance zone (east side of Gilbert Bay). This is not consistent with the Forest Plan. The Project is expected to meet the SIO in the middleground (and foreground) in the fifth year or beyond.

• Expected impacts to scenery in the middleground distance zone will dominate the visual landscape due to dissimilar visual characteristics to those of natural occurrences on both side of Gilbert Bay beyond five years. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

Area of Concern for VCU 570 (TUS LUD):Gilbert Bay and Sweetheart Flats VPRs: Impacts are allowed to dominate the visual landscape however it is not expected that the Project on the east side of Gilbert Bay will meet the Low SIO in the foreground in the first year. This is not consistent with requirements in the Forest Plan. Proposed mitigation measures are expected to take five or more years to become effective and once established the Project will be consistent with a Low SIO in the foreground and middleground. Expected impacts to scenery in the middleground distance zone will dominate the visual landscape on both side of Gilbert Bay beyond five years and will continue to dominate due to dissimilar visual characteristics to those of natural occurrences throughout the Project’s life. This is due to the size of facilities and maintenance cycle within clearing limits of facilities and transmission corridors. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

VCU 550 Visual Simulation Photo Points: 6 & 7The Project in this VCU only includes the hydroelectric transmission lines, support structures, and transition facilities. The Sweetheart Lake transmission corridor ties into the existing AIDEA transmission corridor in this VCU. All facilities in this VCU are located on USFS managed lands, with the exception of the submarine cable which are on lands managed by the State of Alaska.

Sentinel Point-South Port Snettisham (Timber Production LUD)The overhead transmission line within this VCU starts at pole 37 on the ridgeline above Sentinel Point and runs down the slope to the north side of Sentinel Point to pole 40 at the south shore of Port Snettisham. Poles in this VCU will be 80’ in height with spans ranging from 150 to 307. Poles will be steel T and straight-shaped towers. This area is heavily wooded. The clearing width for the overhead section on the south side of Port Snettisham is anticipated to be 100’ on either side of the line for a total clearing width of 200’. The line enters a transition station and converts to submarine cable. It moves west under Port Snettisham on State of Alaska Lands with only the first 50 foot length of the submarine cable being on USFS lands.

Impacts to Scenic Integrity of VCU 550 Sentinel Point:• Middleground, within a Low VAC.

• All of the corridor clearing limits, transmission structures, and transition facility will be visible from

•56•



VPRs as it comes down the ridgeline to the water.



North Port Snettisham (Old-Growth Habitat LUD)The submarine cable under Port Snettisham reemerges east of Mist Island on USFS-managed lands and will have a clearing width of 30’ for the underground segment. The cable continues underground up the shore for 400’ to connect with the final transition station. The transition station is located within the existing clearing limits of the existing AIDEA Snettisham Transmission Corridor. The line will convert to overhead at pole 41 and then tie in to the existing AIDEA corridor. The pole will be steel T and straight-shaped towers with a height of 80’. There is no additional clearing anticipated for the final overhead segment as it is sited within the existing clearing limits for the Snettisham Corridor.

Impacts to Scenic Integrity of VCU 550 North Port Snettisham:• Middleground distance zone within a Low VAC.

• Transition facility and overhead transmission line would be visible from VPRs.

• Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) and will exceed the visual impacts for a High SIO as allowable in the Forest Plan. It is not expected that this objective will be accomplished within 6 months following project completion. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.*

*Small area non-conforming developments may be considered in this LUD on a case-by-case basis.

Areas of Concern for VCU 550:Port Snettisham VPR: The north side of Port Snettisham adjacent Mist Island, including the transition facility, is not expected to meet the High SIO as required in the Forest Plan. Visual impacts are expected to be a Moderate SIO and this is not consistent with the Forest Plan. Development will be visually evident to the casual observer beyond the 6 month period following project completion. (Note: the existing AIDEA Snettisham Transmission Corridor has a greater visual impact to the character landscape than this significantly smaller segment of the Sweetheart Lake Corridor. This smaller segment of the Project could be considered by the USFS as a small area of non-conforming development as allowable by the Forest Plan, if desired by USFS.) Expected impacts include the linear clearing limits moving down from the ridgeline to the shoreline that does not take advantage of existing pattern and texture found in the landscape in the middle ground distance zone on the south side of Port Snettisham. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.


Impacts to Scenic Integrity of VCU 550 (TUS LUD):• Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) as

allowable in the Forest Plan and is expected to meet the SIO in the middleground within the fifth year.

• Expected impacts to scenery in the middleground distance zone will dominate the visual landscape due to dissimilar visual characteristics to those of natural occurrences on the south side of Port Snettisham beyond five years. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

Table 11.

Expected change in Existing Scenic Integrity:


Predicted Scenic Integrity Classification


Class 3 420 (1%)Class 4 354 (1%)Class 5 340 (1%)

•57•



Cumulative Effects

Cumulative Effects take into consideration not only this Project but also other anticipated projects within the area. At the time of this report, there are no known other planned projects in the area. Additionally there are no expansion plans or other anticipated future modifications to the Project (Mitchell, 2013). The components of this Project on State managed lands would contribute to the cumulative effects and include the marine access facility, storage yard and most of the coastal road.

Cumulative Effects analyzes the visual impacts to the whole project area within the reasonable foreseeable future. Cumulative Effects related to scenery look at the expected change in the Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) as a result of the Project. ESI is a measure of the degree to which the landscape is perceived as whole, complete, or intact without any alterations or modification to the scenery by human activities. As indicated in the analysis, the ESI for the project area (VCUs 550 and 570) is comprised of a Very High (1) rating with all except 97% of the character landscape being intact or unaltered. This modified landscape (ESI 3 and 4- Moderate and Low) is concentrated to the slopes north of Port Snettisham in VCU 550.

To understand the cumulative effects, the proposed project and its expected visual impacts to the landscape are overlaid onto the ESI mapping to document the expected cumulative effects. These effects would extend beyond the physical limits of the Project and would impact the larger viewshed in which the modifications are located. These impacts would only occur within the seen landscape. The linear nature of the corridor and its clearing limits within the forested landscape will have a greater visual impact than alpine areas where there would not be clearing limits and only structures might be seen in the distant landscape. Regularly scheduled clearing of large trees within the clearing limits every five year would prevent the landscape from returning to an intact undisturbed landscape.

Based on analysis of this Project, existing hydroelectric projects in the Tongass, the three dimensional digital simulations, and the landscape, it would be expected that a majority of the Project would result in three proposed Scenic Integrity ratings for the Project.

The proposed Project changes to Scenic Integrity would add approximately 3% (approximately 1,200 acres) of landscape that would transition from a Class 1 (Very High) where the landscape is perceived whole or intact to one where man-made modifications begin to dominate or dominate the character landscape. These impacts are fairly closely divided among the Classes of 3 (Moderate), 4 (Low), and 5 (Very Low). VCU 570 (east side of Gilbert Bay) (31% of overall project area) would receive a Class 5, Very Low, where the landscape appears heavily altered and deviations dominate the landscape character. This is a result of the numerous man-made structures, larger clearing limits and quarry which are all located within the foreground. It is expect that this area may receive a Class 4, Low, due to the proposed visual mitigation and screening however this is likely 10 years or greater post construction. The remaining portion of VCU 570 (west side of Gilbert Bay) with its overhead transmission lines contains Class 4, Low, and Class 3, Moderate where the clearing limits will be the main visual modification. On

•58•



sloped landscapes facing VPRs and landscapes with a Low VAC, the proposed Scenic Integrity will be Class 4 Low where deviations begin to dominate the character landscape. The remaining portion of the corridor that is partially screened from VPRs and with an Intermediate VAC will result in a Class 3, Moderate, where deviations begin to dominate the landscape. These two Classes for the overhead transmission corridor in this VCU make up 58% of the Project impacts.

VCU 550 has a limited length of clearing within a forested landscape to support the overhead transmission lines and transition facility running from the ridgeline to shoreline at Sentinel Point. This clearing limit will dominate the character landscape and receives a proposed Class 4, Low for a total of approximately 6% of the Project. The final segment is adjacent Mist Island and includes a transition facility and overhead corridor with limited clearing limits. It is expected this portion of the Project (5%) will meet the requirements for Class 3, Moderate, where the modifications begin to dominate the landscape. This area is currently surrounded by both ESI 3 and 4 due to the existing AIDEA Snettisham transmission lines and will reduce the overall impacts for the proposed Project due to the size and scale of the existing corridor. As stated previously, the proposed Scenic Integrity will fluctuate within the clearing limits for the overhead transmission lines. The proposed Scenic Integrity will move towards a landscape with less dominance as trees mature within the clearing limits, and will move back towards more visual dominance immediately after regularly scheduled maintenance and removal of larger woody material within the clearing limits.

As indicated, the current ESI for the Project area, prior to construction, is 97% of the character landscape being intact or unaltered. Project impacts would add another 3% for a total of approximately 6% where the landscape has been visually altered.

It is possible to reduce the visual impacts of the project through the use of additional scenery protection measures/mitigation identified below. These were not used in the calculation of the cumulative effects of the project.

•59•



Scenery Protection Measures /Mitigation

Scenery protection measures will ensure the Project achieves the scenery guidelines as outlined in the Forest Plan. These measures are established for the whole Project and identify specific actions for the Areas of Concern previously listed. Measures may include scenery enhancement, conservation, and restoration to protect the scenic condition of the landscape affected by the Project. These protection measures provide scenery management options for Project to meet or exceed the required Scenic Integrity. Where protection is not possible and the Scenic Integrity cannot be maintained, mitigation, either on-site or off-site, may be a method to offset the scenery impacts that results for the Project.

Project-WideThe following protection measures are prescribed for the entire project and should be applied where appropriate or feasible. These measures were not used to determine the Project impacts upon scenery but are additional recommendations to assist the Project in maintaining or reducing the expected visual impacts.

Prior to beginning construction, once survey and layout of the corridor, clearing limits and location of facilities has been field located, verify Project conditions and note any deviations from the original Licensing Document. Modifications, including minor ones, to the routing of corridor, clearing limits, and the location and size of facilities may have a positive or negative expected scenery impact.

The linear nature of utility corridors and the clearing limits create modifications which do not typically match the line, color, and texture found in the surrounding landscape and can dominate the character landscape. Where possible, feather edges of clearing limits rather than hardline clearing on the uphill slope of the corridor to reduce visual impacts. Match existing lines found in the immediate surrounding landscape to mimic meadow openings, rock outcrops, and avalanche and rock slide formations where present.

Transmission structures that support the overhead lines will be constructed of metal. The metal structures will visually contrast both in form and color. The metal structures can also have a reflective component from sunlight in certain conditions and from various VPRs that can further dominate the seen landscape. Metal towers should be painted with a non-reflective paint or coating. Additionally, each structure should be painted a color that matches the surrounding landscape. Several different color schemes may be needed for the corridor to match the colors found along the route (i.e., forested). Consider color selection also for the transition facilities to allow them to blend into the surrounding character landscape.

The removal of vegetation within the clearing limits of the corridor should be limited to only trees that can obtain a mature height of thirty feet or greater or will require removal later as part of the transmission corridor maintenance. Maintain shrubby vegetation, perennials and smaller trees within the clearing limits to minimize visual contrast after construction and after maintenance of clearing limits. Avoid exposure of soil.

Any facilities that require security fencing (powerhouse, switchyard, and transition facilities) should utilize black colored fencing material to reduce visual impacts and allow these features to blend into the surrounding landscape. Where security allows, let native plant material grow on the side of fencing when viewed from VPRs.

Allow vegetation to reestablish itself over submarine lines that are buried on land and transition from water to the transition facilities.

These mitigation practices would assist in speeding up the regeneration of vegetation, reduce

•60•



visual impacts and expected changes to ESI, and provide further assurance that the Project meets the scenery guidelines in the Forest Plan. These mitigation/protection measures will assist in speeding up and to reduce the likely visual impacts of the Project. Many of these practices are consistent with mitigation found in the Forest Plan to ensure compliance with scenery guidelines.

VCU Specific Protection MeasuresVCU 570To ensure full compliance with scenery guidelines the previously listed project-wide protection measures will further reduce visual impacts and reduce project close-out costs. The main Area of Concern is identified as the east side of Gilbert Bay where the project is viewed as foreground in a Semi-Remote Recreation LUD.

The area of greatest concern is the area immediately surrounding the marine access facility, storage yard, reverse-sloped access road, and re-filled quarry/USFS proposed cabin site. While a majority of the marine access facility is developed from placing fill into submerged waters of the State of Alaska it opens up the view into and removes opportunities for significant screening and buffering of the lands behind which are under the management of the USFS. Consider reconfiguring layout of the upland facilities to maximize opportunities for vegetative screening between the water’s edge and the quarry, storage yard, maintenance building, and associated facilities. Although outside of the jurisdiction of the USFS lands, incorporate vegetative screening along the water’s edge on facilities that are installed on State submerged lands to reduce the overall Project impacts in this area through vegetating rock fill slopes for the marine access facility where possible. Explore options for coloring marine access facilities to better blend into the surrounding landscape and avoid the use of metallic colored materials that would reflect sunlight. Early discussions indicate that a new USFS recreation cabin may be incorporated into the Project. Preliminary discussions have indicated that the cabin may be placed on the fill slope of the quarry. Consider locating the cabin in a natural setting to better blend into the character landscape and not draw visual attention to the revegetated quarry area by placing a cabin in this environment. Minimize the storage of materials and vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the marine access facility. Store materials and other items where they would be screened from the Gilbert Bay VPR. Utilize building colors and materials that blend into the character landscape. Avoid the use of metallic colored materials that tend to reflect sunlight and draw attention.

Utilize rounded natural rock and stone along the coastal road where fill would be exposed to the Gilbert Bay for both USFS and State managed lands. Although most portions of the road are on submerged lands, incorporate native vegetation along the water’s edge on all fill slopes for the road to the greatest extent possible. For all areas to be revegetated, utilize appropriately deep quality organic native soils that support and will allow native plant material to thrive and create quick and effective visual screening. Use the correct native plants for the soil available. Avoid the use of exterior lighting; if needed, use “cut-off” style lighting that minimizes light pollution and prevents light from spilling beyond the intended areas.

VCU 550To ensure full compliance with scenery guidelines the previously listed project-wide protection measures will further reduce visual impacts and reduce project close-out costs. The Area of Concern for this VCU includes the Port Snettisham VPR where clearing limits and transmission structures may be seen in the middleground distance zone and will dominate the visual landscape beyond five years. Selecting appropriate colors to paint the structures (towers and transition facilities) to match the surrounding landscape would likely reduce impacts. Soften edges of the clearing limits where possible by feathering edges rather than straight hardline

•61•



clearing of the corridor to reduce visual impacts. Consider realigning corridor prior to reaching shoreline and running parallel to the shoreline a short distance while maintaining existing Forest edge to break up the linear straight line clearing limits from the water’s edge to the ridgeline above.

Federal Power Act MitigationThe Federal Power Act, along with its amendments in the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, calls out the protection, mitigation and enhancement of a variety of resources including recreation opportunities and the protection of visual and aesthetic values. Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act requires FERC to give “equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of, fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.” This gives FERC the authority to include mitigation for resources not able to be protected including those on public lands including National Forests, as conditions in the project license (United States. Congress, 1986).

It is expected that the Project will not meet the Scenery Objectives in VCU 570 unless the Project obtains a TUS LUD. It is highly unlikely that any scenery protection measures will reduce the visual impacts on the east side of Gilbert Bay to meet the Moderate SIO within the one year period or be subordinate the character landscape. Additionally, unless the Project obtains a TUS LUD or the USFS grants an exception for the Project within the Old-Growth Habitat LUD to connect to a pre-existing transmission line, the Project will not meet the High SIO requirement within the 6 month period. Off-site mitigation as allowed by the Federal Power Act would be one avenue to mitigate this visual impact that does not meet scenery requirements in the Forest Plan.

The development of Section 4(e) mitigation would be between the USFS and the JHI and is not part of this resource report.

•63•


Literature Cited

LITERATURE CITEDBeard, J. (2012). Tongass National Forest Landscape Architect, USDA Forest Service. Personal interview. Sitka,

Alaska.

Heuer, P. (2013). Silviculturist, Tongass National Forest-Sitka Ranger District. Personal interview. Sitka, Alaska.

Jensen, C. (2013). Tongass National Forest Landscape Architect, USDA Forest Service. Personal interview. Petersburg, Alaska.

Juneau Hydropower, Inc. (2013). Exhibit G 4.4. Juneau, Alaska.

JHI. (2011). FERC Scoping Public Meeting 1 Transcripts. Juneau, Alaska

JHI. (2013). FERC Study Plan Meeting. Juneau, Alaska

JHI. (2012). FERC Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Scoping Document. Juneau, Alaska

JHI. (2013). Recreation Resources Study Report: Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project. Juneau, Alaska.

Mitchell, D. (2013). Project Manager, JHI. Personal interview. Juneau, Alaska.

National Fire Protection Association. (2008). National Electrical Code. (NFPA70). Quincy, Massachusetts: National Fire Protection Association.

Newby, F. L. (1971). Perceptual Assessment of Forested Roadside Landscapes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.

Nowacki, G., M. Shephard, P. Krosse, W. Pawuk, G. Fisher, J. Baichtal, D. Brew, E. Kissinger, and T. Brock. (2001). Ecological Subsections of Southeast Alaska and Neighboring Areas of Canada. Juneau, Alaska: U.S. Forest Service.

Ouderkirk, E. (2012). USFS Region 10 Landscape Architect. Personal interview. Juneau, Alaska.

United States Forest Service (USFS). (1974). Visual Management System. (Agriculture Handbook No. 462). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

USFS. (1975). National Forest Landscape Management: Volume 2, Chapter 2: “Utilities.” (Agriculture Handbook 478). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

USFS. (1977). National Forest Landscape Management: Volume 2, Chapter 4: “Roads.” (Agriculture Handbook 483). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

USFS. (1979). Visual Character Types of Alaska National Forest Lands. Juneau, Alaska: U.S. Forest Service.

USFS. (1995). Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. (Agriculture Handbook 701). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

USFS. (2005). Landscape Character Types of the Tongass National Forest. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

USFS. (2008). Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. (R10-MB-603b). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

USFS. (2008, March 19). Tongass Young Growth Management Strategy 2008. Juneau, Alaska: Region 10, Tongass NF.

United States. Congress. (1986, October 16). Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986: Amendment to Federal Power Act. Public Law 99-495, 100 Stat. 1243. Washington. D.C.: Government Printing Office.

•A-1•


Append

ix A

Appendix A- Viewpoint Renderings

Corvus Design Landscape Architecture - Planning - Industrial Design

Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project: Scenery Resources

•A-2•

Append

ix A

Simulation View Points Map



After 1 Year

•A-3•

Append

ix A

View Point #1Gilbert Bay looking Southeast toward Sweetheart Creek

Powerhouse and switchyard

Access RoadRevegetated Turnout



After 1 Year

•A-4•

Append

ix A

View Point #2 Gilbert Bay looking East toward Sweetheart Lake

Dock

Forest Service Recreation CabinMaintenance Shop/Caretaker Quarters

Marine Access Facility

Revegetated Turnout

Transition Station

Access Road



After 5 Years

•A-5•

Append

ix A

Transition Station

View Point #3 Gilbert Bay looking west toward Snettisham Peninsula

Support Structure

Corridor Clearing Limits



After 5 Years

•A-6•

Append

ix A


Support Structure

View Point #4Chatham Strait

Gilbert Bay looking west toward Snettisham Peninsula



After 5 Years

•A-7•

Append

ix A

View Point #05Gilbert Bay Looking West toward Snettisham Point

Support StructureCorridor Clearing Limits

Support Structure



After 5 Years

•A-8•

Append

ix A


Support StructureTransition Structure

View Point #06Port Snettisham Looking South toward Snettisham Point



After 5 Years

•A-9•

Append

ix A

View Point #07Port Snettisham Looking North toward Mist Island

30’ Utility Corridor ClearingExisting Corridor

•B-1•


Append

ix B

Appendix B- State-Federal and Coastal Road Areas

•B-2•


Append

ix B

•B-3•


Append

ix B

•B-4•


Append

ix B

•B-5•


Append

ix B





APPENDIX T:

2014 FINAL SCENERY RESOURCES REPORT. MARCH 2014. CORVUS DESIGN, INC.

PREPARED BY:


Juneau, AK 99802

MAY 2014

Corvus Design, Inc. • corvus-design.com

Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project: Final Scenery Resources ReportFERC No. 13563-002 April 2014 Copyright ©2014 Juneau Hydropower, Inc.

This document was prepared for

Juneau Hydropower Inc.

By Corvus Design, Inc.

April 2014

All rights reserved

119 Seward Street #15Juneau, AK 99801(907) 988-9000www.corvus-design.com

2506-B Fairbanks StreetAnchorage, AK 99503(907) 222-2859

•i•

Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project: Final Scenery Resources Report

Executive Summ

ary

FINAL SCENERY RESOURCES REPORTExecutive Summary

On April 11, 2013 Juneau Hydropower, Inc. received a successive preliminary permit applicationto investigate the development to construct and operate the proposed Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility (Project) from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Washington, D.C. The Project is identified as FERC No. 13563-002. The 19.8 megawatt project will be located on Lower Sweetheart Lake and Sweetheart Creek with the transmission corridor running along and under Gilbert Bay approximately 30 miles south of Juneau, Alaska. The transmission line is proposed to tie into Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority’s (AIDEA) existing Snettisham transmission line on the north side of Port Snettisham. The project will be located on federal lands managed by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) as part of the Tongass National Forest. The project is listed as a Power Site Classification #221, Alaska No. 9, as a hydropower classification by a Secretarial Public Land Order 382b approved on May 14, 1929 by authority of the President of United States delegated to the Secretary of Interior. The project is located on Value Comparison Units (VCUs) 610, 570 and 550.

During Initial Consultation and Scoping, Project Stakeholders indicated a concern for the Project impacts on scenic and aesthetics resources on lands managed by the USFS. The USFS requested potential impacts on the scenery resource be inventoried, evaluated and analyzed based on the USFS Handbook for Scenery Management (USFS, 1995) and the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 2008) (Forest Plan). The framework for scenery management included three phases of work: 1) inventory, 2) develop standards and 3) determine the effects of the Project on scenery. Based on this analysis, the effects of the project were evaluated to determine impacts to the existing landscape and whether these impacts to the scenery are acceptable.

The scenery inventory for the Project was carried out in the summer of 2013. Analysis of the impacts to VCU 610 will be less detailed than those found in VCUs 570 and 550 due to: 1) Project facilities (dam, increase in lake level, and tunnel penstock) being located in an unseen/seldom seen landscape, 2) there are no inventoried Visual Priority Travel Routes or Use Areas in VCU 610 that will facilitate viewing of impacts in this VCU, and 3) including data for this very large VCU will create an inaccurate perception of the landscape and proposed modifications within the Project area. Based on the inventory, the Project area is defined as having the following scenery attributes:

• 10% Distinctive and 90% Typical Inherent Scenic Attractiveness

• From Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas, the Project area is comprised of 10% foreground, 70% middleground, 0% background, and 20% unseen.

• 97% Very High Existing Scenic Integrity with the remaining being 1% Moderate and 2% Low

• 73% Low Visual Absorption Capacity, 7% Intermediate and 20% High.

The Scenery Management System (SMS) establishes an overall framework for orderly inventory, analysis and management of scenery on lands administered by the USFS. Established scenery guidelines, goals and objectives are listed in the Forest Plan. Scenery guidelines, known as Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs), provide acceptable scenic modifications for human-based activities for all management activities on USFS lands.

The Forest Plan states “Manage the scenery of the Forest in order to achieve the adopted Scenic Integrity Objectives.” SIOs are established in the Forest Plan and are based on Distance Zones and Land Use Designations (LUDs). Value Comparison Unit (VCU) 610, 570, and 550 are defined by five LUDs: Semi-remote Recreation, Modified Landscape, Old-Growth Habitat, Scenic Viewshed, and Timber Production. The Project is located on three of these LUDS: Semi-Remote Recreation, Timber Production, and Old-Growth Habitat.

It is the intent of the Project, with consultation with the Forest Service to file and obtain a Transportation and Utility System (TUS) LUD for the project area in the future to have the Land Use Designation conform to and support the development of a public hydroelectric power project and its associated facilities including the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project. A TUS LUD is defined as an “Overlay LUD” where the underlying initial LUDs, remain in effect until a transportation and or utility system is initiated though construction, then this management prescription

•ii•


Executive Summ

ary

will apply. Within the TUS corridor, the underlying LUDs continue to exist but are superseded by the TUS only for the allowable uses prescribed by the TUS. The TUS LUD applies only to the project limits/corridor necessary for the infrastructure and maintenance of facilities required as part of the TUS development. This Report analyzes the impacts on the three existing LUDS that are currently in place (Semi-Remote Recreation, Timber Production, and Old-Growth Habitat) as the basis of the reporting. In addition, this report also addresses a TUS LUD, should it be granted in the future. Portions of this Report that pertain to a possible TUS LUD are indicated in italics and are only relevant should the Project receive a TUS designation.

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) establish scenery standards for management and the degree to which the landscape must be retained intact or be visually perceived as modified by human activities. SIOs include; High (landscape visually intact), Moderate (landscape appears slightly altered), Low (landscape appears moderately altered with deviations dominating the landscape) and Very Low (modifications dominate the landscape).

Based on the Forest Plan, the adopted SIO for each LUD within the Project Area is as follows (same for each distance zone, unless noted):

Old-Growth Habitat LUD: High SIO

Semi-Remote Recreation LUD: Moderate SIO

Timber Production LUD: Low SIO (foreground), Very Low SIO (middleground and background)

Transportation and Utility System LUD: Low SIO (if TUS LUD is granted in future for project area)

Activities within the High SIO must not be evident to the casual observer while modifications in the Moderate SIO must be subordinate to the landscape character. Low SIO may visually dominate the characteristic landscape, but must have visual characteristics similar to those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area or character type. Following Project completion, SIO should be met within 1 year in the foreground distance zone and within 5 years in the middle and background Distance Zones. Very Low SIO may visually dominate the landscape character. When planning activities, use naturally established form, line, color, and texture found in the landscape. Siting and design of facilities should borrow from naturally occurring patterns in the landscape, and should not be visually dominant when viewed in the background distance zone.

The adopted SIO for each LUD in the Forest Plan does make a provision for the Old-Growth Habitat and Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs where “exceptions for small areas of non-conforming developments …. may be considered in these LUDs on a case-by-case basis.”

To understand the Project effects on Scenic Integrity, three-dimension digital visual simulations were generated to document the expected effects of the Project on scenery on USFS lands. The simulations are based on site photos from established view points. One simulation was created for each view point to show the expected impacts based on the facilities and structures, clearing limits, terrain modifications, and impacts to the landscape as described in Juneau Hydropower, Inc, Exhibit G 4.4 (2013). The simulations were created using ESRI’s ArcMap (GIS) and three-dimensional visualization software for outdoor environments. The simulations were developed to show the expected visual impact of the Project at one year or five years after construction is complete as indicated by the LUD scenery requirements. Only effects within the seen landscape on USFS lands are evaluated.

Based on the expected visual impacts to the landscape on USFS lands shown in the simulations the following are the areas of concern based on the existing LUDs (Semi-Remote Recreation, Timber Production, and Old-Growth Habitat):

VCU 610:Lower Sweetheart Lake (Dam, elevated lake levels, and buried penstock). Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be within an unseen/seldom seen landscape.

Semi-Remote Recreation LUD: Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) and will not exceed the allowable visual impacts indicated in the Forest Plan.

•iii•


Executive Summ

ary

VCU 570:East Side of Gilbert Bay (Penstock, powerhouse, switchyard, coastal road, utility corridor, dock facility, storage yard, and caretaker’s facility)

Semi-Remote Recreation LUD: Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) and will exceed the visual impacts for a Moderate SIO as allowable in the Forest Plan. This SIO will not be accomplished within one year after completion. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

West side of Gilbert Bay (Submarine and overhead transmission line and transition facility)



VCU 550:South Side of Port Snettisham (Submarine and overhead transmission line and transition facility)



North Side of Port Snettisham (Submarine and overhead transmission line and transition facility)

Old-Growth Habitat LUD: Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) and will exceed the visual impacts for a High SIO as allowable in the Forest Plan. It is not expected that this objective will be accomplished within 6 months following project completion. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.*

*Small area non-conforming developments may be considered in this LUD by USFS on a case-by-case basis.

Should the Project receive a TUS LUD for the entire corridor the following are the areas of concern:

VCU 610:Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be within an unseen/seldom seen landscape. Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) as allowable in the Forest Plan.

VCU 570:Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) as allowable in the Forest Plan, however, it is not expected to meet the SIO in the first year for the foreground distance zone (east side of Gilbert Bay). This is not consistent with the Forest Plan. The Project is expected to meet the SIO in the middleground (and foreground) in the fifth year or beyond.

Expected impacts to scenery in the middleground distance zone will visually impact the visual landscape due to dissimilar visual characteristics to those of natural occurrences on both side of Gilbert Bay beyond five years. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

•iv•


Executive Summ

ary

VCU 550:Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) as allowable in the Forest Plan and is expected to meet the SIO in the middleground within the fifth year.

Expected impacts to scenery in the middleground distance zone will visually impact the visual landscape due to dissimilar visual characteristics to those of natural occurrences on the south side of Port Snettisham beyond five years. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

Other Potential Areas of Concern:One area of concern has been identified in the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Recreation Resource Study Report (JHI, 2013). The area of concern is the lower portion of Sweetheart Creek that includes a personal use fishery for sockeye salmon and bear viewing area. This is a popular recreation area in July and August. Although not listed as a VPR, this use area is used in a limited capacity to gain physical and visual access to the Forest.

Several facilities associated with the Project are not on USFS managed lands and include the dock, a majority of the dock facility, and most of the coastal road. Although located on State managed lands, these facilities will result in cumulative visual impacts to the surrounding USFS lands and the landscape character.

Cumulative Effects:Cumulative Effects takes into consideration not only this Project but also other anticipated projects within the area. There are no known other planned projects in the area or anticipated future modifications to the Project, however, development related to this Project on State managed land will result in cumulative effects.

Cumulative Effects analyzes the visual impacts to the whole project area within the reasonable foreseeable future and expected change in the Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) as a result of the Project. ESI is a measure of the degree to which the landscape is perceived as whole, complete, or intact without any alterations or modification to the scenery by human activities. As indicated in the analysis, the ESI for the project area (VCU 610, 570 and 550) is comprised of a Very High (1) rating with all except 3% of the landscape character being intact or unaltered.

Based on analysis of this Project, it will be expected that the following changes will be made to the ESI.

It is expected that the Project will visually impact approximately 3% of the intact landscape or approximately 1,200 acres. 31% of the Project area will be modified from a ESI 1 to a proposed Scenic Integrity of Class 5, Very Low, where the landscape is heavily modified with deviations visually impacting the landscape character. This will be on the east side of Gilbert Bay in VCU 570 where the powerhouse, switchyard, road, dock facility, and other related facilities will be located. It is expected that with the proposed mitigation the visual impacts will be reduced to a Class 4, Low, once the revegetation matures in ten years or longer.

32% of the Project area will be modified from a ESI 1 to a proposed Scenic Integrity of Class 4, Low, where the landscape appears moderately altered with deviations beginning to visually impact the landscape character. These areas include the overhead transmission corridors in VCUs 550 and 570.

37% of the Project area will be modified from a ESI 1 to a proposed Scenic Integrity Class 3, Moderate, where the landscape appears slightly altered when noticeable deviations are visually subordinate to the landscape character. This will be along portions of the overhead transmission corridor in VCU 570 and in VCU 550 near Mist Island.

•v•


Contents

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................ i

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1

ANALYSIS/INVENTORY METHODOLOGY ..................................................6

Issues ....................................................................................................7

Guidance .............................................................................................7

INVENTORY OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...............................................8

Landscape Character Types ...............................................................10

Inherent Scenic Attractiveness Classes ...............................................13

Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas ........................................16

Key Viewpoints ....................................................................................16

Distance Zones ....................................................................................18

Existing Scenic Integrity ......................................................................20

Existing Scenic Integrity and Forest Regeneration ..............................22

Visual Absorption Capability ...............................................................24

Other Inventory Information ................................................................26

MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................28

Landscape Character Goals ...............................................................29

Scenic Integrity Objectives .................................................................35

Scenic Integrity Objectives: Specific Guidelines.................................38

Other Scenery Related Goals and Objectives ....................................40

SCENERY EFFECTS ....................................................................................41

Prominence and Sensitivity of Proposed Scenery Effects ...................43

Landscape Character Effects .............................................................47

Scenic Integrity Effects ........................................................................52

Cumulative Effects...............................................................................61

Scenery Protection Measures /Mitigation ...........................................63

LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................66

APPENDIX A- Viewpoint Simulations .......................................................A-1

APPENDIX B- State-Federal and Coastal Road Areas ............................B-1

•vi•


Contents

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND IMAGES

FIGURES

1. Scenery Resource Analysis Area Map ......................................3

2. Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Infrastructure Site Plan ...............4

3. Inherent Scenic Attractiveness Map .......................................15

4. Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas and Viewpoints Map ..17

5. Distance Zone Map .............................................................19

6. Existing Scenic Integrity Map .................................................21

7. Visual Absorption Capacity Map ............................................25

8. Scenic Integrity Objectives Map ............................................37

TABLES

1. Inherent Scenic Attractiveness...............................................13

2. Inherent Scenic Attractiveness Classes ....................................14

3. Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas ...............................16

4. Distance Zones ...................................................................18

5. Existing Scenic Integrity ........................................................20

6. Visual Absorption Capacity ...................................................24

7. Forest Scenery Goals and Objectives ......................................288. Adopted Scenic Integrity Objectives for Each Distance Zone

Based on Land Use Designation ...............................................34

9. Scenic Integrity Objectives ...................................................36

10. Land Use Designation Related to Distance Zone ......................36

11. Expected Change in Existing Visual Integrity ...........................61

IMAGES

1. Distinctive ISA, Gilbert Creek Mudflats ....................................13

2. Typical ISA, Sharp Point ........................................................13

3. VCU 570, Gilbert Bay ............................................................13

4. VCU 550, Port Snettisham ......................................................14

•1•


Introduction

INTRODUCTIONJuneau Hydropower, Inc. (JHI) holds a Preliminary Permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the proposed Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility Project (Project), FERC No. 13563-002, the Project will proceed under steps required by FERC regulations.

During the January 2013 Study Plan Meeting in Juneau, project stakeholders (including state and federal resource agencies) indicated that more work and analysis was needed for the Project’s impact on scenic and aesthetic resources. These concerns were primarily related to Project construction activities and Project features, including the dam, reservoir inundation, powerhouse, transmission line, dock, road and other related facilities. These project related activities and features will occur on lands managed by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). To address these concerns the impacts to scenery resources were to be inventoried, evaluated and analyzed based on current scenery management procedures mandated by the USFS and the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 2008) (Forest Plan).

This study plan describes the analysis used to examine and quantify existing scenery resources and to evaluate potential project-related effects on those resources.

Scenery is defined as the general appearance of a place, general appearance of a landscape, or features of a landscape (USFS, 1995). Scenery is a resource found within the Tongass National Forest (TNF) much like recreation, timber, or wildlife. As a resource, it represents the attributes, characteristics, and features of landscapes that provide varying responses from and varying degrees of benefits to humans (USFS 1995). People who visit public lands are concerned about the quality of the scenery around them and have an impression of what they expect to see when they visit public lands (Newby, 1971). For many visitors and those that live within the TNF there is an expectation that the Forest provides visually appealing scenery, with emphasis on areas seen along the Alaska Marine Highway, tour ship and small boat routes, state highways, Forest roads, and from popular recreation places (USFS, 2008, pp. 2-6).

To understand the significance of the scenery resource for the project area, it needs to be inventoried, classified, and managed with an understanding that the scenery resource might be altered by human based activities. These activities may or may not visually alter the characteristic landscape. Scenery assessment includes the analysis of landscapes that allow informed management decisions based on the Forest Plan (USFS, 2008) and how people value the scenery of the TNF.

This scenery resources report is for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility. The Project consists of: (1) the existing Lower Sweetheart Lake, raised from a surface water elevation of 551 feet (MLLW) and a surface area of 1,414 acres to a new minimum surface water elevation of 576 feet and a new surface area of 1,449 acres and a maximum water surface elevation of 636 feet with a surface area of 1,702 acres; (2) a new, roller compacted concrete dam 111 foot-high (from the downstream toe to the top of dam) 280 foot-long, 100 foot-thickness at the base constructed at the outlet of Lower Sweetheart Lake; (3) an independent intake structure with fish screen adjacent to the dam right abutment, which conveys water to a 15x15 foot horseshoe-shaped 9,621-foot-long unlined tunnel; (4) a 9 foot-diameter, approximately 862 foot-long penstock installed within the lower portion of the tunnel, with approximately another 160 feet of buried 7-foot diameter penstock and manifold connecting to the powerhouse; (5) a powerhouse containing three new Francis generating units (6.6 MW each) with a total installed capacity of 19.8 MW; (6) a 541 foot tailrace discharging flows to Sweetheart Creek, including a salmon smolt re-entry pool located adjacent to the powerhouse and tailrace; (7)

•2•


Introduction

a fenced switchyard adjacent to the powerhouse; (8) a new, approximately 4,400-foot-long, road from the powerhouse to the dock/landing site; (9) a new dock/landing site for boat, seaplane, barge/landing craft ramp and/or helicopter access, located on the east shore of Gilbert Bay; (10) a new 138-kilovolt transmission line that would be a total of 45,900 feet long (25,700 feet of submarine cable in two segments; 15,400 feet of overhead transmission line on Snettisham Peninsula; and 4,800 feet of buried transmission line in two segments); (12) a new 14,800 foot 12.47 kV service transmission line extending from the dam site to the dock facility providing operational electricity and communications for operations; and (13) a caretaker facility with shop and maintenance facilities; (14) a shelter facility at dam site; (15) appurtenant facilities. The Project lies within three Value Comparison Units (VCUs) which are under the management of the USFS: 610, 570 and 550. VCUs are comparable to large watersheds and generally follow major topographic divides. This scenery resource report only includes portions of the Project located on federal lands managed by the USFS where the agency has jurisdictional rights on this Project.

Scenery is evaluated from locations and routes that an observer of the TNF uses to gain physical and visual access to the TNF. These travel ways and use areas are identified as Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas (VPRs). VPRs are inventoried and catalogued by the USFS based on public input, validated through public participation, and then listed in the Forest Plan. VPRs for the TNF can be water or land-based. All scenery work is based from these routes and use areas. The landscapes that can be visually accessed from these locations are classified as seen and are included in the analysis areas. The landscape that is not seen from VPRs is not included in the analysis, nor are lands that are not managed by the USFS.

This Report inventories, classifies, and analyzes the scenery resources and expected modifications by the Project to the scenery resources on the federal lands managed by the USFS. The Report is organized as follows:

Analysis/Inventory Methodology: Describes the methodology used for analysis and inventory of scenery resources.

Inventory of Affected Environment (Existing Conditions): Description of Project Area, Landscape Character Types, Inherent Scenic Attractive Classes, Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas, Distance Zones, Key View Points, Existing Scenic Integrity, Site Productivity, and Visual Absorption Capacity for the Project area.

Management Direction and Standards: Description of desired Landscape Character, Scenic Integrity Objectives, and other scenery related goals and objectives.

Scenery Effects Predictions: Proposed Scenery Effects, cumulative effects to Landscape Character, cumulative effects to Scenic Integrity, and mitigation and scenery protection measures.

Figure 1. Scenery Resources Analysis Area for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project.

Introduction

•3•


Figure 2. Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Infrastructre Site Plan

•4•


Introduction

•5•


Introduction


•6•



ethodology

The TNF uses the Scenery Management System (SMS) as the framework for integrating scenery management into all levels of USFS planning. The SMS evolved from and replaced the Visual Management System defined in Forest Service Agriculture Handbook #462 (USFS, 1974). The SMS is described in Agriculture Handbook #701 (USFS, 1995).

SMS is implemented as part of the forest planning process and includes three phases of work to inventory, develop standards, and determine the effects of the Project on scenery. The phases of SMS are as follows:

• Analysis/inventory of existing conditions

• Establishment of management standards and objectives

• Determine extent, magnitude and duration of effects of the Project.

This section looks at the first phase of work, analysis/inventory phase, and catalogues and verifies the existing forest visual characteristics as viewed from Visual Priority Routes (VPRs). The inventory process results in the development of Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) and Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) based on the analysis area and sets resource management guidelines related to impacts on scenery. The management guidelines are found in the following section of this Report. The inventory phase is recorded as mapping and as 35 mm photographs from Key Viewpoints along VPRs. Geographic Information System tools provided assistance in the development of the mapping. The inventory is developed as a sequence of analysis based on SMS and scenery guidelines within the Forest Plan. Work begins in data collection of existing scenery related documents and maps and all information is field verified from VPRs to reflect current existing conditions. The inventory phase consists of the following steps:

• Determine landscape character type of analysis area.

• Determine scenic attractiveness of landscape based on character type.

• Verify Distance Zones from VPRs and use areas identified in Appendix F in the Forest Plan.

• Analyze Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) of existing landscape condition.

• Determine VAC of the landscape.

• Determine SIOs based on Forest Plan, Distance Zones, and Land Use Designation (LUD).

The scenery analysis/inventory was completed in June of 2013.

Scenery work was completed from the Juneau, Alaska office of Corvus Design-Landscape Architects. Corvus Design’s project scenery lead is Christopher Mertl, ASLA, Landscape Architect. Mr. Mertl is a former Forest Service landscape architect on the TNF and since joining private practice has completed several scenery resource reports for a variety of clients who have projects within the Tongass National Forest.

ANALYSIS/INVENTORY METHODOLOGY

•7•



ethodology

Issues

The key issue related to scenery resources is to identify human-based visual disturbances to the existing seen landscape resulting from management activities. The effects of these activities need to be documented and evaluated to determine the impacts to the existing landscape character and whether these impacts to the scenery are acceptable. Scenery guidelines, known as SIOs, set acceptable scenic parameters for human-based modifications for all management activities on National Forest System lands (USFS, 1995). These visual objectives also establish a timeline for the modifications to meet the scenery guidelines. All modifications will need to meet the SIOs through coordination between the various resources. In some instances mitigation measures may be required to meet the SIOs and allow the management activity.

Guidance

The TNF has two key adopted documents used in the assessment, analysis, and management of scenery. These consist of the Forest Plan (USFS, 2008) and Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (USFS, 1995). These documents guide the process and management of scenery on the TNF and the level of acceptable degree of deviation from the existing landscape character of the TNF created by human activities or alteration. These documents establish Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for the lands under management of the USFS.

•8•



Environment

For the purpose of analyzing scenery resources, the area of analysis consists of all of the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility (Figure 1) within USFS lands that are viewed from Visual Priority Routes. Areas that are unseen from these routes are not included. The analysis area includes the viewsheds surrounding the management activities for hydroelectric power generation and its distribution. The viewsheds encompass the existing resources in areas of direct disturbance and the adjacent seen areas surrounding the disturbance as viewed by an observer of the TNF using travel routes and use areas to gain physical and visual access to the area.

The area potentially affected by the Project is large, including three watersheds (VCUs) transected by the proposed transmission corridor. As shown in Figure 1, new construction in the Sweetheart Lake watershed will include a dam up to 111 feet high at the outlet of Lower Sweetheart Lake and tunnel penstock to the powerhouse. The dam will raise water levels sufficient to create significant additional inundation in Lower Sweetheart Lake. The dam, tunnel, and the visual impacts resulting from raising the lake levels are located in an unseen/seldom seen landscape. The penstock is within a tunnel environment and will not result in visual impacts. All other Project facilities are located in a seen landscape from VPRs.

To evaluate the Project, the affected environment area has been subdivided to correspond with the three VCUs.

VCU 610This is an extremely large VCU (135,900 acres) that includes the Lower and Upper Sweetheart Lakes and the Whiting River drainages and extends to the Canadian border. Project facilities in this VCU include the dam and the tunnel penstock. Impacts will also include raising the lake levels for hydroelectric generation. All facilities in this VCU are located in an unseen/seldom seen landscape and as such analysis for this VCU will be general in nature. (See Special Consideration: VCU 610, pg 9).

VCU 570This 28,129 acre VCU encompasses the Gilbert Bay drainage and hosts a majority of the Project facilities. Facilities include the tunnel penstock coming down from Lower Sweetheart Lake. Adjacent to Sweetheart Creek and near tidewater are a proposed powerhouse, switchyard, and tailrace. The proposed tailrace will consist of an open after-bay and tunnel extending to Sweetheart Creek. The powerhouse and switchyard will be located in a partially excavated area screened by a constructed vegetated barrier. The material excavated to construct the powerhouse will be recycled during the construction of an access road linking the powerhouse and switchyard with a new dock facility to the north. The proposed dock facility includes a dual-height marine ramp, floating docks for seaplane and boat access, and a staging area adjacent to the docks. A caretaker’s facility will be located behind the dock facility. Some excavation will occur within the Caretaker’s area (See Appendix A-4 and B-2).

At the northeast corner of the dock facility, the transmission line will enter the first transition facility and convert to a submarine cable that travels under Gilbert Bay to the west. Upon reaching land, a transition facility will allow the submarine cable to go to an overland configuration. The 15,400 foot long overhead transmission corridor will travel north perpendicular to the shoreline of Gilbert Bay to Sentinel Point. The corridor exits this VCU at the ridgeline above Sentinel Point.

INVENTORY OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

•9•



Environment

VCU 550This 22,403 acre VCU encompasses the Port Snettisham drainage and includes two transition facilities, one on the south shore at Sentinel Point and the other on the northern shore east of Mist Island. The overhead transmission corridor enters this VCU from the south above Sentinel Point and runs north to the water’s edge. At the north shore of Sentinel Point the line enters a third transition facility, converts to a submarine corridor, and travels under Port Snettisham to the north shore adjacent Mist Island. The transmission corridor continues underground until it reaches the fourth and final transition facility located within the existing clearing limits of AIDEA Snettisham overhead transmission corridor. Here the line converts to an overhead configuration and ties into the existing AIDEA line.

Special Consideration: VCU 610Project facilities (dam, elevated lake levels, and tunnel penstock) within VCU 610 are located in an unseen/seldom seen landscape. There are no VPRs in this VCU or in the surrounding VCUs that will allow viewing of these facilities or impacts. Based on discussions with the USFS (Beard, 2014), Project impacts for VCU 610 will be general in nature with no visual simulations created and impacts will be based on best professional judgment to determine if the Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with those allowable in the Forest Plan (see pg 59).

Additionally, due to the extremely large size of VCU 610 (135,900 acres), acreage data for this VCU will not be included in the inventory of existing conditions related to scenery. Including acreage data for this VCU will create an inaccurate perception of the proposed modifications within the Project area. This was confirmed by the USFS (Jensen, 2013).

•10•



Environment

The Forest is divided into large ecological units that describe the geology, vegetation, soils, wildlife and other factors that have the same ecological context. Within these ecological units are smaller Landscape Character Types. These give a geographic area its visual and cultural image and consist of the combination of physical, biological and cultural attributes that make each landscape identifiable or unique. Scenery Management System uses Landscape Character Types to categorize the Forest.

The Landscape Character Types recognized for Tongass National Forest (TNF) lands are geographic units of land, each having distinguishing characteristics of landform patterns and features, vegetation patterns, surface water characteristics, and land use patterns or cultural features. Landscape character is usually based on total visual characteristics and not upon any one single characteristic, although landform and vegetation may be most influential at times. Descriptions for the TNF are based largely on the work by Nowacki, Shephard, Krosse, Pawuk, Fisher, Baichtal, Brew, Kissinger, and Brock (2001).

The Project is located within Region 3, the Boundary Ranges/Icefields landscape character type as defined by the USFS (USFS, 2005), which is the source for the following summary.

Landforms

The Boundary Ranges are a spectacular portion of the Coast Mountains running along the U.S.-Canadian border and consisting of high-elevation, angular, ice-capped mountains. High maritime precipitation, mostly as snow, feeds a discontinuous mix of icefields and glaciers separated by river valleys and pierced by nunataks and scree fields. The ranges include several sprawling icefields (e.g., Juneau and Stikine Icefields) – remnants of past ice ages. Among the largest and most well-known glaciers are the Taku, Mendenhall, Meade, Sawyer, Dawes, Baird, and LeConte glaciers. The southernmost tidewater glaciers in North America occur here. Most of these tidewater glaciers meet saltwater at the head or along the sides of deep fiords which penetrate the Boundary Ranges. In addition to the mountains of the Boundary Ranges, the unit includes the mountainous Chilkat Peninsula, which branches south from the St. Elias Mountains to form a picturesque peninsula separating Lynn Canal and Glacier Bay. Although these mountains are not as massive nor as ice-filled, they are similar to the Boundary Ranges in that they are rugged (angular and steep), contain small glaciers and icefields, and are generally snow-clad. Only a few large rivers manage to breach the Boundary Ranges from the Canadian Interior; these include the Stikine and Taku. These rivers carry sediment from the interior, but also pick up much sediment from streams draining the Boundary Ranges. As the rivers meander, sediments erode and redeposit. Because of strong down-valley winds during winter, sand and silt from exposed sediments on river bars and riverbanks are carried down valley. Other relatively large valleys that penetrate deeply into the Boundary Ranges include the valleys of the Katzehin River and its tributaries, and the valleys of the rivers that flow into Berners Bay (Berners, Lace, Antler, and Gilkey). This unit also includes a strip of lower elevation rounded mountains and lowlands between the western edge of the Boundary Ranges and saltwater, north of the Stikine River. The southern two-thirds of this strip is dominated by steep, but rounded mountains, while the northern third is dominated by lowland terraces and scoured hills.

Landscape Character Types

•11•



Environment

Vegetation Patterns

The shallow and rocky soils support low-growing communities of sedges, grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Forests comprise a minor part of the vegetation along coasts and rivers. In the Chilkat Range, alpine snowfields, barrens, and meadows cover much of the area, with hemlock and hemlock-spruce forests covering the lower mountain slopes, valleys, and coastal areas. Timber harvest has occurred in the area near the tip of the Chilkat Peninsula, mostly within the past 20 years. In the Stikine, Taku, and other large river valleys, alder, willow, and cottonwood colonize newly deposited sediments; spruce and hemlock become established if given enough time. Riparian wetlands are abundant. In the rounded mountains portion of the unit between the western edge of the Boundary Ranges and saltwater, the vegetation is characterized by large areas of alpine meadows with forested sideslopes. Some of the lower rounded mountain areas support extensive productive Western Hemlock and Sitka Spruce forests. Timber harvest has occurred in the low elevations near Thomas and Hobart Bays within the past 50 years. Forests near Juneau and other accessible areas along beachfronts and lower slopes that were harvested around a century ago now support second-growth forest stands around 100 years old. Forested wetlands and emergent wetlands, the latter occurring adjacent to large estuaries and cirque lakes, are common in some areas. The lowland terraces and scoured hills in the northern shoreline portions of the character type are dominated by low productive forests and non-forested wetlands.

Water Features

Most mountain streams are clear, high gradient, and contained by the rough terrain. In contrast, glacial meltwater streams are loaded with silt, resulting in a very cloudy appearance. When entering the sea, these glacial streams turn from a brownish tan to a milky or aqua blue.

The Stikine and Taku Rivers are dominant water features where they cross the Boundary Ranges. They drain large portions of interior British Columbia and are fortified by sediment-laden meltwaters as they pass through the Boundary Ranges. River flow is highest in summer as a result of snow and ice melt. The Katzehin, Lace, Berners, Antler, Gilkey, Speel, Farragut, Bradfield, and Unuk represent other important rivers. Long, narrow bays and lakes follow bedrock weaknesses in some areas of this unit. Cirque basin lakes are often tucked in hanging valleys of the lower mountain summits.

Cultural Elements

This rugged, inhospitable landscape has limited the extent of human influence, which is evident only in small areas near saltwater on the edges of the unit, such as in the vicinity of Juneau and Skagway, and in areas with timber management. The only significant timber harvest in the character type took place at the tip of the Chilkat Peninsula, in the Hobart Bay area on private lands, and near Thomas Bay. Roads are frequently seen in the areas of timber management, and roads, buildings, and other structures are present in and near Juneau, Skagway, and smaller developments. There is very little private ownership in the unit, except in some low elevation areas near Juneau, Berners Bay, Hobart Bay, and Thomas Bay, and much of the unit is managed as wilderness. Many forests near Juneau and other accessible areas along beachfronts and lower slopes were harvested to support the mining industry around a century ago. These areas now support older second-growth stands. Kensington Mine (which has had recent exploration and permitting activities), near Berners Bay, is visible from Lynn Canal.

•12•



Environment

Comments

The Boundary Ranges and Icefields is another spectacular character type, which easily “stands on its own” in a visual frame of reference sense.

The visual character of VCUs 570 and 550 is largely comprised of lower elevation rounded mountains rising to just over 3,000 feet with lowlands adjacent to saltwater as indicated in the landscape character type description for Region 3. Upper elevations consist of rounded exposed rock and alpine vegetation with some brushy landslide and avalanche chutes providing textural contrast. The middle and lower elevation slopes are blanketed by Western Hemlock and Sitka Spruce forests with forested wetlands and emergent wetlands populating the lowlands and gentler sloped areas. Shorelines are deficient of energy and transition from land to saltwater with no or little vertical exposed faces. Streams are steep gradient, clear water contained within the terrain and include Sweetheart and Prospect Creeks (Figure 1). At the head of Gilbert Bay is a large tidewater flat fed by Gilbert Creek. This landscape is comprised of a large flat muddy and gravel landscape dominated by grasses and sedges. VCU 550 shows obvious human influence upon the landscape; as is evident from the presence of the AIDEA transmission corridor connecting the Snettisham Hydroelectric Facility with the community of Juneau. The tall metal transmission towers and wide clearing limits dominate the landscape character type along the northern shore of Port Snettisham. A small cabin is found on the western shore near the mouth of the Whiting River which is located on private land.

VCU 610 has the more dramatic landscape that is punctuated by the steep bare walls containing the glacial fed Whiting River. Rounded exposed peaks rise from 3,000 to nearly 5,000 feet. Upper elevations are without vegetation and are comprised of bare exposed rock formations and dotted with small icefields. Middle elevations are comprised of alpine vegetation with brushy landslide and avalanche chutes while hemlock-spruce forests cover much of the lower elevations with limited wetlands due to the steep terrain.

Image 1: Distinctive ISA. Gilbert Bay looking south towards the mudflats at the mouth of Gilbert Creek.

Image 2: Typical ISA. Port Snettisham looking north towards Sharp Point.

Image 3: VCU 570, Gilbert Bay looking southwest.

Inherent Scenic Attractiveness Classification


Distinctive (A) 5,070 (10%)

Typical (B) 45,462 (90%)

Indistinctive (C) 0 (0%)

Table 1. Inherent Scenic Attractiveness: Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project

•13•



Environment

Inherent Scenic Attractiveness (ISA) is the primary indicator of the intrinsic beauty of a landscape and of the positive responses it evokes in people. It helps determine landscapes that are important for scenic beauty, as well as those that are of lesser value, based on commonly held perceptions of the beauty of landform, vegetation pattern, composition, surface water characteristics, and land use patterns and cultural features (USFS 1995).

Each landscape character type defined above is subdivided into three scenic attractiveness classes: distinctive (A), typical (B), and indistinctive (C). Each landscape character type has its own indicators of ISA. It is expected that a majority of the landscape will fall within the typical classification. A smaller portion of the landscape will be unique and fall within the distinctive classification or have lower than typical attractiveness rating of indistinctive. Although land use patterns and cultural features are landscape elements that can influence scenic attractiveness classes, the major portion of the Southeast Alaska and the Project landscape shows little to no human influence, with the exception of the existing AIDEA transmission line in VCU 550. Human influence such as a utility corridor is treated as a factor affecting the Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) of an area, and does not typically affect its scenic attractiveness. Table 1 summarizes the total acreage of each class of ISA for the Project area (the analysis area for scenery resources) Table 2 summarizes the ISA classes for Region 3, the Boundary Ranges and Icefields, where the Project is located.

As indicated in Table 1 and Figure 2, the Project area is dominated by a ‘Typical’ Inherent Scenic Attractiveness (ISA) for VCU’s 570 and 550. Ten percent of this landscape includes a ‘Distinctive’ ISA. None of the Project area is represented by an ‘Indistinctive’ ISA classification.

VCU 570, Gilbert Bay, contains three areas with a distinctive classification. These areas include the tidewater head of Gilbert Bay and the Gilbert Creek drainage with its expansive mud flats populated by grasses and sedges; the upper blocky mountain ridge to the north of Lower Sweetheart Lake and Sweetheart Creek with its deeply cut vertical walled drainage and series of waterfalls; and the northern exposed steep ridgeline above the mouth of the Whiting River with its massive rock outcrops and sheer glacially scoured escarpments. The landscape is dominated by a typical ISA that includes moderately complex terrain. This terrain tends toward codominance with other objects of the visual field. It includes minor snow fields, secondary peaks and is penetrated by inlets and bays. Vegetation includes moderately varied patterns with some variation in color and texture. Natural forest openings and patches of vegetation are subtly defined. Water features are secondary in nature and tend toward codominance with other objects of the visual field. Features are moderately significant with edge contrasts, spatial definition, and moderate spatial variety.

VCU 550, Port Snettisham, is largely characterized as a typical ISA with moderately complex terrain dominated by angular profiles penetrated by prominent inlets and bays. Geologic features are moderately significant (secondary peaks, escarpments, small snow fields, rock outcrops) which tend toward codominance with other objects of the visual field. Features

Inherent Scenic Attractiveness Classes

Image 4: VCU 550, Port Snettisham looking south.

Source: USFS, 2005

Distinctive (A) Typical (B) Indistinctive (C)Landform patterns and features

Unit characterized by highly complex terrain dominated by massive angular profiles and sharply defined crests frequently penetrated by deep glacial troughs and fiords. Geologic features are numerous and/or highly significant (matterhorn peaks, massive rock outcrops and sheer glacially scoured escarpments, expansive floodplains, large deltas, major examples of mass wasting, and large moraines are typical examples). These features tend to dominate other objects of the visual field. Strong edge contrasts and spatial definition. Moderate spatial variety.

Unit characterized by moderately complex to complex terrain dominated by angular profiles and sharply defined crests often penetrated by prominent inlets and bays. Geologic features are moderately significant (secondary peaks, escarpments, cirques, rock outcrops, and floodplains are typical examples). These features tend toward codominance with other objects of the visual field. Strong edge contrasts and spatial definition. Moderate spatial variety.

Unit characterized by moderately diverse terrain dominated by blocky occasionally angular profiles and well defined crests indented by minor bays and coves. Geologic features are somewhat insignificant (minor peaks, escarpments, rock outcrops, minor examples of mass wasting, and small isolated sand beaches are typical examples). These features are usually subordinate to or are occasionally codominant with other objects of the visual field. Moderate edge contrasts and spatial definition. Little spatial variety.

Vegetation patterns and composition

Unit characterized by a highly varied vegetative pattern (many major plant cover types are apparent). Many variations of the color and texture. Natural forest openings and/or patches of vegetation are sharply defined tending to dominate or share dominance with other objects of the visual field.

Unit characterized by a moderately varied vegetative pattern (a few major plant cover types are apparent). Some variation of color and texture. Natural forest openings and patches of vegetation are subtly defined tending toward codominance with or are subordinate to other objects of the visual field.

Unit characterized by a more or less uniform vegetative pattern (only one major plant cover types are apparent). Little (if any) variation in color and texture. Few (or no) natural forest openings and/or patches of vegetation. Vegetative cover edge contrast tends to be minimal in relation to the visual field.

Surface water characteristics

Unit characterized by numerous and/or highly significant water features (prominent glaciers, snow fields and ice floes, diverse shorelines and associated saltwater features, moderately large lakes, major rivers, waterfalls, and clusters of colorful tarns are typical examples); features that tend to dominate or are codominant with other objects of the visual field.

Unit characterized by moderately significant water features (secondary glaciers, minor snow fields, moderately large streams, small distinctive lakes or clusters of tarns, secondary waterfalls, somewhat diverse shorelines, and associated saltwater features are typical examples); features that tend toward codominance with other objects of the visual field.

Unit characterized by somewhat insignificant water features (shorelines and associated saltwater features of little diversity, minor unfigured lakes, ponds, or bogs, and minor streams are typical examples); these features tend to be subordinate to other objects of the visual field.

Table 2. Inherent Scenic Attractiveness Classes for Region 3, the Boundary Ranges and Icefields

•14•



Environment

have strong edge contrasts and spatial definition with moderate spatial variety. Vegetative patterns have some variety providing moderate variation of color and texture especially at natural forest openings. Water features are secondary in nature with somewhat diverse shorelines that tend toward codominance with other objects of the visual field. A portion of this VCU contains a distinctive ISA and is found in the northern portion where the ridgeline from the Speel Arm enters the VCU. This landscape is described as highly complex terrain dominated by angular profiles and defined crests that dominate other objects of the visual field and provide strong edge contrasts and spatial definition. Vegetation includes many variations of color and texture with natural forest openings sharply defined and sharing dominance with other objects of the visual field.

Figure 3. Inherent Scenic Attractiveness classifications for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project


Environment

•15•


Source: USFS 2008: Appendix F, Forest Plan

Table 3.

Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project

Use AreasDispersed recreation areas Gilbert Creek/Sweetheart Flats, Whiting RiverBoat anchorages Gilbert Bay, Port Snettisham

Travel RoutesAlaska Marine Highway and cruise ship routes Stephens Passage, Juneau To Tracy

Arm via Stephens Passage

Small boat and mid-size tour boat routes Port Snettisham, Gilbert Bay, Whiting Inlet, Whiting River

•16•



Environment

An observer of the TNF uses travel routes and use areas to gain physical and visual access to the TNF. These travel ways and use areas are identified as Visual Priority Routes (VPRs) and are inventoried and catalogued by the USFS. VPRs for the TNF can be water or land-based and include water boating routes, roads, anchorages, recreation areas, communities, trails, and other listed areas used by the public. VPRs are identified in Appendix F of the Forest Plan. VPRs determine typical observer positions and locations where the public views the landscape and identify what areas of the landscape can or cannot be observed by users. Land- and water-based travel ways tend to be linear in nature and allow for movement through large areas of the landscape typically at speed, while use areas are concentrated locations with high viewing use due to the stationary or near stationary viewing. Travel routes for water based activities (Alaska Marine Highway, cruise ships, and small and mid-size boats) are to be catalogued from middle channel (Ouderkirk, 2012). VPRs are used for performing visibility analysis and calculating the Distance Zones of the landscape scenery. The VPRs for the Project are found in Table 3 and Figure 3.

Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas

Viewpoints are established to record and inventory the existing scenic conditions of the landscape at key locations along Visual Priority Routes (VPRs). Each time scenery analysis/inventories are developed for an area, these same viewpoints are to be used and will provide a record of the landscape, its characteristics, and how it has regenerated or been modified over the years. The area around the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project does not have any predetermined viewpoints or photo points established from previous scenery analysis in the region (Jensen, 2013). As such, new points were established (Fig. 4) along Priority Travel Routes and from Use Areas listed above. In total, 7 water-based photo points were established and confirmed by the USFS (Jensen, 2013). Water-based points were from middle channel locations of marine routes, at anchorages, saltwater use areas, or where marine routes intersected another route or adjacent to neighboring use areas. The latitude and longitude of each photopoint were recorded, and a 360-degree panorama image was created for each photopoint using a 35 mm digital single-lens reflex (SLR) camera. A 50 mm lens on a 35 mm SLR film camera replicates the human cone of vision. The field of view on a digital camera is 1.6 greater than a film camera due to the formatting size of the digital image. To obtain the same field of vision using a digital format SLR a 32 mm lens was used to obtain the same field of vision that would have been obtained by a 50 mm lens on a 35 mm film camera.

Key Viewpoints


Environment

•17•


Figure 4. Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas Map with Key Viewpoints for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project

Distance Zone Classification


Foreground 4,822 (10%)

Middleground 35,721 (70%)Background 0 (0%)Unseen 9,989 (20%)

Table 4. Distance Zones:


•18•



Environment

Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas (VPRs) establish how a user gains physical and visual access to the Forest and establishes landscape visibility. From these VPRs, landscape visibility is subdivided into Distance Zones, based on the distance of the landscape from the viewer. The Scenery Management System uses Distance Zones in the classification, analysis, and inventory of scenery. These Distance Zones consist of foreground, middleground, and background as identified in the Forest Plan (Fig. 5).

• Foreground: visible landscape ½ mile and closer to the observer on a VPR. The limit of this zone is based upon the distance at which details can be perceived. Typically, objects in the foreground can clearly be identified including details and texture. Individual boughs of trees and larger leaves form texture.

• Middleground: ½ mile to 5 miles of visible landscape from the observer on a VPR. Individual elements can still be perceived if unique to surroundings. Texture is typically characterized by the mass of trees rather than individual elements of the trees. Individual trees are usually only discernible in open landscapes.

• Background: 5 miles to the horizon of visible landscape from the observer on a VPR. Texture of uniform tree cover is generally very weak or non-existent. Texture is seen as large groups or patterns of trees.

The landscape that is not seen from any VPR is classified as unseen or seldom seen (USFS, 1995). These landscapes are not viewed by the typical Forest visitor. Landscapes that are viewed from more than one VPR may have more than one distance zone and will have the closest distance associated with the landscape. Landscape visibility in the foreground is typically more visually sensitive that those in the middleground or background.

Twenty percent of the Project area (VCUs 570 and 550) is classified as unseen and are found in pockets and slopes facing away from VPRs and steeper terrain landscapes at the back of the VCUs (Table 4; Figure 5). A majority of the landscape is within the middleground distance zone. This is attributed to the Gilbert Bay and Port Snettisham VPRs penetrating the middle of the two VCUs. Most all slopes that are visible from the shoreline to surrounding ridge lines of the VCUs are classified as middleground. The foreground is limited to the immediate shoreline where anchorages are located (Port Snettisham and Gilbert Bay) and the Gilbert Creek/Sweetheart Creek Flats and Whiting River which are dispersed use areas and provides inland access to the Forest. The water based travel routes (Alaska’s Marine Highway, Tour Ship Routes, and Small Boat and Mid-Size Tour Boat Routes) are located in bodies of water that are wide enough that from the middle of the channel that they do not contribute to the foreground distance zone, except adjacent to Speel Arm in VCU 550.

As an aside, over 64% of VCU 610 is classified as unseen, but not included in calculation.

Distance Zones


Environment

•19•


Figure 5. Distance Zone classifications for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project.

Table 5. Existing Scenic Integrity:


Existing Scenic Integrity Classification


Very High (1) 48,727 (97%)High (2) 0(0%)Moderate (3) 652(1%)Low (4) 1,153 (2%)Very Low (5) 0 (0%)

•20•



Environment

Existing Scenic Integrity

Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) is a measure of the degree to which the landscape is perceived as whole, complete, or intact without any alterations or modification to the scenery by human activities (USFS, 1995). These could include but are not limited to roadways, communities, timber harvest, quarries or mines, and the development of recreation areas. ESI is an important tool in planning and understanding the regenerative rate of the forest and restoring landscape character back to its intact state. Understanding the ability and time required for the landscape to return back to its complete visual condition becomes an important factor in evaluating potential modifications and the longevity of the visual impacts on the landscape. The Scenic Management System outlines the five classifications of ESI:

• Very High (1). The characteristic landscape is intact or unaltered.

• High (2). The characteristic landscape appears intact. Deviations may be present, but repeat form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character and at such a scale that they are not evident.

• Moderate (3). The landscape appears slightly altered. Noticeable deviations are visually subordinate to the character.

• Low (4). The landscape appears moderately altered. Deviations begin to dominate the landscape character.

• Very Low (5). The landscape appears heavily altered. Deviations are dominant to the characteristic landscape.

Ninety-seven percent of the Project area has a Very High (1) ESI (Table 5; Figure 6). Overall the Project landscape is largely perceived as whole and intact and this is especially true for VCU 570, Gilbert Bay, where the landscape has a Very High (1) rating except for a very small area (less than 1% ) of moderate ESI (3) is found surrounding the private cabin near the Whiting River. VCU 550, Port Snettisham, is less intact and visual modifications upon the landscape are evident from the AIDEA transmission corridor running parallel with the north shore of Port Snettisham. Depending on the topography and when the corridor was last cleared of vegetation thereby creating visual deviations from the surrounding unaltered landscape, the ESI ranges from Low (4) to Moderate (3) where the modifications begin to dominate the landscape. The total area of modified landscape represents 3% of the overall Project area.


Environment

•21•


Figure 6. Existing Scenic Integrity classifications for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project

•22•



Environment

Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI), the degree to which the landscape is perceived as whole, complete, or intact, is an important tool in understanding the regenerative rate of the Forest. By looking at past modifications that have occurred on the landscape at a variety of time periods provides an understanding of the visual regenerative rate of the Forest within the Project. It also assists in determining the time necessary to restore the landscape character back to its visually intact state. Understanding the ability and time required for the landscape to return back to its complete visual condition becomes an important factor in evaluating potential modifications and the longevity of the expected visual impacts on the landscape.

The existing AIDEA transmission corridor on the north side of Port Snettisham provides indicators to the regeneration rate of the Forest in the immediate area. The transmission corridor is routinely maintained where larger woody debris is removed from the clearing limits. Comparing ESI and the duration of time since the last clearing operation within the corridor provides a baseline to understand regeneration. From a scenery perspective this becomes a valuable tool to understand the rate of regeneration of the Forest and the duration to meet the required Scenery Integrity Objective.

Based on the AIDEA transmission corridor maintenance schedule and ESI, it is expected that visual effects will be the greatest in the first 5 years. One year after the removal of all plant material, the landscape would maintain its ESI 5 (Very Low) rating where soils are exposed, slash is visually obvious and there is significant visual contrast between the cleared landscape and surrounding undisturbed landscape. Low lying vegetation and alder begin to dominate the landscape. After five years, it is expected that residual shrubs and herbaceous plant will begin to fill in and cover much of the exposed soils, however areas of bare soil may still exist on steep slopes and areas with thin soils. Slash would also still be visible. There would still be significant visual contrast between the cleared landscape and surrounding undisturbed landscape and would result in an ESI 5/4. After 20 years hemlock and spruce up to 15 feet tall begin to fill in and create an overstory shrubs are present but are becoming visually subordinate. Contrast between disturbed project areas and adjacent mature stands is still very obvious. Areas that were will be expected to move from an ESI 5 (Very Low) to an ESI 4 (Low). After 50 years the new forest would reach an average height of 50 feet or approximately half the height of adjacent mature stands. After 80 years the stand would reach 75 percent of its mature height and Forest would regenerate to a condition where there would no longer be a discerning visual impact to the casual observer, ESI 2 (High), provided the Forest is undisturbed during that period. After 100 years the stand would blend with adjacent mature stands.

Existing Scenic Integrity and Forest Regeneration

•23•



Environment


Table 6.

Visual Absorption Capability:


Visual Absorption Capability Classification


High 9,998 (20%)Intermediate 3,721 (7%)Low 36,814 (73%)

•24•



Environment

Visual Absorption Capability

Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) is the ability of a landscape to absorb human alterations without changing the natural character or scenic condition of the landscape. VAC is an indicator to the ease or difficulty of maintaining the scenic quality of the seen landscape while applying modifications upon the landscape (USFS, 1995). There are three classifications of VAC: High, intermediate, and low (Table 6. Figure 7).

High VAC landscapes are those with gentle slopes and/or high terrain, and vegetative diversity. Modifications in a high VAC landscape tend to not be evident to the casual observer even without mitigation or special design considerations. Landscapes that are unseen from Visual Priority Routes (VPRs) are assumed to have a high VAC.

Intermediate VAC landscapes have some variety in terrain and vegetation and intermediate slopes. Depending on the modifications, mitigation and design considerations may or may not be necessary.

Low VAC landscapes are generally those with steep slopes, minimal terrain variety, and minimal vegetative diversity. Without mitigation measures or design considerations, modifications to low VAC landscapes tend to dominate the landscape character.

VAC is a planning tool that provides direction for understanding management activities and their impacts on scenery due to human alteration. VAC is an indicator of potential costs, mitigation, and efficiency when proposing management activities in the landscape. Those landscapes with a low VAC tend to have higher costs and effort associated with the alteration with higher impacts to the scenic character of the landscape. Modifications in a high VAC area tend to be accomplished easily, at lower costs, and with minimal visual impacts to the scenery.

Value Comparison Unit (VCU) 570, Gilbert Bay, predominately has a Low VAC due to its high visibility high gradation slopes from numerous VPRs, lack of vegetative diversity, and moderate variety in terrain. This VCU has a small percentage of mosaic Intermediate VAC scattered along its lower and middle elevation slopes. This is attested to natural openings in the forest and intermediate slopes on which modifications will be less apparent than the Low VAC areas. All unseen areas have a High VAC and are found in the higher elevations of the Snettisham Peninsula, upper reaches of Gilbert Creek, Sweetheart Creek, and upper elevations to the north of Lower Sweetheart Lake. All foreground distance zones have a Low VAC in this VCU.

VCU 550, Port Snettisham, has similar qualities to VCU 570. The VCU is dominated by a Low VAC landscape due to its high visibility steep slopes from numerous VPRs, lack of vegetative diversity, and moderate variety in terrain. This VCU has a small percentage of mosaic Intermediate VAC scattered along its lower and middle elevation slopes. High VAC is found in unseen landscapes in the upper elevations above Prospect Creek and pockets above Point Sharp along Port Snettisham. All foreground distance zones also have a Low VAC in this VCU.


Environment

•25•


Figure 7. Visual Absorption Capability classifications for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project

•26•



Environment

Other Inventory Information

This section identifies non-scenery attributes that are not specifically required as part of the analysis and inventory as set forth by Scenery Management. These attributes tend to be social attributes of the ecosystem and landscape that if identified as an important priority for the community and users are included in this section. If appropriate, these social attributes may be carried forward and developed with the interdisciplinary development of desired conditions, goals and alternatives for the Project, although outside of the Scenery Management System. These attributes may include auditory, olfactory, physical contacts, recreation setting, emotional, political, spiritual, economic and other values or considerations that are identified by the public.

Other Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use AreasThis is a popular recreation area for bear viewing and a personal use fisheries area during the months of July and August. Sweetheart Creek is an informal use area that is not a Visual Priority Route (VPRs) as identified in Appendix F of the Forest Plan and is not a facility maintained by the USFS. Sweetheart Lake is stocked annually by a private non-profit hatchery located in Juneau; Douglas Island Pink and Chum, Inc. (DIPAC) for sockeye. The returning sockeye cannot pass the Sweetheart Creek barrier falls which exist a very short distance from tidewater. The returning sockeye salmon do not successfully spawn and the fishery is therefore completely dependent on the annual lake stocking of sockeye fry by DIPAC. Sweetheart Creek is located in an unseen landscape from listed VPRs, however the lower creek to the upper pool/falls is a popular use area by residents of Juneau and allows people the capacity to gain physical and visual access to the TNF. This informal use area was not used in the preparation of this report, but is addressed in the Juneau Hydropower Recreation Report.

•27•



Environment


Table 7. Forest Scenery Goal and Objectives:


Scenery Goal Scenery ObjectiveProvide Forest visitors with visually appealing scenery, with emphasis on areas seen along the Alaska Marine Highway, tour ship and small boat routes, state highways, major Forest roads, and from popular recreation places; recognize that in other areas where landscapes are altered by management activities, the activity may visually dominate the characteristic landscape.

Manage the scenery of the Forest in order to achieve the adopted Scenic Integrity Objectives.

(USFS 2008, p. 2-6)

•28•


Managem

ent

MANAGEMENTThe second phase of Scenic Management Systems is establishing the management requirements including the development of scenery goals and objectives. This phase references the established guidelines, goals and objectives in the Forest Plan to set standards and thresholds for acceptable levels of modifications to scenery.

The establishment of Forest-wide goals and objectives for the Tongass National Forest is outlined in Chapter Two ‘Goals and Objectives’ in the Forest Plan. The chapter presents the Desired Conditions for the Forest and the Forest-wide goals and objectives. The Forest-wide Desired Conditions for scenery is as follows:

The outstanding scenery of the Forest is a major attraction for resident and nonresident recreation users; a full range of recreation opportunities is present. In some cases, scenic values from certain travel routes, trails, high vista points, or aerial observations are affected by timber harvest or mining activities. Users have the opportunity to experience independence, closeness to nature, solitude, and remoteness. (USFS, 2008, p. 2-2).

The goals of the Forest Plan respond to public issues and the ecosystems of the Forest to obtain desired conditions. These goals and objectives are broad general statements without a specific timeline. The Forest-wide goal and objective related to scenery are found below.

Forest-wide goals and objectives are achieved through the development of Management Prescriptions as found in Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan. These more specific goals represent management from an “ecosystem” perspective, where ecosystems are considered from the “site” to the “Forest” level. Goals are achieved through the development of management requirements for each of the eighteen Land Use Designations (LUDs) found within the Forest and the implementation of the standards and guidelines specified for each LUD. Each LUD has goals, standards and guidelines established for scenery resources. Additional objectives to help accomplish the goals are also found in Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan, and in the Resource Schedules contained in Appendix J (USFS, 2008).

•29•


Managem

ent

Landscape Character Goals

Landscape character is a description for an identifiable area of a national forest or region. Landscape character gives a geographic area its visual and cultural image and consists of the combination of physical, biological and cultural attributes that make each landscape identifiable or unique. Landscape character defines the characteristics of landform patterns and features, vegetation patterns, surface water, and land use patterns or cultural features. The Landscape Character for the Project Area is the Boundary Ranges and Icefields and is summarized previously under Landscape Character. Effects to scenery are referenced back to the Landscape Character of the Project Area and the impacts to its identifiable landscape characteristics (vegetation, landforms, surface water, etc.).

Land Use Designations (LUDs) are management zones within the Forest that define a range of allowable uses and affects upon the landscape and the specific Landscape Character as defined in the Forest Plan. LUDs are only for the management of USFS lands. Value Comparison Unit (VCU) 610, 570, and 550 are defined by five LUDs: Semi-remote Recreation, Modified Landscape, Old-Growth Habitat, Scenic Viewshed, and Timber Production. The Project traverses three LUDs: Semi-remote Recreation, Old-Growth Habitat, and Timber Production. The goals, objectives, desired condition, and LUD Standards and Guidelines for scenery for the Project LUDs are as follows (USFS 2008, pp. 3-57, 3-63, 3-116).

Semi-remote RecreationGoals

• To provide predominantly natural or natural-appearing settings for semi-primitive types of recreation and tourism, and occasional enclaves of concentrated recreation and tourism facilities.

• To provide opportunities for a moderate degree of independence, closeness to nature, and self-reliance in environments requiring challenging motorized or non-motorized forms of transportation.

Objectives • Manage recreation and tourism use and activities to meet the levels of social encounters,

on-site developments, methods of access, and visitor impacts indicated for the Semi-Primitive ROS classes. Enclaves of concentrated recreation and tourism developments within the Land Use Designation (LUD) or management activities in adjacent LUDs may cause the ROS setting to become Rural.

• Determine on a case-by-case basis whether roads, trails, and other areas should be closed to motorized recreation activities. If so, incorporate into off-highway vehicle (OHV) plans. If not, the use of boats, aircraft, and snowmachines for traditional activities is allowed.

• Permit small-scale, rustic recreation and tourism facilities, and occasional enclaves of concentrated recreation and tourism facilities.

• Apply the Moderate SIO to any developments, facilities, or structures.

• Fish enhancement and wildlife habitat improvement may occur.

Desired Condition Areas in the Semi-remote Recreation LUD are characterized by generally unmodified natural environments. Ecological processes and natural conditions are only minimally affected by past or current human uses or activities. Users have the opportunity to experience a moderate degree of independence, closeness to nature, solitude, and remoteness, with some areas offering motorized opportunities and others non-motorized opportunities (except for the traditional uses of boats, aircraft, and snowmachines). Interaction between

•30•


Managem

ent

users is infrequent. Facilities and structures may be minimal or occasionally may be larger in scale, but will be rustic in appearance, or in harmony with the natural setting.

Scenery1. Design resource activities to remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities

may repeat form, line, color, or texture common to the landscape. New form, line, color, or texture will be subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

2. Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for the Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO).

3. There may be cases where facilities associated with a concentrated recreation or tourism development may not feasibly meet the Moderate objective. After analysis of the proposal and public involvement, the NEPA decision document for this project should determine the specific SIO for the development. The environmental analysis shall also prescribe design guidelines necessary to meet this scenery objective. During the Project’s design phase, the USFS shall be closely involved in the review of design work as it evolves.

4. Design visitor facilities to blend, to the extent feasible, with the natural setting.

5. Rehabilitation techniques may be used to restore disturbed landscapes to be compatible with the Semi-Primitive setting.

Old-Growth Habitat Land Use DesignationGoals

• Maintain areas of old-growth forests and their associated natural ecological processes to provide habitat for old-growth associated resources.

• Manage early seral conifer stands to achieve old-growth forest characteristic structure and composition based upon site capability. Use old-growth definitions as outlined in Ecological Definitions for Old-growth Forest Types in Southeast Alaska (R10-TP-28).

Objectives • Provide old-growth forest habitats, in combination with other LUDs, to maintain viable

populations of

• Native and desired non-native fish and wildlife species and subspecies that may be closely associated with old-growth forests.

• Contribute to the habitat capability of fish and wildlife resources to support sustainable human subsistence and recreational uses.

• Maintain components of flora and fauna biodiversity and ecological processes associated with old-growth forests.

• Allow existing natural or previously harvested early seral conifer stands to evolve naturally to old-growth forest habitats, or apply silvicultural treatments to accelerate Forest succession to achieve old-growth forest structural features. Consider practices such as thinning, release and weeding, pruning, and fertilization to promote accelerated development of old-growth characteristics.

• To the extent feasible, limit roads, facilities, and permitted uses to those compatible with old-growth forest habitat management objectives.

Desired Condition • All forested areas within this LUD have attained old-growth forest characteristics. A diversity of

old-growth habitat types and associated species and subspecies and ecological processes are represented.

Scenery1. Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for High Scenic Integrity Objective. Design activities

to not be visually evident to the casual observer.

•31•


Managem

ent

2. Exceptions for small areas of non-conforming developments, such as recreational developments, transportation developments, log transfer facilities, and mining development, may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Use designs and materials that are compatible with forms, colors, and textures found in the characteristic landscape.

Timber Production Land Use DesignationGoals

• To maintain and promote wood production from suitable forest lands, providing a continuous supply of wood to meet society’s needs.

• To manage these lands for sustained long-term timber yields.

• To seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest that meets the annual and planning-cycle market demand, consistent with the standards and guidelines for this LUD.

Objectives Within this LUD, apply the Scenic Integrity Objectives of Low in the foreground distance zone, as seen from Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas (see Appendix F, Forest Plan). Apply the Very Low Scenic Integrity Objective to all other areas.

Locate and design timber harvest activities primarily to meet timber objectives. Suitable forest lands are available for timber harvest; appropriate silvicultural systems may be used. Other timber management objectives include:

• Seek to reduce clearcutting when other cutting methods will meet land management objectives.

• Identify opportunities for diversifying the wood products industry (e.g., special forest products, and value-added local production).

• Use forest health management to protect resource values.

• Improve timber growth and productivity on commercial forest lands.

• Plan, inventory, prepare, offer, sell and administer timber sales and permits to ensure the orderly development of timber production.

• Emphasize the overall reduction of costs, increase of revenues, and improvement of public service within the timber program.

• Provide a spectrum of recreation and tourism opportunities consistent with the capabilities of this LUD.

• Manage recreation and tourism use to be compatible with timber production objectives. Manage changed recreation settings in accordance with the appropriate Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class.

• Plan a transportation network of roads and helicopter access that will eventually access most of the suitable forest lands for standard logging or helicopter yarding systems and transition to young-growth management.

Desired Condition • Suitable forest lands are managed for the production of sawtimber and other wood products

on an even-flow, long-term sustained yield basis; the timber yield produced contributes to Allowable Sale Quantity. An extensive road system provides access for timber management activities, recreation uses, hunting and fishing, and other public and administrative uses; some roads may be closed, either seasonally or year-long, to address resource concerns. Management activities will generally dominate most seen areas. Tree stands are healthy and with a mix of age classes from young stands to trees of harvestable age, often in 40- to 100-acre stands. Recreation opportunities, associated with roaded settings from Semi-Primitive to Roaded Modified, are available. A variety of wildlife habitats, predominantly in the early and middle successional stages, are present.

•32•


Managem

ent

Scenery1. Timber management activities may dominate the scenic character of the landscape.

2. Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for the Low Scenic Integrity Objective in the foreground distance zone of Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas (see Appendix F, Forest Plan) and the Very Low Scenic Integrity Objective for all other areas. This objective defines the maximum limit of allowable change to the scenic character of the area; less visible evidence of activities is acceptable.

3. Consider roadside cleanup of construction debris and logging slash as a mitigation measure when recreational use is included as a road management objective for the proposed road.

4. In areas visible from Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas, incorporate landscape design techniques in the planning process to the extent that they are compatible with LUD objectives.

Special LUD ConsiderationIt is the intent of the JHI to obtain a new LUD for the Project area in the near future (Mitchell, 2013). The desired designation will be a Transportation and Utility System (TUS) LUD to support the development of state and federal highways, railroads, public hydroelectric power projects and associated facilities, powerlines 66 kV or greater, and pipelines 10 inches or greater in diameter and will include the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project. A TUS LUD is defined as an “Overlay LUD” where the underlying initial LUDs, Timber Production, Old Growth Habitat, and Semi-remote Recreation, remain in effect until that time where the initiation of construction, and during system operation of the TUS facility, this management prescription will apply. Within the TUS corridor, the underlying LUDs continue to exist but are superseded by the TUS only for the allowable uses prescribed by the TUS. The TUS LUD applies only to the project limits/corridor necessary for the infrastructure and maintenance of facilities required as part of the TUS. Outside the TUS corridor, the underlying LUDs remain as the management prescription.

The intent of this Report is to be dynamic in nature and analyze and document the visual impacts related to the current LUDs (Timber Production, Old Growth Habitat, and Semi-remote Recreation) and to also analyze and document the scenery effects should the Project obtain a TUS LUD. All discussion related to the proposed future TUS designation will be indicated by use of italicized text and is only valid should the Project receive the TUS designation in the future. Until that time, the Project will be analyzed, managed, and scenery effects documented as they relate to the current existing three LUDs (Timber Production, Old Growth Habitat, and Semi-remote Recreation) found in the Forest Plan.

The goals, objectives, desired condition, and LUD Standards and Guidelines for the Transportation and Utility System LUD (if obtained in the future) are as follows (USFS, 2008, 3-128 to 3-133).

Transportation and Utility SystemGoals

• To provide for, and/or facilitate the development of, existing and future major public Transportation and Utility Systems, including those identified by the State of Alaska and the Alaska Energy Authority.

Objectives • Apply this management prescription to existing major systems corridors. Use the prescription

as criteria in the planning and design of future system corridors. The corridors shown on the Land Use Designation (LUD) Map (2007) do not include viable routes that may be considered during project analysis. Consideration of alternate routes that meet corridor objectives while reducing costs and/or minimizing resource impacts is encouraged. During the period before

•33•


Managem

ent

actual construction of new systems occurs, the management prescription(s) of the (initial) LUD(s) underlying the corridors will remain applicable. Upon initiation of construction, and during system operation, this management prescription will apply. The Transportation Utility System (TUS) LUD takes precedence over any underlying LUD (subject to applicable laws) regardless of whether the underlying LUD is a TUS Avoidance LUD or not. As such, it represents a “window” through the underlying LUD through which roads and/or utilities can be built.

• For application of this LUD, “major systems” are defined as state and federal highways, railroads, public hydroelectric power projects and associated facilities, powerlines 66 kV or greater, and pipelines 10 inches or greater in diameter.

• Allow special uses and facilities not related to transportation or utility systems, if compatible with present or future systems.

• If the development of systems changes the Recreation Opportunity System (ROS) setting, manage recreation and tourism opportunities in accordance with the new setting. Consider the development of recreation and tourism facilities in conjunction with the planning of state or federal highways or reservoirs.

• Following construction of systems, lands in the right-of-way, if permanently cleared, will be considered unsuitable for timber production.

• Transportation and utility corridors, to the extent feasible, should follow the same route.

• Transportation Utility Systems may dominate the seen foreground area, yet are designed with consideration for the existing form, line, color, and texture of the characteristic landscape.

• Minimize and/or mitigate adverse effects to wildlife habitat and populations to the extent feasible.

• Maintain the present and continued productivity of anadromous fish and other fish habitat to the extent feasible.

Desired Condition Transportation Utility Systems have been constructed in an efficient and economic manner, and have been designed to be compatible with the adjacent Land Use Designation to the maximum extent feasible. The minimum land area consistent with an efficient, safe facility is used for their development. Effects on other resources have been recognized and resource protection has been provided. Other resources uses and activities in the area do not conflict with utility operations. State and federal highways and reservoirs offer new developed recreation opportunities, as appropriate.

Scenery1. The landscape may be dominated by activities associated with Transportation Utility Systems.

Although Transportation and Utility System developments may dominate the seen area, they are designed with consideration for existing form, line, color, and texture found in the characteristic landscape.

2. Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for the Low Scenic Integrity Objective. Perform viewshed analysis in conjunction with project development to provide direction for retaining or creating a visually attractive landscape over time.

3. Work with topographic and vegetative features to screen the development when seen from Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas (see Appendix F, Forest Plan).

4. Consider the following during the design phase of routes, which are, or are seen from, Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas:

a. Vegetation of slopes seen from the road.

b. Providing “planting pockets” or terraces or slopes, where needed.

c. Maintaining landforms through road location and design.

Table 8. Adopted Scenery Integrity Objectives for Each Distance Zone Based on Land Use Designation

Land Use Designation Foreground SIO Middleground SIO Background SIO Unseen/Seldom Seen SIO

Semi-Remote Recreation* Moderate Moderate Moderate ModerateTimber Harvest* Low Very Low Very Low Very LowOld-Growth Habitat* High High High HighScenic Viewshed High Moderate Moderate Very Low

Modified Landscape Moderate Low Low Very Low

Transportation and Utility System**

Low Low Low Low

*LUD within Project Area.

** If obtained.

Source: USFS 2008

•34•


Managem

ent

d. Breaking up the straight line effect of linear corridors by considering special treatment of vegetation on clearing slopes or application of other design techniques and principles.

5. Requiring roadside cleanup of construction debris and logging slash on all roads receiving general public use or expected to have such future use.

•35•


Managem

ent

Scenic Integrity Objectives

A major component of the Scenery Management System (SMS) is the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs). SIOs are used to establish scenery standards for management and the degree to which the landscape must be retained intact or can be perceived as modified by alterations by human activities (USFS 1995). In the Forest Plan, SIOs were adopted that provide direction and objectives for landscape scenery and Distance Zones within each Land Use Designation (LUD) (USFS, 2008, p. 4-57). The long-term future scenic condition for each area is set as a scenic integrity level that defines maximum levels of visual impact desirable from human alterations to the natural landscape character. Associated with each objective is a set of recommended scenery standards and guidelines for each allowable use. These recommendations are guidelines that generally define how much modification can occur and still meet the SIO. Each objective makes recommendations for each distance zone and the timeline to meet the SIO (USFS, 2008, pp. 4-57 to 4-59).

SMS and the Forest Plan outline four classifications of SIOs (Figure 8).

• High: The characteristic landscape appears intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such a scale that they are not evident.

• Moderate: The landscape appears slightly altered. Noticeable deviations are visually subordinate to the character.

• Low: The landscape appears moderately altered. Deviations may be dominant, but are shaped to borrow from the natural landform and other visual dominance elements (line, form, texture, color) and are subordinate to the characteristic landscape when viewed as background.

• Very Low: Deviations are dominant, but borrow from the natural terrain and other elements common to the characteristic landscape.

LUD plays a key role in establishing management prescriptions and determining the SIO for the landscape. The Project currently has three LUDs: Timber Production, Old Growth Habitat, and Semi-Remote Recreation. As previously discussed, there is a desire by JHI to obtain a Transportation and Utility Systems (TUS) LUD for the Project. The TUS is an “overlay” LUD where the initial three underlying LUDs remain in effect until initiation of construction and during system operation of the Transportation and Utility System facility, at which point the TUS LUD supersedes the underlying three LUDs. Until a TUS LUD is obtained, the three existing LUDs listed in the Forest Plan determine the SIO for the landscape.

The Forest Plan adopts SIOs that provide direction and objectives for landscapes within each LUD. The long-term desired future scenic condition for a specific area is the maintenance of a scenic integrity level that is at least as high as the adopted SIO for that area. Adopted SIOs for each Distance Zone is listed for each LUD and found in Table 8 (USFS, 2008, p. 4-57).

Footnote 4 on the Forest Plan’s Adopted Scenery Integrity Objectives for the Semi-Remote Recreation and Old-Growth Habitat LUDs indicate the following: “Exceptions for small areas of non-conforming developments, such as recreation developments, transportation developments, log transfer facilities, and mining development, may be considered in these LUDs on a case-by-case basis.” (USFS, 2008, p. 4-57).

Value Comparison Unit (VCU) 570, Gilbert Bay, is comprised of a large tract of Semi-Remote Recreation LUD (both in the foreground and middleground distance zones) on the east side of Gilbert Bay stretching from the southern limit to the north and therefore receives a Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO). The lower and middle elevations along the western side of Gilbert Bay have a Very Low SIO as a result of its Timber Management LUD in the middleground distance zone. Two other LUDS are found in this VCU but outside the Project Area. These

Table 9.

Existing Scenic Integrity Objectives (VCU 550 and 570):


Scenic Integrity Objective Classification


High 6,424 (13%)Moderate 17,940 (36%)Low 15,434 (30%)Very Low 10,673 (21%)

Table 10.

Land Use Designation Related to VCU and Distance Zones:


VCU LUD Foreground Acres (%) Middleground Acres (%) Not Seen Acres (%)570 Semi-Remote Recreation* 2,175 (4%) 11,009 (22%) 1,889 (4%)

Timber Production* 2,246 (4%) 3,823 (7%) 535 (1%)Modified Landscape - 2,075 (4%) 2,664 (5%)Old-Growth Habitat - 494 (1%) 1,191 (2%)

550 Old-Growth Habitat* - 4,596 (9%) 144 (<1%)Timber Production* - 105 (<1%) -

Semi-Remote Recreation - 1,365 (3%) -

Scenic Viewshed - 1,159 (2%) -

Modified Landscape 321 (<1%) 11,113 (22%) 3,711 (7%)

•36•


Managem

ent

include a sliver of Old-Growth Habitat at the southern portion with a High SIO and a Modified Landscape on the upper elevations above the west side of Gilbert Bay. This area receives a Low SIO in the middleground.

VCU 550, Port Snettisham, is made up of an Old-Growth Habitat LUD and middleground distance zone on the north side of Port Snettisham adjacent Stephens Passage and is designated as a High SIO. A small portion of Timber Management is located at Sentinel Point and results in a Very Low SIO in the middleground. Another three LUDs exist in this VCU and are outside the Project Area. The first being the area surrounding Prospect Creek, which has a Modified Landscape LUD and a Low SIO in the middleground and Moderate SIO in the foreground. The second is the south portion of Port Snettisham designated as Scenic Viewshed and has a Moderate SIO due to being in the middleground. The last is a Semi-Remote Recreation LUD (middleground distance zone) and receives a Moderate SIO.

VCU 610 is comprised of a Semi-Remote Recreation LUD and therefore receives a Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO). The upper reaches of Sweetheart Creek and all of Lower Sweetheart Lake where Project facilities and impacts are proposed are within an unseen/seldom seen landscape, however still receives a Moderate SIO.

As discussed previously, it is the intent of the JHI to obtain a Transportation and Utility Systems (TUS) Land Use Designation (LUD) that would overlay the Semi-Remote Recreation, Timber Production, and Old-Growth Habitat LUDs. These initial underlying LUDs remain in effect until that time where the initiation of construction and during system operation of the Transportation and Utility System (TUS) facility, at which point the TUS LUD supersedes the underlying LUDs. The TUS is a linear LUD with an undetermined size over the underlying Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO). Until the TUS LUD is obtained, the three existing LUDs will determine the management and SIO of the Project.

Managem

ent

•37•


Figure 8. Scenic Integrity Objective classifications for Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project.

•38•


Managem

ent

Scenic Integrity Objectives: Specific Guidelines

High SIO: Old- Growth Habitat LUD (all Distance Zones)Design activities to not be visually evident to the casual observer. This objective should be accomplished within 6 months following Project completion.




Transportation • Rock Sources. When a forest development road is a Visual Priority Route (VPR), locate rock

sources off the road, when possible. Spur road access may be necessary to minimize the visual impact. Rock source development should not be apparent from the road, use area, or marine travel route to meet this scenic objective.

• Corridor Treatment. Provide roadside cleanup of ground-disturbing activities.


Moderate SIO: Semi-Remote Recreation LUD (all Distance Zones)

Design activities to be subordinate to the landscape character of the area. This SIO should be accomplished within 1 year of Project completion.




Transportation • Design rock sources to be minimally apparent as seen from VPRs. Rehabilitation is usually

necessary following closure of rock source developments. It may be necessary to modify some ground-disturbing activities seen from the foreground of VPRs.

• Corridor Treatment. Roadside cleanup of ground disturbance activities may be necessary.

Low SIO: Timber Harvest LUD (Foreground Distance Zone) Activities may visually dominate the characteristic landscape, but must have visual characteristics similar to those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area or character type. This SIO should be met within 1 year in the foreground distance zone and within 5 years in the middle and background Distance Zones following Project completion.




•39•


Managem

ent


observer as seen from VPRs. However, the rock excavation location and design should mitigate, to the extent feasible, the apparent visual size and dominance of the activity (e.g., shaping of backwalls, visual landform barriers, roadside screening, and general orientation of the opening).

Low SIO: Transportation and Utilities System LUD (all Distance Zone)*






observer as seen from VPRs. However, the rock excavation location and design should mitigate, to the extent feasible, the apparent visual size and dominance of the activity (e.g., shaping of backwalls, visual landform barriers, roadside screening, and general orientation of the opening).

*This LUD is currently not listed with the Project Area in the Forest Plan, however JHI is proposing to obtain this LUD for the Project.

Very Low SIO: Timber Harvest LUD (Middleground and Background Distance Zones)

• Activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, yet when viewed as background, should appear to be a natural occurrence.

• Locate and design management activities to take advantage of existing (both natural and imposed) pattern and texture found in the landscape when viewed in the middleground from VPRs.

• Design activities to resemble natural occurrences as viewed in the background distance zone.

•40•


Managem

ent

Other Scenery Related Goals and Objectives

Design ActivitiesThe Forest Plan also indicates that in designing activities to meet specific Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs), a number of factors must be considered. These factors include the following:

The landscape’s Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) rating is an inventoried condition that rates the degree of change that has already occurred on the ground. It is important to compare the ESI of the Project area to the SIOs assigned by the Forest Plan. Should there be conflicting conditions presently existing and the intent of the Land Use Designation (LUD) is not presently met, it will be appropriate to consider either 1) some specific rehabilitation measures or 2) Project deferral that will allow the landscapes in the Project area time to regenerate sufficiently.

Visual Absorption Capability (VAC), which is an estimate of the relative ability of a landscape to absorb management activities. High, Intermediate, and Low VAC ratings are used. These ratings reflect the degree of landscape variety in an area, viewing distance, and topographic characteristics. For example, a Low VAC setting generally has steep slopes, with little landscape variety, while a High VAC setting may be relatively flat and/or has a high degree of variety in the landscape.

Size, shape, orientation to viewer, color, texture, etc. are critical elements in determining whether or not an activity meets the adopted SIO. Consideration for the scenery is essential early on in the planning process, particularly in areas seen from a Visual Priority Route. However, each landscape setting is different, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There may be instances where the SIO can be met even though the proposed activity is greater than the guideline, or there also may be cases where the activity must be smaller to meet the intent of the SIO.

•41•



SCENERY EFFECTSThe proposed Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility (Figs. 1 & 2) will include a dam and penstock on Lower Sweetheart Lake with a powerhouse and switchyard adjacent to Sweetheart Creek. A transmission corridor will run along (as overhead cables) and under (as submarine cables) Gilbert Bay and Port Snettisham. The transmission line is proposed to tie into Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority’s (AIDEA) existing transmission line on the north side of Port Snettisham. Additional Project facilities will include an access road, dock facility, and a caretaker’s facility on the east side of Gilbert Bay north of the powerhouse. The project will be located on federal lands managed by the USDA Forest Service (USFS) as part of the Tongass National Forest and on lands owned by the State of Alaska. Proposed facilities for each VCU are summarized below.

VCU 610 Project facilities in this VCU include the dam and the tunnel penstock. Impacts would also include raising Lower Sweetheart Lake’s level for hydroelectric generation. All facilities are located in an unseen/seldom seen landscape.

The dam is located at the mouth of Lower Sweetheart Lake in a narrow ravine. The height of the concrete and dam on the downstream side will be 111 feet tall. On the lake side, the height of the dam will vary between twenty-six and eighty-five feet depending on lake levels. The dam is proposed to raise the surface elevation of Lower Sweetheart Lake by a minimum of 25 feet and a maximum of 85 feet and would impact existing vegetation on the side slopes of the lake. The penstock will be located in a tunnel and would have no scenery impacts.

VCU 570Facilities include the tunnel penstock coming down from Lower Sweetheart Lake. Adjacent to Sweetheart Creek and near tidewater is proposed a powerhouse, switchyard, smolt re-entry pool, and tailrace consisting of an open afterbay and tunnel extending to Sweetheart Creek. The powerhouse and switchyard will have earthen berms predominately placed on the western and southern portions of the site. The powerhouse and switchyard will be in a partially excavated area linked by a 4,400 foot-long access/service road to the north to a new dock facility including a dual-height marine ramp, floating docks for seaplane and boat access, and a staging area adjacent to the docks. The dock facility and most of the coastal road will be primarily located on State of Alaska lands. Located to the south of the dock facility will be a caretaker’s facility. All facilities, except the penstock, will be located in the foreground distance zone.

In additional to physical facilities and associated disturbances, the project will also affect scenery in the reduction of water flowing over the Sweetheart Creek Falls and in the upper pools of the creek. Current flow rates over the falls average 346 cubic feet per second (cfs) and once power production starts will be reduced to 3 cfs plus 3 percent accreation. Flow rates in the lower creek will be similar to current from the tailrace and below. The falls and creek are located in an unseen/seldom seen landscape but is identified as an Area of Concern.

Adjacent to the dock facility, the transmission line will be a 9700-foot submarine cable that travels under Gilbert Bay to the west shoreline. Upon reaching land a transition facility will allow the submarine cable to go to an overhead configuration. The 15,400-foot long transmission corridor will travel north perpendicular to the shoreline of Gilbert

•42•



Bay to Sentinel Point. The corridor exits this VCU just to the south of Sentinel Point. These facilities will be located in a middleground distance zone.

VCU 550The overhead transmission corridor (approximately 0.1 mile) enters this VCU from the south and converts to a submarine corridor at Sentinel Point and travels approximately 16,000 feet under Port Snettisham to the other transition facility on the northern shore of Port Snettisham east of Mist Island. The transmission corridor continues on land underground for 400 feet before entering a transition facility where it converts to an overhead configuration and ties into the existing AIDEA overhead transmission corridor. These facilities are located in a middleground distance zone.

Project wide, overhead transmission structures will be steel T and straight-shaped towers with a typical height of 80 feet. These structures, largely due to the use of guys, can be designed to be relatively light weight allowing setting of the structures with the use of a heavy lift helicopter. The structures are to be supported on micro-pile foundations (JHI Exhibit G 4.4, 2013). The clearing width within the transmission corridor will be 100 feet on either side of the center line resulting in a total of 200 feet cleared for all overhead transmission corridors. All trees will be cleared from the transmission corridor at the initiation of construction and during the existence of the Project to eliminate potential hazards and allow access to the transmission line. Vegetation management will be required as part of the scheduled maintenance of the corridor. The width of the cleared corridor may vary depending on tower placement, existing vegetation, terrain, and slopes, and is determined by the utility engineer.

It is expected that the Project will have the greatest visual impacts immediately after completion of construction. As the Forest naturally regenerates within the transmission corridor, the visual impacts will be reduced. In the middleground and background Distance Zones, visual impacts will be attributed to the deviation in color and texture from the surrounding undisturbed vegetated landscape. In the foreground, the transmission structures, utility lines, and the deviation in vegetation (color and texture) within the corridor will result in visual impacts.

•43•



Prominence and Sensitivity of Proposed Scenery Effects

To fully understand the expected scenery effects from the Project the following details the structures, sizes, spacing and corridor clearing limits for each of the Project segments within each of the Value Comparison Units (VCUs). The summary also identifies where scenery impacts are expected, the distance zone effected, and those areas that are sensitive including those with a Low Visual Absorption Capacity, Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) of 1-3, and High Inherent Scenic Attractiveness (ISA). The landscape areas that are identified as being sensitive are highlighted in bold text under the prominence and sensitivity summary for each segment.

VCU 610 Dam, Penstock and Elevated Lake LevelsThis VCU includes the Lower Sweetheart Lake dam, spillway and penstock. The height of the dam on the downstream side will be 111 feet tall and the height on the lake side will vary from twenty-six to eighty-five feet depending on lake levels. The penstock will not be visible as it will be set within a tunnel drilled through existing rock. Lower Sweetheart Lake levels will be elevated between twenty-five and eighty-five feet above existing to allow for power generation. This increase in lake levels will effect existing vegetation on the side slopes of the lake to the upper range of the proposed lake elevation. Temporary facilities associated with construction activities on Sweetheart Lake including construction staging, camp and laydown areas will be submerged when lake levels are elevated as part of power generation and no longer visible.

Prominence and Sensitivity of this segment:• Dam, penstock and elevated lake levels: Unseen/seldom seen landscape, High ESI (Class 1),

Distinctive ISA, High VAC.

• Due to facilities being in an unseen/seldom seen landscape and having a High VAC, the sensitivity of these facilities in a High ESI and Distinctive ISA are negligible.

VCU 570Facilities in this VCU include the powerhouse, switchyard, tailrace, access road, caretaker’s facility, dock facility, and transition facilities. Transmission lines in this VCU include buried, submarine, and overhead configurations.

East Side of Gilbert Bay: Power Generating and Related Support FacilitiesFacilities on this portion of the VCU include the powerhouse, switchyard, tailrace, access road, dock facility, caretaker’s facility, and transition facility. Total disturbed area will be approximately 12.4 acres, of which 8.3 will be on State land. The powerhouse and switchyard will be located in an excavated area just north of Sweetheart Creek and within the tree line above the tidal area. The two-story, approximately 9,600 sq. ft. powerhouse will be set into the landscape with soil berms and vegetation around the perimeter of the structure to assist in screening the facility. One face of the building will be partially visible towards Gilbert Bay. Adjacent to the powerhouse will be an approximately 22,000 sq. ft. switchyard, and 125 sq. ft. smolt re-entry pool flowing into Sweetheart Creek. The tailrace channel will have a partially covered arch culvert and and be backfilled to provide a wildlife crossing over the channel. The backfill will allow revegetation and assist in screening the powerhouse and associated

•44•



facilities. Earth berms and landscaping will surround the powerhouse and switchyard on the south and west sides to create a visual buffer from Gilbert Bay. From the powerhouse, a 4,400 foot-long gravel access road will travel north just above the high tide line. The road will largely be built on fill material on State lands to get grade above the high tide line. The 25-foot-wide gravel road will have five pull-outs on the water side of the road that will add 16 feet to the width of the roadbed at those locations. Each pull out is approximately 200 feet long. After the power facility is operational the two lane gravel access road will be decommissioned to a one lane gravel service road and the pullouts also decommissioned and revegetated. The road clearing limits including road fill limits to cut slopes on the uphill side of the road varies but has a typical width of approximately 75 feet. No vegetation would remain between the road and Gilbert Bay except where revegetation planting is installed adjacent to the pull outs. Larger boulders will be placed at high tide on fill slopes to provide visual variety for the road bed fill slopes. The transmission line will be buried below the road bed and run for approximately 4700’ from the powerhouse to the marine transition facility.

The access road links the powerhouse to the dock facility. The dock facility includes a dual-height marine ramp, a floating dock will provide boat access (141’ length and 24’ width) with a seaplane dock at its terminus (1,500 sq. ft.). These facilities are not on USFS lands rather are on fill placed on State managed lands. Adjacent to the dock facility is a sloped area of fill (31,500 sq. ft.) that will be used for a staging/storage area and is also located on State Land except for a small portion of USFS land totaling 0.1 acres. These facilities will be located in the foreground of the caretaker’s facility. This two-story structure will have a 4,225 sq. ft. footprint and be accessible from the road. A partially buried concrete vault will be located near the dock facility that allows the underground transmission line to transition to submarine before entering Gilbert Bay.

Prominence and Sensitivity of this segment:All facilities are located in:

• Foreground Distance Zone



• Low VAC

West Side of Gilbert Bay: Transmission LinesThis segment of transmission lines includes going from a submarine cable exiting Gilbert Bay, entering a transition facility just above high tide and then going to an overhead transmission line. The submarine cable corridor would result in cleared vegetation on land above the buried cables to a width of 30 feet and running approximately 50 feet from the high tide line to the transition facility. The station will be a small secured structure sitting on a cleared pad of approximately 625 square feet. Exiting the station will be a single transmission line with three conductors supported on steel T and straight-shaped towers with an average height of 80 feet. The transmission line will run to the north towards Sentinel Point. The clearing limits for the corridor are estimated at 100 feet on the downhill side and 100 feet on the uphill side, for a total clearing width of 200 feet. The total length of the overhead corridor in this VCU is approximately 15,400 feet.




• Low VAC (dotted with Intermediate)

•45•



VCU 550The Project in this Value Comparison Unit (VCU) only includes the hydroelectric transmission lines.

Transmission LinesThis segment of transmission lines includes going from overhead line at Sentinel Point to submarine cable under Port Snettisham and back to overhead line to connect to the existing Snettisham Transmission Line. The overhead transmission line exits VCU 570 on the ridge above Sentinel Point and enters VCU 550 from the south as an overhead line. The transmission line travels approx. 1,000 feet from the edge of the VCU to the south shore of Port Snettisham. The transmission line conductors in this portion of the VCU will be supported by steel T and straight-shaped towers with an average height of 80 feet. The clearing limits for the corridor are estimated at 100 feet on the downhill side and 100 feet on the uphill side, for a total clearing width of 200 feet. At Sentinel Point the transmission line enter a transition facility just above high tide and converts to a submarine cable configuration. The submerged cable travels west 16,000 feet and meets up with the northern shore of Port Snettisham just east of Mist Island. It continues north underground as it heads 400 feet up the shore to the transition facility located within the existing AIDEA Snettisham transmission corridor. Both transition facilities would result in cleared vegetation above the buried cables to a width of 30 feet. Both stations will be a small secured structure sitting on a cleared pad of approximately 625 sq. ft. Upon exiting substation adjacent to the AIDEA transmission line the transmission line will convert to an overhead configuration supported on one steel T and straight-shaped tower with a height of 80 feet. The overhead transmission line runs approx. 150 feet from the transition facility to the tie-in with the existing AIDEA overhead transmission lines. The clearing limits for the corridor before connecting to AIDEA’s Snettisham line are estimated at a total clearing width of 30 feet. The total length of the overhead corridor within VCU 550 is 1,150 feet.



• High ESI on the southern portion of the VCU adjacent Sentinel Point. Very Low ESI on northern side of Port Snettisham adjacent Mist Island and AIDEA corridor.

• Low VAC

•46•



Construction and MaintenanceIn addition to the physical features associated with the Project, construction techniques and scheduled maintenance during the operation of the facility will also determine the extent of scenery effects at various time periods during the life time of the Project.

Construction operations within USFS lands includes clearing and grading a portion of the access road, clearing all trees from within the clearing limits of the transmission line corridor, construction of the gravel roadway, and placement of the hydroelectric towers and structures to support the transmission line. The access road will be constructed with typical expected road building techniques and equipment with a specific emphasis to retain the characteristic of the rock and landscape. An example of the emphasis is the technique to build the coastal road/trail with a reverse slope away from the shore. This technique and others to be employed help naturally mask the visual impacts of the roadway. The equipment, personnel and the transmission line towers and structures will be placed with the use of helicopters to minimize disturbance to the ground plane and existing vegetation (Mitchell, 2013). A roadway is not required within the transmission corridor beyond the gravel access road described in VCU 570. This will allow all remaining shrubby and herbaceous vegetation to remain and minimize exposure of bare earth except at the base of structures and where materials may be stockpiled. The greatest impact to scenery is expected just after construction is complete. Select facilities will be routinely cleared of all vegetation and include the switchyard, the area immediately surrounding the powerhouse, the road, service yards adjacent the dock facility, adjacent the warehouse, and the transmission facilities where the cables go from submarine to overhead. Visual berms are designed to mask most of the switchyard the powerhouse from the VPR. Additionally, vegetation and trees will be transplanted to assist in providing a visual barrier. Other areas will be allowed to revegetate and include the excavated area, disturbed cut slopes adjacent facilities, and along the slopes along the roadway.

A component of the Project throughout its life will be maintenance and the removal of hazardous trees within the utility corridor clearing limits that impact the reliability and safety of transmission of power. The width of the clearing limits is described above for each VCU. Vegetation management within transmission corridors is regulated by the National Electrical Safety Code, Section 218: Tree Trimming. The code states:

Trees that may interfere with ungrounded supply conductors should be trimmed or removed. Note: Normal tree growth, the combined movement of trees and conductors under adverse weather conditions, voltage and sagging of conductors at elevated temperatures are among the factors to be considered in determining the extent of trimming/removal required.

Based on the federal requirement, Juneau Hydropower, Inc. has a five year maintenance cycle where hazardous trees are removed from the within the clearing limits of the transmission corridor but smaller height trees and shrubby vegetation are left in place. Removal of trees greater than thirty feet tall within the clearing limits will be part of the expected maintenance (Mitchell, 2013). After completion of construction, the period with the next greatest visual impact will occur after maintenance within the clearing limits.

•47•



Landscape Character Effects

The Landscape Character for the Project Area is the Boundary Ranges and Icefields and represents the landscape at a macro level or large scale. Landscape Character defines the broad characteristics of landform patterns and features, vegetation patterns, surface water, and land use patterns or cultural features of the region. The Project effects to these identifiable landscape characteristics (vegetation, landforms, surface water, etc.) determine the extent and magnitude of the deviation from the Landscape Character; and if these impacts meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) listed in the Forest Plan. Additionally these effects must be analyzed during the life time of the Project from initial construction, to operation and maintenance, and final decommissioning. These cumulative effects of the Project over its entire life/duration must look at reasonable expected actions and effects on scenery and identify impacts that deviate from the Landscape Character and determine if they meet the required SIO.

As identified previously, the Project is located within three Land Use Designations (Semi-remote Recreation, Timber Management and Old-Growth Habitat), however there is a desire by JHI to obtain a TUS LUD for the Project area. Until the TUS LUD is obtained the three existing LUDs shall establish the Desired Conditions and Scenery Requirements for the Project. The TUS LUD is shown and is only valid should this LUD be obtained in the future.

VCU 610 Lower Sweetheart Lake

Desired Condition: This area is in a Semi-remote Recreation LUD with Project facilities and impacts located in an unseen/seldom seen landscape. The proposed facilities must be rustic in appearance and have a minimal footprint so natural conditions are only minimally affected by current activities. Facilities and structures may be minimal or occasionally may be larger in scale, but will be rustic in appearance, or in harmony with the natural setting.




VCU 570 East Side of Gilbert Bay

Desired Condition: This area is in the Semi-remote Recreation LUD. The proposed facilities must be rustic in appearance and have a minimal footprint so natural conditions are only minimally affected by current activities. Facilities and structures may be minimal or occasionally may be larger in scale, but will be rustic in appearance, or in harmony with the natural setting.

•48•






West Side of Gilbert Bay

Desired Condition:Suitable Forest lands are managed for the production of sawtimber and other wood products on an even-flow, long-term sustained yield basis; the timber yield produced contributes to Allowable Sale Quantity. An extensive road system provides access for timber management activities, recreation uses, hunting and fishing, and other public and administrative uses; some roads may be closed, either seasonally or year-long, to address resource concerns. Management activities will generally dominate most seen areas. Tree stands are healthy and with a mix of age classes from young stands to trees of harvestable age, often in 40- to 100-acre stands. Recreation opportunities, associated with roaded settings from Semi-Primitive to Roaded Modified, are available. A variety of wildlife habitats, predominantly in the early and middle successional stages, are present.





VCU 550 South of Port Snettisham (Sentinel Point)

Desired Condition: Suitable Forest lands are managed for the production of saw timber and other wood products on an even-flow, long-term sustained yield basis; the timber yield produced contributes to Allowable Sale Quantity. An extensive road system provides access for timber management activities, recreation uses, hunting and fishing, and other public and administrative uses; some roads may be closed, either seasonally or year-long, to address resource concerns. Management activities will generally dominate most seen areas. Tree stands are healthy and with a mix of age classes from young stands to trees of harvestable age, often in 40- to 100-acre stands. Recreation opportunities, associated

•49•



with roaded settings from Semi-Primitive to Roaded Modified, are available. A variety of wildlife habitats, predominantly in the early and middle successional stages, are present.





North of Port Snettisham

Desired Condition: All forested areas within this LUD have attained old-growth forest characteristics. A diversity of old-growth habitat types and associated species and subspecies and ecological processes are represented.

Scenery:Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for High Scenic Integrity Objective. Design activities to not be visually evident to the casual observer.

Exceptions for small areas of non-conforming developments, such as recreational developments, transportation developments, log transfer facilities, and mining development, may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Use designs and materials that

Should the Project receive a TUS LUD in the future the following would apply. Until that time the management listed above is in effect. (All text related to the TUS LUD is in italics.)

Project Wide

Desired Condition:Transportation Utility Systems have been constructed in an efficient and economic manner, and have been designed to be compatible with the adjacent LUD to the maximum extent feasible. The minimum land area consistent with an efficient, safe facility is used for their development. Effects on other resources have been recognized and resource protection has been provided. Other resources uses and activities in the area do not conflict with utility operations. State and federal highways and reservoirs offer new developed recreation opportunities, as appropriate.

Scenery:The landscape character may be dominated by activities associated with Transportation Utility Systems. Although TUS developments may dominate the seen area, they are designed with consideration for existing form, line, color, and texture found in the characteristic landscape.

•50•



In summary, the design and engineering of hydroelectric facilities and their linear transmission corridors typically dominate the Landscape Character by creating strong horizontal visual contrast in line, form and texture across the landscape especially within the clearing limits of the corridor and around the associated facilities. The corresponding LUD and related Desired Conditions and Scenery Requirements establishes acceptable aesthetic conditions allowable and an acceptable range (if any) in which the Project effects may deviate from the Landscape Character. The Project will meet the scenery requirements in VCU 570 along the west portion of Gilbert Bay (Timber Management LUD) but likely will not on the remaining eastern portion of the VCU (Semi-Remote Recreation LUD) without visual mitigation. However, the dock and adjacent marine ramp and portions of the coastal road/trail are on State of Alaska lands and not subject to the Forest Plan. It is not expected that the Project will meet the scenery requirements for VCU 550 north of Port Snettisham, however there is existing precedence with the existing AIDEA transmission line and the Forest Plan does allow small areas of non-conforming development within an Old-Growth Habitat LUD. The Project will meet the scenery requirements for VCU 550 in the area adjacent Sentinel Point where it may dominate the landscape character (Timber management LUD). To best meet, and where possible exceed the scenery requirements, the Project should be designed in consideration of the existing form, line, color and texture found in the Boundary Ranges and Icefields Landscape Character.

Should the Project receive a TUS LUD, it is expected that the Project will meet the Scenery Requirements in all three VCUs. Some visual mitigation will be required on the eastern portion of VCU 570 (Gilbert Bay) where a majority of the non-State of Alaska tideland facilities and visual impacts will be located.

The Desired Conditions and Scenery Requirements and impacts to the Landscape Character for the three LUDs will be used to evaluate all portions of the project located on lands managed by the USFS. Specifically this includes: the Project facilities, any expected disturbance to the landscape (vegetation, terrain, etc.) associated with the installation of the facilities, and the federal and local clearing limits requirements for the utility corridor. In addition to the physical facilities and modifications upon the landscape, another aspect that must be considered is the expected maintenance of the Project over its lifetime and the natural regeneration of the Forest. The maintenance of the clearing limits and the natural regeneration of the Forest within the clearing limits will result in a dynamic and evolving landscape over time. The extent, magnitude and duration of these effects, both man-made and natural processes, needs to be predicted and evaluated as best possible during the entire life of the Project. The evaluation of reasonable future effects includes expected maintenance and frequency of maintenance, replacement of facilities, and the natural regeneration of the landscape.

It is expected that the Project will have the greatest visual impacts on the Landscape Character related to vegetation patterns and cultural elements. In regard to vegetation patterns, the linear nature of the utility corridor with its managed vegetation within the clearing limits of the corridor will visually contrast with the vegetation characterized by areas of alpine meadows with forested side slopes that support extensive productive Western Hemlock and Sitka Spruce forests. The visual impacts to the existing vegetation will include form, line, color and texture. These will be attributed to the vegetation management within the clearing limits of the corridor which will contrast in color and texture due to the variation in plant species, maturity and height to the surrounding undisturbed landscape. Additionally the development of a road, and several structures will require the clearing of native vegetation and create further impacts to color, line and texture. It is expected that the greatest visual impacts to the Landscape Character will be during construction where bare earth and rock will be present as trees and overburden are removed from road corridors, building pads, storage yards, and cut slopes around these facilities are underway and new fill placed. Within the utility corridors, all large trees will be removed with some small patches of bare earth and the Forest understory

•51•



being exposed within the transmission corridor. Once construction is completed visual impacts to Landscape Character will be lessened as time passes due to the natural regeneration of the Forest. Visual impacts will be the least just prior to management of vegetation within the transmission corridor, along road corridors and around structures when taller trees are removed but other vegetation remains. It is expected that the physical components (towers, transition facilities, and transmission line) within a seen landscape will have minimal impacts to form, line, texture, and color except when viewed in the foreground from a Visual Priority Route.

A visual impact to the Landscape Character is also expected in regard to the cultural elements. The cultural impacts of the Boundary Ranges and Icefields is described as, “the majority of the landscape shows very little human influence.” Notable human influence within the Project is the existing AIDEA transmission corridor; beyond this impact the landscape is largely intact with 97% of the project area having a Very High Existing Scenic Integrity. The greatest human influence will be located on the east side of Gilbert Bay in VCU 570 where a majority of the facilities will be concentrated and include the powerhouse, switchyard, access road, dock facility, and other related structures. It is expected that a range of vehicles (boats, float planes, trucks) and personnel will be working at various times in this area to operate and maintain the facility. Additionally, the linear layout of the Project’s corridors and visual color and texture contrast, as discussed previously, will result in an increase in human influence within the seen landscape transecting all three Value Comparison Unit (VCUs).

It is expected that the Project will meet the LUD requirements and allowable impacts to the Landscape Character as set forth by the Timber Management LUD. While it will not meet the minimums for the Old-Growth Habitat, it may be allowable due to the adjacent AIDEA line and the Forest Plan indicating that small non-conforming development may be considered on a case-by-case basis. The greater challenge will be meeting the minimum LUD scenery requirements for the Semi-Remote Recreation LUD (found on the eastern portion of Gilbert Bay VCU 570) especially during and immediately after initial construction of the Project when scenery impacts to the Landscape Character will be the greatest. The large area associated with the dock facility, storage yard, road, and various structures along the water’s edge as well as the linear nature of the hydroelectric facility and its operation makes it difficult to reduce visual impacts and obtain a higher level goal for Landscape Character through incorporating existing form, line, color, and texture during the initial construction period of time. After initial construction and throughout the operation and maintenance, it is expected that the impacts to the Landscape Character will move towards being more compatible with the higher LUD scenery requirements. During operation of the Project, revegetation within the transmission and access road corridors will reduce visual contrast (form, line, color, and texture) to the surrounding landscape. Due to scheduled maintenance and removal of large trees within the clearing limits of the corridor it is not expected that the Project will ever obtain these higher goals, but with good maintenance practices it can move away from the lower visual conditions experienced immediately after construction.

•52•



Scenic Integrity Effects

Scenic Integrity is a major component of Scenery Management and is used to establish scenery standards for management. Scenic Integrity also establishes the degree to which the landscape must be retained intact or can be perceived as modified from the Landscape Character (Boundary Ranges and Icefields) by human activities. Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) provides direction and objectives for landscape scenery and is determined by the Distance Zones within each Land Use Designation (LUD). SIOs establish the long-term future scenic condition of the landscape by defining maximum levels of visual impact allowable from human alterations to the natural landscape character for each allowable use. The objectives also set schedules or periods of time after project completion or conclusion of construction in which the SIOs must be met. The effects by the Project related to the Scenic Integrity on USFS managed lands must determine the extent, magnitude and duration as viewed from areas of concern. Again these effects must be analyzed during the life time of the Project from initial construction to operation and maintenance. These cumulative effects of the Project over its entire life/duration must look at reasonable expected actions and effects on scenery and identify impacts that do not meet the Scenery Integrity Objectives. Scenic integrity represents the landscape at a micro level from areas of concern.

As discussed in Landscape Character, the Project is located within three LUDs (Old-Growth Habitat, Timber production and Semi-remote Recreation) and results in a High, Moderate, Low and Very Low SIO. The Scenery Objectives for each are as follows:

High SIO (Old-Growth Habitat LUD, VCU 550: North side of Port Snettisham)Design activities to not be visually evident to the casual observer. This objective should be accomplished within 6 months following project completion.

Facilities




Transportation

• Rock source development should not be apparent from the road, use area, or marine travel route to meet this scenic objective.

• Corridor Treatment: Provide roadside cleanup of ground-disturbing activities.


Moderate SIO (Semi-Remote Recreation LUD, VCU 610: Lower Sweetheart Lake and VCU 570: East Side of Gilbert Bay)Design activities to be subordinate to the landscape character of the area. This SIO should be accomplished within 1 year of project completion.

Facilities




•53•



Transportation

• Design rock sources to be minimally apparent as seen from VPRs. Rehabilitation is usually necessary following closure of rock source developments. It may be necessary to modify some ground-disturbing activities seen from the foreground of VPRs.

• Corridor Treatment: Roadside cleanup of ground disturbance activities may be necessary.

Very Low SIO (Timber Production LUD, VCU 550: West Side of Gilbert Bay and VCU 550: Sentinel Point)Activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, yet when viewed as background, should appear to be a natural occurrence.

Locate and design management activities to take advantage of existing (both natural and imposed) pattern and texture found in the landscape when viewed in the middleground from VPRs.

Design activities to resemble natural occurrences as viewed in the background distance zone.

Should JHI successfully obtain a TUS LUD for the Project area the following Scenery Objective would apply. Until that time, the previously listed SIOs (above) are in effect for this Project.

Low SIO (Transportation and Utility System LUD, Project Wide)Once construction is initiated and throughout the operation and maintenance of the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project, the TUS LUD takes precedence and supersedes the underlying Timber Production, Old-Growth Habitat and Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs. The Scenery Objectives for a TUS LUD and Low SIO are as follows:

Apply Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for the Low Scenic Integrity Objective. Perform viewshed analysis in conjunction with Project development to provide direction for retaining or creating a visually attractive landscape over time.

Work with topographic and vegetative features to screen the development when seen from Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas.

Consider the following during the design phase of routes, which are, or are seen from, Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas:

• Vegetation of slopes seen from the road

• Providing “planting pockets” or terraces or slopes, where needed

• Maintaining landforms through road location and design

• Breaking up the straight line effect of linear corridors by considering special treatment of vegetation on clearing slopes or application of other design techniques and principles

Require roadside cleanup of construction debris and logging slash on all roads receiving general public use or expected to have such future use


• When planning activities, use naturally established form, line, color, and texture found in the landscape.

• Facilities. Siting and design should borrow from naturally occurring patterns in the landscape, and should not be visually dominant when viewed in the background distance zone.

•54•



Should a TUS LUD be granted for the Project, the allowable visual impact upon scenery falls under the Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) where activities may dominate the landscape character in the foreground and middleground. Once construction is complete the Low SIO must be met within 1 year in the foreground and within five years in the middle and background. The project shall be developed to create a visually attractive landscape overtime through the planning and design that uses naturally established form, line, color, and texture found in the landscape. Use topography and vegetation to screen the development from Visual Priority Routes (VPRs). For linear corridors, break up the straight line edge of the corridor by using non-linear clearing limits and the use of planting pockets on visible slopes.

Each SIO provides guidelines on the acceptable amount of visual impact that is allowable upon the Landscape Character and duration (time period) after project completion when the objective must be met. Additionally each SIO provides specific recommendations to minimize visual impacts for a variety of facilities (road, timber harvest, etc.). For all SIO’s, to varying degrees, the project shall be developed through the planning and design that uses naturally established form, line, color, pattern, and texture found in the Character Landscape to appear to be a natural occurrence in various prescribed distance zones.

As discussed in Landscape Character, the greatest Project effects on the scenic integrity will be the period between the initiation and completion of construction and a short period of time following (approximately one year) until the Forest can begin to regenerate. These impacts will be the greatest within the seen landscape with a Low Visual Absorption Capacity. As the Forest regenerates within the clearing limits around buildings and facilities, and within transmission and road corridors, these visual impacts will be reduced.

To fully understand the effects on Scenic Integrity, three dimension digital visual simulations were generated to document the expected effects of the Project on scenery from key VPRs. Viewpoints for the simulations corresponded with the photo points used in the inventory phase of the scenery work to verify existing conditions and establish a baseline for the model. All simulations are from established VPRs. Mapping of the visual simulations viewpoints and the simulations are found in Appendix A of this Report. Each simulation shows the existing conditions and the expected impacts based on the facilities and structures, clearing limits, terrain modifications, and impacts to the landscape as described in the work by Juneau Hydropower, Inc , Exhibit G 4.4 (2013).

The simulations were created with raw geospatial data provided by the USFS that was compiled and verified in ESRI’s ArcMap (GIS). The data included shapefiles for hydrology and infrastructure, color maps, and a digital elevation model. The files were then imported into three-dimensional visualization software for outdoor environments. The resulting graphics were verified against the GIS data and imagery of the existing landscape taken from recorded photo points to verify accuracy. LiDAR data (Light Detection And Ranging data) was provided by Aero-Metric. It was used to create a detailed ground plane in the model. The ecotypes within the project are based on vegetation and canopy cover color maps and height is based on field observation and USFS records for the area. The utility infrastructure (towers, transition facilities, roads, etc.) in the model is based on data provided by Juneau Hydropower, Inc. Three-dimension models of the infrastructure elements and the clearing limits were inserted into the model. One set of renderings were generated from viewpoints that will best record the expected impacts to scenery. They model the proposed Project effects of the Project with expected regeneration after 1 year or 5 years as dictated by each LUD. Regeneration was modeled on expected growth rates for the Gilbert Bay/Port Snettisham area. Growth rates are based on USFS documentation and photographs of adjacent clearing operations within the AIDEA Transmission Corridor. Color, texture, line and form of the regeneration were derived from images of existing conditions taken in the field and previous discussion under Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI). The image locations in the model align with geo-referenced images captured during Corvus Design’s field work in 2013.

•55•



The visual simulations were developed using a one or five year duration after completion of construction as indicated for each LUD in the Forest Plan. This is a point in which modifications to the landscape are to obtain the required SIO in the middleground and foreground as mandated by scenery requirements in the Forest Plan. Each simulation documents the expected effects upon scenery and forms the basis of the discussion below. No visual simulations were developed for VCU 610 as the proposed facilities are located in an unseen/seldom seen landscape. Additionally, there are no VPRs that provide visual access to the Project facilities in VCU 610 from which to base the visual simulation.

VCU 570 Visual Simulation Photo Points: 1 through 5This Value Comparison Unit (VCU) includes the hydroelectric generation facility including the penstock, powerhouse, switch yard, transition facility, and a combination of underground, submarine and overland transmission lines. Other facilities associated with the Project include the access road, dock facility, storage yard, and the caretaker’s facility. These facilities are located on the east side of Gilbert Bay (Semi-Remote Recreation LUD). The dock and a majority of the dock facility and most of the road are located on fill placed on submerged lands and are under management of the State of Alaska and are not included in the effects analysis, however, will result in cumulative effects. The west side of Gilbert Bay (Timber Production LUD) has a transition facility and both submarine and overhead transmission lines.

East Side of Gilbert Bay (Semi-Remote Recreation LUD)Facilities include a 9,600 sq. ft. two story powerhouse and 22,000 sq. ft. switchyard located in an excavated area adjacent to tidewater on Gilbert Bay near Sweetheart Creek. Earth berms and revegetation would surround these facilities making them visible only from Gilbert Bay. From the powerhouse, a 4,400 foot long and 25 foot wide, back-sloped gravel coastal road /trail heads north along the east shore of Gilbert Bay to a new dock facility that includes a dual-height marine ramp, floating docks for seaplane and boat access, and a staging area adjacent to the docks on the east shore of Gilbert Bay north of the powerhouse. A two story 4,225 sq. ft. caretaker’s facility is to be located southeast of the dock and dock facility. This facility is located on the road’s edge and will be fully visible from VPRs. The excavated area and segments of the access road will be revegetated using native plant material and soil on the waterside to reduce visual impacts. This revegetation is reflected in simulations 1 and 2. Total disturbed land including marine access, storage yard, powerhouse, switchyard, transfer stations, and access road is approximately 12.4 acres of which 8.3 acres are on State Managed Lands.

The transmission lines in this portion of the VCU include underground lines beneath the roadbed from the powerhouse to the transition vault near the dock facility where the line converts to submarine and heads west into Gilbert Bay. The underground lines, vault and first 50’ feet of submarine cable are located on USFS managed lands while the remaining submarine cable segment is located on state-owned lands.

Impacts to Scenic Integrity of VCU 570 East Side of Gilbert Bay:• Hydroelectric Facilities and Structures: Foreground, located within Low Visual Absorption

Capacity (VAC).

• Structures, facilities and related clearing limits will be visible from VPRs and will dominate the landscape character.

• Transmission Lines: Foreground (largely unseen due to buried and submarine configuration), located within Low VAC. Only vault structure will be visible in the foreground.

•56•



• Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) and will exceed the visual impacts for a Moderate SIO as allowable in the Forest Plan. This SIO will not be accomplished within one year after completion. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

West Side of Gilbert Bay (Timber Production LUD)Transmission lines include submarine and overhead configuration and a transition facility. The transition facility and the last 50’ feet of submarine cable are located on USFS managed lands while the lower extent of submarine cable is located on state-owned lands. From the transition facility the lines go to an overhead configuration. This segment of overhead transmission line includes poles 1 through 36 and runs along the west shore of Gilbert Bay to the ridge above Sentinel Point. The poles are 80’ in height with spans ranging from 265’ to 946’. The wire support structures will be steel T and straight-shaped towers. The clearing width is anticipated to be 100’ on either side of the center line, for a total width of 200’.

Impacts to Scenic Integrity of VCU 570 West Side of Gilbert Bay:• Middleground, within a Low VAC and patches of Intermediate VAC along corridor.

• A large portion of the corridor clearing limits and some of the upper portions of the transmission structures may be visible from VPRs as it cuts across the landscape in a horizontal orientation.



Area of Concern for VCU 570:Gilbert Bay and Sweetheart Flats VPRs: On the east side of Gilbert Bay within the Semi-Remote Recreation LUD, the facilities and structures will exceed the allowable scenic effects of a Moderate SIO. Impacts are expected to be consistent with a Very Low SIO within one year where modifications will dominate the landscape character. This SIO is not expected to meet the one year duration requirement and may be challenged to meet a Moderate SIO during the operation of the Project without additional mitigation. After five years revegetation/mitigation efforts should elevate the SIO to Low. Expected impacts include both landscape character and cultural. Landscape effects include clearing limits around facilities, a coastal road along the shoreline, and a variety of large structures visible from VPRs that creates contrast to the surrounding undisturbed landscape. This results in contrast in color, line and texture found in the landscape character. Cultural effects include a waterfront development with a variety of structures and periodic human and vehicular activity for operation of the facility. The clearing adjacent the caretaker’s facility is not expected to meet the requirement to be “minimally apparent as seen from VPRs” within the one year period. Proposed project mitigation includes visual landform barrier berming and revegetation around the powerhouse, switchyard, and at locations along the coastal road, as well as revegetating excavated areas to cover a majority of the backwall. These mitigation measures elevate the Project in this area from an expected Very Low SIO to the expected Low SIO identified once revegetation becomes established (five or more years).

Gilbert Bay VPR: On the west side of Gilbert Bay within the Timber Production LUD, the facilities include overland transmission lines and associated clearing limits. The linear nature of the facilities and horizontal orientation of the clearing limits contrast with the undisturbed landscape and do not take advantage of pattern and texture found in the landscape when viewed as middleground.

Lower Sweetheart Creek: Although not listed as a Visual Priority Route (VPR), this is a recreational use area during the months of July and August for fishing and bear viewing. If

•57•



included in the future as a VPR, portions of the Project adjacent the creek will become part of the seen landscape as foreground in this VCU.

Sweetheart Creek Falls: The reduction of typical flow rates over the Sweetheart Falls and within the upper pools of the creek from approximately 336 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 3 cfs plus 3 percent of the annual average will transition the falls and pools from a high energy creek to a very low energy stream. Flow rates from the tailrace entry into the creek and below will be similar to existing. Although the falls are located in an unseen/seldom seen landscape as it is not visible from an adjacent VPR, the lower Sweetheart Creek has been identified as an area of concern due to summer seasonal use by fishermen and recreationalists. The diminished energy (flow rate) of the falls will reduce the existing scenic integrity of the immediate falls area. Visual impacts will be greatest by those who have previously experienced the higher flow rates.


Impacts to Scenic Integrity of VCU 570 (TUS LUD):• Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO)

as allowable in the Forest Plan however it is not expected to meet the SIO in the first year for the foreground distance zone (east side of Gilbert Bay). This is not consistent with the Forest Plan. The Project is expected to meet the SIO in the middleground (and foreground) in the fifth year or beyond.

• Expected impacts to scenery in the middleground distance zone will dominate the visual landscape due to dissimilar visual characteristics to those of natural occurrences on both side of Gilbert Bay beyond five years. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

Area of Concern for VCU 570 (TUS LUD):Gilbert Bay and Sweetheart Flats VPRs: Impacts are allowed to dominate the visual landscape however it is not expected that the Project on the east side of Gilbert Bay will meet the Low SIO in the foreground in the first year. This is not consistent with requirements in the Forest Plan. Proposed mitigation measures are expected to take five or more years to become effective and once established the Project will be consistent with a Low SIO in the foreground and middleground. Expected impacts to scenery in the middleground distance zone will dominate the visual landscape on both side of Gilbert Bay beyond five years and will continue to dominate due to dissimilar visual characteristics to those of natural occurrences throughout the Project’s life. This is due to the size of facilities and maintenance cycle within clearing limits of facilities and transmission corridors. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

VCU 550 Visual Simulation Photo Points: 6 & 7The Project in this VCU only includes the hydroelectric transmission lines, support structures, and transition facilities. The Sweetheart Lake transmission corridor ties into the existing AIDEA transmission corridor in this VCU. All facilities in this VCU are located on USFS managed lands, with the exception of the submarine cable which are on lands managed by the State of Alaska.

Sentinel Point-South Port Snettisham (Timber Production LUD)The overhead transmission line within this VCU starts at pole 37 on the ridgeline above Sentinel Point and runs down the slope to the north side of Sentinel Point to pole 40 at the

•58•



south shore of Port Snettisham. Poles in this VCU will be 80’ in height with spans ranging from 150 to 307. Poles will be steel T and straight-shaped towers. This area is heavily wooded. The clearing width for the overhead section on the south side of Port Snettisham is anticipated to be 100’ on either side of the line for a total clearing width of 200’. The line enters a transition station and converts to submarine cable. It moves west under Port Snettisham on State of Alaska Lands with only the first 50 foot length of the submarine cable being on USFS lands.

Impacts to Scenic Integrity of VCU 550 Sentinel Point:• Middleground, within a Low VAC.

• All of the corridor clearing limits, transmission structures, and transition facility will be visible from VPRs as it comes down the ridgeline to the water.



North Port Snettisham (Old-Growth Habitat LUD)The submarine cable under Port Snettisham reemerges east of Mist Island on USFS-managed lands and will have a clearing width of 30’ for the underground segment. The cable continues underground up the shore for 400’ to connect with the final transition station. The transition station is located within the existing clearing limits of the existing AIDEA Snettisham Transmission Corridor. The line will convert to overhead at pole 41 and then tie in to the existing AIDEA corridor. The pole will be steel T and straight-shaped towers with a height of 80’. There is no additional clearing anticipated for the final overhead segment as it is sited within the existing clearing limits for the Snettisham Corridor.

Impacts to Scenic Integrity of VCU 550 North Port Snettisham:• Middleground distance zone within a Low VAC.

• Transition facility and overhead transmission line will be visible from VPRs.

• Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) and will exceed the visual impacts for a High SIO as allowable in the Forest Plan. It is not expected that this objective will be accomplished within 6 months following project completion. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.*

*Small area non-conforming developments may be considered in this LUD on a case-by-case basis.

Areas of Concern for VCU 550:Port Snettisham VPR: The north side of Port Snettisham adjacent Mist Island, including the transition facility, is not expected to meet the High SIO as required in the Forest Plan. Visual impacts are expected to be a Moderate SIO and this is not consistent with the Forest Plan. Development will be visually evident to the casual observer beyond the 6 month period following project completion. (Note: the existing AIDEA Snettisham Transmission Corridor has a greater visual impact to the landscape character than this significantly smaller segment of the Sweetheart Lake Corridor. This smaller segment of the Project could be considered by the USFS as a small area of non-conforming development as allowable by the Forest Plan, if desired by USFS.) Expected impacts include the linear clearing limits moving down from the ridgeline to the shoreline that does not take advantage of existing pattern and texture found in the landscape in the middle ground distance zone on the south side of Port Snettisham. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

•59•




Impacts to Scenic Integrity of VCU 550 (TUS LUD):• Expected Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Low Scenic

Integrity Objective (SIO) as allowable in the Forest Plan and is expected to meet the SIO in the middleground within the fifth year.

• Expected impacts to scenery in the middleground distance zone will dominate the visual landscape due to dissimilar visual characteristics to those of natural occurrences on the south side of Port Snettisham beyond five years. This is not consistent with the Forest Plan.

VCU 610Visual Simulation Photo Points: N/ALower Sweetheart Lake and the upper reaches of Sweetheart Creek are located in this VCU within an unseen/seldom seen landscape. There are no VPRs that provide a typical Forest user to view the facilities associated with the Project in this VCU. As such no visual simulations were created for this portion of the Project. Facilities include the dam, spillway and penstock and impacts include raising the lake levels between twenty-five and eighty-five feet. These facilities are located within a Semi-Remote Recreation LUD.

Facilities in this VCU include a 111-foot-high concrete and dam, and a 125-foot-wide overflow spillway, constructed at the natural outlet of Lower Sweetheart Lake. The height of the dam on the downstream side will be 111 feet tall and the height on the lake side will vary from twenty-six to eighty-five feet depending on lake levels. The penstock will not be visible as it will be set within a tunnel drilled through existing rock. Lower Sweetheart Lake levels will be elevated between twenty-five and eighty-five feet above existing to allow for power generation. This increase in lake levels will impact the existing vegetation on the side slopes of the lake to the upper range of the proposed lake elevation. An increase of 25 feet in lake depth will increase the existing lake surface area from 1,260 acres to 1,449 acres.

Impacts to scenery are based on best professional judgment rather than interpretation of visual simulations due to the lack of VPRs that would indicate where a Forest user would view these facilities. Professional judgment will be based on typical expected impacts rather than best-case or worst-case scenarios. It is expected that very few Forest users will experience these facilities as they are located in an unseen/seldom seen landscape.

The greatest impacts to scenery will the downstream face of the 111 foot high dam. Gaining access to this side of the dam will be extremely difficult due to the steep ravine walls on either side of the upper creek and dam. Impacts to scenery on the lake side will be variable depending on lake levels. Impacts will be greater when lake levels are lower and more face of the dam is exposed. The face of the dam visible on the lake side will range between twenty-six and eighty-five feet high. Impacts will also be reduced the further a user is from the dam. The penstock will not be visible.

•60•



Raising of lake levels up to 85 feet will result in the death of some vegetation on the side slopes of the lake between existing lake levels and the new higher levels. During high lake levels, the visual impacts will be similar to those that could occur naturally on the Forest when beaver dam a lake or a landslide impacts the outflow of the lake. Impacts surrounding the lake will be greatest when lake levels are low and dead vegetation and bare slopes are visible between the lower lake level and upper fill limits.

Impacts to Scenic Integrity of VCU 610 Lower Sweetheart Lake:• Dam, penstock and elevated lake levels: Unseen/seldom seen landscape located within High

Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC).

• Dam, penstock and elevated lake levels will be not visible from VPRs.

• Expected typical Scenery Integrity effects will be consistent with a Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) and will not exceed the visual impacts for a Moderate SIO as allowable in the Forest Plan.

Areas of Concern for VCU 610:Lower Sweetheart Lake: Impacts will be greatest when lake levels are low, exposing the most of the dam wall face from the lake side. Other impacts during low lake periods will be the visibility of dead vegetation and exposed soils on the side slopes of the lake to the upper reaches of the lake’s high water mark. This condition is not typical where mid to high lake levels will be the norm. These areas of concerns are further reduced due to the scenery impacts being located in an unseen/seldom seen landscape.

Table 11.

Expected change in Existing Scenic Integrity:


Predicted Scenic Integrity Classification


Class 3 420 (1%)Class 4 354 (1%)Class 5 340 (1%)

•61•



Cumulative Effects

Cumulative Effects take into consideration not only this Project but also other anticipated projects within the area. At the time of this report, there are no known other planned projects in the area. Additionally there are no expansion plans or other anticipated future modifications to the Project (Mitchell, 2013). The components of this Project on State managed lands will contribute to the cumulative effects and include the dock facility, storage yard and most of the coastal road.

Cumulative Effects analyzes the visual impacts to the whole project area within the reasonable foreseeable future. Cumulative Effects related to scenery look at the expected change in the Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) as a result of the Project. ESI is a measure of the degree to which the landscape is perceived as whole, complete, or intact without any alterations or modification to the scenery by human activities. As indicated in the analysis, the ESI for the project area (VCUs 550 and 570) is comprised of a Very High (1) rating with 97% of the landscape character being intact or unaltered. This modified landscape (ESI 3 and 4- Moderate and Low) is concentrated to the slopes north of Port Snettisham in VCU 550.

To understand the cumulative effects, the proposed project and its expected visual impacts to the landscape are overlaid onto the ESI mapping to document the expected cumulative effects. These effects would extend beyond the physical limits of the Project and would impact the larger viewshed in which the modifications are located. These impacts would only occur within the seen landscape. The linear nature of the corridor and its clearing limits within the forested landscape will have a greater visual impact than alpine areas where there would not be clearing limits and only structures might be seen in the distant landscape. Regularly scheduled clearing of large trees within the clearing limits every five year would prevent the landscape from returning to an intact undisturbed landscape.

Based on analysis of this Project, existing hydroelectric projects in the Tongass, the three dimensional digital simulations, and the landscape, it will be expected that a majority of the Project would result in three proposed Scenic Integrity ratings for the Project.

The proposed Project changes to Scenic Integrity would add approximately 3% (approximately 1,200 acres) of landscape that would transition from a Class 1 (Very High) where the landscape is perceived whole or intact to one where man-made modifications begin to dominate or dominate the landscape character. These impacts are fairly closely divided among the Classes of 3 (Moderate), 4 (Low), and 5 (Very Low). VCU 570 (east side of Gilbert Bay) (31% of overall project area) would receive a Class 5, Very Low, where the landscape appears heavily altered and deviations dominate the landscape character. This is a result of the numerous man-made structures and larger clearing limits which are all located within the foreground. It is expect that this area may receive a Class 4, Low, due to the proposed visual mitigation and screening however this is likely 10 years or greater post construction. The remaining portion of VCU 570 (west side of Gilbert Bay) with its overhead transmission lines contains Class 4, Low, and Class 3, Moderate where the clearing limits will be the main visual modification. On

•62•



sloped landscapes facing VPRs and landscapes with a Low VAC, the proposed Scenic Integrity will be Class 4 Low where deviations begin to dominate the landscape character. The remaining portion of the corridor that is partially screened from VPRs and with an Intermediate VAC will result in a Class 3, Moderate, where deviations begin to dominate the landscape. These two Classes for the overhead transmission corridor in this VCU make up 58% of the Project impacts.

VCU 550 has a limited length of clearing within a forested landscape to support the overhead transmission lines and transition facility running from the ridgeline to shoreline at Sentinel Point. This clearing limit will dominate the landscape character and receives a proposed Class 4, Low for a total of approximately 6% of the Project. The final segment is adjacent Mist Island and includes a transition facility and overhead corridor with limited clearing limits. It is expected this portion of the Project (5%) will meet the requirements for Class 3, Moderate, where the modifications begin to dominate the landscape. This area is currently surrounded by both ESI 3 and 4 due to the existing AIDEA Snettisham transmission lines and will reduce the overall impacts for the proposed Project due to the size and scale of the existing corridor. As stated previously, the proposed Scenic Integrity will fluctuate within the clearing limits for the overhead transmission lines. The proposed Scenic Integrity will move towards a landscape with less dominance as trees mature within the clearing limits, and will move back towards more visual dominance immediately after regularly scheduled maintenance and removal of larger woody material within the clearing limits.

As indicated, the current ESI for the Project area, prior to construction, is 97% of the landscape character being intact or unaltered. Project impacts would add another 3% for a total of approximately 6% where the landscape has been visually altered.

It is possible to reduce the visual impacts of the project through the use of additional scenery protection measures/mitigation identified in the following section. These were not used in the calculation of the cumulative effects of the project.

•63•



Scenery Protection Measures /Mitigation

Scenery protection measures will ensure the Project achieves the scenery guidelines as outlined in the Forest Plan. These measures are established for the whole Project and identify specific actions for the Areas of Concern previously listed. Measures may include scenery enhancement, conservation, and restoration to protect the scenic condition of the landscape affected by the Project. These protection measures provide scenery management options for Project to meet or exceed the required Scenic Integrity. Where protection is not possible and the Scenic Integrity cannot be maintained, mitigation, either on-site or off-site, may be a method to offset the scenery impacts that results for the Project.

Project-WideThe following protection measures are prescribed for the entire project and should be applied where appropriate or feasible. These measures were not used to determine the Project impacts upon scenery or in the creation of the visual simulations but are additional recommendations to assist the Project in maintaining or reducing the expected visual impacts, if required.

Prior to beginning construction, once survey and layout of the corridor, clearing limits and location of facilities has been field located, verify Project conditions and note any deviations from the original Licensing Document. Modifications, including minor ones, to the routing of corridor, clearing limits, and the location and size of facilities may have a positive or negative expected scenery impact.

The linear nature of utility corridors and the clearing limits create modifications which do not typically match the line, color, and texture found in the surrounding landscape and can dominate the landscape character. Where possible, feather edges of clearing limits rather than hardline clearing on the uphill slope of the corridor to reduce visual impacts. Match existing lines found in the immediate surrounding landscape to mimic meadow openings, rock outcrops, and avalanche and rock slide formations where present.

Transmission structures that support the overhead lines will be constructed of metal. The metal structures will visually contrast both in form and color. The metal structures can also have a reflective component from sunlight in certain conditions and from various VPRs that can further dominate the seen landscape. Metal towers should be painted with a non-reflective paint or coating. Additionally, each structure should be painted a color that matches the surrounding landscape. Several different color schemes may be needed for the corridor to match the colors found along the route (i.e. forested). Consider color selection also for the transition facilities to allow them to blend into the surrounding landscape character.

The removal of vegetation within the clearing limits of the corridor should be limited to only trees that can obtain a mature height of thirty feet or greater or will require removal later as part of the transmission corridor maintenance. Maintain shrubby vegetation, perennials and smaller trees within the clearing limits to minimize visual contrast after construction and after maintenance of clearing limits. Avoid exposure of soil.

Any facilities that require security fencing (powerhouse, switchyard, and transition facilities) should utilize black colored fencing material to reduce visual impacts and allow these features to blend into the surrounding landscape. Where security allows, let native plant material grow on the side of fencing when viewed from VPRs.

Allow vegetation to reestablish itself over submarine lines that are buried on land and transition from water to the transition facilities.

•64•



These mitigation practices would assist in speeding up the regeneration of vegetation, reduce visual impacts and expected changes to ESI, and provide further assurance that the Project meets the scenery guidelines in the Forest Plan. These mitigation/protection measures will assist in speeding up and to reduce the likely visual impacts of the Project. Many of these practices are consistent with mitigation found in the Forest Plan to ensure compliance with scenery guidelines.

VCU Specific Protection MeasuresVCU 570To ensure full compliance with scenery guidelines the previously listed project-wide protection measures will further reduce visual impacts and reduce project close-out costs. The main Area of Concern is identified as the east side of Gilbert Bay where the project is viewed as foreground in a Semi-Remote Recreation LUD.

The area of greatest concern is the area immediately surrounding the dock facility, storage yard, reverse-sloped access road, and caretaker’s facility. While a majority of the dock facility is developed from placing fill into submerged waters of the State of Alaska it opens up the view into and removes opportunities for significant screening and buffering of the lands behind which are under the management of the USFS. Consider reconfiguring layout of the upland facilities to maximize opportunities for vegetative screening between the water’s edge and the storage yard, caretaker’s facility, and associated facilities. Although outside of the jurisdiction of the USFS lands, incorporate vegetative screening along the water’s edge on facilities that are installed on State submerged lands to reduce the overall Project impacts in this area through vegetating rock fill slopes for the dock facility where possible. Explore options for coloring marine access facilities to better blend into the surrounding landscape and avoid the use of metallic colored materials that would reflect sunlight. Minimize the storage of materials and vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the dock facility. Store materials and other items where they will be screened from the Gilbert Bay VPR. Utilize building colors and materials that blend into the landscape character. Avoid the use of metallic colored materials that tend to reflect sunlight and draw attention.

Utilize natural rock and stone along the coastal road where fill will be exposed to the Gilbert Bay for both USFS and State managed lands. Although most portions of the road are on submerged lands, incorporate native vegetation along the water’s edge on all fill slopes for the road to the greatest extent possible. For all areas to be revegetated, utilize appropriately deep quality organic native soils that support and will allow native plant material to thrive and create quick and effective visual screening. Use the correct native plants for the soil available. Avoid the use of exterior lighting; if needed, use “cut-off” style lighting that minimizes light pollution and prevents light from spilling beyond the intended areas.

VCU 550To ensure full compliance with scenery guidelines the previously listed project-wide protection measures will further reduce visual impacts and reduce project close-out costs. The Area of Concern for this VCU includes the Port Snettisham VPR where clearing limits and transmission structures may be seen in the middleground distance zone and will dominate the visual landscape beyond five years. Selecting appropriate colors to paint the structures (towers and transition facilities) to match the surrounding landscape would likely reduce impacts. Soften edges of the clearing limits where possible by feathering edges rather than straight hardline clearing of the corridor to reduce visual impacts. Consider realigning corridor prior to reaching shoreline and running parallel to the shoreline a short distance while maintaining existing Forest edge to break up the linear straight line clearing limits from the water’s edge to the ridgeline above.

•65•


Literature Cited

LITERATURE CITEDBeard, J. (2013-2014). Tongass National Forest Landscape Architect, USDA Forest Service. Personal interviews.

Sitka, Alaska.

Heuer, P. (2013). Silviculturist, Tongass National Forest-Sitka Ranger District. Personal interview. Sitka, Alaska.

Jensen, C. (2013-2014). Tongass National Forest Landscape Architect, USDA Forest Service. Personal interviews. Petersburg, Alaska.

Juneau Hydropower, Inc. (2013). Exhibit G 4.4. Juneau, Alaska.

JHI. (2011). FERC Scoping Public Meeting 1 Transcripts. Juneau, Alaska

JHI. (2013). FERC Study Plan Meeting. Juneau, Alaska

JHI. (2012). FERC Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Scoping Document. Juneau, Alaska

JHI. (2013). Recreation Resources Study Report: Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project. Juneau, Alaska.

Mitchell, D. (2013-2014). Project Manager, JHI. Personal interviews. Juneau, Alaska.

National Fire Protection Association. (2008). National Electrical Code. (NFPA70). Quincy, Massachusetts: National Fire Protection Association.

Newby, F. L. (1971). Perceptual Assessment of Forested Roadside Landscapes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.

Nowacki, G., M. Shephard, P. Krosse, W. Pawuk, G. Fisher, J. Baichtal, D. Brew, E. Kissinger, and T. Brock. (2001). Ecological Subsections of Southeast Alaska and Neighboring Areas of Canada. Juneau, Alaska: U.S. Forest Service.

Ouderkirk, E. (2012). USFS Region 10 Landscape Architect. Personal interview. Juneau, Alaska.

United States Forest Service (USFS). (1974). Visual Management System. (Agriculture Handbook No. 462). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

USFS. (1975). National Forest Landscape Management: Volume 2, Chapter 2: “Utilities.” (Agriculture Handbook 478). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

USFS. (1977). National Forest Landscape Management: Volume 2, Chapter 4: “Roads.” (Agriculture Handbook 483). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

USFS. (1979). Visual Character Types of Alaska National Forest Lands. Juneau, Alaska: U.S. Forest Service.

USFS. (1995). Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. (Agriculture Handbook 701). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

USFS. (2005). Landscape Character Types of the Tongass National Forest. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

USFS. (2008). Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. (R10-MB-603b). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

USFS. (2008, March 19). Tongass Young Growth Management Strategy 2008. Juneau, Alaska: Region 10, Tongass NF.

•A-1•


Append

ix A

Appendix A- Viewpoint Renderings



•A-2•

Append

ix A

Simulation View Points Map



After 1 Year

•A-3•

Append

ix A

View Point #1Gilbert Bay looking Southeast toward Sweetheart Creek

Powerhouse and switchyard

Access RoadRevegetated Turnout



After 1 Year

•A-4•

Append

ix A

View Point #2 Gilbert Bay looking East toward Sweetheart Lake

Floating Dock

Caretaker’s Facility

Dock facility

Revegetated Turnout

Transition Station

Access Road



After 5 Years

•A-5•

Append

ix A

Transition Station

View Point #3 Gilbert Bay looking west toward Snettisham Peninsula

Support Structure




After 5 Years

•A-6•

Append

ix A


Support Structure

View Point #4Gilbert Bay looking west toward Snettisham Peninsula



After 5 Years

•A-7•

Append

ix A

View Point #05Gilbert Bay Looking West toward Snettisham Point

Support StructureCorridor Clearing Limits

Support Structure



After 5 Years

•A-8•

Append

ix A


Support StructureTransition Structure

View Point #06Port Snettisham Looking South toward Snettisham Point



After 5 Years

•A-9•

Append

ix A

View Point #07Port Snettisham Looking North toward Mist Island

30’ Utility Corridor ClearingExisting Corridor

•B-1•


Append

ix B

Appendix B- State-Federal and Coastal Road Areas

•B-2•


Append

ix B

•B-3•


Append

ix B

•B-4•


Append

ix B

•B-5•


Append

ix B





APPENDIX U:

2014 PROJECT EFFECTS ANALYSIS ON THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND

CANDIDATE SPECIES; SENSITIVE SPECIES; MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES;

MIGRATORY BIRDS; AND SUBSISTENCE SPECIES. JIM HOLEMAN, JR HOLEMAN

CONSULTING. MARCH 2014.

PREPARED BY:


Juneau, AK 99802

MAY 2014

1 | P a g e

PROJECT EFFECTS ANALYSIS

ON

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES; SENSITIVE

SPECIES; MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES; MIGRATORY BIRDS;

AND SUBSISTENCE SPECIES

FOR


FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT No. 13563

Tongass National Forest, Juneau Ranger District

March 24, 2014

Prepared for:

Juneau Hydropower, Inc.

Prepared by:

Jim Holeman

JRHoleman Consulting

Copyright©2014 Juneau Hydropower, Inc.

2 | P a g e

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On December 14, 2009, Juneau Hydropower, Inc. (JHI) received a preliminary permit to

study the feasibility of constructing and operating a waterpower generation facility on Lower

Sweetheart Lake and Sweetheart Creek, the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Project No. 13563 (Project), located

approximately 30 air miles and 33 nautical miles southeast of Juneau, Alaska. JHI requested and

receive Commission approval of the use of the Commission’s Alternative Licensing Process.

Environmental scoping to identify issues was held on September 7, 2011. The original preliminary

permit expired on November 30, 2012 and a subsequent preliminary permit issued on April 11,

2013, to allow the completion of environmental studies and prepare an application for an original

license. This report is an analysis of the potential Project effects on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife

species.

This report includes a description of Project features, proposed measures for mitigation and

protection of wildlife resources affected by the Project, and an analysis of Project effects as

required by law or by U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service) policy for all

planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities on National Forest System (NFS)

lands. The report also includes a Biological Evaluation (BE) of Project effects on threatened,

endangered, candidate, and sensitive species; an analysis of Project effects on management

indicator species; and migratory birds; and an analysis of Project effects on Alaska National Interest

Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) section 810 Subsistence. Other species of interest to agency

stakeholders are addressed in Exhibit E of the Application for License.

The primary guidance used for these analyses is the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines

for Wildlife, in the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (herein referred to as the

Tongass Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service, 2008a). In 2012, Kai Environmental Consulting

Services, LLC performed a wildlife surveys which documented presence of wildlife within the

proposed Project affected area (Kai Environmental, 2012a). The effects analysis within this

document does not cover every species discussed in the wildlife survey report. This analysis

document includes species identified by the Forest Service used as indicators species, which

represent other species and/or their habitat needs.

Comments received by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Alaska DFG) and the

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pertaining to fresh and salt water fish are covered

under other analysis reports outside the scope of this wildlife analysis. One exception is Pacific

herring, which is listed as a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Pacific

herring are included because this report is prepared for the Forest Service to address project effects

on species the Forest Service deems to be important. A summary of findings for Pacific herring

from the Sweetheart Creek Hydroelectric Project Aquatics Study Report is included within this

3 | P a g e

current document. Although there are several distinct population segments of fish that are listed as

threatened or endangered under the ESA and managed by the NMFS, none of these populations

utilize Sweetheart Creek for spawning and therefore are not affected by the Project.

BEs are intended to ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to a loss of

viability of any native or desired non-native plant or animal species or contribute to trends toward

federal listing of any species. They provide a process and standard by which to ensure that

threatened, endangered, candidate and sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision-

making process.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are vertebrate or invertebrate species whose response

to land management activities can be used to predict the likely response of other species with

similar habitat requirements. This analysis assesses the effects of the Project on species identified

in the Forest Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2008b) and

ensures that Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are met at the Project level.

Executive Order 13186 provides for conservation of migratory birds and their habitats and

requires an evaluation of the effects of Federal actions on migratory birds, with an emphasis on

species of concern. Agencies are required to support the conservation and intent of migratory bird

conventions by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency

activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse effects on migratory bird

resources when conducting agency actions.

Section 810 of ANILCA requires the Forest Service, in determining whether to withdraw,

reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition of NFS lands in Alaska, to

evaluate the potential effects on subsistence uses and needs, followed by specific notice and

determination procedures should there be a significant possibility of a significant restriction of

subsistence uses.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT

The Sweetheart Lake basin includes approximately 35 square miles and occupies 22,429 acres

(Figure 1).

The Project would be located on Lower Sweetheart Lake that flows into Sweetheart Creek and

then enters Gilbert Bay. The Project features would include:

1. The existing Lower Sweetheart Lake, raised from a surface water elevation of 551 feet Mean

Low-low Water (MLLW)1 and a surface area of 1,414 acres to a new minimum surface water

elevation of 576 feet and a new surface area of 1,449 acres creating 33,960 acre feet of dead

storage and a maximum water surface elevation of 636 feet with a surface area of 1,702 acres

with an active storage of 128,109 acre feet;

1 Unless otherwise stated all elevations are based on Mean Low-low Water.

4 | P a g e

2. A new roller compacted concrete dam 111-feet high (from downstream toe to the top of the

dam), 280-foot-long, 100-foot thickness at the base constructed at the outlet of Lower

Sweetheart Lake;

Figure 1: Sweetheart Lake Basin

3. An intake on the dam connecting to a 15X15-foot-diameter, 9,625-foot-long unlined tunnel;

4. A 9-foot-diameter, approximately 870-foot-long penstock installed within the lower portion of

the tunnel, with approximately another 150 feet of buried 7-foot diameter penstock and

5 | P a g e

manifold connecting to the powerhouse;

5. A powerhouse containing three new Francis generating units (6.6 MW each) with a total

installed capacity of 19.8 MW;

6. A new natural appearing tailrace discharging flows to Sweetheart Creek;

7. A switchyard with a salmon smolt re-entry pool located adjacent to the powerhouse;

8. A new switchyard and approximately 4,400-foot-long road from the powerhouse to a

dock/landing site;

9. A new dock/landing site for boat, seaplane, barge/landing craft and helicopter landing pad,

located on the east shore of Gilbert Bay;

10. A quarry adjacent to the marine facilities that would be refilled with tunnel spoil and provide a

base for a caretaker facility;

11. A new 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line that would be a total of 45,900-foot-long (25,700

feet of submarine cable in two segments; 15,400 feet of overhead transmission line on

Snettisham Peninsula; and 4,800 feet of buried transmission line in two segments);

12. A new 10,400-foot-long 12.47 kV service power line extending from the dam site to the dock

and marine facility for providing operational electricity; and

13. Appurtenant facilities.

Figure 2 shows the location of the Project boundary and Project facilities described above.

6 | P a g e

Figure 2: Project boundary and location of Project facilities.

2.2 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND PROTECTION MEASURES

The following are JHI proposed mitigation and protection measures to protect Project affected

species from Project effects and when necessary mitigate potential harm to an affected species.

Marine Mammals

1) Establish a marine mammal safety zone of 100 yards around in water construction activities

for the protection of marine mammals from effects caused by in-water construction and

laying of submarine transmission line.

2) Prepare and implement an in house awareness program to prevent collisions between service

boats and marine mammals and to minimize harassment of marine mammals.

3) Place trained observers on water craft such as barges and shuttle boats to spot marine

mammals and notify the vessel captain and construction management personnel of the

presence of marine mammals within the safety zone.

4) If marine mammals are in the direct path of a boat and unavoidable, the boat shall either go to

“safe-slow speed” or stop until the marine mammal is clear, or can be avoided by a minimum

of 100 yards.

7 | P a g e

A “slow-safe speed” is defined in the Inland Navigational Rules and the International

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGS) (33 U.S.C. 1602, respectively.

The COLREGS Rule 6 defines operations such that “every vessel shall at all times proceed at

a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped

within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.”

5) In the unlikely event of a vessels colliding with a marine mammal, the National Marine

Fisheries Service and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would be notified within 48

hours of the event.

6) In-water construction of the marine dock and landing facilities would stop if marine

mammals enter the 100 yard safety zone. Construction would resume only after the animal

leaves the zone.

7) Vessels laying cable are exempt from the approach distance regulations for humpback

whales. However, observers would still be present on cable laying vessels and notify the

vessel captain of marine mammal presence within the 100 yard safety zone and advise a

“safe-slow speed”.

8) Marine transportation routes and flight pathways crossing Port Snettisham would be located

at least 3,000 feet from the Steller sea lion haul out located east of Mist Island. Weather and

sea conditions may dictate the necessity to vary from these routes in the interest of safety of

the vessel or aircraft and passengers.

Terrestrial Wildlife

9) During periods of construction and operations there is a potential for mountain goats to be

present in wintering habitat adjacent to Lower Sweetheart Lake. Goats may also be present

in areas near the dam during the spring when goats are giving birth to kids (May 15 – June

15). An aerial survey would be performed to determine if goats are present in the area prior to

the start of construction and smolt trapping and transport during operations each year.

Because access to the lake would be by way of aircraft, flight pathways would arrive from

the west and depart towards the west. If evidence that goats are present in the area, flight

pathways would maintain a 1500 vertical and horizontal distance from likely goat presence.

The flight pathways and distances from goats may vary if conditions of the moment dictate

necessity for the safety of the aircraft and passengers.

10) To minimize possible conflicts between bears and humans in the project area during project

construction and operation, the licensee shall prepare and implement a bear safety plan that

includes:

(a) Instructions for operating practices when in bear country that minimizes possible

conflict;

(b) Instructions to minimize encounters and avoid areas often used by bears, if possible;

(c) Instructions for keeping construction sites and refuse areas clean;

(d) Installation bear-proof garbage receptacles and other measures to prevent bears from

obtaining food or garbage;

(e) Removal of garbage to an approved disposal site as soon as practicable;

8 | P a g e

(f) Procedures to prevent and then deal with problem bears, if issue should arise;

(g) Inform workers about bear safety procedures at company required safety meetings;

and

(h) Post signs notifying the public that bears are frequent in the area, suggesting the use

of designated pathways, and be alert.

11. Conduct a preconstruction bald eagle nest survey. If active nesting exists within the 1,000

shoreline buffer zone, the nest location in relation to project features and construction activity

would need to be considered in consultation with the Forest Service and FWS to develop

measures to avoid or minimize Project affects. If Project affect cannot avoided a permit from

the FWS may be required.

12. The overhead segment of the 138 kV transmission line would be designed according to the

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee’s Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on

Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006.

13. To prevent over-exploitation of fish and wildlife resources, the licensee shall develop

measures to control hunting, trapping, and fishing within the project boundary by the

construction workforce and describe how prohibitions of hunting, trapping, and fishing would

be implemented and enforced.”

3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS AREA

The Project falls within Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) 2823 of the Tongass National Forest,

Juneau Ranger District. Project affected Value Comparison Units (VCUs) include: Lower

Sweetheart Lake Basin in VCU 610; Sweetheart Creek, Gilbert Bay and Snettisham Peninsula in

VCU 570, and Port Snettisham in VCU 550. In addition, the marine transportation route between

Seattle, Washington and Juneau, Alaska and Juneau and Port Snettisham are included for discussions

regarding marine mammals. Figure 3 shows the location of WAA 2823; Project affected VCUs, and

marine transportation route.

The proposed analysis area for the Project includes:

Sweetheart Lake basin,

Sweetheart Creek,

Gilbert Bay,

Port Snettisham, not including north of Sharp Point,

Stephens Passage between Port Snettisham and Juneau, including Gastineau Channel

Stephens Passage south to Seattle along existing barge routes between Seattle and

Juneau.

9 | P a g e

A desktop Geographic Information System (GIS) exercise was conducted for the purposes

of determining how the Project affects specific wildlife species, and their habitat within the

analysis area. This exercise used GIS shapefile and vegetation structure, as defined in Forest

Service GIS geodatabases, to determine the area of terrestrial habitat types within the analysis area

and Project affected areas. As many of the species within this report depend on productive old

growth (POG), high volume POG and low volume POG were calculated separately for each

affected area. Affected areas are estimates assuming terrestrial habitat types are general and

dependent upon the accuracy of the GIS data used. Terrestrial environments were not ground-

truthed for this exercise.

Table 1 provides the approximate acres of each habitat type by VCU. The table provides

only the total area for VCUs affected by the Project and not the total area within the WAA, as

there are other VCUs in the WAA that are not affected by the Project. It should be noted that there

are no special interest areas, legacy forest structure, or old growth reserves within the analysis area.

Table 1. Estimated area of habitat types within the Project affected VCUs. Habitat types are from

Forest Service GIS database.

Habitat type VCU 610 (acres)

VCU 550 (acres)

VCU 570 (acres)

High volume POG 6,375 3,808 5,241

Low volume POG 11,890 4,164 8,417

Non-forested 230,950 186,139 63,008

Unproductive forest 23,282 5,634 7,919

Forested muskeg 323 297 2,310

Water 39,955 34,211 34,660

Young growth – natural 197 75 8

Young growth – timber harvest 0 0 0

Unknown 21 0 0

Total acres 312,993

(312,993

234,328 121,563

10 | P a g e

Figure 3: VCUs affected by the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project within WAA.

11 | P a g e

3.1.1 Wildlife Habitats

Table 2 provides an overview of the estimated area of each habitat type affected by the

Project Figures 4a and 4b illustrate the habitat types within the inundation zone. Figure 5 illustrates

the footprint of the powerhouse, the coast access road, and dock and landing facilities. Figure 6

illustrates the transmission line route and alternative marine route.

Table 2: Summary of affected habitats within the Sweetheart Lake analysis area in acres.

Habitat types are derived from Forest Service vegetation layer in GIS.

PROJECT FEATURES

HABITAT TYPES (Acres) TOTAL

HV-

POG

LV-

POG FM UF NF SC 2 IT ST

Raise Sweetheart Lake

elevation from 551 feet to

636 feet

128 160 1.5 62 85 5.5 0 0 442

RCC Dam 0 0 0 0.41 0 0 0 0 0.41

Tunnel 0.11 0.75 0.06 0.11 0 0 0 0 1.03

Powerhouse and

Facilities

1.23 1.78 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.01

Coast Road (Preferred) 2.99 1.66 0 0 0 0 3.25 0 7.9

Dock and Landing Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5

Transmission Line 26.6 17 8.2 0 0 0 1.87 2.9 56.57

TOTAL AFFECTED

AREA

158.93 181.19 9.76 62.52 85 5.5 6.62 2.9 512.42

HV-POG – High volume POG

LV-POG – Low volume POG

FM – Forest Muskeg

UF – Unproductive Forest

NF – Non-Forested

SC 2 – Size Class 2 = Natural young growth from blow down or natural disturbances

SC 3 – Size Class 3 = Natural young growth from blow down or natural disturbances

SC-HS3 – Size Class HS3 = Young growth originating from timber harvest cut more than 50 years ago

IT – Intertidal

ST - Subtidal

12 | P a g e

Figure 4a: Project inundation zone and underlying vegetation structure of Lower Sweetheart Lake

(Southern half). (Source: Forest Service)

13 | P a g e

Figure 4b: Project inundation zone and underlying vegetation structure of Lower Sweetheart Lake

(Northern half). (Source: Forest Service)

14 | P a g e

Figure 5: Proposed facility footprint in east Gilbert Bay for the Sweetheart Lake Project and

underlying vegetation structure. (Source: Kai Environmental).

15 | P a g e

Figure 6: Proposed transmission line route for the Sweetheart Lake Project. (Source: Kai

Environmental).

3.2 PROJECT EFFECTS ANALYSIS

This report analyzes Project effects on federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate

species potentially occurring in the Project affected area. It also analyzes Project effects on Forest

Service management indicator species (MIS) and species considered sensitive by Alaska DFG.

Included are Project effects on migratory birds and Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation

Act (ANILCA) section 810 Subsistence. Interest has been expressed regarding Project effects on

other species found in the Project affected area. These species are not addressed in this report but

are included in Exhibit E of the Application for License.

16 | P a g e

3.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

Effects of the Action

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.02)

define “effects of the action” as:

“The direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical

habitat together with the effects of other activities which are interrelated or

interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline.

The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all federal,

State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the

anticipated impacts of all proposed federal projects in the action area that have

already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State

or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation process.

Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in

time, but still are reasonably certain to occur.”

There are three possible determinations of effects under the ESA:

No Effect: The proposed action or interrelated or interdependent actions would not affect

(positively or negatively listed species or their habitat.

May affect, not likely to adversely affect: The proposed action or interrelated or

interdependent actions may affect listed species or their habitat, but the effects are

expected to be insignificant, discountable, or entirely beneficial.

Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the

scale where a take would occur.

Discountable effects are those that are extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best

judgment, one would not 1) be able to meaningful measure, detect, or evaluate

insignificant effect; or 2) expect discountable effects to occur.

Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects with no adverse effects to

listed species.

May affect, likely to adversely affect: The proposed action or interrelated or

interdependent actions may have measurable of significant adverse effects on listed

species or their habitat. Such a determination requires formal ESA Section 7

consultation.

Determinations are also required of the effect of a federal action on any

designated critical habitat for listed species.

Table 3 provides a list of threatened and endangered species that occur in Alaska managed

by the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and potential occurrence in the

Project affected area. Table 4 provides a list of threatened and endangered species managed by the

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and potential occurrence in the Project affected area.

Table 3: Threatened and endangered species managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service that occur

17 | P a g e

in Alaska (FWS 2012a)

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Distribution in Alaska

Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis Endangered

Occurred in the arctic and is presumed extinct in

Alaska.

Northern sea otter (SW Alaska population)

Enhydra lutris kenyoni Threatened

The FWS listed only the sea otter populations in

southwest Alaska as threatened. The Project would

be located entirely outside of the known range of the

Southwest Alaska populations and the Southeast

Alaska populations are not listed.

Polar bear Ursus maritimus Threatened

Lives only in the arctic. The Project would be

entirely outside of the known range of the species.

Short-tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus Endangered

Occupies coastal waters in the Gulf of Alaska and

the Aleutian Islands. The Project would be outside

of the range for this species.

Spectacled eider Somateria fischeri Threatened

Occupies coastal waters in northern and western

Alaska. The Project would be outside of the known

range of this species.

Steller’s eider Polysticta stelleri Threatened

Occurs in northern and western Alaska. The Project

would be outside of the known range of this species.

Wood bison Bison bison

athabascae Threatened

Occurred throughout Alaska and now only found in

Canada.

There are no listed threatened or endangered species managed by the FWS likely to occur in

the vicinity of the Project.

Table 4: Threatened and endangered species managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service

that occur in Alaska (NMFS 2012 a; FWS 2012a)

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Location Description

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered These whales are generally found in off shore (pelagic) marine waters of the Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, North Pacific Ocean and/or Gulf of Alaska. Critical habitat has been designated for North Pacific right whales in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska.

Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus Endangered

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered

North Pacific right whale Eubalaena japonica Endangered

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Endangered

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Endangered

18 | P a g e

Beluga whale Delphinaperus leucas Endangered- the Cook Inlet population is the only DPS listed.

Marine and estuarine areas in Cook Inlet. The Cook Inlet population is the southernmost known population. The Project would be outside of the known range of this species.

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered This species is known to occur in waters adjacent to the Tongass NF and also known to occur in Gilbert Bay.

Green sea turtle Leatherback sea turtle Loggerhead sea turtle Olive Ridley sea turtle

Chelonia mydas Dermochelys coriacea Caretta caretta Lepidochelys olivacea

Threatened Endangered Threatened Threatened

These species occur in the Gulf of Alaska and some species are found as far west as the Aleutian Islands. Adults are highly migratory, but the details and locations of migrations are largely unknown. They have been sighted in Southeast Alaska but sightings are rare and are considered outside of their normal range.

Steller sea lion - Eastern AK DPS*

Eumetopias jubatus Threatened (Delisted – effective December 4, 2013)

The eastern DPS is likely to occur in waters adjacent to the Tongass NF and reported to occur in Port Snettisham. There may be an occasional occurrence by the western DPS.

Steller sea lion - Western AK DPS*

Endangered

*DPS = Distinct Population Segment

One endangered, managed by NMFS know to occur in Gilbert Bay and vicinity: humpback

whale (endangered). Steller sea lion, Eastern Alaska DPS was delisted effective December 4, 2013

(78 FR 66139).

Humpback Whale

The humpback whale (endangered) is the only species listed under the ESA know to occur in

Gilbert Bay and vicinity. Humpback whales are common in the marine environment throughout

Southeast, Alaska. In general, humpback whales in southeast Alaska are from the central North

Pacific Stock, although some modification to population structure may be revised when genetic

testing results become available (Allen and Angliss 2012a). Although humpback whales are

currently listed as endangered, the NMFS has announced a 90-day finding on a petition to identify

the North Pacific population as a DPS and delist the DPS and have initiated a status review under

the ESA (FR Doc. 2013-21066. Filed 8-28-13).

The abundance of humpback whales that forage off the coast of British Columbia and

https://www.federalregister.gov/a/2013-21066

19 | P a g e

Southeast Alaska is estimated between 2,883 and 6,414 individuals, with relatively high densities

occurring throughout southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia in the summer months.

While a population trend for the central North Pacific Stock has not yet been estimated, it is clear

that the abundance has increased in southeast Alaska (Allen and Angliss 2012a).

While humpback whales may be found in a variety of marine habitats, their patterns of

occurrence likely follow the spatial and temporal changes in types, densities, and distribution of

prey (Kreiger and Wing 1986, Baker et al. 1992). In Southeast Alaska, primary prey species

include euphausiids (krill), and small schooling fishes such as capelin, Pacific sand lance,

walleye pollock and Pacific herring (Kreiger and Wing 1986; Straley 1990).

Humpback whales were observed in Gilbert Bay during Project wildlife studies (Kai

Environmental 2012a). An individual humpback whale was observed on June 29, 2012, near

Sentinel Point. An individual was also observed on July 3, 2012, in the southern end of Gilbert Bay.

On July 15, 2012, at least three humpback whales were observed feeding in Gilbert Bay, and were

active in the bay most of the day. Observations of humpback whales in Gilbert Bay and near the

Whiting River by a local cabin owner document their presence as early as April 26, 2009, and as late

as September 8, 2007 (D, Maas, personal communication, 2013). While no specific surveys were

conducted for marine mammals, JHI personnel and consultants have not observed humpback whales

in the bay in late fall or winter visits to conduct field seasons.

Critical habitat has not been designated for humpback whales. However, regulations

within 200 nautical miles of Alaska prohibit anyone from approaching within 100 yards of a

humpback whale (50 CFR Part 224). Potential threats to humpback whales in the North Pacific

include elevated sound levels, changes in prey distribution with climate change, vessel strikes,

entanglement from commercial fishing gear, and harassment from whale watching boats (Allen

and Angliss 2012a).

Analysis of Project Effects

Action Area

The reservoir, tunnel, and powerhouse are not considered as part of the action area affecting

humpback whales since these features are located far enough from the shoreline of Gilbert Bay to

avoid any potential Project effects. The action area includes Project on shore facilities that are located

adjacent to Gilbert Bay along the coast road route (preferred alternative), quarry area, dock/landing

facilities and includes a protection zone of 250 yards into Gilbert Bay. The marine transmission line

laying route also has a 100 yard wide marine mammal protection zone on either side of the line

crossing Gilbert Bay and Port Snettisham (the preferred route). The overhead transmission line

segment located on the Snettisham Peninsula is included in the action area since the construction

would include use of a barge serving as a staging area and use of helicopter for placing transmission

towers and transporting workers to and from the powerhouse staging area located on the east side of

Gilbert Bay.

Materials would be delivered along marine shipping routes between Seattle, Washington and

the Gilbert Bay dock/landing facilities and are included in the action area.

20 | P a g e

Construction

Noise

Project Construction is expected to occur over a two year period all year long with a peak of

activity during May through October of each year. Activities such as noise from blasting, pile

driving, submarine transmission line placement, and increased boat traffic may have an effect on

seasonal humpback whale activity in Gilbert Bay. Overhead noise from increased fixed wing and

helicopter traffic would also occur during the construction seasons. Blasting noise would be short in

duration and located away from the shoreline and is not expected to have an effect on humpback

whales. Aircraft and aircraft noise are not expected to have an effect on humpback whales.

A majority of the noise generated from construction activities would occur in the first year

between April and June. At the beginning of construction, blasting and excavation at the quarry

would occur near the proposed docking facilities at the eastern side of Gilbert Bay for the first

three weeks to start construction of the dock and road. Pile driving for the construction of the

dock would occur as soon as the initial blasting and material extraction are complete. The coastal

road/trail would be constructed using heavy machinery delivered to the site by barge. The tunnel

excavation near Sweetheart Creek, using the drill blast method, would also begin during the first

construction season. Anticipated noise levels generated from construction activities are presented

in Table 3.

Table 5. Anticipated noise levels in decibels (dB) from construction activities associated with the

Sweetheart Lake Project in Gilbert Bay, Alaska. SEL=sound exposure level. Source: 1.

FHWA, 2006; 2. HDR Alaska, Inc. et. al. 2006; and 3. Blackwell and Greene 2002.

Action Anticipated

airborne noise (dB)1

Anticipated underwater

noise (dB SEL)2,3

Noise from blasting at quarry 94 Not applicable

Noise from blasting at tunnel 94 Not applicable

Noise from impact pile driving at dock 101 189

Noise from vibratory pile driving at dock 96 164

Noise from tug maneuvering barge 87 125-149

Noise from drilling at dam site 85 Not applicable

Noise from blasting at dam site 94 Not applicable

Noise from heavy machinery 82-87 Not applicable

Generic sound exposure thresholds for cetaceans have been defined in regulations by

NMFS and include two levels of criteria; Level A causing injury and Level B causing disturbance.

For cetaceans there is no exposure threshold defined for airborne noise (70 CFR 1871). Level A

underwater noise thresholds for cetaceans include 180 dB Root-Mean-Square (RMS) (70 CFR

1871). Level B underwater noise thresholds for cetaceans include 120 dB for continuous noise

(i.e. vibratory pile driving) and 160 dB for impulse noise (i.e. impact pile driving) (70 CFR 1871).

In a Port of Anchorage study, underwater sound isopleths for impact pile driving showed the

distance to the 180 dB isopleth would be 65.5 feet and to the 160 isopleth would be 1,148 feet.

21 | P a g e

For underwater sound from vibratory pile driving the distance to the 120 dB isopleth was 2,625

feet (URS 2007). Noise may have an effect on humpback whales by causing injury (Level A) or

disturbance (Level B). Disturbance responses may range from abandonment from vital habitat

(severe) to startling (mild). Submerged marine mammals, like the humpback whale, are generally

not affected by airborne noise, unless directly under the noise source (Richardson et al. 1995).

Therefore airborne noise from construction equipment, aircraft, and from powerhouse operations

would not affect humpback whales.

Humpback whales would only be exposed to Level B noise if they were within 2,625 feet

of vibrating pile driving or 1,148 feet of impact pile driving during the construction of the Project

landing and dock facilities. Humpback whales within these distances would be exposed to

underwater sound thresholds that could have an effect on individual humpback whales.

Tug and barge operations include laying of the submarine cable and staging a tug and

barge in Gilbert Bay for helicopter sling-loading of the transmission line bases and towers.

Underwater noise from tug and barge range from 125 dB for towing a barge through water to 149

dB from maneuvering a loaded barge with multiple tug boats (Blackwell and Greene 2002). Both

underwater noise levels exceed the 120 dB for Level B disturbance for humpback whales and

therefore could affect individual humpback whales if close enough to the source of the noise.

It is expected that if the noise generating activities occur before whales are in the areas of

construction, than whales would avoid the area during the noise generating activities and the

Project construction would have no effect. By using trained observers and establishing a marine

safety zone of 100 yards around in water construction activities it would be possible to determine

if whales and other marine mammals are within the area of the safety zone. JHI is committed to

slowing down operations and then ceasing construction operations until whales or other marine

mammals leave the safety zone. Project construction noise may affect but not likely to have

adverse effects on humpback whales.

Collisions

Collisions between boats and humpback whales are a source of injuries and mortality.

During Project construction it is expected that boat traffic would increase in Stephens Passage, Port

Snettisham and Gilbert Bay, both during construction and during operations. Increased boat

activity may lead to an increase of potential “harassment” to humpback whales. The MMPA of

1972, as amended, provides the following definition for “harassment”:

“Under the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA, “harassment” is statutorily defined

as, any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a

marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (level A harassment), or has

the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by

causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration,

breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but which does not have the

potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (level B

harassment)”.

Records for large whale ship strikes show that collisions between ships and whales are

22 | P a g e

associated with a wide range of vessel types (Jensen and Silber 2003). Marine vessel traffic

including barges, cruise ships ferries, fishing vessels, fishing packers, and pleasure craft in

Stephens Passage, is unknown. However, two major barging companies, Alaska Marine Lines and

Northland Freight utilize the corridor between Seattle, Washington and Juneau, Alaska. Samson

Tug had plans to also service Juneau. Table 6 provides a summary of the annual barge traffic

utilizing Stephens Passage and passing across Port Snettisham.

Table 6: Annual barge traffic utilizing Stephens Passage and crossing Port Snettisham. (Source:

Alaska Marine Services, Northland Services, and Skookum Sales and Recycling). These figures

do not include chartered and untrackable barges coming from Juneau.

Annual Barge Traffic Stephens Passage/Port Snettisham

based on 2013 current and expected sailings

Entity barge trips voyages passing Port Snettisham

AML 95 190

Northland 78 156

Skookum Recycling 2 4

Total 175 350

There is significant vessel traffic already occurring in Port Snettisham. This traffic represents

year round travel to and from Juneau to the Snettisham Power facility; commercial fishing vessel

traffic; personal use fisher traffic; and recreational vessel traffic that includes yachts and other

vessels transiting the inside passage and overnighting in Port Snettisham. Table 7 provides the

number of commercial fishing vessel landing days in Port Snettisham in 2012, reported by Alaska

DFG.

Table 7: Commercial fishing vessel landing days in Port Snettisham in 2012. (Source: Alaska

DFG, 2013)

Commercial Fish Vessel Landing Days in Port Snettisham, 2012

Year Month Vessel Landings*

2012 2 7

2012 3 4

2012 4 4

2012 5 4

2012 6 9

2012 7 440

2012 8 374

2012 9 9

2012 10 5

2012 11 3

2012 TOTAL 859

*The number of landings reflects the number of unique vessel-date landed combinations.

23 | P a g e

In 2012, ADFG recorded 859 Vessel Date landings, 814 of these occurred in July and

August. This represents a vessel date regardless of the number of landings that occurred on any

given day. This category eliminates the overstating of vessel trip by two or more permit holders that

could operate on the same vessel.

While personal vessel traffic from recreation users cannot be determined, personal vessel

traffic from personal use fisheries at Sweetheart Creek can be estimated from personal use fishing

permit reports. Most fishers travel with 4 persons to and from Juneau to Sweetheart Creek.

Although ADFG allows only one permit per household, there is no ability to determine how many

people of one household assisted a unique permit holder in any given trip. Therefore, in determining

the number of vessel trips conducted for the personal use fishery JHI averaged the number of fishers

per trip and extrapolate the number of vessels trips based on 2011 data of 164 permit holders. Based

on data provided by Alaska DFG show that in 2011 there were 48 trips from Juneau to Sweetheart

Creek reported (S. Johnson, personal communication, 2013). These trips are likely to occur in July

and August, when sockeye salmon are generally present.

Based on this conservative assumption, JHI is expected to contribute 9.83% of the vessel

traffic coming into and leaving Port Snettisham during the period in which the Sweetheart Lake

Hydroelectric facility is being built. It is expected that construction would take place over two

construction seasons whereby peak activity will occur in May through October. Table 8 is a

summary of expected vessel traffic during Project construction.

Table 8: Summary of expected vessel traffic in Port Snettisham during Project construction.

Purpose No. of vessel trips per year Percentage

Project 104 9.83

Commercial Fishing 859 81.89

Personal Use Fishing 45 4.25

Recreation 50 4.73

Total 1058 100%

Most of the barge activity between Juneau and the Project would occur at the beginning

of the first construction season and end of the second construction season for mobilization and

demobilization of the Project. Light landing craft activity between Juneau and the Project

delivering freight during construction is also expected.

With the additional boat traffic between Juneau and the Project and increased activity in

Gilbert Bay during construction there may be an increase in potential for collisions with humpback

whales. However with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures to educate boat

operators, following NMFS guidelines and the use of observers, the Project may affect, but not

likely to adversely affect humpback whales.

Entanglement

Often each conductor phase of submarine cables is laid separately. JHI’s plans to bundle

the three phases of cable into a single cable. Therefore, the submarine transmission line would

24 | P a g e

consist of a single cable bundle with shielding and would be between six and seven inches in

diameter. The cable bundle would be very stiff and heavy. The size and stiffness of the cable

make entanglement virtually impossible. Deployment of the cable bundle would occur on flood

tides over the course of 4-5 days in separate locations within Gilbert Bay and Port Snettisham.

After deployment, the submarine cable would be resting on the sea floor in deep water, and would

be expected to be buried in bottom sediments over time. Submarine cables are not expected to be

an issue regarding entanglement and would have no effect on humpback whales.

Project Operation and Maintenance

Electromagnetic Fields

The Project would place approximately 9,700 feet of submarine cable across Gilbert Bay, at

an average depth of 288 feet (NOAA 2009). An additional 16,000 feet of submarine cable would be

laid across Port Snettisham, at an average depth of 618 feet (NOAA 2009). While the specifics of

the cable have not yet been identified by the Project, the cable would be 138kV AC with 3 lines

sheathed together and deployed as a single armored cable bundle.

One concern about submarine power cables is the occurrence of electromagnetic fields and

their potential effects on aquatic species. Magnetic fields are generated by flow of current and

increase in strength as current increases.

In 2012, Kai Environmental performed a literature review to address the potential effects

of EMF on marine species (Kai Environmental 2012b). Submarine cables elicit both electric

fields (E-fields) and magnetic fields (B-fields), and in some cases the B-field may generate a

secondary induced E-field (iE-field) (Huang 2005; Slater and Schultz 2010). Some studies

acknowledge that sheathing and/or insulating two or more lines together would block E-fields,

however they also state that B-fields would still be present (CMACS 2003; Slater and Shultz

2010; Copping 2011). Burying cables may reduce how far B-fields extend within the marine

environment (Normandeau, et al. 2011).

The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The

electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (current);

these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way charges and currents interact with

the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell’s equations and the Lorentz force law.

Marine mammals are generally magneto sensitive, and more likely to detect direct current

(DC) cables than AC cables (Schroeder and Scarborough Bull 2011). Fisher and Slater (2010)

stated that whales are known to use geomagnetic fields for navigation and that there is statistical

evidence to suggest that marine mammals are susceptible to stranding as a result to increased

EMF levels. These studies were not conducted on humpback whales specifically, however given

the predominantly rocky cliff terrain of the Gilbert Bay terrain, it would be unlikely for a whale to

become stranded (Kai Environmental 2012b). Olsson et al. (2010) performed a literature review

to determine EMF effects to marine species for offshore wind and wave power projects. They

concluded, “There is no information available from research on effects on marine mammals, and

also no information suggesting that EMF from marine installations is an issue”.

25 | P a g e

EMF from the Project operations may affect, but not likely to adversely affect humpback

whales as E-fields would be blocked and B-field would be reduced. Further, any B-field present at

depth is not likely to cause stranding given the rocky terrain along the Gilbert Bay shoreline.

Also, B-field emissions would be further reduced as the cable becomes covered in bottom

sediments.

3.2.2 Candidate and Sensitive Species

There is one candidate species for listing under the ESA, Pacific herring, one species

formerly listed as threatened, Steller sea lion, and four sensitive species identified by the U.S.

Forest Service for the Tongass National Forest in Region 10 (USDA Forest Service 2008a).

Sensitive species for the Tongass National Forest are provided in Table 9. Determinations of

Project effects on sensitive species considers four levels of effects as defined below:

The (proposed action/alternative) would have no impact;

The (proposed action/alternative) would have beneficial impacts;

The (proposed action/alternative) may adversely impact individuals but not likely to

result in a loss of viability in the Project affected area, nor cause a trend toward federal

listing for the species; and

The (proposed action/alternative) is likely to result in a loss of viability in the Project

affected area, or in a trend toward federal listing for the species.

Table 9: Sensitive species for the Tongass National Forest.

SPECIES FWS/NMFS STATUS PROJECT PRESENCE PROJECT EFFECTS

Aleutian Tern N/A The breeding range of

this species does not

extend south of Glacier

Bay, Alaska. Not likely

to occur in the area of the

Project.

The proposed Project

would have no impact.

Black Oystercatcher N/A Potential presence and

nesting

The proposed Project may

adversely impact

individuals but not likely

to result in a loss of

viability in the Project

affected area, nor cause a

trend toward federal

listing for black

oystercatchers.

Dusky Canada Goose N/A Potential fall or spring

migrant


adversely impact






listing for dusky Canada

geese.

26 | P a g e

Queen Charlotte

Goshawk

N/A Potential presence and

nesting


adversely impact






listing for goshawk.

Pacific Herring

The Southeast Alaska DPS of Pacific herring is a candidate species and undergoing a status

review (73 CFR 19824). Pacific herring is a schooling fish species that occur in coastal areas of

the Pacific Ocean from the surface to depths of 1,300 feet. There are nine spawning aggregates of

the Southeast Alaska DPS, all considered genetically similar. Pacific herring have been

documented in Gilbert Bay, briefly mentioned in Table 4.3 in Carls, et al (2008), where 3,910

herring were caught by beach seine hauls some time during 1998 – 2007. Additionally, an

unconfirmed observation of herring spawning along the south bank of the mouth of the Whiting

River by a commercial fisherman was reported to the Alaska DFG (D. Harris, personal

communication, 5/20/2013). A separate report of herring spawn by an Alaska State Trooper was

reported to Alaska DFG on the south shoreline of Port Snettisham west of Sentinel Point (D.

Harris, personal communication, 5/20/2013). Although, Pacific herring have been observed in

Gilbert Bay, very little is known about their occurrence.

Pacific herring feed on small fishes and phytoplankton and zooplankton in nutrient-rich

waters associated with oceanic upwelling. Threats to herring populations include overfishing,

spawning and rearing habitat degradation, oil spills and ocean contamination, climate change effects

on prey species, and recovery of predator species such as humpback whales and Steller sea lions

(NMFS 2012b).

Pacific herring are sexually mature in about 3-4 years of age and spawn every year after

reaching maturity. Spawning occurs in the spring in shallow, vegetated areas in intertidal and

subtidal zones. Males and females release their milt and eggs into the water column where they mix

and fertilize. The eggs are adhesive and adhere to bottom vegetation and substrate. Pacific

herring are mass spawners and when spawning are easily seen (Alaska DFG website, September

2013). Eggs hatch in about two weeks after fertilization and the young larvae drift and swim in

ocean currents. Once larvae undergo metamorphosis into their juvenile stage, they rear in sheltered

bays and inlets. In the fall the juvenile schools move into deeper waters where they spend the next

two to three years. They remain separate from the adult populations until they are mature (Alaska

DFG website, September 2013).


Pacific herring may occasionally be present and spawn in Gilbert Bay. Because Pacific herring spawn in the spring are easily observed during spawning they may easily be avoided during construction. There is a potential for an insignificant amount of intertidal and subtidal habitat that could be disturbed during construction of the marine facilities and coast road. These facilities would

27 | P a g e

be finished to appear similar to the existing shoreline and given time aquatic growth would re-establish in the intertidal areas. Any Project effects would likely be temporary because once construction is completed conditions would be similar to conditions prior to construction.

Given the lack of evidence that herring regularly spawn in Gilbert Bay, measures taken to

protect water quality and prevent sedimentation from construction areas, and the ability to spot spawning schools of herring; it is expected that Project construction and operations would have no impact on Pacific herring.

Steller Sea Lion

In Southeast Alaska, most Steller sea lions are considered to be part of the previously listed

as threatened eastern DPS. The endangered western DPS have been observed in Southeast Alaska

(Allen and Angliss 2012b; Allen and Angliss 2012c). The eastern DPS was delisted effective

December 4, 2013 (78 FR 66139), however, remain protected under the Marine Mammals

Protection Act.

Steller sea lions are considered opportunistic foragers as they would switch prey items and

relocate based upon seasonal prey availability. In general, they forage on spawning fish, such as

salmon and eulachon in the spring, and various other species throughout the year (Winship and

Trites 2003; Sigler et al. 2009; Womble et al. 2009). Potential threats to Steller sea lion

populations include: vessel strikes, contaminants, degradation of habitat, illegal hunting, offshore

oil and gas exploration, and interactions with fisheries (Allen and Angliss 2012b).

As discussed in Kai Environmental’s 2012 Wildlife Study Report for the Project, Steller

sea lions likely visit Gilbert Bay while pursuing prey species such as salmon (Kai Environmental

2012a). During field studies for the Project there were no direct observations of Steller sea lions

in Gilbert Bay, however sea lions were heard near Port Snettisham during the June 2012, northern

goshawk surveys (Kai Environmental 2012c).

Critical habitat for Steller sea lions include “a terrestrial zone, an aquatic zone, and an air

zone that extends 3,000 feet (0.9 km) landward, seaward, and upward, respectively, each major

rookery and major haulout in Southeast Alaska” (58 FR 45269). The closest critical habitat to

Gilbert Bay is Sunset Island to the south of the Project affected area (31.5 miles) and Benjamin

Island to the north of the Project area (57 miles).

A non-major haulout for Steller sea lions is located in Port Snettisham; commonly known as

the Mist haulout which is actually located on the northern shore Port Snettisham west of Mist Island

(Figure 6). Data provided by the Alaska DFG includes counts and brand sightings (L. Jemison,

personal communication, 2013). Sea lions were documented occupying the haulout from January

through May, with June through December occupancy being unknown because surveys did not

occur during those months. Based on count data and brand sightings the minimum number of sea

lions observed at the haulout were 134 in April 2006, 57 in May 2006, 50 in May 2007 and more

than 100 in April 2009 (L. Jemison, personal communication, 2013). Anecdotal information from a

local crab and gillnet fisherman who utilizes Port Snettisham beginning in February through July of

every year reports that sightings of Steller sea lions are very rare given the poor quality of the area

shoreline habitat as a haulout location and are not present during the summer months (Ed Hansen,

personal communication, 2013). Although Alaska DFG date would seem to confirm the

28 | P a g e

observations that Steller sea lions are not present during the summer months, it is not confirmed by

summer period surveys.


Activities associated with the Project that may have effect individuals or populations of

Steller sea lions include potential vessel strikes from increased boat activity in Port Snettisham

and Gilbert Bay and noise from construction and operational activities, disturbance from

deployment of the submarine cable, entanglement, and potential EMF from the submarine cable.

By implementing mitigation measures described for humpback whale Project construction and

operations may adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the

Project affected area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the species to have no effect on

Steller sea lion.

Aleutian Tern

Aleutian tern (Onychoprion aleuticus) may be a casual/accidental visitor in the Gilbert Bay

vicinity during spring and summer and not know to occur during fall and winter. The Aleutian

tern breeding range does not extend south of Glacier Bay (FWS 2012d). They occur in coastal

areas west throughout the Aleutians, north to the Chuckchi Sea, east to the Alaska Peninsula and

south to Yakutat and Glacier Bay. They nest in coastal colonies.


The Aleutian tern is not likely to breed in the Project affected area. The southern end of

the breeding range is reported as Glacier Bay approximately 85 miles north west of the Project

area. Although the Aleutian tern may be a casual/accidental visitor to visit Port Snettisham and

Gilbert Bay, these visits are believed to be random movements of individuals of species since these

areas are outside of the reported range for the species which is north of the Project affected area.

The Project would have no effect on the species.

Black Oystercatchers

Black oystercatchers (Haematopus bachmani) have the potential to occur along coastal

areas of the Project, and may nest in the rocky intertidal habitat area. Nesting habitat includes

gravel beaches and/or rocky cliffs above the high tide mark (Tessler et al. 2007). Forage species

include macroinvertebrates that inhabit rocky intertidal shorelines, such as mussels, clams,

limpets, barnacles and chiton.

Black oystercatchers have the potential to breed and inhabit areas near the Project

affected area. While no observations were made during summer of 2012 field investigations,

they could, however, occur along the entire shoreline of Gilbert Bay. No specific field surveys

were conducted along the shoreline of Port Snettisham and Gilbert Bay for black oystercatchers.

However, this species is easily spotted and identified by its appearance and call and if present

would likely have been observed.

The 2008 Tongass Forest Plan does not have species specific recommendations for black

29 | P a g e

oystercatchers, however general direction for waterfowl and shorebird habitats would apply

(USDA Forest Service 2008a).


Project construction could result in loss of potential nesting and foraging habitat include the

locations of the proposed dock facility, the approximately one mile long coastal road to the

powerhouse, and where the proposed submarine cables cross the shoreline on the east and west sides

of Gilbert Bay, as well as where connection would be made with the Snettisham transmission line.

The Project would result in a direct loss of 4.75 acres of intertidal habitat for the coastal road and

docking facilities. With respect to the transmission line, an additional 1.87 acres of intertidal

habitat would be lost as the transmission line transitions from shore to marine and marine to shore.

Noise from construction also has the potential to affect black oystercatcher behavior,

including avoidance of an area for nesting and nest abandonment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service recommends planning construction outside the May 1 to September 15 window (FWS,

2009b), however timing construction activities along potential black oystercatcher habitat outside

of this timeframe is not feasible because of the limited construction season in this area.

Loss of habitat from the construction of Project features and disturbance from

construction activities may affect oystercatcher foraging and nesting activities. Given that much

of the shoreline of Gilbert Bay is suitable nesting habitat and that no oystercatchers were

observed in the area in 2012, The proposed Project may adversely impact individuals but not

likely to result in a loss of viability in the Project affected area, nor cause a trend toward federal

listing for black oystercatchers. It is also expected that the Project would comply with the Forest

Service general guidelines for waterfowl and shorebirds.

Dusky Canada Goose

Dusky Canada goose (Branta Canadensis occidentalis) is a subspecies of Canada geese

that nest exclusively in the marches of the Copper River Delta and winter in Oregon’s Willamette

Valley (Alaska DFG, 2012). They are not known to breed in Southeast Alaska; however they

may stop over along the Pacific coast during migration. Foraging habitat would include estuarine

tidal flats (Bromley and Rothe 2003). Suitable foraging habitat exists adjacent to the Project area

including the tidal flat located along the southern shoreline of Gilbert Bay.

The 2008 Tongass Forest Plan does not have species specific recommendations for dusky

Canada goose, however general direction for waterfowl and shorebird habitats would apply



Dusky Canada geese may stop over to rest and feed on the estuarine tidal flats in the southern

end of Gilbert Bay during spring and fall migrations. This area is located adjacent to the mouth of

Sweetheart Creek and the Project affected area. Construction activities may overlap with the timing

of dusky Canada goose migration. As a result migrating geese may avoid the Project affected area

during the construction period. Project operations should have no effect on migrating geese. The

proposed Project may adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the

30 | P a g e

Project affected area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for dusky Canada geese.

Queen Charlotte Goshawk

The Queen Charlotte Goshawk (Accipter gentilis laingi) is a distinct subspecies of the

northern goshawks; however they are difficult to distinguish from northern goshawks in the field.

Within southeast Alaska, goshawks are considered a year-round resident. Although goshawks

may nest in a wide range of forest types (Daw et al.1998), mature forests of Sitka spruce and

Western hemlock are preferred in Southeast Alaska (Flatten et al. 2002). Therefore high volume

and low volume POG are important components of goshawk habitat.

Prey availability and abundance has also been indicated as a limiting factor in goshawk

presence. Titus et al. (1999) found that the five most common prey species in Southeast Alaska

include Steller’s jay, grouse, varied thrush, red squirrels, and woodpeckers. These species were

observed in the Project affected area during 2012 field studies (Kai Environmental 2012a). Non-

productive forest types and second-growth stands are also important for goshawk movement and

foraging (Alaska DFG, 1996).

The Project occurs within the range and contains potential nesting and foraging habitat for

the northern goshawk. Surveys using the Tongass National Forest Project Level Goshawk

Inventory Protocol (2009) for northern goshawks were conducted in 2012 for the Project with the

following conclusion: “Vegetation structure, prey availability and topography associated with the

northern goshawk exist in select areas of the Project site; however, no indication of current or past

goshawk presence was evident in any of the surveyed areas” (Kai Environmental 2012a).

Nest protection is outlined in the Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines (USDA Forest

Service 2008a) and requires protection of an area not less than 100 acres of productive old growth

forest (if it exists) generally centered over the nest tree or probable nest site. The Tongass Forest

Plan standards and guidelines also state that between March 15 and August 15 no disturbance

would occur within a 600-foot radius of a nest location (USDA Forest Service 2008a).


Approximately 159 acres of high volume POG and 181 acres of low volume POG would

be removed for the Project. These estimates include the reservoir area, powerhouse and

switchyard, the coast road, and the overhead portion of the transmission line. Within affected

VCUs with WAA 2823 there would be approximately 39,645 acres of high and low volume POG

remaining for the coast road so habitat removal would be less than 0.1% of the available habitat

within the analysis area.

No evidence of northern goshawk presence was observed during the protocol survey

conducted by Kai Environmental Consultants in 2012. However, preferred habitat does exist and

therefore it is assumed that northern goshawks could be in the vicinity of the Project. Construction

noise, such as blasting activities, pile driving, and helicopter flights may disrupt foraging and

nesting building activities. While nesting, construction noise may lead to nest abandonment.

Sensitive nesting periods for northern goshawks would coincide when construction activities

31 | P a g e

would be occurring over the course of the two year construction period.

The 2008 Tongass Forest Plan standards and guidelines call for include maintaining an

area not less than 100 acres around a nest site, and monitor up to two consecutive years after there

is no further evidence of confirmed or probable nesting. In addition, no disturbance likely to

result in nest abandonment within the surrounding 660 feet of a nest site from March 15 to August

15 would be permitted. Since the Project construction season coincides with goshawk nesting

season and therefore the potential for disturbance of nesting goshawk, if present, is unavoidable.

However, no evidence of nesting was found and no goshawks were observed in the Project

affected area during the 2012 surveys.

Avian electrocution is a concern on many overhead power lines where conductor spacing

is insufficient to prevent phase to phase or phase to ground contact. Conductor spacing for a 138

kV transmission line would be greater than 60 inches and therefore would not pose an

electrocution risk. Transmission lines do however create some risk of collision hazard for avian

species. Therefore the overhead portion of the transmission line located on the Snettisham

Peninsula would be designed according to the criteria defined by the Avian Power Line

Interaction Committee (APLIC), 2006, 2012. These criteria are designed to reduce the potential

for avian collision and electrocution of avian species.

Since suitable habitat does exist it can be assumed that there is at least some potential for

goshawk nesting activity in the area. Project construction could therefore disrupt goshawk nesting

during the construction period. Some risk of collision with the overhead portions of the

transmission line would also exist even though the APLIC guidelines would be followed when

designing the transmission line. Therefore, the proposed Project may adversely impact individuals

but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Project affected area, nor cause a trend toward

federal listing for goshawk.

3.2.3 Management Indicator Species

For each Management Indicator Species (MIS), the Project effects on each species are

determined by “level of influence” as defined in the Forest Service reference document for wildlife

project level analysis (Forest Service, 2009). These four levels of influence by a project include:

negligible, minor, moderate and major.

Negligible represents when individuals of a species would not be affected, or the

proposed action would affect an individual but the change would be so small that it

would not be measureable or perceptible.

Minor represents when the proposed action would affect individuals but the change

would be small. These impacts would not be expected to have long-term effects on

species or their habitats, and occasional disturbances to individuals would not cause

interference to reproduction or other factors affecting a local population.

Moderate refers to when individuals of the species would be noticeably affected by the

proposed action. The effect could have long-term consequences to individuals or their

habitat. Frequent response to disturbance can be expected, with negative impacts to

32 | P a g e

feeding, reproduction or other factors affecting short-term population levels.

Major represents when populations would be affected, with long-term consequences to

individuals, populations or habitat.

There are 13 wildlife species identified as MIS by Forest Service for the Tongass

National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Additional information for species occurrence in

the Project affected area may be found in Kai Environmental’s 2012 Wildlife Study Report for

the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project (Kai Environmental 2012a).

Alexander Archipelago Wolf

Alexander Archipelago wolves (Canis lupus ligoni) have large home ranges and use a

variety of habitat types. In Southeast Alaska, wolf populations are found on the mainland and

larger islands south of Frederick Sound. Wolf populations are closely tied to densities of prey

species, mainly Sitka-black tailed deer, mountain goats and beaver (Alaska DFG 2008). While the

Project affected area has sufficient deer habitat, especially along Snettisham Peninsula (VCUs 550

and 570) very little deer sign was seen during 2012 field surveys (Kai Environmental 2012a).

Mountain goat use of the Project affected area is unknown, but high value winter range habitat

exists in the Project affected area. A healthy beaver population occupies Sweetheart Lake and

tributary streams (Kai Environmental 2012a).

Alexander Archipelago wolves may occur throughout the Project affected area, although

no observations or indicators of wolves were found during the field surveys and no surveys

specific to wolves were conducted (Kai Environmental 2012a). Harvest records provided by the

Alaska DFG indicate there was a harvest of one wolf during the period of 1999-2008 (Scott 2010).

The 2008 Tongass Forest Plan recommends standards and guidelines for designing project

activities to avoid abandonment of wolf dens. Adult wolves give birth and center activities

around a den with pups in May and June, eventually weaning pups by mid-summer (Alaska DFG,

2008). Dens are generally located in root wads of large living or dead trees and/or moist soils

within old-growth forest stands that are less than 150 meters from freshwater (Alaska DFG 2008;

Person and Russell 2009). No den sites, or other wolf indices, were identified in the 2012 field

surveys (Kai Environmental 2012a).


Project effects could include direct habitat removal, removal of habitat important for prey

species, and increased access and use of the area which may result in increased legal and non-

legal harvest. Construction noise may also alter behavior of wolves using the Project affected

area. Project construction would include docking facilities and approximately one mile of road on

the east side of Gilbert Bay. The proposed road would be in accordance with the 2008 Tongass

Forest Plan of maintaining low road densities (USDA Forest Service, 2008a) and would not be

open for public motorized access.

While harvest records show that wolves may, on occasion, be found in the Project affected

area, only one wolf was harvested between 1999 and 2008(Scott 2010). Low harvest may be due

33 | P a g e

to travel distance and expense limiting trapping effort, a low population of wolves, or both. Field

observations in 2012 indicate the population of black-tailed deer in the Project vicinity is low at

present which may limit wolf presence and activity or be an indication that wolves are keeping

deer numbers low. In either case no indications that wolves are present were observed during

field studies.

The proposed dock and road would not provide additional access to any areas other than

the immediate vicinity of the dock and landing facilities, road, and powerhouse. It is unlikely

these facilities would attract and provide additional access to trapping grounds, as the travel

distance and expense from other communities would be still be limiting.

Potential wolf denning habitat exists within the Project affected area. However, no wolf

dens or indications of wolf presence were observed during the 2012 wildlife studies. Construction

is planned for a two year period with the construction season beginning as early as April which

would overlap wolf denning season. If wolf dens were present, noise and construction activities

could disturb dens. Since Project construction would overlap with wolf denning, disruption of any

dens within the Project affected area would be unavoidable. However, due to the lack of evidence

of wolves in the Project affected area it is expected that Project effects would be negligible.

American Marten

American marten (Martes americana) are widespread in Southeast Alaska. High value

habitat types include beach fringe, riparian areas and large tracks of old growth forests less than

1,500 feet in elevation. They are dependent on ground structure for movement and denning. In

general, dens are located in cavities of large trees, snags, logs and stumps. Marten sign were

observed at Sweetheart Lake during winter wildlife surveys (Kai Environmental 2012a). There is

abundant habitat available within the proposed Project region.

The 2008 Tongass Forest Plans calls for providing and conserving marten habitat and for

reducing human-caused mortality (USDA Forest Service 2008a). While there are no harvest

records for marten for Gilbert Bay, past trapping efforts were most likely low due to the distance

and expense associated with accessing the area.


The potential Project effects on marten and their habitat by the Project include direct habitat

removal, increased access and use of the area which may result in increased harvest and

construction noise which may alter behavior.

Trapping of marten within the Project affected area is unknown, but likely to be low given

the distance and expense of accessing the area. The Project would improve access, by providing

docking facilities; however improved access would be limited to the eastern side of Gilbert Bay.

Distance and expense to Gilbert Bay would still be a limiting factor for trapping marten, therefore

the Project is not expected to improve access enough to where increased trapping of marten

would occur, and therefore, the Project affect would be negligible.

Construction is likely to occur over two seasons, and noise and construction activity are

34 | P a g e

likely to cause marten to avoid areas where construction is occurring. Marten have pups that are

born in April or May and remain in the den for approximately 2 months (Alaska DFG 2008).

When marten are not with pups in dens, they would presumably be able to avoid or escape areas

directly affected by construction and construction noise. If construction activities, such as large

tree removal and rock blasting, occur during pupping, then construction could affect individual

marten and their young. Affects from construction would be considered minor, as the impact

would be short lived over the course of the two year construction period and because of the

abundance of high quality habitat in the region.

Bald Eagle

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests are generally found in old-growth forest in

areas near saltwater shorelines and mainland rivers. They forage in productive old-growth and

along coastal areas. Fish, marine invertebrates, small mammals and waterfowl are primary

species consumed by bald eagles (Alaska DFG 2012). Historical surveys conducted by the FWS

show nesting sites within the Project affected area along the coastline in Gilbert Bay (Figure 6).

Bald eagles were observed throughout the Project affected area, especially near the fish

bearing creeks. No bald eagle nest surveys were conducted. Nests sites previously identified FWS

were not verified during 2012 field studies. Northern goshawk surveys conducted in June and July

of 2012 did not reveal bald eagle nests in the survey grid (Kai Environmental 2012c).

Nesting habitat is available along the entire coast line of Gilbert Bay, including the location

of the proposed docking facilities, the proposed road and the proposed transmission line along

Snettisham Peninsula. The 2008 Tongass Forest Plan standards and guidelines require the protection

of beach fringe habitat (up to 1000 feet in from coastline) and habitat around nests (USDA Forest

Service 2008a).

35 | P a g e

Figure 7: Location of bald eagle nests in Gilbert Bay near the Sweetheart Lake

Hydroelectric Project. Information is based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey data.


Project effects on bald eagles include nest and perch tree removal along the coast road

route and the overhead transmission line right-of-way; collision and/or electrocution from

overhead lines; and noise disturbance during construction activities. Project activities are not

expected to have an impact on foraging activities of bald eagles, as prey resources would still be

abundant within and adjacent to the Project affected area.

36 | P a g e

For the purpose of this effects analysis, a shoreline buffer zone of 1,000 feet inland was

used, and the calculated areas were for high volume POG within that zone. The coastal road falls

within the 1,000 foot coast buffer. A loss of high and low volume POG for the coastal road would

be approximately 4.6 acres. Included in the affected area are the powerhouse facilities and the

transmission line along Snettisham Peninsula. The clearing of POG could remove nesting trees

particularly near Sweetheart Creek and other fish bearing streams within the Project affected area.

Prior to construction activities, such as tree clearing, nest surveys would be conducted to determine

if bald eagle nests are present. If active nest exist within the 1,000 shore line buffer zone, the nest

location in relation to project features and construction activity would need to be considered. JHI

would consult with the FWS if active nesting occurs in the vicinity of the Project to develop

measures to avoid or minimize Project affects. If Project affects cannot be avoided a permit from

the FWS may be required.

Bald eagles have the potential to be electrocuted by overhead transmission lines. However,

this is unlikely since the conductor spacing on a 138 kv transmission line are greater than 60 inches,

the distance recommended by the APLIC and the transmission line would be designed according to

the criteria developed by the APLIC. While no bald eagle nest trees were documented along

Snettisham Peninsula during the 2012 northern goshawk field studies, the proposed transmission

line does fall within the 1000’ shoreline buffer and POG habitat exists. The Project reduces the

amount of overhead transmission lines by burying cable between the powerhouse facilities and the

dock on the east side of Gilbert Bay, and by utilizing submarine cable across Gilbert Bay and Port

Snettisham. In addition, a T-shaped power pole design was chosen, to reduce the risk of overhead

collisions.

The Project construction timeline would include noise disturbing activities such as

blasting, drilling, pile driving and helicopter use during the timeframe when bald eagles would be

nesting. Bald eagles begin building nests in February, and a majority of the noise from

construction would occur from March to June in the first construction year. If nests are occupied

when construction begins, construction noise may cause adults to abandon nest. Construction

noise would be considered a moderate effect to bald eagles. The FWS National Bald Eagle

Guidelines for complying with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act recommend a 330 foot

buffer (no construction) from a nest when the activity cannot be seen from the nest, and 660 foot

buffer from the nest when the activity can be seen from the nest (FWS 2007).

In addition to construction noise, helicopter activity along Snettisham Peninsula may

disturb nesting and foraging bald eagles. Bald eagles generally perch in large trees along the

coastline, and helicopters installing the transmission line towers are expected to cross from

Gilbert Bay inland to the transmission line corridor on Snettisham Peninsula multiple times a day

for three to four months within one construction season, thus flying overhead from where bald

eagles may perch or nest. Helicopter activity and noise could disturb eagles while they are

feeding, and could lead to bald eagle nest failures or abandonment. Helicopter use for the

installation of transmission lines on Snettisham Peninsula would be considered a moderate level

of effect on bald eagles. During operations helicopters would also be used to transport sockeye

smolts from the Sweetheart Lake capture facilities to the holding pool near the powerhouse. The

FWS National Bald Eagle Guidelines for complying with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection

Act recommend avoid operating aircraft within 1,000 feet of a nest during breeding season

(2007). Preconstruction surveys of the helicopter flight pathways could identify nest sites and

37 | P a g e

flight pathways could be designed to avoid nest sites.

Project effects on bald eagles may be moderate during construction if active nests are

located within the Project affected area. Once the Project is complete it is expected that Project

effects would be minor.

Black Bear

Black bear (Ursus americanus) are common to the area and use estuarine, riparian and

forested habitats. Black bear were observed in numerous field surveys within the Sweetheart

Lake basin (Kai Environmental 2012a). It is likely they den within the lake basin, as an individual

was observed during April of 2012 (Alaska DFG, Kai Environmental 2012a). While black and

brown bear ranges don’t commonly overlap, there is suitable habitat for black bear within the

Project affected area that is outside of the Sweetheart Lake basin, including the coastal

environments of Gilbert Bay and Port Snettisham. Black bears den in rock cavities, hollow trees,

excavations and on the ground from sea level to alpine areas (Alaska DFG, 2008).

The 2008 Tongass Forest Plan recommends implementing strategies to prevent the

habituation of bears to human foods/garbage and reduce the chance of human/bear incidents



Projects effects to black bear include habitat removal, loss of den habitat, increased access

and use may increase mortality, increase in black bear and human interactions related to camp

operations and increased noise from construction and operations which may alter behavior.

The Project would result in the permanent loss of approximately 340 acres of high and

low volume POG. In Gilbert Bay, there is approximately 21,630 acres of high and low volume

POG available to black bears in VCUs 550 and 570. Given the amount of available habitat for

black bears in the region and the number of bears, habitat removal (less than 2 percent of

available POG) would be considered minor.

The permanent raising of the Sweetheart Lake level would remove approximately 440

acres of potential black bear denning habitat. Construction of the dam would occur in May and

June of the second construction season, therefore the lake level would rise and reach capacity

when black bears are active and not in dens.

The within the active storage area on the reservoir water levels of are expected to raise

starting late summer and continuing on through fall, peaking around December and January.

After the initial filing of the reservoir the fluctuation zone would be void of living vegetation

creating a barren inundation zone. The resulting loss of habitat would be insignificant when

considering the amount of available habitat in the Sweetheart Lake basin. However, this loss

could cause some bears to relocate to other areas that may already be occupied or cause mortality

of some individuals. Therefore, Project effects could be considered minor to moderate.

Construction and operation noise may cause black bears to avoid the area where noise

38 | P a g e

occurs. Construction noise from drilling, blasting, and use of heavy equipment at the dam site

would occur during. Black bear denning habitat is present, and bear sign (presumably black bear)

was document in 2012 field studies close to the outlet of Sweetheart Lake (Kai Environmental

2012b). Construction noise, particularly blasting noise, early in the spring has the potential to

disturb denning black bears at Sweetheart Lake, Project effects from construction noise are

considered minor because the potential effects would short term only occur over two construction

seasons.

There is a potential for black bear to become habituated to human activity if the

construction camps are not maintained as clean camps. Kitchen waste and trash would be kept

indoors in secure bear proof containers so the camp is not a source of food for bears. If proper

camp maintenance procedures are kept, the potential Project effect would be negligible.

Noise associated with Project operations would be minimal as the Project facilities are

lower in elevation near lower Sweetheart Falls. It is assumed that black bear use of this area

would be limited due to the presence of brown bear.

The human use of Gilbert Bay and Sweetheart Creek below the anadromous barrier may

increase, but access to Sweetheart Lake is not expected to increase. Since black bear occurrence is

considered less at Gilbert Bay due to the presence of brown bears, Project effects to black bear at

Gilbert Bay from hunting would be considered negligible. Likewise, an increase in black

bear/human interactions would also be negligible.

The overall Project effect on black bear populations in the Project area and vicinity would

be considered negligible.

Brown Bear

Brown bears (Ursus arctos) use a variety of habitats and prefer areas near anadromous fish

streams, estuaries and riparian areas. Brown bears are common at Sweetheart Creek during the

spring and summer, with Sweetheart Creek and the adjacent riparian areas having a high habitat

value. Brown bear were also observed along the coastal areas of Gilbert Bay, and have the

potential to occur at Sweetheart Lake (Kai Environmental 2012a). It is unknown if brown bears

den within the Project affected area, however den habitat is available. The late summer season

appears to be the most limiting period for brown bears, because of competition for fishing

resources along salmon streams. It is during this period of time that brown bears build fat reserves

essential to hibernating for the winter (USDA Forest Service 2008a).

The 2008 Tongass Forest Plan recommends 500 foot forest buffers around anadromous

streams (where forest structure exists) for brown bear foraging (USDA Forest Service 2008a). In

addition, the standards and guidelines for bear habitat management include implementing

strategies to prevent the habituation of bears to human foods/garbage and reduce chance of

human/bear incidents. This includes managing interactions to limit brown bear mortality from

illegal kills and defense of life and property (USDA Forest Service 2008a).

39 | P a g e


The potential Project effects to brown bear and brown bear habitat include habitat removal,

loss of foraging habitat, potential changes in prey abundance, increased human access and use of the

area, and increased noise from construction and operations which may alter behavior.

The Project would result in the permanent loss of approximately 52 acres of high and low

volume POG throughout the Project area with the proposed coastal road. An additional 288 acres

of high and low volume POG would be lost by the inundation of Sweetheart Lake. Brown bears

are more likely to occur and have been observed around Gilbert Bay, so habitat losses are

compared to VCUs 550 and 570 only. The available high and low volume POG in VCUs 550 and

570 is 21,630 acres. The Project would affect approximately 52 acres of high and low volume

POG at Gilbert Bay. Therefore, less than 0.05% of the available habitat for brown bears within

VCUs 550 and 570 would be affected by the Project and effects would be considered minor.

The powerhouse facilities and a portion of the proposed road fall within the recommended

500-foot riparian/forested buffer along Sweetheart Creek, and vegetation removal is proposed

within this buffer zone. Approximately 4.22 acres of high volume POG and 3.44 acres of low

volume POG would be removed for the powerhouse facilities and coastal road within the 500’

streamside buffer, for a total of 7.66 acres. The lower reach of Sweetheart Creek, where brown

bears actively catch fish, is approximately 0.25 mile (roughly measured in Google Earth). Brown

bears generally access Sweetheart Creek from the north side, where the powerhouse facilities

would be located. The north side of Sweetheart Creek within the 0.25 mile section currently has

approximately 15.15 acres of riparian/forested buffer. The proposed coastal road would remove

approximately 33% of the available riparian/forested buffer available to brown bear at Sweetheart

Creek, which would be considered moderate and not in accordance with Tongass Forest Plan

Wildlife Standards and Guideline IX.B which suggests that the buffers for bears be evaluated


The proposed action improves access to Sweetheart Creek, through the construction of

docking facilities and improved foot traffic access from a road/trail. Improved access would

potentially increase the use of the current personal use fishery at Sweetheart Creek, thus

increasing the risk of bear/human interactions. Further, a full-time caretaker would be stationed

near the dock in caretaker facilities. This increase in bear/human interactions may increase the

likelihood of brown bear mortality, particularly in defense of life situations. The 2008 Tongass

Forest Plan standards and guidelines recommend projects minimize such interactions. The Project

would minimize interactions at facilities by requiring on-site personnel and facilities to store food

in bear proof containers and pack out garbage from all field sites (USDA Forest Service 2008a).

The effect of mortality through defense of life interactions would be considered minor.

The proposed trap and transport method of moving sockeye smolts from Sweetheart Lake to

the holding pool near the switchyard may reduce smolt mortality that results from migration through

the steep narrow Sweetheart Creek gorge. Increased smolt survival may increase the number of

sockeye returning to Sweetheart Creek below the barrier falls which may also increase brown bear

and human activity in the area. On one hand this is a positive Project effect and could potentially

improve brown bear conditions before denning. On the other hand it may also increase the potential

for bear/human interactions. The effect would be negligible if a human/bear interaction education

40 | P a g e

program were implemented and made available to the construction workers, operating personnel,

and general public. Also, signage would be placed at key locations along the coastal road advising

users to use developed pathways provided by the Project and to avoid approaching bears.

While the overall Project effects on brown bear may be considered minor to moderate,

components of habitat removal would not be in accordance with the standards and guidelines set

forth in the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan.

Brown creepers, Hairy woodpeckers and/or Red-breasted sapsuckers

Brown creepers (Certhia Americana) are found in productive old growth forest throughout

Southeast Alaska and are considered year round permanent residents. They rely on large diameter

POG for nesting and foraging, which are generally defined in the Forest Service size density

SD67. There is suitable habitat for Brown creepers within the Project, specifically within VCU

570, however no Brown creepers were observed during field surveys (Kai Environmental 2012a).

Hairy woodpeckers (Picoides villosus) also rely on POG in the size density SD67 and

commonly use snags and dying trees for foraging and nesting. They are a permanent resident

throughout Southeast Alaska. As with brown creepers, there is suitable habitat within the Project

area, however no hairy woodpeckers were observed during field surveys (Kai Environmental

2012a).

Red-breasted sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus ruber) use a variety of forest habitats and require

the presence of snags for nesting habitat. They are indicative of low volume old growth forest,

which is represented by the Forest Service size density SD4H. There is suitable habitat for Red-

breasted sapsuckers in the Project affected area. One Red-breasted sapsucker was observed

during 2012 field surveys at Sweetheart Lake (Kai Environmental 2012a).


Potential Project effects on brown creepers, hairy woodpeckers and/or red-breasted

sapsuckers include removal of POG habitat and the potential for noise disturbance from

construction which may alter behavior and/or result in nest destruction or abandonment.

The Project would remove approximately 70.27 acres of SD4H habitat, identified as

important habitat for red-breasted sapsuckers. The total SD4H habitat available across all three

VCUs is 4,209 acres. Therefore the Project would remove approximately 2% of red-breasted

sapsucker habitat.

Brown creepers and hairy woodpeckers are reliant upon the habitat classification SD67.

The total amount of SD67 habitat affected by the Project occurs on Snettisham Peninsula, with an

approximate loss of 21 acres of SD67 POG classed habitat. Within VCU 570 and 550 (which

represents Snettisham Peninsula) there is a total of 2,030 acres of SD67 habitat class available.

Therefore approximately 1% of available habitat for brown creepers and hairy woodpeckers

would be removed.

The vegetation removal timeframe for avoiding nesting and other disturbance activities for

41 | P a g e

brown creepers, hairy woodpeckers and red-breasted sapsuckers would be from April 15 to July 15

(FWS, 2009b). The Project construction activities would occur during this timeframe, therefore

would conflict with nesting season. These effects would include the potential for nest destruction

when vegetation is cleared and nest abandonment from construction noise adjacent to intact

habitat.

Removal of brown creeper, hairy woodpeckers and red-breasted sapsucker habitat would

be less than 2% of the available habitat within the Project analysis area and are therefore

considered minor. Project effects from construction activities, such as vegetation clearing and

noise producing activities during nesting season would also be considered minor, because

vegetation removal would occur once during the first construction season and there is an

abundance of habitat within the Sweetheart Lake basin and surrounding area.

Mountain Goat

Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) occupy cliffs in alpine and subalpine habitats, as

well as old growth forests. Mountain goats have high site fidelity to wintering habitat, and in

British Columbia used less than 14% of home range in the winter (R. Scott, personal

communication, 2012; Poole et al. 2009). In Southeast Alaska, during the winter, mountain goats

prefer habitat with topographic variables such as escape terrain (generally steep slopes of broken

rocky terrain), south facing slopes for warm solar aspect, and availability of high quality forage.

High and low volume POG assist to intercept snow, which helps to provide important winter

browse species such as conifers, mosses, lichen, huckleberry, bramble, blueberry, and deer fern

(Fox and Smith 1988). The above habitat criteria make most of the northern shoreline of

Sweetheart Lake high value mountain goat habitat. While less preferable, there are also smaller

areas of potential winter habitat on the southern shoreline of Sweetheart Lake (R. Scott, personal

communication, 2012).

There is a potential for goats to inhabit the Project affected area during winter months and

during spring kidding season. Mountain goats have been observed in surveys conducted by

Alaska DFG in the alpine area surrounding the Sweetheart Lake basin during summer months. No

goats were observed during winter surveys, nor were there indicators of goats using the Project

affected area during the winter (Kai Environmental 2012a). However, surveys were limited in

scope due to hazardous conditions, so mountain goat winter habitat use in the Project affected

area cannot be ruled out.

Using the Lynn Canal mountain goat resource selection function model, Alaska DFG

developed Figure 8 which depicts the predicted relative probability of mountain goat use in the

Sweetheart Lake watershed. The model reaffirms that most of the northern shore of Sweetheart

Lake could have relatively high use by mountain goats in the winter. There could also be

moderate use along the south shore of Sweetheart Lake (Figure 8).

The 2008 Tongass Forest Plan standard and guidelines recommend, where feasible, to

maintain important winter habitat for mountain goat (USDA Forest Service 2008a). This includes

locating facilities, developments and activities one mile or more from important wintering and

42 | P a g e

Figure 8: Predicted relative probability of mountain goat use in the Sweetheart Lake watershed.

kidding habitat. If helicopters or fixed-wing aircrafts are used during construction, a 1,500 foot

horizontal or vertical clearance around alpine habitat is recommended. Additionally, it is

recommended flight paths should avoid mountain goat kidding areas from May 15 through June

15.


The Project has the potential to effect mountain goats from loss of winter habitat around

the lake, increased human access during construction may increase mortality, and increased noise

from construction and operation may alter behavior. Outside winter months, mountain goats

utilize alpine habitats, which would not be affected by the Project.

Around Sweetheart Lake, the permanent loss of habitat due to the increase in lake

elevation would be approximately 442 acres. Of these 442 acres, there is approximately 288

acres of high and low volume POG that would be affected.

Approximately 150 acres of this POG is within the high value mountain goat habitat

identified for the Project affected area (Figure 8). Approximately 36% of the available high value

mountain goat habitat around Sweetheart Lake would be lost. This Project effect would be

considered moderate, as a significant amount of available winter habitat would be removed.

Noise at the lake would occur during construction of the dam and would include blasting

and drilling activities and operation of heavy equipment at the outlet of the lake. Start of

43 | P a g e

construction during the planned two construction seasons would begin in April and therefore

overlap with wintering and kidding mountain goats. As snow melt progresses mountain goats are

expected to follow the snow line up slope and be more closely associated with alpine areas during

the summer months of construction seasons.

During Project operations, JHI would be implementing a sockeye smolt capturing

operation. Smolts generally migrate from Sweetheart Lake during Mid June. During this period

smolts would be captured and then transported via helicopter to a holding pool near the

powerhouse switchyard to acclimate before release to lower Sweetheart Creek to continue their

migration to Gilbert Bay. Helicopter transport of smolts would likely occur over a three week

period from the first week of June till the 3rd

week of June. This outmigration period could overlap

mountain goat wintering and kidding in the vicinity of the outlet of Sweetheart Lake.

Overall Project effects to mountain goats would be moderate. The Project would remove

approximately 150 acres of potential wintering habitat, which is a limiting factor in mountain

goat survival. Also, initiation of construction would overlap with the presence of mountain goats

and during kidding season. Blasting, helicopter flights, and construction noise could affect

mountain goat use of high quality wintering habitat and cause additional stress during kidding.

Measures to mitigate Project effects include surveys for evidence of goat activity near the outlet

of Sweetheart Lake prior to construction and smolt capture and transport activities. If evidence

of goat presence in the area, flight paths would designed to maintain 1,500 feet vertical and

horizontal distance to the extent possible. While individual mountain goats may be affected, the

Project is not expected to significantly affect the population within the WAA.

Red squirrel

Red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) are found in productive old growth forest and

young growth stands. They require cone-producing trees for foraging and tree cavities and

snags for nesting and denning. There is suitable habitat for Red squirrels throughout the Project

affected area

Red squirrels and denning sites were observed around the Sweetheart Lake basin during

the 2012 field studies (Kai Environmental 2012a). Young growth is also important for recruiting

new cone-producing tree stands.


The Project could potentially affect red squirrels through the removal of POG habitat and

young growth habitat. There are 39,895 acres of high and low volume POG (VCUs 550, 570 and

610) and 279.8 acres young growth habitat (VCU 610) available through the Project affected area.

The Project would remove 340 acres of high and low volume POG. Lost young growth

habitat occurs only at Sweetheart Lake (VCU 610), with 5.5 acres permanently lost by creating the

reservoir. The removal of trees in these habitats would affect individual red squirrels. Less than 1%

of available high and low volume POG would be removed by the Project, and approximately 2% of

available young growth would be removed. Given the remaining available habitat within and

adjacent to Project area, Project effects to red squirrel would be considered minor.

44 | P a g e

River Otter

River otter (Lutra canadensis) are generally associated with coastal, estuarine and riverine

areas that are adjacent to uplands with POG for cover (Kai Environmental 2012a). Prey resources

consist of a variety of intertidal macroinvertebrates and fish, as well as small birds or mammals

(Alaska DFG, 2012), which are often consumed under the cover of adjacent uplands vegetation

(Kai Environmental 2012a).

River otters generally den in burrows, and they are active during the winter where they dig

elaborate tunnels in snow over frozen lakes (Alaska DFG, 2008). River otters were observed in

the Project field studies with a direct observation of a river otter above Sweetheart Falls in 2011

(R. Carstensen, personal communication, 2012) and a “staging area” on a bluff between the beach

and the proposed powerhouse road (Kai Environmental 2012a).


The potential Project effects on river otters and their habitat include direct habitat removal,

interrupting foraging corridors by the proposed road, increased access and use of the area which

may result in increased trapping, and construction noise which may alter behavior.

The Project would result in the permanent loss of approximately 339 acres of high and low

volume POG throughout the Project area. All POG in the Project affected area constitutes 39,895

acres across 3 VCUs. Therefore, the Project, regardless of alternative would remove

approximately 1% of the available habitat within the Project affected area. Loss of POG habitat

would be considered minor and is not likely to affect the population river otter.

River otters that forage in open intertidal areas move just inside the forest canopy to

escape potential predation before consuming prey. Access between these two habitat types may

be affected for approximately one mile along the east side of Gilbert Bay by the coast road/trail

alternative. The available shoreline in Gilbert Bay, from Sharp Point on Snettisham Peninsula

south to the southern shoreline of Gilbert Bay and then north to the Whiting River, is

approximately 7.5 miles (measured in Google Earth). Approximately 13% of the shoreline would

be affected, however once the road is constructed and the Project is completed, river otter would

be able to resume foraging activities in their usual manner. Therefore the Project effects on

foraging area would be considered minor.

Trapping of river otter within the Project affected area is unknown, but likely to be low

given the distance and expense of accessing the area. The Project would improve access, by

providing docking; however improved access would be limited to the eastern side of Gilbert Bay.

Distance and expense to Gilbert Bay would still be a limiting factor for trapping; therefore the

Project is not expected to improve access enough to where increased trapping of river otter would

occur. Improved access is expected to have negligible effects on river otters.

Construction is planned over two seasons, and noise and construction activity are likely to

cause river otters to avoid areas where construction is occurring. River otters have pups that

remain in dens for approximately 2 months during the period of mid-January through June

(Alaska DFG, 2008). When river otters are not with pups in dens, they would presumably be able

45 | P a g e

to avoid or escape areas directly affected by construction and construction noise. If construction

activities, such as large tree removal and rock blasting, occur during pupping, then construction

could affect individual river otters and their young. Project effects from construction would be

considered minor, as the impact would be short lived and over the course of two years.

Sitka black-tailed Deer

Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) are found throughout Southeast

Alaska, occupying a variety of habitats. Winter range habitat can be a limiting factor in

determining deer populations in an area. During winter and early spring, they are restricted to

uneven-aged and high volume POG forests less than 800 feet in elevation.

In 2012, a winter range deer habitat study was conducted to determine how well the

Project affected area supports populations of Sitka black-tailed deer. The study determined that

the Project affected area around Gilbert Bay had high quality deer habitat, and that the quality of

habitat decreased as the distance from the coast increased (Kai Environmental 2012a). This was

largely due to the snow intercept factor, making the Project affected area around the Sweetheart

Lake basin less likely to support deer populations even though the quality of forage species at

Sweetheart Lake was not different than Gilbert Bay (Kai Environmental 2012a).

Year round habitat is available throughout the Project affected area, and signs of Sitka

black-tail deer were documented along Snettisham peninsula during the 2012 field season (Kai

Environmental 2012a). One Sitka black-tailed deer was reported as harvested from the Project

affected area between 1999-2008 (Scott 2010) indicating low population, low utilization, or both.


The Project would effect Sitka black-tailed deer by removal of high and low volume POG

habitat. Tree clearing may affect deer in a number of different ways. Though cleared areas may

result in a subsequent increase in summer forage, eventually long term conifer growth becomes

too thick and even to provide sufficient light for understory forage. Large cleared areas change

the suitability of an area as deer winter habitat and also results in habitat fragmentation, which may

change deer populations through the alteration of forage availability and seasonal movement

(Forest Service, 2007).

The Project would remove approximately 340 acres of high and low volume POG in

Project affected area. There is approximately 11,065 acres of high and low volume POG in VCUs

550, 570, and 610 under 800 feet in elevation. Therefore, the removal of habitat is approximately

3% of the available habitat and would be considered a minor Project effect.

Along the transmission line corridor, once POG is removed, vegetation would be

maintained in an early-seral stage. Management of the transmission line right-of-way would

include removal or trimming broad-leaved deciduous species, such as alder, approximately every

10 years. While opening up the POG habitat may increase the amount of browse species available

for Sitka black-tailed deer, high and low volume habitat is more beneficial as it offers winter

range habitat which is limiting for Sitka black-tailed deer. Larger trees intercept snow, allow for

winter browse species to be protected under the canopy and protect deer from predation.

46 | P a g e

Therefore removal of POG along the Snettisham Peninsula for the overhead transmission line

would result in a loss of approximately 44 acres of high value winter habitat. Snettisham

Peninsula is within VCU570, where there would be approximately 13,614 acres of high and low

volume POG remaining. Therefore loss of winter range habitat along Snettisham Peninsula

would be considered a minor Project effect.

The Project would improve access on the eastern shore of Gilbert Bay where the proposed

dock, road and powerhouse facilities are located. While the Project affected area has high value

deer habitat, particularly around Gilbert Bay, harvest records showed only one harvested deer in a

10 year period (Scott 2010). Deer sign around Gilbert Bay was also lower than expected given the

amount of habitat available (Kai Environmental 2012a). Harvest records for all of Game

Management Unit 1C indicate that very little deer hunting effort occurs on the mainland (Kai

Environmental 2012a). In addition, predators such as bear and wolves that may inhabit the area

may keep deer numbers low. Access improvements would be confined to a small portion of the

eastern shore of Gilbert Bay, and given the expense and distance to nearby communities,

improved access is not expected to increase deer hunting opportunities. Therefore, improved

access would be considered negligible.

Overall, Project effects to Sitka black-tailed deer by the Project would be considered minor.

Vancouver Canada Goose

Vancouver Canada geese (Branta canadensis) are found in wetlands, estuary, riparian, and

upland areas. They nest in coastal forests, frequently building nests and rearing young in old-

growth spruce and hemlock forests, on the margins and island in small ponds, along river banks,

and in trees (Mowbray et al. 2002; Alaska DFG, 2008). Vancouver Canada geese overwinter in

Southeast Alaska along marine waters in grass habitats (Alaska DFG, 2008). There is suitable

nesting habitat throughout the Project affected area, and suitable overwintering habitat adjacent to

the Project affected area along the south shoreline of Gilbert Bay. No Vancouver Canada geese

were observed during 2012 field studies for wildlife.

The 2008 Tongass Forest Plan recommends conducting activities that avoid or minimize

disturbance to habitats that important nesting, brooding, rearing and molting areas for Vancouver

Canada geese (Forest Service, 2008).


The Project would remove approximately 51acres of potential nesting habitat in Gilbert

Bay for Vancouver Canada geese; Inundation at Sweetheart Lake would remove 288 acres of

nesting habitat for Vancouver Canada geese. The FWS recommended timeframe for avoiding

vegetation clearing and disturbance of forested habitats for nesting birds is April 15- July 15

(FWS 2009b). Potential nesting habitat at Sweetheart Lake would be removed when the reservoir

is filled, which would be outside of nesting timeframe indicted by the FWS. Construction,

including Project effects on forested areas, around Gilbert Bay would occur begin in April of the

first construction season and continue through till the fall/winter. Therefore the Project would

remove potential nesting habitat while Vancouver Canada geese are nesting. In addition,

construction noise may disturb nesting Vancouver Canada geese in adjacent areas during nesting

47 | P a g e

season.

The Project is not expected to have significant effect on the habitat in the tidal flats located

adjacent to the Project in southern Gilbert Bay. While changes in flow regime may have minor in-

stream channel affects, this is not expected to disturb the existing vegetation structure. Habitat in

south Gilbert Bay is largely affected by tidal exchange (Kai Environmental 2012a). Therefore, no

direct Project effects to overwintering habitat for Vancouver Canada geese are expected.

Overall Project effect on Vancouver Canada geese would be minor. However, no

Vancouver Canada geese were observed during the 2012 studies.

3.2.4 Migratory Birds

Affected Environment

There are approximately 295 species of birds that occur regularly in Alaska, most of which

are considered migratory. They migrate between the lower 48 states Central, and South America,

to breeding grounds in Alaska. Most of these birds only pass through Southeast Alaska on their

way to breeding grounds in interior and northern Alaska.

There are 40 bird species of management concern that occur in the Tongass National

Forest. Of these 40 species, 10 were documented within the Project affected area during field

surveys (Table 7). In addition, the FWS hosts a list of Bird Species of Conservation Concern,

which has approximately 31 species identified for Alaska. Of these, 5 species were verified

within the Project affected area. Table 7 includes a modified version of the list of bird species

documented in the 2012 Wildlife Study Report (Kai Environmental 2012a).

There have been no comprehensive studies in the Project affected area, however there is suitable

habitat for migratory bird species, including: coastal and tidewater habitats,

hemlock/spruce/cedar forested areas, shrub thickets, muskeg, and mixed deciduous/spruce

forests. During a 1997 survey, the FWS conducted a winter bird survey of the Sweetheart Creek

flats (the tidal flats located at the southern end of Gilbert Bay) and documented 6 species,

including: bufflehead, gull, Canada goose, goldeneye, mallard and swan (FWS 2010).

Table 10: Avian species seen or heard during field studies for the Sweetheart Lake Project, near

Gilbert Bay, Alaska (Kai Environmental 2012a). Location abbreviations are: L =

Sweetheart Lake, B = Gilbert Bay, and SP = Snettisham Peninsula. Highlighted cells

represent observed species that are listed as Forest Service or FWS species of concern.

Common Name

Scientific Name

Forest Service

Species of Concern?

FWS Species of

Conservation Concern?

Location in Study Area

American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus Y N L

American Robin Turdus migratorius N N L

Arctic Tern Stema paradisaea Y Y B

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus N Y L, SP, B

Bonaparte's Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia N N B

Canada Goose Branta canadensis N N L, B

48 | P a g e

Chestnut‐backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens Y N L, SP

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula N N L, B

Common Loon Gavia immer N N L, B

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas N N B

Dark‐eyed Junco Junco hyemalis N N L, SP

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias N N L, B, SP

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca N N B

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus N N L,B

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus N N L, SP

Herring Gull Larus argentatus N N L,B

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus N Y B

Mew Gull Larus canus N N L, SP, B

Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli N N L

Northwestern Crow Corvis caurinus Y N L,B

Olive‐sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi N Y L

Orange‐crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata N N L

Pacific (Winter) Wren Troglodytes pacificus N N L, SP

Pacific‐slope Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis Y N L, SP

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba N N B

Ptarmigan Lagopus sp. N N L

Red‐breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber Y N L

Red‐necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena N N B

Red‐Throated Loon Gavia stellata N N L, B

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Y Y SP

Sooty Grouse Dendragapus fuliginosus Y N L, SP

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius N N L

Stellar's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri Y N L, SP

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata N N B

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor N N L

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius Y N L, SP

White‐winged Scoter Melanitta fusca N N B

Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla N N B


The Project would potentially affect migratory birds by the removal of vegetation resulting

in loss of nesting and foraging habitat. Construction and operations noise may also alter migratory

bird behavior. There is also a risk of collisions with overhead transmission lines.

The Project with the coastal road results in an approximate effect of 502 acres of terrestrial

habitat and 6.35 acres of intertidal habitat. Of the terrestrial habitat, approximately 68% is high

and low volume POG. Habitat removed by the construction of the dam, tunnel, powerhouse

facilities, and dock and habitat submerged by the reservoir inundation would be permanent.

Vegetation would be removed from the overhead section of transmission line right-of-way but

would be allowed to regrow and maintained in a mid-serial stage.

Other habitat types, besides POG, are important for migratory birds. Waterfowl and

shorebirds were frequently observed in Gilbert Bay, and the tide flats in southern Gilbert Bay

likely provides important migratory waterfowl habitat. The Project is not expected to alter the

49 | P a g e

vegetation structure or landscape of these areas. However, construction activities may alter

behavior of migratory birds.

Removal of habitat during the construction season and construction noise could affect

migratory birds. Most of the habitat removal would occur in the first year, starting as early as

April, to brush and grub for the road, clear timber for the powerhouse facilities and clear

vegetation for the overhead transmission lines. Blasting activities would also be one of the first

construction activities in Gilbert Bay at the quarry. Mobilization of construction equipment into

Gilbert Bay would most likely be prior to the timeframe that migratory birds would be returning

to the area, given a startup time of April. If habitat is removed prior to birds returning to the

Project affected area and establishing nest sites, then effects would be negligible. Removal of

vegetation during the nesting season would have moderate effect on migratory birds.

Construction noise during the nesting season may also have a minor effect on migratory birds, as

adults may abandon nests.

According to APLIC, Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: State of

the Art in 2006.

“Bird electrocutions may occur because of a combination of biological,

environmental, and electrical design factors. Biological and environmental

factors include:

Habitat

Bird species (body size, behavior, distribution and abundance)

Prey availability

The key electrical design factor is the physical separation between energized and

or grounded parts. If the distance between energized conductors or between an

energized conductor and grounded hardware is less than that of the head-to-foot

or wrist-to-wrist (flesh-to-flesh) distance of a bird (the wrist is the joint toward

the middle of the leading edge of a bird’s wing; the skin covering the wrist is the

outermost fleshy part on the wing). Because a bird’s feathers provide insulation

when dry, contact must typically be made with fleshy parts, such as the skin, feet,

or bill, for electrocution to occur. Consequently, most electrocutions are of large

birds, such as eagles, hawks, and ravens.”

Recommendations for prevention of electrocution are:

“Electrocution Prevention

To prevent bird electrocutions from occurring, one of two methods may be used:

Framing structures so that there is adequate separation between phases or phases

and grounds to accommodate large perching birds. Based on the dimensions of

eagles, APLIC recommends 60 inches of horizontal separation and 40 inches of

vertical separation.

50 | P a g e

Applying covers on phases or grounds where adequate separation is not feasible.

Examples of covers include insulator/conductor covers, bushing covers, arrester

covers, cutout covers, and jumper wire covers. Cover designs should be

evaluated and approved by company engineers prior to use. (Note: bird/animal

protection covers are not intended for human protection).

The “incidental, accidental or unintentional take” of migratory birds is

prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), however the FWS

attempts to work with industries whose actions may result in bird deaths (FWS

2002). Consultation with FWS may result in additional mitigation measures to

reduce Project effects on migratory birds. Overhead transmission lines over 70kV

have adequate conductor spacing to prevent phase to phase or phase to ground

contacts preventing avian electrocution. Designing transmission line according

to APLIC guidelines should minimize the potential for avian collisions with the

transmission line. The effect of avian collisions with the transmission line would

be minor.”

Electrocution is not expected to be a problem with a 138 kV transmission line since

conductor spacing would exceed the recommended 60 inches. Therefore project effects

due to electrocution are considered to be negligible.

3.2.5 Subsistence

An ANILCA 810 analysis addresses three factors related to subsistence uses: 1) resource

51 | P a g e

distribution and abundance; 2) access to resources; and 3) competition for the use of resources.

The evaluation determines whether subsistence uses within the Project affected area may be

significantly restricted by the proposed actions.

Gilbert Bay/Sweetheart Creek falls within District 11 of the federal subsistence regulations

and there is no subsistence fishing within the district. There is a personal use sockeye fishery

managed by the State of Alaska at Sweetheart Creek.

The Project falls within Game Management Unit 1C for federal subsistence regulations.

Subsistence hunting regulations for this unit include the following resources, which are available

to specified rural residents:

Sitka blacktail deer: rural residents of Unit 1C, 1D, Hoonah, Kake and Petersburg

Mountain goat: rural residents of Haines, Hoonah, Kake, Klukwan, and Petersburg

Black bear: rural residents of Unit 1C, 1D, Hoonah, Pelican, Point Baker, Sitka

and Tenakee Springs

Brown bear: rural residents of 1C, Haines, Hoonah, Kake, Klukwan, Skagway,

and Wrangell, excluding Gustavus

Moose: rural residents of Units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

Wolves and wolverines: all rural residents

Subsistence trapping regulations include beaver, coyote, red fox, lynx, marten, mink,

muskrat, river otter, wolves and wolverine for all rural residents. Subsistence harvest of marine

mammals primarily includes harbor seals and sea otters; however harvest of marine mammals is

limited to coastal Alaskan Natives and is not managed under ANILCA. Management and

protection of marine mammals is covered by the MMPA.

Guidance set forth for wildlife analysis for subsistence consider deer the “indicator” for

potential subsistence resource affects, and therefore it is the only species addressed in this

analysis. Sitka black-tail deer were the only species found to have a possibility of a significant

restriction on subsistence users, during the Tongass Forest Plan subsistence analysis (USDA

Forest Service 2008b). Standards and Guidelines for Subsistence are outlined in the 2008 Tongass

Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008a; pp 4-68 to 4-69). Sitka black-tailed deer are discussed

above.

As noted in the 2012 Wildlife Study Report for the Project, one Sitka black-tailed deer was

harvested from the Project affected area between the years 1999-2008 (Kai Environmental 2012b;

Scott 2010). While it cannot be determined if the harvest was under subsistence or sport hunting

regulations, the harvest report lends to the likely low use of the Project affected area by all

harvesters. Sitka black-tailed deer sign were only noted in field studies near Gilbert Bay; however

there is deer habitat present throughout the Project affected area (Kai Environmental 2012a).

The Project would remove high and low volume POG habitat, which is important for

Sitka black-tailed deer. As discussed above, the amount of habitat lost by the proposed project

would be minimal when compared to the amount of habitat available. Habitat loss is not

52 | P a g e

expected to effect the distribution or the abundance Sitka black-tailed deer. Access and possibly

low deer population densities in the area are likely limiting factors for subsistence hunting use.

Gilbert Bay is approximately 85 miles from Kake, 195 miles from Hoonah and 100 miles

from Petersburg by boat. The time and fuel costs may be prohibitive, and deer are most likely

more abundant closer to these communities. By providing docking facilities in Gilbert Bay, the

Project may improve and potentially increase access to the eastern side of Gilbert Bay. As public

access, the dock and proposed road would be available to any one making the trip to Gilbert Bay.

The remainder of the Project affected area and adjacent areas would also still remain open for deer

hunting. No change as a result of the Project is expected to favor non-rural residents over rural

residents for the Sitka black-tail deer in Gilbert Bay.

Analysis of Project Effects This analysis of the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project concludes that the proposed

effects to subsistence would be minor.

53 | P a g e

4.0 REFERENCES

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=herring.photogallery&number=2).

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Alaska DFG) (1996). Goshawk ecology and habitat

relationships on the Tongass National Forest. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of

Wildlife Conservation. 1995 field season progress report. Prepared for: U.S. Forest Service and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Juneau, AK.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Alaska DFG) (2008). Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series.

Produced by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska.

Alaska DFG wildlife notebook series website (2012).

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/notehome.php

Alaska DFG. Website. September 2013. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=herring.main

Allen, B.M. and R.P. Angliss (2012a). Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessment: Humpback

Whale (Megapter novaeangliae): Western North Pacific Stock. NOAA-TM-AFSC-245. Revised

11/15/2011.

Allen, B.M. and R.P. Angliss (2012b). Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessment: Steller Sea

Lion (Eumetopias jubatus): Eastern U.S. Stock. NOAA-TM-AFSC-245. Revised 1/12/2012.

Allen, B.M. and R.P. Angliss (2012c). Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessment: Steller Sea

Lion (Eumetopias jubatus): Western U.S. Stock. NOAA-TM-AFSC-245. Revised 12/22/2011.

Allen, B.M. and R.P. Angliss (2012d). Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessment: Harbor

Seals (Phoca vitulina richardii). NOAA-TM-AFSC-245. Revised 5/4/2012.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian

Protection on Powerlines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and

California Energy Commission, Washington D.C. and Sacramento, CA.

APLIC (2012). Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines. State of the Art in 2012. Edison

Electric Institute and APLIC, Washington, D.C.

Baker, C.S., J.M. Straley and A. Perry (1992). Population characteristics of individually

identified humpback whales in southeastern Alaska: summer and fall 1986. Fishery Bulletin,

U.S. 90:429 – 437.

Blackwell, S.B. and Greene Jr., C.R. (2002). Acoustic measurements in Cook Inlet Alaska,

during August 2001. Prepared for National Marine Fisheries Service Contract number

40HANF100123 by Greenridge Sciences, Inc.

Bromley, R. G. and T. C. Rothe (2003). Conservation assessment for the Dusky Canada goose

(Branta canadensis occidentalis baird). Published by the US Department of Agriculture, Forest

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/notehome.php

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=herring.main

54 | P a g e

Service. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-591.

Carls, M.G., S.W. Johnson, M.R. Lindeberg, A.D. Neff, P.M. Harris and R. Waples (2008).

Status Review of Lynn Canal Herring (Clupea pallasii). Prepared for the National Marine

Fisheries Service.

CMACS (2003). A baseline assessment of electromagnetic fields generated by offshore

windfarm cables. COWRIE Report EMPF – 01-2002 66. University of Liverpool.

Copping, A. (2011). Assessing the Effects of MHK Device Operation on Aquatic Organisms.

Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Acoustic/Noise Physical Interactions. A presentation from the

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Daw, S.K., S. DeStefano and R.J. Steidl (1998). Does survey method bias the description of

northern goshawk nest-site structure? Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 1379-1384.

FHWA (2006). Construction Noise Handbook. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration. FHWA-HEP-06-015, accessed at website:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/

Fisher, C. and M. Slater (2010). Effects of electromagnetic fields on marine species: A

literature review. Prepared for Oregon Wave Energy Trust.

Flatten, C., Titus, K. and S.B. Lewis (2002). Technical assistance, analysis and dissemination of

results from an interagency northern goshawk study on the Tongass National Forest. Alaska

department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. Final Research Performance

Report.

Fox, J.L. and C.A. Smith (1988). Winter Mountain Goat Diets in Southeast Alaska. The Journal

of Wildlife Management 52(2):362-365.

HDR Alaska Inc., LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Greenridge Sciences, Inc. (2006).

Knik Arm Crossing; Final Underwater Measurements of Pile-Driving Sounds During the Port

MacKenzie Dock Modifications, 13-16 August, 2004. AKSAS Project No: 56047. Prepared for

Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

and the Federal Highway Administration.

Huang, Y. (2005). Electromagnetic simulations of 135 kV three-phase submarine power cables.

The University of Liverpool Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies Ltd. Birkenhead,

Merseyside.

Jensen, A.S. and G.K. Silber (2003). Large Whale Ship Strike Database. U.S. Department of

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-OPR- , 37pp.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/

55 | P a g e

Johnson, J. and P. Blanche (2012). Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, or

Migration of Anadromous Fishes – Southeastern Region, Effective June 1, 2012. Alaksa DFG

Special Publication No. 12-07.

Kai Environmental (2012a). 2012 Wildlife Study Report, Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric

Project, FERC No. 1356, Juneau Hydropower Inc., Juneau, Alaska.

Kai Environmental (2012b). 2012 Tidewater Study, Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project,

FERC No. 13563, Juneau Hydropower Inc., Juneau, Alaska.

Kai Environmental (2012c). 2012 Northern Goshawk Survey Report, Sweetheart Lake

Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 13563, Juneau Hydropower Inc., Juneau, Alaska.

Kreiger, K.J. and B.L. Wing (1986). Hydroacoustic monitoring of prey to determine humpback

whale movements. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-66, NMFS Auke Bay Lab.,

Juneau, 62 pp.

Mowbray, T. B., C. R. Ely, J. S. Sedinger, and R. E. Trost (2002). Canada Goose (Branta

anadensis). In: The Birds of orth America, No. 682 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). The Academy

of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' University.

NMFS. 2013. Petition to identify the North Pacific population of humback whale as a DPS and

delist the DPS under the endangered species ac. FR Doc.2013-21066. Filed 8-28-13.

National Marine Fisheries Service (2012a). Alaska Region website for Alaska species list of

threatened and endangered species. http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/

National Marine Fisheries Service (2012b). Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi ) species description

from NOAA Office of Protected Resources website.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/pacificherring.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service (2013). Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines and

Regulations website: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2009). Port Snettisham nautical

chart number 17313.

Normandeau, Exponent, T. Tricas, and A. Gill (2011). Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power

Cables on Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of

Ocean Energy Management, Regulations and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, CA.

OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-09.

Olsson, T., A. Larsson, P. Bergsten, and J. Nissen (2010). Impact of Electric and Magnetic

Fields from Submarine Cables on Marine Organisms: The Current State of Knowledge.

Prepared by Vattenfall Power Consultant and Vattenfall Research and Development.

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/pacificherring.htm

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm

56 | P a g e

Person, D.K. and A. L. Russell (2009). Reproduction and Den Site Selection by Wolves in a

Disturbed Landscape. Northwest Science 83(3)211-224.

Poole, K.G., K. Stuart-Smith and I.E. Teske (2009). Wintering strategies by mountain goats in

interior mountains. Canadian Journal of Zoology 87:273-283.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme and D.H. Thomson (1995). Marine mammals

and noise. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Scott, R. (2010). Letter from State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game in response to

information request from Juneau Hydropower regarding wildlife resources and harvest in the

Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project area.

Scott, R. (2013). Letter from State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game in response to

information request from Juneau Hydropower regarding beavers at Sweetheart Lake and the

proposed Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project.

Schroeder, D.M. and A. Scarborough Bull (2011). Understanding the potential impacts of EMF

on Marine Life: An update from the BOEM studies program. Presentation given to the 3rd

annual New England Marine Renewable Energy Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Sigler, M.F., D.J. Tollit, J.J. Vollenweider, J.F. Thedinga, D.J. Csepp, J.N. Womble, M.A.

Wong, M.J. Rehberg, and A.W. Trites (2009). Steller sea lion foraging response to seasonal

changes in prey availability. Marine Ecology Progress Series 388:243–261.

Slater, M. and A. Schultz (2010). Electromagnetic Field Study. Ambient electromagnetic fields

in the nearshore marine environment. Oregon WaveEnergy Trust.

Straley, J.M. (1990). Fall and Winter Occurrence of Humpback Whales (Megaptera

novaeangliae) in Southeast Alaska. Report International Whaling Commission (Special Issue

12):319-323.

Tessler, D. F., J. A. Johnson, B. A. Andres, S. Thomas, and R. B. Lanctot (2007). Black

oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) conservation action plan. International Black

Oystercatcher Working Group, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska and Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences,

Manoment, Massachusetts. From http://www.whsrn.org/shorebirds/conservation_plans.html.

Titus, K., C.J. Flatten, and R.E. Lowell, 1999. Goshawk ecology and habitat relationships on the

Tongass National Forest. Juneau, AK: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of

Wildlife Conservation; 1998 field season progress report.

URS (2007). Port of Anchorage Marine Terminal Development Project, Underwater Noise

Survey, Test Pile Driving Program. Prepared for Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation

by URS.

http://www.whsrn.org/shorebirds/conservation_plans.html

57 | P a g e

USDA Forest Service (2007). Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Tongass land and

Resource Management Plan Amendment. USDA Forest Service, R10-MB-602a.

USDA Forest Service (2008a). Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. Forest Service,

R10-MB-603-MB-603c

USDA Forest Service (2008b). Tongass Land and Resources Management Plan, Final

Environmental Impact Statement, Plan Amendment. R10-

58 | P a g e

USDA Forest Service (2009). Fish and Wildlife Resource Report. Reference Document to the

Biological Evaluation and Fish and Wildlife Project Level Analysis. United States Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2002). Migratory Bird Mortality: Many Human-Caused Threats

Afflict our Bird Populations. Factsheet: http://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2007). National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009a). Biological Assessment Workshop, National

Conservation Training Center, Training Materials issued October 27-28, 2009 in Anchorage,

Alaska.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009b). Alaska Region, website for brush clearing

recommendations for migratory birds.

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/fieldoffice/anchorage/pdf/vegetation_clearing.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010). Letter regarding: Review of Notice of Intent to File

License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Approving use of ALP,

Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 13563-001. Dated October 25, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012a). Alaska Region, website for Alaska species list of

threatened and endangered species. Updated May 24, 2013.

http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/esa/ak_specieslst.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012b). Alaska Seabird Information Series for Kittlitz’s

Murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) website.

http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/seabirds/pdf/kimu.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012c). Yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii) fact sheet website.

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/ybl_factsheet.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012d). Alaska Seabird Information Series for Aleutian Tern

(Onychoprion aleutica) website. http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/seabirds/pdf/alte.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service (2012e). Section 7 Email Response: Sweatheart Lake

Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 13563-001, from Richard Enriquez, Consultation #07CAJN00-

20120SL-0065

Winship, A.J., and A.W. Trites (2003). Prey consumption of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias

jubatus) off Alaska: How much prey do they require? Fishery Bulletin 101:147–167.

Womble, J., M. Sigler, and M. Willson (2009). Linking seasonal distribution patterns with prey

availability on a central-place forager, the Steller sea lion. Journal of Biogeography 36:

http://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/fieldoffice/anchorage/pdf/vegetation_clearing.pdf

http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/esa/ak_specieslst.pdf

http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/seabirds/pdf/kimu.pdf

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/ybl_factsheet.pdf

http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/seabirds/pdf/alte.pdf





APPENDIX V:

2014 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: BYPASS CANYON REACH HABITAT SUITABILITY

ASSESSMENT. INTER-FLUVE.

PREPARED BY:


Juneau, AK 99802

MAY 2014

Applied River and Wetland Restoration Founded 1983

Offices Nationwide 501 Portway Avenue, Suite 101, Hood Rivr, Oregon 97031

541.386.9003 www.interfluve.com

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Tech Memo Title: JHI Sweetheart Lake Hydropower Project

Bypass Canyon Reach Habitat Suitability Assessment

To: Duff Mitchell, Juneau Hydropower, Inc.

From: Lon Mikkelsen, Inter‐Fluve, Inc.

Date: April 7, 2014

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

Juneau Hydro, Inc. (JHI) is preparing a FERC license application for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P‐13563). The project would divert flow from the outlet of Lower Sweetheart Lake (57°56'43.25"N; 133°38'12.57"W) through a 9621 foot tunnel and penstock to a power plant before returning flow through a tailrace to Sweetheart Creek at the barrier falls.

This study evaluates river conditions and associated habitats required to maintain sustainable populations of various fish species along the Canyon Reach (Sweetheart Creek Bypass Reach) from the lake to upstream of the barrier falls near tidewater. Analysis of frequency of mobilization of spawning sized gravels was completed to evaluate the suitability of spawning habitats as one limiting factor necessary for a sustainable population of fish along the Canyon Reach. Analysis of frequency of mobilization of spawning sized gravels to the anadromous reach was considered.

EXIST ING DATA

Dangerous and inaccessible steep canyons prevent access to the Canyon Reach. The report relied on existing data and imagery for this phase of study. A number of data and studies have been completed by others that were made available and used for this study including:

LiDAR topography including the Canyon Reach

Various aerial photos

Overflight video

Hydrology Report (Civil Science, 2013)

2 of 7

FISH HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND L IMIT ING FACTORS

Fish species documented in the system include Dolly varden (S. malma), Rainbow trout (O. mykiss). Dolly varden are present in the lake, above the study reach, likely a population that established itself during the last ice age. Rainbow trout were introduced to the Sweetheart Lake in 1953 and 1954. Additionally, there is an artificial supplementation program for sockeye that is managed for regional residents’ harvest of adults below the barrier falls by the Douglas Island Pink and Chum (DIPAC) hatchery. Additional detail about the past and future management of this species can be found in the Fisheries Study Report (Aquatic Sciences, 2012). Historical stocking of rainbow (O. mykiss) has created a small population that forages on the stocked sockeye juveniles. Additional detail can be found in the JHI fisheries report (Aquatic Sciences, 2012). Criteria for some habitat necessary for sustainable populations of salmonids can be found in Table 1.

In evaluating the potential fisheries resources in the reach, the following functions have been considered:

Provision of spawning habitat

Provision of rearing habitat

Provision of holding habitat during juvenile or adult migration

The absence or significant limitation of one or more of these functions would prevent a self‐sustaining wild‐origin population from becoming established in the project reach. Based on the available data, analyses were completed to determine if spawning sized sediments are likely to exist and able to persist long enough to be usable by resident fish for spawning (see Hydraulics & spawning gravel mobility section).

The study reach likely provides temporary rearing and some limited spawning habitat at low discharges. Due to the confined nature of the channel in the canyon, it is unlikely that adult or juveniles would find adequate flood refuge habitat to persist in the reach during high flows. This reach is sediment supply limited, and due to the characteristics of the watershed, sediment supply comes from the side‐slopes, and the channel is an expression of bedrock and colluvial material supplied from adjacent hillslope processes (see Geomorphology & Sediment Supply section).

The mechanism for fish access to the reach appears largely in the upstream to downstream direction, due to the barrier falls at the bottom of the reach. This lack of upstream fish passage helps explain why populations of salmonids with anadromous life history strategies have not established in the reach.

Generally, the study area is a “transport reach,” in terms of sediment and fish species. Juveniles and adults that migrate downstream from the lake into the canyon may opportunistically find rearing or holding habitat, and potentially some limited spawning habitat.

3 of 7

Table 1. Water depth, velocity and substrate size criteria for anadromous and other salmonid spawning (from Bjorn & Riser, 1991).

However due to the absence or significantly limitation of the three primary functions (spawning, rearing, migration), it is unlikely that any wild origin, self‐sustaining populations of resident or anadromous species exist in the study reach. Furthermore, it is unlikely for there to be wild‐origin populations of adult salmonids that have site fidelity within the canyon, due to lack of fish passage, spawning habitats and sufficient flood refuge habitat during flood flows. Any fish use in the reach is by juveniles or adults from the lake and upstream system during the low flow period.

GEOMORPHOLOGY AND SEDIMENT SUPPLY

Generally, sediment supply to the canyon reach is very low and is driven by episodic slope failures adjacent to the channel. Sediment supply within the study reach appears to be sourced from small steep ravines and drainages with additional colluvial sources from bedrock and canyon walls. Material composition has not been sampled but based on photographic observation, glacial till and bedrock colluvium appears to be the most likely parent material. The Hydrology Report (Civil Science, 2013) lists watershed drainage area tributary to the barrier falls location of Sweetheart Creek as 36.0‐square miles and 34.7‐square miles at the outlet of Lower Sweetheart Lake outlet. Sediment delivered by the 34.7‐square miles tributary to the lake is trapped and detained in the lake. Flows from the lake carry no sediment into the Canyon Reach. The Canyon Reach conveys full run off flows, but is limited in sediment supply to landslide colluvium from the remaining 1.3‐square mile area of watershed. This limited sediment supply, combined with the confined valley and steep slopes of the Canyon Reach create high energy conditions that are efficient in transporting any sediment through the reach to tidewater. Channel bed conditions suggest that there is very low sediment supply, and or that it is driven by episodic slope failures. These conditions are poorly suited for the deposition of appropriately sized gravel sources that fish could successfully and sustainably spawn in.

HYDRAULICS AND SPAWNING GRAVEL MOBIL ITY

The mobility of spawning sized gravels was analyzed using existing stream flow hydrology and a hydraulic model prepared by Inter‐Fluve based on existing LiDAR topography. The results of the hydraulic model were used to estimate the size of particle at the threshold of mobility and associated stream flows. The following paragraphs detail this analysis.

4 of 7

Inter‐Fluve prepared a one‐dimension hydraulic model of Sweetheart Creek through the Canyon Reach from tidewater to the Lower Sweetheart Lake. The US Army Corps of Engineer’s River Analysis System, HEC‐RAS, one‐dimensional open channel hydraulic model was used. HEC‐ RAS is the industry standard for one‐dimensional river modeling. Results are included in the Appendix.

The model represents stream geometry with cross sections spaced along the study reach. Model sections were extracted from LiDAR topographic data using a routine in AutoCAD CIVIL3D 2014. Each cross section is divided into left overbank, channel and right overbank areas. Based on observations by project engineer and surveyor Max Schillinger (pers comm) the creek extends to the base of the canyon walls with no defined flood terraces. Thus, the break point between channel and overbank areas was approximately set at the toe of canyon walls. Model geometry includes spacing between adjacent cross sections. Hydraulic resistance is estimated using the Manning’s n coefficient. Values of channel Manning’s n was approximated as 0.048 and overbank areas approximated as 0.07 based on professional opinion for steep rocky reaches.

Stream flows were analyzed and reported by Civil Science (2013). Although return period flood event discharges were not identified from the available analyses, the range of flows reported were accounted for in the HEC‐RAS model by including: 3‐, 10‐, 25‐, 50‐, 100‐, 400‐, 600‐, 800‐, 1000‐, 2000‐, and 3617‐cfs. Model boundary conditions were set at critical depth at both upstream and downstream ends.

HEC‐RAS results for tractive force (shear) were used to complete an incipient motion particle size analysis to estimate size of particle at the threshold of mobility. Larger particles are expected to remain in place, while smaller particles are expected to be mobilized.

Spawning sized gravels for resident trout are 3‐inch and smaller. Based on the incipient motion particle size analysis, 0.75‐psf shear will mobilize a 2.9‐inch particle. Comparison of the 0.75‐psf shear value against a lower bound profile plot of shear from HEC‐RAS results over a range of discharges indicates that:

Downstream of station 73+00, there are small areas of stream with shear less than 0.75‐psf at 100‐cfs flows. For 400‐cfs and higher flows, shear exceeds 0.75‐psf and would mobilize spawning sized gravels.

Upstream of station 73+00, there are small areas of stream with shear stress less than 0.75‐ psf for 400‐ and 600‐cfs. For 800‐cfs and higher flows, shear exceeds 0.75‐psf and would mobilize spawning sized gravels.

5 of 7

From this hydraulic and sediment mobility analysis, approximately 400‐cfs flow will mobilize spawning sized gravels. Examining annual and monthly flow duration curves shown in Figure 12 from Civil Science’s Hydrology Report (2013) indicates that on an annual basis: 400cfs is exceeded about 37% of time; 600‐cfs about 20% of time, and 800‐cfs about 10% of time. Monthly flow durations during fish use months of May through October all have greater flows. By month, 400‐cfs is exceeded 90% of the time in July and 97% of the time in September. Spawning gravels will not persist in place for the optimal 2 to 5 year time frame to serve as spawning habitats. However, after hydropower operations commence, the Canyon Reach flows will be reduced to 3cfs plus the natural accretion of the Canyon Reach which represents 3% of the historical gaged flow of Sweetheart Creek (Civil Science’s Hydrology Report (2013).

Lower bound values of shear generated by the HEC‐RAS model during higher discharge events were further evaluated. 7.8‐inch sized particles would be mobilized at 800‐cfs for the steeper reach downstream of station 73+00. For 1000‐cfs, 5.8‐inch particles would be mobilized along the reach upstream of 73+00. Most model cross section along the Canyon Reach have higher to significantly higher values of shear – as well as during higher stream flows – and will mobilize larger particles. This illustrates the severe conditions of large sized sediments through put along the Canyon Reach at its current range of flows..

Sediment flows will mobilize spawning sized gravels at the lower end of the size spectrum after hydropower operations commence to the anadromous reach of the Sweetheart Creek, albeit at a slower pace dictated by high rain events which affect the accretion of the Canyon Reach. Since its likely that most of the anadromous species spawning occurs lower down in the intertidal area of Sweetheart Creek, the reduction in mobilization of future spawning gravels will have a minimal to no effect on the spawning gravel volume in the intertidal area. The anticipated lower controlled cfs of 300 to 486 cfs of the expected hydropower operations will also reduce the flushing and removal of spawning gravel from the intertidal area that has been historically occurring with high volume cfs flood events.

SUMMARY

Hydraulic and sediment mobility calculations show that spawning sized gravels are expected to be mobilized frequently during the spawning season for Dolly Varden. The Canyon Reach may provide some limited spawning, rearing and downstream migration habitat to adults migrating downstream from the lake or any juveniles that wash over the lake outlet. Due to the absence or limitation of the three primary functions (spawning, rearing, migration), it is very unlikely that a wild‐origin population of resident or anadromous species would be self‐sustaining in the bypass canyon reach.

Figure 25B in Aquatic Resource Report (Aquatic Science, 2013) shows that a small area of spawning sized gravel located within a hydraulically sheltered area below the future tailrace return and macro pool 2. It is likely that this volume and size of sediment can be delivered from the Canyon Reach with its reduced hydrology and when this coincides with geologic events in the canyon reach that would supply sediment.

6 of 7

REFERENCES

Aquatic Science, November 5, 2012. Aquatic Resource Studies at Sweetheart Creek and Sweetheart Lake 2011/2012

Aquatic Science, November 5, 2012. Fisheries Studies at Sweetheart Creek and Sweetheart Lake 2011/2012

Civil Science, September 22, 2013. Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 13563. Hydrology Report

LiDAR data for the Sweetheart Lake project site collected in 2012 by Aerometric, Anchorage, AK

P.Y. Julien, 1995. Erosion and Sedimentation

US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010. River Analysis System (HEC‐RAS), version 4.1.0 USFS Aerial photos

APPENDIX

HEC‐RAS model results

Incipient motion particle size calculations

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 120000

100

200

300

400

500

600

Sweetheart_Creek Plan: Sweetheart_Ex1 3/12/2014

Main Channel Distance (ft)

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)

Legend

WS 3617cfs

WS 2000cfs

WS 1000cfs

WS 800cfs

WS 600cfs

WS 400cfs

WS 100cfs

WS 50cfs

WS 25cfs

WS 10cfs

WS 3cfs

Ground

32...

504.

..73

9....

962.

1811

93.3

114

36.4

516

70.2

918

98.2

821

29.1

323

06.2

2501

.13

2698

.06

2877

.93

3092

.19

3268

.48

3444

.47

3617

.67

3824

.63

4053

.08

4240

.16

4455

.38

4659

.68

4835

.08

5015

.33

5198

.81

5410

.41

5626

.37

5841

.27

6027

.59

6198

.11

6404

.34

6573

.05

6756

.43

6938

.33

7131

.04

7311

.95

7501

.54

7723

.67

7951

.78

8157

.73

8362

.77

8563

.79

8837

.290

89.5

9267

.21

9474

.72

9785

.48

9973

.28

1026

7.83

1048

7.48

1075

8.58

1098

9.22

1117

7.58

1137

4.42

1155

5.1*

Sweetheart Ck Thalweg

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 120000

50

100

150

200

250

300



She

ar C

han

(lb/s

q ft)

Legend

Shear Chan 3617cfs

Shear Chan 2000cfs

Shear Chan 1000cfs

Shear Chan 800cfs

Shear Chan 600cfs

Shear Chan 400cfs

Shear Chan 25cfs

Shear Chan 100cfs

Shear Chan 10cfs

Shear Chan 50cfs

Shear Chan 3cfs


0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 120000

10

20

30

40



She

ar C

han

(lb/s

q ft)

Legend

Shear Chan 3617cfs

Shear Chan 2000cfs

Shear Chan 1000cfs

Shear Chan 800cfs

Shear Chan 600cfs

Shear Chan 400cfs

Shear Chan 25cfs

Shear Chan 100cfs

Shear Chan 10cfs

Shear Chan 50cfs

Shear Chan 3cfs


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Tractive Force (Shear, p

sf)

River Station (ft)

Sweetheart CreekTractive force and mobile sediment sizes

3cfs

50cfs

100cfs

400cfs

600cfs

800cfs

1000cfs

2000cfs

3167cfs

Ds(3.0in)

Ds(6.0in)

Ds(12in)

Ds(18in)

Ds(24in)Tidewater Lake

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 120000.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0



She

ar C

han

(lb/s

q ft)

Legend

Shear Chan 100cfs


0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 120000.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0



She

ar C

han

(lb/s

q ft)

Legend

Shear Chan 400cfs


0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 120000.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0



She

ar C

han

(lb/s

q ft)

Legend

Shear Chan 600cfs


Shields ‐ Incipient Motion Particle Size analysisDs = To

(SG‐1) * Gw * T*

SG = 2.65 specific gravity of sediment

GW = 62.4 unit weight of water, pcf

T* = 0.03 dimensionless Shield's number for

Gravel/cobble material

To

(psf) (ft) (in) (mm)

0.25 0.081 1.0 24.7

0.5 0.16 1.9 49.3

0.75 0.24 2.9 74.0

1 0.32 3.9 98.7

1.5 0.49 5.8 148.0

2 0.65 7.8 197.4

2.5 0.81 9.7 246.7

3 0.97 11.7 296.0

3.5 1.13 13.6 345.4

4 1.30 15.5 394.7

4.5 1.46 17.5 444.1

5 1.62 19.4 493.4

5.5 1.78 21.4 542.7

6 1.94 23.3 592.1

Mobile Particle Size, Ds





APPENDIX W:

2014 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: SPAWNING HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND

MAINTENANCE. INTER-FLUVE.

PREPARED BY:


Juneau, AK 99802

MAY 2014

4/4/14 JHI Sweetheart Lake 1

Technical Memorandum

Date: April 4, 2014

To: Duff Mitchell

Company: JHI

From: Dan Miller, Lon Mikkelsen, Inter‐Fluve, Inc.

Introduction Juneau Hydro, Inc. (JHI) is preparing a FERC license application for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric

Project (FERC No. P‐13563). The project would divert flow from the outlet of Lower Sweetheart Lake

(57°56ʹ43.25ʺN; 133°38ʹ12.57ʺW) through a penstock and power plant before returning flow via tail race to

Sweetheart Creek immediately below the barrier falls.

One requirement for the project is to maintain existing levels of pink salmon spawning that is present in the

Anadromous Reach extending from approximately elevation 15 feet to the proposed tailrace outlet. In

order to meet this requirement, JHI will work cooperatively with Alaska DFG to track the area of suitable

spawning habitat, and potentially mitigate for a reduction in available spawning habitat area through

gravel augmentation. The details of this proposed monitoring and gravel augmentation are presented in

detail over the following sections.

Changes in flow and sediment supply Two primary factors for suitable spawning habitats include flow conditions (depth and velocity) and

suitable sized substrate.

Existing stream hydrologic conditions are documented in the Project’s Hydrology Report (Civil Science,

2013):

Figure 2 ‐ shows monthly average flow values up to 670‐cfs during the month of June. The

monthly average flow for June, July, August and September all exceed 490‐cfs.

Figure 9 ‐ indicates estimated average daily flows commonly exceed 1,000‐cfs and a maximum

flow exceeding 3,000‐cfs

Proposed discharges from the Project power house into the tail race and Anadromous Reach may range

between 300‐ to 486‐cfs (D. Mitchell, personal communication). After Commercial Operations Date (COD),

but prior to reservoir fill levels which will be determined by precipitation for the years immediately

following COD, JHI will operate Anadromous Reach inflows to provide minimum flows requested by

JHI Sweetheart Lake: Spawning Habitat Assessment & Maintenance


Alaska DFG in their recommended conditions for Instream Flows for the Sweetheart Creek Anadromous

Reach below the tailrace. JHI would operate the project to maintain instantaneous instream flows in the

Anadromous Reach of Sweetheart Creek, as measured at the stream gage required by article 4, pursuant to

the following schedule:

Dates Minimum flow (cfs)

measured at gage

January‐February 40

March 45

April 119

May‐September 330

October 324

November‐December 117

Sediment transport conditions along the Anadromous Reach will be impacted by the reduction in high

flows and associated sediment supply from the Bypass Reach through the Sweetheart Creek canyon.

Existing spawning habitats Existing spawning habitats were documented in the Project’s Fisheries Study (Aquatic Science, 2012). The

existing system has limited observed spawning gravel habitats due to the nature of the high gradient,

bedrock pool drop type of channel morphology. The macro pools were observed to be bedrock lined and

contain large substrate and boulders unsuitable for spawning. Figure 25B of the Fisheries Study notes

spawning substrate being present in a side riffle of the first waterfall, below Macro Pool 2. Section 5.7 of the

Fisheries Study describes spawning as likely to occur near the top of the intertidal in the vicinity of

transects 1A and 1B on Figure 25B.

Spawning habitat assessment and reporting In order to maintain existing levels of spawning, baseline and annual assessments of spawning habitats will

be conducted by qualified professionals (e.g. fisheries biologists, fluvial geomorphologists, hydraulic

engineers). Within the Anadromous Reach shown in Figure 1, substrate and hydraulic conditions suitable

for spawning will be assessed and documented with photos, measurements and pebble counts to track

changes in total area of spawning habitat. Alaska DFG may have a representative present at their own

expense during the JHI annual gravel assessment.

Findings will be documented in a concise report with attached graphics, notes and photos as appropriate to

document spawning conditions of that year. A narrative of changes from the prior year conditions will be

included.


Spawning habitat maintenance At the end of the third year of operations, changes in spawning habitat will be assessed. If it is determined

that there is a net reduction in the area of available spawning habitat, a prescriptive plan will be prepared

in cooperation with Alaska DFG to take measures to provide a similar level of spawning habitat to baseline

conditions. Actions are anticipated to include:

1. Identification of zones with hydraulics suitable for spawning.

2. Augmentation with gravel suitable for spawning. The locations, volumes and size of substrate

to be injected into the Anadromous Reach will be developed using assessment findings to

inform the proposed prescriptions and in cooperation with Alaska DFG. The location where

gravel could feasibly be injected will be partially based on equipment access considerations. A

tentative injection location is shown in Figure 2 and would require temporary chutes to deliver

gravel to the stream.

Assessment and prescriptive spawning habitat maintenance timeline A template for the gravel augmentation program is recommended as follows and summarized in Table 1.

1. For the first 5 years after Commercial Operations Date (COD), spawning habitat assessment and

reporting will occur by JHI in the spring. Alaska DFG may have one or more representative(s)

present at their own expense during the JHI annual gravel assessment.

2. Within 30 days of the annual assessment, JHI will provide to Alaska DFG a two to three page

assessment report documenting results of assessment.

3. On the 3rd year after COD, JHI and Alaska DFG will meet to review the assessments and determine

if:

a. there has been a reduction in the area of suitable spawning habitat, and

b. a gravel augmentation event is to be prescribed based on the year 3 review. Note:

based on the periodicity of salmon species (see Table 9 of the Fisheries Study, 2012),

mid‐May through June appears to be the least obtrusive time to implement a gravel

augmentation event. These tentative dates are suggested to comply with Alaska DFG

Preliminary Conditioning Item 10 Timing of Instream Activities: Timing windows for

instream construction activities and stream crossings shall be established by the Alaska

DFG Habitat Biologist assigned to the project. Timing windows will be conditioned in

the Alaska DFG issued Title 16 permit. The suggested timing windows are intended

to ensure that instream activities do not adversely impact aquatic resources.

4. Upon the 6th and every successive 5th year anniversary of COD, JHI and Alaska DFG will meet to

analyze the spawning habitat assessment and prescriptive gravel augmentation program and

determine the necessity of continuing these actions for the next five years.


References Aquatic Science, November 5, 2012. Fisheries Studies at Sweetheart Creek and Sweetheart Lake 2011/2012

Civil Science, September 22, 2013. Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 13563. Hydrology

Report

LiDAR data for the Sweetheart Lake project site collected in 2012 by Aerometric, Anchorage, AK

USFS Aerial photos


Attachments: Figure 1 ‐ Spawning habitat study area.

Figure 2 ‐ Spawning gravel injection location.

Table 1 – Project timeline.

FIGURE 1 - SWEETHEART CREEKSPAWNING HABITAT ASSESSMENT AREAS

GRAPHIC SCALE0 5025

(in feet)

SWEETHEART CREEK - ANADROMOUS REACH SPAWNING HABITAT ASSESSMENT AREAS

SWEETHEART CREEKPROPOSEDTAILRACE

SPAWNING HABITATASSESSMENT AREA

SPAWNING HABITATASSESSMENT AREA

22-FT DEEPMACRO POOL 1

FIGURE 2 - SWEETHEART CREEKSPAWNING GRAVEL INJECTION LOCATION

GRAPHIC PREPARED ANDPROVIDED BY: ALL POINTS NORTH

Table 1 ‐ Spawning habitat assessment and maintenance timeline

Year following COD Reach spawning habitat assessment & report Prescriptive spawning habitat maintenance

Spawning gravel augmentation

implementation Reassess approach ‐ revise as appropriate

0

Conduct baseline assessment of spawning

habitat in the Anadromous Reach and provide

report to Alaska DFG n/a n/a n/a

1‐2

Conduct spawning habitat assessment and

provide report to Alaska DFG n/a n/a n/a

3


provide report to Alaska DFG

In cooperation with Alaska DFG, determine if prescriptive

spawning habitat maintenance via gravel augmentation is

required and determine details.

If required ‐ conduct augmentation gravel

injection during 2nd week of May for least

impact to Steelhead and Pink salmon n/a

4









5









6 & each

successive 5th year








impact to Steelhead and Pink salmon

Meet with Alaska DFG to analyze and revise if

necessary spawning habitat assessment and

maintenance program.

COD: Commercial Operations Date


Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project 1 FERC Project No. 13563 Copyright © 2014 Juneau Hydropower Inc. exclusive of Government and Third-party Maps April 2014



APPENDIX X:

FISH SCREEN INTAKE DESIGN SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

PREPARED BY:

Inter-fluve for


Juneau, AK 99802

APRIL 2014


Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project X-2 FERC Project No. 13563 Copyright © 2014 Juneau Hydropower Inc. exclusive of Government and Third-party Maps April 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 3 2.0 NMFS ANADROMOUS SALMONID PASSAGE FACILITY DESIGN –

JULY 2011............................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Definition of Terms ....................................................................................... 4 2.2. Specific Criteria and Guidelines – Screen Hydraulics .................................. 4

2.2.1. Specific Criteria and Guidelines – Civil Works and Structural Features .............................................................................................. 6

2.2.2. Prototype Example (Section 11.6.1.73 of the NMFS Report) ........... 6 2.3. Evaluation of Juvenile Fish Screens.............................................................. 6

3.0 INTAKE SCREEN DESIGN BY INTAKE SCREENS, INC. (ISI) .................. 7 4.0 ATTACHMENTS................................................................................................... 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Proposed Intake Screen Design........................................................................................... 10 Figure 2 CAD rendering of a Proposed Screen Unit .......................................................................... 11 Figure 3 Vertical Screen Unit used on the Elwha River in Washington with a Water Jetting System

in its Base............................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 4 Water Jetting System in Base Being Tested (Screen Cylinder Not Attached)..................... 12 Figure 5 Water Jetting System on an ISI Screen for Frazile Ice Control ........................................... 12 Figure 6 Piping System under an ISI Screen Unit.............................................................................. 13 Figure 7 Screen Profile ....................................................................................................................... 13



SWEETHEART LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT APPENDIX X: FISH SCREEN INTAKE DESIGN SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains documentation of the design criteria and design of the intake fish screen facility. The following sections are included:

Section 2.0 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design – July 2011

Section 3.0 Letter from Intake Screens, Inc. (ISI) that includes Details of Fish Screen Design

Section 4.0 Attachments: Proposed Screen Design and Similar Example Designs



2.0 NMFS ANADROMOUS SALMONID PASSAGE FACILITY DESIGN – JULY 2011

This section is derived from Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design (NMFS, July 2011), which is located at: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/salmon_passage_facility_design.pdf.

2.1. Definition of Terms

Criteria are specific standards for fishway design, maintenance, or operation that cannot be changed without a written waiver from NMFS. For the purposes of this document, a criterion is preceded by the word “must.” In general, a specific criterion cannot be changed unless there is site-specific biological rationale for doing so. An example of biological rationale that could lead to criterion waiver is a determination or confirmation by NMFS biologists that the smallest fry-sized fish will likely not be present at a proposed screen site. Therefore, the juvenile fish screen approach velocity criterion of 12.2 centimeters per second (cm/s) (0.4 feet per second [ft/s]) could be increased to match the smallest life stage expected at the screen site.

A guideline is a range of values or a specific value for fishway design, maintenance, or operation that may change when site-specific conditions are factored into the conceptual fishway design. For the purposes of this document, guidelines are preceded by the word “should.” Guidelines should be followed in the fishway design until site-specific information indicates that a different value would provide better fish passage conditions or solve site-specific issues. An example of site-specific rationale that could lead to a modified guideline is when the maximum river depth at a site is 3 feet, as compared to the design guideline for a fishway entrance depth of 6 feet. In this example, safe and timely fish passage could be provided by modifying the guideline to match the depth in the river. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide compelling evidence in support of any proposed waiver of criteria or modification of a guideline for NMFS approval early in the design process, well in advance of a proposed federal action/

2.2. Specific Criteria and Guidelines – Screen Hydraulics

Approach Velocity: The approach velocity must not exceed 12.2 cm/s (0.40 ft/s) for active screens, or 6.1 cm/s (0.20 ft/s) for passive screens. Using these approach velocities will minimize screen contact and/or impingement of juvenile fish. For screen design, approach velocity is calculated by dividing the maximum screened flow amount by the vertical projection of the effective screen area. An exception may be made to this definition of approach velocity for screen where a clear egress route minimizes the potential for impingement. If this exception is approved by the NMFS, the approach



velocity is calculated using the entire effective screen area, and not a vertical projection. For measurement of approach velocity, see Section 2.3 of this appendix.

Effective Screen Area: The minimum effective screen area must be calculated by dividing the maximum screened flow by the allowable approach velocity.

Screen Approach Velocity: Screen approach velocity is calculated by dividing the maximum flow rate by the effective screen area, and must be less than 7.62 cm/s (0.25 ft/s) and uniform over the entire screen surface area (see Section 2.3 of this appendix). The horizontal screen design must include approach velocity and sweeping velocity consistent with the prototype example in Section 2.2.2 of this appendix. Recent prototype development has demonstrated that better self-cleaning of a horizontal screen is achieved when the ratio of sweeping velocity and approach velocity exceeds 20:1, and approach velocities are less than 3.05 cm/s (0.1 ft/s). If equipped with an automated mechanical screen cleaning system, screen approach velocity must be less than 12.2 cm/s (0.4 ft/s) and uniform over the entire screen surface area (see Section 2.3 of this appendix).

Screen Sweeping Velocity: For horizontal screens, sweeping velocity must be maintained or gradually increase for the entire length of screen (see section 11.9.1.8). The design sweeping velocity must be consistent with the prototype example in Section 2.2.2 of this appendix. Higher sweeping velocities may be required to achieve reliable debris removal and to keep sediment mobilized. Sweeping velocity should never be less than 76.2 cm/s (2.5 ft/s), or an alternate minimum velocity based on an assessment of sediment load in the water diversion system.

Screen Cleaning: For passive horizontal screens, approach velocity and sweeping velocity must work in tandem to allow self-cleaning of the entire screen face and to provide good bypass conditions. If the proposed design has not been demonstrated to have cleaning capability and hydraulic characteristics similar to a successful prototype, the screen design must include an automated screen cleaning system.

Inspection, Maintenance and Monitoring: Daily inspection and maintenance must occur of the screen and bypass to maintain operations consistent with these criteria. Post construction monitoring of the facility must occur for at least the first year of operation. This monitoring must occur whenever water is diverted, and include an inspection log (in table form) of date and time, water depth at the bypass, debris present on screen (including any sediment retained in the screen openings), fish observed over the screen surface, operational adjustments made, maintenance performed, and the observer’s name. A copy of the inspection log must be provided annually to the NMFS design reviewer, who will review operations and make recommendations for the next year of operation.



2.2.1. Specific Criteria and Guidelines – Civil Works and Structural Features

Placement of Screen Surfaces: The face of all screen surfaces must be placed flush (to the extent possible) with any adjacent screen bay, pier noses, and walls to allow fish unimpeded movement parallel to the screen face and ready access to bypass routes.

Structural Features: Structural features must be provided to protect the integrity of the fish screens from large debris, and to protect the facility from damage if overtopped by flood flows. A trash rack, log boom, sediment sluice, and other measures may be required.

2.2.2. Prototype Example (Section 11.6.1.73 of the NMFS Report)

Screen Geometry: Horizontal screens must be set at specific slopes and geometry consistent with prototypes approved by NMFS. The screen design must include reference material for an example prototype that confirms the adequacy of the design.

2.3. Evaluation of Juvenile Fish Screens

Hydraulic evaluations of juvenile fish screens must include confirmation of uniform approach velocity and the requisite sweeping velocity over the entire screen face. Confirmation of approach and sweeping velocities must consist of a series of velocity measurements encompassing the entire screen face, divided into a grid with each grid section representing no more than 5% of the total diverted flow through the screen (i.e., at least 20 grid points must be measured). The approach and sweeping velocity (parallel and perpendicular to the screen face) should be measured at the center point of each grid section, as close as possible to the screen face without entering the boundary layer turbulence at the screen face. Uniformity of approach velocity is defined as being achieved when no individual approach velocity measurement exceeds 110% of the criteria. In addition, velocities at the entrance to the bypass, bypass flow amounts, and total flow should be measured and reported.



3.0 INTAKE SCREEN DESIGN BY INTAKE SCREENS, INC. (ISI)

The following letter by Intake Screens, Inc. (ISI) describes the intake design for Sweetheart Lake.

8417 River Road, Sacramento, CA 95832 Phone: (916) 665-2727 Fax: (916) 665-2729

March 5, 2014

Subject: Proposed Sweetheart Lake Intake Fish Protection Screen Design

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

Intake Screens, Inc. (ISI) has reviewed the proposed screened intake design for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project’s Power Tunnel, and we are recommending a fish protection screen system based on our understanding of the project. The proposed screen system would be designed as an actively cleaned screened system for the protection of fry-sized fish. The proposed design will meet or exceed the design guidance of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Northwest Region’s Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design (July 2011). The State of Alaska’s Department of Fish and Game has adopted these guidelines as a basis of design for the protection of fry-sized resident fish in the lake.

The diversion will operate between 300 and 485 cubic feet per second (cfs) and draw the water into an approximate 15-foot-diameter tunnel at a fixed invert elevation that is about 42 feet below the proposed low pool elevation of 576. The proposed intake elevation is around elevation 552, which is at about the existing normal lake elevation. A submerged intake design will be used for this project, meaning that the screened intake area will be the same at all reservoir conditions. Therefore, the screen design will be based on the maximum proposed diversion rate of 485 cfs.

Six fixed-position, vertically oriented wedgewire cylinders are proposed for this project. A multiple unit design is being considered so that the screen units can be constructed off site and delivered to the project via the new power tunnel during construction. A practical maximum screen unit size of 7-foot by 11-foot high (10-foot high on the screen material) will provide about 220 square feet (ft2) of screen surface area per unit. Six screen units will have a total screen surface area of 1320 ft2. To protect fry-



sized fish, the maximum screen slot opening will be 1.75 millimeters (mm), and the open area of the screen will be about 36% using a wedgewire width of about 3 mm (or 50% open area if a 1.75-mm wedgewire width is used). The maximum design screen approach velocity should be at or below 0.4 feet per second (fps) with the proposed configuration. An approach velocity criteria of 0.4 fps or less is adequate for an actively cleaned system.

The submerged vertical cylinder design should be well protected below the ice and not subject to a significant debris or biofouling condition for the deep lake intake. While the screen clogging potential is limited, ISI plans to incorporate a water jetting system at the base of each screen unit that will be connected to a pressurized backflushing system. The proposed external water jets will direct water upwards from the base to loosen debris from the screen surface as necessary. Cleaning the external wedgewire surface is generally all that is necessary in this type of environment. In addition, the wire’s increasing slot opening on the internal surface of the screen unit will allow debris to pass through the slots easily if it passed the external wire opening. The water cleaning system will operate as necessary to keep the screen surface clean during operation.

The vertical cylinder screen units will be designed with a simple connection to the concrete base manifold. Any servicing of the units would require a diver to loosen the connection and raise the screen to the surface if necessary. A blind flange could be placed over the screen connection if a unit were ever to be taken out of service to continue diversion operations (at a presumed limited maximum diversion rate). Spare units may be considered, or possibly installed, to reduce the approach velocity and to allow for redundancy if desired.

The screens will be constructed in the dry, but will be permanently submerged once the dam is completed. The top of the screen units will be about 15 feet below the water surface in a low reservoir condition, and as much as 75 feet below water surface at a high reservoir condition. The screen units will be designed for a nominal 10 feet of head differential across the screen units. Safety valves will automatically operate for excess differential conditions to protect the intake and tunnel system until the condition is resolved.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Darryl Hayes, P.E. Darryl Hayes, P.E. Engineering Manager Intake Screen, Inc. [email protected]



4.0 ATTACHMENTS

This section contains figures showing the proposed screen design, as well as simiilar example screens, by ISI.

The following figures are included in this section:

Figure 1 Proposed Intake Screen Design

Figure 2 CAD rendering of a Proposed Screen Unit

Figure 3 Vertical Screen Unit used on the Elwha River in Washington with a Water Jetting System in its Base

Figure 4 Water Jetting System in Base Being Tested (Screen Cylinder Not Attached)

Figure 5 Water Jetting System on an ISI Screen for Frazile Ice Control

Figure 6 Piping System under an ISI Screen Unit

Figure 7 Screen Profile



Figure 1 Proposed Intake Screen Design

JUNEAU HYDROPOWER, INC. APPLICANT-PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT


Figure 2 CAD rendering of a Proposed Screen Unit

Figure 3 Vertical Screen Unit used on the Elwha River in Washington with a Water Jetting System in its Base



Figure 4 Water Jetting System in Base Being Tested (Screen Cylinder Not Attached)

Figure 5 Water Jetting System on an ISI Screen for Frazile Ice Control



Figure 6 Piping System under an ISI Screen Unit

Figure 7 Screen Profile



The following figures show sample screens.





APPENDIX Y:

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT DOCUMENT.

PREPARED BY:


Juneau, AK 99802

MAY 2014

Applied River and Wetland Restoration Founded 1983

1

May9,2014EFHAssessmentandWorksheetforAbbreviatedConsultationThe following EFHAssessment andWorksheetwere prepared byRobert Johnson(CSI)andInter‐Fluve,Inc.Theworkproductssynthesizestudiesdonebyanumberof individuals/entities to characterize existing conditions and analyze potentialimpactstothedifferentaffectedenvironmentsassociatedwiththeSweetheartLakeproject.TheassessmentandworksheethastakenintoaccountpreviousPDEA’sandstudies. The development of the EFH and other resource analyses has been donewithaneyetowardsthe feedbackthathasbeenprovidedbystakeholderagenciesupuntilthispointfromNMFSandtheotherstakeholders.

2

EFHASSESSMENTFORABBREVIATEDCONSULTATIONPROJECTDESCRIPTION:The proposed projectconsistsof:(1)theexistingLowerSweetheartLake,raisedfromasurfacewaterelevationof551feet(MLLW)andasurfaceareaof1,414acrestoanewminimumsurfacewaterelevationof576feetandanewsurfaceareaof1,449acresandamaximumsurfacewaterelevationof636feetwithasurfaceareaof1,702acres;(2)anew,roller‐compactedconcretedam111feethigh(fromthedownstreamtoetothetopofthedam),280feetlong,100feetthickatthebase,constructedattheoutletofLowerSweetheartLake;(3)anindependentintakestructurewithfishscreenadjacenttothedamrightabutment,whichconveyswatertoa15X15‐foothorseshoe‐shaped,9,621‐foot‐longunlinedtunnel;(4)a9‐foot‐diameter,approximately862‐foot‐longpenstockinstalledwithinthelowerportionofthetunnel,withapproximatelyanother160feetofburied7‐foot‐diameterpenstockandmanifoldconnectingtothepowerhouse;(5)apowerhousecontainingthreenewFrancisgeneratingunits(6.6MWeach)withatotalinstalledcapacityof19.8MW;(6)a541‐foottailracedischargingflowstoSweetheartCreek,includingasalmonsmoltreentrypoollocatedadjacenttothepowerhouseandtailrace;(7)afencedswitchyardadjacenttothepowerhouse;(8)anew,approximately4,400‐foot‐longroadfromthepowerhousetothedock/landingsite;(9)anewdock/landingsiteforboat,seaplane,barge/landingcraftrampand/orhelicopteraccess,locatedontheeastshoreofGilbertBay;(10)anew,138‐kilovolttransmissionlinethatwouldbeatotalof45,900feetlong(25,700feetofsubmarinecableintwosegments;15,400feetofoverheadtransmissionlineonSnettishamPeninsula;and4,800feetofburiedtransmissionlineintwosegments);(11)anew,14,800‐foot,12.47‐kVservicetransmissionlineextendingfromthedamsitetothemarinefacilityprovidingoperationalelectricityandcommunicationsforoperations;(12)acaretakerfacilitywithshopandmaintenancefacilities;(13)ashelterfacilityatthedamsite;(14)appurtenantfacilities.EFH IDENTIFICATIONS: The area of the proposed action (Sweetheart Creek) hasbeenidentifiedasEFHfortwospeciesofPacificsalmon,pinksalmon(O.gorbuscha)andchumsalmon(O.nerka)forspawning,incubation,andmigration.Pinkandchumsalmonarenotestuarine‐residentspeciesandthereforeutilizethisarea on a seasonal basis ‐ during August and September the intertidal area istypicallyutilizedasaspawningareaforadults,duringthewinterasanincubationsite, andduring the early springas amigration route to theocean.Rearing chumsalmonfrequentlyutilizeestuarinehabitatsimilartothe largetideflatadjacenttoandsouthofSweetheartCreek(Hiss, 1995).EFFECTSONEFH:

EffectsduetotemperatureandflowchangesinSweetheartCreek

3

TherewillbetwoprimaryeffectsonEFHbythereservoirdrainbypassingthecanyonstreamchannel;oneregardingchangingtemperatures,andtheotherbeingthatflowwillbemoderated.TheeffectofthewaterbeingdrawnfromthedepthsofSweetheartLakewill result ina change in theannual temperature regimeat themouthof SweetheartCreek (Figure 1). This change will have the most effect on those relatively few pink salmon that spawn above tidal influence. Based on data from 2012, water temperatures inSweetheartCreekcanaveragenearfreezingfor4monthsduringwinterwithagradualincrease in temperature in the spring, and a steady increase in temperature inmid‐summer,reachingapproximately11°CinearlyAugustbeforecoolingrapidlyagainoverthefall.Temperatureregimeswerepredictedfromreservoirlevelsmodeledduringtenyears of discharge measurements for each of average, wet, and dry‐year scenariosduringthatperiod.

Simple averaged Accumulative Temperature Units (ATU’s) were calculated frompredicted reservoir elevations by month for each of the three water abundancescenarios. ATU’s calculated for the 2012 pre‐project state of flow in SweetheartCreek totaled 1,457 ATU’s. The calculated average operational water elevationsequaled 1,469ATU’s. Aswould be expected, thewet year scenario produced thegreatestcoolingeffectbydrawingwater fromconsistentlygreaterdepths,andthedry year performance indicated the warmest values annually by drawing waterfromshallowerdepths,withATUvaluesof1,313and1,605ATU’s,respectively.Itispossiblethattheremaybesomedegreeofspawntimingdelaybyadultsduetothecoolerwatertemperaturesduringthespawningrun.Themajority(perhaps90%)ofpinkandchumsalmonreturningtoSweetheartCreekspawnintheintertidalreachwherethewatertemperatureisinfluencedbytidalinfluence.Asaresult,theeffectsofanywatertemperaturechangemaybelessenedonspawningtiming,incubationoroutmigration.AccordingtoHanavanandSkud(1954),survivalofembryosinthe4to11.5fttidalareawasequaltoorgreaterthansurvivalintheupstreamfreshwaterarea.Pinksalmonareknowntospawnattemperaturesof8°–14.4°Cwithfluctuationsofupto5.5°Cwithinaone‐hourperiodduetorisingtides(Helle,et.al.1964,Pritchard,1939).PinkSalmonhavebeenobservedspawningatbetween5°and19° C,(RaleighandNelson,1985).Furthertheintertidalsummertemperaturesofincomingtideshaveaninfluenceonwatertemperaturesintheintertidalspawninghabitat.Optimumtemperatureforincubationofpinksalmoneggs4.4to13.30C(Bell,1986).Proposed discharges from the Project powerhouse into the tail-race and anadromous reach are predicted to range between 300- to 486-cfs annually, a considerable change from the current monthly average flow values of up to 670-cfs during the month of June (the monthly average flow for June, July, August and September all exceed 490-cfs). The estimated average daily flows commonly exceed 1,000-cfs with a maximum flow exceeding 3,000-cfs during major climatic events, contrasted with flows down as low as 35 to 40 cfs during late winter. Elimination of high water events of 1,000 to 3,000 cfs may reduce scouring of eggs or flushing of juveniles. There have been accounts of flow stabilization following a dam project more than doubling chum salmon survival (Lister,

4

1966). Instream flow analysis for pink salmon and chum salmon spawning and incubation showed that usable habitat was greater for pink and chum salmon at a flow of 336 cfs due to provision of suitable velocities and depths when compared to average monthly flows during spawning, and reducing the occurrence of redds freezing at current periodic low water flows during incubation. A flow of 336cfs providing 294cfs in the main channel would provide an increase in approximately 20% more pink and chum salmon habitat in the anadromous reaches of Sweetheart Creek (Flory, 2012). Impacts of shoreline road construction The use of estuarine areas by pink salmon varies widely, ranging from passing directly through the estuary en route to nearshore areas to residing in estuaries for one to two months before moving to the ocean (Hoar 1956; McDonald 1960; Vernon 1966; Heard 1991). In general, most pink salmon populations use this former pattern and, therefore, depend on nearshore, rather than estuarine environments, for their initial rapid growth. Pink salmon populations that reside in estuaries for extended periods utilize shallow, protected habitats such as tidal channels (Bailey et al. 1975; Hiss, 1995). Chum salmon use estuaries extensively when compared to pink salmon, and even the more estuarine-dependent pink salmon populations have relatively short residence period in comparison. For example, while chum salmon reside in estuaries throughout the summer and early fall; pink salmon are rarely encountered in estuaries beyond June (Hiss, 1995). Approximately one-third of an acre (.34 acres) of saltmarsh/dune grass/sedge combination habitat will be disconnected from tidal influence or filled. Patches of fucus and green algae are found in the area. Following exhaustive observations at minus-level tides, there is no indication of the presence of eelgrass or other submerged aquatic vegetation. During road construction there is almost always a turbidity increase, even with best management practices. This will be minimized by attempting to exclude dirty rock and topsoil from fills on or near beach, and near streams. These fine-sediment laden materials are better suited for areas that have some vegetated buffer some distance from water, such as the visual landform barrier or in locations where we want to help vegetation grow on the uphill side of the road, but not in areas of direct running or tidal waters. Existing streams in the proposed road construction footprint will be passed through culverts. Shot rock (blasted bedrock) coming from the powerhouse and tunnel excavations will be placed onto the road and dock tidelands. This rock is expected to have a low amount of erodible fines. CONCLUSION:DirectadverseeffectsonEFHbythemodificationoftemperatureandflowregimes

5

inSweetheartCreekshouldbenegligible,andmaypossiblybebeneficialtopinkandchum salmon populations in the tidewater spawning and rearing areas ofSweetheart Creek, however, any improvements in overwinter survival may betemperedbyreducedmarinesurvivalduringsomeyearsbecauseearlieremergencetimingcanintroducefryintoalessproductivemarineenvironmentearlyintheyearwhenplanktonarelowerinabundance.Duringtheshorelineroadconstructionphaseofwork,rearingsalmonidswouldnothaveexposuretotheaffectedareaexceptduringhightide,butevensotheremaybesome diminished level of grazing or lack of shoreline cover during therecolonizationperiod.During the shoreline road construction phase of the project there will be ameasurable, but temporary, alteration of water quality in the active constructionarea, however, no adverse and permanent effects, perhaps even effects beyond atide cycle should prevail. For example,when placing rock in the bay to build thedock,itwillbepossibletomeasureaslightNTUchangeinthebayperhaps50feetout fromwhere the rock is being placed.Most of thatwill probably be just fromstirringupsedimentonthebottomof thebay,versuscoming fromtherockbeingplaced. Nearly always there is ameasurable NTU change for suchworkwith thepreciseinstrumentsavailabletoday.There will be a loss of .34 acres of saltmarsh/dunegrass/sedge habitat, andapproximately4,400feetofshorelinewillbe impactedfor fivetotenyearsbeforerecolonizationofbarnacles,mussels,andfucusapproachclimaxcommunity levels.Thecoastalroadimpacts(yellowlineinFigure2),representapproximately7.6%ofthe 57,800 linear feet of Gilbert Bay shoreline (red line in Figure 1), andapproximately5%ofthe87,900linearfeetofthecombinedGilbertBayandWhitingRivertidalflats(redandpinklineinFigure1)area.Thecoastalroad/trailportionofthe projectwill not affect pink and chum salmon eggs, larvae, or adults, andwillhavenosignificanteffectonjuvenilepinkandchumsalmonduetotheabundanceofothersuitablecoastalshorelineandsuitablehabitatinGilbertBay.

6

Figure1.FootprintofproposedserviceroadrelativetotheshorelineofGilbertBayandWhitingRivershoreline.

7

Figure2.SweetheartCreekcurrent(2012)temperatures,andprojectedpost‐projecttemperatures.

8

ReferencesBailey, J.E.,B.L.Wing,andC.R.Mattson.1975.Zooplanktonabundanceandfeedinghabits of fry of pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, and chum salmon,Oncorhynchus keta, in Traitors Cove, Alaska, with speculations on the carryingcapacityofthearea.FisheriesBulletin73(4).Bell, M. C. 1986. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biologicalcriteria. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fish Passage Development and EvaluationProgram,NorthPacificDivision,Portland,Ore.Flory, L., 2012. Fisheries studies at Sweetheart Creek and Sweetheart Lake2011/2012 Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 13563 JuneauHydropowerInc.,Juneau,AK

Hanavan,M.G.&Skud,B.E.Intertidalspawningofpinksalmon,FWLS,Wash.,1954

Heard,W. R. 1991. Life history of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Pages120‐230inC.GrootandL.Margolis,editors.Pacificsalmonlifehistories.UBCPress,UniversityofBritishColumbia,Vancouver.Helle,J.H.,R.S.Williamsom,andJ.E.Bailey.1964.IntertidalecologyandlifehistoryofpinksalmonatOlsenCreek,PrinceWilliamSound,Alaska.U.S.FishandWildlifeServiceSpecialScientificReport.FisheriesNo.483Hiss,J.M.,1995.EnvironmentalfactorsinfluencingspawningescapementofDungenessRiverpinksalmon(Oncorhynchusgorbuscha)1959‐1993.U.S.FishandWildlife Service, miscellaneous report. Prepared for the National Park Service,OlympicNationalPark,PortAngeles,WA.Hoar,W.S., 1956, The behaviour of migrating pink and chum salmon fry, JournalFisheriesResourceBoard,CanadaLister, D.B., C.E. Walker, 1966, The effect of flow control on freshwater survival of chum, coho, and Chinook salmon in the Big Qualicum River. Resource Development Branch, Department of Fisheries of Canada, Vancouver, B.C.

McDonald, J.G.1960.ThebehaviourofPacificsalmonfryduringtheirdownstreammigration to freshwater and saltwater nursery areas. Journal Fisheries ResourceBoard,Canada

Pritchard, A. L., 1939: A study of the natural propagation of the pink salmon,Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, in British Columbia. Transactions of the AmericanFisheriesSocietyWashington.1940;69:237‐239

9

Raleigh, R. F., and P. C. Nelson. 1985. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: Pink salmon. U.S. Fish Wild1ife Service. Biol Rep. 82(10.109). 36 pp.Vernon E.H. 1966. Enumeration of migrant pink salmon fry in the Fraser RiverEstuary.IPSFCBull.XIX.NewWestminster,B.C.

NOAA FISHERIES NORTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE

EFH ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES

(modified 08/04)

Introduction: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act mandates that federal agencies conduct an EFH consultation with NOAA Fisheries regarding any of their actions authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). An adverse effect means any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions.

This worksheet has been designed to assist Federal agencies in determining whether an EFH consultation is necessary, and developing the needed information should a consultation be required. This worksheet will lead you through a series of questions that will provide an initial screening to determine if an EFH consultation is necessary, and help you assemble the needed information for determining the extent of the consultation required. The information provided in this worksheet may also be used to develop the required EFH Assessment.

Consultation through NOAA Fisheries regarding other NOAA-trust resources may also be necessary if a proposed action results in adverse impacts. Part 6 of the worksheet is designed to help assess the effects of the action on other NOAA-trust resources. This helps maintain efficiency in our interagency coordination process. In addition, consultation with NOAA Fisheries may be required if a proposed action impacts marine mammals or threatened and endangered species for which we are responsible. Staff from our Northeast Regional Office, Protected Resources Division should be contacted regarding potential impacts to marine mammals or threatened and endangered species.

Instructions for Use:

An EFH Assessment must be submitted by a Federal agency to NOAA Fisheries as part of the EFH consultation. An EFH Assessment must include the following information: 1) A description of the proposed action. 2) An analysis of the potential adverse effects of the action on EFH, and the managed species. 3) The Federal agency’s conclusions regarding the effects of the action on EFH. 4) Proposed mitigation if applicable.

In some cases, this worksheet can be used as an EFH Assessment. If the Federal agency determines that the action will not cause substantial impacts to EFH, then this worksheet may suffice. If the action may cause substantial adverse effects on EFH, then a more thorough discussion of the action and its impacts in a separate EFH Assessment will be necessary. The completed worksheet should be forwarded to NOAA Fisheries Northeast Regional Office, Habitat Conservation Division (HCD) for review.

The information contained on the HCD website (http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/) will assist you in completing this worksheet. The HCD web site contains information regarding: the EFH consultation process; Guide to EFH Designations which provides a geographic species list; Guide to EFH Species Descriptions which provides the legal description of EFH as well as important ecological information for each species and life stage; and other EFH reference documents including examples of EFH Assessments and EFH Consultations.

EFH ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES (modified 08/04)

PROJECT NAME: Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility

DATE: May 8, 2014

PROJECT NO.: 13563

LOCATION: Gilbert Bay, Alaska PREPARER: Robert Johnson, CSI Josh Epstein, Inter-Fluve, Inc. Step 1. Use the Habitat Conservation Division EFH webpage, Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the Northeastern United States to generate the list of designated EFH for federally- managed species for the geographic area of interest (http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/index2a.htm). Use the species list as part of the initial screening process to determine if EFH for those species occurs in the vicinity of the proposed action. Attach that list to the worksheet because it will be used in later steps. Make a preliminary determination on the need to conduct an EFH Consultation.

1. INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS

EFH Designations Yes No

Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for eggs? X

Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for larvae? X

Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for juveniles? X

Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for adults? X

Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for spawning adults? X

If you answered no to all questions above, then EFH consultation is not required -go to Section 5. If you answered yes to any of the above questions proceed to Section 2 and complete remainder of the worksheet.

Step 2. In order to assess impacts, it is critical to know the habitat characteristics of the site before the activity is undertaken. Use existing information, to the extent possible, in answering these questions. Please note that, there may be circumstances in which new information must be collected to appropriately characterize the site and assess impacts.

2. SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site Characteristics Description

Is the site intertidal, sub-tidal, or water column?

Intertidal

What are the sediment characteristics?

Small to coarse gravel; cobble; gravel, boulders and bedrock for the intertidal reach of Sweetheart Creek. The shoreline where the proposed road construction will take place is steep rock – boulder/cobble beach transitioning within approximately 75 feet into a wide intertidal width with mud/sand substrate.

Is Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) designated at or near the site? If so what type, size, characteristics?

No

Is there submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) at or adjacent to project site? If so describe the spatial extent.

No. Patches of fucus and green algae are found in the area. Following exhaustive observations at minus-level tides, there is no indication of the presence of eelgrass.

What is typical salinity and temperature regime/range?

0 - 25 ppt salinity and a temperature range of 0 - 12.2 degrees C for the anadromous section of Sweetheart Creek. Gilbert Bay temperatures are estimated to be in the range of 0 to 12 degrees C.

What is the normal frequency of site disturbance, both natural and man-made?

A stocked, personal-use sockeye salmon fishery takes place annually in August at Sweetheart Creek.

What is the area of proposed impact (work footprint ti far afield)?

Construction of a concrete dam at the outflow of Lower Sweetheart Lake and a powerhouse near the barrier falls of Sweetheart Creek. A service road approximately 4,400 feet in length is proposed to be constructed along the shoreline of Gilbert Bay over 8.67 acres of tideland. Support facilities, dock and transmission lines will be constructed near tidewater.

Step 3. This section is used to describe the anticipated impacts from the proposed action on the physical/chemical/biological environment at the project site and areas adjacent to the site that may be affected.

3. DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS

Impacts Y N Description

Nature and duration of activity(s)

The construction of this facility would stabilize the outflow of Sweetheart Creek at approximately 300-325 cubic feet per second (cfs), with a maximum capacity of 486 cfs for high water events. Temperatures will be affected by lowering the maximum temperature from approximately 11 degrees C in August to a range between 4 and 8 degrees C, and raising the winter and spring water temperatures from approximately 1.5 degrees C to approximately 2 - 4 degrees C. The accumulated temperature units are expected to remain approximately the same during average and dry precipitation years, and be reduced during wet precipitation years. The coastal road and dock are built of rock created by the tunnel, powerhouse, and tailrace excavations. The coastal road and dock will not reach full height (appx. 25-27 ft mllw elevation) until the end of construction. The current schedule of project construction is march 2015 to march 2016. The road and dock will be placed in "lifts" as material becomes available.

Will benthic community be disturbed?

X

X

Stream - the project will not disturb the benthic community. Road- the road construction will impact the benthic community, re-establishment of the benthic community through colonization of the new shoreline substrate is expected.

Will SAV be impacted?

X There are .34 acres of saltmarsh/dune grass/sedge combination habitat that will be disconnected from tidal influence or filled. Patches of fucus and green algae are found in the area. Following exhaustive observations at minus-level tides, there is no indication of the presence of eelgrass or other SAV.

Will sediments be altered and/or sedimentation rates change?

X

Stream ‐ Sediments will not be altered, sediment transport rates will be reduced and the creek will retain more sediment due to altered hydrology (lower peak discharge). Road ‐ Existing streams in the proposed road footprint will be directed through culverts. Shot rock (blasted bedrock) coming from the powerhouse and tunnel excavations will be placed onto the road and dock tidelands. This rock is expected to have a low amount of erodible fines.

Will turbidity increase?

X Road ‐ During construction there is almost always a turbidity increase, even with best management practices. This will be minimized by attempting to exclude dirty rock and topsoil from fills on or near beach, and near streams. These fine‐sediment laden materials are better suited for areas that have some vegetated buffer some distance from water, such as the visual landform barrier or in locations where vegetation growth on the uphill side of the road is desired, but not in areas of direct running or tidal waters.

Will water depth change? X

Stream- Stream water depth entering tidewater will increase during the winter months and decrease during the summer months relative to existing depths.

Will contaminants be released into sediments or water column?

X

Will tidal flow, currents or wave patterns be altered?

X

There will be a minimal increase in current entering Gilbert Bay during the winter months and a decrease during the summer months. The close proximity of the large Whiting River has far greater impact on Gilbert Bay currents than Sweetheart Creek and the other streams entering Gilbert Bay.

Will ambient salinity or temperature regime change?

X Stream ‐ Temperatures will be affected by lowering the maximum

temperature from approximately 12 degrees C in August to a range between 4 and 6 degrees C, and raising the winter and spring water temperatures from approximately 1.5 degrees C to approximately 2 ‐ 4 degrees C. The accumulated temperature units will remain approximately the same during an average precipitation year.

Will water quality be altered?

X During the shoreline road construction phase of the project there will be a measurable, but temporary, alteration of water quality in the active construction area, however, no adverse and permanent effects, perhaps even effect beyond a tide cycle should prevail. For example, when placing rock in the bay to build the dock, it may be possible to measure a slight NTU change in the bay relatively close to where the rock is being placed, due to disturbing sediment accumulated on the bottom of the bay rather than from the rock being placed. Nearly always there is a measureable NTU change for such work with the precise instruments available today.

Step 4. This section is used to evaluate the consequences of the proposed action on the functions and values of EFH as well as the vulnerability of the EFH species and their life stages. Identify which species from the EFH species list (generated in Step 1) will be adversely impacted from the action. Assessment of EFH impacts should be based upon the site characteristics identified in Step 2 and the nature of the impacts described within Step 3. The Guide to EFH Descriptions webpage (http:// www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/list.htm) should be used during this assessment to determine the ecological parameters/preferences associated with each species listed and the potential impact to those

parameters.

4. EFH ASSESSMENT

Functions and Values Y N Describe habitat type, species and life stages to be adversely impacted

Will functions and values of EFH be impacted for:

Regarding changes in flow and temperature, adult pink and chum salmon spawning, and juvenile rearing life stages will be affected but not necessarily adversely impacted. Regarding road construction, there will be a loss of .34 acres of saltmarsh/dune grass/sedge habitat, and approximately 4,400 feet of shoreline impacted for five to ten years before it is recolonized. This portion of the project will not effect pink and chum salmon eggs, larvae, or adults, and will have no significant effect on juvenile pink and chum salmon.

Spawning X

Small to coarse gravel; cobble; gravel, pink salmon, chum salmon

Nursery X

Small to coarse gravel; cobble; gravel, Pink salmon, Chum salmon

Forage X

Shelter X

Rearing salmonids would not have exposure to the affected area except during high tide, but even so there may be some diminished level of grazing or lack of shoreline cover during the recolonization period.

Will impacts be temporary or permanent?

Regarding the streamflow and temperature change, the impacts will be permanent. The construction of the road will cause a period of biological sterility followed by a period of recolonization by barnacles, mussels, rock weed, and associated communities.

Will compensatory mitigation be used?

X

Step 5. This section provides the Federal agencies determination on the degree of impact to EFH from the proposed action. The EFH determination also dictates the type of EFH consultation that will be required with NOAA Fisheries.

5. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT

�� Federal Agency's EFH Determination Overall degree of adverse effects on EFH (not including compensatory mitigation) will be:

(check the appropriate statement)

There is no adverse effect on EFH EFH Consultation is not required

X

The adverse effect on EFH is not substantial. This is a request for an abbreviated EFH consultation. This worksheet is being submitted to NMFS to satisfy the EFH Assessment requirement.

The adverse effect on EFH is substantial. This is a request for an expanded EFH consultation. A detailed written EFH assessment will be submitted to NMFS expanding upon the impacts revealed in this worksheet.

Step 6. Consultation with NOAA Fisheries may also be required if the proposed action results in adverse impacts to other NOAA-trust resources, such as anadromous fish, shellfish, crustaceans, or their habitats. Some examples of other NOAA-trust resources are listed below. Inquiries regarding potential impacts to marine mammals or threatened/endangered species should be directed to NOAA Fisheries’ Protected Resources Division.

6. OTHER NOAA-TRUST RESOURCES IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Species known to occur at site (list others that may apply)

Describe habitat impact type (i.e., physical, chemical, or biological disruption of spawning and/or egg development habitat, juvenile nursery and/or adult feeding or migration habitat).

Other species:

Pink Salmon

Chum Salmon

juneauhydro.com...2014/05/28 · United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Alaska...

Documents

Transcript of juneauhydro.com...2014/05/28 · United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Alaska...