OHV Use for Maintenance Along the Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture

OHV Use for Maintenance along the Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Environmental Assessment

Forest Service Tongass National Forest Ala ska Region Wrangell Ranger District R10-MB-810a June 2017

Primary Contact: Responsible Official: David Rak M. Earl Stewart Wrangell Ranger District Forest Supervisor 525 Bennett Street Tongass National Forest Wrangell, AK 99929 Federal Building 907-874-2323 Ketchikan, AK 99901

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider and employer.

OHV Use for Maintenance along the Tyee Electrical Transmission Line

1.0 Proposed Action ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Proposed Action ...... 1 1.3 Purpose and Need...... 4 1.4 Management Direction ...... 4 1.5 Decision To Be Made ...... 4 1.6 Public Participation ...... 5 2.0 Issues and Alternatives ...... 7 2.1 Issues ...... 7 2.2 Alternatives ...... 7 2.3 Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation Measures ...... 21 3.0 Existing Conditions ...... 23 3.1 Soils and Wetlands ...... 23 3.2 Vegetation ...... 31 3.3 Wildlife ...... 39 3.4 Aquatic Resources...... 46 3.5 Subsistence Resources ...... 50 3.6 Cultural Resources ...... 51 3.7 Land Use ...... 51 3.8 Other Resources...... 52 4.0 Environmental Consequences ...... 53 4.1 Soils and Wetlands ...... 53 4.2 Vegetation ...... 59 4.3 Wildlife ...... 63 4.4 Aquatic Resources...... 65 4.5 Subsistence Resources ...... 73 4.6 Cultural Resources ...... 74 4.7 Land Use ...... 74 4.8 Other Resources...... 75 5.0 Cumulative Effects ...... 76 6.0 References Cited ...... 78 7.0 Preparers ...... 81

Appendix A Mitigation and Monitoring Measures Appendix B Field-verified Characteristics of Proposed Stream Crossings in Segments A through I

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page iii Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

List of Figures

Figure 1.2-1. Project Area...... 2 Figure 1.2-2. Argo OHV (left) and landing craft (right)...... 3 Figure 2.2-1. Segment A...... 10 Figure 2.2-2. Segment B...... 11 Figure 2.2-3. Segment C...... 13 Figure 2.2-4. Segment D...... 14 Figure 2.2-5. Segment E...... 16 Figure 2.2-6. Segment F...... 17 Figure 2.2-7. Segment G...... 19 Figure 2.2-8. Segment H...... 20 Figure 2.2-9. Segment I...... 22 Figure 3.1-1. Log mats...... 23 Figure 3.1-2. Recreational ATV tracks in western portion of Segment C...... 24 Figure 3.1-3. Recreational ATV tracks in Segment I...... 25 Figure 3.1-4. Recreational ATV tracks in Segment H near Access Point AP-H2...... 25 Figure 3.1-5. Recreational ATV tracks in Segment H...... 26

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page iv Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

List of Tables

Table 3.1-1. Soils crossed by the ROW in each segment...... 28 Table 3.1-2. Soil series and descriptions...... 29 Table 3.1-3. Wetland acreage within the project area...... 31 Table 3.2-1. Sensitive plants known or suspected to occur on the Petersburg or Wrangell Ranger District...... 32 Table 3.2-2. AKNHP rare species observed in the project area...... 32 Table 3.2-3. Invasive species documented in the project area, and estimated acreage...... 35 Table 3.2-4. Invasive species occurrences on NFS land by segment and Forest Service priority...... 37 Table 3.2-5. Invasive species occurrences in Wrangell Borough, highlighting treatment priorities...... 38 Table 3.2-6. Invasive species occurrences in Petersburg Borough, highlighting treatment priority...... 39 Table 3.2-7. Threatened and endangered wildlife species under the jurisdiction of NMFS. 40 Table 3.2-8. Threatened, endangered, and candidate species under USFWS jurisdiction. ... 41 Table 3.2-9. Region 10 sensitive species known to occur on the Tongass National Forest... 42 Table 3.3-1. Tongass MIS likely or known to occur in the project area...... 43 Table 3.3-2. Migratory and resident bird species of concern in southeast Alaska...... 44 Table 3.3-3. Mammals and birds that may be endemic to the project area...... 46 Table 3.4-1. Salmonid species possibly present in the project area...... 47 Table 3.4-2. Proposed stream crossings (Class I, II, and III) by segment...... 49 Table 3.4-3. Cataloged anadromous waters potentially affected by the proposed project that ADF&G identified as being of concern (from ADF&G 2014)...... 49 Table 3.7-1. Federal ownership and administrative status of right-of-way...... 52 Table 4.1-1. Acreage of potential wetland impacts on NFS lands within ROW segments, by wetland type in each trip (one pass in, one pass out)...... 57 Table 4.1-2. Acreage of potential wetland impacts within tracks on non-NFS lands within segments, by wetland type in each trip (one pass in, one pass out)...... 57 Table 4.1-3. Acreage of potential wetland impacts associated with access on non-NFS lands...... 58 Table 4.2-1. Existing condition and proposed action dependent factors affecting invasive plant response to project implementation...... 62 Table 4.3-1. Federally listed and candidate species that may occur or are known to occur in the project area...... 63 Table 4.3-2. Summary of effects determinations for Region 10 sensitive species with potential to occur in the project area...... 64 Table 4.4-1. Mitigation measures for important stream crossings in the proposed project area...... 70 Table 4.4-2. Channel Type Descriptions ...... 73

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page v Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

List of Acronyms

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game AKEPIC Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act ATM Access and Travel Management ATV All Terrain Vehicle. Used throughout this document to refer to other single seat, wheeled recreational vehicles used by the public to access areas off established roads. See also OHV. AWC Anadromous Waters Catalog BA/BE Biological Assessment / Biological Evaluation BMP Best Management Practices DPS Distinct Population Segment EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit FEF Forested Wetland/Emergent Sedge Wetland Complex, > 50 Percent Forested FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FHP Fish Habitat Permit FW Forested Wetland GIS Geographic Information System GMU Game Management Unit LUD Land Use Designation LWD Large woody debris MIS Management Indicator Species MP Moss muskeg NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NWI National Wetlands Inventory OHV Off Highway Vehicle. Used throughout this document to refer specifically to the vehicle that will be used by SEAPA for transmission line access. See also ATV. psi pounds per square inch OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page vi Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

ROW Right-of-Way SEAPA Southeast Alaska Power Agency SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer TUS Transportation and Utility System

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page vii Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

1.0 PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Tongass National Forest is conducting an environmental analysis of a request from the Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) to use an off-highway vehicle (OHV) along segments of the Tyee electrical transmission line. The Tyee electrical transmission line extends approximately 80 miles from the Tyee Lake hydropower project on Bradfield Canal to the communities of Wrangell and Petersburg. SEAPA is proposing to use a tracked OHV to transport personnel and equipment (hand tools) within segments of the transmission line right-of-way (ROW) in order to complete vegetation maintenance activities required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Under Forest Service policy, a decision to authorize vehicle use in an area not currently allowed by the Petersburg and Wrangell Ranger District Access and Travel Management Plans requires that the potential environmental effects be evaluated following National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines (40 CFR 1500.1 and 36 CFR 212.50).

1.2 PROPOSED ACTION

The Forest Service is proposing to amend SEAPA’s special use permit for the operation and maintenance of the Tyee electrical transmission line ROW to allow the use of off-highway vehicles to transport personnel and equipment to conduct maintenance along nine segments of the Tyee electrical transmission line shown in Figure 1.2-1.

The general characteristics of the class of OHV that would be used would include:

• width less than 7 feet, • length less than 12 feet, • fully loaded weight less than 1,500 pounds, • uses a tracked (non-wheeled) drive system in contact with the ground, • has an operating ground contact pressure of less than 5 pounds per square inch (psi), • and may include a towed (non-powered) trailer with dimensions and weight less than the powered OHV.

The characteristics of the class of OHV that would be used will exclude the possible use of tracked heavy equipment bulldozers (which would exceed the dimensions and weight), and also exclude the use of a recreational all-terrain vehicle (which have a non-tracked drive system in contact with the ground and exceed the ground contact pressure of 5 psi).

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 1 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx Southeast Alaska Kupreanof Petersburg

F re d e r ic k S o u n d

I Mitkof Island

Project Vicinity H

Wrangell Sumner Strait Vank Is. F

D C E t i

a r Zarembo Island Woronkofski t S Island a i

t v i o a r t m i

S Z

n i

k i t

S B Etolin Island

Wrangell Island

Figure 1.2-1. Project Area Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Tongass National Forest Proposed OHV Use Segments Other Ownership Other Transmission Line Segments Roads 1 inch = 5.9 miles Miles 0 3 6 12 18 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\ProjArea.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

SEAPA has selected an Argo1 OHV (shown in Figure 1.2-2) to access the ROW. The Argo is a rubber-tracked vehicle capable of maneuvering over rugged terrain, coarse woody material on the forest floor, and on slopes up to 40 percent. It has a ground pressure of 0.38 psi unloaded, and 0.7 psi when loaded at full capacity. A wheeled recreational all-terrain vehicle (ATV) typically has a ground pressure of about 5-7 psi.

The Argo would be either trailered to a roadside access point or transported to a shoreline access point using a landing craft (Figure 1.2-2) as identified in Figures 2.2-1 through 2.2-9. Use of the OHV would be for vegetation management activities (i.e., cutting vegetation to prevent its encroachment into the overhead transmission lines). The OHV would carry a two-person crew and brushing equipment to cut alder and any other tree saplings that are encroaching into the ROW.

The number of days needed to complete vegetation maintenance in a given distance of the transmission line varies, depending on the size and density of the trees. The number of years between returning to the same area for repeating the maintenance activity is also variable, and depends on the species and growth rate of the trees present. Slower growing conifer stands may only require maintenance approximately every 20 years, while faster growing alder stands may require returning to the same area every 4 years. A 2-person crew can complete maintenance work on a 1,500 to 2,000-foot long ROW area in 5 days for a low density stand, while a high density stand may take up to 15 days. Based on SEAPA’s experience, the average work rate and maintenance cycle for a 1,500 to 2,000-foot length of ROW is 10 days with a return interval of 8 years.

A more detailed description of the proposed action and the segments of the transmission line that would be accessed is provided in Section 2.2.

Figure 1.2-2. Argo OHV (left) and landing craft (right).

1 The use of manufacturer or trade names is only for reference. The Forest Service does not require, or endorse, the use of specific products. OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 3 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose for using an OHV is to provide cost-effective access to segments of the Tyee electrical transmission line for maintenance crews conducting vegetation management activities and other infrequent transmission line management activities (such as emergency repairs or tower inspections). The need for this proposed action is to reduce the cost of maintaining the transmission system in order to provide low cost electrical service to the communities of Wrangell and Petersburg. SEAPA is required by the FERC to manage vegetation growth within their transmission line ROW such that the vegetation does not interfere with the safety and operation of the transmission system.

1.4 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

The Tyee electrical transmission line is within the Renewable Energy Direction of the 2016 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (2016 Forest Plan). One Desired Condition for the Renewable Energy Direction provides for renewable energy projects to contribute to the economic well-being of Southeast Alaska communities across National Forest System (NFS) land. The Desired Condition also states that renewable energy resources are developed in a manner that would maintain and protect NFS land and resources (2016 Forest Plan, page 5-9). Land within renewable energy sites is suitable for roads for access, construction, operation, maintenance, and support of renewable energy (2016 Forest Plan, page 5-10). Renewable energy sites include utility lines for the transmission and distribution of electrical energy (2016 Forest Plan, page 7-49).

1.5 DECISION TO BE MADE

This Environmental Assessment (EA) includes an evaluation of the proposed action to use an OHV in specified areas of the transmission line ROW for maintenance purposes. SEAPA’s proposal includes segments of the transmission line ROW that bisect land owned or administered by other entities (e.g., State of Alaska, Borough of Petersburg, Borough of Wrangell) as well as NFS land. The use of an OHV along segments of the transmission line not on NFS land would require authorization from the respective owners or land management agencies.

While this EA includes descriptions of OHV access across non-NFS lands and use of a landing craft to transport the Argo to Vank and Woronkofski islands (a connected action under NEPA), the Forest Service is only authorized to make a decision regarding the activities proposed on land within its jurisdiction. The Forest Supervisor will decide whether to allow the use of an OHV to maintain certain sections of the Tyee electrical transmission line on land administered by the Forest Service. If the proposed OHV use is approved, the Forest Service would amend SEAPA’s Special Use Permit to authorize the use of an OHV in specified areas.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 4 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

1.6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The project has been listed on the Tongass National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions since July 2014. Opportunities for public involvement have been provided through a scoping newsletter distributed to 33 interested stakeholders in late December 2014 and early January 2015. Two comment letters were received; one individual supporting the proposed action, and one from Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) identifying a concern about vehicle crossings at anadromous fish streams.

Forest Service resource specialists from a variety of disciplines have reviewed the project proposed by SEAPA throughout the development of this EA. Their comments regarding soils, wetlands, fisheries, streams, sensitive plants and animals, invasive species, and cultural resource issues, and potential mitigation measures have been incorporated into this document.

Government-to-government consultation between the Forest Service and local tribal governments has been conducted regarding this project. Consultation has been undertaken with the Sealaska Corporation, the Tlingit and Haida Central Council, the Wrangell Cooperative Association, and the Petersburg Indian Association. Information from this consultation is documented in the project planning record and incorporated into this EA. A technical report addressing cultural resources was prepared and has been reviewed by the Petersburg and Wrangell Zone Archaeologist. Notice of this project will be provided to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (USFS 2012).

This EA is available to the public. It can be accessed on the internet at: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=42841, and paper copies can be requested by contacting the Wrangell District Office.

The proposed action implements land management plans and is not authorized under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. The project is subject to 36 CFR 218.7 subparts (a) and (b), meaning that there will be an objection process after this EA and the associated draft decision are issued and before the final decision is made. In order to be eligible to file an objection, specific written comments related to the project must be submitted during any public comment period, including scoping or during the 30-day comment period described above (36 CFR 218.5). Individual members of organizations must submit their own comments to meet the requirements of eligibility as an individual. Names and addresses of those who comment or file objections will become part of the public record.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 5 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

The 30 day comment period begins upon publication of the public notice in the Ketchikan Daily News. Written comments may be submitted to:

David Rak, Special Uses Specialist Wrangell Ranger District PO Box 51 525 Bennett Street Wrangell, AK 99929

Written comments may also be emailed to:

[email protected]

Additional information about the project, including biological evaluations for plants and for fish and wildlife, and an invasive weed report and risk assessment are available in the project planning record. These documents are part of the project planning record which is on file with the Wrangell Ranger District.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 6 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

2.0 ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 ISSUES

Issues associated with the use of an OHV along segments of the Tyee electrical transmission line were identified through public involvement activities. These issues include potential effects on soils and wetlands, fish and stream habitat, special status plants and wildlife, invasive plant species, and cultural resources. These issues are addressed through the development of the proposed action and the evaluation of effects of the proposed project.

2.2 ALTERNATIVES 2.2.1 No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, SEAPA’s maintenance crews would continue to access the segments of the transmission line ROW on NFS land via helicopter. The use of an OHV to transport personnel on the ground would not be authorized on NFS land by the Forest Service.

2.2.2 Proposed Action

SEAPA proposes to use an OHV for off-road travel along segments of the Tyee electrical transmission line. Many of these segments cross National Forest System land in areas that are not designated as open to vehicles under the Wrangell and Petersburg District Access and Travel Management (ATM) Plans.

Off-road travel would be conducted using a two-person rubber-tracked utility vehicle such as the Argo OHV shown in Figure 1.3-1. The OHV has a low pressure footprint to minimize disturbance to soft ground. The Argo OHV has a total weight (unloaded) of approximately 1,090 pounds with a tread surface area of 2,844 square inches 2, resulting in a surface pressure of 0.38 psi. When fully loaded (an additional 1,000 pounds) the ground surface pressure would increase to approximately 0.7 psi.

SEAPA proposes to conduct off-road travel within the ROW of nine segments of the transmission line shown in Figure 1.3-2, and from designated access points to the transmission line ROW. Many of the proposed segments are on NFS land.

Use of an OHV along these segments would occur when conducting vegetation management activities. The estimated time interval for returning to the same location to conduct vegetation management activities is approximately 8 years. OHV travel may occur for periods of a few days or a few weeks along a segment during a specific management activity. A minimum of two passes (in and out) would be needed over a segment to conduct

2 The Argo wheelbase length is 79 inches; track width is 18 inches. OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 7 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

vegetation management activities. Additional passes would be needed for longer segments, or segments with dense vegetation.

The sections below provide a general description of each segment of the transmission line where OHV use is proposed. Figures 2.2-1 through 2.2-9 provide an overview of the location of each segment.

Segment A - Southeast Wrangell Island Segment A (Figure 2.2-1) is a 4.77-mile section of the transmission line ROW beginning at the southeast corner of Wrangell Island near the mouth of Bradfield Canal. The south end of the segment includes a sea terminal connection point where the transmission line makes the transition from the underwater crossing from Cleveland Peninsula to an overhead line on Wrangell Island. The segment continues northward along the east side of Wrangell Island adjacent to Blake Channel and ends at an un-named stream near Serius Point. This segment is entirely on land administered by the Forest Service within the Tongass National Forest, Wrangell Ranger District. The terrain is gently sloping ground on a topographic bench parallel to the shoreline. The vegetation is a combination of forested muskeg and young forest conditions 3. A pedestrian trail is present the entire length of the segment within the ROW.

Segment A could be accessed from two locations at the southern end of the segment. The OHV would be transported to the south end of the segment by landing craft and offloaded at the shoreline either near the sea terminal connection, or it could be offloaded in a small bay approximately 0.5 miles north of the terminal. Both of these locations would provide direct access to the transmission line ROW. There are no access points for the OHV north of these locations due to terrain limitations.

Segment B - Wrangell Island, Earl West Cove Segment B (Figure 2.2-2) is a 2.05-mile section of the transmission line ROW beginning at Earl West Creek at the southeast and extending to a point approximately 1/2 mile east of Salamander Creek. This segment crosses land that has been transferred (a patent has been issued) to the State of Alaska. The patent defines that the land within the transmission line ROW is retained by the United States for the purpose of a transmission line. The land within the ROW is administered by the Forest Service. This segment crosses gently sloping ground that is a combination of forested muskeg and young forest conditions, with some open muskeg areas between them. A pedestrian trail is present within the forested portions of the ROW.

Segment B could be accessed from three locations. Two separate access points are necessary for this segment as it is bisected by an unnamed resident fish stream with terrain adjacent to the stream that restricts OHV travel. The eastern half would be accessed from a shoreline location between Earl West Creek and the unnamed resident fish stream. This

3 Forested areas within the ROW are maintained in a young forest condition by cutting trees and tall shrubs before the height growth of the vegetation interferes with management of the transmission line. OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 8 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

access would occur with a landing craft offloading the OHV on the shoreline. Access from the shoreline to the ROW requires OHV travel through approximately 200-300 feet of mature forest adjacent to the shoreline, then through forested muskeg and open muskeg the remaining distance (approximately 1,000-1,200 feet) to the transmission line ROW.

The western half of Segment B could be accessed either from the shoreline west of the unnamed resident fish stream or from Forest Road #6265 at its closest point to the transmission line. Access from the shoreline for the western half would be similar (both terrain and vegetation) to the shoreline access described above for the eastern half. Access from Forest Road #6265 would require trailering the OHV to this point and offloading it at the gravel pit or picnic table overlook site upslope from the transmission line ROW. The OHV would travel approximately 700 feet through sparsely forested muskeg and open muskeg to get to the transmission line ROW.

All three access points would require OHV travel across State land to get to the transmission line ROW that is under the Forest Service jurisdiction.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 9 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx (!

AP-A2 GF

AP-A1 GF Figure 2.2-1. Segment A - Southeast Wrangell Island

Proposed OHV Use Segment Roads Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed 1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong Anadromous Stream GF Potential Access Point 2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal Resident Stream 3 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Yearlong Non-Fish Stream 100-ft. Contour 4 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Seasonal Forest Service Administered Land 14 State or US Highway Non-Forest Service Land 15 Other Public Roads 1 inch = 3,000 feet Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\TLineSegments.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016 AP-B2 GF

AP-B1 AP-B3 GF GF

M c C o rm a c k C re e k R o a d

(F R 6 2 6 5 )

Figure 2.2-2. Segment B - Wrangell Island, Earl West Cove

Proposed OHV Use Segment Roads Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed 1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong Anadromous Stream GF Potential Access Point 2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal Resident Stream 3 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Yearlong Non-Fish Stream 100-ft. Contour 4 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Seasonal Forest Service Administered Land 14 State or US Highway Non-Forest Service Land 15 Other Public Roads 1 inch = 1,500 feet Miles 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\TLineSegments.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

Segment C - Wrangell Island, Shoemaker Bay Segment C (Figure 2.2-3) is a 0.41-mile section of the transmission line ROW beginning at the Forest boundary above Shoemaker Bay and extending eastward uphill to a point where the hillslope increases and the Argo would be unable to access. This segment is on land administered by the Forest Service (except approximately 100 feet at the west end); however, access to the segment from Zimovia Highway requires crossing non-NFS land. The OHV would be transported to this access point by trailer and offloaded at a safe location adjacent to the Zimovia Highway. There are indications that the public is using vehicles across non-NFS land from Zimovia highway eastward (uphill) toward the transmission line ROW. Vegetation consists of forested muskeg in the western half and transitioning to young forest conditions in the eastern half. A pedestrian trail is present in the ROW of the western half of the segment.

Segment D - Northwest Wrangell Island Segment D (Figure 2.2-4) is a 2.31-mile section of the transmission line ROW beginning at the south end near the Southeast Alaska Power Agency office adjacent to Zimovia Highway. The south end of this segment begins at the sea terminal connection point for the underwater crossing to Woronkofski Island. Segment D splits from the main transmission line at the sea terminal and becomes a spur line that supplies power to the City of Wrangell. This segment parallels and is upslope from the Zimovia Highway, running through young forest. A pedestrian trail was identified along approximately half of this segment; however, it is mostly obscured due to the density of the vegetation within the ROW.

Segment D is entirely outside NFS lands. OHV access to this segment could occur at the south end directly from the Southeast Alaska Power Agency office and maintenance shop, and in the middle from a road accessing a gravel pit and equipment maintenance shop. Access at the north end of this segment is not possible due to the steep slopes.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 12 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx Z

i m

v i a

i g

h w

( F

6 )

AP-C1 GF

Figure 2.2-3. Segment C - Wrangell Island, Shoemaker Bay

Proposed OHV Use Segment Roads Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed 1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong Anadromous Stream GF Potential Access Point 2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal Resident Stream 3 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Yearlong Non-Fish Stream 100-ft. Contour 4 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Seasonal Forest Service Administered Land 14 State or US Highway Non-Forest Service Land 15 Other Public Roads 1 inch = 1,000 feet Miles 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 0.45 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\TLineSegments.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016 Z im o v ia H ig h w a y

( F (! H AP-D2 1 6 GF )

AP-D1 GF

Figure 2.2-4. Segment D - Northwest Wrangell Island

Proposed OHV Use Segment Roads Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed 1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong Anadromous Stream GF Potential Access Point 2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal Resident Stream 3 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Yearlong Non-Fish Stream 100-ft. Contour 4 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Seasonal Forest Service Administered Land 14 State or US Highway Non-Forest Service Land 15 Other Public Roads 1 inch = 1,500 feet Miles 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\TLineSegments.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

Segment E - Woronkofski Island Segment E (Figure 2.2-5) is a 3.27-mile section of the transmission line ROW crossing the northern shoreline of Woronkofski Island. The segment has a sea terminal connection at both the east and west ends where it transitions from underwater cable to overhead line. This segment crosses gently sloping ground on a topographic bench parallel to the north shoreline. The vegetation consists mostly of a combination of forested muskeg and young forest conditions. A pedestrian trail is present along most of the length of the segment within the ROW, except an approximately 2,000-foot section with dense vegetation within the ROW.

Segment E is entirely on NFS land. OHV access to this segment could occur at the sea terminal connection points at the east and west ends. The OHV would be transported by landing craft and offloaded at the shoreline adjacent to either sea terminal connection. There are no access points elsewhere along this segment due to terrain limitations.

Segment F - Vank Island Segment F (Figure 2.2-6) is a 2.88-mile section of the transmission line ROW bisecting the center of Vank Island from the southeast to the northwest. The segment has sea terminal connections at ends where it transitions from underwater cable to overhead line. This segment crosses moderately sloping ground from both ends to a high point located in the middle of the island. The vegetation consists of forested muskeg and young forest conditions. A pedestrian trail is present along most of the length of the segment except an approximately 2,500-foot section with dense vegetation within the ROW.

Segment F is entirely on NFS land. OHV access could occur at both sea terminal connections, where the Argo could be offloaded from a landing craft. There are no other access points due to terrain limitations and distance from the shoreline. This segment must be accessed from both ends as there is an impassible topographic feature approximately 0.75 miles inland from the southeast sea terminal connection.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 15 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx AP-E2 GF

AP-E1 GF

Figure 2.2-5. Segment E - Woronkofski Island

Proposed OHV Use Segment Roads Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed 1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong Anadromous Stream GF Potential Access Point 2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal Resident Stream 3 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Yearlong Non-Fish Stream 100-ft. Contour 4 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Seasonal Forest Service Administered Land 14 State or US Highway Non-Forest Service Land 15 Other Public Roads 1 inch = 2,333 feet Miles 0 0.175 0.35 0.7 1.05 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\TLineSegments.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016 AP-F2 GF

AP-F1 GF

Figure 2.2-6. Segment F - Vank Island

Proposed OHV Use Segment Roads Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed 1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong Anadromous Stream GF Potential Access Point 2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal Resident Stream 3 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Yearlong Non-Fish Stream 100-ft. Contour 4 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Seasonal Forest Service Administered Land 14 State or US Highway Non-Forest Service Land 15 Other Public Roads 1 inch = 1,833 feet Miles 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\TLineSegments.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

Segment G - Mitkof Island, South Blind Slough Segment G (Figure 2.2-7) is a 4.79-mile section of the transmission line ROW beginning at the south end of Mitkof Island and paralleling the Mitkof Highway to the north. The south end of this segment begins at the sea terminal connection point for the underwater crossing to Vank Island. The ROW crosses gently sloping terrain consisting of open muskeg, forested muskeg, and young forest conditions. A pedestrian trail is present along most of the length of the segment.

This segment could be accessed from five locations, all of which are from existing open roads, except the sea terminal connection at the south end. OHV access at the sea terminal connection would be from a landing craft at the shoreline. All other possible access points to this segment are either from the Mitkof Highway or logging roads that cross perpendicular through the transmission line ROW. Each point provides direct access to the ROW and OHV travel across property administered by other land owners would not be required. There are indications that vehicle use by the public is occurring along portions of the ROW in this segment.

The southern half of Segment G is located on State of Alaska land, while the northern half is on NFS land. This segment crosses land that has been transferred (a patent has been issued) to the State of Alaska. The patent defines that the land within the transmission line ROW is retained by the United States for the purpose of a transmission line. The land within the ROW is administered by the Forest Service.

Segment H - Mitkof Island, North Blind Slough Segment H (Figure 2.2-8) is a 4.14-mile section of the transmission line ROW beginning in the south near the Blind Slough Picnic Area and paralleling the Mitkof Highway northward to a point near the mouth of Blind Slough. The ROW crosses gently sloping terrain consisting mostly of young forest with some forested muskeg in the northern portion. A pedestrian trail is present along most of the segment, although it is mostly obscured at several locations due to dense vegetation.

Segment H is on NFS land (except approximately 400 feet at the northwest end). The ROW could be accessed from four locations. Each are at existing open roads, either from the Mitkof Highway or logging roads that cross perpendicular through the transmission line ROW. The OHV would be trailered to access points and off-loaded at safe locations adjacent to the existing roads. There are indications that vehicle use by the public is occurring along portions of the ROW in this segment.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 18 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx AP-G6 GF S na ke R id ge (F R 40 00 6) AP-G5 6) 24 6 GF R (F ek re r C AP-G4 he m . O .F GF W

C ry sta l L ak e ( FR 6 28 0)

(! AP-G3 GF

r m

i 6245) n d (FR e Roa cker ( oodpe F W R

6 2 2 2 )

MIt kof Hig hway (FH 7) AP-G2 GF

AP-G1 GF Figure 2.2-7. Segment G - Mitkof Island, South Blind Slough

AP-H5 GF

AP-H4 GF AP-H3 GF

MIt kof Hi ghw ay (FH 7) AP-H2 GF

AP-H1 GF

Figure 2.2-8. Segment H - Mitkof Island, North Blind Slough

Proposed OHV Use Segment Roads Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed 1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong Anadromous Stream GF Potential Access Point 2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal Resident Stream 3 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Yearlong Non-Fish Stream 100-ft. Contour 4 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Seasonal Forest Service Administered Land 14 State or US Highway Non-Forest Service Land 15 Other Public Roads 1 inch = 2,667 feet Miles 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\TLineSegments.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

Segment I - Mitkof Island, Twin Creek South Segment I (Figure 2.2-9) is a 2.38-mile section of the transmission line ROW beginning at the south near the junction of the Mitkof Highway and the Three Lakes Loop Road and extending northward to a point immediately south of the location where Twin Creek crosses the Mitkof Highway. This segment crosses gently sloping terrain consisting of forested muskeg and young forest conditions. A pedestrian trail is present along the entire length of the segment.

Segment I is entirely on non-NFS land. The segment must be accessed from two locations; one at the south end and one at the north end, to avoid a steeply incised stream drainage that bisects this segment and prevents any OHV crossing. Direct access to the south end could occur from a safe location along the Mitkof Highway. An alternate access point for the southern portion of the ROW is from an existing logging road approximately 0.5 miles north of the south end of this segment. There are indications that vehicle use by the public is occurring within the ROW from the logging road. Access to the north end would occur over approximately 400 feet of trail through private land immediately south of Twin Creek.

2.3 MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Management and monitoring measures will be implemented as part of the proposed action for the purpose of reducing the risk of adverse effects to natural resources and addressing the key issues identified during scoping. Two of the primary elements of the proposed action includes protecting aquatic resources, and scheduling maintenance work to minimize the potential for contributing to spread of existing noxious weed and exotic plant populations. To address weed concerns, SEAPA would develop and implement a noxious weed and exotic plant prevention and control plan.

SEAPA would also implement measures to protect soils, wetlands, and aquatic habitat; and conduct monitoring to guide the development and implementation of any mitigation measures that may be needed in the future. Specific measures for each key issue are described in Appendix A, and discussed in the applicable resource sections.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 21 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx AP-I2 GF

M I t k o f

H ig h w a y

( F H

7 )

AP-I1 GF

Figure 2.2-9. Segment I - Mitkof Island, Twin Creek South

Proposed OHV Use Segment Roads Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed 1 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong Anadromous Stream GF Potential Access Point 2 Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal Resident Stream 3 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Yearlong Non-Fish Stream 100-ft. Contour 4 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Seasonal Forest Service Administered Land 14 State or US Highway Non-Forest Service Land 15 Other Public Roads 1 inch = 1,750 feet Miles 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\TLineSegments.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 SOILS AND WETLANDS

Information about soils and wetlands in the project area is based on a review of existing literature, aerial photos, topographic maps, and Forest Service Geographic Information System (GIS) data. This information was supplemented with field surveys from August 5 through August 14, 2014 that covered each segment and access point. The purpose of the surveys was to identify the likely route the Argo would take from tower to tower, areas of concern for erosion or damage to sensitive habitat, and potential alternative routes that would avoid or minimize impacts on soils or wetlands. Mapped wetland classifications and boundaries were confirmed visually in the field, based primarily on vegetation and apparent hydrology. Soils were evaluated at 19 sites where classifications or boundaries were unclear. 3.1.1 Past and On-going Disturbance

The ROW traverses a mix of uplands and wetlands and numerous mapped and unmapped streams. Timber was cleared from all forested areas of the ROW in order to construct the transmission line during the 1980’s. Log mats were present at numerous locations in all of the segments except Segment D. The purpose of these logs may have been to support wooden platforms providing temporary soil protection for heavy equipment (Figure 3.1-1). At these sites, logs ranging in diameter from about 12 to 18 inches were placed at variable intervals over distances ranging from 20 to 150 feet. Some are located on well-drained slopes, some in wet depressions, and some in dry, level areas. None of the sites are typical of puncheon or corduroy roads, i.e., the logs are not attached to one another, secured to buried rails, or staked into the ground to provide more permanent stability.

Figure 3.1-1. Log mats.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 23 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Although timber was initially cleared from the entire right-of-way, major soil disturbance (excavation, back-filling, grading) occurred only at tower sites. Temporary access roads needed for construction within the ROW were not surfaced and are no longer passable except by OHV in some locations, on foot in other locations, and not passable at all in locations where dense conifer regeneration, alder (Alnus rubra) stands, or shrub thickets restrict access.

Other sources of past soil disturbance in the project area include a buried fiber optic cable within the ROW in the southern portion of Segment G, completed in 2008. This disturbance is now barely visible through most of the cable’s length, except for the presence of several access vaults level with the ground surface.

On-going soil disturbance is occurring in four segments (C, G, H, and I) within the project area as a result of unauthorized recreational activity (recreational ATVs). In Segment C, recreational ATV activity is evident in the short sedge wetland at the western end of the segment (Figure 3.1-2), as well as on non-Forest lands between the Zimovia Highway and the ROW. No established trail was observed, and the activity affects about half the ROW width.

Figure 3.1-2. Recreational ATV tracks in western portion of Segment C.

In Segments G, H, and I, recreational ATV activity has caused localized (approximately 40 to 200 feet long) areas of disturbance in wet soils in all three segments with approximately 8- 12-foot-wide trails (examples shown in Figures 3.1-3, 3.1-4, and 3.1-5). Ruts were estimated at depths to 3 inches, except at three sites in Segment H where ponding to 6 inches was observed at and just north of Access Point AP-H2. Parts of all three of these segments are easily accessible from the Mitkof Highway, and Segment I can be reached from a spur road off Three Lakes Road.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 24 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Figure 3.1-3. Recreational ATV tracks in Segment I.

Figure 3.1-4. Recreational ATV tracks in Segment H near Access Point AP-H2.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 25 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Figure 3.1-5. Recreational ATV tracks in Segment H.

No signs of recreational ATV disturbance were observed in Segments A, D, E, and F, which are accessible only by boat or helicopter, or in Segment B.

3.1.2 Soils

Mitkof Island lies within the Wrangell Narrows Metasediments Ecological Subsection (Nowacki et al. 2001). This subsection is characterized by heavy Pleistocene glaciation that has left rounded mountains, U-shaped valleys, and substantial till deposits. Underlying rock is sedimentary with scattered intrusions of granodiorite and tonalite. Wrangell and Woronkofski islands lie within the Zimovia Strait Complex Ecological Subsection, which has a similar geologic history and similar landforms, but Vank Island is part of the Stikine River Delta Ecological Subsection, where soils are influenced by strong valley winds from high- pressure systems in the Canadian Interior (Nowacki et al. 2001).

Soils in the Wrangell Narrows and Zimovia Strait subsections are similar, with 41 percent and 51 percent, respectively, being histosols (peaty soils with a deep surface layer of organic material); and about 54 percent and 47 percent, respectively being spodosols (acidic soils characterized by a subsurface accumulation of humus)(Nowacki et al. 2001). By contrast, the Stikine River Delta Ecological Subsection includes only about 11 percent histosols and 16 percent spodosols; inceptisols (well-drained soils with poorly developed horizons) account for 46 percent of the area.

Table 3.1-1 lists the code and name of each soil unit mapped in each segment of the project area, based on Tongass National Forest GIS data. Soil units are often mapped as complexes (e.g., Mitkof-Mosman complex), where two different soil types occur in a mosaic at a fine scale and cannot be mapped separately; or in associations (Kupreanof-Tolstoi association), where two different soil types also occur in a mosaic, but at a coarser scale.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 26 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table 3.1-2 provides a description of each soil series within the project area. The table includes the parent material in which the soil was formed, its typical location in the landscape, and its general drainage, permeability, and runoff characteristics. Soil characteristics influence the potential for erosion if vegetation is disturbed and the potential for compaction, rutting, and puddling that can result from vehicle passes. Shallow soils with rapid run-off are at greater risk for erosion, and the risk increases with slope length and slope angle (Napper et al. 2009). Shallow soils are also at greater risk of compaction and rutting than those protected by a thick layer of organic material.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 27 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table 3.1-1. Soils crossed by the ROW in each segment. Soil Segment Number of Soil Name Code A B C D E F G H I Segments 4 Tonowek sandy loam, 0-5% slopes X 1 11B Kupreanof-Tolstoi association 5-35% slopes X X X X X 5 11D Kupreanof-Tolstoi association 35-75% slopes X X 2 12B Liesnoi-Blaquirre complex, 5-35% slopes X 1 12D Liesnoi-Blaquirre complex, 35-75% slopes X 1 16B Kupreanof-Mosman complex, 5-35% slopes X X 2 16D Kupreanof-Mosman complex, 35-75% slopes X X X 3 21 Niblack peat, 3-45% slopes X 1 22 Kushneahin-Kina association, 3-35% slopes X X X 3 23B Kupreanof-Mitkof complex, 5-35% slopes X X X 3 31B Wadleigh silt loam, 5-35% slopes X X 2 32B Nakwasina peat, 5-35% slopes X X X X X 5 33F Mosman very gravelly loam, 75-120% slopes X X 2 34B Mitkof-Mosman complex, 5-35% slopes X X 2 34D Mitkof-Mosman complex, 35-75% slopes X 1 34F Mosman-Mitkof complex, 75-100% slopes X X 2 46B Mitkof sandy loam, 5-35% slopes X X 2 57 Kogish peat, 0-15% slopes X 1 64 Kushneahin-Maybeso complex, 3-35% slopes X X X X X X X 7 65 Kushneahin-Kaikli complex, 5-35% slopes X 1 91B Maybeso peat, 5-35% slopes X X X X X 5

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 28 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table 3.1-2. Soil series and descriptions. Soil Series Parent Material, Location, Drainage, Permeability, and Runoff

Maybeso Very deep soils formed from decomposing organic matter overlying glacial till on broad ridgetops, mountainsides, and valley sideslopes. Very poorly drained, very slow permeability in the glacial till substratum, very slow runoff. Mosman Very shallow soils formed in residuum or colluvium on mountain sideslopes and hillslopes. Well drained, moderately permeable, slow runoff. Kushneahin Very deep soils formed in partially to well decomposed plant material in depressional areas on lowlands, benches on mountain sideslopes, and broad ridges. Very poorly drained, moderately permeable, slow runoff. Kupreanof Very deep soils formed in colluvium and glacial till on moraines and mountain sideslopes. Well drained, moderately to moderately rapid permeability, slow to rapid runoff. Mitkof Very deep soils formed in colluvium and ablation till on mountain and hill sideslopes and till plains. Somewhat poorly drained, moderately permeable, very slow runoff. Nakwasina Shallow soils formed in glacial till overlying paralithic material consisting of dense compact till on mountain and hill sideslopes. Poorly drained, moderately permeable above the compact till, very slowly permeable in the compact till, very slow runoff. Tolstoi Shallow soils that formed in colluvium and residuum on gently sloping to extremely steep shoulders and backslopes of mountains and valleysides. Moderately well or well drained, moderately to over-moderately rapid permeability, medium to rapid runoff. Kina Very deep soils formed in partially decomposed organic material derived from sedges; found on depressional benches valley toeslopes and valley floors. Very poorly drained, moderately rapid permeability, slow runoff. Niblack Organic soils formed in highly decomposed organic material overlying bedrock on plateaus and benches on mountainslopes and hillslopes. Very poorly drained, rapid permeability, slow runoff. Wadleigh Shallow soils over paralithic compact till on moraines, dumlins, and hillslopes. Poorly drained, moderately permeable above the compact glacial till layer, very slowly permeable in the compact glacial till layer. Runoff is slow under native vegetation; however, if the surface organic horizon is disturbed, the runoff is medium to rapid. Kaikli Moderately deep soils formed from highly decomposed organic material, underlain by bedrock at depths from 21 to 51 inches on valleysides and hillslopes. Very poorly drained, moderately rapid permeability in the organic layers; runoff is moderate to rapid. Liesnoi Shallow soils formed in loess overlying residuum from greywacke, phyllite, or granodiorite on hill and mountain sideslopes. Well drained, moderate permeability, slow to rapid runoff. Blacquirre Moderately deep soils formed in loess overlying residuum from greywacke, phyllite, or granodiorite on hill and mountain sideslopes. Well drained, moderate permeability, slow to rapid runoff. Tonowek Very deep soils formed in alluvium. Well drained, subject to occasional brief flooding, moderate permeability in the upper 20 inches and rapid below, slow runoff. Kogish Very deep soils formed from decomposing organic material derived mainly from sphagnum moss in muskegs on nearly level terrace and benchlike landforms along valley floors. Poorly and very poorly drained, rapid permeability, slow runoff.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 29 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

3.1.3 Wetlands

Wetlands account for about 89 percent of the approximately 665-acre project area. Most are mapped in the Tongass National Forest GIS database (Soils feature class; Wet-Hab field) as forested (FW) or forested wetland/emergent sedge wetland complexes (FEF), with smaller acreages of moss muskeg (MP).

Forested wetlands occur on poorly drained or very poorly drained soils in seven of the nine segments. They support several species of conifers, including shore pine (Pinus contortus), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), Alaska yellow cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis), and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis). Deer cabbage (Nephrophyllidium crista-galli), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus) and bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis) are common on the forest floor.

Forested wetland/emergent short sedge wetland complexes occur in very poorly drained organic soils in all but one segment. In addition to the species mentioned above, these areas support a variety of sedges, such as pale sedge (Carex livida), white-beak sedge (Rhyncospora alba), and few-flowered sedge (Carex pauciflora), in addition to ericaceous shrubs such as crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum) and bog cranberry (V. oxycoccos), and sphagnum moss.

Approximately 40 acres of moss muskeg wetland is mapped in the project area, but moss- dominated wetlands very frequently occur in mosaics within FW or FEF where vascular plants account for less than 30 percent of the cover. Soils are very poorly drained and highly acidic peat deposits. In bogs, common plants include pale sedge, few-flowered sedge, cottongrasses (Eriophorum spp.), and tufted clubrush (Trichophorum cespitosum), in addition to sphagnum moss. Patches of sundews (Drosera rotundifolia and D. linearis) also occur, and buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliata) often grows in small pools.

No emergent tall sedge wetlands are mapped in the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) or Forest Service Wet-Hab maps, but numerous pockets of vegetation typical of this wetland type were observed within the ROW in mineral soils in Segments G, H, and I. These pockets were probably not present prior to construction of the transmission line, but have established in response to changes in microtopography, light, and moisture conditions since the ROW was cleared. Sitka sedge (Carex aquatilis), small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), and fowl mannagrass (Glyceria elata) are the most common species in these locations. Tall sedge wetlands have also established around beaver ponds in Segments E and F.

Estuarine wetlands are present at one access point for A, G, and I, and at two potential access points for Segments B, E and F. In Segments A and B, NWI codes show the wetlands as emergent intertidal, exposed to saltwater influence less than once a day. These lie between cobble beach and upland plant communities. The dominant species at these sites are beach wildrye (Leymus mollis) and Lyngbye’s sedge (Carex lyngbyei). Segment B, E, F, G,

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 30 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

and I wetlands are mapped in the NWI database as unconsolidated shoreline, exposed to daily tides.

Table 3.1-3 provides an overview of wetlands within the nine ROW segments, showing that some segments traverse wetlands along most of their length (Segments A, B, C, and G), while others (Segments D and H) are located primarily in uplands. Segments E, F, and I are roughly half wetland and half upland. Table 3.1-3 does not include wetlands within access routes to the segments, as these features are outside the segments and have no mapped width. Potential project effects on wetlands associated with access are addressed in Section 4.1.

Table 3.1-3. Wetland acreage within the project area. Total Total Wetland Percent Segment FW FEF MP Segment Acres Wetland Acres A 0 78.64 0 78.64 113.48 69 B 22.84 12.3 12.73 47.87 50.30 95 C 4.72 5.23 6.98 16.93 18.57 91 D 7.45 0 0 7.45 56.58 13 E 0 45.62 0 45.62 79.57 57 F 33.03 3.84 0 36.87 70.42 52 G 40.1 49.79 13.90 103.79 116.75 89 H 15.92 0.62 6.46 23.00 100.88 23 I 10.93 17.53 0 28.46 58.50 49 Total 134.99 213.57 40.07 388.63 665.05 58 Ac res FW = forested wetland; FEF = forested/emergent short-sedge wetland complex; MP = moss muskeg

3.2 VEGETATION

Except near the marine cable terminals, uplands adjacent to the ROW are dominated by western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), with a large component of western redcedar (Thuja plicata) and Alaska yellow cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis). Along the shorelines, forest adjacent to the ROW is dominated by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), with a smaller component of hemlock and cedar. Conifer regeneration (regen) within the ROW includes the same species, maintained in an early-successional phase of development.

In addition to seedling, sapling, and pole-sized conifer stands, many areas that were likely dominated by trees prior to ROW construction are now predominantly shrublands. These support thickets of Alaska blueberry (Vaccinium alaskense) and oval-leaf blueberry (V. ovalifolium), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), currant (Ribes bracteosum), devil’s club (Oplopanax horridum), and lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina).

Field surveys for sensitive plant species and invasive plants were conducted concurrently with wetland evaluations and stream assessments in August 2014 using a combination of OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 31 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

general survey and focused (intuitive controlled) survey methods. The results of the botanical surveys are summarized below. Additional detail can be found in the Biological Evaluation for Plants (Meridian 2015a) and Invasive Plant Survey Report and Risk Assessment (Meridian 2015b), which are both available in the project record. 3.2.1 Sensitive Plant Species

Table 3.2-1 lists the plant species designated as sensitive in Forest Service Region 10 that are known or suspected to occur on the Petersburg and Wrangell Ranger Districts. The project area could provide habitat for all of these species except Kruckeberg’s sword fern (Polystichum kruckbergii), which is strongly associated with ultramafic rock outcrops (i.e., igneous rock with low silica content) that do not occur in the project vicinity. Species in Table 3.2-1 were the focus of the surveys, but a listing of species considered rare by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP 2014a) was also considered in the field.

Table 3.2-1. Sensitive plants known or suspected to occur on the Petersburg or Wrangell Ranger District. Known (K) or Suspected (S) Sensitive Plant Species Occurrences Common Name Scientific Name Petersburg RD Wrangell RD Moosewort fern Botrychium tunux K Edible thistle Cirsium edule var. macounii S S Mountain lady’s slipper Cypripedium montanum S K Calder’s lovage Ligusticum calderi S S Lichen, no common name Lobaria amplissima K K Alaska rein orchid Piperia unalascensis S S Lesser round-leaved orchid Platanthera orbiculata S K Kruckeberg’s sword fern Polystichum kruckebergii S S Unalaska mist-maid Romanzoffia unalaschcensis S --- Henderson’s checkermallow Sidalcea hendersonii S S

No Region 10 sensitive species were observed. Three AKNHP-listed rare species were observed (Table 3.2-2).

Table 3.2-2. AKNHP rare species observed in the project area. Common Name Scientific Name Segment Global Rank1 State Rank2 Sawbeak sedge Carex stipata var. stipata G, H G5 S2 Davy mannagrass Glyceria leptostachya E, H G3 S3 Bog clubmoss Lycopodiella inundata A, B G5 S3 1 Global Rank Definitions: G3 = vulnerable; at moderate risk of extinction because of restricted range, relatively few occurrences, small populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors; G5 = secure; common, widespread, and abundant. 2 State Rank Definitions: S2 = imperiled within the state; at high risk of extirpation because of few occurrences, declining populations, limited range, and/or habitat; S3 = Rare within the state; at moderate risk of extirpation because of restricted range, narrow habitat specificity, recent population decline, small population sizes, a moderate number of occurrences.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 32 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Sawbeak sedge (Carex stipata var. stipata) was observed at one location in Segment G and one in Segment H. This species has previously been documented at one site near the project area, located about 0.25 miles from Segment G. It is found almost exclusively at disturbed sites in southeast Alaska and AKNHP is re-evaluating its status (J. Johnson, pers. comm., October 2, 2015).

Davy mannagrass (Glyceria leptostachya) was observed at one location in Segment E and two locations in Segment H. Prior to 2009, Davy mannagrass was designated as sensitive in Region 10, but has been removed from the list due to its apparent upward population trend and broadening distribution. As of 2009, the Tongass Forest rare plant database contained 26 locations for this species, many of which were observed in recently disturbed areas. The location nearest the ROW was documented about 2 miles north of Segment D. Other sites have been documented at distances of 4 to 7 miles from Segments A, B, and G.

Bog clubmoss (Lycopodiella inundata) was observed at one site in Segment A and four in Segment B. This species is known from several locations on Wrangell Island and throughout southeast Alaska. Previously documented sites nearest the ROW are from the Earl West Creek drainage, approximately one mile from the lower end of Segment B and approximately five miles from Segment A. 3.2.2 Invasive Plant Species

Pre-field activities included reviewing the results of invasive plant surveys conducted on NFS lands and non-NFS lands in the project vicinity and a search of the Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC) database for known occurrences. GIS data were used to map documented occurrences in the project vicinity, including those identified during Forest Service inventories on NFS lands within the Wrangell and Petersburg Districts that were conducted between 2006 and 2012 in preparation for developing an integrated weed management plan (USFS 2013), identifying 62 different species of invasive non-native species. Of these 62 species, the Forest Service identified 23 as targets for management. These species pose the greatest threat to the ecological integrity or desired condition of the sites they occupy.

The boroughs of Wrangell and Petersburg have cooperated with the Forest Service in developing community-wide strategies for weed management. Surveys documented 50 non-native invasive species in the Wrangell Borough (Maupin 2014a) and 37 in the Petersburg Borough (Maupin 2014b). The Wrangell and Petersburg weed projects identified 16 and 15 species, respectively, as targets for management, based on occurrences and the level of threat in each borough.

Because the ROW segments traverse both NFS and non-NFS lands, data from all three sources was used to develop a list of 111 species for the field surveys. Field surveys documented 27 invasive non-native plants within the nine survey segments (Table 3.3-3). Occurrences and estimates of the area of each infestation were recorded on AKEPIC forms

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 33 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

and mapped in the project GIS, and an Invasive Plant Report and Risk Assessment was prepared and provided to the Forest Service (Meridian 2015b).

The greatest diversity and the highest densities of invasive species were recorded at proposed access points to the ROW, around the marine cable terminals, and in sunny, open portions of segments that are exposed to recreational ATV use. No weed occurrences were observed in forests, riparian areas, or muskegs adjacent to the ROW, but numerous infestations were noted along road shoulders near access points.

The most widespread species is reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), which was observed in every survey segment. White clover (Trifolium repens) was observed in eight of the segments and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) in seven. Timothy (Phleum pratense), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), common plantain (Plantago major), and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) were observed in six. Common mouse-ear chickweed (Cerastium fontanum) and annual bluegrass (Poa annua) were observed in five. Eighteen species were less widely distributed, occurring in fewer than half of the segments.

Segment D contained 24 of the 27 species that were observed, including eight species that were not observed in any of the other segments. Species that occurred only in Segment D included redtop (Agrostis gigantea), hairy lady’s mantle (Alchemilla monticola), foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), common hawkweed (Hieracium lachenalii), common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum), rough bluegrass (Poa trivialis), birdeye pearlwort (Sagina procumbens), and common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris).

Other segments with large numbers of species were Segments G and H (14 species) and C and I (10 species). The fewest species were observed in Segments A and E (4 species) and B and F (6 and 7 species, respectively).

The total area covered by each invasive species in each segment is shown in Table 3.2-3. Reed canarygrass accounts for most of the invasive weed acreage, with reed canarygrass in Segment G accounting for 75 percent of the total area occupied by this species.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 34 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table 3.2-3. Invasive species documented in the project area, and estimated acreage. Segment Total Acres Common Name Scientific Name A B C1 D2 E F G3 H I2 By Species Redtop Agrostis gigantea 0.003 0.003 Creeping bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera 0.001 0.002 0.02 0.10 0.123 Hairy lady’s mantle Alchemilla monticola 1.00 1.000 Common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum 0.015 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.024 chickweed Foxglove Digitalis purpurea 0.014 0.014 Hieracium Orange hawkweed 0.027 0.002 0.029 aurianticum Hieracium Meadow hawkweed 0.001 0.100 0.101 caespitosum Common hawkweed Hieracium lachenallii 0.001 0.001 Common St. Hypericum 0.100 0.100 Johnswort perforatum White dead-nettle Lamium album 0.001 0.101 0.003 0.002 0.107 Leucanthemum Oxeye daisy 1.00 0.003 0.001 1.004 vulgare Bigleaf lupine Lupinus polyphyllus 0.021 0.001 0.022 Disc mayweed Matricaria discoidea 0.001 0.001 0.002 Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea 1.00 1.002 0.002 1.01 1.011 2.11 1.862 2.002 0.011 10.010 Timothy Phleum pratense 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.009 Common plantain Plantago major 0.001 0.001 1.012 0.102 0.114 0.103 1.333 Annual bluegrass Poa annua 0.001 0.001 1.001 0.031 0.11 1.144 Canada bluegrass Poa compressa 0.001 0.001 0.002 Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.005 0.212 0.022 0.1 0.343 Rough bluegrass Poa trivialis 1.00 1.000 Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens 0.001 1.016 0.011 0.304 2.012 0.032 3.376 Curly dock Rumex crispus 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 35 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Segment Total Acres Common Name Scientific Name A B C1 D2 E F G3 H I2 By Species Birdeye pearlwort Sagina procumbens 0.001 0.001 Common groundsel Senecio vulgaris 0.001 0.001 European mountain Sorbus aucuparia 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.004 ash Dandelion Taraxacum officinale 0.001 0.002 0.011 0.018 0.012 0.001 0.045 White clover Trifolium repens 0.01 0.001 1.01 0.001 0.002 0.133 0.124 0.102 1.383 1 Access to Segment C crosses private, municipal, or state-owned lands, while the ROW is located on NFS lands. 2 Segments D and I are located on private, municipal, and state-owned lands, outside the Forest boundary. 3 Segment G includes both state-owned and NFS lands.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 36 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table 3.2-4 highlights the treatment priority of invasive plants observed within segments located on NFS lands. Eight of these are targeted for treatment (T) in the Petersburg- Wrangell Invasive Plant Management Plan (USFS 2013), and nine would be treated incidentally if observed (O). Four species of the species listed in Table 3.2-4 (reed canarygrass, common plantain, creeping buttercup, and white clover) are tolerated, except in wetlands and riparian habitats.

Table 3.2-4. Invasive species occurrences on NFS land by segment and Forest Service priority. AKEPIC USFS Species A B1 C2 E F G3 H Ranking Priority Redtop NR4 X X X O Common mouse-ear 36 X X X O chickweed Orange hawkweed 79 X X T Meadow hawkweed5 79 X T White dead-nettle 40 X X -- Oxeye daisy 61 X X T Bigleaf lupine 71 X O Disc mayweed 32 X O Reed canarygrass 83 X X X X X X X T Timothy 54 X X X X X O Common plantain 44 X X X X T Annual bluegrass 46 X X X X O Canada bluegrass 39 X O Kentucky bluegrass 52 X X X X X O Creeping buttercup 54 X X X X T Curly dock 48 X X O European mountain ash 59 X X T Dandelion 58 X X X X T White clover 59 X X X X X X T 1 Segment B has been transferred to the State of Alaska but land within the ROW is administered by the Forest Service. 2 Access to Segment C crosses private, municipal, or state-owned lands, while the ROW is located on NFS lands. 3 Segment G includes both state-owned and NFS lands, with all ROW land administered by the Forest Service. 4 NR indicates the species has not been ranked 5 Hieracium caespitosum is identified as a high priority on the Tongass National Forest (USFS 2016), but not addressed in the Petersburg- Wrangell Management Plan (USFS 2013).

As shown in Table 3.2-5, most of the invasive species observed in segments crossing non- Forest lands on Wrangell Island are species with a low or medium AKEPIC score, and are not covered in the Wrangell Borough Weed Project (Maupin 2014a). Four of the species observed are addressed in the plan, including two species ranked as medium and two with high AKEPIC rankings. Category B species have a low to medium AKEPIC ranking and populations less than one acre. Category C species have a high AKEPIC ranking, are difficult

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 37 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

to control, and are prevalent in Wrangell. Category W species are documented in Wrangell but are not covered in the Wrangell Borough Project (Maupin 2014a).

Table 3.2-5. Invasive species occurrences in Wrangell Borough, highlighting treatment priorities. AKEPIC Segment Segment Wrangell Borough Species Ranking C1 D2 Management Priority Redtop NR X Not addressed Creeping bentgrass NR X X Not addressed Hairy lady’s mantle 56 X B Common mouse-ear chickweed 36 X W Foxglove 51 X W Meadow hawkweed 79 X X Not addressed Common hawkweed 57 X C Common St. Johnswort 52 X Not addressed White dead-nettle 40 X Not addressed Disc mayweed 32 X W Reed canarygrass 83 X X C Timothy 54 X X W Common plantain 44 X X W Annual bluegrass 46 X X W Canada bluegrass 39 X W Kentucky bluegrass 52 X X W Rough bluegrass 52 X W Creeping buttercup 54 X X W Curly dock 48 X W Birdeye pearlwort 39 X W Common groundsel 36 X W European mountain ash 59 X C Dandelion 58 X X W White clover 59 X X W 1 Access to Segment C crosses private, municipal, or state-owned lands, while the ROW is located on NFS lands. 2 Segment D is located on private, municipal, and state-owned lands, outside the Forest boundary.

As shown in Table 3.2-6, most of the invasive species observed during the surveys in segments crossing non-Forest lands on Mitkof Island are also species with a low or medium AKEPIC score, and are not covered in the Petersburg Weed Project (Maupin 2014b). Two highly invasive species – orange hawkweed and reed canarygrass – are identified in the Petersburg Weed Project (Maupin 2014b) as Category D, meaning they are difficult to control and prevalent in Petersburg. Category W species are documented in Petersburg but are not covered in the plan.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 38 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table 3.2-6. Invasive species occurrences in Petersburg Borough, highlighting treatment priority. Segment Segment Petersburg Weed Species AKEPIC Ranking G1 I2 Management Priority Redtop NR X Not addressed Common mouse-ear chickweed 36 X X W Orange hawkweed 79 X D White dead-nettle 40 X X Not addressed Oxeye daisy 61 X W Bigleaf lupine 71 X X Not addressed Disc mayweed 32 X W Reed canarygrass 83 X X D Common plantain 44 X X W Annual bluegrass 46 X W Kentucky bluegrass 52 X X W Creeping buttercup 54 X X W Curly dock 48 X W Dandelion 58 X X W White clover 59 X X W 1 Segment G includes both state-owned and NFS lands. 2 Segment I is located on private, municipal, and state-owned lands, outside the Forest boundary.

3.3 WILDLIFE

Common mammals that are likely or known to occur in the project area include Sitka black- tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis), moose (Alces alces), black bear (Ursus americanus), porcupine (Erithizon dorsatum), mink (Neovison vison), and red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). Common birds along forest edges on the Petersburg and Wrangell ranger districts include Pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), chestnut- backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), golden- crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius), and Townsend’s warbler (Setophaga townsendi) (Smith et al. 2001), and would also be likely to occur in the project area.

Deer, moose, and porcupines were observed during the surveys. Black bear sign was documented on several occasions, but no bears were seen. Bird observations included Steller’s jays (Cyanocitta stelleri), pine siskins (Carduelis pinus), dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis), and golden-crowned kinglets. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) were observed in flight along the shorelines of Mitkof and Wrangell islands. Numerous boreal toads (Anaxyrus boreas) were observed in areas of standing water surrounded by sedges and rushes.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 39 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

3.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species

Federal threatened, endangered, and candidate wildlife species were addressed in a combined biological assessment/biological evaluation (BA/BE) for fish and wildlife (Meridian 2015c). Tables 3.2-7 and 3.2-8 show that of these species, two (humpback whale and fin whale) may occur in the project area, within saltwater that would be traversed by landing craft transporting the Argo to Vank and Woronkofski islands (an action that is connected to the proposed action).

Table 3.2-7. Threatened and endangered wildlife species under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Potential for Occurrence in the Project Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Area Whales North Pacific right Balaena glacialis FE No; found in the Bering Sea and Gulf of whale Alaska Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus FE No; found in the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis FE No; found in the Gulf of Alaska Blue whale Balaenoptera FE No; found in the Bering Sea and Gulf of musculus Alaska Fin whale Balaenoptera FE Possible; found in the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi, physalus Sea, Bering Sea, Cook Inlet, Gulf of Alaska, with incidental occurrences in coastal waters of Southeast Alaska Beluga whale (Cook Delphinapterus leucas FE No; found in Cook Inlet Inlet DPS) Gray whale (Western Eschrichtius robustus FE No; found in the Bering Sea and Gulf of North Pacific DPS) Alaska Humpback whale Megaptera FE Yes; found in the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, novaeangliae Bering Sea, Cook Inlet, Gulf of Alaska, and common in inside waters of the Alexander Archipelago and coastal waters of Alaska Sperm whale Physeter FE No; found in the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, macrocephalus and coastal waters of Southeast Alaska Seals and Sea Lions Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus FT No; found in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus FE No; Prince William Sound westward, with (western DPS) incidental occurrences in Southeast Alaska Ribbon seal Histriophoca fasciata Former FC No; found in the Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea Ringed seal Phoca hispida FT No; found in the Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea Sea Turtles

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 40 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Potential for Occurrence in the Project Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Area Loggerhead sea Caretta caretta FT No; Gulf of Alaska and as far west as the turtle Aleutians, with incidental occurrences in Southeast Alaska Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas FT No; Gulf of Alaska, with incidental occurrences in Southeast Alaska Leatherback sea Dermochelys coriacea FE No; Gulf of Alaska, with incidental occurrences turtle in Southeast Alaska Olive Ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea FT No; Gulf of Alaska, with incidental occurrences in Southeast Alaska 1 FE = federally listed as endangered; FT = federally listed as threatened; FC = federal candidate for listing

Table 3.2-8. Threatened, endangered, and candidate species under USFWS jurisdiction. Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Potential for Occurrence in the Project Area Birds Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis E No; no longer occurs in Alaska Short-tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus E No; found in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska Steller’s eider Polysticta stelleri T No; Arctic Coastal Plain, Yukon Delta, all coastal waters except Southeast Alaska Spectacled eider Somateria fischeri T No; Yukon Delta, Arctic Coastal Plain, St. Lawrence Island, Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea Mammals Wood bison Bison bison athabascae T No; no wild populations in Alaska at the current time Northern sea otter (SW Enhydra lutris kenyoni T No; Aleutian Islands, Kodiak Island, and Alaska AK DPS) Peninsula Pacific walrus Odobenus rosmarus FC2 No; found in Continental Shelf waters, Bering Sea divergens and Chukchi Sea Polar bear Ursus maritimus T No; sea ice and coastlines of Chukchi, Beaufort, and Bering seas 1 FE = federally listed as endangered; FT = federally listed as threatened; FC = federal candidate for listing 2 Species identified as candidates by USFWS are automatically designated as sensitive species (FSM 2670R-10-2600-2005-1).

3.3.2 Region 10 Sensitive Species

As shown in Table 3.2-9, two sensitive species - the Queen Charlotte goshawk and Steller’s sea lion – are known to occur in the project vicinity, and two others – yellow-billed loon and black oystercatcher – could be present from time to time. No element occurrences for Region 10 sensitive species other than Queen Charlotte goshawk were identified near the project area in the search of the AKNHP database (AKNHP 2014b).

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 41 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table 3.2-9. Region 10 sensitive species known to occur on the Tongass National Forest. Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Potential for Occurrence in the Action Area Birds Queen Charlotte Accipiter gentilis laingi FSS Yes; current Forest Service records from Mitkof goshawk Island and AKNHP records of observations on Vank Island. Kittlitz’s murrelet Brachyramphus FSS No; nest near glaciers and cirques in alpine habitat brevirostris (former and congregate near tidewater glaciers and offshore FC) of high-elevation glaciers to rest and forage. Dusky Canada Branta canadensis FSS No; nests in the Copper River Delta and Prince goose occidentalis William Sound and winters in southwestern Washington and Oregon. Yellow-billed loon Gavia adamsii FSS, FC Possible; populations that breed in Alaska nest near coastal and inland tundra lakes and winter primarily in Asia, but Canadian breeders winter along the south Alaskan coast to the Puget Sound. Black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani FSS Possible; regularly seen along the outer coast of southeast Alaska, but most of the population occurs in southcentral Alaska, throughout the Kodiak Archipelago and east to Kenai Fjords National Park and eastern Prince William Sound. Aleutian tern Onychoprion aleutica FSS No; breeds in Siberia and coastal areas of Alaska throughout most of the Aleutian Islands, north to Chukchi Sea, and east to the Alaska Peninsula, Yakutat and Glacier Bay. Mammals Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus FSS Yes; no rookeries or major haul-outs located nearby. (Eastern DPS) (former FT) 1 FSS = Forest Service Sensitive; FC = Federal Candidate; FT = Federal Threatened

Queen Charlotte goshawk is the only species known to occur near the transmission line ROW. The Forest Service conducted goshawk surveys in 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013 in conjunction with an environmental assessment of proposed small timber sales on Mitkof Island (USFS 2014), documenting three active nesting areas. Segment G passes approximately 0.2 miles to the west of a nest area buffer at Ohmer Creek, and a nesting area at Dry Strait is located over 5 miles northeast of Segment G. The northern end of Segment H is located approximately 0.5 miles west of a nest area buffer near Froot Loop Road.

The nearest mapped nesting territory on Wrangell Island is about 2.25 miles southeast of the eastern end of Segment C. The AKNHP database indicates this is a historic nest and has not recently been relocated.

The AKNHP database also shows an occurrence on Vank Island in 2004. The exact location of the sighting is not known. OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 42 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

No goshawks were observed during field surveys conducted for stream typing, wetlands, sensitive plants, and invasive weeds in August, 2014.

3.3.3 Management Indicator Species

The Forest Service has designated 13 animals as management indicator species (MIS). The Forest Service uses MIS to evaluate the response of groups of species, or guilds, to various management activities. As shown in Table 3.3-1, several of these (Sitka black-tailed deer, black bear, American marten, Alexander Archipelago gray wolf, river otter, red squirrel, and Vancouver Canada goose could use habitats within the transmission line ROW, and bald eagles may nest in nearby mature forest.

Black-tailed deer and black bear sign were observed during fieldwork in August 2014, and bald eagles were observed in flight along the shorelines of Mitkof and Wrangell islands. Six bald eagle nest buffers (330-foot radius around a nest) intersect the ROW (two in Segment A, one in Segment D, and two in Segment E).

Table 3.3-1. Tongass MIS likely or known to occur in the project area. Common Name Scientific Name Potential for Occurrence in the Project Area Mountain goat Oreamnos americanus No; found in steep, rugged terrain. Sitka black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus Yes; uses a variety of habitats; lower elevation (below 800 sitkensis feet elevation) productive old-growth forest is especially important during the winter. Brown bear Ursus arctos No; habitat generalists that use habitats from sea level to alpine; low-elevation salmon streams are especially important during late summer. Occur infrequently and for short periods of time at the north end of Mitkof Island. Black bear Ursus americanus Yes; associated with estuaries, beach fringe, riparian, and coastal and interior forest. Important for hunting, recreation and tourism. American marten Martes americana Yes; uses riparian and upland habitats. Initially selected because forest management activities were expected to affect population abundance, and pelts represented significant economic value to local residents. Alexander Archipelago Canis lupus ligoni Yes; uses any habitat where prey is abundant, road gray wolf densities are low, and secluded den sites are available. Initially selected as an MIS because of population viability concerns in some areas of the Tongass. River otter Lontra canadensis Yes; found in coastal and freshwater aquatic environments and immediately adjacent (within 100 to 500 feet) upland habitats. Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Yes; forages in cone-producing forests and nests in cavities in live trees and snags. Vancouver Canada Branta canadensis fulva Yes; uses saltwater and freshwater wetlands, riparian goose habitats, and uplands. Bald eagle Halieetus leucocephalus Yes; forages along the coast and large rivers and typically nests in large-diameter trees within 500 feet of saltwater.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 43 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Common Name Scientific Name Potential for Occurrence in the Project Area Red-breasted Sphyrapicus ruber No; uses forests with high densities of snags for foraging sapsucker and large-diameter snags for nesting. No large-diameter live trees or snags within the ROW. Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus No; also a primary cavity excavator that forages and nests in snag-rich forested habitat. No snag-rich habitat within the ROW. Brown creeper Certhia americanus No; strongly associated with old-growth forest, where it forages and nests in large-diameter trees. No old-growth forest within the ROW.

3.3.4 Migratory Birds

Under Executive Order 13186, federal agencies are required to evaluate the effects of their actions on migratory birds, focusing on species of concern. As many as 40 species of migratory birds may occur on the Tongass National Forest; 20 of these are species of concern. As shown in Table 3.3-2, many could occur in the project area from time to time.

Table 3.3-2. Migratory and resident bird species of concern in southeast Alaska. Potential for Occurrence in the Common Name Scientific Name Project Area Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi Yes; primarily associated with old- growth and mature forest, but forages in open country American dipper Cinclus mexicanus Yes; forages in and nests near streams Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Yes; forages over muskegs, meadows, and logged areas Western wood pewee Contopus sordidulus No; associated with large mainland rivers Northwestern crow Corvus caurinus Yes; associated with coastal beaches Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri Yes; uses a variety of forest stand ages Black swift Cypseloides niger No; associated with steep cliffs along river valleys Blue (sooty) grouse Dendragapus fuliginosus Yes; uses a variety of habitats, including recently logged areas Pacific slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis No; prefers old-growth conifer forest near streams Hammond’s flycatcher Empidonax hammondii Yes; uses riparian deciduous forest MacGillivray’s warbler Geothlypis tolmiei Yes; found in shrub and forest edges Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius No; found mostly in thick, wet conifer forest

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 44 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Potential for Occurrence in the Common Name Scientific Name Project Area Western screech owl Otis kennicottii Yes; found in open forest, forest edges along streams Chestnut-backed chickadee Poecile rufescens Yes; uses a variety of stand ages Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Yes; uses a variety of habitats seasonally Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Yes; uses a variety of habitats, including shrub Blackpoll warbler Setophaga striata Yes; uses a variety of habitats, including tall shrub Townsend’s warbler Setophaga townsendi No; associated with mature and old-growth forest Red-breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber No; usually associated with mature and old-growth forest Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla Yes; uses a variety of habitats, including shrub thickets

3.3.5 Endemic Species

Endemic species or subspecies are those that are unique to a geographically isolated area or restricted to habitats found within a specific geographic range, and for planning purposes, within a political boundary. They have special importance for conservation, because their specific habitat requirements or sensitivity to human activities make them vulnerable to extinction. To develop a better understanding of endemics in Alaska, AKNHP is currently reviewing current range maps and information for 26 mammals and 57 birds. Based on the initial range maps (AKNHP 2014c), 10 endemic mammals may occur within the project area, and 15 endemic bird species may breed in the vicinity. These species are shown in Table 3.3-3.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 45 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table 3.3-3. Mammals and birds that may be endemic to the project area. Common Name Scientific Name Mammals Alexander Archipelago wolf Canis lupus ligoni River otter Lontra canadensis mira American marten Martes americana nesophila Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus littoralist Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Ermine Mustela ermine Southern red-backed vole Myodes gapperi wrangeli Northwestern deermouse Peromyscus keeni Dusky shrew Sorex monticolus ellassodon Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus picatus Birds Black turnstone Arenaria melanocephala Canada goose Branta canadensis fulva Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis alascensis Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus Pigeon guillemot Cepphus columba Brown creeper Certhia americana Prince-of-Wales spruce grouse Falcipennis canadensis isleibi Willow ptarmigan Lagopus laopus Rock ptarmigan Lagopus mutus Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus cincinatus Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Pacific wren Troglodytes pacificus

3.4 AQUATIC RESOURCES

Information about water quality, fisheries, and stream habitat in the project area was obtained by reviewing existing literature, Forest-wide GIS data, and the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC)4. Detailed field surveys were used to verify and supplement (as needed) the existing GIS mapping data to create an accurate project-level stream layer with fish presence/absence and Forest channel type information. Field surveys were conducted in August 2014. At each mapped or unmapped stream crossing, biologists used a Smith-Root electrofisher to sample for fish within a 300-foot-wide (150 feet either

4 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/SARR/AWC/ OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 46 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

side of the transmission line centerline) ROW. Data collected included fish presence or absence, fish species identification, stream class, barrier presence, stream width, substrate composition, and channel type. All fish captured during sampling were quickly returned to their place of capture. GIS queries were subsequently used to evaluate effects and compare alternatives. In addition, revised or new stream type information was forwarded to ADF&G. 3.4.1 Water Quality

The Alaska Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (AKDEC 2013) provides information on water bodies within the state that do not fully or partially support their designated beneficial uses, known as the 303(d) list of impaired waters. There are no waters within the project area listed as impaired in this report. In addition, no state- classified public water systems or potable water supply uses occur within the project area. Generally, in Southeast Alaska, suspended sediment loads in non-glacial streams in undisturbed watersheds are very low; however, sediment can be introduced into streams by channel erosion, roads, landslides and debris flows, and rain splash on bare soils.

3.4.2 Fisheries

As mentioned above, biologists reviewed the ADF&G’s AWC and the Forest Service GIS- based stream class maps prior to conducting the field surveys in August 20145. Table 3.4-1 lists the salmonid species that could occur in the project area, along with their AWC species code.

Table 3.4-1. Salmonid species possibly present in the project area. Common Name Scientific Name AWC Species Code Chum salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha CH Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch CO Pink salmon Oncorhynchus keta P Rainbow trout/steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss SH Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii CT Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma DV

Based on these assessments, a total of six anadromous or resident salmonid fish species are present in the analysis area. These species include coho, pink, and chum salmon, rainbow trout/steelhead, cutthroat trout, and Dolly Varden char (Table 3.4-1). Coho salmon, steelhead/rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, sculpin (spp.), and crescent gunnel (Pholis laeta) were the only fish captured during sampling in August 2014.

5 All mapped Class I, II, and III streams (and any additional unmapped streams) in Segments A through I were electro-fished during the August 2014 field surveys to verify the fish presence / absence information, stream class, channel type, and general habitat characteristics. OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 47 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Management Indicator Species National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations direct the use of MIS in forest planning to help display the effects of forest management. The 2016 Tongass Forest Plan identifies pink and coho salmon, Dolly Varden char, and cutthroat trout as MIS that are representative of varied fish life history and habitat uses of the Tongass stream systems. Three of these species – coho, Dolly Varden, and cutthroat – were documented in the project area in 2014.

Threatened and Endangered Fish Species Several listed salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) and steelhead Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) that originate in Oregon and Washington could be present in southeast Alaskan waters. Juveniles from these ESUs/DPSs move varying distances northward into the Pacific to grow to adulthood (Groot and Margolis 1991; McNeil and Himsworth 1980). They spend from 1 to 5 years in the ocean before returning to their natal streams to spawn. Of the listed ESUs/DPSs, only Chinook and coho have the potential to be encountered within or near the project area.

Essential Fish Habitat Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires all federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding actions that “may adversely affect” essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally managed marine and anadromous fish species. EFH is defined as “those waters and substrates necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Marine EFH in Alaska includes estuarine and marine areas from tidally submerged habitat to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Freshwater EFH includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other bodies of water currently and historically accessible to salmon.

The project area includes EFH for pink, chum, and coho salmon. It does not include EFH for Chinook. Pink and chum salmon spawn in the summer and fall, do not overwinter in freshwater, and therefore only use the project area on a seasonal basis. Adult coho salmon spawn in freshwater and juveniles overwinter in freshwater prior to entering saltwater the following spring.

3.4.3 Stream Habitat

Stream and river habitat on the Tongass National Forest is delineated and mapped according to fluvial process group and channel type. Channel types categorize streams and rivers using physical attributes such as channel gradient, channel width, channel pattern, stream bank incision and containment, and riparian plant community composition. Channel types are used for planning, implementing, and monitoring forest land management activities on the entire Tongass National Forest; and channel type inventories provide key information on fish habitat utilization, fish habitat capability, and fisheries enhancement options in a survey area. Channel types also provide information on suitable stream crossing locations and design criteria for road drainage structures, and are used to evaluate potential sediment delivery and retention for cumulative watershed effects analysis.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 48 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Stream Class Streams in the Tongass National Forest are further categorized into classes from I to IV indicating levels of habitat capability and use by fish populations. These classes are delineated according to the criteria described in the Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook (USFS 2001). In general, Class I streams support anadromous fish species, Class II streams support resident fish species, Class III are non-fish streams but may influence water quality or fish habitat capability downstream, and Class IV are non-fish streams that do not influence water quality or fish habitat capability downstream.

Based on existing data and field surveys conducted for stream typing, the number of Class I, II, and III streams that would be crossed by the Argo (i.e., within the ROW) is presented in Table 3.4-2.

Table 3.4-2. Proposed stream crossings (Class I, II, and III) by segment. Segment # of Potential Segment Ownership Length (mi.) Stream Crossings A 4.77 Forest Service 13 Forest Servic e within the ROW, State of B 2.05 5 Alaska selected outside of ROW C 0.41 Forest Service 0 D 2.31 Non-Forest Service 19 E 3.27 Forest Service 21 F 2.88 Forest Service 6 G 4.79 Forest Service and Non-Forest Service 11 H 4.14 Forest Service 8 I 2.38 Non-Forest Service 6 Total 27.00 89 Note: Excludes Ohmer Creek, which will not be crossed.

The results of extensive field surveys documented nine Class I, 16 Class II, and 64 Class III streams in the project area (excluding Ohmer Creek). The Argo would cross two streams (G11 and E6, highlighted in blue) of the nine identified by ADF&G as being of concern (Table 3.4-3). In comments on the proposed project, ADF&G indicated it would issue fish habitat permits (FHPs) for the crossings if SEAPA's plans properly protect fish (ADF&G 2014).

Table 3.4-3. Cataloged anadromous waters potentially affected by the proposed project that ADF&G identified as being of concern (from ADF&G 2014). SEAPA Stream AWC Species Stream Name AWC Number Location Number Present Twin Creek 106-44-10040 NA (Not Crossed) CH, CO, P Mitkof Island Del Mar Creek 106-44-10103 NA (Not Crossed) CO Mitkof Island Powerline Creek 106-44-10240-2015 NA (Not Crossed) CO Mitkof Island

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 49 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

SEAPA Stream AWC Species Stream Name AWC Number Location Number Present 108-40-10500-2103- Unnamed G11 (Crossed) CO Mitkof Island 3004-4010 108-40-10500-2103- Unnamed NA (Not Crossed) CO Mitkof Island 3004-4010-5010 Within Segment G CH, CO, P, S, Ohmer Creek 108-40-10500 Mitkof Island (Not Crossed) DV, SH Unnamed 108-40-10303 E6 (Crossed) CO Woronkofski Island Unnamed 107-40-10790 B2 (Not Crossed) CO, DV Wrangell Island Earl West Creek 107-40-10780 (Not Crossed) CO, P, SH Wrangell Island Key: CH=Chum; CO=coho; P=pink; DV=Dolly Varden; SH=steelhead; S=sockeye Blue highlight=streams to be crossed by Argo

Additional information describing the proposed stream crossings in each segment including field-verified stream type, channel type and general habitat conditions is presented in Appendix B.

3.5 SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES

Many southeast Alaska residents rely on subsistence resources, which include edible plants, fish, and wildlife, as a base or supplement to their livelihoods. The passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) requires the evaluation of subsistence impacts before changing the use of federal lands, such as the proposed action.

The project area is located within ADF&G’s Game Management Unit (GMU) 3. This GMU includes all of Mitkof, Wrangell, Woronkofski, and Vank Islands, in addition to Kuiu, Kupreanof, Zarembo, and Etolin Island. Areas within GMU 3 that are closed to hunting include portions of Mitkof Highway, Blind Slough on Mitkof Island, and a portion of Zimovia Highway on Wrangell Island. The closed hunting areas include portions of transmission line Segments I and H on Mitkof Island. The closed area on Wrangell Island does not encompass any of the proposed OHV use segments.

The nearest Federally eligible subsistence communities to the project area are Petersburg and Wrangell. The northern portion of the project area (Segments G, H, and I) is on Mitkof Island. Direct hunting access to the transmission line ROW at these segments is possible from the existing road system from Petersburg. The southern portion of the project area (Segments A, B, C, and D) is on Wrangell Island. Direct access to the transmission line ROW from the existing road system from Wrangell is possible at Segments B, C, and D. Segments A, E, and F are located on Wrangell, Woronkofski, and Vank Islands, and are accessible only by boat, helicopter, or float plane.

Edible plants. The project area includes a variety of plant communities ranging from open muskegs to productive coniferous forest maintained at an early successional age class.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 50 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Some of the edible plants within these plant communities include numerous species of berry producing plants (huckleberry, salmonberry, thimbleberry, cloudberry, etc.).

Fish. There are very few fish bearing streams within the project area. Those that support fish are generally narrow and shallow with limited productivity. Streams within the project area provide surface water to adjacent freshwater streams, lakes, and saltwater bodies that support harvestable fish species.

Waterfowl and seabirds. Ponds within the project area are small and likely do not support waterfowl. Several segments of the transmission line terminate at shorelines that may support seabirds.

Upland game birds. Grouse are likely to be present throughout the project area, although none were observed during field studies.

Furbearers. Plant communities within the project area likely support a variety of furbearers. Field studies identified the presence of beaver within the project area.

Big game. There are numerous big game species present, or supported by habitat within and adjacent to the project area. Species observed during field studies include Sitka black- tailed deer and moose. Other species that were not observed, but are assumed to use the some portion of the project area, include wolf, black bear, and elk.

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES

A review of existing literature was conducted to identify known prehistoric and historic cultural resources within or near the project area. Information from the literature review was compiled onto field maps to aid with the field survey.

A Level I Reconnaissance archaeological survey, as defined by the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology (AOHA 2003), was conducted in the project area from August 5-14, 2014. Fieldwork consisted of both pedestrian survey and subsurface testing to locate and identify cultural resources within the project area. Particular attention was given to waterways and areas along the shoreline between mean low tide and 100 feet above sea level since these areas are deemed by the Forest Service to have an elevated potential for containing items of cultural significance (USFS 2010a).

No archaeological or historic cultural resources were noted or discovered within the proposed OHV use segments. The technical report documenting the cultural resource survey is included in the project planning record.

3.7 LAND USE

The transmission line ROW within this project area crosses Federal land administered by the Forest Service, and some areas of non-federal land owned or administered by other public agencies or private individuals. The Forest Service can only authorize changes in use activities for land that they administer. Changes in use of lands that are not administered OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 51 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

by the Forest Service must be approved by an entity having ownership, easement, or administrative control over the property. Table 3.7-1 below lists the portions of the project area that are under the administration of the Forest Service.

Table 3.7-1. Federal ownership and administrative status of right-of-way Owner / Segment Comment Administrator A Forest Service B Forest Service and State of Alaska has received patent to the land in this area, except the Non-federal land United States has retained ownership of the ROW for the purpose of a transmission line. The land within the ROW is administered by the Forest Service. C Forest Service Except approximately 100 feet at the west end. D Non-federal land SEAPA holds an easement for construction and maintenance of the transmission line ROW. E Forest Service F Forest Service G Forest Service and The northern half of this segment is on Forest Service land. The southern Non-federal land half of this segment is on non-federal land. The State of Alaska has received patent to the land in the southern half, except the United States has retained ownership of the ROW for the purpose of a transmission line. The land within the ROW is administered by the Forest Service. H Forest Service Except approximately 400 feet at the northwest end. I Non-federal land SEAPA holds an easement for construction and maintenance of the transmission line ROW.

3.8 OTHER RESOURCES

Scenery, recreation, inventoried roadless areas, and socioeconomics are resources of interest in the project vicinity. The existing scenery in the project area is dominated by the presence of the transmission line and supporting towers. The project area does not include any developed recreation facilities. Informal dispersed recreation may occur along the ROW, although this use is undocumented. The transmission line ROW is outside of inventoried roadless areas. Wrangell and Petersburg are the communities nearest the project area. SEAPA provides power to these communities via the electrical transmission line from the Tyee hydropower project.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 52 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 SOILS AND WETLANDS

Numerous studies have documented the detrimental effects of ATVs and OHVs on soils and wetlands in Alaska and in the lower 48 states (Ouren et al. 2007, Meyer 2002, Boggs et al. 1998). The key soil resource issue for this project is whether the proposed action would damage vegetation and expose soils to erosion, with resulting run-off that could damage water quality in streams. The key wetland issue is whether the proposed action would compact wetland soils or create deep ruts or puddling that would alter hydrologic support and drainage patterns in wetlands, impairing their functions in protecting water quality and providing habitat for fish and wildlife. These issues apply to both NFS and non-NFS lands. In the following, effects on soils and wetlands are estimated in terms of acres of potential disturbance. 4.1.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, unauthorized recreational ATV use would continue to cause some soil disturbance and localized erosion within ROW segments that are accessible from state highways, Forest Service roads, or abandoned logging roads, as illustrated in Section 3.1. This use affects areas of the ROW in Segments C, G, H, and I. It is not adversely affecting overall vegetation cover or wetland functions or values, or impairing stream quality in any of the segments. SEAPA would continue to use a helicopter for access to all nine segments to clear vegetation, and there would be no OHV use within the ROW.

4.1.2 Proposed Action

Under the proposed action, SEAPA would use an Argo OHV (with a trailer, at times, depending on conditions in the segment) to transport personnel and equipment along the ROW. The OHV would carry a two-person crew and brushing equipment (chain saws, pole saws, etc.) to cut alder and any other tree saplings that are encroaching into the transmission line.

The light weight of the Argo, the frequency of travel within a segment, and the return interval maintenance cycle as described in Section 1.2 is expected to minimize the risk of soil compaction, rutting, and puddling that could lead to soil erosion and sedimentation, and changes in wetland hydrology. For many projects, best management practices (BMPs) to minimize impacts on soils and wetlands would typically include measures to permanently harden surfaces or to protect them temporarily and then remove the protection. SEAPA does not propose to harden or protect surfaces, e.g., by placing wood (plywood sheets or wood mats), geotextiles, corduroy, chunkwood fill, or gravel), for several reasons:

• Hardening surfaces would inadvertently encourage unauthorized recreational ATV use by improving travel conditions, which would expose the segments to increased recreational damage.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 53 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

• Hauling and importing materials would involve heavier loads on the Argo, increasing the risk of surface erosion and soil compaction.

• Placement of permanent protection would cover native soils and prevent vegetation from recovering during the interval between maintenance cycles.

• Either temporary or permanent hardening of these areas would likely result in greater environmental impact than minor and temporary disturbance caused by the Argo during the expected maintenance cycle as described in Section 1.2. At stream crossings SEAPA would place logs in or across streams using materials obtained on site. This low-impact approach to bank protection would minimize the risk of soil erosion and sediment delivery into streams.

Instead of hardening surfaces to protect soils and wetlands, SEAPA would implement the following measures:

• Avoid all wetlands to the extent possible.

• Follow existing paths where available, rather than clearing new paths, unless necessary to avoid creating deep ruts (over 6 inches).

• Avoid herbaceous wetlands surrounding beaver ponds in Segments E and F by using adjacent alder-dominated uplands.

• Avoid vegetated intertidal wetlands at beach access points in Segments A, B and E by traveling over sand/gravel/cobble to the extent possible

• Use wide-radius turns where possible to avoid churning soils.

• Travel at low, constant speeds.

• Use a winch to free the Argo, should it become stuck, to avoid churning soils.

Appendix A describes the monitoring approach SEAPA would take to evaluate project effects on soils and wetlands. Results of monitoring would be compared to thresholds for detrimental conditions 6 to determine whether mitigation is needed. As described in Appendix A, detrimental soil conditions for this project are defined as:

• The minimum effective ground cover should be at least 85 percent on slopes less than 35 percent, and at least 90 percent on slopes over 35 percent (the Argo will not travel on slopes over 40 percent);

6 The project area is not managed for timber production, so many of the Forest definitions of detrimental soil conditions do not apply. However, the definitions (including thresholds for area of disturbance) do provide a threshold for maintaining vegetation cover that is adequate to prevent erosion and protecting wetlands from changes in drainage that could impair wetland hydrology. OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 54 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

• Changes in drainage patterns that alter wetness, which could lead to erosion, sedimentation, or impairment of wetland functions and values, should occur in no more than 5 percent of any segment.

• The total acreage of all detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 15 percent of the total acreage within any segment.

• Ruts greater than 12 inches deep.

• Loss of duff and nutrient rich surface layers over 50 percent of areas greater than 100 square feet.

• Destruction of soil structure over areas greater than 100 square feet.

• Turbid water flowing from the trail with the potential to connect to a stream.

Soils Acreage Affected The acreage that would be affected within each segment was estimated by assuming the Argo would disturb vegetation and possibly soils within a 6-foot track (the tracks are each 18 inches wide; the 6-foot width was used to estimate the area of impact of one trip into the segment and one trip out, following roughly the same – but not identical – path in both directions). A 6-foot-wide track within a 200-foot-wide ROW corridor represents 3 percent of the area within the ROW. At this level, disturbance caused by the Argo would not exceed the thresholds listed above.

The area that could be disturbed in obtaining access to the segments was also estimated for the assumed width of the Argo track. Access to Segment B would affect 0.12 acres of non- NFS lands if a route is selected from the 6265 Road (McCormack Road), and either 0.26 or 0.33 acres leading from potential landing craft sites on the shoreline between Salamander and Earl West Creek. Access to Segments C and I would affect about 0.23 and 0.09 acres, respectively, of non-NFS lands outside the segments. Access to Segments A, B, E, F, and G from landing craft on the shoreline would be aligned to cross rock and gravel, avoiding soft sand, mud, or vegetation to the extent possible.

Surface Erosion, Rutting and Puddling The proposed action would not involve soil displacement or removal of topsoil or humus- enriched surface soil, but could damage vegetation within the Argo tracks and expose some soils to surface erosion. Rutting and puddling also has the potential to lead to erosion as a result of changes in drainage patterns and damage to soil structure that could impair the ability of vegetation to recover. As described above, the potential for vegetation damage could increase on approximately 3 percent of all lands within the ROW segments. Most soils in the area are protected by a thick layer of organic materials, and the proposed action should not exceed disturbance thresholds listed above.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 55 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

In addition to soil characteristics, slope length and slope angle also influence the potential for erosion. Slopes over 50 percent are located in V-notches in Segments D, G, and I. However, these slopes are too steep for Argo access. In these segments, SEAPA would have to use access points on either side of the V-notches. Apart from these locations, slopes do not exceed about 20 percent and are well-vegetated. Soils supporting vigorous plant growth are less likely to be affected by soil disturbance (Napper et al. 2009). The Argo would not travel on slopes over 40 percent, which would also help to minimize disturbance.

Resistance to damage caused by recreational ATV use at study sites in Denali National Park was highest in communities dominated by dwarf shrubs (such as crowberry), grasses, and sedges (Ahlstrand and Racine 1990). A single pass in shrub vegetation, lichen-dwarf shrub vegetation or wetland sedge meadows may be visible for a year and recover rapidly unless sharps turns or rapid accelerations have been made (Loomis and Lieberman 2006). The incremental effects of the tracked Argo in segments C, D, G, H, and I would not likely be measurable, compared to the effects of unauthorized wheeled recreational ATV activity that already occurs (Figures 3.1-2 through 3.1-5). Recreational activity likely occurs every year and might occur in any month. The expected maintenance cycle as described in Section 1.2, and the lower ground pressure of the tracked Argo, is expected to result in less impact to the ground than wheeled ATV recreational use. Any vegetation damage due specifically to Argo use would be more visible in Segments A, B, E, and F, because there is no existing recreational ATV use.

Soil exposure and the risk of erosion would be localized and temporary. Streambanks at Argo crossing points would be protected by placement of wood obtained on site to minimize the risk of bank erosion and sedimentation (Appendix A).

Soil Compaction Recent monitoring and evaluation reports (USFS 2012; 2014) conclude that soil compaction is not a significant concern on the Tongass for several reasons. The bulk density values of Tongass soils are inherently low, due to relatively low clay content, the presence of thick duff layers and high organic matter content in the upper layers, and the relatively high rates of soil mixing and turning due to windthrow and rooting of trees and other vegetation. Some compaction would occur within the Argo tracks, but due to the Argo applying less than 1 psi pressure to the ground, the proposed action is not likely to increase bulk density to a level that would exceed 15 percent above undisturbed levels, which would be considered detrimental in areas managed for timber production (according to FSM 2550; USFS 2006)7.

A study of soil compaction resulting from use of a small tractor for yarding logs in southwestern Oregon (Amaranthus and Steinfeld 1997) found that most soil compaction could be attributed to the first three passes of the tractor, with a total increase of 7

7 The project area is not managed for timber harvest, and many of the Forest definitions of detrimental conditions do not apply. However, the definitions (including the threshold for increase in bulk density) do point to important considerations in maintaining vegetation cover that is adequate to protect soils. OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 56 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

percent. Soils evaluated in the Oregon study were low in organic matter with relatively high bulk densities, while soils in most of the project area are high in organics or overlain with thick layers of organics that would prevent compaction of underlying mineral layers. Based on a study of skid trail impacts in uplands and wetlands, Aust et al. (1995) found that increases in bulk density were smaller in poorly drained wet soils than on sites with better drainage. These findings suggest that multiple passes of the Argo would not result in adverse impacts in terms of soil compaction. Effects of the proposed action on soils would be localized, minor and temporary.

Wetlands Acreage Affected The acreage of wetlands that would be affected within each segment was estimated by measuring the length of each type of wetland within each segment and assuming the Argo would disturb vegetation and soils within a 6-foot track during each trip (one pass in and one pass out) through the wetland. Tables 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 show the estimated acreage of potential wetland impacts on NFS and non-NFS lands, respectively.

Table 4.1-1. Acreage of potential wetland impacts on NFS lands within ROW segments, by wetland type in each trip (one pass in, one pass out). Total Wetland Total Wetland Percent Segment FW FEF MP Acres within Acres within Affected Track Segment A 0 2.34 0 2.34 78.64 2.98 B 0.69 0.35 0.36 1.40 47.87 2.92 C 0.11 0.02 0.16 0.29 16.93 1.71 E 0 1.43 0 1.43 45.62 3.13 F 0.98 0.12 0 1.10 36.87 2.98 G 1.21 1.50 0.40 3.11 103.79 3.00 H 0.46 0.02 0.12 0.60 23.00 2.61 Total 3.45 5.78 1.04 10.27 352.72 2.91 FW = forested wetland; FEF = forested wetland/emergent wetland complex; MP = moss muskeg

Table 4.1-2. Acreage of potential wetland impacts within tracks on non-NFS lands within segments, by wetland type in each trip (one pass in, one pass out). Total Total Wetland Wetland Percent Segment FW1 FEF2 MP3 Acres within Acres within Affected Segment Track D 0.21 0 0 0.21 7.45 2.82 I 0.26 0.50 0 0.76 28.46 2.67 Total 0.47 0.50 0 0.97 35.91 2.70 FW = forested wetland; FEF = forested wetland/emergent wetland complex; MP = moss muskeg

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 57 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table 4.1-3 shows wetland impacts associated with access points outside ROW segments. Access to Segment B from any of the three potential locations are not presently disturbed by recreational ATV use. Access to Segments C and I (on non-NFS lands) is already disturbed. Access from the landing craft to the segment from points on the shoreline in Segments A, B, E, F, and G would cross estuarine wetlands.

Table 4.1-3. Acreage of potential wetland impacts associated with access on non- NFS lands. Access Point FW FEF MP Total Wetland Acreage B1 0.09 0 0.11 0.20 B2 0.08 0 0.21 0.29 B3 0 0.06 0.04 0.10 C 0 0 0.23 0.23 I 0.09 0 0 0.09 FW = forested wetland; FEF = forested wetland/emergent wetland complex; MP = moss muskeg

Wetland Sensitivity The incremental effects of the tracked Argo in Segments C, D, G, H, and I would not likely be measurable, compared to the effects of wheeled recreational ATV activity that already occurs in these segments (Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-4). As mentioned above, recreational activity likely occurs every year and might occur in any month. Argo entry at each segment would occur during each maintenance cycle as described in Section 1.2. Any effects of the Argo on vegetation (abrasion, compression, shearing, uprooting) and underlying soils (puddling) would be more visible in Segments A, B, E, and F, because there is no existing recreational ATV use. The Argo may cross a total of 6.27 acres of wetlands in Segments A, B, E, and F, not including whichever access points may be selected.

Within Segments A, B, E, and F, groundcovers in forested wetlands (1.67 acres) in the project area include a mix of forbs and caespitose shrubs (crowberry, bunchberry dogwood). Forested wetland/emergent short sedge wetlands (4.24 acres) include many of the same species, along with a variety of sedges and other dwarf shrubs. Argo impacts in these wetlands are likely to be minimal, because dwarf shrubs, sedges, and grasses appear to be resilient to ATV use (Ahlstrand and Racine 1993, Loomis and Lieberman 2006). While tall shrubs are subject to shearing, dwarf shrubs tend to compress and grasses and sedges can spread into disturbed areas with new tillers.

Access routes from the shoreline at the cable crossings would cross rock and gravel, avoiding sand, mud, and vegetation to the extent possible. These areas are exposed to wave action under existing conditions, and impacts of the Argo would be minor and temporary. Where vegetation is present, it is dominated by sedges and grasses that should recover rapidly if disturbed.

The shallow-rooted plants and mosses that dominate muskeg in Segment B are less resistant to the pressure of any type of vehicle. Subsidence of the peat could occur within

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 58 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

the Argo track, and changes in microtopography could alter the plant community within the track for several years. However, based on observations in Segment G, ground disturbance associated with installation of the fiber-optic cable in 2008 was barely visible in 2014. The Argo would cause much less disturbance, and would not impair wetland functions or values in terms of flood flow moderation, groundwater recharge or discharge, water quality protection, or capabilities in providing habitat for fish or wildlife.

Wetlands are present within every ROW segment in the project area, and in some segments, cannot be avoided without clearing additional vegetation outside the ROW. Use of the low ground pressure Argo (less than 1 psi) and infrequent access for maintenance will minimize impacts on wetlands that cannot be avoided. Measures described above, together with a monitoring plan (Appendix A) will further protect wetlands.

4.2 VEGETATION

The only vegetation issues identified during scoping focused on potential project effects on sensitive plants and invasive plant species. Ground disturbance has the potential to directly affect sensitive plant populations and alter the habitat conditions that support them. Ground disturbance also can create conditions that promote the establishment and spread of invasive plants. The following section summarizes the conclusions of the Botany BE (Meridian 2015a) and the Invasive Plant Survey Report and Risk Assessment (Meridian 2015b), evaluates project effects on sensitive species and invasive plants, and compares them to the No Action Alternative.

4.2.1 No Action Alternative

Based on a review of existing information and surveys completed in 2014, no Forest Service sensitive species are present in the project area.

The effects of the No Action Alternative on invasive plants would vary throughout the project area. Site vulnerability to weed introduction and spread in the project area ranges from low to moderate, depending on the habitat type, the level of existing ground disturbance, the proximity to existing weed infestations, and access that allows highway traffic or off-road vehicles to serve as conduits for seed transport. In general, forested areas have a low vulnerability because few weed species survive under dense canopy cover. The highest vulnerability usually occurs in sunny, open areas where soils are frequently disturbed.

In the project area, segments with the lowest vulnerability are those without any road access. These include Segments A, B, E, and F. These segments are located on NFS lands on Wrangell Island (A and B), Woronkofski Island (E), and Vank Island (F).

Segments with moderate vulnerability are those with recreational ATV access from abandoned logging roads or from turn-outs on State highways and Forest roads. These include the access to Segment C on Wrangell Island, and Segments G, H, and I, all located on

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 59 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Mitkof Island. Of these, Segments H and I appear to receive the most use by recreational ATVs. This use would not change as a result of project implementation.

An open road and active rock quarry within Segment D expose it to the highest levels of traffic. In addition to quarry-related traffic, the road may also be used by recreational ATVs. These uses would not change with project implementation.

Under the No Action Alternative, weed populations that are already present are likely to continue to spread, and recreational ATV use will continue to serve as a vector for new species to establish. Changes would likely be confined to the ROW, as all the weeds that are currently present thrive in open, sunny conditions, and would not be likely to spread into adjacent forest, but it is also possible that recreational ATV use would bring in new species that take advantage of moist, shaded forest conditions.

4.2.2 Proposed Action

As described above, no Forest Service sensitive plant species are known from the project area, and none were documented during the 2014 field surveys. For this reason, the proposed action is not expected to affect sensitive plants.

Use of the OHV to replace access by helicopter would increase the risk of weed transport and spread, because any ground-based vehicle has the potential to disturb soils along its path. The Argo itself, brushing equipment, and the boots and clothing of the workers would be the only weed vector associated with project implementation, because no access improvements are planned, and there would be no change in non-project-related access (e.g., recreational ATV use).

Recreational ATV access occurs in the access to Segment C and in Segments G, H and I, likely during the spring, summer, and fall. Commercial access to the rock quarry in Segment D likely occurs year-round. The effects of Argo use during the maintenance cycle described in Section 1.2 would slightly increase the risk of weed introduction and spread in these areas, but the incremental difference would not be measurable as compared to the No Action Alternative.

The potential for an incremental increase in disturbance would be higher in Segments A, B, E, and F, which are not accessible to recreational ATVs. Species documented in these segments may have arrived during timber harvest, construction of the transmission line, or ROW soil stabilization treatments and maintenance, or have been carried in by birds or mammals.

Recreational ATV access in Segments C, G, H and I and commercial access to the rock quarry in Segment D have a higher potential for ground disturbance, weed introduction, and weed spread than maintenance access using an OHV at the expected maintenance cycle interval. These non-project-related vectors are outside SEAPA’s control and will likely continue.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 60 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

High weed densities were observed around marine cable terminals located at each end of Segments E and F. Maintenance in these (and other) segments will be scheduled to avoid the period when invasive plants are typically in the seed stage.

Table 4.2-1 summarizes factors that influence how invasive plants would be likely to respond to project implementation, based on changes associated with the proposed action in relation to the existing environment. Table 4.2-1 follows templates provided in FSM 2080 (TNF Supplement 2000-2007-1, Exhibits 4 and 5).

As indicated in the Invasive Plant Report and Risk Assessment (Meridian 2015b), the overall risk of invasive plant establishment as a result of the project is low. This determination is based on the following:

1. Project implementation would not alter overall habitat factors within the segments (e.g., canopy cover, duff layers) that would influence growing conditions for invasive species, such as soil, hydrology, or light, but would result in some ruts and bared soil that could provide a seed bed for invasive species.

2. Ground disturbance would be limited by the light weight of the OHV and the narrow footprint of its tracks.

3. Ground disturbance would be limited by the expected maintenance cycle interval.

4. Project implementation would follow the requirements identified in the monitoring plan (Appendix A) and is not expected to increase the risk of non-project-related vectors, because it would not improve accessibility to other uses (e.g., recreational ATVs).

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 61 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table 4.2-1. Existing condition and proposed action dependent factors affecting invasive plant response to project implementation. Existing Condition Dependent Factors Factor Current Conditions Inventory An inventory has been completed, with 27 invasive species documented within the ROW and at access points. High priority species are present in each segment. Habitat Wetlands and riparian habitats within each segment are vulnerable to weed establishment Vulnerability and spread, but in general, there is a high level of vegetative cover and a low level of soil disturbance in five segments, resulting in low vulnerability. There is a high level of vegetative cover and slightly more soil disturbance in access to Segment C and five ROW segments (D, G, H, I), resulting in a low to moderate vulnerability. Non-Project A seed source at highway and Forest road access points combined with recreational ATV Vectors use can cause ground disturbance and transport weed seeds, resulting in low to moderate vulnerability in C, D, G, H, and I. Proposed Action Dependent Factors Factor No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative Habitat Alteration Vegetation would continue to be Vegetation would continue to be managed to managed to prevent interference with prevent interference with the transmission line. the transmission line. A helicopter An OHV would be used for access. Overall would be used for access. habitat conditions (light, moisture regime, soils, slope) would not be altered. Micro-habitat conditions may be altered at some locations by damage to groundcover and soil exposure. Project-Related Helicopter access does not cause Use of a rubber-tracked OHV at expected Vectors measurable ground disturbance and is maintenance intervals would not measurably less likely to transport weed seed, increase the risk of weed introduction or spread resulting in a low risk of introducing or over existing conditions in segments where spreading weeds in any segments. recreational ATV use occurs and would slightly increase the risk in segments that are not accessible to recreational use (Segments A, B, E and F). Mitigation None Implementing all mitigation measures listed in Measures Appendix A would reduce the risk of introducing new weeds and the risk of spreading existing infestations. Anticipated The occurrence of high priority invasive Use of a rubber-tracked OHV at expected Invasive Plant species with almost no soil disturbance maintenance intervals would not measurably Response indicates a low potential for invasive increase the risk of weed introduction or spread plant spread in six segments. over existing conditions in segments where Occurrence of high priority invasive recreational ATV use occurs and would slightly species with some soil disturbance increase the risk in segments that are not indicates a low to moderate potential for accessible to recreational use (Segments A, B, E invasive plant spread in three and F). segments.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 62 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

4.3 WILDLIFE

No wildlife issues were identified during scoping, other than potential project effects on listed and sensitive species. Effects are discussed in detail in the combined BA/BE, and summarized below. Forest Service planning regulations require evaluation of project effects on MIS, migratory landbirds, and endemic species as well (USFS 2016). Direct and indirect effects are assessed below. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 5. 4.3.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, SEAPA would continue to use helicopters to access the ROW segments. Flight paths would continue to avoid bald eagle and goshawk nesting areas and marine mammals in compliance with Forest Standards and Guidelines.

No landing craft would be needed to ferry the Argo and crew to segments, so there would be no associated increase in the risk of ship strike, noise disturbance, or habitat degradation from spills. There would be no risk of fuel spills from the Argo within the ROW that could contaminate streams that flow to marine waters. 4.3.2 Proposed Action

Threatened and Endangered Species A BA/BE was prepared to address potential project effects on federally listed species (Meridian 2014c). As indicated in Table 3.2-7, only two listed species may occur in the project area, within saltwater that would be affected by transport of the Argo between islands (not part of the proposed action, but a connected action). Table 4.3-1 summarizes the BA/BE conclusions for humpback whale and fin whale.

Table 4.3-1. Federally listed and candidate species that may occur or are known to occur in the project area. Common Name Scientific Name Effects Determination Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae May affect, not likely to adversely affect. Slight increase in risk of ship strike, acoustic disturbance, and water quality impacts as a result of landing craft spills is insignificant and discountable. Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus May affect, not likely to adversely affect. Slight increase in risk of ship strike, acoustic disturbance, and water quality impacts as a result of landing craft spills is insignificant and discountable. FE = federally endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; FSS = Region 10 sensitive

Region 10 Sensitive Species As shown in Table 3.2-9, four species designated as sensitive in Region 10 may occur or are known to occur in the project area. Based on the BA/BE prepared for the project, (Meridian 2015c), the proposed action could have both direct and indirect effects on the Queen

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 63 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Charlotte goshawk, yellow-billed loon, black oystercatcher, and Steller sea lion. Table 4.3-2 shows the effects determinations presented in the BA/BE.

Table 4.3-2. Summary of effects determinations for Region 10 sensitive species with potential to occur in the project area. Common Name Scientific Name Effects Determination Queen Charlotte Accipiter gentilis laingi May adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to goshawk result in a loss of viability nor cause a trend toward federal listing, due to potential human disturbance at undocumented nest sites. Yellow-billed loon Gavia adamsii May adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability nor cause a trend toward federal listing, based on low likelihood that yellow- billed loons would occur in the project area and the low risk of disturbance or effects on water quality. Black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani May adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability nor cause a trend toward federal listing, due to potential human disturbance, if nesting occurs at any of the cable crossings. Steller sea lion Eumatopias jubatus May adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to (Eastern DPS) result in a loss of viability nor cause a trend toward federal listing, because boat operators are required to comply with all prohibitions and regulations; effects are expected to be negligible and indistinguishable from the effects of other vessel traffic using the marine waters in the project area. 1 FSS = Forest Service Sensitive; FC = Federal Candidate; FT = Federal Threatened

The proposed action would not directly affect goshawks, because it does not involve any habitat removal or modification, would not affect the prey base for this species, and would not cause noise that would result in nest abandonment or impaired care of young in the nest. Sound generated by the Argo would be less than the sound produced by a chainsaw (from 70 to about 110 decibels on an A-weighted scale [dBA] at 50 feet, OSHA 2008) that occurs under the No Action Alternative. However, helicopter flights, which can produce much louder sounds, would no longer be required for access. The nearest nest area buffer is over the 600-foot distance recommended for avoidance of continuous activity near goshawk nests.

While there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on goshawks at documented nests, there would be some risk of disturbance at undocumented nests. For this reason, the BA/BE concluded that the proposed action might adversely affect individuals, but would not be likely to result in a loss of viability or cause a trend toward federal listing (Meridian 2015c).

Management Indicator Species As described in Section 3.3.3, several MIS are known or likely to occur in the project area, including Sitka black-tailed deer, river otter, American marten, black bear, wolf, and OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 64 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Vancouver Canada geese. If present under existing conditions, these species likely avoid work areas during maintenance activities, and would also avoid areas near the Argo as it travels through each segment. Effects are expected to be negligible.

The bald eagle is protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and managed by the Forest Service under a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service signed in 2002. In addition to maintenance of perching and winter roosting habitat, timing restrictions for blasting, helicopter flight paths, and marking of nest trees that are discovered during wildlife surveys or other forest work and providing this information to the USFWS, the agreement addresses 330-foot management zones (or buffers) around nests.

Five bald eagle nest buffers intersect the ROW (two in Segment A, one in Segment D, and two in Segment E). Argo access to the ROW in the vicinity of these nests would not result in appreciably more noise than current activities that are implemented to maintain vegetation underneath the power lines, and would reduce the potential of disturbance from helicopter access. The project does not involve removal or modification of bald eagle habitat or the prey base. Effects of the project on bald eagles are expected to be negligible.

Migratory Birds The proposed action would not remove or alter habitat for any endemic species, and no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would be expected. Migratory birds that may use the ROW under existing conditions would likely avoid work areas under the proposed action, also. Disturbance caused by the Argo traveling through each segment would be negligible.

Endemic Species The proposed action would not remove or alter habitat for any endemic species. Use of the Argo to access the ROW segments within the project area may cause disturbance of endemics within the path of the Argo, but effects are expected to be negligible.

4.4 AQUATIC RESOURCES

As described in Section 3.4, the primary aquatic resource issues associated with the proposed project include potential effects on water quality, fish populations, and stream habitat (USFS 2016). In general, the Forest Service characterizes the level (magnitude and intensity) of effect on these resources using descriptors which account for how measurable the effect would be, how widespread the effect is likely to be, and how long it is likely to last. Descriptors used in this aquatic resources evaluation are as follows:

• Negligible: Effects would be undetectable or if detected, would be considered slight, detectable only at the site, and last less than a day.

• Minor: Effects would be measurable, although the changes would be small, localized to the site or affected stream reach, and last less than a week.

• Moderate: Effects would be measurable at the stream reach or sub-watershed scale, and last more than a week. OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 65 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

• Major: Effects would be readily measurable at the watershed scale and would last for years.

4.4.1 Water Quality

In undisturbed watersheds in Southeast Alaska, suspended sediment loads in non-glacial streams are normally very low (Schmeige et al. 1974). Sediment can be introduced into streams from management-related and natural processes, including timber harvest (and vegetation clearing), landslides, debris flows, and erosion of stream banks. OHV stream crossings can also increase the likelihood of mass movement and localized erosion, which could subsequently increase suspended sediment levels. The Argo OHV, chain saws, and work crews also have the potential introduce petroleum, and other hazardous substances into the project area.

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, SEAPA would continue to use a helicopter for access to all nine segments to clear vegetation, and there would be no OHV traffic within the ROW. These activities are not adversely affecting overall water quality or impairing aquatic habitat in any of the segments. Unauthorized recreational ATV use would continue to cause very minor, periodic, short term increases in turbidity at stream crossings that are accessible from state highways, active Forest roads, or abandoned logging roads. In addition, these activities would also continue to generate trash (and possibly human waste) along portions of the ROW. As discussed in Section 3.1, this use affects areas of the ROW in Segments C, G, H, and I.

Proposed Action Under the proposed action, SEAPA would be permitted to use an Argo OHV to transport personnel and equipment within nine segments of the Tyee electrical transmission line (Figure 1.2-1). The OHV would carry a two-person crew and brushing equipment (chain saws, pole saws, etc.) to cut alder and any other tree saplings that are encroaching into the ROW. These maintenance activities would require crossing numerous small streams (i.e., entering the channel with the Argo), equipment refueling, and proper waste management. Implementation of site-specific mitigation, and monitoring measures (as described in Appendix A) would ensure that these activities do not adversely affect long-term water quality and maintain or enhance the soil and water resources in the project area.

Water Quality Mitigation Measures The Forest Service policy for control of nonpoint sources of pollution is to use BMPs, monitor the implementation and effectiveness of those BMPs, and adjust management practices using monitoring results. For all small stream crossings located in the project area (ephemeral streams, streams with relatively low base flow and shallow water depth), SEAPA would implement a series of project-specific BMPs to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. These mitigation, and monitoring measures are described in detail in Appendix A. With use of these measures, it is anticipated that the frequency of travel within a segment, and the return interval

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 66 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

maintenance cycle as described in Section 1.2, would have a negligible effect on water quality (e.g., effects would be undetectable or if detected, would be considered slight, detectable only at the site, and last less than a day). 4.4.2 Fisheries

The ADF&G maintains the AWC, which provides information about waters important for the spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fish (Johnson and Blanche 2010). The AWC, along with field verification, provided information for the fish species found within each transmission line segment. Each watershed contains small and medium-sized drainages which contribute to a marine sport and commercial fishery, and support a limited freshwater fishery. Both the recreational and commercial fisheries are important to the local economy of the area, and these fish populations contribute to the subsistence needs of local communities. Six anadromous and/or resident salmonid fish species are present in project area streams and listed in Table 4.4-1.

No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, the Forest Service would not provide authorization for the proposed project. SEAPA’s maintenance crews would continue to access the segments of the transmission line ROW via helicopter. Based on the results of field surveys conducted in August 2014, these existing activities are not adversely affecting fish populations in any of the ROW segments. Unauthorized recreational ATV use would continue to cause very minor, periodic, short term increases in turbidity at stream crossings. Unauthorized recreational ATV use would also increase the risk of hazardous substances and human waste entering project area streams. Though, under existing conditions, these risks are generally low.

Proposed Action Under the proposed action, it is likely that salmon, trout, and char would be subject to occasional increases in turbidity and local benthic organism mortality as a result of the Argo-based stream crossings. The proposed project would also increase the risk of fish being exposed to petroleum and other hazardous substances.

Potential adverse effects on fish populations would be minimized through the application of site-specific mitigation measures described in Table 4.4-1, and in Appendix A to protect water quality and aquatic habitat for all freshwater streams within the analysis area. Overall, effects on existing fish populations are expected to be minimal, short term, and easily tolerated by fish and other aquatic biota. As a result, potential adverse effects on existing fish populations are expected to be negligible.

Management Indicator Species NFMA regulations direct the use of MIS in forest planning to help display the effects of forest management. MIS are species whose population changes are believed to indicate the effects of land management activities. The 2016 Tongass Forest Plan identifies pink and

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 67 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

coho salmon, Dolly Varden char, and cutthroat trout as MIS that are representative of varied fish life history habitat uses of the Tongass stream systems.

Threatened, Endangered, Species Potential project effects on listed aquatic species were addressed in a BA/BE for fish and wildlife (Meridian 2015a) that will serve as the basis for consultation with NMFS. Results of the BA/BE are summarized below.

Salmon and Steelhead With the exception of Chinook, it is unlikely that listed salmonids would be present within or near the project area because their centers of ocean distribution are farther south. Based upon the low probability of listed salmon or steelhead occurring within the project area and the low probability of long-term water quality degradation, the proposed action would have no effect on ESA listed salmon and steelhead. A copy of the BA/BE is available in the project record.

Essential Fish Habitat Our review of available data coupled with the results of extensive field surveys documented nine Class I and 16 Class II streams in the proposed project’s nine transmission line segments (excluding Ohmer Creek). While coho salmon and rainbow trout/steelhead were the only anadromous species captured during sampling in August 2014, chum and pink salmon are also known to use these freshwater systems (e.g., Ohmer Creek in Segment G). Coho, chum, and pink salmon are federally managed under the jurisdiction of the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and any streams that support these species are considered to contain freshwater EFH.

The proposed action (and mitigation, and monitoring measures described in Appendix A) would result in negligible effects on water quality and aquatic habitat. The effects of any increases in sediment delivery and altered riparian vegetation to freshwater EFH would be minimized by implementing stream segment specific mitigation measures to protect water quality and aquatic habitat for all freshwater streams within the analysis area. Therefore, the proposed action would have no adverse effect on EFH.

A copy of this EA will be sent to the NMFS, and the Forest Service will continue participating in the EFH consultation process. 4.4.3 Stream Habitat

Mitigation, and monitoring measures described in Table 4.4-1 and Appendix A would minimize potential impacts of the proposed new stream crossings on fish habitat and these potential impacts, as a result, are also considered negligible.

Stream Habitat Mitigation Measures Differences in gradient, confinement, and bed morphology suggest that different channel types are more or less responsive to disturbance (Montgomery and Buffington 1993). The

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 68 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

more responsive (sensitive) areas are most likely to exhibit physical changes from land management activities, such as stream crossings. In general, sensitive portions of the channel network are those that lack the terrain controls which define confined channels. These unconfined or moderately confined channels display visible changes in channel characteristics when flow, sediment supply, or the supply of roughness elements such as large woody debris (LWD) is altered. These areas are commonly referred to as response reaches, and usually possess an active floodplain. At the other end of the responsive spectrum would be those channels whose characteristics and form are not easily altered, such as a bedrock canyon. Channel type codes for the important streams listed in Table 4.4- 1 below are based on the revised channel type classification system (USFS 2010b). The channel type codes for the important streams are described in Table 4.4-2.

Segment and stream specific mitigation measures to minimize adverse effects on fish habitat are presented in Table 4.4-1 for important stream crossings in the project area. Important streams are those that were identified on the ground during field surveys as needing some level of stream or bank mitigation measure to protect fish or water quality resources. These streams may be either fish-bearing, or large enough at the transmission line crossing to warrant protection of water quality in downstream reaches. Streams not listed in the table below require no additional protection when being crossed by the OHV.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 69 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table 4.4-1. Mitigation measures for important stream crossings in the proposed project area. Field Field SEAPA Verified Verified ADF&G Latitude Longitude Fish Width Stream Channel Stream Mitigation Stream # (N) (W) Captured (ft) ID Type at Class at Crossing Crossing NA A1 56.21146 -131.930386 None 3.5 HCD III Use and retain temporary log mats obtained on- site when possible to minimize adverse effects on downstream water quality. No timing restriction. NA A2 56.214547 -131.933684 DV CO CT 2.5 ESSg I Cross outside of intertidal zone; use and retain sculpin temporary log mats obtained on-site at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA A3 56.216958 -131.936663 sculpin 12 ESSg I Cross outside of intertidal zone; use and retain gunnel temporary log mats obtained on-site at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA A4a 56.218197 -131.938315 None 12 FPS III Armored streambed sufficient for Argo crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA A4b 56.218573 -131.945647 CT sculpin 8 FPS II Armored streambed sufficient for Argo crossing; use and retain temporary log mats obtained on- site at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA A9 56.242795 -131.960167 DV 4-6 MMS II Use and maintain temporary log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA A10 56.244608 -131.961721 CO 18-20 MMS I Armored streambed sufficient for Argo crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA B1 56.34103 -132.163592 Marked as 3 MCS II Use and maintain temporary log mat at crossing. fish Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. bearing 107-40- B2 56.338486 -132.1538 CT 10 MMS II Do not cross with Argo. 10790 NA D2 56.422592 -132.352165 CT 4 HCD II Do not cross with Argo. Steep v-notch. NA D3 56.423045 -132.352586 DV 4 HCD II Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 70 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Field Field SEAPA Verified Verified ADF&G Latitude Longitude Fish Width Stream Channel Stream Mitigation Stream # (N) (W) Captured (ft) ID Type at Class at Crossing Crossing NA E1 56.417643 -132.432659 CO 2.5 ESSg I Cross outside of intertidal zone; use and retain sculpin temporary log mats obtained on-site at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA E3 56.417905 -132.435318 None 3 PAH III Use and retain temporary log mats obtained on- site to minimized adverse effects on downstream water quality. No timing restriction. 108-40- E6 56.422049 -132.447856 DV CO 12 PAB I Use and retain temporary log mat at crossing. 10303 sculpin Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA E8 56.427289 -132.462674 CT 4.5 HCM II Use and retain temporary log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. 108-40- E10 56.428167 -132.464643 None 3.5 MMS III Gravel substrate sufficient for crossing. Only 10306 cross from June 1 – Aug 1. 108-40- E11 56.429070 -132.467094 CT 10 MMS II Hardened substrate sufficient for Argo crossing. 10307 Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA E12 56.429367 -132.468074 CT 3 MMS II Hardened substrate sufficient for Argo crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA E16 56.434358 -132.482449 CO 8 MMS I Marked as fish bearing stream. Use and maintain temporary log mats obtained on-site at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA E17 56.435178 -132.491511 CT 4 MMS II Use and retain temporary log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA F1a 56.478618 -132.621219 DV CT 4 PAB II Use and maintain temporary log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA F1b 56.476973 -132.619445 CT 3.5 PAB II Use and maintain temporary log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA F4 56.466581 -132.602365 None 3 PAB III Large beaver pond immediately upstream; place and retain a temporary log mat across the channel at crossing. No timing restriction.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 71 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Field Field SEAPA Verified Verified ADF&G Latitude Longitude Fish Width Stream Channel Stream Mitigation Stream # (N) (W) Captured (ft) ID Type at Class at Crossing Crossing NA F5 56.466231 -132.601483 None 4 PAB III Beaver dam area; place and retain a temporary log mat obtained on-site downstream of active beaver dam. No timing restriction. NA G1 56.545279 -132.713691 DV CO 4.5 LCO I Use and maintain existing log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. 108-40- G10 56.572499 -132.735066 DV 3 MMO II Do not cross with Argo 2000 (v-notch, fish habitat, and bank stability concerns). 108- G11 56.591040 -132.745196 None 4 HCO III Install and retain temporary log mat obtained on- 10500- site at crossing to protect downstream 2003- anadromous fish. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 3004- 1. 4010- 5010 108-40- Ohmer NA NA Not NA FPS I (per Do not cross with Argo 10500 Creek Sampled ADF&G) 106-44- H1 56.614970 -132.808213 DV 1.5 MCO II Use and retain temporary log mat at crossing. 10240- Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. 2011- 3015 NA H4 56.632671 -132.871338 DV 1 HCO II Use and maintain existing log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. 106-44- H6 56.635664 -132.878855 CO SH 3 MMS I Use and retain temporary log mat at crossing. 10103 Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. 106-44- H7 56.637572 -132.884248 DV 2 MCS II Use and maintain existing log mat at crossing. 10100 Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. Key: CH=Chum; CO=coho; P=pink; DV= Dolly Varden; SH= steelhead; S=sockeye NA = Not available (not listed in the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog)

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 72 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table 4.4-2. Channel Type Descriptions Channel Type Code Description ESSg Small Estuarine, gravel substrate phase FPS Small Flood Plain HCO Micro High Gradient Contained HCD High Gradient Deep Incision LCO Micro Low Gradient Contained MCS Small Moderate Gradient Contained MMO Micro Moderate Gradient Mixed Control MMS Small Moderate Gradient Mixed Control PAH Backwater/Ground Water Fed Slough PAB Beaver Dam/Pond

4.5 SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES 4.5.1 No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, no changes would occur to subsistence resources.

4.5.2 Proposed Action Alternative

The implementation of the proposed action would not result in a significant restriction of subsistence uses and there would be no effect on subsistence resources. The project area does not support an abundance of fish, waterfowl, or upland game birds. While edible berries are available, and a variety of furbearers and big game animals may be present in the project area, the use of an OHV to access the project area would not result in a significant change in the habitat that supports these species, and therefore not result in a significant change in the abundance and distribution of these subsistence species.

Under the proposed action, the transmission line ROW would be accessed directly from existing roads or the shoreline, except at a few locations where the OHV would need to travel through the adjacent forest or muskeg to reach the ROW. No improvements would be made on the landscape at these locations and the access points would not be visible to the casual forest user. Therefore these access points are not likely to increase the potential for use by non-subsistence users. Since the proposed action would not substantially change access to the transmission line ROW, the project would not affect competition for subsistence resources in the project area by non-subsistence users, and would not likely alter existing subsistence use patterns.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 73 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.6.1 No Action Alternative

Based on the pre-field review of existing cultural and historic resources and field observations, it is not likely that there are additional cultural materials in the project area. Under the no action alternative, no changes would occur within the project area; therefore no cultural or historic properties would be affected.

4.6.2 Proposed Action Alternative

Pre-field review of existing cultural and historic resources, and field observations did not identify any undocumented historic or cultural use of the project area. The proposed action may create some disturbance of surface soil features along the length of the transmission line ROW. The ROW has been managed in a state of vegetative disturbance since the construction of the transmission line, and along most of its length includes a pedestrian trail. OHV use would occur within the disturbed path of the existing trail, minimizing the disturbance to new areas. There is a low probability of encountering undocumented historical or cultural resources within the project area.

No archaeological or historic cultural resources were noted or discovered within the proposed OHV use segments. A finding of No Historic Properties Affected is appropriate for this project. Obligations using modified procedures of the 36 CFR 800 review process as defined in the Programmatic Agreement have been met. The technical report documenting the cultural resource survey is included in the project planning record and will be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office.

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.13(a) and (b)(1), should any surface or subsurface heritage resources be encountered during land use activities, such activities would cease immediately and the local District Ranger notified. If such properties are determined potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the project is determined to have adverse effects on the property, a Tongass National Forest archaeologist would address project effects and comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act before the project may proceed.

4.7 LAND USE 4.7.1 No Action Alternative

The no action alternative would not change any land ownership or land uses within or adjacent to the transmission line ROW.

4.7.2 Proposed Action Alternative

The proposed action would not change any land ownership within or adjacent to the transmission line ROW. The proposed action would change the approved land use activity

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 74 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

on Forest Service administered land to allow SEAPA to use an OHV within areas that vehicles are currently not allowed. This change in land use would only be approved for SEAPA’s use as part of their Special Use Permit for managing the transmission line, and would not approve vehicle use of the same area for other users.

4.8 OTHER RESOURCES

Scenery, recreation, roadless areas, and socioeconomic resources would not be affected by either the no-action or the proposed action alternatives. The existing scenery in the project area is dominated by the presence of the transmission line and supporting towers. These features would not change; therefore the proposed action would not change the existing scenic integrity of the area. There are no developed recreation facilities or roadless areas present within the project area, although roadless areas are adjacent to some segments. The proposed action would not change the existing recreational opportunities available, or provide additional public access to the transmission line or other NFS land. Therefore, the proposed action would not affect recreation or roadless areas. The communities of Wrangell and Petersburg would continue to be provided with electrical power from the Tyee hydropower project, and labor and materials to maintain the transmission line would still be provided by these communities. Therefore, the proposed action would result in no change to the socioeconomic conditions in the project vicinity.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 75 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects are those effects that could result from the incremental effect of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect key resources identified in this EA. Past actions include timber harvest, road construction, transmission line construction, boat traffic (commercial and recreational) in waterways between Mitkof, Vank, Woronkofski, and Wrangell islands, and recreational ATV use of roads that are administratively closed to vehicle traffic. Ongoing activities include ROW maintenance, boat traffic, and recreational ATV use. Future activities include potential timber harvest and associated road construction on Mitkof and Wrangell Islands, as well as ROW maintenance, boat traffic and recreational ATV use.

Soils and Wetlands Disturbance of vegetation along the OHV use route in each segment and possible disturbance of soils at some locations would not exceed thresholds for detrimental conditions. The proposed action would disturb about 10.27 acres of wetlands on NFS land and less than 1 acre on non-NFS land. It does not involve fill or discharge into wetlands, and no loss of area, functions, or values would occur. For these reasons, the project would not make a significant contribution to cumulative effects that have occurred as a result of initial ROW construction, effects currently caused by recreational ATV use in some segments, or the effects from proposed timber harvest on 583 acres of wetlands on Mitkof Island, together with the loss of 12.2 acres of wetlands converted to roads for the timber sales.

Vegetation The proposed action would slightly increase the risk of establishment or spread of invasive non-native plants, because the OHV would serve as a weed vector. However, by implementing a plan to prevent and control noxious weeds and exotic plants, the project should positively contribute to the Forest Service and borough efforts to manage invasive plants around the project area. SEAPA’s weed management is expected to focus on mechanical treatment or hand-pulling. If such efforts are not effective, SEAPA would consult with the Forest Service to determine whether other methods, such as herbicides should be used for weed management. This would ensure that the use of any other methods would not contribute to cumulative effects of the Forest Service’s Wrangell- Petersburg Weed Project EA (USFS 2013).

Wildlife The proposed action has the potential to cause minor and temporary noise disturbance to wildlife in each segment when vegetation management activities are occurring. The use of an OHV would not remove or alter habitat for threatened, endangered, or candidate species; MIS, migratory birds, or endemic species. Disturbance caused by the OHV traveling through each segment would not add measurably to the effects of the existing recreational ATV activity in some segments, or noise created by future timber harvest and road construction in the project vicinity.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 76 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Aquatic Resources The proposed project has a low frequency of crossing important streams and the effects on water quality, aquatic habitat, and fish populations are expected to be negligible with the implementation of mitigation measures and timing restrictions. Combined with any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects in the action area, the proposed action is not expected to contribute to cumulative impacts on these resources.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 77 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

6.0 REFERENCES CITED

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2014. Comment letter from Jackie Timothy, ADF&G Southeast Regional Supervisor, to Forrest Cole, USFS, 648 Mission Street Ketchikan, AK 99901. January 13, 2015.

Ahlstrand, G. M., and C. H. Racine. 1993. Response of an Alaska, U.S.A., shrub-tussock community to selected all-terrain vehicle use. Arctic and Alpine Research, 25:142-149.

AOHA (Alaska Office of History and Archaeology). 2003. Standards and Guidelines for Investigating and reporting Archaeological and Historic Properties in Alaska. Historic Preservation Series No. 11. Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage.

AKDEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). 2013. Alaska’s Final 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. December 23, 2013.

AKNHP (Alaska Natural Heritage Program). 2014a. Database search for element occurrences: botany. Alaska Natural Heritage Program. University of Alaska, Anchorage. July 21, 2014.

AKNHP. 2014b. Database search for element occurrences: vertebrates. Alaska Natural Heritage Program. University of Alaska, Anchorage. July 29, 2014.

AKNHP. 2014c. Alaska endemic species review. Species lists and range maps. Available at: http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/zoology/wildlife-diversity/endemics/.

Amaranthus, M.P. and D.E. Steinfeld. 1997. Soil compaction after yarding of small-diameter Douglas-fir with a small tractor in southwest Oregon. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Paper PNW-RP-504. September 1997.

Aust, W.M., M.D. Tippett, J.A. Burger and W.H. McKee. 1995. Compaction and rutting during harvesting affect better drained soils more than poorly drained soils on wet pine flats. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 19(2):72-77.

Boggs, K., S. Klein, G. Tande, J. Michaelson and J. Lenz. 1998. Wetland information for southern Alaska: wetland environmental indicators, bibliography, and wetland communities. Prepared by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program for the Environmental Protection Agency, Anchorage, AK. November 1998.

Groot, C. and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Johnson, J., and P. Blanche. 2010. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes – Southeastern Region, Effective June 1, 2010. Special Publication No. 10-08. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage, AK.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 78 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Lewis, S.B. 2001. Breeding season diet of northern goshawks in southeast Alaska with a comparison of techniques used to examine raptor diet. Master’s Thesis, Boise State University, Boise, ID.

Loomis, P. and R. Liebermann. 2006. Biological impacts of off-road vehicles in Alaska: a literature review. USDI National Park Service. Available at: www.knikriver.org/ORV_Review_Loomis-Liebermann-May05.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2015.

Maupin, B. 2014a. Invasive Plant Management Plan for the Wrangell Borough. Alaska Association of Conservation Districts. Unpublished.

Maupin, B. 2014b. Invasive Plant Management Plan for the Petersburg Borough. Alaska Association of Conservation Districts. Unpublished.

McNeil, William J., and Daniel C. Himsworth. 1980. Salmonid Ecosystems of the North Pacific. Oregon State University Press.

Meridian (Meridian Environmental, Inc.). 2015a. Tyee Electrical Powerline ATV/OHV Maintenance Access Botany Biological Evaluation. Prepared for Southeast Alaska Power Agency, Wrangell, AK by Meridian Environmental, Inc., Seattle, WA. April 2015.

Meridian. 2015b. Tyee Electrical Powerline ATV/OHV Maintenance Access Invasive Plant Survey Report and Risk Assessment. Prepared for Southeast Alaska Power Agency, Wrangell, AK by Meridian Environmental, Inc., Seattle, WA. April 2015.

Meridian. 2015c. Combined Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation. Tyee Electrical Powerline ATV/OHV Maintenance Access Project. Prepared for Southeast Alaska Power Agency, Wrangell, AK by Meridian Environmental, Inc., Seattle, WA. April 2015.

Meyer, K.G. 2002. Managing Degraded Off-Highway Vehicle Trails in Wet, Unstable, and Sensitive Environments. USDA Forest Service, USDOT Federal Highway Administration, and USDI National Park Service. October 2002.

Montgomery, D. R., and Buffington, J. M.. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel response, and assessment of channel condition. Olympia, Washington. State Department of Natural Resources Report, TFW-SH10-93-002. 84 pages.

Napper, C., S. Howes and D. Page-Dumroese. 2009. Soil-Disturbance Field Guide. USDA Forest Service National Technology & Development Program. 0819 1815-SDTDC 1940 Inventory & Monitoring. August 2009.

Nowacki, G., M. Shepard, W. Pawuk, G. Fisher, J. Baichtal, D. Brew, E. Kissinger, and T. Brock. 2001. Ecological subsections of Southeast Alaska and neighboring areas of Canada. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. Technical Publication No. R10-TP-75. Juneau, Alaska.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 79 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Ouren, D.S., C. Haas, C.P. Melcher, S.C. Stewart, P.D. Ponds, N.R. Sexton, L. Burris, T. Fancher, and Z.H. Bowen. 2007. Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet resources. US Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007- 1353.

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 2008. Noise Navigator database. Compiled by E-A-R/Aero Company and the University of Washington. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/#soundlevelsequipment.

Smith, W.P., M.J. Stotts, B.A. Andres, J.M. Melton, A. Garibaldi and K. Boggs. 2001. Bird, mammal, and vegetation community surveys of Research Natural Areas in the Tongass National Forest. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Paper PNW-RP-535. December 2001.

Schmeige, D.C., A.E. Helmers, and D.M. Bishop. 1974. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska. Series 8. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR.

USFS (USDA Forest Service). 2001. Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook. FSH 2090 R10; Amendment 2090-2001-1. USDA Forest Service Region 10, Juneau, Alaska.

USFS. 2006. FSM 2550, Soil Management. Alaska Region Supplement, R-10 2500-2006-1. May 2006.

USFS. 2010a. Third Amended Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Heritage Program Management on National Forests in the State of Alaska. Manuscript on file, USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Petersburg Ranger District, Petersburg, Alaska.

USFS. 2010b. Channel Type User Guide Revision. October 2010.

USFS. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_Apri l2012.pdf

USFS. 2013. Wrangell-Petersburg Weed Management Project Environmental Assessment, Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. R10-MB-758. July 2013.

USFS. 2014. Biological Evaluation for the Mitkof Island Environmental Assessment (EA) Project. Petersburg Ranger District, Tongass National Forest. April 2014.

USFS. 2016. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. Forest Service, R10-MB-769j.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 80 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

7.0 PREPARERS

NEPA Document Jeff Boyce, Project Manager (Meridian Environmental). NEPA Specialist / Ecologist. BS, MS Forest Resource Management. 24 years related experience.

Eileen McLanahan. Terrestrial Biologist (Meridian Environmental). BS, MS Biology (Wildlife). 30 years related experience.

George Gilmour. Fisheries Biologist (Meridian Environmental). BA Biology (Fisheries). 22 years related experience.

Field and Technical Studies Richard Stern, Archaeologist (Northern Land Use Research Alaska). BA, MA, PhD Anthropology. 35 years related experience.

Joni Johnson, Botanist (Meridian Environmental). BS, MS Botany. 15 years related experience.

Levi Pienovi, Fisheries Biologist (Meridian Environmental). BS Fisheries. 3 years related experience.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page 81 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Appendix A Monitoring and Mitigation Measures

Monitoring and Mitigation Measures

INTRODUCTION

Mitigation and monitoring measures will be implemented and will be included in the amendment to SEAPA’s Special Use Permit, to reduce the risk of adverse effects to natural resources and address the key issues identified during scoping. Implementation of these measures will assist SEAPA in meeting the following standards 8:

• Soil or stream disturbing operations should be scheduled during periods of lowest probability for erosion, sedimentation, or damage to fish habitat quality; Use of equipment on Class I and II streams should be restricted during periods when the risk of damage to fish and their habitat quality is the highest; e.g., when eggs or alevin are in the gravels.

• Changes in drainage patterns that alter wetness, which could lead to erosion, sedimentation, or impairment of wetland functions and values, should occur in no more than 5 percent of any segment.

• The total acreage of all detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 15 percent of the total acreage within any segment.

• Ruts should not exceed 12 inches deep.

• Loss of duff and nutrient rich surface layers should not exceed 50 percent of areas greater than 100 square feet.

• Destruction of soil structure should not exceed 100 square feet.

• Turbid water flowing from the trail with the potential to connect to a stream.

In addition, SEAPA will develop and the Forest Service will approve measures to protect soils, wetlands, and streams; a noxious weed and exotic plant prevention and control plan; and a streambank and erosion monitoring plan that would guide the implementation of any mitigation measures.

8 Soil quality standards identified in FSM 2500 were designed to apply to timber harvest and road construction, but are used here to provide reasonable assurance that disturbance caused by the Argo does not result in any long- term adverse effects on soils, wetlands, or water quality. OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page A-1 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

SOIL, WETLAND, AND AQUATIC HABITAT MEASURES

The following measures to protect soils, wetlands, and aquatic habitat will be included in the Special Use Permit amendment:

• Prevent disturbance that would cause surface erosion by:

o Avoiding all wetlands, as much as possible.

o Following existing paths where available, rather than clearing new paths, unless necessary to avoid contributing to deep ruts (over 6 inches).

o Avoiding sensitive wetlands, including herbaceous wetlands surrounding beaver ponds in Segments E and F by using adjacent alder-dominated uplands.

o Avoiding vegetated intertidal wetlands at beach access points in Segments A, B and E by traveling over sand/gravel/cobble to the extent possible.

o Using wide-radius turns where possible to avoid churning soils.

o Traveling at low, constant speeds.

o Using a winch to free the Argo, should it become stuck, to avoid churning soils.

• Prevent soil and water contamination by:

o Performing OHV maintenance prior to transporting the Argo to the ROW, not within the ROW.

o Requiring equipment operators to carry absorbent pads.

o Providing containment and cleanup for portable fuel tanks (including hose and nozzle), if needed.

o Following approved disposal methods for waste products.

o Inspecting the Argo daily for leaks and repair promptly.

o Training field employees in basic stormwater management and pollution prevention principals. Begin by clearly communicating the company’s expectation that its employees should take personal responsibility for helping assure BMP effectiveness.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page A-2 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

o Removing all garbage and human waste generated on-site and store it in bear-proof containers until it can be transported to an approved disposal facility.

• Protect streambanks and aquatic habitat by:

o Locating low-water crossings where streambanks are low with gentle slopes and channels are not deeply incised (See Table A-1).

o Making crossings perpendicular to the stream channel.

o At low-water crossings use temporary logs and brush mats to maintain the function and bedload movement of the natural stream channel (See Table A-1).

o Locating unimproved Argo fords in stable reaches with a firm rock or gravel base that has sufficient load-bearing strength for the expected OHV traffic.

o Minimizing the number of passes across streams.

o Complying with the provisions of ADF&G Title 16 permits. Table A-1 lists Class I, II and III stream crossings where SEAPA would avoid crossing or would implement bank protection measures.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page A-3 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table A-1. Mitigation measures for important stream crossings in the proposed project area. Field Field SEAPA Verified Verified ADF&G Latitude Longitude Fish Width Stream Channel Stream Mitigation Stream # (N) (W) Captured (ft) ID Type at Class at Crossing1 Crossing NA A1 56.21146 -131.930386 None 3.5 HCD III Use and retain temporary log mats obtained on- site when possible to minimize adverse effects on downstream water quality. No timing restriction. NA A2 56.214547 -131.933684 DV CO CT 2.5 ESSg I Cross outside of intertidal zone; use and retain sculpin temporary log mats obtained on-site at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA A3 56.216958 -131.936663 sculpin 12 ESSg I Cross outside of intertidal zone; use and retain gunnel temporary log mats obtained on-site at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA A4a 56.218197 -131.938315 None 12 FPS III Armored streambed sufficient for Argo crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA A4b 56.218573 -131.945647 CT sculpin 8 FPS II Armored streambed sufficient for Argo crossing; use and retain temporary log mats obtained on- site at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA A9 56.242795 -131.960167 DV 4-6 MMS II Use and maintain temporary log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA A10 56.244608 -131.961721 CO 18-20 MMS I Armored streambed sufficient for Argo crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA B1 56.34103 -132.163592 Marked as 3 MCS II Use and maintain temporary log mat at crossing. fish Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. bearing 107-40- B2 56.338486 -132.1538 CT 10 MMS II Do not cross with Argo. 10790 NA D2 56.422592 -132.352165 CT 4 HCD II Do not cross with Argo. Steep v-notch. NA D3 56.423045 -132.352586 DV 4 HCD II Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page A-4 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Field Field SEAPA Verified Verified ADF&G Latitude Longitude Fish Width Stream Channel Stream Mitigation Stream # (N) (W) Captured (ft) ID Type at Class at Crossing1 Crossing NA E1 56.417643 -132.432659 CO 2.5 ESSg I Cross outside of intertidal zone; use and retain sculpin temporary log mats obtained on-site at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA E3 56.417905 -132.435318 None 3 PAH III Use and retain temporary log mats obtained on- site. No timing restriction. 108-40- E6 56.422049 -132.447856 DV CO 12 PAB I Use and retain temporary log mat at crossing. 10303 sculpin Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA E8 56.427289 -132.462674 CT 4.5 HCM II Use and retain temporary log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. 108-40- E10 56.428167 -132.464643 None 3.5 MMS III Gravel substrate sufficient for crossing. Only 10306 cross from June 1 – Aug 1. 108-40- E11 56.429070 -132.467094 CT 10 MMS II Hardened substrate sufficient for Argo crossing. 10307 Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA E12 56.429367 -132.468074 CT 3 MMS II Hardened substrate sufficient for Argo crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA E16 56.434358 -132.482449 CO 8 MMS I Marked as fish bearing stream. Use and maintain temporary log mats obtained on-site at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA E17 56.435178 -132.491511 CT 4 MMS II Use and retain temporary log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA F1a 56.478618 -132.621219 DV CT 4 PAB II Use and maintain existing log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA F1b 56.476973 -132.619445 CT 3.5 PAB II Use and maintain existing log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. NA F4 56.466581 -132.602365 None 3 PAB III Large beaver pond immediately upstream; place and retain a temporary log mat across the channel at crossing. No timing restriction.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page A-5 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Field Field SEAPA Verified Verified ADF&G Latitude Longitude Fish Width Stream Channel Stream Mitigation Stream # (N) (W) Captured (ft) ID Type at Class at Crossing1 Crossing NA F5 56.466231 -132.601483 None 4 PAB III Beaver dam area; place and retain a temporary log mat obtained on-site downstream of active beaver dam. No timing restriction. NA G1 56.545279 -132.713691 DV CO 4.5 LCO I Use and maintain existing log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. 108-40- G10 56.572499 -132.735066 DV 3 MMO II Do not cross with Argo (v-notch, fish habitat, and 2000 bank stability concerns). 108- G11 56.591040 -132.745196 None 4 HCO III Install and retain temporary log mat obtained on- 10500- site at crossing to protect downstream 2003- anadromous fish. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 3004- 1. 4010- 5010 108-40- Ohmer NA NA Not NA FPS I (per Do not cross with Argo. 10500 Creek Sampled ADF&G) 106-44- H1 56.614970 -132.808213 DV 1.5 MCO II Use and retain temporary log mat at crossing. 10240- Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. 2011- 3015 NA H4 56.632671 -132.871338 DV 1 HCO II Use and maintain existing log mat at crossing. Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. 106-44- H6 56.635664 -132.878855 CO SH 3 MMS I Use and retain temporary log mat at crossing. 10103 Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. 106-44- H7 56.637572 -132.884248 DV 2 MCS II Use and maintain existing log mat at crossing. 10100 Only cross from June 1 – Aug 1. Key: CH=Chum; CO=coho; P=pink; DV= Dolly Varden; SH= steelhead; S=sockeye NA = Not available (not listed in the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog) 1 Channel type codes for the important streams are described in Table A-2 below.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page A-6 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table A-2. Channel Type Descriptions Channel Type Code Description ESSg Small Estuarine, gravel substrate phase FPS Small Flood Plain HCO Micro High Gradient Contained HCD High Gradient Deep Incision LCO Micro Low Gradient Contained MCS Small Moderate Gradient Contained MMO Micro Moderate Gradient Mixed Control MMS Small Moderate Gradient Mixed Control PAH Backwater/Ground Water Fed Slough PAB Beaver Dam/Pond

Mitigation measures for stream crossings includes the use of temporary logs and brush mats to protect the stream banks and downstream aquatic habitat. These types of features have been used previously along the transmission line and are providing functional protection to the streams where present. Figures A-1, A-2, and A-3 show some locations where field investigations found on-site logs being used to protect streams from equipment travelling within the transmission line corridor.

Figure A-1. Small diameter slash used at existing stream crossing.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page A-7 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Figure A-2. Old log in stream used as a crossing point.

Figure A-3. Existing woody debris used to protect stream bank.

NOXIOUS WEED AND EXOTIC PLANT PREVENTION AND CONTROL PLAN

The Special Use Permit, if amended, would contain the following clause:

Invasive Species Prevention and Control (R10-D105). The introduction of invasive, non- native plants, including noxious weeds and/or exotic plants needs to be prevented and controlled on National Forest System lands according to the following:

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page A-8 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

1. The holder shall be responsible for the prevention and control of noxious weeds and/or exotic plants arising from the authorized use. For purposes of this clause, noxious weed and exotic plants include those species identified in the Alaska Region publication “Selected Invasive Plants of Alaska” 2007, or any subsequent version issued during the tenure of this authorization.

2. When control or elimination of noxious weeds and/or exotic plants is determined to be necessary by the authorized officer, the holder shall develop a plan for noxious weed and exotic plant prevention and control. Such plans must have prior written approval from the authorized officer and, upon approval, shall be attached to this permit as an appendix.

To address these requirements, SEAPA would develop a plan to address weeds that would include the following measures:

• Follow recommendations provided in the Petersburg-Wrangell Weed Management Project EA (USDA Forest Service 2013) regarding methods for hand-pulling or mechanical treatment and for selection and application of herbicides, if SEAPA determines that herbicide application would be preferred and if herbicide application is approved by the Forest Service.

• Thoroughly clean the OHV at the designated storage area on Mitkof and Wrangell Islands before entering the ROW to avoid transporting new weed species into the ROW or transporting them from segment to segment.

• Provide GPS points and weed maps developed as a result of SEAPA’s 2014 survey to maintenance crews to assist them in avoiding driving through weed infestations, to identify sites where high-priority species are readily apparent without searching, and easy to control without increasing the risk of spread.

• Provide training to maintenance crews in identifying and hand-pulling or mechanically treating weeds listed in Tables A-3 and A-4.

• Develop an illustrated list of “watch” species shown in Table A-5 which have the potential to spread into forested habitat adjacent to the ROW or along riparian corridors, and provide training to maintenance crews in how to identify occurrences.

• Provide maintenance crews with a logbook for recording invasive plant observations and treatments so that changes in weed species, distribution, and control effectiveness can be tracked in each segment over time.

• Include copy of log for each segment in annual report to Forest Service.

Tables A-3 and A-4 list invasive plants that are identified by the Forest Service as priorities for treatment on NFS lands. Table A-3 shows species on lands where no recreational ATV use occurs, and the spread of invasive species could be effectively managed by SEAPA. Table A-4 shows species on lands where recreational ATV use does occur, and cooperative management would be most effective. Most of the species in Tables A-3 and A-4 can be OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page A-9 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

managed by hand-pulling or mechanical means, but herbicide use should be evaluated in consultation with the Forest Service.

Table A-3. Acreage of Forest Service priority T (treat) species on NFS land that are not used by recreational ATVs, where SEAPA management efforts would be effective.

Common Name Scientific Name AKEPIC Ranking A B E F

Orange hawkweed Hieracium aurianticum 79 Meadow hawkweed Hieracium caespitosum 79 Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare 61 1.0 Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea 83 1.0 1.002 1.011 2.11 Common plantain Plantago major 44 0.001 Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens 54 0.011 European mountain Sorbus aucuparia 59 0.002 0.001 ash Dandelion Taraxacum officinale 58 0.011 White clover Trifolium repens 59 0.01 0.001 0.002 Note: Orange highlights indicate invasives to be treated wherever they occur; tan highlights indicate those that would be tolerated except in sensitive areas, such as wetlands and riparian habitats.

Table A-4. Acreage of Forest Service priority T (treat) species on NFS land that are used by recreational ATVs, where cooperative management efforts would be needed. AKEPIC Common Name Scientific Name C G H Ranking Orange hawkweed Hieracium aurianticum 79 0.027 0.002 Meadow hawkweed Hieracium caespitosum 79 Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare 61 0.003 Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea 83 0.001 1.862 2.002 Common plantain Plantago major 44 0.102 0.114 Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens 54 0.304 2.012 European mountain Sorbus aucuparia 59 ash Dandelion Taraxacum officinale 58 0.018 0.012 White clover Trifolium repens 59 0.133 0.124 Note: Orange highlights indicate invasives to be treated wherever they occur; tan highlights indicate those that would be tolerated except in sensitive areas, such as wetlands and riparian habitats.

Table A-5 lists Forest Service “watch” species that are not currently known from NFS lands, but that would have a high risk of spreading into forested habitat adjacent to the ROW or along riparian corridors should they occur in the future.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page A-10 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table A-5. Watch list of invasive species with a high risk of spreading into forest or riparian habitat. AKEPIC Common Name Scientific Name Ranking Hairy lady’s mantle Alchemilla monticola 56 Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata 70 Herb Robert Geranium robertianum 67 Ornamental jewelweed Impatiens glandulifera 82 Himalayan knotweed Polygonum polystachyum 80 Giant knotweed Polygonum sachalinense 87 Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor 77

STREAM CROSSING AND EROSION MONITORING PLAN

SEAPA would develop a plan that the Forest Service will approve to monitor the effects of Argo use on bank stability, wetlands, and water quality at stream crossings and at sites representing a range of uplands, wetlands, soil types, and slopes within the ROW. SEAPA would establish permanent photo points to document conditions on the banks and beds of streams before and after Argo crossings at the sites listed in Table A-6 and A-7, and monitor vegetation cover and condition and any signs of rutting, puddling, or erosion within 200 feet in either direction from the photo point, before and after Argo access during each maintenance cycle.

Before-and-after photos from SEAPA’s first entry for maintenance under the amended Special Use Permit would serve as the baseline for comparison with subsequent entries. Disturbance caused by the Argo is expected to be minor and temporary, and sites are expected to recover between maintenance cycles. If this is not the case, the photo- documentation at the streams listed in Table A-6 and A-7 will be reviewed to identify factors that may be preventing recovery and to identify additional measures that may be needed to protect resources (e.g., use of slash mats, grass seeding, timing restriction, or adjustment of crossing points or Argo paths). The Forest Service will need to determine what the threshold will be to identify negligible, minor, moderate and major effects to these resources. The photo logs, notes, and evaluations would be provided in an annual report to the Forest Service for review and consultation.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page A-11 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table A-6. Monitoring sites (photo points) at stream crossings in the project area. SEAPA Field Verified Channel Field Verified Stream Stream ID Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Type at Crossing Class at Crossing A1 56.21146 -131.930386 HCD III A2 56.214547 -131.933684 ESSg I A3 56.216958 -131.936663 ESSg I A4a 56.218197 -131.938315 FPS III A4b 56.218573 -131.945647 FPS II A9 56.242795 -131.960167 MMS II A10 56.244608 -131.961721 MMS I B1 56.34103 -132.163592 MCS II D3 56.423045 -132.352586 HCD II E1 56.417643 -132.432659 EESg I E3 56.417905 -132.435318 PAH III E6 56.422049 -132.447856 PAB I E8 56.427289 -132.462674 HCM II E10 56.428167 -132.464643 MMS III E11 56.429070 -132.467094 MMS II E12 56.429367 -132.468074 MMS II E16 56.434358 -132.482449 MMS I E17 56.435178 -132.491511 MMS II F1a 56.478618 -132.621219 PAB II F1b 56.476973 -132.619445 PAB II F4 56.466581 -132.602365 PAB III F5 56.466231 -132.601483 PAB III G1 56.545279 -132.713691 LCO I G10 56.572499 -132.735066 MMO II G11 56.591040 -132.745196 HCO III H4 56.632671 -132.871338 HCO II H6 56.635664 -132.878855 MMS I H7 56.637572 -132.884248 MCS II

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page A-12 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Table A-7. Erosion monitoring sites (photo points) on NFS lands within the ROW and at access points. Segment Tower Number Access Point Upland Wetland A 19-1AW Upland A 20-3AW Wetland A 21-5BW Upland A AP-1 Wetland

B 31-03 Upland B 32-4AW Wetland B 33-03 Wetland B AB-2 Wetland

C 40-5AW Wetland C AP-C1 Wetland

E 46-03 Upland E 47-02 Wetland E 48-3AWK Wetland E AP-E1 Wetland

F 52-3AV Upland F 53-2AV Wetland F 54-1AV Wetland F AP-F1 Wetland

G 61-5AM Upland G 62-04 Wetland G 63-04 Wetland G AP-G2 Wetland G AP-G3 Upland G AP-G6 Wetland

H 67-01 Upland H 68-2AM Upland H 70-02 Wetland H AP-H1 Upland H AP-H5 Wetland Total 19 10 10 19

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page A-13 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Appendix B Field-verified Characteristics of Proposed Stream Crossings in Segments A through I

Segment A - Southeast Wrangell Island Segment A contains 13 field-verified stream channels at the transmission line crossing (three Class I, two Class II, and eight Class III) (Table B-1; Figure B-1 and B-2). A2, A3, and A10 are Class I (ESSg and MMS channel types), and A4b and A9 were Class II (FPS and MMS channel types) (Table 3.5-3)9. Fish species captured in this segment included Dolly Varden, coho salmon, sculpin (spp.), cutthroat trout, and crescent gunnel. Log and brush mats were present at several of the stream channels to facilitate OHV crossings.

Figure B-1. Stream A3; an ESSg channel type.

9 http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tongass/maps-pubs/?cid=stelprdb5413798

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-1 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx A12

A11

A10 A9

A7 A6

A5 A5

A4a A4b A3

GF A2

A1 GF Figure B-2. Segment A - Southeast Wrangell Island Proposed OHV Use Segment Streams Bisecting ROW Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed Forest Service Administered Land Anadromous Streams Open Roads Non-Forest Service Land Resident Streams 100-ft. Contours Non-Fish Streams GF Potential Access Points 1 inch = 3,000 feet Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\Streams-bysegment.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

Table B-1. Field verified stream characteristics in Segment A. Field SEAPA Field- Verified ADF&G Segment Existing Verified ADF&G USFS Stream Stream & Stream Fish Width Gradient Channel Channel Stream Stream Class at Number Number Captured (ft.) (%) Substrate Type Type Class Class Crossing NA A1 None 3.5 6 GR SA SI ESSg HCD NA I III NA A2 DV CO 2.5 2 GR SA SI ESSg ESSg NA I I CT sculpin NA A3 sculpin 12 2 GR SA SI ESSg ESSg NA I I gunnel NA A4a None 12 2 BO CO FPS FPS NA I III GR NA A4b CT sculpin 8 3 BO CO FPS FPS NA I II GR NA A5 None 10 15-18 CO GR MCM MCM NA II III SA NA A6 None 5 3-4 GR SA SI HCD HCD NA III III NA A7 None 12-15 CO GR HCD HCD NA III III SA NA A8 None 2.5 4 GR SA HCV HCV NA II III NA A9 DV 4-6 8 GR SA MMS MMS NA I II NA A10 CO 18-20 6 BO CO MMS MMS NA I I GR NA A11 None 8 3-5 BR BO HCD HCD NA III III NA A12 None 15 12 BR BO HCD HCD NA III III Key: CH=Chum; CO=coho; P=pink; DV= Dolly Varden; SH= steelhead; S=sockeye BR=Bedrock, CO=Cobble, GR=Gravel, SA=Sand. NA = Not available (not listed in the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog)

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-3 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Segment B - Wrangell Island, Earl West Cove Segment B contains five field-verified stream channels at the transmission line crossing, two of which are Class II at the transmission line crossing (B1 and B2) (Table B-2; Figure B-3). Fish species captured during the field survey were limited to cutthroat trout. While B1 was marked with a blue and white ADF&G “fish stream” stake, no fish were captured in this stream within the transmission line corridor. However, we retained the more conservative ADF&G Class II designation. Channel types in this segment were a mix of MCS, MMS, and HCM channel types, and existing log crossings were present at streams B1, B3, and B4 (Figure B-4).

Figure B-3. Stream B4; an MMS channel type with log mat at crossing.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-4 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx GF

B1 E GF a GF rl W e s t C re e (! B2 k B3 B4 B5

M c C o rm a c k C re e k R o a d

(F R 6 2 6 5 )

Figure B-4. Segment B - Wrangell Island, Earl West Cove Proposed OHV Use Segment Streams Bisecting ROW Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed Forest Service Administered Land Anadromous Streams Open Roads Non-Forest Service Land Resident Streams 100-ft. Contours Non-Fish Streams GF Potential Access Points 1 inch = 1,500 feet Miles 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\Streams-bysegment.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

Table B-2. Field verified stream characteristics in Segment B. Field Field Verified ADF&G Segment Existing Verified ADF&G USFS Stream Stream & Stream Fish Width Gradient Channel Channel Stream Stream Class at Number Number Captured (ft.) (%) Substrate Type Type Class Class Crossing NA B1 Marked as 3 4 CO GR SA MCS MCS NA II II fish bearing 107-40- B2 CT 10 5-6 BO CO GR MMS MMS I II II 10790 NA B3 None 2 6 GR SA SI NA MMS NA NA III NA B4 None 3 4-5 GR SA SI MMS MMS NA II III NA B5 None 1.5 5-6 SA SI HCM HCM NA III III Key: CH=Chum; CO=coho; P=pink; DV= Dolly Varden; SH= steelhead; S=sockeye BR=Bedrock, CO=Cobble, GR=Gravel, SA=Sand. NA = Not available (not listed in the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog).

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-6 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Segment C - Wrangell Island, Shoemaker Bay Segment C (Figure B-5) is 0.41 miles long extending from the Forest boundary above Shoemaker Bay eastward to a point where the slopes exceed 40 percent. This segment has moderately sloping terrain in the eastern half, and increasingly steeper terrain in the western half. No stream channels are present in Segment C.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-7 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx Z

i m

v i a

i g

h w

( F

6 )

Figure B-5. Segment C - Wrangell Island, Shoemaker Bay Proposed OHV Use Segment Streams Bisecting ROW Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed Forest Service Administered Land Anadromous Streams Open Roads Non-Forest Service Land Resident Streams 100-ft. Contours Non-Fish Streams GF Potential Access Points 1 inch = 1,000 feet Miles 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 0.45 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\Streams-bysegment.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

Segment D - Northwest Wrangell Island A total of 19 very small (HCD and HCO) stream channels were observed at the transmission line crossing in Segment D (Table B-3; Figure B-6). Only two of these, D2 and D3, were fish bearing (Class II) (Figure B-7). Species captured included Dolly Varden and cutthroat trout. All of the stream channels in this segment are well-armored with bedrock, small boulders and cobble.

Figure B-6. Stream D2; an HCD channel type containing cutthroat trout.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-9 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx D19 D18 D17 D16 D15 D14 D13 D12 D11 D10

Z im D9 o v ia H ig D8 h w D7 a y D6

( F D5 (! H D4 1 6 GF )

D3 D2 D3 D1 D2

Figure B-7. Segment D - Northwest Wrangell Island Proposed OHV Use Segment Streams Bisecting ROW Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed Forest Service Administered Land Anadromous Streams Open Roads Non-Forest Service Land Resident Streams 100-ft. Contours Non-Fish Streams GF Potential Access Points 1 inch = 1,500 feet Miles 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\Streams-bysegment.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

Table B-3. Field verified stream characteristics in Segment D. Field Verified ADF&G Segment Existing Field Verified ADF&G USFS Stream Stream & Stream Fish Width Gradient Channel Channel Stream Stream Class at Number Number Captured (ft.) (%) Substrate Type Type Class Class Crossing NA D1 None 1 5-6 SA SI HCD HCD NA III III NA D2 CT 4 6 BO CO GR HCD HCD NA III II NA D3 DV 4 5-6 BO CO GR HCD HCO NA III II NA D4 None 4 35 BO CO NA HCO NA NA III NA D5 None 3 15-20 BO CO GR NA HCL NA NA III NA D6 None 2 5 BO CO GR NA HCO NA NA III NA D7 None 1.5 15 BO CO GR NA HCO NA NA III NA D8 None 2 15-20 BO CO GR NA HCO NA NA III NA D9 None 8 2 aggregate NA HCO NA NA III NA D10 None 2 35 BO CO GR NA HCO NA NA III NA D11 None 3 35 BO CO GR NA HCO NA NA III NA D12 None 3 35 BO CO GR NA HCO NA NA III NA D13 None 2 35 CO GR NA HCO NA NA III NA D14 None 2 35 CO GR SA NA HCO NA III III NA D15 None 2 45 BR CO NA HCO NA NA III NA D16 None 2 45 BR CO NA HCO NA NA III NA D17 None 2 50 BO CO NA HCO NA NA III NA D18 None 2 30 CO GR HCD HCD NA NA III NA D19 None 2 30 CO GR HCD HCD NA III III Key: CH=Chum; CO=coho; P=pink; DV= Dolly Varden; SH= steelhead; S=sockeye BR=Bedrock, CO=Cobble, GR=Gravel, SA=Sand. NA = Not available (not listed in the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog).

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-11 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Segment E - Woronkofski Island Segment E contains 21 field verified stream channels at the transmission line crossing (Table B-4; Figures B-8 and B-9). Four of these are Class I, four are Class II, and thirteen are Class III at the transmission line crossing. Fish species captured in this segment include Dolly Varden, juvenile coho salmon, sculpin (sp.), and cutthroat trout. All four Class I streams (E1, E3, E6, and E16) are in areas of the ROW that are relatively close to the marine environment (EESg, PAB/PAS, MMS, and PAH channel types). The Class II streams (E8, E11, E12, and E17) are MMS and HCM channel types that are located at a slightly higher elevation. The majority of these streams were well armored with cobble and gravel; substrate.

Figure B-8. Stream E6; a PAB/PAS channel type containing juvenile Dolly Varden, coho salmon, and sculpin (sp.).

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-12 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx E20 E17 GF E18 E16 E19 E15 E13 E14

(! E12 E11 E9 E10 E8 E7

E5 E4 E1 E3GFE1b E2

Figure B-9. Segment E - Woronkofski Island Proposed OHV Use Segment Streams Bisecting ROW Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed Forest Service Administered Land Anadromous Streams Open Roads Non-Forest Service Land Resident Streams 100-ft. Contours Non-Fish Streams GF Potential Access Points 1 inch = 2,333 feet Miles 0 0.175 0.35 0.7 1.05 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\Streams-bysegment.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

Table B-4. Field verified stream characteristics in Segment E. Field Field Verified ADF&G Segment Existing Verified ADF&G USFS Stream Stream & Stream Fish Width Gradient Channel Channel Stream Stream Class at Number Number Captured (ft.) (%) Substrate Type Type Class Class Crossing NA E1 CO sculpin 2.5 2 CO GR NA EESg NA NA I NA E1b None 2.5 5-6 CO GR NA HCM NA NA III SA NA E2 None 2 12-15 CO GR HCM HCM NA III III NA E3 None 3 10-12 CO GR PAH PAH NA I I SA NA E4 None 3.5 5-6 CO GR NA MMS NA NA III SA NA E5 None 16 6 BO CO MMS MMS NA I III GR 108-40- E6 DV CO 12 2 CO GR PAB PAB/PAS I (lower) I I 10303 sculpin SA 108-40- E7 None 25 6 GR SA NA HCO I (lower) NA III 10305 NA E8 CT 4.5 6-8 CO GR HCM HCM NA II II NA E9 None 3 8 SA SI NA HCM NA NA III 108-40- E10 None 3.5 12-15 GR SA MMS MMS I I III 10306 108-40- E11 CT 10 10-12 BO CO MMS MMS I (lower) I II 10307 GR NA E12 CT 3 6-8 CO GR MMS MMS NA II II NA E13 None 4 15 CO GR NA MMS NA III III SA 108-40- E14 None 10 25 BO CO HCM HCM I (lower) III III 10309 GR

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-14 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Field Field Verified ADF&G Segment Existing Verified ADF&G USFS Stream Stream & Stream Fish Width Gradient Channel Channel Stream Stream Class at Number Number Captured (ft.) (%) Substrate Type Type Class Class Crossing NA E15 None 4 20 BO CO NA HCO I (lower) III III GR NA E16 CO 8 8-10 CO GR MMS MMS NA I I SA NA E17 CT 4 5-6 CO GR MMS MMS NA I II NA E18 None 2 6-7 GR SA HCM HCM NA III III NA E19 None 4 5 GR SA NA HCM NA III III NA E20 None 4.5 6-8 GR SA HCM HCM NA III III Key: CH=Chum; CO=coho; P=pink; DV= Dolly Varden; SH= steelhead; S=sockeye BR=Bedrock, CO=Cobble, GR=Gravel, SA=Sand. NA = Not available (not listed in the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog).

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-15 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Segment F - Vank Island Biologists documented six stream channels in this segment at the transmission line crossing during the field surveys (Table B-5; Figures B-10 and B-11). Two of these (F1a and F1b) were Class II and four were Class III. Captured fish were limited to Dolly Varden and cutthroat trout. All of these streams were heavily influenced by beaver activity and had a PAB channel types. Substantial log crossings were documented on streams F1a and F1b.

Figure B-10. Stream F1b; a PAB channel type containing cutthroat trout, with logs across the channel.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-16 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx GF

F1a

F1b

F4 F5

Figure B-11. Segment F - Vank Island Proposed OHV Use Segment Streams Bisecting ROW Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed Forest Service Administered Land Anadromous Streams Open Roads Non-Forest Service Land Resident Streams 100-ft. Contours Non-Fish Streams GF Potential Access Points 1 inch = 1,833 feet Miles 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\Streams-bysegment.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

Table B-5. Field verified stream characteristics in Segment F. Field Field Verified ADF&G Segment & Existing Verified ADF&G USFS Stream Stream Stream Fish Width Gradient Channel Channel Stream Stream Class at Number Number Captured (ft.) (%) Substrate Type Type Class Class Crossing NA F1a DV CT 4 2 SA SI PAB PAB NA II II NA F1b CT 3.5 2 GR SA PAB PAB NA II II NA F2 None 1.5 3-4 SA HCLw HCLw NA II III NA F3 None 3 2 GR SA HCLw HCLw NA III III NA F4 None 4 3-4 GR SA SI HCLw PAB NA III III NA F5 None NA 3-4 SA SI NA PAB NA III III Key: CH=Chum; CO=coho; P=pink; DV= Dolly Varden; SH= steelhead; S=sockeye BR=Bedrock, CO=Cobble, GR=Gravel, SA=Sand. NA = Not available (not listed in the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog).

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-18 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Segment G - Mitkof Island, South Blind Slough Biologists documented 11 streams in Segment G at the transmission line crossing during the 2014 field surveys (excluding Ohmer Creek; Table B-6; Figures B12 and B-13). One of these (G1) is Class I, one is Class II (G10), and the remainder are Class III. Fish species captured in G1 included Dolly Varden and coho salmon. G10 contained Dolly Varden and rainbow trout/steelhead. Channel types are a mix of LCO, MCS, MMO, and HCO. Log crossings were present at several stream crossings. According to the AWC, Ohmer Creek is a Class I stream that supports coho, pink, and chum salmon; steelhead and Dolly Varden.

Figure B-12. Stream G10; an MMO channel type containing rainbow trout/steelhead and Dolly Varden.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-19 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx Blind R iver er iv R d G11 lin GF S B na ke R id ge (F R 40 ek 00 re 6) r C me Oh 6) 24 6 GF R (F ek re r C he m . O .F GF W

G10 O

h m

e r

C r C e e G9 rys ta k l L ak e ( FR G8 6 28 0) G7

(! GFG6

r G3 m

i 6245) n d (FR e Roa G2 cker ( oodpe F W R

6 2 2 2 )

O hm e G1 r C re ek G1

MIt kof Hig hway (FH 7) GF

Figure B-13. Segment G - Mitkof Island, South Blind Slough Proposed OHV Use Segment Streams Bisecting ROW Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed Forest Service Administered Land Anadromous Streams Open Roads Non-Forest Service Land Resident Streams 100-ft. Contours Non-Fish Streams GF Potential Access Points 1 inch = 3,000 feet Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\Streams-bysegment.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

Table B-6. Field verified stream characteristics in Segment G. ADF&G Segment Existing ADF&G USFS Field Verified Stream & Stream Fish Width Gradient Channel Field Verified Stream Stream Stream Class Number # Captured (ft.) (%) Substrate Type Channel Type Class Class at Crossing NA (at G1 DV CO 4.5 2 GR SI NA LCO NA NA I crossing) NA (at G2 None 5 2 NA NA LCO NA NA III crossing) NA (at G3 None 5 4 GR SA NA MCS NA NA III crossing) NA (at G4 None small 4-5 GR SA NA MMO NA NA III crossing) NA (at G5 None 1.5 4-5 GR SA SI NA MMO NA NA III crossing) NA (at G6 None 3 4 SA SI NA MMO NA NA III crossing) NA (at G7 None 2 2 SA SI NA LCO NA NA III crossing) NA (at G8 None 2 10-12 GR SA SI NA HCO NA III III crossing) NA (at G9 None 3.5 6-8 GR SA SI HCM HCO NA III III crossing) 108-40- G10 SH DV 3 3-4 CO GR SA HCM MMO I NA II 10500-2100 108-40- Ohmer CO P CH NA NA NA FPS FPS I I I 10500 Creek SH DV 108-10500- G11 None 4 2-3 GR SA SI MCS MCS I I III 2008-3004- 4010-5010 Key: CH=Chum; CO=coho; P=pink; DV= Dolly Varden; SH= steelhead; S=sockeye BR=Bedrock, CO=Cobble, GR=Gravel, SA=Sand. NA = Not available (not listed in the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog).

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-21 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Segment H - Mitkof Island, North Blind Slough Biologists documented 8 stream channels at the transmission line crossing in Segment H (Table B-7; Figures B-14 and B-15). One of these (H6) is Class I, three (H1, H4, and H7) are Class II, and the remaining 4 are Class III. Channel types are a mix of MCO, HCO, MMS, and MCS. Fish species captured in Segment H included Dolly Varden, coho salmon, and rainbow trout/steelhead.

Figure B-14. Stream H1; a MCO channel type containing Dolly Varden.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-22 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx k ee Cr Big

) 000 40 (FR oad s R oop ot L Fro

GF H7

H5 H4

H3 GF GF

(! H2b

MIt H2a kof Hi ghw ay (FH 7) H1

L GF ees Cabin Creek

C ry st al Cr B GF ee lin k d R iv er

Figure B-15. Segment H - Mitkof Island, North Blind Slough Proposed OHV Use Segment Streams Bisecting ROW Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed Forest Service Administered Land Anadromous Streams Open Roads Non-Forest Service Land Resident Streams 100-ft. Contours Non-Fish Streams GF Potential Access Points 1 inch = 2,667 feet Miles 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\Streams-bysegment.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

Table B-7. Field verified stream characteristics in Segment H. Field Verified ADF&G Segment Existing Field Verified ADF&G USFS Stream Stream & Stream Fish Width Gradient Channel Channel Stream Stream Class at Number Number Captured (ft.) (%) Substrate Type Type Class Class Crossing 106-44- H1 DV 1.5 3-4 GR SA SI AFH MCO I I II 10240- 2011-3015 106-44- H2a None 1 NA SI HCD HCO I I III 10175 NA H2b None 4 CO GR AFH HCO NA NA III NA H3 None 2 5-6 GR SA SI HCM HCO NA I III NA H4 DV 1 4 GR SA HCM HCO NA I II NA H5 None 1.5 2 GR SA NA MCO NA NA III 106-44- H6 CO SH 3 2 GR SA MMS MMS I I I 10103 106-44- H7 DV 2 2 SA SI MCS MCS I I II 10103 Key: CH=Chum; CO=coho; P=pink; DV= Dolly Varden; SH= steelhead; S=sockeye BR=Bedrock, CO=Cobble, GR=Gravel, SA=Sand. NA = Not available (not listed in the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog).

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-24 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx

Segment I - Mitkof Island, Twin Creek South Biologists documented six stream channels at the transmission line crossing in Segment I, none of which contained fish (i.e., all were Class III; Table B-8). Channel types were a mix of MCO, MMO, HCO, and HCV. A high-gradient, deeply incised stream channel (I5) bisects this segment and prevents any OHV crossing (Figures B-16 and B-17). Consequently, the segment must be accessed from two locations; one at the south end and one at the north end.

Figure B-16. Stream I5; a non-fish-bearing HCV channel type.

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-25 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx Twin Creek

GF I6

I2 I1

M I t k o f

H ig h w a y

( F F

H a

l l s 7

) C

k Fa lls Cre ek ek re C lls GF Fa

Figure B-17. Segment I - Mitkof Island, Twin Creek South Proposed OHV Use Segment Streams Bisecting ROW Stream Class No OHV Use Proposed Forest Service Administered Land Anadromous Streams Open Roads Non-Forest Service Land Resident Streams 100-ft. Contours Non-Fish Streams GF Potential Access Points 1 inch = 1,750 feet Miles 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 t G:\Projects\Current\SEAPAtline\MapProjects\EA\FinalEAversion\Streams-bysegment.mxd Published Date: 6/9/2016

Table B-8. Field verified stream characteristics in Segment I. Field Verified ADF&G Segment Existing Field Verified ADF&G USFS Stream Stream & Stream Fish Width Gradient Channel Channel Stream Stream Class at Number Number Captured (ft.) (%) Substrate Type Type Class Class Crossing NA I1 None 3 5 CO GR HCM MCO NA II III SA NA I2 None 1.5 6 SA SI NA MCO NA NA III NA I3 None 2 4 GR SA NA MCO NA NA III NA I4 None 3 6 CO GR NA HCO NA NA III SA 106-44- I5 None 10 6 CO GR HCV HCV I I III 10050 SA NA I6 None 4 7-8 CO CG MMO MMO NA I III SA Key: CH=Chum; CO=coho; P=pink; DV= Dolly Varden; SH= steelhead; S=sockeye BR=Bedrock, CO=Cobble, GR=Gravel, SA=Sand. NA = Not available (not listed in the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog).

OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page B-27 Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx