Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Volume 2 of 2 1996
~~orellie ~,~·''-",,," l ~~--------,_\ ( ~ ----\ ~ -" ) FEDERAI'-,ENERGY \ ,/-: ) ; ) /"REGUI:AT0RY COMMISSION //">-//-. v \) \/j! L? ~ ,,,, :; / City of ~axnlaO, AlaSka f~w~u1v },'='W ~9 . ) 1 I ,.~ Application for License for Major Unconstructed Project Appendices MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 11393 APPUCATION FOR IJCENSE FOR MAJOR UNCONSTRUCTED PROJECT APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I A Geology and Soils Report B Erosion and Sediment Control Plan C Water Quality and Temperature Monitoring Report D Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Report E ISER -Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg, and Wrangell, Alaska: 1990-2010 F Wetland Analysis G Recreational Resources Study H Economic and Financial Feasibility Assessment of the Swan/Tyee Lakes Intertie Project I Permit/Certification Applications J Cultural Resources Report VOLUME II K Agency Consultation May1996 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIXK AGENCY CONSULTATION Appendix K -Agency Consultation Table K -1 lists in chronological order the genernl agency consultation process that has been conducted as of May 17, 1996, for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. All of the referenced letters, documents and meeting notes are presented in this appendix. Table K-2lists the communications that have occurred through Apri130, 1996, between the parties to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) since execution of the MOA by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, City of Saxman, Alaska, Cape Fox Corporation and the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest SeiVice, Alaska Region, for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project with reganl to development of the applicant-p.repared Environmental Assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Per the MOA, information has been conveyed among the participants in a regular and predictable manner that is open to the public view. This information is maintained and made avai1able at convenient locations for review by the public at the offices of the City of Saxman, Cape Fox Corporation, and the FERC. Documentation is available to the public from the Forest Service pursuant to Freedom of Information Act guidelines. To ensure that each location has a complete set of communication documentation, HDR Engineering, as consultant to Cape Fox, has distributed updates on a monthly basis. All of the referenced documents in Table K-2 are available at the City of Saxman, Cape Fox Corporation, FERC, Forest Service and HDR. May1996 K-1 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 ~ 6-77 12-18-77 1-23-78 3-1-78 2-2-79 5-20-80 5-30-80 3-16-82 3-31-82 3-31-82 4-82 4-14-82 4-27-82 5-3-93 6-8-93 3-16-94 3-23-94 3-31-94 4-1-94 4-8-94 4-13-94 4-15-94 4-15-94 Mayl996 Appendix K -Agency Consultation ---- TABLEK-1 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ~~~]> liE > 1:~ > ? USFWS COE USFS COE USFWS COE PERC COE ADNR COE ADNR COE USFWS COE USFWS COE USFS COE NMFS COE EPA COE ADFG AD PDP ADNR COE Cape Fox ADNR USFS PERC HDR Agencies ADGC HDR HDR Agencies KPU HDR Gov. Hickel HDR ADNR HDR HDR KPU Ketchikan Daily News HDR -- K-2 ! ~.~~ > Fish & wildlife data Cultural resources data Planning aid comments and data Updated power values Recommendation for cultural resources survey Recommendation for cultural resources survey Threatened or Endangered Species List Threatened or Endangered Species List Request for cooperating agency status in EIS development Threatened or Endangered Species List Draft EIS comments Feasibility Study comments Cultural resource assessment comments Water Right Application Preliminary Permit Comments Initial Consultation Document (lCD) Distributed Submitting request for review and comment of lCD from state agencies Invitation to 4-26-94 Initial Consultation Meetings Project Correspondence Unable to attend 4-26-94 Meetings lCD Comments Response to 4-1-94 letter Affidavit from public notice for 4-26-94 meetings Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Appendix K -Agency Consultation TABLEK-1 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT } ~~)···}· .. ........................................ ~.······•>· IY··········•.•·•••·•••/•••·-I [ ~w~~.u~ .. > 5-4-94 NES ADFG Scientific collecting permit application 5-10-94 HDR PERC Audio tape recordings of 4-26-94 meetings 5-13-94 HDR Agencies 4-26-94 Meeting Minutes 5-19-94 KPU HDR Information requested by KPU at 4-25-94 meeting 5-20-94 1HREA HDR lCD Comments 5-20-94 KGB HDR lCD Comments 5-21-94 ENRI HDR Northern goshawk nest site info 6-3-94 ADFG ADGC lCD Comments 6-3-94 HDR NMFSIUSFWS/ Threatened, Endangered & Rare Species ANHP Request 6-8-94 ADNR HDR lCD Comments 6-9-94 USFWS HDR lCD Comments 6-15-94 HDR ADFG 1983 COE Draft EIS ' 6-17-94 NMFS HDR Threatened & Endangered Species List I 6-21-94 HDR USPS 1983 COE Cultural Resources Info 6-21-94 ADGC HDR lCD Comments 6-21-94 USPS HDR lCD Comments 6-21-94 USFWS HDR Threatened & Endangered Species List 6-29-94 USFWS HDR Bald Eagle Nest Survey 6-3Q-94 HDR USPS Response to 6-21-94 comment letter 8-8-94 HDR Agencies Final Consultation Document 9-14-94 PERC WBKQ Notice of Intent to Prepare EA 9-27-94 USPS PERC Request for MOU 10-5-94 USPS HDR Waiver of Investigative Special Use Permit 10-25-94 PERC WBKQ Environmental Studies Progress Report 1-19-95 WBKQ PERC Request for Waver of Commission Regulations Mahoney lAke Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 K-3 May 1996 3-9-95 4-5-95 4-5-95 4-12-95 4-14-95 4-20-95 4-25-95 5-5-95 5-9-95 5-11-95 5-12-95 5-14-95 5-19-95 5-19-95 5-24-95 Undated 6-1-95 6-7-95 6-13-95 6-14-95 6-15-95 May1996 Appendix K -Agency Consultation TABLEK-1 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT HDR Agencies HDR lll./AEA ADGC HDR KPU HDR HDR USFS HDR KIC HDR Meeting Attendees FERC HDR HDR USFWS ADFG HDR HDR Agencies/ Public KASPAB HDR USFWS HDR ADGC HDR HDR Agencies/ Public ADGC HDR AIDA HDR Sen. Robin L. Taylor HDR HDR USFWS HDR USFS HDR USFS/ ADFGIUSFWS K-4 Scoping Document I Scoping Document I Comments on Scoping Document 1/Stage II Consultation Comments on Mahoney Lake Environmental Assessment Request for information on additional Locations Platanthera chorisiana has been identified. Scoping Document I Draft 4112-4/13/95 Scoping Meeting Minutes Edits to Scoping Document Meeting Minutes Sensitive, Threatened and Endangered Species Comments re: SD1 Final4/12-4/13/95 Scoping Meeting Minutes I i I Comments re: SD1 I Comments re: SD1 Commenta re: SD1 ' Request for Comments on Southern Alternative Transmission Line Route Comments re: Southern Alternative Comments re: Southern Alternative Comments re: Southern Alternative Confirmation of7/10/95 Bald Eagle Survey Date Info. needed for BE's 6/21-6/22/95 Meeting Confirmation & Flow Regime Report Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Appendix K -Agency Consultation TABLEK-1 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 6-20-95 ADFG HDR Mountain Goats 6-20-95 ND&T FWEC/ADE Economic Evaluation Report 6-21-95 USFS HDR Comments re: Southern Alternative 6-21-95 FERC HDR Comments re: Southern Alternative 6-23-95 GKCC HDR Comments re: Southern Alternative 6-26-95 USFS HDR Marbled Murrelet Study Methods 6-27-95 ADFG HDR Comments re: Southern Alternative 6-30-95 USFWS HDR Queen Charlotte Goshawk Info. 7-11-95 USFS HDR Platantheria Chorisiana Info. 7-12-95 HDR USFS/ ADFGIUSFWS 6/21-6/22/95 Meeting Minutes 7-13-95 USFWS HDR Comments re: Southern Alternative 8-25-95 ND&T FWEC Swan Lake/Lake Tyee EIS, Project Report No.1 9-7-95 USFWS HDR Mahoney lakes Bald Eagle Survey 9-27-95 HDR Agencies Scoping Document 2 (SD2) 10-27-95 HDR KIC SD2 10-31-95 HDR USFS BE For Plants 11-10-95 HDR USFS BE For Animals 11-14-95 USFS HDR Comments re: BE's I 11-21-95 HDR USFS BE for Plants and Animals I 12-13-95 USFS HDR Signed cover sheets for Plant & Animal BE's 12-19-95 HDR NMFSIUSFWS Plant/ Animal BE's distributed/Request for concurrence on ESA Section 7 consultation requirements 1-12-96 NMFS HDR ESA Section 7 Consultation 1-17-96 USFWS HDR ESA Section 7 Consultation 2-28-96 ADGC HDR Comparison of EA Consultation Process 3-1-96 HDR Agencies/ Public Draft License ApplicationiPDEA 3-7-96 HDR ADFG Draft License Application/PDEA Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERCNo. 11393 K-5 May1996 Appendix K -Agency Consultation TABLEK-1 SUMMARY OF AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 3-27-96 ADGC HDR I PDEA Review 5-7-96 USFWS HDR I PDEA Comments and Recommendations 5-9-96 HDR NMFSIUSFWS/ ADFG I Aquatic Resources Monitoring Plan Acronym Definitions: ADE ADFG ADGC ADNR AD PDP AEA AIDA ANHP Cape Fox COE DNR ENRI PERC FWEC GKCC HDR KGB KIC KPU KIC IlL ND&T NES NMFS 'IHREA USPS USFWS WBKQ May 1996 Alaska Division of Energy Alaska Department of Fish & Game Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Division of Policy Development and Planning Alaska Energy Authority Alaska Industrial Development & Export Agency Alaska Natural Heritage Program Cape Fox Corporation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Department of Natural Resources Environmental and Natural Resources Institute Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce HDR Engineering, Inc. Ketchikan Gateway Borough Ketchikan Indian Council Ketchikan Public Utilities Ketchikan Indian Corporation Locher Interests Ud. Northrop, Devine & Tarbell, Inc. Northern Ecological Services National Marine Fisheries Service Tiingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn K-6 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Appendix K-Agency Consultation -----·- TABLEK-2 SUMMARY OF CORRESPONDENCE IJllllliiJIIII,Iililliii~;:l!f&~ 1/19/95 D. Clarke-WBKQ 1/23/95 M. Stimac-HDR 1124/95 M. Stimac-HDR 1/26/95 M. Stimac-HDR 1/26/95 M. Stimac-HDR 2/6/95 L. Shipley-USPS 2/8/95 M. Stimac-HDR 2/8/95 V. Yearick-PERC 2/9/95 M. Stimac-HDR 2/10/95 M. Stimac-HDR 2/13/95 PERC 2114/95 M. Stimac/L. Fortney- HDR 2116/95 M. Stimac-HDR 2/17/95 M. Stimac-HDR 2/21/95 M. Stimac-HDR 2121195 M. Stimac-HDR 2122195 M. Stimac-HDR 2/24/95 M. Stimac-HDR 2/28/95 V. Yearick-PERC 3/1195 V. Yearick-PERC 3/1/95 L. Fortney-HDR May 1996 J. Clements-PERC V. Yearick-PERC L. Shipley-USPS V. Yearick-PERC V. Yearick-PERC V. Yearick-PERC L. Shipley-USPS M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-PERC M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-PERC PERC/USPS/ Saxman/Cape Fox Saxman V. Yearick-PERC V. Yearick-PERC V. Yearick-PERC V. Yearick-PERC V. Yearick-PERC V. Yearick-PERC V. Yearick-PERC M. Stimac-HDR M. Stimac-HDR T. Trulock-USFS K-7 Request for Waiver of Regulations MOA & Draft Scoping Document 1 (SD1) Draft SD1 Missing Figuresffables in Draft SD 1 Draft SD1 Figures & Tables Comments re: Draft SD 1 Signed signature pages from MOA Comments re: Draft SD 1 USFS Comments re: Draft SD1 Public Review File Notebooks Waiver granted from certain PERC regulations SDl Format Status of SD 1 Status of SD1 and Request for Guidance Status of SD1 Revised Draft SD1 Confirmation of receiving revised Draft SD1 Status of PERC's review of revised Draft SD1 Revised Draft SD1 Comments Mahoney Lake Project Study Results Request for Comments re: Revised Draft SD1 -----··-··-·- Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Appendix K-Agency Consultation TABLEK-2 SUMMARY OF CORRESPONDENCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT I•••J>~•••••••·••••••••••••• .~~) ~«) ) 3/2/95 M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-FERC Revised Pages of SDl 3/3/95 V. Yearick-FERC M. Stimac-HDR Comments re: revised pages of SDl 3/6/95 M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-FERC SDl status & request for sample letter for SDl distribution 3/6/95 V. Yearick-FERC M. Stimac-HDR Cover letter example for SDl distribution 3/7/95 M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-FERC Revised SD 1 Sections and Draft Cover Letter 317/95 M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-FERC Proposed letter of transmittal-SOl 317/95 M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-FERC Revised SDl pages & site visit I I 3/8/95 V. Yearick-FERC L. Fortney-HDR SD 1 Cover Letter Comments 3/8/95 L. Fortney-HDR V. Yearick-FERC Requested SDl section I 3/8/95 M. Stimac-HDR FERC/USFS Monthly update, agency consultation 3/8/95 V. Yearick-FERC L. Fortney-HDR Approval to send out SD 1 3/9/95 HDR Agencies SDl 3/14/95 L. Fortney-HDR V. Yearick-FERC Scoping Meetings 3/15/95 L. Fortney-HDR V. Yearick-FERC Draft Public Notice 3/15/95 V. Yearick-FERC L. Fortney-HDR Draft Public Notice Comments 3/16/95 L. Fortney-HDR V. Yearick-FERC Publication of Public Notice 3/22/95 M. Stimac-HDR USFS Biological Evaluation (BE) 3/23/95 M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-FERC Update re: EA Activities 3/23/95 V. Yearick-FERC M. Stimac-HDR PURPA Benefits & 30(c) Requirements 3/31195 M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-FERC Scoping meeting update 4/4/95 M. Stimac-HDR T. Trulock-USFS USFS role in 4/12-13/95 mtgs & BE 4/4/95 M. Dalton-HDR C. Schelin-USFS Protocol for BE 4/4/95 T. Trulock-USFS M. Dalton-HDR Protocol for BE 415195 T. Trulock-USFS M. Dalton-HDR Follow-up on BE Discussion 415195 M. Stimac-HDR FERC/USFS Monthly update, agency consultation 4/6/95 A. Leggett-HDR M. Stensvold-USFS Meeting report re: preparation of Plant BE - Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 K-8 May1996 f i Appendix K-Agency Consultation TABLEK-2 SUMMARY OF CORRESPONDENCE ~cil~ -417195 A. Leggett-HDR 417195 M. Stimac-HDR 4114/95 A. Leggett-HDR 4/17/95 A. Leggett-HDR 4/18/95 K. Burns-USPS 4125195 M. Stimac-HDR 515195 V. Yearick-FERC 5/8/95 M. Stimac-HDR 5/10/95 A. Leggett-HDR 5/12/95 M. Stimac-HDR 5/16/95 A. Leggett-HDR 5/18/95 C. Iverson-USPS 5/23/95 P. Krosse-USFS 5124195 M. Stimac-HDR 5124195 A. Leggett-HDR 5125195 A. Leggett-HDR 5125195 L. Fortney-HDR 6/5195 S. Boggs-HDR 615195 M. Stimac-HDR 611195 S. Boggs-HDR 6/8/95 L. Fortney-HDR 6/8/95 L. Fortney-HDR 6/8/95 M. Stimac!L. Fortney- HDR 6/12/95 S. Boggs-HDR 6/12/95 K. Bums-USFS May1996 C. Crocker-Bedford- USPS V. Yearick-FERC M. Stensvold-USPS B. Baer-USFS A. Leggett-HDR FERCIUSFS M. Stimac-HDR FERCIUSFS M. Stensvold-USFS FERCIUSFS C. Crocker-Bedford- USPS A. Leggett-HDR A. Leggett-HDR FERCIUSFS K. Bums~USFS M. Stensvold-USFS V. Yearick-FERC C. Iverson-USPS FERCIUSFS S. Blatt-USPS V. Yearick-FERC T. Trulock-USFS V. Yearick-FERC K. Burns-USPS S. Boggs-HDR K-9 Sensitive Species Survey of Mahoney Lake Project area Scoping meeting arrangements Information request for Plant BE Animal BE Animal BE Draft 4/12-13/95 Meeting Minutes Comments on draft meeting minutes Monthly update, agency consultation Plant BE Fma14/12-13/95 Meeting Minutes Northern Goshawk Information I T&E Species Lists Updates Field surveys for sensitive plants Alternative southern transmission line route Goshawk Study/Plant Survey Sensitive Plant Info Alternative southern transmission line route Animal BE Monthly update, agency consultation Animal BE 6/21-22 mtgs & add. study request letters Additional study request letters Project update Goshawk Survey Goshawk Inventoey Protocol for 1992 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Appendix K -Agency Consultation TABLEK-2 SUMMARY OF CORRESPONDENCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT I P~ I ) • < J ~ f,jj[ )\cG~J~ S jill_~ 6/13/95 V. Yearick-FERC L. Fortney-HDR 6/21195 meeting 6/13/95 L. Fortney-HDR V. Yearick-FERC 6/21195 meeting 6/14/95 V. Yearick-FERC L. Fortney-HDR 6/21-22 meetings 6/14/95 A. Leggett-HDR W. Baer-USFS DraftBEs 6/15/95 V. Yearick-FERC L. Fortney/M. Stimac-Request for conference call HDR 6/15/95 A. Leggett-HDR B. Smith-USPS Plant BE info. 6/15/95 M. Stimac/L. Fortney-V. Yearick/C. Keller/N. Project update & 6/21-22 mtgs HDR Allen-PERC 6/16/95 A. Leggett-HDR B. Baer-USFS Plant BE 6/21/95 V. Yearick-FERC M. Stimac-HDR Southern alternative comments 6/21195 J. DeHerrera-USFS M. Stimac-HDR Southern alternative comments 6/23/95 M. Stimac!L. Fortney-V. Yearick-FERC Status of 6/21-22 mtgs HDR 6/23/95 S. Boggs-HDR K. Burns-USPS Marbled murrelet survey 6/26/95 K. Bums-USPS S. Boggs-HDR Marbled murrelet survey protocol i 115195 A. Leggett-HDR B. Smith-USPS Sensitive Plant Survey 115195 A. Leggett-HDR M. Stensvold-USFS Sensitive Plant Survey Information 7/5/95 T. Trulock-USFS L. Fortney-HDR Southern alternative comments 717/95 M. Stimac-HDR FERCIUSFS Monthly update, agency consultation I 7/11195 M. Stensvold-USFS A. Leggett-HDR Sensitive Plant Information 7/12/95 M. Stimac-HDR FERCIUSFS 6/21-22/95 meeting minutes 7/14/95 L. Fortney-HDR V. Yearick-FERC SOl Revisions 1/W/95 A. Leggett-HDR C. Crocker-Bedford-Plant BE USPS 1/W/95 V. Yearick-FERC M. Stimac-HDR Sample Revised Scoping Document 1/W/95 V. Yearick-FERC M. Stimac-HDR Scoping Document 2 (SD2) 1/W/95 V. Yearick-FERC M. Stimac-HDR Sample Revised Scoping Document 817/95 M. Stimac-HDR FERCIUSFS Monthly update, agency consultation 8/11195 M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-FERC Draft SD2 --- Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 K-10 May 1996 i Appendix K-Agency Consultation TABLEK-2 ~YOFCORRESPONDENCE ~~~~~~~ 8/24/95 V. Yearick-FERC 8/28/95 M. Stimac-HDR 915195 L. Fortney-HDR 915195 L. Fortney-HDR 9/6/95 M. Stimac-HDR 9/8/95 L. Fortney-HDR 9/13/95 T. Trulock-USFS 9/14/95 M. Stimac/L. Fortney- HDR 9/18/95 L. Fortney-HDR 9/18/95 T. Trulock-USFS 9/18/95 L. Fortney-HDR 9/20/95 V. Yearick-FERC 9/27/95 M. Stimac-HDR 10/6/95 M. Stimac-HDR 10/31195 M. Stimac-HDR 10/31195 A. Leggett-HDR 10/31195 A. Leggett-HDR 10/31195 A. Leggett-HDR 11/10/95 S. Boggs-HDR 11110/95 M. Stimac-HDR 11114/95 B. Baer-USFS 11/21195 A. Leggett-HDR 11130/95 M. Stimac-HDR 12/1195 V. Yearick-FERC 12/4/95 V. Yearick-FERC 12/5/95 L. Fortney-HDR 1217/95 M. Stimac-HDR May1996 M. Stimac/L. Fortney- HDR V. Yearick-FERC T. Trulock-USFS T. Trulock-USFS USFS/FERC T. Trulock-USFS L. Fortney-HDR V. Yearick-FERC V. Yearick-FERC L. Fortney-HDR V. Yearick-FERC L. Fortney-HDR FERCIUSFS USFS/FERC V. Yearick-FERC J. DeHerrera-USFS K. Bums-USPS S. Brockman-USFWS B. Baer-USFS USFS/FERC A. Leggett-HDR J. DeHerrera-USFS V. Yearick-USFS M. Stimac-HDR M. Stimac-HDR T. Trulock-USFS V. Yearick-FERC K-11 Comments on Draft SD2 Additional comments on Draft SD2 Draft SD2 Draft SD2 Monthly update, agency consultation Draft SD2 Comments on Draft SD2 Status of SD2 Draft SD2 Draft SD2 Revised Draft SD2 Comments on Revised Draft SD2 SD2 Monthly update, agency consultation Status of Preliminary Draft EA Plant BE Plant/ Animal BEs Animal BE Animal BE Monthly update, agency consultation Plant BE comments Plant/ Animal BEs Status of EA development/review Animal BE Comments Animal BE Comments Preliminary Draft EA (PDEA) Review EAFormat Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Appendix K-Agency Consultation TABLEK-2 SUMMARY OF CORRESPONDENCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ·······(~~·········>· iu••••••••·••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12/8/95 M. Stimac-HDR 12/13/95 B. Baer-USFS 12/19/95 T. Trulock-USFS 113/96 M: Stimac-HDR 113/96 M. Stimac-HDR 115196 M. Stimac-HDR 118/96 M. Stimac-HDR 1111196 V. Yearick-FERC 1115/96 M. Stimac-HDR 1116/96 M. Stimac-HDR 1116/96 M. Stimac-HDR 1117/96 V. Yearick-FERC 1117/96 N. Allen-FERC 1119/96 V. Yearick-FERC 1124/96 L. Fortney-HDR 1124/96 V. Yearick-FERC 1125/96 V. Yearick-FERC 1129/96 M. Stimac-HDR 2/1196 V. Yearick-FERC 2/1196 V. Yearick-FERC 2/2/96 V. Yearick-FERC 2/2/96 FERC 2/2/96 M. Stimac-HDR 2/5/96 J. DeHerrera-USFS 2/6/96 M. Stimac-HDR 217/96 HDR L__ --- Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 I ~Q ' / t••·········y·· '~···········~~···········}········~-! USFSIFERC Monthly update, agency consultation A. Leggett-HDR Signed Cover Sheets for Animal/Plant BEs L. Fortney-HDR Unavailable due to govt. shutdown V. Yearick-FERC Status of PDEA Document V. Yearick-FERC Distributed PDEA for review V. Yearick-FERC PDEA T. Trulock!S. Sams-Distributed PDEA for review USFS M. Stimac-HDR PDEA Distribution List USFSIFERC Monthly update, agency consultation V. Yearick-FERC Status of staff review of PDEA V. Yearick-FERC Sent diskette with PDEA file M. Stimac-HDR Comments re: PDEA M. Stimac-HDR Comments re: PDEA M. Stimac-HDR Outreach meeting w I Alaska state agencies T. Trulock-USFS Status of staff review of PDEA M. Stimac-HDR Cultural Resources M. Stimac-HDR Cultural Resources/Outreach Mtgs V. Yearick-FERC Status of review comments for PDEA M. Stimac-HDR Comments re: PDEA M. Stimac-HDR Comments re: PDEA M. Stimac-HDR Comments re: PDEA M. Stimac-HDR Comments re: PDEA V. Yearick-FERC Comments re: PDEA HDR Comments re: PDEA V. Yearick-FERC Comments re: PDEA FERC Conference call re: PDEA I K-12 Mayl996 1 J Appendix K -Agency Consultation TABLEK-2 SlJMMARY OF CORRESPONDENCE -····~ ·::. ~:-:::_ 217/96 M. Stimac-HDR 217/96 L. Fortney-HDR 2/8/96 M. Stimac-HDR 219196 M. Dalton! S. Boggs-HDR 2/13/96 HDR 2/13/96 M. Dalton-HDR 2/13/96 D. Howe 2/13/96 M. Stimac-HDR 2/14/96 M. Stimac-HDR 2/14/96 M. Stimac-HDR 2/14/96 M. Stimac-HDR 2/14/96 M. Stimac-HDR 2/15/96 V. Yearick-FERC 2/15/96 V. Y earick-FERC 2/20/96 M. Stimac-HDR 2/20/96 J. Smith-FERC 2120/96 V. Yearick-FERC 2/21/96 s. Boggs/ M. Stimac-HDR 2/22/96 V. Yearick-FERC 2/23/96 V. Yearick-FERC 2/23/96 V. Y earick-FERC 2/23/96 V. Yearick-FERC 2/23/96 V. Yearick-FERC 2126/96 M. Stimac-HDR 2/27/96 M. Stimac-HDR 2/27/96 M. Stimac-HDR May1996 USFSIFER.C T. Trulock-USFS V. Yearick-FERC A. Mitchnickl C. Keller-FERC FERC 1 . .DeHerrera-USFS T. Trulock-USFS V. Y earick-FERC V. Yearick-FERC V. Yearick-FERC V. Yearick-FERC V. Yearick-FERC M. Stimac-HDR M. Stimac-HDR J. Smith-FERC M. Stimac-HDR M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-FERC N. Allen/J. Smith M. Stimac-HDR M. Stimac-HDR M. Stimac-HDR M. Stimac-HDR M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-FERC V. Yearick-FERC V. Yearick-FERC ------------ K-13 Monthly update, agency consultation Comments re: PDEA Comments re: PDEA Comments re: PDEA Terrestrial Resources Section Outreach Meeting for Alaska Projects ANll..CA Sect. 810 Subsistence Eval. Comments re: PDEA Recreation Resources Section Status ofPDEA Revised Cumulative Effects Analysis and Aquatic Resource Section Copy of revised draft PDEA Status of PDEA Comments re: PDEA Comments re: PDEA Status of PDEA Review Conference call arrangements Comments re: PDEA Comments re: PDEA Comments re: PDEA Comments re: PDEA Comments re: PDEA Comments re: PDEA Comments re: PDEA Comments re: PDEA Comments re: PDEA Cultural Resources Section Comments re: PDEA Cultural Resources Section Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Appendix K-Agency Consultation TABLEK-2 SUMMARY OF CORRESPONDENCE MEM~- I >······1)~/·············1>•·········<···············\'~···········>·I···· . . ....... ·. ······ ······························· 2/28/96 V. Yearick-PERC M. Stimac-HDR Draft Public Notice of PDEA!Draft ' License Application I 2/28/96 M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-PERC Draft transmittal letter and distribution list 2/28/96 M. Stimac-HDR 2/29/96 M. Stimac-HDR 3/1196 M. Stimac-HDR 3/1196 V. Yearick-PERC 3/1196 M. Stimac-HDR 3/4/96 J. Wolfe-HDR 3/5/96 V. Yearick-PERC 3/12/96 M. Stimac-HDR 3/15/96 V. Yearick-PERC 3/19/96 M. Stimac-HDR 3/26/96 P. Berkshire-HDR 3/28/96 J. Fargo-PERC 3/28/96 V. Yearick-PERC 3/28/96 V. Yearick-PERC 3/28/96 M. Stimac-HDR 3/29/96 V. Yearick-PERC 4/1196 V. Yearick-PERC 4/2/96 V. Yearick-PERC 4/2/96 M. Stimac/M. Dalton- HDR 4/3/96 M. Stimac, M. Dalton- HDR 4/10/96 M. Stimac-HDR Mahoney lAke Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 V. Yearick-PERC Status of PDEA and LA V. Yearick-PERC Confirmation of receiving fax V. Yearick-PERC PDEA, LA, PERC Notice & Alaska Permitting M. Stimac-HDR PERC Notice and PERC process M. Strzelecki-PERC PERC Notice B. Baer-USFS Section 810 Evaluation M. Stimac-HDR PDEAandLA USFS/FERC Monthly update, agency consultation Mike Stimac-HDR PDEA and Alaska Permitting V. Yearick-PERC Diskette for PDEA J. Fargo-PERC Economic Analysis & PDEA P. Berkshire-HDR Economic Analysis M. Stimac-HDR Status of LA and PDEA review, Alaska Permitting M. Stimac-HDR PERC Notice V. Yearick-PERC Conference call re: Alaska Permitting M. Stimac-HDR Conference call re: Alaska Permitting M. Stimac-HDR Conference call re: Alaska Permitting M. Stimac-HDR Conference call re: Alaska Permitting I L. Marshall (ADGC)/ Conference call summary re: Alaska V. Yearick/ A. Miles-Permitting PERC V. Yearick-PERC 401 Certification Requirements V. Yearick-PERC Status of FERC review of draft LA and PDEA K-14 May1996 t f ! i l • 4/11/96 I 4/11196 I 4/19/96 I 4/24/96 4/26/96 I Appendix K-Agency Consultation TABLEK-2 ~YOFCORRESPONDENCE M. Stimac-HDR I USFSIFERC I Monthly update, agency consultation J. Fargo-FER.C P. Berkshire-HDR Economics review of Draft LA M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-FER.C Status of FER.C review of draft LA and PDEA M. Stimac-HDR V. Yearick-FER.C Status of FER.C review of draft LA and PDEA V. Y earick/J. Fargo-I M. Stimac-HDR I FER.C staff comments on draft LA and FERC PDEA Acronym Dermitions: FER.C HDR USFS WBKQ Mayl996 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission HDR Engineering, Inc. U.S. Forest Service Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn K-15 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 U nitcd States Dcpartm·cnt of the Interior FISH ANI> WILDLIFE SERVICE Al.ASKA AREA OFFICE 813 0 STREET. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Colonel George R. Robertson District Engineer Alaska District, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 7002 · Anchora~e, Alaska. 99510 Dear Colonel Robertson: . Re: , NPAEN-PR-R \ JUtJ 1977 This responds to Mr. D. G. Hendrickson•s letter of April 27, 1977, which requested field data and our initial assessment of fish and wildlife impacts which may result from the proposed Upper Mahoney Lake hydroelectr.ic project near Ketchikan, Alaska. The time constrairit of:your draft EIS schedule precluded investigetions of the fish and wildlife resources in the Upper Mahoney lake portion of the system because of ic~ and snow cover. We have rescheduled field investigations in the upper lake for early June, 1977, and will modify our co!TIT1ents should the results of that investigation so ~ictate. Due to the ·lack of sufficient quantitative data on the salmon runs in the system, we will conduct follow-up spawning ground surveys during August through October, .1977. Again, should the results so justify, this initial assessment shall be modified. The project area is used by a variety of fish and wildlife species. The aquatic system is of significant value to fish resources, particularly pink, chum, coho, and sockeye salmon; and Dolly Varden, cutthroat, rainbow, and steelhead trout which use the inlet streams to the lower lake as a spawning ground .. Grayling were stocked in the upper lake in the 19so•s and would depend on its inlet streams for spawniRg. Other freshwater fish species include sculpins and sticklebacks. The estuarine system provides life requirements for numerous organisms including both resident species and those which depend on the estuaries at some stage in their life history. Among the estuarine fish resources are all species of Pacific salmon, the searun varieties of trout, Save Energy and You Serve America! f ' ~ Pacific herring, several species of rockfish, several species of flatfish, and cod. Shellfish resources include several species of clams and mussels, several species of shrimp; and Dungeness and other crab. species. · · · .r1f1dlife resources that are closely associated with this estuarine sys tern inc 1 ude waterfowl , seabirds, shorebirds,. and sea 1 s. Ba 1 d eagles, deer, black bear, grouse, beaver and other furbearer.s use substantial portions of the ecosy"stem. '2'; Based on the data available· at this time, the maintenance of spawning and reoring habitat for salmon and trout .jn the stream flowing between Upper Hahoney Lake and LO\'!er Mahoney Lake is ou.r primary concern relative to the proposed project. The ·water discharged from the powerhouse should be returned to the natural stream above the spawning habitat, preferably near the base of the falls. Any overflow from the upper lake should be allowed to follow the existing natural route. A minimum water flow in the natural stream channel during the spawning and incubation periods of July through March must be maintained. The magnitude of the minimum flow required will be .determined after further study. The concept applied, however, is that on a given stream with all else remaining constant, the production of that stream will decrease directly as spawning gravel becomes exposed. The proposed access road will cross inlets to the lower lake. Where this occurs the crossings sh::lUld be constructed so as to effect'ively prevent siltation and disturbance of spawning grounds. The four miles of proposed transmission line along George Inlet to Beaver Falls will be traversing an area likely to contain eagle nesting trees. The specific route should· be so designed to effectively avoid nest tree disturbance. · The results of the Upper Mahoney Lake investigation· will determine the status of the grayling stocked there. The presenc~ of grayling may require further restrictive comments on the proposed project. · . \ L·ie appreciate the opportunity to provide conments at this early stage of project planning and to alert you to our primary concerns relative to this project. Sjncerely;s~~ ector ..__.., ,____.,... -- r L. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE P.O. Box 1628, Juneau, Alaska · 99802 Mr. George R. Robertson District Engineer Corps of Engirieers P. 0~ Box 7002 · Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Mr. Robertson~ · Z360 i.:U~ :.; ., i:J({ The following is in reference t6 ~PAEN-PR-R~ letter of November 18, requesting preliminary historical/archeological report for three potential hydroelectric sites near Ketchikan, Alaska. a. Lake Grace: No historic/archeological sites are presently known in this vicinity; however, the vicinity of the dock and work cainp have a high potential in view of the salmon runs in Grace Creek and the estuarine nature of the mouth of the creek. The inland areas of the t1·ansmission line to Carroll Inlet have low potential. -. b. Swan Lake: No historic/~rcheological sites are presently known 1n the near vicinity of the lake, powerhouse, and transmission line to the point of crossing Carroll Inlet. Potential for historic/archeological 1naterials in these areas is judged to be low. The transmission line from Nigelius Pt. -Shelter Cove-Watd Cove will be in the vicinity of a petroglyph reported in Shelter Cove and a large historic site identified by S~alaska Corporation in L~ask.Cove .. The potential for archeological sites along the inland portions of the transmission line is low. c. Mahoney Lake: There is a petroglyph reported in the vicinity of the cove east of Mahoney Lake, and ~abandoned mine near the creek mouth. Potential in this area may be considered high. The first half of the tral']smissiOI, route to Beaver has a medium to low potential; the second half has a low potential.· \ Dr. Robert Ackerman, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, has conducted a partial archeological survey of the Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project for R. W. Beck and Asso:iates. When this survey is completed, we will be in a position to provide firmer data conce~riing historic/archeological materials for that portion of the study area. 6Z00-11 (1/69) t • 2 I hope the above fnformation is of.help .. Please do not hesitate to ca 11 if your require further assistance. · S.i ncere ly ~ 0 1 n · · /)J ~p "(.,0.{1 ~~-( . n. t GERALO H. CLARK Regional Archeologist . -..._.../ ...__..,. 1] R -·R (c,:s<· /} 1.:·-t.-0 . 1R ·E~ United States Departm~nt of. the Interior f FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ALASKA AREA OFFICE 8130 STREET ANCHORAGE. ALAS~A 9950.1 tolonel George R. Robertson District Engineer Alaska Di'strict, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska.99510 Attention: Environmental Section Dear Colonel Robertson: 2 3 JJ\N. lq7i Re: 'NPAEN-Pn-R This planning aid report follows our initial assessment of fish and v1ildlife impacts which may result from the proposed Upper Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project near Ketchikan. Subsequent to our initial response of June 6, 1977, the ice finally cleared on the upper lake allowing bio.logical investigations there. The result of that field 1 trip resolved our concern for the fate of 1966 introductions of grayling into the upper lake. We found no evidence of survival. (Our letter of June 6, 1977, indicated the grayling introduction occurred in the 1950's but was in error). The adequate flow of water through suitable spawning gravel in the transfer of water from the upper lake to the lower lake remains our primary concern. Since the initial assessment, other conceptual alternatives concerning the disposal of the tailrace waters have developed. This.report summarizes and initially assesses these alternatives. Also, this report includes a summary of the physical and biological data concerning the Mahoney Lakes systems which are now available in our files. The conceptual alternatives for use of the. tailrace waters as we see them are: (1) As was originally proposed, the tailrace waters to be channeled directly into the lower lake. (2) As we originally recommended, the tailrace waters to be returned to the stream near the base of the falls with a minimum flow pattern guaranteed. (The minimum flow required at any given time would Save Energy and You Serve America! 2. depend on the specific activity, such as spawning,: incubation,. rearing, etc., taking place at that time and would.vary through the year. This will be referred to ·as the minimum flow .pattern). (3) Same as #2 without minimum flow pattern guarantees. (4) A mitigating alternative which would d.irect a controlled flow through a spawning channel, then into the original stream channel. (5) Same as #4 except·the discharge would be directed into the lower lake. · The use of alternative #1 would effectively eliminate all spawning and rearing within the stream. Thus, greater than 50 percent of salmonid production in the drainage would be curtailed. This alternative appears to be the least acceptable. Alternative #2 should be an acceptable choice provided the magnitude of minimum flow could be determined and maintained. Further study of the minimum flow pattern required would be necessary. Alternative #3 would likely curta.il .production in some years while not affecting it in other years. The overall impact would ultimately result in a degraded system. This alternative is also among the least.desirable. Alternatives #4 and #5, with a controlled flow spawning channel would offer an apparently desirable mitigating feature, provided there was a guaranteed minimum flow pattern incorporated in the artificial channel. Alternative #4 would be highly desirable during. times of high flow when sufficient water would be available to utilize· the natural stream spawning an~as in addition to the spa\'ming channel. On the .other hand, during low flow times there may be insufficient water in the natural streambed to allow fish passage to the controlled spawning ch~rinel. ternative #5 would make spawning gravel available regardless of the flow conditions. Also, as a result of a greater hydraulic head this alternative potentially offers the largest stable production area. Alternative #5, therefore, appears to be the most desirable--it.s greatest drawback being one of es.thetics. Physical Profile -fisheries oriented Drainage size Lake surface area Upper Mahoney lake 2 mi 2 57.5 ac. ( 115.2 ac. by Retherford) lower .Mahoney lake ~.7 mi 2 (includes upper lake) 160 ac. · '-.../ ......__, '--Lake depth Lake volume Surface flow Spawning gravel Water temperature Si9logical Profile Plankton Aquatic vegetation Invertebrates Fish Native Introduced ·.._.... ~c~ Mahoney Lake 265 ft. (80.8 md 5000 acre~feet (Est.) • 1\' Inlet -15 cfs 8/4/77 'B' Inlet-40 cfs 8/4/77 . Insignificant 8/3/77 Air 24°~ Surface -9.ooc Thermocline 0 4/5 m-7.2/6.6 C Some diatoms & others 1977 Secchi qisc -30m 1977 No data available 1977 -abundant (including chironomids, stoneflys, diptera, caddis, mayflies and 1 eeches) None observed Grayling -1966 (without apparent success) 3. Lower Mahoney take 220 ft. (67. 1 m.) 20,400 acre-feet Outlet records show a range from 2 cfs to 171 cfs and an average of approx. 40 cfs . . 540m 2 .from base of fa~ls to lower lake. 1060 m total. 4/21/77 Surface -4. 7oc 6 m -4.aoc 4.oo C to bottom No data available - however, appears more productive than upper lake. Sparse -ADF&G 1952/70 Present -ADF&G 1952/70 "Insects & larvae, snails and pea clams" All salmon except kings; kokanee, rainbow, steel- head, dolly varden, cut- throat, cottids and stickleback. Eastern brook 1931-32 (without apparent success) An introduction of kokanee was also apparently made. Upper Mahoney Lake . . 1977 Observations No fish observed *Note: .Historic·ally, many people subsistencefished for sockeye salmon. The system has since been closed to all subsistence fishing. Other vertebrates Haterbirds~ bear, deer and furbearers. 4. Lower Maboney Lake Ab~ridant kokanee.and dolly varden in :lake. Sockeye*~ pink, and.chum salmon observed in spawning condition in streams. Dolly varden fry observed in all .. areas. Eagles, ducks and.other water- birds, grouse; bear, deer and furbearers. We a~preciate the opportunity to provide planning aid comments and data. Please keep us advised as to project status and let us know if we can be of further assistance. · Sincerely yours., ( . ' . . : .. !be~ a;V\) As~i~-L!rJ .....__./ ..._./ I -._.. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ·· REGIONAL OFFIC£ 555 Battery Street, Rpom .415 San Francisco~ California 94111 Colonel George R. Robertson , District Engineer Alaska District• Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 · Dear Colonel Robertson: March 1, 1978 In response to your letter of January 30, 1978 (NPAEN-PR-R), we are supplying updated power values for the· proposed Lake Grace and Upper Mahoney hydroelectric projects near Ketchikan, Alaska. t The at-market va 1 ues are based on the estimated costs of power from l alternative diesel-engine driven generating plants at Ketchikan and Metlakatla. The Ketchikan Public Utility (KPU) alternative plant con- sists of a 6,450 kW unit with a heat rate of 9,300 Btu/kWh, capital cost of $330 per kilowatt, service life of 35 years, and fuel oil cost of 42¢/gallon. An interest rate of 8.0% was used for KPU financing. The Metlakatla Power & Light (MPL) alternative plant consists of a 1,500 kW unit with a heat rate of 10,500 Btu/kWh, capital cost of $370 per kilowatt, service life of 35 years, and fuel oil cost of 44¢/gallon. REA financing at 5.0% interest rate was used for MPL~ The values given on the following tables are applicable to both the Lake Grace and Upper Mahoney projects at the appropriate power markets. They are based on January l, 1978 price levels. As requested, the power values are given for power utilization at Ketchikan only, and for a combined Ketchikan and Metlakatla market. Very truly yours, --&~.S(~~.:;.,i - Eug~~eblett Acting Regional Engineer Attachment cc: North Pacific Div. Corps of Engineers ~ ~- Table 1 · . Value of Hydroelectric Power at Ketchikan Market Municipal Financing .(@ 8.0% ·interest) . Capacity Energy 49.50 $/kW-yr • 32 •. 60 mills/kWh Federal Financing (@. 6-5/8% interest) ·. Capacity. Energy 41.38 $/kW-yr. 32.60 mills/kWh Table 2 Value of Hydroelectric Power at · · Combined Ketchikan and Metlakatla Markets Composite Financing (Municipal @ 8.0% and REA @ 5% interest) Capacity 1/ Energy 2/- 47.61 $/kW-yr. 33.82 mills/kWh Federal Financing (@·6-5/8% interest) Capacity 1/ Energy 2/- 42.93 $/kW-yr. · 33.82 mills/kWh 1/ 75:; KPU p~t capacit:y value + 25% MPL plarrt; capacity · vaZ.ue. 2/ 80% KPU plant energy vaZ.ue + 20% MPL· plant energy value. t .___. r ....__,. 0 9 J ... _j : ~7.. ~U&U~ @[f ·. &~&~J~& JAYS. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR "" DEi•AitT)IENr OF.NA.'rm.tAL·RESOUilCES 619 Warehouse Dr., Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 .... February 2, 1979 Re: 1130-2-1 J. K. Soper, Chief Engineering Division D/VI.SION OF·PARKS Alaska District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 7002 . . Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Mr. Soper: This letter is in response to your request of January 29th for our views on the Mahoney Lakes and Lake Grace projects and their involvement with archaeological or historic' properties (your reference NPAEN-PL-EN). Our comments generally parallel those of Dr .. Gerald Clark in his letter to your office which you had enClosed. We feel that the Mahoney Lakes area of the camp and access road and the saltwater access area should be archaeologically survcyf~d prior to any finalization of plans. The power .line as Dr. Clark noted appears to be a low potenliiil area; however, we would like to see the documentation of the possible or probable impacts on the mines indicated your routing sheet. In the Lake Grace area the power line as Dr. Clark. ag,1in mentioned is a low probability area; however, the access area and camp drea near salt water is very high in potential and we again concur by feeling that an archaeological survey should be done in that area. If you have any further questions, please contact us. Sincerely, /()~~ \Viliiam S. llanable State Historic Preservation Officer Dl\: pg cc: Dr. Gerald Clark, Regional Archaeologist lJ. S.D. A. Forest Service P.O. Box 1628 Juneau, Alaska 99802 ' * ! ( ( -' .. , ,... ~ ..::...~. '· ,.,~ JAYS. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR DlEI111ARTltlEIWT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIViSION OF PARKS Chip D~nnetl.ein, Dire<.:tor. 619 Warehouse Dr., Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 274-4676 J ~ -l.. II May 20, 1980 Re: 1130-2-1 Harlan E. Moors Chief, Engineering Division Alaska District, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Subject: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Dear Mr. Moors: We have reviewed the subject proposal and.would like to offer the following comments: STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER The proposed hydroelectric -project may impact significant cultural resources. AHRS site KET-017 is located_within or very near the proposed project. No systematic cultural resources· survey is known to have been conducted in the ar;a. Therefore, under provision~ of 36 CFR800, a preconstruction cultural resources sunrey is recommended. /ti~~J_- ·winiam s-~anable-~-~-- Sincerely, ~. rup Dennerlein Director CD/cw ---' ..... ---, .. ~·· t-41 (')J ~ /''';:~·~ ·~r:----~-~~ ::.··\~~~\·-r:··nl I., ?" y •I i . I -~~-~ I \<"~"'· UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ....... ~ .. ~-'.~~-~"'" / 1011 E. TUDOR RD. IN REPLY HEr· ER TO: S".:: ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503 1907l 276·3800 H/1 Colonel Lee R. Nunn District Engineer Alaska District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: 3 0 MAY 1980 This responds to your Nay 19, 1980, request for a list of threatened or endangered species which may occur in the following project areas: Location Village of Hekoryuk on Nunivak Island Village of Scammon Bay Cordova Interim Chichagof Island Mahoney Lakes near Ketchikan Activit:y Two breakwaters and revetment Small hydroelectric project Southcentral Railbelt hydro- electric project Small hydropower project at Tenakee Springs Southeast hydroelectric project Based on the best information currently available to us, no listed or proposed threatened or endangered species for which the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has responsibility are known to occur in any of the five project locations listed above. You may, therefore, conclude that these projects will have no affect on those species and that preparation of a biological assessment or further consultation with the FWS pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required. Protection of threatened or endangered marine mammals is the responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Whereas some of your proposed projects are in or adjacent to marine waters, you may wish to contact NMFS to determine potential effects of the projects on those species. New information indicating the presence of currently listed threatened or endangered species administered by the FWS or the listing of new species which might be affected by the proposed project will require re- initiation of the consultation process. t f .. .. --- Thank you for your concern for endangered Wildlife. As always, personnel of our Endangered Species of.fice ·are ava:il~ble. to-answ.er your questions. ();7*: L(; Area Director United States Department of the Interior . ' ' FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. IN REPLY REFER TO: lOll E. TUDOR RD .. SE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 276-3800 ' Colonel Lee R. Nunn District Engineer Attention: Mr. William D. Lloyd .Alaska Distri-ct, Corps· of 'Engine-ers P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: Re: NPAEN-PL-EN 1 G MAR 1982 This responds to your·~arch 9, 1982 reque~t for a determination of the presence of proposed or listed threatened or ·endangered species in the viciniry of a proposed hydropower project at Mahoney Lakes near Ketchikan, Alaska. Based on the best-information currently available to us, no such species occur in or near the proposed project area. Hence, a biological assessment is not required. The discovery of threatened or endangered species in the proposed project area or the designation of new species as threatened or endangered may require a reassessment of this finding. Thank you for your interest in endangered species. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us. /)7_ I?~ Regional Director cc: ES ~ • UNITED SrA.TEs ·OEP~RT...,,ENT OF AGRICULTURE Tongas'S0'm!Yi~'Ha~'CForest Federa 1 Building Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 · 907 ..;225-31 01' ·· . 1950 . March 3.1 , 1 982 ~-Harlan E. Moore u. s. Anny Engineer District. Alaska ATIN: Chief., Environmental Section P. 0.· Box 7002 • Anchorage, Alaska 99510 L Dear Mr. Moore: Thank you for your f4arch 22 letter concerning the proposed Mahoney Lake hydropower project feasibility· study ·and environmental impact statement. The Forest Service was a cooperating agency i_n preparation of the Swan Lake hydropower project and is currently participating in this capacity in preparation af the Black .Bear lake project. This is in line with the Council on Environmental·Quality Regulations 40 CFR Part 1501.6. To be responsive to these regulations and assure that National Forest management is appropriately coordinated during the preparation of the environmental statement, I request ~hat the.Forest Service be designated as a cooperating .agency for the Mahoney Lake hYdropower project environmental impact statement. · Sincerely, ~~:::L t:?. d;'~;, ~MES A. CALVIN Acting Forest Supervisor <D~ 11 (I /69) "' .. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmosphera.: Administration March 31, 1982 Colonel Lee R. Nunn District E~gineer . Alaska District, Corps of Engineers. ·P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear co·lonel Nunn: National Marine Fisheries .Ser.Jice P.O. Boz 1668 Juneau, Alaska. 99802·· This letter is in response to your Se~tion .7 request for i nfonnation regarding threatened or endangered species under the National Marine Fisheries Service's responsibility that may be present.in the vicinity of the Mahoney Lake system near Ketchikan, Alaska Endangered Species National Marine fisheries Service bears responsibility for eight species of endangered whales which occur in Alaskan waters; they are: Blue Sei Fin Black Right Bowhead . Spenn Gray Humpback Balaenoptera musculus · Balaenoptera borealis Balaenoptera ph~salus Balaena glaciahs Balaena mysticetus Physeter macrocephalus Eschrichtius robustus Megaptera novaeangl1ae . . Humpback whales are probably the only endangered whale that W4Y occur near the project area. About 1,000 humpback whales (of a total world population.of 6,000) inhabit th.e ·North Pacific. During the summer feeding season, they range widely from the subarctic boundary (ca. 40° N lat.) north into the Bering Sea. The greatest population densities are reached in certain inshore waters, tthere the animals appear to be largely resident during the summer and autumn. It is estimated that between 100-260 humpback whales inhabit southeast Alaska. Alaskan humpbacks spend the winter around the Hawaiian Islands and along the west coast of central Mexico. The main foods of humpback whales in southeastern Alaska are euphausiaceans (Euphausia pacifica), herring (Clupea harengus), and capelin (~~llotus villosus), (Jurasz and Jurasz 1979). Gray whales are endemic to the north Pacific. The eastern Pacific population now numbers about l6,000 animals, whereas the w.estern Pacific population is apparently on the verge of extinction. The eastern population spends the summer in the northern Bering and Chukchi seas, and migrates along the coast to winter grounds on the west coast of Baja California, where the calves are born . ... ·~···· . . ·... -· ·.~ r~~ i::;:: ,_ # ·.·~·. ~.-~~;-~· 2. . \ Twice each year virtually the entire .eastern. Pacific population of ·gray whales passes along the outer coast .•. mostly w.ithin -5 km of the beach. The northward migration of animals, by southeast Alaska, without calves ·takes p·lace from . March to early May~ \'lith a peak in early April; cows with calves migrate later.· The southward migration takes. place during .November and December. Gray whales do not feed while migratit:Jg along the CaHfornia coast, but possible· surface-feeding be:1avi.or has been reported during spring migration at Cape St. Elias (Cunningham and Stanford 1979). On the summer grounds gray whales feed primarily on benthic gammaridean·amphipods. The fin, sei, blue, and sperm whales .generally move in and out of the offshore areas seasonally. · · The right whale may be resident in the Gult" of Alaska year ·round and may enter coastal waters frequently. · · The bowhead whale has not been reported-in the Gulf of Alaska. It is our conclusion that the-proposed project is not an action that "may affect .. endangered or threatened species or their habitat for purposes of regulations implementing Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and thus does not require formal consultation under Section 7. Our agency has not conducted studies on the fish resources inhabiting the Mahoney Lakes system. However, it is our ~nderstanding that the upper lakes are barren of fish life. Lower Mahoney -Lake and its associated stream system provides habitat for several fish species,· i.e.,· pink salmon, sockeye salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, steelhead trout, sea-run cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden char. Juvenile sockeye salmon rear in the lake while juvenile coho salmon, steelhead trout~ cutthroat trout; and Dolly Varden char inhabit the lake and stream system. Pink and chum salmon spawn in the stream and their fry migrate, in the spring, to the sea soon after emergence from the stream gravel. Our concern is that construction and operation of a hydropower project on the Mahoney Lake system be compatible with the present fish resources and their habitat requirements. ~Je wi 11 offer our comnents and recomnenda ti ons on the proposed project when we review the draft environmental impact statement. We hope this information will be useful in the planning process. Sincerely, Ji~------L/1. ~ 0 rt W ...--v ;;rr~ Cl::::::::) ~ o·rector. ~~Vey ~ , aska Region REFERENCES Cunningham, W., and s. Sandford. 1979 •... Observa,tions of migrating gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) at· Cape St .. · Elias~ .·Alaska.· Unpublished . . . . manuscript (to be submitted. to Fishery·· Bulletin). Jurasz,. C.M., and v-.P. Jurasz. 1979. ·Feeding· inodes of the ~umpback whale. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. ·Inst; 31:69-84 ~~,1E.D sr,.~; ,; .rt. l'.s- U. S. E N V I R 0 N M E NT A l P R 0 T E C T I 0 N A G. E N C Y REGJON .X <-. oc or, ~~~ \ ~ ~ ~ 1-,~. .. p "'£ ·PRo1t:." REPLY TO ATTN Of: M/S 443 I APR~ Colonel Lee R. Nunn District Engineer ·1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTlE'· WASH IN G·T 0 N. 9 8'1 0 1. Alaska District, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage. Alaska .99510 SUBJECT: Mahoney lakes Hydropower Project, Ketchikan EIS Seeping Suggestions Oea~ Colonel Nunn: Thank you for inviting the Environmental Protection Agency to participate in the seeping process for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Mahoney Lakes Hydropower Project. One impact to be examined is the·project's potential ·effects on water quality. Parameters of particular concern during project operation include \'tater tempera- ture and dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, suspended sediment, and metal concentra- tions. Existing water quality conditions at all depths of Upper Hahoney lake should be measured, and the impacts of discharging the· deeper waters of the upper lake into Lower Mahoney Lake should be analyzed. Dra\'t'down of the upper lake and the result·ing exposure of unvegetated slopes could affect the upper lake's turbidity and suspended sediment concentrations and should be reflected in the analysis. It may be worthwhile to consider the results of various intake levels on both lakes' water quality. Consideration should also be given to the project's impacts on water quality in the river between the two lakes, highlighting stream temperatures, flows, suspended sediment loads, and the potential for nitrogen supersaturation problems. The evaluations should indicate seasonal impacts, possible miti- gation measures, and whether the operation of the project will cause or contribute to any violations of applicable water quality standards. The water quality impact of construction and maintenance of the access road, transmission line, and penstock and the disposal of tailings from construction of the tunnel should also be discussed. Mitigation measures and alternatives should. reflect soil conditions and slopes. and preventive erosion control measures. Attention should also be given to minimizing the \'later, air, and noise impacts from the construction camp, temporary generating facility, and obtaining arid process construction material such as sand, gravel and rock. 2 We appreciate the opportunity .to partici·pate in this _scoping process •. Dick Thiel. my Envi'r.onmental Evaluation Branch Chief. may be contacted for more. infonnation. · He can ·be reached at (20:6) 442:-1728 or (FTS) 399-.1728. .. . . h -Gary 7. 0' Nea ,-~ Oi rector . ·. / td'"(_ En vi romnenta 1 Servkes . Division cc: Ron Kreizenbeck, AOO~ ·Juneau L i MEMORANDUM . . ·state or Alask·a TO FROM: Dave Haas State-federal ·Assistance Coordinator· Division of Policy Development DATE; FILE. NO: and Planning Juneau · TELEPHONE NO: ..DC Don Cornelius Area Habitat Biologist Department of Fish arid Game Ketchi·kan '{.'I- SUB.IECT: Ap.ril 14., 1982 AK 820325-02 225-5195 11ahoney Lake · Hydropower . Feasibility Study The Department o-f ·Fish and 'Game has revie\'led informat~ on supplied by the U.S. Army Corps.·of Engjneers· regardtng Mahoney .Lakes Hydropo\ILer feasibi- lity Studies. We 'have the· followi·ng .corrments .regarding this proposed project: ~ 1. The potentia 1 effects of this project on ·red sa·lmon 't:hi ch spawn above lower Mahoney Lake must be.investigated •. As proposed. the penstock ta i1 race route waul d vtrtua lly dry up the probab 1 e spa\'m- ing beds of this salmon population' by removing water from the stream beb.reen Upper and Lower r1ahoney lakes. 2. Seve1~a1 opportunities for mitigation ·to protect or enhance fisheries may exist: A. A rea 1 i gnment of the penstock to intersect the lo'tter portion of the channel of the stream between Upper and lower Mahoney lakes may prevent dewatering of this channel. Additional s~awning channels could also be created belm'f the tailrace. B. During construction of this project a fish passage structure could be constructed at the Falls. between LO\>~er Nah~ney Lake and George Inlet. This would facilitate fish movement past this marginally passable obstacle and potentially improve escapements. C. The potential for fertilizing Mahoney Lake in conjunction with the aforementioned mitigation measures could be evaluated. 3. The proposed facilities should be de.signed to alleviate problems associated with air entrainment in the penstock which could potenti- ally kill fish with ~gas bubble" disease. Project design should include methods to remove gases including nitrogen and oxygen which may supersaturate the water discharged from the tailrace. 02·00 I A( F<cv, l 0/7?) ~h~ . Da v~ Haas -2·-April 14, 1982 4. The need for this facH i ty in th~. Ketchi k.an area should ·be evaluated. The S~tan Lake Hydroelectric Project will soon .be on line .and Grace Lake .located in the Swan Lake .vicinity has been· mentioned as a possible hydroelectric power source whi.C~ may be constructed after S¥1an Lake. Do.other ·alternatives exist? . · ·. Thank you for the opportunity to revfew this proposed project. We look fonvard to \.YOrk1ng·w1th the.Cotps dur~ng .. completion·of th.is EIS. cc: R. Reed -ADF&G -Juneau H. Moore -COE -Anchorage C. Osborne -USHJS -Ketchika~ 1 '' ~~&~[ @~ ~~&$~~ JAYS. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR DEPARTME1\1T OF lU!I'I1II.AL RESOIJBCZS. ·tit# WAREHOUSE DR., SUITE 21D ANCHORAGE. ALASKA !IS!ifJI 10.Jn LH April 27, 1982 File #: 1130-2-1. Harlan E. Moore Chief, Engineering Divisioh · · DIVISION. ~PAitG Corps of Engineers, Alaska District P.O. Box 7002. Anchorage, AK 99510 Dear Mr. Moore: PHQNE: ~144676 We have reviewed the "Cultural Resources Assessment for Mahoney Lakes Hydropower Project" {Re: NPAEN-Pl-EN) prepared by Julie Steele of your office. In light of Ms. Steele's survey results we concur with the finding of no probable impact to significant cultural resources by presently proposed construction. However, should cultural resources be located during the course of construction, we request that the project engineer halt all work which may disturb such. resources and contact our office immediately. As always, thank you for your concern for Alaska's cultural resources . .... ., " l Dilllplane Historic Preservation Offi SLK/jdg 02!21:96 11:01 FAX STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER I4J 002 (] ~thcc:ntnll ~ P.O. Box 107005 Andlerage. ». tt510 (907) 762-2575 D~Ra!Jlen 400 Wlllou.,;llby 4th Floot' [] NorttMm Rtogion 3700 Airport Wll'f Fairbartkli, AK 99706 (907} 451-2700 Of'IIICC!. 11&1! (M.Y t.:c: $ti:2-1314 Jun•u, AK 99601 (907} 465-:WOO fu:: 566-2954 I 1. APPUCANT INFORMA TlON CJl._pE ?OX COR.POR.~T:;.;!::.;O::.:N:.:..r -------· Full legal name(s) ~ fu:: 451-2751 Co-owner {full legal name) Social Security or Federal Tax 10 # (optional) Social Security or Federal Tax 10 #(optional) P.O. Box 8558, Ketchikan, Alaska Mailing Address City, State and Zip ( 907) 225-5163 Home Telephone Number Bu~iness/Daytime Telephone Number I 2. LOCATION OF WA TEA USE Provide the IegaJ description of the property where the water will be used: Lot Block ASLS, ATS, or US Sur~~ey Subdivision Name ~1/4 SE 1/4 26 __ 7_4_s __ _ 91E Copper ::;:.ive::: Aliquot Parts Section Township Range Meridian Do you own or lease this property? YEs_x_ NO If yes, attach a signed copy of the patent, deed, or lease: OR !f r.::l, you may net be eligible to 3ppiy for ·.vat9r r!gh!s. Contact your DNR regional office for advice. I 3. LOCAnON OF WATER SOURCE :.. Is the source of water within the boundaries of the same property as described in Section 2 7 lf yes. skip the rest of section 3 0 R YES __ NO_x_ If no, complete the following section giving the legal description of the water source. ----·----~ --------------------Lot Block ASLS. ATS. or US Survey Subdivision Name SE NE ~1/4 s·~ 114 ....ll 745 91E Co:Joer Rive::: Aliquot Parts Sect ron Township Range Meridian Do you own or lease and have r.ght or access to this property? YES __ NO_L_ · If yes, attae:h a signed copy of the patent, deed, lease, or document(s) granting accass. OR t It no, you wiU need to obtain a nght of access to this property to obtain water rights. If the water source is on state land, you must file an applicatron for a nght-of-way permit with the appropriate ONR office listed above. -~ 02/21/96 11:01 FAX I 4. SOURCE INFORMATION Is your water souree groundwater (ie. a well)? YES __ NO..i:.:_ If yes, check one of the following well types: Drilled [ 1 Driven [ ] Dug [ J Total depth, in feet Static water leve~ in feet. ___ _ Diameter Attach a copy of the well log if availabl• OR Is your water soun:a surface water? YES_!_ NO __ If yes, check one of the following: Stream [ ] River [ 1 Lake [ :J Spring [ 1 Geographic name (If unnamed, state so) Upper Mahanev Lake I 5. LOCAnON MAP i4J003 -' Attach a complete 1:63 360 (inch to mila} USGS map, 1 :25,000 USGS map, or a subdivision plat iden~ing the section comers, township, range. and meridian and indicate the following on it: • Point of water withdrawal, impoundment, or diversion AND • Route of water transmission AND • Point of water use AND • Property boundary for the area of water use. I 6. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AREA? Is this appropriation within a Coastal Zone Management Area Plan? YES X NO --- If yes, and you are using more than 1 ,000 GPO from a surface source or 5,000 GPO from a subsurface source, you need to submit a completed Coastal Zone Questionnaire. If no, disregard. For more information on Coastal ZDne Areas call the Division of Governmental Coordination; Anchorage 561-6131, Fairbanks 451-2879, Juneau 465-3562 • • 7. METHOD OF TAKING WATER (complete the following table) Pump intake_ inches Pump output GPM Pump YES_ NO X Length of pipe ft Hours working Hr/day (from pump to point of use) Pipe diameter 32 inches Gravity YES~ NO :....angth of pipe 5,900 ft. Head 5.5$ '2-:Y ft. (take point to use p:~int) Ditch Yes No X L H w ft. Diversion GPM orCFS Reservoir Yes __ No X L H w __ ft. Water storage AF Dam Yes X NO L 75 I 1 0' w 20. ft. Water storage 114 AF Uaflnitions: GPM "" Gallons oer M1nute At--Acre t-eet t.jzo.~ 1 ~..:~auansl \,;r::>-Gub1cFeet oer tieconc 02;21/96 11:01 FAX I4J 00-l - I a. WATER QUANTITY AND USE Expected data tor system to be completely davatopsd 9 9 s • Fill out the chart below if you are proposing to use water for one of these uses. For all other uses, describe the type of use and explain how much watl'·• is requested by showing calculations, etc. COMMON WATER USES AND STANDARD QUANTITIES TYPE(S} OF HOW MANY STANDARD TOTAL MONTHS OF USE QUANTITY QUAH11TY USE REQUESTED FROM lliRU Fully plumbed aingle family # Home• X 500 GPO = GPO Fully plumbed •Ingle family with ~mother..fn-law• apartment 4; Homea X 7SO GPO = GPO Partla.lly plumbed alngle family * Homst I 250 GPO "" GPO Unplumbed alngle family ' Homea X 7S GPO = GPO Duplex or Triplex j; Blr::tgs. X 1000 GPO ;::, GPll Fourplex and larger # Untta X 250 GPO ::; GPP Mobile Home Park , Units X 250 GPO -GPO Motel or Resort i Rooms X 150 GPO = GPO cattle (not daley eew8) I Cow a X 12 GPO = GPO Dairy Cows ft Cow a }( 35 GPO = GPO Horses I# Horses }( 15 GPO = GPO Poultry or Rabbits ' Animal a }( O.S GPO =: GPO Dogs (Kennele) 41 Dog a X 1 GPO = GPO Crop Irrigation (If acres or sq. ft.): it Acres X 0.5 AFV = AFY Worll; camps #t People X 50 GPO = GPO ·Other Water U&es: Bydro-ele=tric facility. 12 mon~h ~se eac~ year. ~he average cfs is 42.7. It is based or:. 12 years of stream gauge da'::.a. Average daily use is therefore ~70,000 gallons. uettmttons: GPO • gallons per day AFY • acre feet per year CFS · cubic teet per seco::d Fully plumbed singhdamily ·Water piped .n:o ~h~ house for dome sue uses. Hot water heater: flush toilet and irrigation of up to 10.000 sqJt. of yard s no ;ardert are included Partially plumbed single family· Water p1ped n!o :hs nouse for limrted domestic uses. Generally no hot water heater and no water flush to•lel nc'uded. Unplumbed single family-No water pipea .:-.to t/1e house. Wa1er is hand carried. *Other Water Uaea-Quantities of water requested over the standard amounts must be accompanieo with justificatton for the add1tiona: wat• f ~ I 02:21/96 11:01 FAX l4l (I 05 I 9. FEE $ 50.00 FOR USE OF 5,000 GPO OR LESS. _ $ 100.00 FOR USE OF MORE THAN 5,000 GPO BUT LESS THAN 30,000 GPO. $200.00 FOR USE OF 30,000 GPO OR MORE BUT LESS THAN 100,000 GPO. $300.00 FOR USE OF 100,000 GPO OR MORE BUT LESS THAN 500,000 GPO. $ 500.00 FOR USE OF 500,000 GPO OR MORE SliT LESS THAN 1,000,000 GPO. $ 1.000.00 FOR USE OF 1 ,000,000 GPO OR MORE EXCEPT •.. {see next line) $ 1,500.00 FOR USE OF 1 ,000,000 GPO OR MORE. OUTSIDE OF THE HYDROLOGIC UNIT FROM WHICH IT WAS REMOVED (based on current USGS Hydrologic Unit Map of Alaska). $ 600.00 FOR USE OF ANY QUANTITY OF GLACIER ICE. Attach payment wfth application (Use table below to detennine fees if your quantity is not in GPO). WATQ~TAIIL£ 5.oot c.-o----10G.OOOQP\)oo 5oa---1,!IOO.ll!! -~: ~-. .01 CFS .05 CF<I o.:z CFS (!.8 CFS 1.b CFS CFS. CU81C F'E:E1'7'SECONO :1.47 !lF'I.t 2C.B3 GPM fl!U GPM 347.2 GPII 5.liO AF'( 33.SO AF'f 112.!l AFY 560.11-N .az IJ'O 1lll AFD 0.3 AFlJ 1.5~ .01 M .rou 0.1 1.1 O.SM I tO. SIGUA TURE For this application to be complete it must include: _ ..J Com~letBd 11nd .igned ~pDcation Fonn. _ -J USGS Map (lncn to mile) or Subdivi.ian Plat (Section 5). _ ..J Deed to property or ~ory intere.t (Section 2). _..;Well Log If ~pllcable (Section 4). · SIMAGPN 1120.1 /lF'f 3..1 AFO 1.011.1 _" lAgal .Ac;ce.a Dvewnenl:s if a;~pficable; ie. Rlghta~f-W.y or Ea.eml!lflb (Section 3). _ ..J Co•t.l Zone Questlonn.ro if applicable (Section 6)- -..J Rnng Foe (Section 9), (l...._ GAU.ONM.IINIJTE AFY • ACRE-FEETII'EAA J.FDo ACRE~JDAY .,_ WIUJON GALLCH:IIOIIY The information presented in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that per 1, AAC 93.040 and , 1 AAC 93.050 additional information may be required by the Division of Water to adjudicate this application. Failure to provide requested information could result in this file being closed. SIGNED: FZfu\/ <fl'Slt<_./_fh~tft_Lf/( DATED: 6" /.:;/'f"3 ;; One applicant nly I · DCUG~S M. CAMPB~~.r !.:F-..Nrl__MAN.l\.,GF.t:t Name (please print} • 11. STATEMENT OF BENEFICIAL USE OF WATER IS YOUR WATER SOURCE AND WATER USE FULLY DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME? YES If yes, sign the following affidavit of use in the prasance cf a notary. OR If no, skip this section. iitle No_:_ Date system complatod ___ _ I certify under penalty of perjury that the above is a true"'and accurate statement of the extent to which the above water use has been fully developed and am using the stated quantity of water . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.) l ""· State of Alasb ) Thi$ i.s to certify that on thu __ day ~~ , 19 before me personally app&amd -,--,.---~~--,--,,-...,....--:-~:-------k.nown by me to b8 ltla parson named in and .....no ax9CUtad thi:J docum9llt a11d acitnowleclged voluntarily signin9 !he sam&. IN TESTIMONY WHEI=IEOF. l have h&I'Oiunlo set r!ly hand ar>d affixed my official seal. the d:ay and year in this document first abovli written. Notaty Public m and tor ttiEI Slalll of Ala£lc.a My commission expires: ~ Unit.ed Stat.es Depart.ment. of Agricult.ure Forest. Service Al.aska ~gion P.O. Box 21.628 -"'' r--""7\---_,.... -,.-\,--; fn I' r-I r\..l' r \ !\: : '' -""\ i\' , . : · : ,,,· i '-;--'ceo~-~-"-] \ ' .... '-• '. . ' .~ ... J '\ \ -:-.::: 0LSO-c:li::::-&J ... ------------··., MS. Lois D. Cashell ·Sec:ret.ary Federal Energy Regulat.ory Commission 825 Nort.h Capit.ol St.reet, NE Washington, DC 20426 Dear MS. Cashell: Juneau, AI< 99802-1.628 Reply to: 2770 Dat.e: JUN 08 1993 . --------·--~.c':\~~,, •. -. ... -c ;:~: gNlB=':::-" • ·· -:. ~-'-· ... ftCl'd ~r --~ u\ .-:··~ ~~ .~ we have reviewed the March 1.2 Not.ic:e of Applic:at.ion, filed by the Cit.y of SaXman, for a preliminary permit. for the Upper Mahoney Lake Hydro Power Project No. 1.1.393-000 loc:at.ed northeast. of Ket.c:hikan, Alaska. The Federal lands within the project. boundary have been selec:t.ed by Cape Fox Village Corporat.ion, but. have not. yet been conveyed. Therefore, the lands are st.ill Nat.ional Forest. Syst.em lands. • This proposed project. will impact. lands and resources within t.he Tongass Nat.ional Forest.. It. is probable that. impac:t.s will occur to the following resources: 1. Cult.ural resources. An invent.ory will need to be c:omplet.ed before any ground dist.urbing ac:t.ivities are conducted. There are two report.ed cultural sites within the project. area. 2. Fish habit.at.. Lower Mahoney Lake provides habit.at. for resident and anadromous fish. There are report.s that soc:k:eye salmon spawn along the shoreline of Lower Mahoney Lake. The impacts of the hydro proj ec:t en fish populat.ions should be addressed. 3. Scenic: values. The project. area has high scenic: values. The Al.pine region is free of human modific:at.ions at. this t.ime. The proposed dam, penst.oc:k, powerhouse, road, and transmission lines will alter t.he visual int.egrit.y of the area. 4. Mountain goats. Fift.een goats were transplanted int.o the alpine area surrounding Upper Mahoney Lakes in 1991.. The direct., indirect., and c:umulat.ive effec:t.s of the proposed project on the animals needs to be addressed. s. Birds. As in ot.her projec:t.s of this type, the possibility of birds colliding with transmission lines will need to be addressed. Caring for the Land and Serving People FS-6200-28b(3/92l MS. Leis D. casaell 2 6 . Access. Rca~. ccnst:ruct:ion t:c the prcj ect: across cape Fox Ccrpcrat:icn lands would provide_oppcrt:unit:ies t:c access t:imber en Nat:icnal Forest: Syst:em lands, and would also provide cppcrtunit:ies fer hiking 1 camping 1 skiing, and snowmobiling in t:he alpine area near Ket:chikan. The rel.at:ed effect:s of new reads and changes in access will need t:c be addressed. It is evident:, however, t:hat: addit:icnal dat:a must: be gathered before we can quant:ify these impact:s and their effect:s upon Nat:i~ Forest: Management: cbject:ives. Accordingly, the Forest: Service·has no object:ion t:c the issuance of a preliminary permit: subject: t:c the fcl.lcwing special condit:ion: Prier t:c undert:aking 1 any ent:ry or work en Nat:icnal Forest: Syst:em lands pursuant: t:c a preliminary per.mit:, the Permit:t:ee shall prepare and file with the Forest: Service a plan of st:udies to be ccnduct:ed under the permit:; and, the Per.mitt:ee shall secure a Forest: Service special-use authorizat:ion and, if apprcpriat:e, enter int:o a Memorandum of Onderst:anding (MOO') with the Forest: Service. The Permit:t:ee shall file with the Commission, within 90 days of the issuance of this preliminary permit:, copies of the special-use permit: and, if apprcpriat:e, the MOO. The special-use authcrizat:ion would include Forest: Service requirement:& fer fire prevent:ion and cont:rcl, prevent:icn of damage t:o Federal prcpert:y, nat:ural resources, and any requirement:s fer repair or rehabilitation of damage result:ing from study act:ivities. The MOO' bet:ween the Forest: Service and the Permit:t:ee, if prepared, would document the needs fer studies and arrangement:s fer ccnsult:at:ion and cccperat:ion net: included in the special-use permit:. Sincerely, cc: Ketchikan wo Lands Mr. Doug Campbell March 16, 1994 (See Distribution List) Subject: Dear: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project PERC Project No. 11393 Initial Consultation Document (ICD) The City of Saxman, Alaska, is proposing to construct a small hydroelectric generating plant near Mahoney Lake, about 5 miles northeast of Ketchikan. Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 4.38, requires an Applicant proposing to develop a hydroelectric project to consult with appropriate resource agencies, affected Native American groups, and the public prior to submitting a license application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). On behalf of the City of Saxman, HDR Engineering, Inc. is hereby initiating the first stage of consultation associated with the above-referenced project. The enclosed consultation document, provides a description of the proposed project configuration, including conceptual design, potential impacts, existing data, and an outline of the studies that are planned. It will be the basis for this first stage of consultation. A joint meeting will be held in Ketchikan within the next 30 to 60 days with the agencies, affected Native American groups, and the general public to further discuss this project and to receive preliminary comments regarding the information contained in the document. We are specifically seeking your input on the adequacy of the existing information for assessing resource values, predicting impacts, and developing mitigation plans. In accordance with FERC regulations, we request that your written comments regarding the proposed studies and study plans that the Applicant expects to perform be submitted within 60 days after the joint meeting. You will receive a letter in the near future confirming the location and date of the meeting as well as an agenda. If you have any questions or need additional copies of the lCD, please contact me or Jack Snyder, the project manager, at (206) 453-1523. We look forward to your participation in this consultation process. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. JYl; &1aU~ J Sti rr;tu:_ !J'a_6· Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services cc. Susan Dickinson, City of Saxman Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Jack Snyder, HD R Engineering John Braislin, Betts, Patterson, & Mines Don Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 DISTRIBUTION LIST U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Office P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Ms. Tamra Faris Supervisor-Protected Resources Management Division National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99602-1668 Mr. Nevin Holmbert U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 3000 Vintage Blvd. Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801 National Park Service Alaska Region 2825 Gamble Street Anchorage, AK 99503 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. Forest Service Region 10: Alaska Region Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628 Mr. David Rittenhouse U. S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Laver U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sealevel Drive, Room 205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Frank Rue, Director Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 Ms. Lorraine Marshall Alaska Office of Management and Budget Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box 110030 431 N. Franklin Juneau, AK 99811-0030 Ms. Joan Hughes Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Tom Stevenson Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Bridget Stearns Ketchikan Public Library 629 Dock St. Ketchikan, AK 99901 The Honorable Alaire Stanton Mayor, City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jack Pearson City Manager City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 The Honorable Walter Hickel Governor, State of Alaska P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811-0001 Mr. Dick Emennan Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 W. Fourth A venue, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Edgar Blatchford Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 W. Fourth Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Riley Snell Alaska Industrial Development Agency 480 W. Tudor Anchorage, AK 99503 Ms. Judith Bittner Alaska Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 107001 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 Mr. John Dunker Alaska Department of Natural Resources/Water 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Affairs Anchorage Regional Office 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 10: Bothell Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, SW Bothell, W A 98021-9796 Mr. Bill Geary Alaska Department of Natural Resources Parks & Outdoor Recreation 400 Willoughby A venue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Mr. Arthur Martin Regional Office Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1340 Portland, OR 97204 Ms. Lois Cashell Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 N. Capitol St. NE Washington, DC 20426 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P. 0. Box 3-8000 Juneau, AK 99802 Tongass Conservation Society P. 0. Box 3377 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 419 Sixth Street, Suite 328 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Kate Tessar Alaska Services Group P.O. Box 22754 Juneau, AK 99802 Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 22151 Juneau, AK 99802 Alaska Public Utilities Commission 1016 W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 99501 The Honorable Jim Carlton Mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Mike Rody Borough Manager Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Munsterman Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jim Boetberg Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Segovia Ketchikan District Ranger U.S. Forest Service 3031 Tongass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Bob Martin, Director Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrification Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, AK 99821 -~~~~~ lWf ~~~~~~ c! :_·:~-¥ __ ~ ~~~~~\h~~VER. N. OR i D r'~--~-:~---::? . ..,) - 1 r ; .>~ n, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OFFICE. OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ~ ~ ~ F . w!i · MAR ? 911M 'L~J /i.....,..... ''" -~.,j "'.;.,.:..~::"· iNC. · ..... .._ •.• _ ,· • .:-.:._·_..~·:--=~:1'>=.~.-. .• D SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE' 3601 "C' STREET, SUITE 370 ANCHORAGE. PU.SKA 119503-6930 PH: (907) 561-6131/FAX: (907) 561-6134 if CENTRAL OFFICE P.O. BOX 110030 JUNEAU,AJ.ASKA Sl9811-4300 PH: (907) 465-3562/FAX: (907) 465-3075 0 PIPEIJNE eooRI)IHATOR'S OFFICE 411 WEST 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 2C ANCHORAGE, PU.SKA 99501·2343 PH: (907) 27N5941FAX: (907) 272..o690 01-A35LH Mr Micheal V. Stimac HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, NE Bellevue, WA 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac March 23, 1994 SUBJECT: MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECr FERC Project# 11393 Initial Consu1ta.tion-STATE ID #AK9403-33JJ The Division of. Governmental Coordination received the information that you submitted for the initial consultation review of the Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project. -The site for the proposed project is approximately 5 _miles northeast of Ketchikan near Mahoney Lake. As the process for obtaining a FERC license requires extensive preapplication assistance,. this review is informational in nature. The pmpose of this review is for the reviewers to provide you with information about the resource values of the project site, the potential for the project to cause environmental impacts, and to help identify if further studies are necessary. The information provided during this review should assist you in developing the FERC application. A consistency review per the Alaska Coastal Management Program will occur when all permit applications and public notices reqUired for the project are received. When FERC officially accepts the hydroelectric application, a public notice will be issued by that agency. As you know, the second consultation stage and informational review will occur before the State's consistency review commences. The purpose of the second consultation review will be for reviewers to comment on how their concerns were addressed and to identify permits. The enclosed project information sheet includes a State ID #AK9403-33JJ. Please refer to this number in any future correspondence regarding this review. Appropriate materials have been distributed to participants for their review and comments. Review milestones are also indicated on the enclosed project information sheet. These deadlines were set in accordance with FERC requirementS. @ printed on recycled paper by C. D. cc: Packet Distribution List Susan Cantor, EPA, Anchorage Nevin Holmberg, FWS, Juneau Steven Pennoyer, NMFS, Juneau Glen Justis, COE, Anchorage Sincerely ~ ~ Christine Valentine Project Review Coordinator ** PACKET DISTRIBUTION LIST Joan Hughes, DEC, Juneau Lana Shea, DFG, Juneau Jack Gustafson, DFG, Ketchikan Nate Johnson, DOT/PF, Juneau Elizaveta Shadura, DNR, Juneau John Dunker, DNR/DOW, Juneau Bill Garry, DNR/DPOR, Juneau Judith Bittner, DNR/SHPO, Anchorage Gary Munsterman, Ketchikan Gateway Borough The Honorable Alaire Stanton, Mayor, Ketchikan The Honorable Jim Carlton, Mayor, KGB Su!:.o.. t'\ a i c:...\:::...i ¥'\SO() J c·~ o-F s~VV\0...1"\ The Initial Consultation Document for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project was distributed directly to reviewers. If you have not received a copy of the document, you may obtain one from the applicant or DGC. March 31, 1994 (See Attached List) Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 11393 Joint Agency/Native America.nJPublic Meetings Dear Sir/Madam: This letter is to confirm the joint agency/Native American/public meetings which will be held on Tuesday, April 26, 1994, to discuss development of the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. The Initial Consultation Document (lCD), which was sent to you via letter dated March 16, 1994, describes the proposed project and studies that are currently planned. At the April 26th meetings, we would like to discuss the proposed project, potential environmental impacts, review the lCD, and discuss the data to be obtained and studies to be conducted as part of the FERC consultation process. As required under 18 CFR 4.38, a public notice will be published regarding the meetings. Day and evening sessions will be conducted. The day session will be held from 10 am to 12 noon in the conference room of the Westmark-Cape Fox Lodge located at 800 Venetia Way in Ketchikan, Alaska. The evening session will be held from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the same location. Attached is the agenda for the meetings. If any agency staff want to visit the site, we will conduct a site visit the afternoon of April 26 or the morning of April 27, weather permitting. Please let us know if you want to attend the site visit. Please call me or Jack Snyder at (206) 453-1523 if you have any questions or comments concerning the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, the April 26th meetings, or the attached meeting agenda. We look forward to seeing you at the meetings. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ;VIP:~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services cc: Susan Dickinson-City of Saxman Doug Campbell-Cape Fox Corp. John Braislin-Betts, Patterson & Mines Don Clarke-Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn Jack Snyder-HDR bee: Debby Howe-HDR Lisa Fortney-HDR Mark Dalton-HDR Neil Macdonald-HDR HDR File 8.4.1/B.J.O.C'~, John Morsel-NES Enclosure HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Chris Campbell-cRS Telephone 206 453-1523 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 JOINT AGENCY !NATIVE AMERICANIPUBUC :MEETINGS APRIL 26, 1994 10:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m. AND 7:00 p.m. -9:00 p.m. AGENDA I. INTRODUCTION ll. UCENSING PROCESS m. PROJECT DESCRIPTION IV. REVIEW OF STUDY PLANS Water Quality and Quantity Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Wildlife and Botanical Resources Historic and Archaeological Resources Recreational Resources Aesthetic Resources Erosion and Sediment Control Plan V. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS NOTE: Both meetings are open to agency personnel and the public. The morning session, however, will be primarily directed toward agency matters and concerns whereas the evening session will be oriented toward the general public. DISTRIBUTION LIST U.S. Anny Cotps of Engineers Alaska District Office P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Ms. Tamra Faris Supervisor-Protected Resources Management Division National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region P.O. Box.21668 Juneau, AK 99602-1668 Mr. Nevin Holmbert U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 3000 Vintage Blvd. Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801 National Par:k Service Alaska Region 2825 Gamble Street Anchorage, AK 99503 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. Forest Service Region 10: Alaska Region Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628 Mr. David Rittenhouse U. S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Laver U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sealevel Drive, Room 205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Frank Rue, Director Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 Ms. Lorraine Marshall Alaska Office of Management and Budget Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box 110030 431 N. Franklin Juneau, AK 99811-0030 Ms. Joan Hughes Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Tom Stevenson Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Bridget Stearns Ketchikan Public Library 629 Dock St. Ketchikan, AK 99901 The Honorable Alaire Stanton Mayor, City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jack Pearson City Manager City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 The Honorable Walter Hickel Governor, State of Alaska P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811-0001 Mr. Dick Emennan Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 W. Fourth Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Edgar Blatchford Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 W. Fourth Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Riley Snell Alaska Industrial Development Agency 480 W. Thdor Anchorage, AK 99503 Ms. Judith Bittner Alaska Department of Natural Resources State Historic PreseiVation Office P.O. Box 107001 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 Mr. John Dunker Alaska Department of Natural Resources/Water 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Affairs Anchorage Regional Office 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 10: Bothell Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 Mr. Bill Geary Alaska Department of Natural Resources Parks & Outdoor Recreation 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Mr. Arthur Martin Regional Office Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1340 Portland, OR 97204 Ms. Lois Cashen Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 N. Capitol St. NE Washington, DC 20426 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, AK 99802 Tongass ConseiVation Society P.O. Box 3377 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Southeast Alaska ConseiVation Council 419 Sixth Street, Suite 328 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Kate Tessar Alaska SeiVices Group P.O. Box 22754 Juneau, AK 99802 1 Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 22151 Juneau, AK 99802 Alaska Public Utilities Commission 1016 W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 99501 The Honorable Jim Carlton Mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Mike Rody Borough Manager Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Munsterman Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jim Boetberg Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Segovia Ketchikan District Ranger U.S. Forest Service 3031 Tongass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Bob Martin, Director Tlingit -Haida Regional Electrification Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, AK 99821 KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES 2930 10NGASS AVENUE I<ETCHIKAN. ALASKA 99901 TELEPHONE 907·225-1000 MUNICIPALLY OWNED ELECTRIC TELEPHONE WATER April 1, 1994 FAl< ~"l7-225·)BII• .. " .. ~ .;-rl?"f-, ..... . i} 1 • d ;, :, au 'I "'· 8 '-~·· APR- Mr. Michael V. Stimac Manager, Ucensing & Environmental Services HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac: ~ ... __,. I have received a copy of the letter and correspondence between you and the Alaska Office of Management and Budget. Please be advised that Ketchikan Public Utilities is the only listed Intervener in the Mahoney Lake FERC filing and as such is entitled to all correspondence regarding this application and all other processes. Your omission of KPU in this correspondence, I'm sure, is simply an oversight and we would appreciate being copied on all further correspondence and on any other past correspondence that you inadvertently may have failed to provide us with a copy. We simply wish to remain fully informed of the project as we will certainly have a vested interest in this project and its effect on the community of Ketchikan. Thank you for your cooperation. TWS:nll Sincerely, KETCHIKAN PUBUC UTIUTIES ~.~ Thomas W. Stevenson General Manager cc: Mayor Alaire Stanton 007·P3.1 Mr. Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Ms. Susan Dickinson, City of Saxman WAI..TE:R .J. HICKE:L. COI:lVE:RNOFI APR\ 5- ~ ·,~·~ ; ' ~l~\J .•... ~ ~: \ __ : .-..J . _.... ,.,........, STATE OF .A..LASKA OF"F"!CE OF" THE CiOVERNOR J't!'NBAU Mr. Michael V. Stimac, Manager licensing and Environmental Services HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac: April 8, 1994 P. 0. Box 110001 Jun .. eu, A Ieske 99811-0001 (907) 495-3500 ~~ Governor Hickel is in receipt of your invitation to attend the public meetings on the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project to be held in Ketchikan on April 26, 1994. Although the Governor is unable to participate, I have been advised that a representative from the Department of Community and Regional Affairs will be attending to represent the State of Alaska. Thank you for the invitation, and best wishes for a successful event. Sincerely, ~~~ Special Assistant for Scheduling eel enc: Commissioner Edgar Blatchford $~&~~ ~·~· &~&$[K\& DEPARTMENTOFNATURALRESOURCES DIVISION OF PARK$ AND OUTDOOR RECREATION omc. of Hlatory and Archaeology April 13, 1994 File No.: 3130-1R FERC Subject: Project No. 11393, Mahoney Lake Hydro H' Initial consultation Document Michael v. Stimac, Manager Licensing & Environmental Services HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Ave., N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac; WALTER!· HICKEL, GOVERNOR 3601 C STREET, Suite 1278 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 PHONE: (907) 762-2622 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 107001 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 9951().7001 -· '-:= .. , .._ ·~·· . ... ,,.,.;,.·~"""'~"'-"··~~ 'APR t"99Jf ':. ~ ~ ... -. ..,.·.~-....... ~~~~ •.-..::: Thank you for the opportunity to collllD.ent on the referenced document. It is our opinion that the study tasks described on pgs. 35-36. will be adequate to identify any significant historic and archaeological resources in the area of potential effect of the project. Please contact Tim Smith at (907) 762-2625 if there are any questions or if we can be of further assistance. geA~ Judith E. Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer JEB:tas . '.,· I @ printed on recycled paper by C. D. ...... ·"" Aprll1S, 1994 Mr. Thomas W. Stevenson Geneml Manager Ketcbtbn Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FBRC No. 11393 Consultation and Coii"eSD011dence Dear Mr. Stevenson: We are in receipt of your letter pi April 1, 1994, regarding KPU's request for copies of agency correspondence related tO:Pe Mahoney Lake Project. We want to assure you that the City of Saxman wishes to keep KPU fuD.y infotmed of project activities during an phases of the development effort, and it is, our policy to provide project infcmnation to KPU tbroughout the licensing process. To confirm our understanding of PERC's regulations pertaining to a permittee;s obligations to an :intelvenor, we contacted Michael Strzelecki, Fedeml Energy Regulatory Commission (PERC) Project Manager for tbis·. project. Mr. Stl7.elecld confinned tbat the intervention process applies to a F.ERC proceeding, such as the preliminary permit application proc:eeding. Because the preliminary permit11as ·been issued, the proceecJing is now closed~ therefore, there is no further obligation to intervenors by the permittee. As noted in Article 11 of the F<'liminary permit, bowever, •t~~e permittee sball, during the teDn of the permit, consult with~ Ketcfn"kan Public utilities• and as stated earlier, we fully intend to fulfill this requiremeat. It is our DOJDJal procedure to provide parties of tecord, which includes KPU, with copies of aD. agency couesponde.nce in tbe F"mal Consul1ation Document and again in the Dmft and Pinal I..icense Applications. 'Ibis is the procedm:e we bave followed on other projects and iDtend to use for Mahoney I...ake. 1bus, KPU wiD. receive copies of an agency correspondeJiC:e at the specific times DOted. Mr. Strz.elecld also verified that the permittee is not IeqUired to fumisb copies of the FBRC 6-month progress reports to KPU. However, again in the interest of maintainmg good commUDicati.ous, we will man the progress reports to KPU when they are submitted to the FBRC. HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite1200 " Telephone\ 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 206 453-1523 Mr. Thomas W. Stevenson AprillS, 1994 Pagel Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. Please do not hesitate to contact us or Michael Strzelecki of FERC (202-219-2827) if you have any questions about this process. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. 771/~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing and Environmental Services cc. Susan Dickinson, City of Saxman Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Michael Strzelecki, FERC Jack Snyder, HDR Debby Howe, HDR Lisa Fortney, HDR File Mahoney B.4.1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF ALASKA, ) ) ss: Gateway Borough ) \h. rna ta.o.. rt\ I &J Cttffk._being duly sworn says: That she is a representative of the Ketchikan Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Ketchikan, in said Borough and State, and that the publication of which the annexed is a printed and true copy, was published in said newspaper at least once a ~and every cAa. A.\ for~ successive d QL{ s commencing on the ( ai:'b day of , tlpcl \ , 199__:±_., and ending on the C{ ~day of A:pc, \ '199_:i__. I /} \ Li;t!J1t1 t7 g w Lrb .. l/Yi/1 Llfi~ Subscribed and sworn tp before me this /~day of ~.~~£ ' ~~ Notary Public for Alaska i \ My Commission Expire~~ /..{t ff~~ PUBUCNOTICB Notice is. hereby giv_en that two public meetings i will be held .on April 26, 1994, to/resent fuforma- tion an r.eceive com- ments regarding the devel- opment of the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Pro- ject, Federal Energy Regu- latory · Commission (FBRC) · Project No. ; 11393. 'rhe proposed pro-1 ject will be located ap- proximately 5 miles north- east of Ketchikan, bet-, ween Upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes. ; The proposed project will consiSt of a lake tap ap-. proximately 75 feet 6elow . the surface on Upper Ma-: honey Lake, a se~;"ies of I tunnels to convey water from Upper Mahoney Lake to a semi-under-· ground powerhouse struc-! ture.located above Lower ; Mahoney Lake. The pro-l ject will be rated at 9.6 i megawatts (capacity to i supply approximately • 3,000 homes). The pro-J ject design will utilize nat-1 ural features and will not ~ require the construction ! of adam. . f The meetings will provide ' .tJ:\~,..oP.liP,QJ;ttt~j~y)t<:t ~js,; CJ.lSS t e prOJ:>OSed prQ-i ject; potentia.I environ-• menta.I impacts, and re- view data to be obtained and studies to be conduct- ed as part of the FBRC consultation · process. Two sessions will be held. The day session will be from 10 a.m. to 12 noon at the W estmark- Cape Fox Hotel, 800 Ve- netia Way, Ketchikan, Alaska. Tne evening ses- sion will from 7 p.m. to -9 p.m. at the same. location. Further information may be obtained by contact- ing: Susan D1ckenson, City of Saxman, Route 2, Box 1, Ketchikan, AK 99901 or Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation, P.O. Box 8558, Ketchi- kan, AK 99901, (907)225- 5163. -. Publish: April6, 9, 1994. No.6092 NORTHERN ECOLOGICAL •-=••1 SERVICES Division of Sport Fish May 4, 1994. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, AK 99802-2000 Attn: Coordinator of Scientific Collecting Permits Dear Sirs: -9199.4 Attached is an application for a scientific collecting permit relating to studies of aquatic habitats in the Mahoney Lake drainage near Ketchikan. The aquatic habitat investigation is part of an overall environmental study program required by Federal Energy Regulatory commission licensing procedures for the proposed Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. A brief study plan is attached for your information. Northern Ecological Services is a subcontractor to HDR Engineering, Inc. We would appreciate it if you could expedite the permit process so we can have permits in hand by early June. Thank you. cc. Debby Howe [_cel}j~/k wJJ ohn w. Morsell senior Biologist HDR Engineering Inc. 17120 Tideview Drive • Anchorage, Alaska 99516 • (907) 345-4944 Submit in duplicate to Alaska Dept. of FiSh and Game, Juneau, Alaska ALASKA DEPARl'HENT OF FISH AND GAME APPLICATION for PERMIT to take, possess, hold alive, import into or export from Alaska BIRDS OR THEIR EGGS, MAMMALS (except historically domestic birds, their eggs, and mammals) and FISH AND THEIR EGGS (except goldfish and decorative tropical fish)·FOR SCIENTIFIC OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES • I, .hlll\ M()r-,t~ u ' of /t-ll~ Iilwlw bt. Alf\Moott)JQI If<. ~~.s- name mailing address representing t/a,..~en, £tt{~ltJ Sttv! ttl name of organization or institution hereby make application for a permit to --~~~a~Ar~e~----------------------------- specify take, possess, hold alive, export, import, band, etc. the following species of ________ ~~~~~~~~~~------~--~~-----------------specifY birds, mammals, fish SPECIES s~r.~<~ye. sa:(""'o"' ~' c.uzPAJ(u~ ~~ .rJA/IMtiA (JIM2wilu) 0& lly (h t-Jtvs Moiiu·-nAf tH~f ~lla_~lW-±v-~ .... ~ NUMBER !::li 2..tJ1) ~ 1-tJ:!J. lliJ. SPECIES NUMBER ~ during the period --~~~~~~f~----------------to 0rd:t ~er-' 19li. I wish to obtain, the above by means of ttatk. ,.rtJ&d 1 !MIM.MdWZ ±tA~ ._fuJttl£tfc/4t:1 ~ r ().~\ l ~ traps, snares, gun , etc. from or in the vicinity of /ha''"!'f L'J.h d~tal~a~t ±t-i bsJtt·y h Gue-tt IV\l\f \ ~U.t" (;{~t\h\lk~IA I (over) 11-59 (10/70) I wish to delegate authority to conduct activities outlined in this application to N/J1 J The purpose of the activities for which a permit is being requested is~tiU/Je ~flrlu~te~ iwt.ot-tM,J..l,"' ~tr t"9~o.rJ M.,~."'ty L.AAt HyJitfJeftdt•\c ~~ ~i ptrLMjifj\;\J .~ /j tPA,JS)bJ -t.y\ult-fl\4,14\w/a ( fi.WA{ystJ-od \f.\ ~ l I f.M\4)9\:dDk , llkiA\~ : final disposition of mammals, birds or their eggs, or fish or their eggs will be ~t±u..-~\1 t>J(ut. _ti fi.t A,l,_J. fl~ U.Afrd·"'t. ___ _ ~-------------------------------------------------,-----------------------y---------------------------------- I certify that all statements entered on this application are true, that I will abide by all conditions and restrictions of a permit if issued, and promise to submit a report of activities carried out under terms of such permit within 10 days of its expiration date; I further recognize that such permit, if issued, does not authorize collection, possession, or transportation of migratory birds or their nests or eggs except as permitted by, and in conjunction with, a valid permit which may be issued by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unless applicant is himself an official of the institution or organization involved, appli- cation must also be signed by such official. Signature of official Signature ,, F x ·=o , ,v v • -x '" : D.BONEY LAKE HYDROELECTIUC PROJECT FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES STDDY PLAN INTRODUCTION A hydroelectric facility is currently proposed for the Mahoney Lakes drainage, near Ketchikan, Alaska. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing procedures require that an environmental analysis be completed as part of the project development process. Initial planning and consultation have identified issues relating to fish resources and have resulted in a recommendation that studies of fish resources and fish habitats are needed to provide input to project design and mitigation. FISH POPULATION AND HABITAT UTILIZATION SURVEYS GENERAL METHODOLOGY Because of the varying physical characteristics within the drainage and the variety of fish species utilizing the area, several different techniques will be used to sample andjor observe fish. Techniques may include backpack electroshocker, minnow traps baited with preserved salmon eggs, beach seine, angling, and visual observations (aerial, ground and boat based). The shocker to be employed will be a Smith Root Model 12 with programmable wave form. It is recognized that shocking may be only marginally successful in the low conductivity water of the Mahoney drainage. No shocking will occur in areas where fish of any species are known to be spawning. All fish captured during the study will be identified to species, measured, and returned alive to the place of capture. The study program will emphasize qualitative description of fish presence and habitat usage. However, whenever possible within the context of the overall program, quantitative results will be obtained. For example, if a high density of rearing salmonids is found in a stream reach, it may be possible to estimate number per habitat unit using appropriate capture and population estimation techniques. Visual counts of adult spawners will be carefully conducted to maximize accuracy. UPPER MAHONEY CREEK (FALLS CREEK) Fish abundance and utilization will be surveyed in Upper Mahoney Creek from its mouth upstream to the major waterfall two times per year -June and September. Emphasis during early summer investigations will be on a determination of value to rearing juvenile salmonids. The fall surveys will emphasize determination of use by adult salmon spawners. LOWER MAHONEY LAKE The general utilization of fish species in Lower Mahoney Lake will be surveyed in June and September. Emphasis will be on determining the use of the lake for rearing by salmonids including sockeye salmon, Dolly Varden, and cutthroat trout. Use of the lake by resident adult Dolly Varden and trout will also be investigated. LOWER MAHONEY CREEK Fish abundance and utilization will be surveyed in Lower Mahoney Creek from its mouth upstream to Lower Mahoney Lake two times per year -June and early September. Emphasis during the June survey will be determination of value to rearing salmonids. Emphasis during the fall survey will be on a determination of value to adult salmon spawners. SOCKEYE SALMON BEACH SPAWNDIG D1 LOWER IIABOREY LAKE The abundance, location, and depth of lake spawning sockeye salmon will be carefully investigated with emphasis on the western end of the lake near the outlet of Upper Mahoney Creek. The timing of the survey(s) will be critical. Observations of Lower Mahoney Creek in early September will provide insight into the movements of adult salmon, and survey timing for detection of lake spawners will be based on the results of these observations as well as input from local observers. It is likely that the peak of spawning will occur in mid to late September. Methods to be utilized will emphasize boat-based visual observations but will also include aerial observations. Since spawning is reported to occur in water as deep as 20 feet, the option of SCUBA diving will also be considered if needed. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SOCXEYE SAlMON EGG INCUBATION Information obtained from the temperature modelling and analysis study component will be combined with the results of the fish studies to provide an indication of the kinds of effects that the project might have on fish productivity. Emphasis will be on the potential effects of altered temperature regimes on sockeye salmon eggs incubating in lake gravels and on the kinds of mitigation measures that could be employed to alleviate such effects. May 10, 1994 Ms. Lois Cashen, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 N. Capitol Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FBRC Project No. 11393 Audio Tapes of Joint Agency/Native American/Public Meetings Dear Ms. Cashen: " Enclosed are two cassette tapes which are the audio recordings of the Stage I Consultation joint agency/Native American/public meetings that were held on April 26, 1994, for the above- referenced project. They are being submitted in accordance with 18 CFR 4.38(b)(3). Both morning and evening sessions are included. Additional copies of these recordings are available in our office, upon request, to any resource agency or Indian tribe. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. /77/~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services MVS/laf cc: Veronica Slajer, City of Saxman Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Co:rporation Emesta Ballard, Cape Fox Co:rporation John Braislin, Betts, Patterson & Mines Don Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, & Quinn HDR File, B.4.1/f3.1?- HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 May 13, 1994 (See Attached List) Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Dear: Enclosed are the minutes from the April 26, 1994, initial consultation meetings for the above-referenced project. As a reminder, resource agencies are requested to submit their written comments regarding the Initial Consultation Document to HDR as soon as possible but no later than June 25, 1994. We look forward to your continued participation in this project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ?%/~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Setvices Enclosure cc: Veronica Slajer, City of Saxman Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Co:rporation Emesta Ballard, Cape Fox Corporation Don Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, & Quinn HDR File, B.4.1 HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 \ j t DISTRJBUTION LIST U.S. Anny Cotps of Engineers Alaska District Office P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Ms. Tamra Faris Supervisor-Protected Resources Management Division National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99iJ2-1668 etn. Mr. Nevin Holmbert U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 3000 Vintage Blvd. Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801 National Park: Service Alaska Region 2825 Gamble Street Anchorage, AK 99503 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. Forest Service Region 10: Alaska Region Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628 Mr. David Rittenhouse U. S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Laver U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sealevel Drive, Room 205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Frank Rue, Director Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 Ms. Lorraine Marshall Alaska Office of Management and Budget Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box 110030 431 N. Franklin Juneau, AK 99811-0030 Ms. Joan Hughes Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Tom Stevenson Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 . Ms. Bridget Steams Ketchikan Public Library 629 Dock St. Ketchikan, AK 99901 The Honorable A1aire Stanton Mayor, City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jack Pearson City Manager City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 The Honorable Walter Hickel Governor, State of Alaska P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811-0001 Mr. Dick Emerman Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 W. Fourth Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Edgar Blatchford Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 W. Fourth Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Riley Snell Alaska Industrial Development Agency 480 W. Tudor Anchorage, AK 99503 Ms. Judith Bittner Alaska Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 107001 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 Mr. John Dunker ·Alaska Department of Natural Resources/Water 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Affairs Anchorage Regional Office 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 10: Bothell Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 Mr. Bill Geary Alaska Department of Natural Resources Parks & Outdoor Recreation 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Mr. Arthur Martin Regional Office Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1340 Portland, OR 97204 Ms. Lois Cashell Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 N. Capitol St. NB Washington, DC 20426 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, AK 99802 Tongass Conservation Society P.O. Box 3377 Ketchikan, AK 99901 . Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 419 Sixth Street, Suite 328 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Kate Tessar Alaska Services Group P.O. Box 22754 Juneau, AK 99802 j 1 • Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 22151 Juneau, AK 99802 Alaska Public Utilities Commission 1016 W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 99501 The Honorable Jim Carlton Mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Mike Rody Borough Manager Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Munsterman Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jim Boetberg Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Segovia Ketchikan District Ranger U.S. Forest Service 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Bob Martin, Director ningit-Haida Regional Electrification Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, AK 99821 Ms. Marlene Finley Ketchikan Ranger District U. S. Forest Service 3031 Tongass Ave. Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Don Ranne Ketchikan Ranger District U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Hoffman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, Room 205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Rich Trimble Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Mary Klugherz McDowell Group 320 Dock St., #201 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Phyllis Yelte Assembly Member Ketchikan Gateway Borough Box 958 Ward Cove, AK 99901 Ms. Barnes Alaska Forest Association 111 Stedman, Suite 200 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Christine Valentine Alaska Office of Management and Budget Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box 110030 431 N. Franklin Juneau, AK 99811-0030 :MEETING MINUTES h:\hyd\mahooey\ltapl \04Uimfa.mi.a PROJECT: SUBJECT: DATE: PLACE: ATTENDEES: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11393 Joint Agency/Native Ameri.can/Public Meetings, Morning Session April 26, 1994 Ketchikan, Alaska Susan Dickinson, Veronica Slajer-City of Saxman; Jim Carlton-Ketchikan Gateway Borough; Rich Trimble-Ketchikan Public Utilities; Steve Hoffman, Jack Gustafson-ADF&G; Don Ranne, Marlene Finley-USFS; Mary Klugherz-McDowell Group; Don Clarke-Wilkenson, Knauer, Barker & Quinn; Doug Campbell, Bmesta Ballard-Cape Fox CoipOra.tion; John Morsell-Northem Ecological Services; Debby Howe, Mark Dalton, Vickie Bakker, Mike Stimac, Jack Snyder, Lisa Fortney-HDR Engineering. The meeting began at 10: 10 am. A handout package (copy attached) and the Initial Consultation Document (lCD) were available for attendees. Doug Campbell welcomed everyone and introduced Jack Snyder, the project manager for the Mahoney Lake Project from HDR Engineering. Jack Snyder explained the protocol for the meeting to comply with FERC regulations (e.g., audio recording, identifying yourself before speaking, etc.) Jack Snyder summarized how the proposed project would operate. He described the project design and its location between Upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes. He explained that the natural topography of the land drops 1,800 ft. in less than a mile, making it an ideal place for a hydroelectric site. He presented a topographic map of the area and pointed out where the existing logging road is and how it will be extended south around the lower lake. The transmission line will be buried from the powerhouse to the existing logging road and then continue as an overhead line to the Swan Lake Intertie. Jack Snyder explained that most of the project would be underground. An upper tunnel would be located about 80 ft. below the lake surface (lake tap) and would convey water to a vertical shaft. This would drop 1,200 ft. and continue to a lower tunnel which would run to the powerhouse. A small house will be situated at the top of the vertical shaft. The only other visible features of the project would be the powerhouse, access road, and overhead portion of the transmission line. The powerhouse location was chosen because of the impassable barrier to upstream migration of fish. Jack explained the operation of the impulse turbines, that they are not submerged but rotate in the air. Jack Snyder discussed the hydrology of the project area and stated that 12 years of actual recorded data was obtained for Mahoney Creek. Two gages were located near the project; one near the upper creek and one on the lower creek. They were used to simulate a long-term flow record. Fifteen percent of the time the flow is greater than 85 cfs. 1 Iack explained how the upper lake can be :raised and lowered to meet power demands. He discussed Ketchikan's energy requirements and savings in diesel fuel if the Mahoney Lake Project is developed. He discussed the anticipated project schedule. A videotape of aerial footage for the project area was shown. A question was asked regarding ice on the upper lake. Iack Snyder responded that it was about 2 to 3 feet thick and that ice formation will be verified when the studies are conducted. Mike Stimac described the FBRC Licensing process. He stated that the preliminary permit was received in Iune 1993 and expires in May 31, 1996. A license application must be submitted to the FBRC by May 31, 1996. He also talked about the three-stage consultation requirements. From the date of this meeting, the agencies have 60 days to respond with their comments and concems on the project and the proposed studies discussed in the lCD. HDR should receive written agency comments by Iune 25, 1994. Mike described the required exhibits in a license application. Veronica Slajer (City of Saxman) asked when the 60-day clock begins. Mike Stimac replied that it started today and would end on Iune 25th. Vickie Bakker discussed the proposed water quality studies. She explained she would like to receive agency input on the proposed studies. The water quality studies would include continuous temperature monitoring and monthly water quality sampling. Data analysis would be conducted to relate temperatures at the intake and tailrace to predict temperatures in spawning gravels in the lower lake downstream of the project area. Questions: None. Iohn Morsell discussed the proposed fishery studies. He stated that he had older information pertaining to the fisheries of Mahoney lake and that if anyone knew of any recent studies, the newer information would be appreciated. He explained which fish species inhabit the lake and creek and that sockeye salmon spawn along the westem shore of Lower Mahoney Lake. The proposed studies would update and expand on the existing data. Two field visits are anticipated in Iune and in September to coincide with sockeye spawning. Impacts to these spawning gravels will be determined and suitable mitigation measures developed. Iack Snyder asked Iohn to discuss Upper Mahoney lake. Iohn explained that previous documentation showed that no fish exist in Upper Mahoney Lake and that fish cannot migrate to the upper lake from the lower lake because of the waterfalls. Questions: None. Mark Dalton discussed the proposed wildlife and botanical studies. Mark stated that he is looking to the agencies to help update existing data. Aerial photos will be reviewed and 2 preliminary office-based wetland mapping wiD be conducted. A field smvey wiD be conducted in mid-June and will include ground truthing, habitat mapping, and wetland mapping. If necessary, bald eagle nesting survey and other bird surveys wiD be conducted. In regard to permitting, a stream crossing Title 16 permit and Co:rps of Engineers permit are anticipated. Questions: None. Lisa Fortney discussed the proposed archaeological and bistorical studies. She stated that a cultural study of the Mahoney Lake area was conducted in 1981 by the Army Co:rps of Engineers and conclusions from that study indicated that there would be no impacts to cultural resources from the project as it was proposed at that time. Correspondence from the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) also indicated concurrence with this finding. There were no known sites eligible for status on the National Register of Historic Places. Two cultural sites are located near the project-one is a petroglyph located in a cove east of the lower lake and the other is an abandoned mine located near the mouth of Mahoney Creek. Cultural Resources Consulting will conduct a new cultural study to update and verify the findings of the previous report. This wiD entail performing a litemture search of the previous use of lands around the project area. The SHPO will be contacted for any additional information of known cultural sites within the area as well as the Cape Fox Corporation. 1be National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service wiD also be consulted for any concerns they may have in relation to cultural properties and to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. An archaeological field survey will be conducted to identify any evidence of historical or archaeological significance. A Draft Cultural Assessment Report wiD be developed from the results of the cultural survey. Questions: None. Debby Howe discussed the proposed recreation studies. She stated that existing recreation resources would be evaluated, agencies would be consulted and data collected. 1be USPS Plan, USFS ROS, and recreation inventories would be reviewed. 1be project is not located within any National Wild and Scenic River Systems, National Trails Systems or any wilderness areas designated under the Wilderness Act. Any proposed recreation plans or future policies for the area will be reviewed to evaluate future recreation potential. Recreation demand wiD be estimated based on past trends, population and demographic forecasts. Recreation opportunities will be evaluated to see if the demand am be met. 1be project impacts wiD be assessed. Debby stated that there are no recreation facilities at the project site. A recreation mitigation plan wiD be developed if it is determined that the project would impact potential recreation opportunities and that there is a demand for recreation in the project area. Questions: None at this time. (Some recreation-related questions were asked later.) Debby Howe discussed the proposed aesthetic studies. She explained how the existing visual conditions will be evaluated by using the USPS Visual Management System to describe the natural visual character of the project area. Impacts from construction activities and project features wiD be determined and assessed. Most of the project is underground and the most visible features would be the access road and the transmission line. Impacts from reducing the 3 flows over the waterfall between Upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes will be assessed. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to aesthetic resources will be developed and could include architectural designs and landscaping. Veronica Slajer (City of Saxman) asked if there would any sounds from the powerhouse. Debby replied that there would not be any noticeable noise and that noise studies are not proposed. Mary K.lughen (McDowell Group) asked if recreation as it relates to tourism would be reviewed. Debby replied that yes, tourism would be considered during the recreation studies. Marlene Finley (USFS) stated that there is some existing recreation use in the project area. Debby Howe agreed that there is some passive recreation usage in the area, but no developed facilities exist. Lisa Fortney discussed the proposed land use studies. She stated that the two land owners are the USFS and the Cape Fox C01poration. The upper portion of the project would be located on USFS land and that portion includes the Jake tap, the vertical shaft, and most of the tunnels. Cape Fox owns the area around the powerhouse, access road, and the tnmsmission line route. The project would be reviewed for consistency with the Tongass National Forest Plan, the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Plan, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Coastal Zone Management Program, and any other plans. A Special Use Permit Application will be submitted to the USFS concurrent with the Final License Application to the FERC for use of federal lands for power generation. lack Snyder discussed the proposed erosion and sediment control studies. He reiterated that most of the project will be buried and that erosion and sediment control measures will include spoils from tunnel excavation and that spoils areas will be designated. lack asked if there were any other questions. There were none. lack explained that the results of these studies will make up the Exhibit E of the license application. The agency comment period ends on June 25th and HDR would appreciate receiving a comment letter from an of the agencies. Even if the agency bas no concerns at this time, a letter stating "No comment" would be appreciated. The study p1ans will be fina)jzed by incorporating any agency comments and distributed again after June 25. lack stated that a site visit was required by the FERC regu]ations. Representatives from Alaska Fish & Game had already indicated they would attend and if anyone else was interested in attending to please see him after the meeting. Rich Trimble from KPU stated for the record that KPU bas grave concerns about the Mahoney Lake Project and the timing of it an because it competes with the Swan-Tyee Intertie Project that KPU is pursuing. KPU is on the eve of receiving state funding for this project. At this point, KPU does not support the Mahoney Lake Project. lack Snyder responded that FERC regulations require the City of Saxman and the Cape Fox Corporation to proceed with consultation and project studies under the terms of the preliminary 4 permit. Jack explained how both the intertie project and the Mahoney Lake Project could meet the power needs of Ketchikan. Mary Klughea (McDowell Group) asked about the cost and financing for the project. Jack replied that costs would be around $30 million. The results of the studies could impact final design and these costs will be refined during development of the license application. Financing for the project can be handled in a number of ways--being a municipality, the City of Saxman is allowed to sell bonds; the U.S. Department of Interior has a grant program that it administers through the Bureau of Indian Affairs; or a Fanners Home Administration loan is another option. Rich Trimble said that KPU was trying to get state financing for the Swan-Tyee Intertie Project and the Mahoney Lake Project puts doubts in the legislators minds about the need for the intertie project. Jack Snyder explained how the two projects compare to each other. This project hasn't been compared to the intertie on a head to head basis yet. We would like to have the opportunity to have Mahoney Lake be compared to the intertie to find out which project is most beneficial for the public. Mary Klughea (McDowell Group) asked how the Mahoney Lake Project would work with KPU and power supply. Jack Snyder replied that it could be operated in several different ways. Base load could be generated to feed into the Swan Lake Intertie. It could be used during a power outage for up to 10 MW if power is needed. The project provides flexibility and could be operated in conjunction with other KPU projects. The Mahoney Lake Project will not provide for all the energy needs of Ketchikan but will provide an additional long term source of energy to the area. The meeting adjourned about 11:45 am. Although they had originally planned to go on the site visit, lack Gustafson and Steve Hoffman with Alaska Department of Fish and Game decided not to attend at this time and stated they would go out to the site with John Morsell (Northern Ecological Services) when he starts his fishery studies. Mr. Gustafson recommended that the site visit planned for September (to coincide with sockeye spawning) be carefully planned so as to not miss the spawning season in case it actually occurs sooner. 5 MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: SUBJECT: DATE: PLACE: ATTENDEES: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11393 Joint Agency/Native American/Public Meetings, Evening Session April 26, 1994 Ketchikan, Alaska Phyllis Yelte, Ketchikan Gateway Borough; Ms. Barnes-Alaska Forest Association; D. Campbell-Cape Fox Corporation; V. SJajer, S. Dickinson- City of Saxman; J. Snyder, M. Stimac, D. Howe, M. Dalton, V. Bakker, L. Fortney-HDR Engineering; J. Morsell-Northem Ecological Services The evening session was scheduled to begin at 7:00pm. Two people registered for this session. Jack Snyder reviewed the Initial Consultation Document and explained the Mahoney Lake Project. The meeting adjourned at 9:00pm. 1 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 JOINT AGENCY/NATIVE AMERICAN/PUBLIC MEETINGS APRIL 26, 1994 10:00a.m. -12:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. -9:00 p.m. AGENDA I. INTRODUCTION .••...•....•....•....•••..••• Doug Campbell Cape Fox Corporation II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...•.••...•...•••••..•••. Jack Snyder HDR Engineering, Inc. Ill. FERC LICENSING PROCESS .•.•..••....•.•••.•••.. Mike Stimac HDR Engineering, Inc. IV. REVIEW OF STUDY PLANS Water Quality and Quantity .•••......••••••.. Vicki Bakker HDR Engineering, Inc. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources • . . • • • . • • . . . • • . John Morsel Northern Ecological Services Wildlife and Botanical Resources • . . • • . . • . • • • • • . Mark Dalton HDR Engineering, Inc. Historic and Archaeological Resources ; . . • . . . . • Chris Campbell Cultural Resources Consulting Recreational Resources . • . . . • • . . . • . • • • • • . • . . Debby Howe HDR Engineering, Inc. Aesthetic Resources . • . • . • . . . . . . . • • . • . . . . . . Debby Howe HDR Engineering, Inc. Land Use • • . . . . . • . • . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . • Lisa Fortney HDR Engineering, Inc. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan . . • . • • • . . . . . . Jack Snyder HDR Engineering, Inc. V. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS r Jr'v1\' ''() •. 41 . l-· ..... (J Q~-~--.J l ~ / , .. , ...... ... · ··! :'·~ :~(. VICINITY MAP h.ill i • !lit i I ~ .Co\lt •"'-U r\ " .. ,., .. ~ I> AlfC riC OCCAII ~ rYI~ . \1 r-'% ~ ~1 ' ., 1._;1 ALASKA \ <:}~ :t~"~ \ '1. ~&!7/ [ yi··",.. ~--~,')..._~~· -.ut -, """'-')' • r •< UICA-~ o cvl or •' /'f'"-•••• ~ ~ . ..,Y:/. y ~~JCHM ... c::f<:: .. •-d" • ~ .~ ~ .!!) ·~ .,: l':il 'lj .;> ,_ACtriC ttCtAII '(\ lOCAnON MAP orr 01 $AJUAH. ~·su N>PUCA-r011 UCfltS( U.t.H()H(Y LN<E Hlllii«<LCIIIIC PROA:Cf 'ERe PIID.I:Cf NO. lllU PROJECT LOCATION MAPS rtCUA£1-1 HDII £"""'""'""· In< I I _, I I I I ........ ~-···-·· -··· ' ' ·-.~""UU ... _ ···- 'kd I T T ICIU •tat PRo.£CT SllE PLAN AND PROfiLE ncul(l-1 . . I ' J 1 I ..... -,_,_ dY1 3>1Vl ONY 13NNn1 ~lddn ]- ./ ) l / -.. I£, ~. o-g • , :ma Ntlld c-at • • JJ\"l~ NOU :J:JS 11NNfU , ... 1>1V'1 ... .. J.JNOHV'YV i:JJddA ~O-pt ./ .··· \ !75 POWERHOUSE SITE PLAN f!GUR[2-S .... «.' /~ -3J.-{ ... :·:::;:}:·, :;"' ;' - 0 !!~<::( tfl!ii:t;' J' '-- .· ~.: .'~ _J {,~~· '. --{ FIG. 2-6 · ::~!:• ·1 a".a-~-.·t' '.~;:=-;;· '· . ~ -~?" .·.tr. . ,\J ,·:;;.-~ .'f / :,'_ I ~~ :J ' -~"' -~ ~-~ ~-.~ t'o \i.o\ 5 ,_ ::/ rt-(2/ ~ 6/*,.:~ 'fl ' I , c;'} til :.:.:~;·,!-· ~:~..;;, -:~' ·.0 \ .. ~. ,-. '!~·/~ ~-'··.·.~ \,. :'.n . V ~ ""---::::; .. ; ~ . ; o.-,, ·-· ... ~;::. I. UJ .,.) ; i • I ~/ g ~ -~~ '~ ~ Vlf;'J'II • il ~ ~ = \ c ,'t!t3 12 ... 0 0 -I 'z 13 r I \~ I ·~ \ · !· .. ~,p' ·~·--~~~ 1\l-rr:::_%~·._ ~ I•·~) ~:;---~~ 1'-....::::. .' · ..._:::?_ ;:,,~, rlit/ ~--!~ -'~/ /"7~r; ~,·· ', ·-a:.{-/ ' \ -.I \ ; • I 'I ', ._, \ \ t!f~· t·~ ·. ·,; / W~? c?)~~ '-~ -;/ "f2,'~7t~'(t::-£ . . . . ·;; . .--. / ..-"\.;.· .. ...... . . ·, ·. ...... ;· \..:::, .._. --•, -'==-) <:'~•n ~~ --. ~-:--:.·r'-~ / <..: - . ,~·~'<5 / ~7 ; .'\...::..-,) v \ -- .. ~ \ _____.., -- ; i· · ·, J \ I o'""'-.. - . ';:.•. ') ,./,...--~ ' ,......_. ~---'--\ .lr'/-"' c ,..--. _.. ,-; ... · ·. ·\n-'-..:,..--' c~; / /--. \···~"'= ~ ( ~/;-~-?,>/::· ;r TRANSMISSION LINE Z \ \ • I "-' / \ . \r -\. • \. .. ! ' "' . ·.· .-:-.· \i9i ( . ... '/'/ -. '\...: 0 .. ~.v. ) ' . 0 ......_,- '=1 ...... ::..'\ ;// •(• ~ ·,\ --~ ,, '·.'·'::,..· <_,_._,· ,1! ·;'0 \ ~ ·':. • t \9 . ' ' :;f·j, ,\'\'6 . ,'. I w j; ,' ·,' \''-. .· ' Q ·p-~·...;;·-..,_-=-=-- 30 . \ ~ .. _::?·.,\,· \~~ _. '· " ',_ \. "· ~ ,"·l I \, '--·-~~.I··\.'-,, \ ,,,-~ \ ._(..._,_ \ " .s:<~ \ ·. '.·-'\ "\ ''. q;:::_'-.. ' ··a:.'l_,\\ .·-:::: 1.·~· \1:~,...·----. ,.,._, I I ,·,1··~ : ~ . . ' ,... I 5 Three-Stage FERC Hydroelectric Licensing, Relicensing, and Amendment Process RELICENSE Notice of lnlent ID Fie fl:lr New l.ic:anse HR I• UCENSE r Initial Consut!alion, Documents ID Agencies and the Public ... -----......1~------AMENDMENT FtRST STAGE CONSULTATION l SECOND STAGE CONSULTATION THIRD STAGE CONSULTAT10N Joint Agency & Public ~(s), ConfinnCe C&ll(s,) Si18 VISit Writlan AQency ~ "Final 'DeterminatiOn" Pnlp818 Draft Exhibits SUbmit Draft and ~ Results for Agency Revi8w Writlan Ageney ~nts on Draft and SII.ICty Results Joint Agency Meeling(s)IConference Call(s) 1 ., 1 ID ReSolve OisagraemeniS on Miligalionl Enhanc:am.-,t MaasuniS Incorporate Agr,tnc:y Comments in F'Jnal Applic:alion Submit FJnal Application 1D FERC SUbmit Final Application 1D Agendas FERC Pubic Notice FERC Decision of Ucense and Micles lale ~s~~uasts Incorporate . FERC Comments UCENSING STUDY PLANS WATER QUAUTY AND QUANTITY Purpose The pu1p0se of these studies is to determine water quality in both Upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes and to establish baseline information. Data results of consultations with appropriate agencies and other interested parties will be presented in a Water Use and Quality Report for inclusion in the Exhibit B, Environmental Report, of the Project's License Application. Methods Agencies will be consulted and existing information collected. Additional study tasks will be conducted including literature review, and water quality and quantity measurements. Aaencies to Be Consulted • USFWS • COB • Alaska Department of Natural Resources {ADNR) Existina Information Water Quallty Existing temperature data will be updated {See Appendix D). Sources of existing infonnation may include USFWS, COB, and ADNR.. Water Quantity Sources of existing stream flow infonnation are described in Section 5. 0 of this document. Study Tasks Literature Review The Applicant will investigate the following sources of information: • USPS • United States Geological Survey • USFWS • COB • ADNR • ADFG 1 Water Quality Water quality at the base of the waterfalls (powerhouse site) and at Lower Mahoney Lake will be measured monthly for one year. Measurements included will be temperature, pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and total suspended solids. Temperature Model Analysis Temperature will be continuously monitored in Upper Mahoney Lake near the proposed intake location with emphasis on placing one tempemture probe at the same depth as the proposed intake and one at the lake sutface. Such monitoring will be initiated in the summer of 1994 and temperature readings will be logged at two-hour intervals. In addition, temperature profile according to depth from surface to bottom will be measured within deeper portions of Upper Mahoney Lake four times per year (late summer, fall, late winter, late spring) to determine stratification patterns. St.team water temperature will be continuously monitored (two-hour intervals) in Lower Mahoney Creek near the proposed tailrace discharge location. Air temperature will also be measured at this same location and at the same intervals as stream temperature. Temperature within the lake bottom substrate and just above the lake bottom in Lower Mahoney Lake will be continuously monitored at two locations at the west end of the lake at known sockeye salmon spawning areas (probable upwelling areas). The intragravel probes will be buried about 25 em below the lake bottom and the lake water probes will be placed about 10 em above the bottom at the same location as the buried probes. One dual-channel data logging device will be placed onshore and used to record data at each upwelling monitoring site. Temperatures will be logged at two-hour intervals. . In addition, temperature profiles according to depth from sutface to bottom will be measured within deeper portions of Lower Mahoney Lake four times per year to determine stratification patterns. Water Quantity St.team flow will be measured near the Project using a Stevens Type AA or Unidata digital continuous st.team gage recorder. On Mahoney Creek, one unit will be installed near the proposed powerhouse location. The exact location of the gage will depend on st.team character, terrain, and access. The stream gage will be installed during spring/summer of 1994 and will continue operating for the life of the Project. Results The relationship between Upper Mahoney Lake and creek water temperatures, air temperatures, and Lower Mahoney Lake upwelling water temperatures will be analyzed. This information will be used to he1p predict post-Project water temperatures within the upwelling areas used by salmon as spawning grounds. The information may also be used to develop mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of water temperature on salmon egg incubation. Information collected will be presented in a draft report and provided to the agencies of record for their comments. After review, any appropriate adjustments to the draft will be incorporated 2 into the final report. The format for the report will be in conformance with the requirements for the FERC License Application, Exhibit B (18 CFR 4.41). FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES PutpOSe Objectives of the fisheries and aquatic studies are to: a) determine existing fisheries resources above, within, and below the diversion reach; b) determine the potential Project impact on fisheries resources; and, c) develop measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on fisheries resources. Methods Agencies will be consulted and existing information collected. Additional studies to be conducted include: • Fish population surveys Acencies to be Consulted • USFWS • NMFS • USFS • COB • ADFG Existin& Information lnfonnation for the Mahoney Lake diainage may be available from the USFWS, NMFS, COB, USFS, and the ADFG from previous studies. Some of the existing information is included in Appendix B. Iaikl Fish Population Surveys Fish abundance and utilization will be surveyed in Mahoney Creek from its mouth in Lower Mahoney Lake upstream to the major waterfall two times per year -June and early September in 1994. Visual observations as well as electroshocking and minnow trapping will be used to detemrine the presence, abundance, and habitat utilization of major fish species. Emphasis will be on a determination of value to rearing juvenile salmonids as well as value to spawning adults. Confirmation of reports that the streambed is sometimes dry will be made. The abundance and location of lake spawning sockeye salmon will be carefully investigated with emphasis on the westem end of Lower Mahoney Lake near the outlet of Upper Mahoney Creek. Smveys will be conducted in early to mid-September of 1994 to coincide with the peak of spawning activity. Methods to be utilized will be determined after further review of existing fish 3 study information and observation of the lake physical characteristics. Methods may include aerial visual surveys, boat-based visual surveys, SCUBA diving, and/or snorkeling. In addition, a minnow trap survey will be conducted in June and September to gain insight into the general use of the lake by rearing fish. Fish abundance and utilization will be surveyed in Lower Mahoney Creek from its mouth upstream to Lower Mahoney Lake two times in 1994, June and early September. Visual observations and minnow trapping will be used to determine the presence, abundance, and habitat utilization of major fish species. :Emphasis will be on a determination of value to adult salmon spawners. Rt'SUits Information obtained from the temperature modelling and analysis study component will be combined with the results of the fish studies to provide an indication of the kinds of effects that the Project might have on fish productivity. Emphasis will be on the potential effects of any altered temperature regimes on sockeye salmon eggs incubating in lake gravels and on the kinds of mitigation measures that could be employed to alleviate such effects. Information collected will be presented in draft reports and provided to the agencies of record for their comments. After review, any appropriate adjustments to the drafts will be inco1p0rated into final reports to be included in the appendix of the PERC License Application. The Fisheries Resource section of the FERC License Application will be prepared incorporating the study results and in accordance with the PERC regulations (18 CFR 4.41). Wll.J)LIFE AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES Purpose The pmpose of the wildlife and botanical studies is to describe, map, and quantify the habitats or cover types in the Project area. The potential impact of the Project on these resources will be evaluated and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts will be developed. Methods Because many aspects of botanical resources and wildlife habitat are closely related, for the most part, both resources will be studied simultaneously. The studies will include agency consultations, literature reviews, field studies, interpretation of field data, analysis of aerial photographs, and documentation. Aancies to be Consulted: • USFWS • USFS • ADNR • ADFG 4 Igg Preliminary Review In this phase, all existing data on plant and anima) species and wildlife habitats in or near the Project area will be reviewed (Appendix B). For the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project this will include lists, survey data, and reports from the ADNR and USFS. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, a species list request will be submitted to the USFWS. Habitat and cover types maps will be updated using the most Ctll'l'ent set of aerial photographs and field verified through random sampling and consultation. Field Surveys Two field visits will be conducted to confliDl existing Project data. Areas to be surveyed will include the upper lake tap tunnel entrance area, powerhouse site, and the access road/transmission line route. Field studies will confirm presence/absence of common plants and animals, as well as species of concern (i.e., threatened and endangered species). The field survey will consist of: a) qualitative surveys of wildlife habitats and plant communities; b) a general inventory of individual plant and animal species; and c) obtaining general information on topography and historical land use. Special habitats (e.g., wetlands, cliffs, old growth forests, etc.) will be located and examined in a broader area. General wildlife surveys will be conducted for mammals and birds. Ancillary observations will include identification of calls, tracks, scat, and raptor pellet analysis. The Project team will survey the Project area while walking to and from fixed points. Threatened and endangered species which may require additional habitat evaluation could include the bald eagle and marbled murrelet. The appropriate extent of the analysis area for other potential animal species will be determined in consultation with the agencies. If individuals of an animal or plant species of concern are located, the pertinent officials will be informed. Results Results of preliminary review and field surveys will be used to assess the potential effects of the Project on botanical and wildlife resources. Mitigation measures will be developed for species of concern in consultation with appropriate agencies. Information collected will be presented in a draft report and provided to the agencies of record for their comments. After review, any appropriate adjustments to the draft will be incmporated into the final report. The format for the report will be in conformance with the requirements for FERC License Applications, Exhibit E (18 CFR 4.41). s HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Purpose The putpase of these studies is to develop information on the nature and distribution of cultural resources within the Project area that have not been previously surveyed (a portion of the access road). This information, together with professional opinions and consultations with affected Native American groups and agencies, will be presented in a written cultural resources report for inclusion in the Exhibit E, Environmental Report, of the Project's License Application. Methods Agencies and Native American groups will be consulted and background research will be conducted. An archaeologicallcultural resources field survey will also be performed. Study Tasks Background Research Background research will be conducted on the prehistoric, ethnohistoric, and historic use of lands within and around the Project area. Survey records and cultuml resource inventories and registers maintained by the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will be reviewed. Native American and Agency Consultation The Cape Fox Cotparation and other interested Native American groups will be consulted to identify potential cultural heritage or traditional religious resources or concerns in the Project area. If the archeological freld survey locates prehistoric and/or ethnohistoric cultural resources, these grouped will be provided information on the resources, which will remain confidential. The SHPO, the National Park Service (NPS), and the USFS will also be consulted during each phase of the cultural resources assessment to ensure compliance with FER.C regulations and the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Archeological Field Survey An archeological field survey of the areas to be disturbed by the proposed site development will be conducted. Maps and aerial photographs will be used in conjunction with information on past land use and previously recorded cultural resources to identify geomorphic features within the Project area. Environmental and geomorphic information will be recorded for areas surveyed. The location, condition, and potential significance of cultural resources identified during the field survey will be recorded on site forms acceptable to the SHPO and the NPS. Field work will be documented with notes, drawings, and photographs as needed to record field methods and results. Mitigation measures will be recommended if the Project would pn.xiuce adverse effects on any cultuml resources found. 6 Results The results of the cultuial resources investigations will be presented in two reports: 1) a cultutal resources background report; and 2) a summary Exhibit B document. These reports will be designed to meet FBRC regulations set forth in 18 CFR 4.41. Draft copies of each report will be circulated for review, after which comments will be incorpoiated into the final reports. RECREATIONAL RESOURCES Purpose The purpose of the recreational resources study is to identify information regarding existing recreation use, future demand and opportunities, and the potential impacts on recreation resulting from development of the Mahoney Lake Project. This infon:nation, together with results of consultations with affected agencies and other interested parties, will be presented in a written Recreation Resources Report for inclusion in the Exhibit B of the Project's License Application. Methods Agencies will be consulted and existing information will be collected. Development of the Recreation Plan will include three phases. Phase I will identify the current recreation types and existing facilities. Phase n will include the evaluation of existing and future recreation demands in the Project area. Phase m will identify the potential impacts created by the Project on recreation and will evaluate alternatives, recommend mitigation and provide costs, if necessary. Study Tasks Phase I -Evaluation of Existing Recreation Resources Data Collection. The area in which the Project will have an impact will be identified and existing information will be collected. Data to be collected include maps; recreation guides; the USFS Recreation Resource Information System, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, and the Tongass National Forest Plan; and other sources of recreation information, such as state agencies. Information regarding demographic use will also be gathered. Consultation. Consultations will be held with the agencies who are responsible for recreation planning and management within the Project impact area. Current direction and policies for these agencies will be determined. Other agencies and native organizations which might track or project recreation use in the area such as local, county, and state administering agencies, will be contacted. Special-interest groups, local residents, and businesses that focus on recreation and tourism will also be consulted. Identify and Map Existing Facilities. From data collected, existing recreation facilities will be mapped for the Project area. Any National Wild and Scenic Rivers systems, National Trail systems, and Wilderness areas within the Project area will be identified. 7 Phase ll -Evaluate Recreation Demand Evaluate Recreation Potential. Existing recreation facilities in terms of activity type, physical setting, experience required, economic costs, and current demand will be evaluated. Future recreation use within the Project area will be identified and evaluated. Estimate Demand. Anticipated recreation demand with and without the proposed Project modifications will be estimated using demographic data. The demand projections will be correlated to regional opportunities for similar recreation. Constraints on development of recreation facilities will be identified. Phase m -Evaluate Project Impacts on Existing and Future Recreation Project Impacts. Potential environmental, social, and economic impacts created by the Project regarding existing and future recreation in the Project area will be identified. Alternatives will be identified based on data collected, associated impacts, constraints, and demand projections. If appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended if it is determined the Project will produce adverse effects. Costs will be estimated for any new facilities and transportation access, plus operation and maintenance costs. Consultation. Agencies, native organizations, and special-interest groups who focus on recreation and tourism will be consulted regarding potential Project impacts. Results The data, maps, and study objectives information will be presented in a draft report and shared with the agencies of record for their comments. After review, any appropriate adjustments to the draft will be incorporated into the final report. The format for the reports will be in conformance with the requirements of FERC license Applications, Exhibit E (18 CFR 4.41). AESTHETIC RESOURCES Pur:pose The primary purpose of the aesthetics study is to describe measures proposed by the Applicant to make Project facilities blend, to the extent possible with the surrounding environment, and to evaluate aesthetic impacts of proposed changes in stream flow. Inventory and effects assessment activities will be conducted in order to identify and support any proposals for aesthetic treatments of Project facilities. Methods The aesthetics study will evaluate existing visual conditions, assess Project effects, and identify potential mitigation measures. 8 Existing VJSU.al Conditions A summary of existing visual conditions that addresses both Project facilities and the adjacent landscape will be addressed. Existing visual resomce data related to the Project area, including the USFS Visual Management System, will be reviewed. Landscape character of the Project area will also be described. Approximate seen areas from selected viewpoints at and near the Project will be identified. Project Effects Assessment The effects of the proposed Project facilities on visual quality will be determined and presented in the report. This discussion will address the visibility of Project features from the selected viewpoints and will evaluate these views within the local visual context. The primary focus of this assessment will be impacts of reduced water flows over the wa.terfa.lls between Upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes and the impact of Project roads and powerhouse construction. Proposed Aesthetic Measures Potential measures that will reduce the visual contrast of Project features with the surrounding environment will be identified and their feasibility will be reviewed. Results The results of the aesthetics study will be presented in the Aesthetic Resomces Report of Exhibit E. A draft report will be prepared and distributed to agencies of record for their comments. After their review and comment, a final report incorporating comments will be prepared. The aesthetics report will be formatted as required under FERC regu1ations (18 CFR 4.41). LAND USE Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine existing uses of the proposed project lands and adjacent property, and those land uses which could occur if the project is constructed. This study will also determine the Project's compatibility with existing land uses and comprehensive plans. Methods Agencies will be consulted and existing land use maps, plans and policies will be collected. Existing Land Use and Ownership Existing Jand use and ownership will be identified. Identification of wetlands, fl.oodlands, prime or unique farmland as designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, and Jands owned or subject to control by government agencies will be identified. Proposed New Land Uses Areas affected by the proposed project will be determined. 9 Compatibility of Existing and Proposed Uses Land use plans and policies for the project area will be reviewed to detemrl.ne existing and future land management within the project area and to determine the project's compatibility with these plans and policies. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN Purpose The purpose of the erosion and sediment control studies is to evaluate the potential for erosion and sedimentation during proposed Project constroction and operation. Based on this evaluation, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) will be developed to provide guidelines for controlling erosion and sedimentation during Project construction and operation activities. Since most of the Project features are underground, the ESCP will concentrate on access roads and tunnel spoils disposal sites. Methods The ESCP will establish baseline conditions in order to assess potential impacts and allow comparison with conditions during Project construction and operational phases; identify existing environmental hazards which must be taken into account during Project design, construction, and operation; and identify measures which will· minimize potential adverse impacts. A:encies to be Consulted • USFWS • NMFS • USFS • COB • ADNR • ADFG Tasks The following tasks will be petformed in order to prepare the ESCP: 1. Existing site conditions will be evaluated including climate, topography, geology, soils, vegetation, sutface and groundwater drainage, adjacent waterways, and hazard areas. 2. Erosion/sedimentation potential during construction of Project features and during Project operation will be determined. 3. E.stima.tes will be made on the amount of tunnel spoils and locations for disposal sites will be identified. 10 4. Ttming of construction activities will be identified and evaluated in terms of alleviating erosion potential. 5. Specific locations and teclmiques for controlling potential erosion and sedimentation during Project construction and operation will be identified, mapped, and detailed d:mwings and descriptions of such measures will be prepared. 6. Implementation guidelines for general and site specific erosion control measures will be developed. 7. A revegetation plan for distnrbed areas will be developed. 8. Procedures for maintenance and monitoring of erosion control measures for plan modifications will be developed. 9. Using existing information from geologic reports, mapping, aerial photos or other sources, a qualitative review of the Mahoney Lake drainage basin will be made which will provide a general characterization of sources and types of sediment inputs into the river. The Universal Soil Loss Equation or another acceptable method may be used to estimate sediment delivery to Lower Mahoney Lake. To the extent feasible, (given the dynamics of the system), the relationship between geommphic processes, Project operation, and sediment delivery will be characterized and discussed. Results A Draft E'SCP will be prepared that details the Project area geology and soils, and characteristics of the Project segments. 'Ibis report will include maps that illustrate the geologic and geomorphic conditions of the Project area. Upon completion, the report will be circulated to the appropriate agencies for comment and review. Following any necessary revisions, the report will be finalized ·and included as an appendix of the License Application. 11 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 11393 APRIL 26, 1994 JOINT AGENCY/NATIVE AMERICAN/PUBLIC :MEETINGS SIGN-IN SHEET f J(pP4 I l z f -I() t> 0 \-\D\2. .mC\WleHII"<: .::JOL.o-415 ~-\":G3 A ~)F l (';- 2 c s--;J. s 5 c; I Svc 1 i r.s l . ' :) f-c ["(_ J ,~ffit: Jhflr1_ ·r '-'"N \-lvrz. f-I'JC., ·-ort-;t r<.-7"=tL( -1.""-'o J I LJL~.L fn.lltax t4DC2... )..::r'-i..-z~ooo I ~t~~~~-/H-D~ ~ys--~q~4 ~·/' ·C ·a c-1L clttb h ..:x~ c )Fs; C)';l'-i ~ ;1.6 :;;> 7 !(),~ Sh~'Y1~< <: I H Do.v /fAIVJVi! br~A u sr>-K~"kJuKIIN I 7....Ls-110 I ' I f;' VA.I,_,.,_..,, . ···t;:;; '/ ~'1-'"....VV~ L.:". . . . • /1 -.;;;It : :.. ,_ JJ::<:4.<'.,,.r:~ I ~ .-~ J 41 0 ~ ,_' • ..bt.~ ~ ;ffS"-11GO ~as-d-1 -z_ ~-r-' I c, ]. ,, de~-453-&J-3 V(> - \; f' _) ·y.e 5 - I ;;. c 3 c: .S r• te.d tk . 5J fc{ ].:;;;3u :; f'c..ie vt! I J)r • Ke. +-~L.:.k_,, .... 17% ;::.z.Js-rs I Bu.l/d;,...,. f<Jl'f-c"' •K,..,.... 11-K 'I'Cf<i-t..• · ·~ l?x1-' Cf9'1o! J;)o O.:.c)( s;t: *~ ::J.:.. I K eh: !tt .~11 • AK 799cl MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 11393 APRIL 26, 1994 JOINT AGENCY/NATIVE AMERICAN/PUBLIC 1\fEETINGS SIGN-IN SHEET Ill :iv.JWI~.¥1 Ci., ?dP ,__-/br· qrr tdatd0J May 19, 1994 Mr. Thomas W. Stevenson General Manager Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Information Requested By KPU at 4/25/94 Meeting Dear Mr. Stevenson: li)~ At our meeting on April 25, 1994, you requested two items of additional information on the Mahoney Lake Project as follows: 1) Details of estimated project construction cost 2) Saxman/Cape Fox assessment of what KPU's future avoided costs may be Information on these two topics is attached. We hope this information provides you with the level of detail you need to continue to evaluate the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. C}a~~ John J. "Jack" Snyder, PE Senior Project Manager cc. Veronica Slajer, City of Saxman Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Mike Stimac, HDR Debby Howe, HDR Lisa Fortney, HDR File Mahoney B.4 HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue. N.E. Bellevue, Washington qRnn4.<:;<:;<R Telephone 206 453-1523 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Jack Snyder, HDR Engineerin9 W ~ May 18, 1994 Analysis of KPU Avoided Costs Iii{ Memorandum At our meeting with KPU on April 25, 1994, KPU requested we provide them with information on what we believe their avoided cost rates might be now and in the future. This memorandum includes a general analysis of this issue. Cape Fox and the City of Saxman are not in a position to accurately estimate KPU' s avoided costs. KPU has the regulatory responsibility to perform this calculation regularly and to publish their avoided cost rates. KPU also has all the information to make an accurate detennination of what their avoided cost rates are. However, because KPU has only a few basic sources of electrical power and their system is well dermed, we believe we can make a fair estimate of KPU' s avoided costs. We have also reviewed some published estimates of future KPU avoided costs and have incorporated that information into this analysis. A voided cost will be defined for this analysis as the cost of energy the utility would have to pay in order to purchase, gene.rate or otherwise obtain the next incremental block of power it would need as its system grows. When the utility buys power from Mahoney Lake instead of from its planned source of incremental energy, it would pay the price for Mahoney energy that it would avoid paying to its planned incremental source, thus the name "avoided cost". Several assumptions have to be made to perform the analysis. First, we will assume that all the available Swan Lake capacity and energy is being used by KPU. This is essentially accurate today, and will continue to be the case as KPU loads grow in general. By the time Mahoney Lake could come on-line, loads will have grown enough to basically be sure this is a good assumption. If excess capacity were available from Swan Lake, then clearly it would be used instead of diesel power. Since diesel is being used, excess Swan Lake capacity is not always available. If Swan Lake is at its full capacity, then it does not represent a source for incremental energy, and the $0.064/k:Wh KPU pays for Swan Lake energy is~ its avoided cost. The source of energy that KPU historically has used for its next incremental energy need is diesel gene.ration. Until another source of energy is developed for the region, diesel will continue to be the source for incremental energy. This analysis will ignore the impact of construction of any future hydro resources on avoided costs and will ignore possible impacts of the intertie construction. Without knowing the tenns and interest rates of bonds, rmal costs, sources of funding and schedules of such future projects, it is difficult to realistically 1 weave them into this analysis. To start with, we will only examine the diesel case, over a 20 year horizon. KPU has provided us with the following infonnation on their diesel facilities: Current diesel fuel price: $0.86/gal. Current plant fuel use: 14.5 kWh generated/gallon fuel The Beaver Falls Project Re-License application states that KPU's fuel use rate is 14 kWh/gallon, which agrees well with the number above. This indicates that KPU's current fuel cost per kWh is about $0.06 This, however, does not represent the full avoided cost of KPU. There are other variable and fixed costs that add to the basic fuel cost as components of the avoided cost. The avoided costs predicted for KPU in the future are dependent on three things, assumed fuel price escalation in the future, variable O&M costs and fiXed costs for future replacement and new installation of incremental diesel capacity. Fuel price escalation has been studied many times and a variety of fuel price escalation predictions are available. It is generally agreed that fuel prices will rise over time. We reviewed some escalation predictions used by AEA, but chose the future fuel price predictions published by KPU in their Beaver Falls Relicense Application for use in this analysis. Variable O&M costs are incurred because some additional operating and maintenance costs do result from operating the diesel plants at higher load factors, especially if running hours increase so that maintenance and overhauls have to occur more frequently. Fixed Costs for future installations or replacements are incurred because as more and more diesel energy is generated, a point is reached where there is insufficient excess capacity left to keep the system reliable. When this happens, additional diesel generating units have to be added to the system, with associated capital cost and additional O&M cost. Also, by relying on diesel as the long term source of incremental energy, the cost of major overhauls and replacements has to be factored in. By not relying on diesel as heavily, the normal 15 to 20 year diesel plant life could be extended, but as loads continue to grow and plants wear out, replacements have to be made. The attached Tables D-1 and D-2 show fuel cost and avoided cost predictions published by KPU in their recent FERC filing in the Beaver Falls Relicense Application. They show the future prices for fuel as well as variable and fiXed costs predicted by KPU out to the year 2016. We reviewed this information and found it to be reasonable. 2 Based on KPU's published figures, future avoided costs in KPU's system are estimated to be as follows: 1998-$0.1256 2005-$0.1737 2011-$0.2239 Complete year by year avoided cost estimates are shown on Table D-2 attached. Our conclusions from this analysis are: 1) Using 30 year bond rmancing, the Mahoney Lake Project energy production cost should be well below the range of KPU avoided costs during the rrrst year of operation. 2) In subsequent years, as KPU avoided costs rise, Mahoney Lake debt sexvice remains essentially constant, and the margin increases significantly. 3) When Mahoney Lake Project is constructed, KPU should be able to avoid all diesel generation through the year 2006, based on information in Exhibit D of the Beaver Falls application. This should cause a significant reduction in KPU' s overall system cost of energy. 4) Mahoney Lake, when constructed, could help KPU avoid or postpone new diesel plant capacity for many years and extend the life of existing plants, lowering rates and system dependance on fuel prices. 5) It appears that it would be in KPU' s best interest to negotiate a fiXed rate long term .(X)Wer sales agreement for the Mahoney Lake output rather than pay avoided cost rates. Such an agreement results in significant savings to the ratepayers over the life of the project. cc flle mahoney B.2 N. Macdonald R. King M. Stimac D. Thompson D. Howe L. Fortney D. Clarke (Wilkinson, Barker) I. Braislin (Betts, Patterson) 3 TABLE D-1 Average Annual Cost of Power Item Amount Installed Capacity (kW) 7,100 Net Generation (kWh)1 47,694,656 5-Year (1987-1991) Average Average Energy Cost (1987-1991) 5-Year Average 5.07 ¢/kWh2 direct and indirect Avoided Cost of Energy (1998) 6.4¢/kWh direct costs only 9.6 ¢/kWh including indirect costs 1 Average value includes genera10r and transfonner efficiencies and allowances for forced and unforced outages and station service. 2Includes direct operating costs, in lieu taxes, debt service, insunmce, and depreciation. 1~60WVw'O.lS2 D-4 DRAFT ~.'5m I I Estimated Cost of Ne"'· Diesel Generation Total Cost (eemsiL:'Wn) Variable Cost (ccnts!L:Wh) FLXcd Costs (SJL:W) ADnu.al Plant Fae1ors (6) Fuel(} )(2) O&M(3) Total Caoital(4) O&M(5) Toul 72% 60% 1992 6.76 1.00 7.76 116.52. 12.50 129.02 9.80 10.21 1993 7.16 1.04 8.20 116.52 13.00 129.52 10.25 10.66 1994 7.56 1.08 8.64 116.52 13.52 130.04 10.71 11.12 1995 7.97 1.12 9.09 116.52 14.06 130.58 11.16 11.58 1996 8.37 1.17 9.54 116.52 14.62 131.14 11.62 12.04 1997 . 8.78 1.12 10.00 116.52 15.21 131.72 12.09 12.51 1998 9.20 1.27 10.46 116.52. 15.82 132.33 12.56 12.98 1999 9.61 1.32 10.93 116.52 16.45 132.97 13.04 13.46 2000 10.03 1.37 11.40 116.52 17.11 133.62 13.52 13.94 2001 10.73 1.42 12.15 116.52 17.79 134.31 14.28 14.71 2002 11.43 1.48 12.91 116.52 18.50 135.02 15.05 15.47 2003 12.12 1.54 13.66 116.52 19.24 135.76 15.82 16.2.5 2004 12.82 1.60 14.42 116.52 20.01 136.5.3 16.59 17.02 2005 13.53 1.67 15.19 116.52 20.81 137.3.3 17.37 17.80 2006 14.!3 1.73 15.96 116.52. 21.65 138.16 18.15 18.59 2007 14.94 1.80 16.74 116.52 22.51 139.03 18.94 19.39 2008 15.65 1.87 17.52 116.52 23.41 139.93 19.74 20.18 2009 16.36 1.95 18.31 116.52 24.35 140.86 20.54 20.99 2010 17.08 2.03 19.11 116.52 25.32 141.84 21.36 21.81 2011 18.02 2.11 20.12 116.52 26.34 142.85 22.39 22.84 2012 19.00 2.19 21.19 116.52. 27.39 143.91 23.47 23.93 2013 20.04 2.28 2222 116.52. 28.48 145.00 24.62 25.08 2014 21.13 2.37 23.50 116.52. 29.62 146.14 25.82 26.28 2015 2:?-29 2.46 24.75 116.52. 30.81 147.32 27.09 27.56 2016 23.51 2.56 26.07 116.52 32.04 148.56 28.43 28.90 Economic Assumptions: Inflation 4.0% N ominallnten:st Rate 3.5% Real Interest Rate 7.6% Finance Term (Yrs) 20 Reserve Fund 9.9% Finance Costs 5.0% Notes: L Avera~e fuel consumption r.uil' for!K'Wdiese-1 tmerators is au~ to be> t-4 tWh prr~allon. 2 Cost of fuel is !lased on projrcuons of -.-ld oil prica dewloped by tbc:> Alasb Power Authority iD October 191!9 adjusted for rt'fining.. delivc'l'y and othercosiS as presmted in tilf: "11111Uu ;zo. Year Power Supply Plan Update" d.Jted Augu.-st 1990. 3. Variable O&M ratr is .usu-o to be I Cftlt per t\Vb in 1992 dollan. . 4. Cost o! nrw diesel ~rnera10r is .assumed to~ 11000 prr in:st.alled tWin 1992 doll.us. Capu.al repayment based oa ~umed I 00'7D debr finanan~ and IC'YC'l debt~ ovrr a 20 year rrpayment period. S. Ftxed O&M rate is .usumed to be St2.50 per tW iD 1992 dollan.. 6. Total esnnut~ cast of dieK-1 pnentton per I:Wb at .assumed .annual usa~ in'el:s or 10%. 60%. and 50% or m:uumum enrrgy prnciw:1ion cap.abiliry. so~ 10.70 11.16 11.61 12.07 12.54 13.01 13.48 13.96 14.45 15.22 15.99 16.76 17.54 18.33 19.12 19.91 20.72 21.53 22.35 23.38 24.48 25.63 26.84 28.12 29.46 FERC Ace No 330 .1 .2 .3 331 .1 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .10 .. 11 .2 .1 .2 .3 332 .1 .2 .3 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 .7 .8 .9 .10 .4 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 TABLE 4-1 MAHONEY LAKE HYL JELECTRIC PROJECf LAKETAPALTERNATNE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE-IDC@ 8% Description LAND AND LAND RIGIITS Land Rights -Generation Plant USFS Special Use Permit Surveying Total-Ace No. 330-Land and Land Rights STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS POWERHOUSE Excavation Concrete (including reinforcing) Rock Bolts Shotcrete Miscellaneous Metals HVAC,Plumbing& Electrical Grounding Grid Fire Protection Tailrace Excavation Tailrace Backfill Tailrace Concrete SITE WORK Drainage/Erosion Control (spoils pile) Access Road Access road bridge Subtotal Mobilization (3%) Total -Ace No. 331 -St uctures and Improvements RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION PLANT SETUP AND TEARDOWN UPPER TUNNEL AND LAKE TAP Excavation Lake Tap Rock Bolts Concrete Lining Concrete Plugs 48" Butterfly Valves . Vents Steel Pipe, 48" x 0.25 Trashrack Pipe Installation SHAFT Excavation ( Alimak) Alimak Setup Alirnak Teardown Rock Bolts Pipe, 48" x 0.75 Concrete Lining (half of shaft length) Pipe Installation Quantity Unit 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS 2,450 CY 450 CY 300 LF 150 CY 50,000 LB 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS 500 CY 180 CY 85 CY 1 LS 1 MI I LS I LS 1 LS 3500 CY 1 LS 2800 LF 1700 CY 92 CY 2 EA I LS 85 LF I LS 85 LF I360 LF I LS 1 LS 5400 LF 680 LF 900 CY 680 LF 05/12!94 p:\byd\mahoney\tab4-l.wk3 Unit Amount Price ($) $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000 $100,000 $140 000 $50 $122,500 $600 $270,000 $20 $6,000 $350 $52,500 $3 $150,000 $50,000 $50,000 $10,000 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15 $7,500 $20 $3,600 $400 $34,000 $200,000 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $60,000 $60,000 $I,081,100 $32,400 $I 113 500 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $240 $840,000 $300,000 $300,000 $20 $56,000 Sl,OOO $1,700,000 $1,000 $92,000 $30,000 $60,000 $25,000 $25,000 $83 $7,055 $50,000 $50,000 $80 $6,800 $590 $802,400 $42,000 $42,000 $32,000 $32,000 $20 $108,000 $225 SI53,000 $1,000 $900,000 $300 $204,000 t FERC Ace No .5 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .10 .11 .12 333 .1 334 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 335 .1 .2 352 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 TABLE 4-1 MAHONEY LAKE HYl JELECTRIC PROJECT LAKETAPALTERNATNE CONSfRUCTION COSf ESfiMATE-IDC@ 8% Description LOWER TUNNEL Rockslide Deflector Tunnel Excavation (8 X 8 horseshoe) Portal Rock Bolts Steel Sets Shotcrete Concrete Plug Roof and Floor Drains Pipe, 36" x 0.625 plus reducer Pipe, 32" x 0.625 Concrete Pipe Supports Pipe Installation Total-Ace No. 332-Reservoir Dams & Waterways TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & excite Supply & Install Total-Ace No. 333-Turbines and Generators ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Switchgear Station Service Control Panel Conduit/Wire/Cables Lighting Total -Ace No. 334 -Ace. Electrical Equipment MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT Cooling Water System & Mise Equip. Monorail Hoist Total -Ace No. 335-Misc. Mechanical Equipment STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) Substation Foundations Oil Spill Containme~t Grounding Grid Grading, surfacing, fencing Lighting Total --Ace No. 352-Structures & Improvements Quantity 1 3380 1 6300 100 100 200 2800 100 3280 330 3380 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 Unit LS LF LS LF EA CY CY LF LF LF EA LF LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS 05/12194 p:\hyd\mahooey\tab4-1. wk3 Unit Amount Price ($) $150,000 $150,000 $507 $1,713,660 $50,000 $50,000 $20 $126,000 $1,000 $100,000 $350 $35,000 $1,000 $200,000 $20 $56,000 $160 $16,000 $119 $388,680 $200 $66,000 $120 $405,600 $9 185 195 $2,150,000 $2,150,000 $2,150,000 $300,000 $300,000 $150,000 $150,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $75,000 $75,000 $1.125.000 $100,000 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $150,000 $20,000 $20,000 $15,000 $15,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $85.000 FERC Ace No 353 356 330 331 332 333 334 335 352 353 356 .1 .2 .1 .2 .2 TABLE 4-1 MAHONEY LAKE HYl. JELECTRIC PROJECT LAKE TAP ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE-IDC@ 8% Description SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES Main Transformer 13 kV to 115 kV Accessory Switchgear Equipment Total-Ace No. 353-Substation EQuipment & Structures FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES Underground Line, 13 kV Overhead Line, 115 kV Substation A1 Intertie Total-Ace No. 356-Fixtures. Conductors & Devices SUMMARY LAND AND LAND RIGHTS STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & exciter) ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES Total Direct Construction Costs (rounded) Design Engineering@ 7% Geotechnical, Borings & Seismic Surveys FERC Licensing and Other Permits Construction Mgmt. @ 6% Subtotal (rounded) Contingency (10% on equipment, Accts 333,334,335,353,356) Contingency (25% on tunnelling, Acct 332) Contingency (15% on remainder, Accts. 330,331,352) Subtotal (rounded) Interest During Const. (2 yrs@ 8%) Total Investment Cost (1993) Quantity Unit 1 LS 1 LS 0.8 MILE 4.7 MILE 1 L.S. 05/12f)4 p:\hyd\mahoney\tab4-1. wk3 Unit Amount Price $300,000 $245,000 $250,000 $150,000 $450,000 ($) $300,000 $245,000 $545000 $200,000 $705,000 $450,000 $1 355 000 $140,000 1,113,500 9,185,195 2,150,000 1,125,000 150,000 85,000 545,000 1,355,000 $15,849,000 1,109,430 300,000 350,000 950,940 $18,559,000 532,500 2,296,299 200,775 $21,589,000 1,853,000 $23,442,000 II II I ' I I I I II I I I I I I I I I ..IS RECPATH CORPORATION 27 August 1993 REtE\'lEtl ~UG 3 0\993 Mr. Donald J. Thompson, P.E. HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Dear Sir: J.S. Redpath Corporation has completed a quick review of your Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project and have developed some budgetary numbers for your use. These estimates are based upon our experience on similar projects and our experience in Alaska. We have assumed Alimak Raising as the most economic approach to your shaft requirements. As we discussed by phone, the Alimak is driven from below and powered by the tunnel utilities. This gives the Alimak method a distinct advantage over raiseboring in the following three ways: • • Helicopter Cost Air transponation would be minimal due to the bottom up excavation. No equipment, crews, supplies, or fuel would be required on top until the raise is complete. In addition, personnel, equipment and supplies could be moved up and down the raise utilizing either the Alimak or a small hoist system, thereby, minimizing expensive helicopter requirements. Accuracy of Excavation Alimak raises are plumbed with each blast and are easily driven to be perfectly venical. Raisebores are at best accurate to within one percent. For your project that would be 15' out of plumb at the bottom. To improve this, the pilot hole would require state-of-the-an directional drilling, which is time consuming, costly and not guaranteed. 1347 NORTH ALMA SCHOOL ROAD. SUITE 100 CHANDLER. ARIZONA 85224 USA --r; .Cf'\'"'HI""'£!::"') 1""'1'"'11"" ...,..,.., ,....V .-.-.. .... ~"'-,_,.V ,,....,..,~,1"'11"'""'1 "''f''1,""1""'1 • Weather Delays As you are well aware, the Ketchikan area experiences a significant number of days where VFR helicopter flights are not possible at the altitudes of the upper work on the project. Such inevitable delays would be costly to the project and are minimized with the method of access proposed in this review. If the project is currently feasible, Redpath is in an excellent position from which to discuss several design considerations that would possibly enhance the project. We are currently completing a similar project in central Utah involving a tunnel, raised shaft and concrete and steel lining. In addition, Redpath has extensive underground experience in southeast Alaska, including a long Alimak Raise completed at the Snettisham Hydroelectric Project outside of Juneau, Alaska. Enclosed with this letter are copies of Redpath's qualifications for this type of work, along with the budget estimate and an explanation of the Alimak Raising System. We would look forward to working with you on this project in the future. If you have any questions or require additional information please do not hesitate to call either myself or Chris Hickey, Manager of Contracting. Sincerely, Thomas M. Good General Manager :lkr jon:-~.=r, f~~ l I • === _....= ' ( ' BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECfRIC PROJECI' I TUNNEL AND RAISE EXCAVATION AND INSTALL INITIAL SUPPORT ~ I Unit I Description Quanti tv Unit Price {$) Total ($) ' Mobilization 1 LS 150,000 150,000 Plant Setup 1 LS 200,000 200,000 I I Ponal 1 LS 50,000 50,000 I Tunnel Excavation 8x8 2700 LF 507 1,368,900 I Tunnel Rockbolts 5000 LF 20 100,000 I Tunnel Shotcrete 100 CY 942 94,200 I Tunnel Steel Sets 100 EA 1,000 100,000 -Alimak Setup 1 LS 42,200 42,200 I Excavate 8' Diameter Alimak Raise 1700 LF 631 1,072,700 I Raise Rockbolts 6800 LF 20 136,000 -Alimak Teardovm 1 LS 32,000 32,000 -Plant Teardown 1 LS 50,000 50,000 t Demobilization 1 LS 100,000 100.000 TOTAL $3,496,000 $ 3.5 Million _.. e-,.... === I \ FRONTIER·KEMPER CONSTRUCTORS, INC. F K 1695 Allen Road, P.O. Box 6548, Evansville, Indiana 47719-<l548 812·426·2741 I Telex 27-2141 I FAX 812·428·0337 -HEAVY CIVIL & MINING CONSTRUCTION September 10, 1993 HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washingotn 98004-5538 Attention: Mr. Donald J. Thompson, P.E. HEAOCUARTt Subject: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Raise Drilling Budget Estimate Dear Mr. Thompson: The following is the raise drill budget estimate you requested for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. The budget estimate for the raise drilling work. detailed on the attached scope of work, is as follows: 1. Mobilization 2. a. b. c. To Seattle To Ketchikan To Site Assemble Equipment 1 LS @ $50.000 • S 50,000 1 LS @ $25.000 ~ 25,000 1 LS @ $75,000 • 75,000 1 LS @ $41,250 41.250 3. Drill Pilot Hole to 14" -1,650 VF @ S 75. 123,750 4. Raise Drill Shaft to 48" -1,650 VF @ S 200 • 330,000 5 . Disassemble Equipment 6. Demobilization 7. a. b. c. To Ketchikan To Seattle To Evansville Total Estimated Cost 1 LS @ $30,000 • 1 LS @ $75.000 • 1 LS @ $25,000 • 1 LS @ 550.000 • 30,000 75,000 25,000 50,000 -1,650 VF@ S 500 -$825,000 Should you have any questions, please call the undersigned at ( 812) 426-2741. Sincerely, FRONTIER-KEMPER CONSTRUCTORS, INC. ~ -. / .. ~,.,,. BJ NORTHWEST Pll'-& CASING co. QUOTATIUN I VIA FAX 206-453-7107 TO l1 Mr. Jack Snyder HDR Engineering, lnc. 11 Bellevue, WA I I Rl E6 SEl.. W ARE QUOTED FOB Dockside Seattle WE TAKE PLEASURE IN QUOTING AS FOU..OWS. ct~~y 22, 1~~u J COUI'I I'IEFERENCE ---l ~ahcney Lake Hydro ProJect MADe ---_ ____, I The following are estimating prices for the above noted project as you requested from our Greg Smith. The pipe will conform to A'WVVA C-200 standards and will be tape coated per C-214 where buried (3/16" wall pipe) and coal tar epoxy painted where exposed. All pipe will be coal tar epoxy lined, one I coat to a 12 mil thickness. Because we cannot manufacture 32• pipe with a 3/4" wall thickness, we have substituted 5/8" wall using steel with a 42,000 psi yield strength. I 32" CO x 3/16" wall steel pipe 32" CO x 1 I 4 • wall steel pipe 32· CD x 5/16" wall steel pipe 32" OD x 3/Sq wall steel pipe 32" 00 x 7 /16 .. wall steel pipe II 32" CD x 1/2. wall steel pipe -32" OD x s;s· wall steel pipe ' (70#/ft) (91#/ft) (112#/ft) (133#/ft) (153#/ft) (172#/ft) (212#/ft) 2600 LF 300 LF 150 LF 150 LF 125 LF 350 LF 2708 LF $ 50.00/tf $ 61.65/tf $ 73.00/tf $ 82.85/tf $ 95.80/lf $101.60/tf $1 18.50/lf $130,000.00 $ 18,555.00 $ 10.950.00 $ 12,428.00 $ 1 ,,975.00 ·~ $ 35,560.00 $320.896.00 • Project Total §540.366.00 j. Thanks for the inquiry. If you have any questions, give Greg or me a call. Best regards, Dave Blair Chief Estimator cc: Greg Smith --------·--·-·-"' ..,,.,.,_, ...... ....,., 'I"':':Dut .&a.m CONCmOH8 ON fti!'VI!J'IIU!. J I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I .. I ;J • • 08/e2/1993 16: 34 G I I...KE5 1 NC. -+O.JSTlJ'.i • I t;J<.H.:l I ... ....~ -r I_. --~ • '"- GILBERT GILKES & GORDON LTD. HYDRO DIVISION I I BUDGET OFFER Quotation Ref. : TB 2670 Sa.les Engineer: Ian Porter Dote; July 29, 1993 From: Site Noma: HOR Engineering Inc~ Mahoney Lake Country: u.s.A. BUDGET OFFER: l off Gilkes Pelton Turbine Horizontal, Twin Jet l off Speed Governor and Hydrauliy Pressure Supply 1 off Synchronous Generator. l3,2Kv/3Ph/60H: 1 off Turbine Shutoff Valve I 1 off Set Electrical Controls and Switchgear BUDGET PRICE: Total Budget Price for Equipment arecified above: $1,900,000.00 u.s. Dollars Price includes packing and carriage CIF USA Port and USA Import Duty. No local, State o; aales taxes included. ESTIMATED DELIVERY: 52 weeks, ex works Kendal, England ~· i'" I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I • BOUVIER HYDROPOWER, INC. r: ..... ~.· 't'.:'\1~1,.~: ... ~,------. t """";"'! - I July 26, 1993 flti os. .r~1 ~ &·u ~ rl~l p· HDR Engineering, Inc. suite 1200 soo 108th Ave., N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Attention: Mr. J. Snyder Subject: Mahoney Lake Project Dear Mr. Snyder: Hydro turbines & equipmenl Thank you for your recent inquiry to our joint venture partner, Voest-Alpine, requesting budgetary price and technical information on hydroturbine equipment for the subject application. Based on the site head and flow data submitted with your FAX of July 19, 1993, we propose one horizontal 2-jet Pelton turbine including synchronous generator, electronic governor and hydraulic pressure unit (HPU) for actuation of the needle valves and deflectors. Also proposed is a controls/switchgear package including battery system. Due to the unit size and output, the turbine arrangement includes turbine shaft and bearings; the turbine runner will not be overhung mounted onto the generator shaft. The governor proposed is a Woodward Governor Co. 700H Digital Speed Control unit which would be mounted into the electrical control cubicle. The governor will adjust deviations in unit speed through signals to the HPU which will open or close the jet deflectors. Note that the degree of speed regulating capability will depend to a large extent on the amount of rotating inertia provided in the generator. The following performance data is submitted: Turbine Type -Horizontal Pelton Runner Diameter -1250 mm Number of Needles -2 Speed -720 RPM Mr. J. Snyder -2-July 26, 1993 Maximum Turbine Output (@ 1651 ft. Net Head) Runner Material 9695 KW (@ 78 cfs) Stainless Steel Turbine Performance @ 1651 ft. Net Head: Output CKWl Efficiency (%) Flow(cfsl 9695 8175 6999 4977 2996 801 Generator Type Generator Rating Speed Voltage Power Factor Temperature Rise 88.9 89.5 89.7 89.0 89.5 71.8 78 65.3 55.8 40.0 23.9 8.0 Horizontal Synchronous 9500 KW 720 RPM 13,800 v 0.9 80° c over 40° c Ambient Our budgetary price for the above equipment is as follows: Turbine, HPU, Governor, Generator, and Controls/switchgear US$ 1,341,000 Prices are F. 0. B. Jobsi te and Deli very time is approximately Attached for your reference is a and turbine performance curve. include any applicable duties. 12 months from contract award. turbine outline dimension drawing The controls/switchgear will have full manual and automatic operation capability. Automatic restart after utility outage is included. station service equipment, SCADA system, and main power transformer are not included. • i 1 I~AY 2 41994 tl1nq1t &. ha1ba .Req1onal electRJcal authORitY P.O. Box 210149 • Auke Bay, Alaska 99821 • (907) 789·3196 May 20, 1994 Mr. Michael V. Stimac Manager, licensing & Environmental Services HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac: Thank you for sending me a copy of the minutes from the April 26 meetings for the Mahoney Lake Project. I had hoped to attend, but was unable to fit it into my schedule. As I have expressed in the past, I am a strong supporter of this and similar projects. Moreover, I do not see a conflict between these projects and transmission lines. Rather, they go hand-in-hand. Transmission lines enable possibilities we would otherwise be unable to consider. For instance, by connecting load centers, we not only can consider larger projects with better economics, we are able to consider projects which are located within the entire region. Without the transmission lines, we are forced to consider only those projects which are located near each load center--projects which are smaller, which have greater limitations, and which have higher unit costs. Please continue to keep me on your mailing list. I am enclosing a paper which was prepared by Kake Mayor Lonnie Anderson and myself. RoberfMa!:!!P', Jr., P.E. General Manager SOUTHEAST ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION INTERTIE SYSTEM The vision and long range goal of the community leaders responsible for energy is to connect the major communities in Southeast Alaska to a backbone transmission intertie system running from Wbitehorse/Carcross in the Yukon to Skagway, Haines, Juneau, Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell and Ketchikan. Those communities would further be connected to the continental grid system either at Prince Rupert or Stewart, B.C. Branches from the backbone would serve Greens Creek, Hoonah, Tenakee and Angoon. A connection from Sitka to Petersburg would also serve Kake. A line from Ketchikan would connect to communities on Prince of Wales Island, and a shorter line would add Metlakatla. Mineral developments in Bemers Bay, Greens Creek and Juneau would benefit. Large minerals deposits at Quartz Hill near Ketchikan and Windy Craggy in the Yukon near Haines would have their long- range development efforts enhanced by the availability of large quantities of low-cost energy. Other Canadian mineral developments on the east side of the coast range, from Tulsequah on the Taku River to Johnny Mountain on the Iskut River, would also be connected. Promising mineral finds on Native-owned lands on Prince of Wales Island would be much more feasible for development. As large loads are connected and transmission lines constructed, many hydroelectric projects which lack the necessary size to justify construction will become feasible. Some of these projects are Lake Dorothy and Speel River near Juneau, West Creek near Skagway, Chilkat Gorge above Haines, Lake Takatz near Sitka, Swan and Scenery Lakes in Thomas Bay near Petersburg, and Lake Grace and Mahoney Lake near Ketchikan. A fundamental benefit of an interconnected system is that individual power and economic development projects would be evaluated on the basis of their worth to the entire system-not just to the local area. In other words, the entire region would be helping to pay for the new projects. Thus, only the best of the projects would be developed. Today, there is a limited amount of state funding. Thus, it is crucial to get maximum benefit from those limited funds to obtain maximum leverage for future projects. Each increment of the overall transmission system would help to justify future projects, and each project would increase the number of consumers who benefit. The more consumers there are, the easier it is to achieve feasibility on any given project. Moreover, as the region grows, construction of transmission interties will be determined not only by the need to connect a community, but also by the need to reach a new hydroelectric source. In the immediate future, there are two possible interties: Tyee-Swan Lake, for which feasibility work has already been completed, and Petersburg-Snettisham, where feasibility work has not yet started. The former project will make needed capacity available to Ketchikan, but the feasibility analysis indicates that only in the "high growth" scenario would significant amounts of energy flow from the Tyee project to Ketchikan. Both the low and medium growth scenarios indicate little or no energy flow from Tyee to Ketchikan, and it is energy flow which would add the revenue necessary to pay for the project .. In short, the analysis indicates a marginal project at best. Juneau currently has a very large load, but also has a surplus of generating capacity and energy available at Snettisham. If an intertie is built, several advantages are immediately available. First, the capacity and energy would be available to backfeed to Petersburg so that needed repairs could be made to the Tyee line without interruption of service. Second, the line would be built close to or through Kake, so that an extension to Takatz--and Sitka--could subsequently be made in the future. Finally, development of the A-J Mine in Juneau will create a substantial demand for both capacity and energy-up to 275 million kWh of energy per year. There are 90 million kWh of excess energy available at Tyee, 86 million kWh (firm and non-firm) energy available from Snettisham. The A-J Mine will construct its own generation capacity, of up to 24 megawatts (MW) in combined-cycle turbines and hydroelectric power, but will want to use purchased power before using its own generation. Thus, all of the energy from Tyee can be used. This would end the subsidization of Tyee power by the other Four Dam Pool members and increase the revenue stream from Tyee by up to $5.8 million (at current rates). Besides Snettisham, other potential loads in the Juneau area are possible. If a line is constructed to Greens Creek, 5 to 10 MW will be needed, and 7 MW would be needed at the Kensington Mine in Berners Bay north of Juneau. As mineral deposits are developed in British Columbia, spur lines could be developed. If the Tyee-Swan line is built to Ketchikan, potential for connection to Prince of Wales Island communities is enhanced. These links make possible a connection both to BC Hydro at Stewart, BC (picking up the Quartz Hill Mine) or at Prince Rupert (using an underwater line), and to Yukon Energy through Haines and Skagway. KETCHIKAN GATEwAY BOROUGH Department of Planning and Community Development • 344 Front Street • Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 May 20, 1994 Michael v. Stimac HDR Engineering, Inc MAY 2 41994 500 108th Avenue, NE, Suite 1200 Bellevue, WA 98004-5538 SUBJECT: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project C..,. MDDStemi Dindor (907) 228-66Iu-·---- Fax: (907) 247-8439 I am in receipt of your recent transmittal regarding the consultation meetings in Ketchikan on April 26. I was unable to attend the entire briefing and apparently arrived at the Cape Fox Lodge session as the meeting was completed. The Department has no specific comments at this time. The Department is engaged in the process of updating the Coastal Zone Management Plan which includes a required energy facilities element. The current draft recognizes the subject proposal and suggests that the community support it as a part of an objective which seeks to meet the demand for affordable electric power. While proposed policies have not been subject to public review, I would anticipate that policies will be adopted during the course of the project study timeline. I would be pleased to share the a draft recommended plan with you or your associates when it becomes available later this summer. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. S~r~1{~~ G'aryv~nsterman! AICP Plan~g Director c: ~ug Campbell, Cape fox Corporation Veronica Slajer, City of Saxman gm\planad\M462-482 0 ENRI e ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE • UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE 707 A STREET ANCHORAGE ALASKA 99501 (907) 279-4523 FAX 276-6847 Anne Leggett 7 ·~-. -' HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 c Street, suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Anne: ALASKA STATE CLIMATE CENTER 257-2737 ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION AND DATA CENTER 257-2733 ALASKA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM 279-4549 May 21, 1994 I am writing in response to your request for information regarding Northern goshawk nest sites in the vicinity of Mahoney Lakes. Recent radiotelemetry studies of goshawks in southeastern Alaska have shown that the adult home range size during the brood-rearing period varies from 1,800-47,956 acres for males and 674-275,290 acres for females. The greatest distance from a nest travelled was 34 miles for a female and 19 miles for a male (ADFG 1993). Within this range (34 miles) 5 locations have been identified where goshawk nest could occur. These include Niblack Anchorage (POWI), Ketchikan Lakes (Revilla I.), NahajLeask (Revilla), Hassler Pass (Revilla), and Vixen Inlet (Cleveland Peninsula). Of these sites, Ketchikan Lakes is the closest, being only 2 miles from Upper Mahoney Lake. Goshawks have also been observed at Herring Bay, north George Inlet, and Jordan Lake (all Revilla I.). These data indicate that goshawks do occur in the Mahoney Lakes area. No nest sites have been confirmed, however, within one mile of the area you outlined on your map. If there are substantial old Jrowth forest stands in this area, it is possible a pair of birds could nest there. If this habitat is not present, they probably do use the area somewhat for foraging. I hope this information is useful to you. If you need additional information, or have any questions, just call. Sincerely, ?j:/#-%:/' Edward w. West, Ph.D. Assist. Prof. Biology Alaska Natural Heritage Program RECEIVED IN ANCHORAGE \.4AY ~ 1994 HDR ENGINEERING. INC. FROft HDR EN6IHEERIHG,INC, eo.le.1994 e9:35 3UN• ·-94 THU l8149 KTh IJSH a GA"S' M•aiTAT 987a~-~$?1 MEMORANDUM STATE OF ALASKA DBPAitTMBNT OJ' FlSB AND O.A.l\.lll Toe boN I Cbrlatine Valentine· Proi.ct Coo~din•tor »ivlaion o! aovarftMAftbal COo:'41nat1on · JUDtau ~ Lana~ aeg1onal ·~perv1aor Habitat ' Re•to~ation Oouglae •' DM-J~a -.1'W1e J 1 1 J •• •11.1 Hoc AXttOI•JS~J · ..... 325•1017 ~~nne~'• Mahoney Lake Hy~eleot~lo P:ro~eot. JIRC tzoo~eot. xo. 1~il3 . We have the following comment• ~~~•ing tht iaitlal oonau1~ation pbaae for the Mahoney Lata ftrdroeleot~Lo p~o~•ot. !be lni~ia1 COnsultation Document (lCD) and aaaooiate4 meeting• did a good 'ob ln deaaribing the aoope and intaat of the pz:oc~ act • Th1a will form the baeia !or oompl•tlng thia pro~eot in an expec:li t.ioua mamier • . Of particular eoncern wi11 be acqui~ing additional 1n!o~mat1on conoar.nins chant•• in •tream flowa and wate~ temperature• •• a 2:eault of the pz.aojeot. '1'hi1 includea leaming aaozoe about the atabi11ty of the !1ow regime which auppll•• the upwa11int ~el11aed by aookev-aalmoc lp&wning along the waate~ •~•line o~ the lake. It w£.11 l)e important tbat the tempe:ratue and flow modal in; and analya1e b6 combined with the ~••ultl oC the flah eeu4iea in a manne2: that aoo~ately pr6diota the •~facta that the pro~ect mi;ht bav• on ~1ah p:rOductivity, . We would alao •uggeat more frequeat monl,orln!'o! the Mahoney Lakea eockey• as>aw:Lnt cvole to mo~:e acourate y datemine the timing and abuna&ftoe of thia ~. Otharwia•,· the eite v1a1t planned for septembe~ could potentially aiel th• peak epawning perlod and 2:eault in inadequate data ~•s•:r41nt the location o! apawning and overall lite P.t'od\lOtlvity. Alao, thel'a may be uncataloged anadromoue an47or ~:eaident fieh t:ributariea in the vicinity which, if p:raaent, ahoul4 be 14entlf1•4. The w1141if• and botanical objeotivea during the ~iew phase for tbie pro~ect, however, ara m.ore vague. On• oonoem not mentioned, for exatnple, m1;bt be the tranami•aion line which gQS8 tronL . Mahoney Lak• to tha swan Lake aorzoido~r. Tht nex.t ph&•• of ~he protect abould de1oribe the mitigative meaeurea propoeecl to min miae potential oo111•iona with 1ar;e bir4a (euob •• •w•n• an4 , .... utillsina Mahoney L•ka) Ol' ~be aleot.~oution oe I'Aptol'•· A44itlonal1y, we do not have a copy of tbe ltl3 COr,pa o~ Bnglneere Dill referre4 to in tbe lCD. We would lS.Q to reoe1ve a copy of th1a tor our filea ret~1nr th1a Dro1ect. p. 2 Thank you !ol' th• oppo~tunlty tc 001 ~eok Ouatafaon, ~r~, Ktn 'Rrt»,,. ,Tft)\1"1Aftn. ann. ,,,.,. ~-~~~~~ •••END•** June 3, 1994 Julia Moore Alaska Natural Heritage Program 707 A Street, Suite 208 Anchorage, AK 99501 Subject: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project -Information Search Dear Ms. Moore: ' @:{ HDR Engineering is assisting the City of Saxman and the Cape Fox Corporation in evaluation of a potential hydroelectric project near Ketchikan, Alaska. We are presently gathering existing information on the project area, and developing study plans to fill information gaps. Attached is a topographic map depicting the project area. The habitats which are likely to be affected by the hydroelectric project include: a lake (elevation 2000 feet); a west-facing steep mountain slope (elevation 2000 '); a gravelly, alder-dominated riparian area (elevation 2000 feet); a cascading stream and waterfalls that flow eastward between elevation 2000 feet and sea level; and flat to east-facing old growth Sitka spruce-western hemlock forest and muskeg near sea level. I am interested in obtaining whatever information the Natural Heritage Program can provide on rare plant and animal species known to occur in the project area, as well as those with a fair probability of being in the area. It would be helpful if you could describe the habitat in which each species is likely to occur. (Julie Michaelson said this information would come from the EGR.) I would also like information on vegetation communities likely to be found in this area, as well as rare and unique plant communities. I have already consulted with Ed West regarding the presence of Queen Charlotte subspecies of goshawks in the Ketchikan area, so I do not need any more information on them. Thank you for your attention to this. Please call me if you have any questions. If, by chance, any of this information is ready by June 10, I would like to come pick it up, as it would be helpful to have it before I travel to the project site the following week. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~~~e 4? Anne Leggett Enclosure cc: Mike Stimac, HDR EuginMriug, Bellevue HDR Engineering. Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2689 Telephone 907 274·2000 Fax 907 274-2022 •D "' on ., ,;>'),· -:~.I . / >5 -~. ·tr' . ,J. .( \ .. , i ~p t . ...,... ' ·') ':"':'~ . . ""•!, I il. ............. 00 .. . 1. i ~· : ' .J ~iy····':. -··· ,. ·~· ( !::! G E 0 R G f.!. - ., <,I ·' ! .. - . ~-~ :. - . "~. \'j (·-, ,. . ....> .... ''" ~---,/~ .. ,oo" ;_. -· ' -.. _ .. I ! I 0 . ., -- -... .~ "' .L a 7 Nf .,_ ~ : : .'~t \t I ~ )';., ·:I. ~ . I \ l : '· ,, 4-...... ~~ "' ~ Y' o \:.1 , .. ) ... (f ' ~1 ~-.. j ~ ~-t:-J ..:r-<:1 ~ J i .. ~ ~ ~ '-t d1' ~ Ill VI { i:i '.:1 ) -,;:: v "'' : ,.... _1\ .:::> -.. .. .f /.--'d{ :; j s ~l~/.7;, 1 ~ : l.~f{.{' ,· .... '. ~~ . ' l _j <S '~s· . ~~ !'~ ' • "' ~'i.~: .: s;. \ --~"/... 0 ~ .. ~ . ~.:· ~ ·' • ::.. .... , ._. ·. . . ! . umn mal Data Submitteds &!1/c;tf ~~....._ ___ _ Date Information Needed. a :tIt I 1 c..J ---------------- Contact Person: ~~~.~~~~~L~e~Q~~~e~++~--------------------------------- T i tle: S+.. .f..C '5 ; o I~ c:. i e:.-. - Orqanization: +i't:>~ ~..-.c.,· M ~ _:,.....,._ kc" J -Program: Addreea: Z-5':.2-5 c S4-r-<:.::.. -r-SH 'k 3DS"' Arc.-+--., ,...,,q_ 4/c:.. "7C,s:P2 Phone: h-14-?. O~'::l Fax: "~ -:+LI~.., c: < . ...__ E-mail: ....... .--____ _ Please till out the above information1 this will be uaed tor tutura mailinqa concerning information requesta. IIIORXAW%01 fill What type of information are you raqueatinq (please be as specific as possible). ••• r.verse side. 5-et::.--· -fJ,,;..,( e1r,.;,--,:.(7.).. ,..,;:-C.r?vtr l~r • ) 5 ; t.o(!U:tQI (Pleaae submit map with outline of area of concern) Leqal Township & Range: -r. 11 s , ~. 9! £. C. R. . .M . section (a) s II, !'I z. 3-z.. -r, J 1/-jt, USGS Map Name1 fir +c l, :k.c. "' f)-~ Neareat Town or Locatable l:.nc:Smark: .... ...,.e .... <!'_,-.c ";;.;....;;;· f_..: ... "'..._ _______ _ 1,.,; tn'OttQ'I:X:OJ UJUCM'%QI For what project will the information be ap~lied? (i.e. Rcaie creek research project, mine expansion, etc.) /!fAJo,.,,.,, &1:.~ 1-ll(fi;ii"*d,.,'c.. A ? /:;I"'.Jff',{ -How will the acquired information be applied? (i.e. !IS, manaqement plan, etc.) t#wio?t,/Kr 5nul'1 ,t<lllf,.,-;, f"t~n-ek--1-,:r~r,..,.IC/~.1 &.t'r-70 s -' ) r /(1""'/t.Jr; •/.,,., /", 1'7' I,H; •"" /,'r 4>",1"?r, /o,;;; 0,--,. ;?1/:r· ;,.._ ;?, Vt/-QI"? -/;../ tllf' rc-:-.r<: HtrA f . , J I C''<(' ~ ; r, /. rost:-;,1'1 ,:;.. t ..... June 3, 1994 Steve Zimmerman Division Chief, Protected Resources Management National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99802 Subject: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Dear Mr. Zimmerman: li):{ The City of Saxman, Alaska, is investigating the development of a 9.6 megawatt hydroelectric project at Mahoney Lake near Ketchikan, Alaska. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a preliminary permit to the City of Saxman in June 1993 to allow them to study the project. Cape Fox Corporation, the village corporation for Saxman, is acting as the project's development agent, and HDR Engineering, Inc. is providing engineering and environmental services. A brief project description is attached. We at HDR Engineering are presently updating our information on the project area's natural resources and are preparing to conduct field studies. The purpose of this letter is to seek information you may have on species of federal concern that may be affected by this project and to initiate the consultation required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The information you provide will be used to prepare the FERC license application and National Environmental Policy Act documentation for the project. The project area is described in the attached description. Habitats in which the project will occur include old growth Sitka spruce- western hemlock forest, lowland muskeg, lakes, and a stream and its riparian zone. Please send me a list of threatened and endangered species that may be found in the project area, as well as other species under study for listing as threatened or endangered. Any information or references you could provide on habitats in which the species might be found and on activities that typically disturb these species would also be appreciated. Thank you for your attention to this. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~~~ Anne Leggett Staff Biologist Em:losure cc: Mite SlimK, HDR ED&i:aeering, Bellewe HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2689 Telephone 907 274-2000 Fax 907 274-2022 June 3, 1994 John Lindell, Endangered Species Coordinator U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3000 Vintage Boulevard, Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801 Subject: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Dear Mr. Lindell: I-D~ Thank you for talking with me earlier this week about consultation required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The City of Saxman, Alaska, is investigating the development of a 9.6 megawatt hydroelectric project at Mahoney Lake near Ketchikan, Alaska. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a preliminary permit to the City of Saxman in June 1993 to allow them to study the project. Cape Fox Corporation, the village corporation for Saxman, is acting as the project's development agent, and HDR Engineering, Inc. is providing engineering and environmental services. A brief project description is attached. We at HDR Engineering are presently updating our information on the project area's natural resources and are preparing to conduct field studies. The purpose of this letter is to seek information you may have on species of federal concern that may be affected by this project and to initiate the consultation required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The information you provide will be used to prepare the FERC license application and National Environmental Policy Act documentation for the project. The project area is described in the attached description. Habitats in which the project will occur include old growth Sitka spruce- western hemlock forest, lowland muskeg, lakes, and a stream and its riparian zone. Please send me a list of threatened and endangered species that may be found in the project area, as well as other species under study for listing as threatened or endangered. Any information or references you could provide on habitats in which the species might be found and on activities that typically disturb these species would also be appreciated. Thank you for your attention to this. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~;i?~ Anne Leggett Staff Biologist Enclosure cc: Mike Stimac, HDR Engineering, BeJJevue HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2689 Telephone 907 274-2000 Fax 907 274-2022 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Description June 2, 1994 The City of Saxman, Alaska, is investigating the development of a 9.6 megawatt hydroelectric generating plant located at Mahoney Lake near Ketchikan, Alaska. The proposed Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project is located five miles northeast of Ketchikan on lands owned by the Cape Fox Corporation (Saxman's native village corporation) and the U.S. Forest Service. The proposed project will use a lake tap - a tunnel into Upper Mahoney Lake about 75 feet below its surface -and a series of tunnels to convey water from Upper Mahoney Lake to the powerhouse located near Lower Mahoney Lake. No dam will be constructed. The normal water surface elevation of Upper Mahoney Lake is 1,959 feet. The turbine in the powerltouse will be set at elevation 150 feet, thereby providing a gross head differential of 1,809 feet. The project area is shown on the attached sketch map. The uppermost tunnel, which will tap into the lake, will be about 1,480 feet in length from the lake to where it surfaces in a flat riparian area about 1 ,500 feet downstream of the upper lake. A valve house will be constructed at this site containing a vent pipe, the primary intake shut-off valve, and the emergency shut-off valve. Downstream of the valve house, a 1,370-foot-long vertical shaft will be constructed to house the steel pipe that will convey water to the powerhouse. The powerhouse will be a semi-underground structure constructed at the portal entrance to the lower tunnel. It will contain a single twin-jet horizontal Pelton turbine. Maximum rated discharge will be 78 cfs and rated net head will be 1, 730 feet. The synchronous generator will generate at 13,200 volts and be rated 9,600 kW continuous. The powerhouse site has been selected to avoid potential impacts to fish using Mahoney Creek. The cascades and waterfalls between the upper and lower lakes end at a deep pool surrounded by bedrock walls at approximate elevation 140 feet about 8,000 feet upstream of Lower Mahoney Lake. The water discharged from the proposed turbine will re-enter Mahoney Creek at this pooL Fish cannot ascend the cascades upstream of this point on Mahoney Creek. The transmission line route will begin at the powerhouse and follow along the south and east sides of Mahoney Lake, then run northward to its connection with the 115 kV Swan Lake transmission line near the confluence of the White River with George Inlet. A switchyard will be located 0. 8 miles from the powerhouse along this route. A power transformer will be located in the switchyard to step up generation voltage from 13.2 kV to the transmission voltage of 115 kV. The transmission line will include 0.8 miles of 13.2 kV underground cable at the powerhouse end and 4. 7 miles of 115 kV overhead cable. The 115 kV transmission line will follow along an existing logging access road recently constructed by the Cape Fox Corporation. A new access road will be constructed to connect the existing road and the powerhouse site. W"3»¥ ..1-?;J ~O'IId aNV ·· · ,.·d!lf:W ·.t\J..J Nl:111\ ......... I P w---... ····~· ........... I I F""i dVn Al.INIJII\ . . .; . "* . -~ .... . , .. - . . ·"* . . ··• . . ·• .......• . "' . ...... .. ....•.. - :. \ ' .. ~ . . .. lB. ... .. . .... = .. . . . . . .. . . . ~ ... · ... ("\ . .. v · . .., ...,_... .......... '\-== ' \ -- \_ (/ I ..... , ,- / \ I ,,~ ~~~~[ ~w &~&~~& DEPARTMENTOFNATURALRESOUR~ES June 8, 1994 DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION Office ol HJ•tory and Archaeology File No.: 3130-1R FERC Subject: Project No. 11393, Mahoney Lake Hydro Initial Consultation meeting minutes Michael v. Stimac, Manager Licensing & Environmental Services HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Ave., N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac; WALTER J. HICKEL, G ............ ., •. _ 3601 C STREET. Suite 1278 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 9950.:~ PHONE: (907) 762-2622 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 107001 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 9951Q-7..Q<j'1 .J ... I I l! 1994 Thank you for the meeting minutes and Licensing Study Plans for the referenced· project. It is our opinion that the study tasks described on pgs. 6-7 will be adequate to identify any significant historic and archaeological resources in the area of potential effect of the project. We look forward to reading CUltural Resources Consulting's Assessment Report on historic properties when available. Please contact Tim Smith at (907) 762-2625 if there are any questions or if we can be of further assistance. JEB:tas @printed on recycled paper by C. D. United States Department of the Interior IN REPLY REFER TO' Mr. Michael V. Stimac HDR Engineering, Inc. 500 10Bth Avenue, N.E. Suite 1200 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Southeast Alaska Ecological Services 3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 201 Juneau, Alaska 99801-7100 · A. '.'"\~"~;1 Ll ,'';~. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 June 9, 1994 RE: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11393 Dear Mr. Stimac: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the documents furnished by your office on the subject project. We find the current project more environmentally benign than the earlier proposals. The proposed studies should provide the data needed to address the issues not yet answered. The water quality and quantity study is of particular interest. Water temperature differences between the penstock intake in upper Mahoney Lake and the upwelling areas used by spawning sockeye salmon in lower Mahoney Lake are necessary to determine project effects on spawning salmon. We look forward to reviewing those studies. The Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668-668d) prohibits molesting or disturbing bald eagles, their nests, eggs, or young. Our 1982 Coordination Act Report recommended the above ground transmission line be located more than 1/8 mile from the shoreline. We encourage the actual routing of the transmission line follow that recommendation if at all possible. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Nevin D. Holmberg Field Supervisor June 15, 1994 Mr. Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish & Game Habitat Division 2030 Sea Level Drive Room 205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Dear Mr. Gustafson: Hlt We have received a copy of the June 3, 1994 memorandum from Lana Shea of Alaska Department of Fish and Game to Christine Valentine of Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination with comments reJating to the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. These comments are very much appreciated and will be incorporated into the Final Consultation Document that will be distributed in July. Enclosed is the 1983 Corps of Engineers DBIS which was requested in that memorandum. Thank you for your participation in this project. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the Mahoney Lake Project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. JVLI ehacQ lJ. sti rv~Ut.Jo.a Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services cc. D. Campbell, Cape Fox E. Ballard, Cape Fox V. Slajer, Saxman J. Snyder, HDR HDR File, B.4.1 IFf~: HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 / RECEIVED IN ANCHORAGE ~ ,w 2 0 1994 (j) I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and AtmospilAric Administration National Marine Rsheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668 HDR ENGINEERING, INC. · .. MS. Anne Leggett HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2689 Dear ~. Legget: · June 17, 1994 ~; ,_, We have received your letter of June 3, 1994, requesting a list of species in the Mahoney Lakes project area which are subject to consultation with the National Marine Fisher~es Service (NMFS} under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et ~} . We have indicated the listed species which can occur in the general geographic area, but caution that these species may not occur in the immediate project area. Endangered Species: humpback whale (Megeptera novaeangliae) Snake River sockeye salmon (Onchorhynchus nerka) gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Threatened Species: .Steller sea lion (Eurnetopias jubatus) Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha) Snake River fall chinook salmon (Oncnorynchus tshawytscha) Work not involving marine waters is unlikely :to·. affect· these species, but if you suspect interactions, you must provide a description of the project and your determination as to the nature and extent of the action's impacts on listed species. NMFS jurisdiction is generally limited to marine species, and we have not included terrestrial and other aquatic species under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. You should contact that agency directly for this information. Sincerely, ~~~ . ~ Tamra L. Faris Southeast Alaska Office Supervisor ·(ll (~ "'....; .. ..,,;, ( • June 21, 1994 Ms. Teresa Trulock U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FBR.C No. ll393 Dear Ms. Trulock: 1-D~ AB requested in your conversation with Jack Snyder last week, enclosed are copies from the 1983 Draft Imerim Feasibility Repon and Environmental lmpoct Statement (Dms) relating to the Mahoney Lake Hydropower Project as proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We do not have a copy of the actual cultural resources assessment referred to in the DEIS and are in the process of tracking it down. If we are able to obtain a copy, we will have an extra made and will forward it to you at that time. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services Enclosures cc. Doug campbell, Cape Fox Emesta Ballard, Cape Fox Veronica Slajer, City of Saxman Jack Snyder, BDR Debby Howe, HDR Lisa Fortney, BDR Mark Dalton, HDR HDR File, B.4.1/&Ja HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-, 523 -$¥&¥[ ([J &~~$~~ OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DNISION OF GOVERNjJENTAL COORDINATION WALTER J. HICKEL. GOVERNOR ,. ·~r 2 1 '99'11 '-"~'•' 1 a O"soUTHCeniw.REGtONAL OFFICE fS:(" CENTRAL OFFICE D PIPEIJNE COORDINATOR'S OFFICE 411 WEST 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 2C ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501·2343 PH: (907) 278-8594/F AX: (907) 272-0690 . 3601"C"STREET,SUITE370 . P.O.BOX110030 ANCHORAGE, A1.ASKA 811503-5930 JUNEAU, ALASKA 91811-D300 PH: (907) 561-6131JFAX: (907) 561-6134 PH: (907) «os-35621FAX: (907) 465-3075 01-A35L.H Mr. Micheal V. Stimac HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Ave., NE Bellevue, WA 98004-5538 and Mr. Douglas Campbell Cape Fox Corp. }>.0. Box 8558 . Ketchikan. AK 99901 .. Dear Mr. Stimac and~. Campbell: June 21, 1994 . SUBJECT: MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT STATE ID #AK9403-33JJIFERC PROJECT #11393 FIRST CONSULTATION PHASE The Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) has completed coordinating the State • s informational review of' the City of Saxman's proposal to construct a small (9.6 megawatt) hydropower plant near Mahoney Lake, about 5 miles northeast of Ketchikan. The Mahoney La.ke -project is described in.detaiLin the following documents and will not be re-described here: (1) Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Initial Consultation Document, March 1994 by HDR, (2) Joint Agency/Native American/Public Meetfugs packet, not dated (received on 5/19/94 by the DGC), by HDR. The purpose of the project is to provide the Ketchikan area with an additional energy supply. We are at the Preliminary Permit/First Consultation Phase of the FERC review. As the process for obtaining a FERC license requires extensive preapplication consultation, this review is infomi.ational, for the purpose of the agencies providing resource information about the project area to assist in completion of the FERC application. Identification of permits will occur in-the Second Consultation Phase. The State's coastal consistency review will be comm.enced when all permit applications are submitted and FERC officially accepts the application and issues a public notice (Third Phase of the FERC review). @ printed on recycled paper b y G. D. t 4 l i f ,, ' ! At this point in the FERC review, the City of Saxman/ Cape Fox Corp. will prepare the following study plans: (1) water quality and quantity, (2) fisheries/aquatic resources, (3) wildlife/botanical resources, (4) historic/archaeological resources, (5) recreational resources, (6) aesthetic resources, (7) land use, and (8) erosion and sediment controL Comments received by this office are briefly summarized in this letter. The state agency comments are enclosed for your use in preparing the FERC application and contain more detailed information about the State's concerns and interests. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was unable to examine this project in detail due to staff shortages. However, the DEC advises that an NPDES (i.e. Storm Water Discharge) permit from the Environmental Protection Agency may be needed. In addition, a Certificate of Reasonable Assurance under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act may be required as the state authorization of various federal permits needed for the project. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) advises that additional information regarding potential impacts on stream flows and temperatures is critical. In particular, the DFG is interested in the relationship between upwelling and sockeye salmon spawning along the western shore of Mahoney Lake. More frequent monitoring of salmon spawning is also 1 suggested by the DFG to avoid missing the peak spawning period, resulting in incomplete , data. The DFG has also requested identification of streams used by fish and that more information on wildlife/botanical resources be provided. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-Division of Water & Mining (DWM) advises that a water use permit has been received and serialized as LAS #14359. DWM concurs with the DFG's request for additional information about the potential effects of the project on stream flows and temperatures and the relationship of the flow regime to fisheries. DWM also requests that the proportionate contribution of upper Mahoney Creek to the Lower Mahoney Lake inflow be calculated and that the effects of any reduced inflows to Lower Mahoney Lake be graphed as a post-project hydrograph. The Division of Land has not commented on the project. The Division of Parks and Recreation, including the State Historic Preservation Office, commented directly to HDR and did not submit copies to this office. The Ketchikan coastal district submitted comments directly to HDR and to this office. The district advises that the local coastal management plan is currently being revised and new 1 policies may be adopted during the life of the Mahoney Lake project. The current draft revision offers support for the project. The district also states that the project is consistent with the local zoning ordinance and comprehensive plans. Construction activities will require a local zoning permit. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the Alaska Coastal Management Program,. please contact me at 465-3177. cc: Joan Hughes, DEC, Juneau Lana Shea, DFG, Juneau Jack Gustafson, DFG, Ketchikan Elizaveta Shadura, DNR/DOL, Juneau Jim Anderson, DNR/DOL, Juneau John Dunker, DNR/DOW, Juneau Gary Munsterman, Coastal Contact, Ketchikan f"...,eLc:.~ Sincerely ~~ Christine Valentine Project Review Coordinator f ' l L ·~· ··. ERKIPLRNNING OFFICES TEL:9Q7-247-84 Jun 01,94 16:15 No.OOS P.02 , ( KE'l'CHIKAN GATEl\.,..Y BOROlJGB ( Deps_rtau:l1t of Pl.aonl.og and Co~munity De,·elopmeat • J..W F'runl Street • K!:!tchikun • .'\.lusk.a tJ9901 .,_. .. · .. , -c~ Muutoi'I\Wi D"-ur. · . · ·May: 2J', .1994 · (907) 128-6610 ·· .. Fax: .(907).247·843.9," · . . . .· . . . . . ' .... : ~. .. . . Michael V. ·stimac .. ·BPR Engineering,· Inc·· 500 108th Avenue, NE, Suite 1200 Bellevue I v~A 98004-5538 .. . · SUBJECT: Mahon"ey.Lake Hydroelectric Project .• . ... I am in receipt of yo~~ recent transmittal regardi~q the cor.sultation meetings in Ketchikan on April 26. I was unable to _at.tend. t-he ~ntire briefing a.nd apparently ar.r.ivf!!!d. at the. Cape Fox . L9dg·~ ~es_sion ;as:·the ::m~~t::i.ng Mas_·~~lil)DJ?l.e~e~~<·:··· -~ .· -<:.", .. :·::·:_·~ -.:·._,:~ .. : ... ·, · .... ···. · · ' . . . ' . ,· \ . rrhe. :o:~partment has. ·.n(l. spe~ific -c.oimllents: at . thii> :time~ · ·'rhe : .-. ·;-. · .. ·.· Department is engagecf in the process .of-·upda'i;ing·.·the Coastal Zone Management Plan which includes a required energy facilities element. The curren~ draf~ re~ognizes ~he subject proposal and suggests L the community suppo:::.-t it as a part of. an objective •..;hich seek.s to meet the demand tor affordable electric power. While proposed policies have not been subject to public review, I would anticipate that policies will be adopted d~ring the coursa of the project study timeline. I would be pleased to share the a draft recommended plan with you or your associates when it becomes available later this summer. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely( . / L-J !'/; ~~· ,-_ .. ' /;·l 'I ·· ~ ~(' . .-~ ,_....r--;~~/; I~ \: ... \..v\,....'i_/ ,..,.. f •• ~ ... -- 1 Gary ~unsterman, AICP Plann~ng Director c: Doug Campbell, Cape fox Corporatio~ Veronica Slajer, City of Saxman ;r-,' p: ... .:; ~ \ ~' .; !l ~· -;. !.1..:. CLERKIPL I OFFICES TEL:907-247-8439 Jun 01 ,94 16:14 No.OOS P.01 ( J(ETCJiiK.A.N·GATEWAY BOROUGH . Department uf-Ptan~iag and .Cu~mullity Developmeat ·~ 344 FJ:oat ~tt·eet • Ket~hikan, Ala11ka 99901. . . . . J.une. 1 1 1994. ;:· ~ ' ~hri'~tilie>v~lent.in~ ~rojtict Re.vi~w c·oo;rdina.tor · .·~ · .· : •. · · •: o~v~&.~·or( ·of: Q.9yerz:unenta:l Coordi'natior1 ·p~o. Box 110030 · Juneau, AK 99811 :OatJM......._ Dtredor ... . ... :(9o1) :u.i~lO . . · . . •!JI'U:' . (907) 241;;8439 .·. Re: Mahoney take. ·aydroele~tric Project .:.: Initial· consultation CZMP ConsJ..atency·Review State ID; AK9403-33JJ . . ; ::]~t~i~:f~~:r:.~s ',~~-{~e . ~~~~ia1 ConsUl~~iln •t~q~ ;o~ t~e .•. · ·upcQmi!lg hydrool.edtric · projeet at· >Mahoney Lake. This proposed project aite is located approximately five (5) miles northeast of the City of Ketchikan. This project is looated within the Future Deve~'-'Pl'i<~:Jn'!: (FD} Zone and is a r:ermi~:-.ed :..:ee withi.n that z,;:..ne. The applicant is the City of Saxman. Findings 'I'he Ketchikan . District has re•;iewed the above referenced application. At this time the District has no specific comments to make about this project. Enclosed w-ith this letter is a copy of the letter that was transmitted to HDR Engineering from Gary Munsterman, Planning Director for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. This letter is in response to the seeping meeting that was held in Ketchikan on April 26 1 1994. This project ie also consistent with and supported by the Ketchikan Ga.teway Borough Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Zoning P•rait If construction is anticipated for this project a zoning permit wlll be required from the Boro·i.lgh. Sincere y 1 •• ,. ;' ;zt ~e· ... ~? !fo. ·. 7 :'.~ :.--: ,!!d ~ --· ·-~--/./2." .P (· -t' ~ ~ {/ ---,. .. ,/ Stephen G. Ranis Zoning Administrator 'J \ S \ CZ.H\ 199 4\ 9 4 0 3 3 3.J,')'. t-"..AH 1 f j ' f ******************************************************************************** *** REQUESTOR: GCHCCEV -Valentine, Christine OlDGC *** ***~************~*********~*************~************************************~** *** S .Y S M · · .I N B A S K. E T P·R IN T· MESSAGE.ID: 65P817 DaTE:. 06/20/94 TIME": 16:32 P._RIQRITY: 000 TO: ·.·. .. FROM·: ~·. ·. . . " . •. . GCHCCEV. -:··valentine~, ·: chris.tfne· _·· •. ·:Project-~.eview· Coor.din~to:r· .· .. · OIDGC :. ·· . . . .·· . · ·:. ··,: .. ··P.o');.B~x.1l·OOJO·:: .. :NWRcJbu -DU:nker:, · John Water Resource Officer lODWR 400 Willoughby Ave., 4th , ~~ne<3:u, . .AK · '99SO;t '-: Fl. ..... .-: · .. • • • ~ • • • ..· • .• ' , ~ ••• + • .• ~· • ·:·· ;. '"•,. ''· -:·· :.·.· ..... :' ... :. ·. ' ~ .. '·..-Mahon~;·., Lak~: ~;~~o :-: ... SUBJECT: Christine: ... :·- 'l'· .••• ··: .· .. .. -. ' ·. .:.:·.::. . .. · .. . .. : .. ·.·. · ..... . ~ . . .•· . . .. I have the following comment on th Mahoney Lake initial consultation phase: -We support the suggestions made by ADF&G in the memo from LanaShea to you of 3 June, paragraph 3. -We suggest that the proportionate contribution of upper Mahoney Cr. to total Lower Mahoney Lake inflow be calculated. -We suggest that ~he effect of reduced intake flows into Lower Mahoney Lake from accumulating storage in Upper Mahoney Lake be graphed as a post-project or operations phase hydrograph. John Dunker, DNR/Water & Mining/SE Sent to: GCHCCEV -Christine Valentine {to) ·*** ··: .,. . ... MEMORANDUI\tl OFFICE OF STATh OF ALASKA MANAGEMENT & ~~TMENT OF FISH AND GAME . . 1 . JUN 8 1994 3 To: Chr1st1ne Va ent1ne -DATE: June , 1994 Proj-ect Coorqinatol;" _ -· . : · .. · .-_ _ .. Division· ·0f GcrV.ernmeaQWERN-MiiN.t~: .-AK9403-33JJ coord~naticm <. · . : · · COORDINATION. . -. .. • ·Juneau .. ~ ·· ·· ·' -· · . -PHoNE·: · 225-2027 :.-. -.-. FRoM: ·Lan~-~---· . 4: . ·. ·. ·. ~: · · ·: : SUB.n:~:: -· ·Ma~o~ey-L~~e l!ydr6eiectri'c · . .. Regional Supervisor · Proj·ecf, PERC Project -· Habitat & Restoration No. 11393 Douglas We have ·the following comments regarding the initial ·consultation phase for the Mahoney Lak~ Hydroelectric project. The Initial Consultation Document (ICD) and associated meetings ; _dip -~ ·SC?od j oi;> in. describing J:·h-e · -E?Co~ · ~nd .int~nt, .of_.,. the:: ·proj ¢e;t ... :" ... --. ·.: . . . This wl:ll forg:~ 'the basis· for .'completing this·:·prQ"j ect ·in· an· · ·. · . -'': ,. · ·:·e;x:p·eaiti9us mariner. · · · · · Of particular concern will be acquiring additional information concerning changes in stream flows and water temperatures as a result of the project. This includes learning more about the stability of the flow regime which supplies the upwelling util~zed by sockeye salmon spawning along the western shoreline of the lake. It w'ill be important that the temperature and flow modeling and analysis be combined with the results of the fish studies in a manner that accurately predicts the effects that the project might have on fish productivity. We would also suggest more frequent monitoring of the Mahoney Lakes sockeye spawning cycle to more accurately determine the timing and abundance of this run. Otherwise, the site visit planned for September could potentially miss the peak spawning period and result in inadequate data regarding the location of spawning and overall site productivity. Also, there may be uncataloged anadromous and/or resident fish tributaries in the vicinity which, if present, should be identified. The wildlife and botanical objectives during the review phase for this project, however, are more vague. One concern not mentioned, for example, might be the transmission line which goes from Mahoney Lake to the·swan Lake corridor. The next phase of the project should describe the mitigative measures proposed to minimize potential collisions with large birds (such as swans and geese utilizing Mahoney Lake) or the electrocution of raptors. Additionally, we do not have a copy of the 1983 Corps of Engineers DEIS referred to in the ICD. We would like to receive a copy of this for our files regarding this project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. cc: Jack Gustafson, ADF&G, Ktn Bruce Johnson, ADNR, Jnu Elena Witkin, ADEC, Jnu Ho~ston Hannafious, COE, Anc f f .. i. • SENT BY!Xerox Teleco,ier 7020 ; 4-4-94 ;11!43AM ; 90746r;;li362-+ FACSIMILE TRA~SMITTAL SHEET t OFFJCE OF THE COMMISSIONER SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE : 410 WILLOUGHBY.AVENUE, $~1TE.105 JUNEAU: 'ALASKA 99801·,;.1.795 . . .... . ..... . . . . · .. ' . . . . . . . . . . (907} 46~3~0 · .. : . . · ·· .. . . JJ Ll . eft U FAX # (907) 465·5352 . Oate: .. / ·-7-r 4653075:# 1 Please deliver to: t h"' I S IJ ,01" ~ bu [dv-e _ 1C) C ~ MA~AG~:~: ~FBUDGET . . · . . .. Receiving. F.a:; #~ . 13 () ~ . . · · :. .A~_R ..... 4 1994 .. . . . . · .... :· ~u~~er .. of ~ag~, in~!~dl~n. tnl~ p~· 'e:·.. I: . . GOvekN.MENTAL · ~ ·. -COOROINAT!ON Sent by:·---;;rr--~~~.p.-._,.._..;:::;::__ ___ _ SUBJECT: ht~-l7(~ /¥-t.t ~ I!J~ ~~st~s j) We have completed a preliminary screening of the projects listed above. Due to staff shortage wa are unable to examfne this project In detail, therefore, we do not have comments or object to the projects Usted above. If significant water quality Issued are raised by the public or by other agenotes, we wfll attempt to re·enter the ... "", review and may cnange to add additional comments at the time. v ~ ~~~1~-~ ().._ ~· . w~qv~"P~ ~ u.--e.u-1' ··-~ .. ee: ~ United States W Departllent of Agriculture Forest Service Alaska Region Ketchikan Ranger District 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-2148 8 Michael Stimac HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac: !1 .. ! 2 '7 ,,..,~. ~'-'·' I ~~-::-- TT/TDD (907) 225-041~ Jl Reply to: 2720 Date: June 21, 1994' I have finished reviewing the initial consultation document for the proposed Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. The following are my comments. Geotechnical Data Please provide more specific information on your geotechnical investigations. Will you be performing any test drillings? If so, Where will test drillings be taken and how many do you anticipate? Are you planning any surface or subsurface geophysical investigations? Cultural Resources If you plan to contract your cultural resources survey, you will need to submit a research design and the qualifications of your primary investigator. Enclosed is a permit application to be filed with this office prior to any work taking place on National Forest System Lands. Wildlife In 1991 mountain goats were transplanted near upper Mahoney Lake. The direct, indirect and cumulative effects of this project on the goat population will need to be addressed. An eagle nest survey will also need to be conducted. Special Use Permits Your Investigative Special Use permit will be issued from this office. The permit cannot be finalized until the questions listed above are clarified. In addition, a list of study equipment to be placed on National Forest System Lands and their locations is required. Fish There are no fish concerns in the immediate project area. The direct, indirect and cumulative effects on downstream fish populations will need to be addressed. FS·6200·28{7 ·821 ' ~ W Michael Stimac 2 I would like to encourage you to continue consulting with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the initial consultation document. If you have any questions, please contact Teresa Trulock at this office. ;;~: ~. ' STEVEN T. ~ District Ranger m Enclosure cc: RO Lands SO Lands Hector Perez, FERC FS-6200-28(7 ·82) di!'--0---.... United States Department of the Interior FlSH AND WILDUFE SERVICE Soutbcan Alaska Ecological Sel"''ices 3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 201 Junqu, Alasb. 99801·7100 RECEIVED IN ANCHORAGEj I 1 . IN IU::I'I.Y R.EFEit TOo JUN 2 4 1994 i Anne Leggett HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, AK.99~03~2~89 Dear Ms. Leggett: HDR ENGINEERING, INC. June 21, 1994 ·-.'k',. .. ·• This responds to your June 3, 1994 letter requesting information about threatened, endangered or candidate species that may occur in the vicinity of the proposed Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project on Revillagigedo Island near Ketchikan, Alaska. For the purposes of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation, we offer the following comments: Based on available information, the following threatened or endangered species may occur in the proposed project area. Common Name American peregrine falcon arctic peregrine falcon Scientific Name ~ pere,rinus anatum ~ perecrinus tunriris ESA Statu§ endangered threatened Both of these peregrine falcon subspecies may occur in the project area as transients, primarily during seasonal migration. No critical habitat has been designated for these species. On Decembe.r lS, 1~93 the Fish and Wildlife Service· '('Service) ·received a petition to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf (~ ll.ml&a liconi) as threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. On May 20, 1994, the Service published a notice (Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 97, pp. 26476·26477) of a positive petition.finding which initiated a status review of the animal. This notice of positive finding in effect confers Category 2 candidate status to the Alexander Archipelago wolf. The final decision on whether or not to list this species is anticipated during December of this year. Wolves are present on Revillagigedo Island and likely exist in the project area. We suggest that it may be prudent to include the wolf in your environmental review given the uncertainties about its status at this time. The following comments regarding Category 2 candidate species are offered as technical assistance for your consideration. Category 2 species are those for which there is information indicating the species may qualify for endangered or threatened status, but further evaluation is needed. Three Category 2 ! candidate animal species may occur in the proposed project area: marbled murrelet northern goshawk harlequin duck Bracbyr&mpbus marmoratus Accipiter 1entilis Histrionigus histripnicus Category 2 Category 2 Category 2 Two Category 2 plant species may occur in southeast Alaska. They are Qalama&rostis Qrassi&lumis. and~ lenticularis var. dal1&. If you have an questions about these comments or other endangered species issues, please contact John Lindell at this office. These comments are offered for endangered and threatened species for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibility under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1521-' JAQ.) and its amendments. The above comments are specific to the Endangered Species Act and do not . reflect agency concerns regarding other organbms-or babitata for which the Service has legislated responsibilities. Sincerely. ohn Lindell Endangered Species Biologist Mahoney.ed ....... ---·· ,......,~ ... _. -· •'·'" ,.- /.!· ·--. " /,---., iiiti\:~.....___- ·, IN REPLY REFER TO: FISH AND W1LDUFE SERVICE Migratory Bird Managemcnr-Raptors 3000 Vintage BJ..,d., Suite 240 Juneau. Alaska 99801·-71 00 . il -5 1994 J JUL I 2il9941 i { '------........~-· ! . i HDR ENGiNEERING, INC. 1 .____ ......; June 29, 1994 Mark Dalton HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 c Street, suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Mark: On June 15, 1994 we conducted an aerial survey by helicopter of Mahoney Lake, including the west side of George Inlet to White River (see enclosed map). Three bald eagle nests (numbers 14, 69, and 70) were located. Nest No. 14 is in active use by eagles this season. Three other nests (numbers 2, 12, and 13), documented in the 1970's, were not found during this survey and are assumed to be gone. we recommend an undisturbed buffer zone of at least 330 foot radius be maintained around all bald eagle nest trees. The best long-term procedu~e ·would be to locate the transmission line, road, and other developments 1/8 mile or more from the shoreline of George Inlet Also, no blasting should occur within 1/2 mile of any active eagle nest. Helicopters can be a significant source of disturbance to eagles, and repeated helicopter flights should not occur within 1/4 mile of a nest during the nesting season, March 1 to August 31. There should not be any direct overflights of active eagle nests. I have enclosed the pamphlet "Bald Eagle Basics• that may provide some helpful information. I appreciated the opportunity to get together with you at MCL~oney Lake, a.~d to complete the helicopter survey. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me at (907) 586-7243. Sincerely, 111k9rur~ Mike JacobsU Eagle Management Specialist cc: Eric Muench Jerry Cegelske t '~ ~ i 1 r: ,) ,, ...... . .,. .. ,-.. ·' ~ ' . .v ~ Q, ~ -.!1 'u ............ -~ •..!) -~ ~ -....... \,. ~ ~ ~ ~ *" -~ .... :=. ~ Vl '-~ ~ .... \,) ~ ~ ·-<.!r ~ "'I: c ~ .... \lJ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ <:. II ~ ,, ,, ~ -)( ~ -------- June 30, 1994 Ms. Teresa Trulock U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FER.C No. 11393-Field Studies Dear Ms. Trulock: Hl{ This letter is to clarify the proposed studies for the above-referenced project and to answer questions raised in Steve Segovia's letter dated June 21, 1994. Geotechnical Data As stated in the Initial Consultation Document that was distributed to the USFS on March 16, 1994, an erosion and sediment control study is proposed to take place this summer to evaluate the potential for erosion and sedimentation during the construction and operational phases of the project. Because most of the project features are underground, emphasis of the study will concentrate on the access road and potential tunnel spoils disposal sites. The access road is located on lands owned by the Cape Fox Cotporation. Most of the tunnel spoils disposal sites will be on Cape Fox lands, but one is likely to be on National Forest System lands. The proposed access road route will be flagged and surveyed up to the powerhouse location to visually identify any existing environmental hazards which could affect the design, construction, and operation of the project. No test drillings, earth-disturbing activities, or geophysical testing (seismic or drilling) will be done. However, after the license is issued by the FER.C, it may be desirable to conduct some geotechnical drilling. A new application to perform that work will be submitted to the USFS at that time. Cultural Resources Chris Campbell of Cultural Resources Contracting, Inc. will conduct the cultural resources survey for the project. The permit application to conduct archaeological investigations on National Forest System lands has been forwarded to Ms. Campbell to complete and submit to the USFS. Like the anticipated approach for the erosion and sediment control study, the access road will be walked to the powerhouse location to visually identify any geomorphic features that could result in the discovery of potential cultural materials. No ground-disturbing activities or archaeological explorations will be done. The work is primarily to identify cultural resources and the project's potential impacts on them. HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 f I • f ' Ms. Teresa Tmlock U.S. Forest Service June 30, i994 Pagel Special Use Pennit The only study equipment to be placed on National Forest System lands is a water temperature monitor near the proposed intake in Upper Mahoney Lake. The monitor consists of a cable suspended in the lake down to a depth of 80 feet and connected to a waterproof box along the shoreline. The box. is about one cubic foot in size. Other study work for the project that will occur on National Forest System lands will consist of hiking, photographing, and observations. There will be no ground-disturbing activities or tree cutting. Fish and Wildlife The direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the project on downstream fish populations and the mountain goat population will be addressed in the FERC license application. A bald eagle nest survey will also be conducted. We hope this resolves any concerns the USFS has about the planned studies for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Because of the limitM. disturbance expected from these studies, we request that the requirement for an Investigative Special Use Permit be waived. If this requirement cannot be waived, we request this permit be issued as soon as possible to allow our planned studies to proceed. Please notify us of your decision on this matter as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation. Please contact me or Jack Snyder if you have any further questions. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. )'#/!~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Senrices cc. Doug campbell, Cape Fox Bmesta Ballard, Cape Fox Veronica Slajer, City of Saxman Jack Snyder, HDR Debby Howe, HDR Lisa Fortney, HDR Mark Dalton, HDR HDR File, B.4.1 August 8, 1994 (See Distribution List) Subject: Dear: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 11393 Final Consultation Document lilt Enclosed is a copy of the Final Consultation Document (FCD) for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. The FCD is based on the Initial Consultation Document that was distributed via letter on March 16, 1994, incorporates the comments received during Stage I consultations, and contains copies of all consultation correspondence and responses developed in reply to concerns addressed in agency comment letters and at public meetings. Issuance of the FCD concludes Stage I of the FERC licensing process and finalizes our agreements on what studies will be performed during Stage II. Thank you for your participation to date. In addition to conducting the studies and developing the overall license application during Stage n, please be advised that the Applicant intends to initiate NEPA compliance for this application during this pre- filing stage as well. Consistent with the authority granted under Section 2403(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Applicant will prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Project and will file that as part of its license application in Jieu of preparation of Exhibit E, the environmental exhibit traditionally prepared as part of a license application. A scoping process will be conducted and a draft Environmental Assessment will be made available for comment and review prior to its submission to FERC. This process will be conducted by the Applicant in close coordination with FERC staff. In the near future, we will advise you of further details on this process and the opportunities for your participation. We believe this process will provide an efficient way for all interested parties to participate in the environmental review of the proposed Project and look forward to your active involvement. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the licensing process for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~tl~~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services cc. Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corp. Ernesta Ballard, Cape Fox Corp. City Administrator, City of Saxman Jack Snyder, HDR Engineering HDR Engineering, Inc. John Braislin, Betts, Patterson & Mines Don Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, et al. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 l i "' l l i DISTRIBliTION LIST U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers Alaska District Office P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Ms. Tamra Faris Supervisor-Protected Resources Management Division National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99602-1668 Mr. Nevin Holmberg U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 3000 Vintage Blvd. Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801 National Park Service Alaska Region 2825 Gamble Street Anchorage, AK 99503 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. Forest Service Region 10: Alaska Region Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628 Linn Shipley Ketchikan District Ranger U. S. Forest Service 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 1 Mr. David Rittenhouse U. S. Forest Service 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Laver U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Marlene Finley Ketchikan Ranger District U. S. Forest Service 3031 Tongass Ave. Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Don Ranne Ketchikan Ranger District U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sealevel Drive, Room 205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Hoffman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, Room 205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Frank Rue, Director Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 Ms. Christine Valentine Alaska Office of Management and Budget Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box 110030 431 N. Franklin Juneau, AK 99811-0030 Ms. Joan Hughes Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Tom Stevenson Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Rich Trimble Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Bridget Stearns Ketchikan Public Library 629 Dock St. Ketchikan, AK 99901 The Honorable Alaire Stanton Mayor, City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jack Pearson City Manager City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 The Honorable Walter Hickel Governor, State of Alaska P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811-0001 2 Mr. Dick Emerman Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 W. Fourth A venue, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Edgar Blatchford Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 W. Fourth A venue, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Riley Snell Alaska Industrial Development Agency 480 W. Tudor Anchorage, AK 99503 Ms. Judith Bittner Alaska Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 107001 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 Mr. John Dunker Alaska Department of Natural Resources/VVater 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Affairs Anchorage Regional Office 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 10: Bothell Federal Regional Center 130 228tb Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 i Mr. Bill Geary Alaska Department of Natural Resources Parks & Outdoor Recreation 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Mr. Arthur Martin Regional Office Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1340 Portland, OR 97204 Ms. lois Cashen Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 N. Capitol St. NE Washington, DC 20426 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P. 0. Box 3-8000 Juneau, AK 99802 Tongass Conservation Society P.O. Box 3377 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 419 Sixth Street, Suite 328 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Kate Tessar Alaska Services Group P.O. Box 22754 Juneau, AK 99802 Alaska Environmental lobby P.O. Box 22151 Juneau, AK 99802 Alaska Public Utilities Commission 1016 W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 99501 3 The Honorable Jim Carlton Mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Mike Rody Borough Manager Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Munsterman Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jim Boetberg Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Phyllis Yelte Assembly Member Ketchikan Gateway Borough Box 958 Ward Cove, AK 99901 Mr. Bob Martin, Director Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrification Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, AK 99821 Ms. Mary Klugherz McDowell Group 320 Dock St., #201 Ketchikan, AK 99901 STAr~1P & RETURN Flu&:.o OFFICE OF Tl~I!~~~N. BARKER, KNAUER & QUINN TELECOPit:R (202) 783·5651 {202) 833·2360 94 SEP 1 4 PM 3: 3 6 L.AW OFFICES 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE. N. W. , , '-~ ; WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006·5289 · Z t_ L f:J L :=t '{ COi"l ~·~~ 1 S S i (202) 76:3-4141 September 14, 1994 John H. Clements, Acting Director Division of Project Review Office of Hydropower Licensing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 North Capitol Street, N.E. Washington, D.c. 20426 GERMAN OrF"JCE COETHE:STRASSE 23 60313 F"RANKF"URT, GERMANY 0!!·49·69·20676 011-49·69·29?·&453 (TELECOF>!ER) Re: City of Saxman, Alaska, Project No. 11393 Dear Mr. Clements: As you are aware, on June 29, 1993, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("Commission") issued a preliminary permit to City of Saxman ("City") for the Mahoney Lake Project No. 11393 ("Project"). City of Saxman, Ala., 63 FERC If 62,351 (1993). The city in conjunction with Cape Fox Corporation ("Cape Fox"), which has been retained as Project development agent by the City, has decided to prepare the environmental assessment ("EA") of the Project for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA") as authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. !I To secure the full benefit of this procedure, Cape Fox, on behalf of the City, proposes to coordinate the preparation of the EA with City's prefiling consultation and application preparation activities. We have discussed this approach in general terms with your staff. To advance those discussions and facilitate commencement of this process, Cape Fox has prepared this letter outlining the basic elements of the proposed coordinated applica- tion and envirbnmental review process. First stage consultation has been completed. On March 21, 1994, Cape Fox distributed the City's Initial Consultation Document ("ICD") to the relevant federal and state resource !I In this regard, the Cape Fox intends to utilize HDR Engi- neering, Inc. to prepare the EA. HDR Engineering, Inc. is on the list of Commission-approved environmental contrac- tors. WILKINSON, BAR.EER, KNAUER. 4 QUINN John H. Clements, Acting Director September 14, 1994 Page 2 agencies and other interested entities. The initial consultation meetings were held on April 26, 1994 and comments were received 60 days thereafter. Cape Fox revised the ICD in light of the comments received and distributed the revised ICD by letter dated August 8, 1994. Since then, Cape Fox has begun performing studies according to the work plans set forth in the final ICD. Therefore, the coordination of the application preparation with preparation of the EA will begin in conjunction with second- stage consultation. Because the Project will be located partially on lands in the Tongass National Forest, Cape Fox proposes to enlist the u.s. Forest service to participate as a cooperating agency in the ·preparation of the EA. Representatives for Cape Fox and the City have contacted Forest Service officials and have scheduled meetings to discuss the Forest Service's participation. Once the terms of the Forest Service's cooperation are finalized, Cape Fox in coordination with the Forest Service and with Commission supervision will begin the environmental review process by preparing Scoping Document l ("SOl") and holding scoping meetings with the public and state and federal resource agencies. Comments on SOl, as well as any requests for addi- tional studies, will be made thirty days after the scoping meet- ings. Based upon the comments on the SOl, Scoping Document 2 will be prepared and distributed and Cape Fox will begin prepa- ration of the EA. Cape Fox will prepare and distribute work plans for any necessary additional studies. Cape Fox will continue to conduct the studies necessary for the preparation of both the license application as well as the EA. Cape Fox will also develop plans for environmental protection, enhancement, and mitigation (including preliminary drawings for any structural environmental measures) for inclusion in the EA. However, Cape Fox does not propose to prepare an Exhibit E to the City's license application as required by FERC regulations. See 18 C.F.R. §§ 4.38(f), 4.4l(f). Instead, with the Commission's approval, the EA will substitute for the Exhibit E environmental reporting requirements throughout the consulta- tion process. When completed, the Draft license application and Draft EA will be distributed for review and comment at the same time. Taken together, these documents will provide the-information required in the second-stage consultation package (a draft application, the results of all studies and information gathering WILKINSON, BA.RJ:ER. ENAUEll cl QUINN John H. Clements, Acting Director September 14, 1994 Page 3 by Cape Fox, proposed mitigation plans, and a written request for review and comment). Y See 18 c.F.R. § 4.38(c) (4). At the time the Draft EA and Draft license application are distributed for review, cape Fox will publish notice of the availability of the Draft EA soliciting comments and setting a public meeting. This notice will solicit requests for additional studies as well as preliminary comments, including draft manda- tory and recommended license terms and conditions or prescrip- tions on the license application. The notice will also state that the opportunity for filing interventions will follow the filing of the license application with the Commission. There will be a ninety-day deadline for written comments on the draft ·application and the Draft EA.~ See 18 C.F.R. § 4.38(c) (5). Cape Fox will then finalize and file the City's license application and a second Draft EA with the Commission completing second-stage consultation. !!.! ~ 18 C.F.R. § 4.38(c) (10). The Commission will then review the adequacy of the application for filing. once the Commission determines that the application is acceptable for filing, the Commission will issue public notice soliciting comment on the Draft EA and preliminary comments on the license application, including draft mandatory and recom- mended license terms and conditions or prescriptions. The notice will also solicit interventions. Because the EA and license application have already been circulated for comment, including draft license terms and conditions, the deadline at this round should be brief, i.e. 30 days. y ~ !!.! At this time, Cape Fox will also make its application for water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. 18 C.F.R. § 4.38(f) (7)(i) Additional public meetings can be held if the written comments demonstrate substantive disagreement. Any such additional meetings will be held in compliance with the Commission's requirements for dispute resolution. 18 C.F.R. § 4 • 3 8 (c) ( 6 ) , ( 7 ) , and ( 8 ) • During this period, Cape Fox will continue to provide to the Commission on a regular on-going basis: the results of any remaining studies; any additional or revised-proposed environmental protection, enhancement, and mitigation measures; evidence of the consultation history; and docu- mentation on the resolution of any disagreements with re- source agencies or Alaska Native groups. WD..XINSON. BARKER. KNAl.JBR 4 QUINN John H. Clements, Acting Director September 14, 1994 Page 4 After receiving comment on the second Draft EA, the commission should finalize and circulate the Final EA. Public notice of the availability of.the Final EA should solicit final comments, including mandatory and recommended license terms and conditions on the license as well as comments on the EA. If necessary, the Federal Power Act Section 10(j) process will be instituted after the filing deadline. 18 C.F.R. § 4.34(b), (e). The Commission can then complete the Section 10(j) process and issue an order on the license application. To execute the plan outlined above, Cape Fox believes that it would be appropriate to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA 11 ) setting forth the various responsibilities of Cape Fox (on behalf of the City), the Commission and the Forest Service. Additionally, a request for waiver of relevant Commis- sion regulations will also be required. To facilitate this process, Cape Fox will prepare a draft MOA for review by the Commission and Forest Service within the next few weeks. Should you have any questions or comments in the meantime, please do not :r:.::~:;;.c;;;;:~ \_lponald H. ~e ·· ~ounsel for the City of Saxman, Alaska and Cape Fox Corporation P.02 SEP-28-94 YEO 12137 CAPE FOX CORP FAX NO. 9072253137 ... ... • ~ Cnit.ed St.&tas Cepartmenl: ot Ag:::l.cu.lt\l%'11 rora•t Se~ea LOie D. Cuhell. see:ecuy Aluka aegi.on ~:chiken Ranger Dis~~iec lOll Toft1&8& .A.YaD\18 KetchUan, Alaak& tJtO:L (J0'7) 22S·21U Tt/TDD (J07) 225•0,14 Reply to= 2710 ...,.;..te~ ,,~sepc:llllber ni%.Wfi!'!.B SEP 2 S 1394 27, 1U4 _.-....... ..... ~ Cape Fox Corp. Fede~al Bfte~ Regulatory Comm1saion azs Capitol St~eet, B.l. Washingcon, D.C. 20421 a.e, Mahoney t.eJc.e llyc:Sz'celae:dc Potter fft.ljec:; •=:teet ll'oa n.us-ooo Al.uk& Deu Ms. cashell: Tbe City of s~n ie iDveetigat~ng the 4e.alopmaat of • '·' megawa~: hydroelec!:.ric gene.ra:in.g plct a: Mahoney Like neu Xetc:l\ikan, AluJca. The Clty of SaxrnaA hae :r-ecained. Ci1JSe rox ~ration as tha c!evelopmenc agenc: for che p:-ojec'C. HDK Bng:.Oneering. Inc. haa been !Urecl by the applicant to cancluc: the nece•••rr st1.1die1 and analy1es. Tbe project t1 ~rently iA Stage ll of cbe PBRC licensing process aDd the applicant: ifttends to initiate W!JA eompliance for the project during the p~efiling s:~e as well. 7he proposed project would be sited en l&Dd manage4 ~ the DSDl r~e•~ servi;e and land cwne4 J)y tbe C•P• Pox Corporation. Approximately half of the project. would be locac.ect on 1fa~ional Poreal: System lan41, to lnc:lude ~e lllke tap, verUc&l ah&ft., majority of the upper and lover tunnels. a.zsd. a short ••=ion of ehe ar;ceu roac!/tran..m.tesion line zoute. Wi&:h th~s in mice!, I PI .requesting ehat tne forest. SeZ'Yice be an ac::l.ve pan::l.c1pant w1~ cbe PJderal !.f.\eJ1W RegUlatory Commi•e:l.on on rev1ev~ng this project proposal, a1 tnLa Ranger Dirtr1ct ha. c..a recently en the Ieaver Palla HYdroelec~ric tro,ect Jelicenae (project no. 1t22·008J. Tbrough a lett.er of undent.amU.ng 11igned ~ Dean Shwmtay of your ctf:1ce and th• ecrmer Xetch;U;en .Diat.s::ict J.anger, thi.a office c:oo1'4i.nated wiU& '1'0UZ at.e.!f en the p:r:eparat1cn of the DPA 4ccu.me.n.t. :t found. this coeperauon to be very beneficial. A sucei~. quality KBPA document was produced which the ForeBt service couJ.d refer t.o when eatal:lli1bing the • (e) condit1ons and when making the dec:::i.a1on ~o iewe a special uae peZ'Iftit. ! vwlcl bope thee: we can ~~~aint:ain a leVel o: 1Avolvement em the Ml.hcmey X.Uea lrojec:t lim.ilar to that aeh~eved d~ring ~h• Beaver Falls l~cen.~ng process. I believe r:he beet way 'to aeau.re :his l.ne1 cf c:ooriina::!.on is through • memorandWII of uruiersta.nding (MO'Q'}. The applicant vill draft tl'\e MOO be~veen ow: tb.ree agen.ciea outlining tbe procaae 'CO be -.ued eo :a'Vie• the M!PA dccument ;hac they ,prepare. Carialr lor the l..a1aclud 1eJovbas haple t 4: 1 SEP-28-94 WED 12:38 CAPE FOX CORP FAX NO. 9072253137 r.u~ .. . .. • au. Loaos ca•bell z I apprecta~e tha quality wo~k accompli•hed by you aD4 ~ acatf in the O(fice caf llfdz'opowe;r Lic:en5i.n;. I 1ook foniiZ'd to COI\UAI.Ie w=-Jtina with your oUica on 8 \lpeOIII\ins projee1:a. · Sincezoely, 7L:. ,V,~ LIN»' II. SJIIPliiY .Acting Dis.t:ri.ct Range~ CC: Doug-Cambell* Cape Pox co:p. Forest SUpervis« suaanne llcwale., 110 E1mbez•y &own. RO Cumc fw tJae r..ul aacl ..... People . --__....,_.......__ ........ ::=.. ... ) ..... 0 ~ - @l United States Department of Agriculture Michael Stimac Forest Service HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellvue, WA 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac: Alaska Region Ketchikan Ranger District 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-2148 TT/TDD (907) 225-0414 Reply to: 2720 Date: October 5, 1994 After reviewing your letter dated June 30, 1994, I have determined that the studies taking place on National Forest System lands for the proposed Mahoney Lakes Hydroelectric project are of minimal impact. With this letter I am waiving the need for Cape Fox Corporation to obtain an investigative special use permit from this office. If at any time during your preliminary investigation ground disturbance or vegetative removal becomes necessary, you are required to contact this office to see if a permit is needed. Please be reminded that before your cultural resources investigation takes place you need to submit a research design and the qualifications of your primary investigator. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on September 26. If you have any questions, please contact Teresa Trulock at this office. Sincerely, ( -·· .. .-" . v ~..r-~_...;:--/;..:......-__. LINN W. SHIPLEY Acting District Ranger CC: Doug Campbell, CFC Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper -~ FS-6200-28b (12193) ..,- ~ t WJLKINSON., B.4.lUCER., XNAUER A QUINN October 25, 1994 Memorandum By Telecopier TO: Ann F. Miles FROM: Donald H. Clarke J. Wade Lindsay;~ RE: City of Saxman. Alaska: oney Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 11393 As a follow-up to our October 6, 1994, meeting regarding the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project No. 11393 {"Project"), we have prepared the following report of the progress that has been made on the envirorunental studies that will form the basis for the envirorunental assessment for the Project. Water Quality: As described in the Final Consultation Document, data collection began in June, 1994. The City expects that the data will soon be reduced to detennine the effectiveness of the water quality data collection network. The data will be utilized for the fisheries study and for the development of a temperature model to attempt to predict post-project water temperatures in the vicinity of the sockeye salmon spawning gravels at the outlet of Upper Mahoney Creek. The temperature model will be run with approximately six months of data when the analysis is prepared for the EA. Fisheries: Field work was conducted during this year's sampling season and the City anticipates that no additional field work will be required. A technical report is currently being developed and will be completed by the end of the year. The water quality data will then be integrated and the impact analysis conducted. Wildlife and Botanical: Much of the needed information has been collected and will be summarized for inclusion in the EA. Sensitive plant species recognized by the Forest Sovice were found during the September field investigation. A biological evaluation of the sensitive plant species found in the project area is being Ann F. Miles Vince E. Yearick October 25, 1994 Page2 prepared. A bald eagle nest site survey was completed in June with the assistance of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Wetlands information gained during the June field trip is being evaluated and a report is being prepared A limited discussion of wetlands functions and values will be prepared for inclusion in the EA. Historic & Archeological~ Preliminary planning and study design have begun. The City expects that field investigations will take place over the next six weeks. Recreational: Study plan has been completed and the data collection activities have been initiated. The City anticipates that preparation of the report will begin in November, 1994. Aesthetic: Field observations have been completed and data collection activities have been initiated. The City believes that preparation of the report will begin in November, 1994. As you can see, the City has made substantial progress in undertaking the license study plans described in the Final Consultation Document. While the schedule proposed in the City's Draft Schedule of Milestones is aggressive, the City believes that it can prepare its license application and the environmental assessment vvithin the proposed time frames. The City has completed field work and gatherered much of the necessary data in a number of important areas including fisheries and vvildlife and botanical. Further, data collection regarding water quality has been ongoing for almost six months. Thus, the City believes that it will have adequate data to prepare an informative scoping document by November 21, 1 994 and to prepare a draft environmental assessment by August of 1995. Before the end of the week. we will be forwarding you drafts of a Memorandum of Agreement, Schedule of Milestones, and Comrmmications Protocol for your review and comment. We appreciate your cooperation and assistance in this matter. 7;. l t t ,..,_ STAMP & RETURN .-•"'\ •)'I ~ ',\.... ~-~~· :· ~ r .. ' ~r··, · ·-WILKibi.SON, BARKER, KNAUER & QUINN o. . ?'"" ~: "'J'/.. t; J~,\\ \ (\ ~ LAW OF'F"ICES g..., , ';' "-'l ~.'-..:1 '{ 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N. W TEt..ECQPIE~ .... f ·;. t.· __ \' ··'{ ' ; \_c.t ())\)·\·<\...;. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006·5269 ,..tV~ :" (202) 783·5651 (202) 633·2360 . ' (202} 763-4141 Mr. John H. Clements Acting Director Division of Project Review Office of Hydropower Licensing . Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 810 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 January 19, 1995 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project No. 11393 Reauest fur:WaiYer ofReJmlations Dear Mr. Clements: GERM.O.NC;F-F"ICE GOETHE$TRA$$E: 23 60313 F'RANKF'URT, GERMANY Oll-49·69·20676 Oll-49·69·297·6453 (TEl..E:COP>ERl As you are aware, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("Commission"), the City of Saxman, Alaska ("City"), Cape Fox Corporation ("Cape Fox") and the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region ("Forest Service") have executed a Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") to prepare an environmental assessment ("EA") pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,42 U.S. C.§ 4321 et seq.(1988), and Section 2403(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486, for the proposed Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project No. 11393 ("Project"). The MOA contemplates not only preparing the EA, but also coordinating environmental review of the Project with the City's prefiling consultation and application preparation activities. The basic elements of the coordinated application and environmental review process and communication requirements are outlined in the Schedule ofMilestones and Communication Protocol incorporated in the MOA and discussed in detail below. Coordinating preparation of the application and environmental review processes will require some modification to the Commission's traditional consultation procedures. Accordingly, the City requests waiver of regulations that may be inconsistent with the coordinated process. As demonstrated below, the City submits that good cause exists for granting the requested waiver. WILKINSON, BARI<ER., KNAUER&. QUINN Mr. John R Clements January 19, 1995 Page2 L BACKGROUND On June 29, 1993, the Commission issued to the City a preliminary permit for the Project, setting the license application filing deadline no later than May 31, 1996. City of Saxman, 63 FERC 1f 62,351 (1993). To begin its compliance with the Commission's prefiling consultation requirements, the City distributed in March, 1994, its Initial Consultation Package ("ICP") with draft environmental work:plans. Agency and public meetings were held on April26, 1994, and the City finalized its ICP in August, 1994, based on written comments received. Thus, the City has completed the first-stage consultation process, and coordinating preparation of the EA and license application will begin with second-stage consultation. The City, in consultation with the Commission and the Forest Service, is currently · preparing Scoping Document 1 ("SD 1 .. ) and will hold scoping meetings with the public and state and federal resource agencies. Comments on SD l, as well as any requests for additional scientific studies, will be due not less than thirty (30) days after the scoping meetings. The City will file the comments as well as any requests for additional studies with the Commission and forward them to the Forest Service. This opportunity to request additional scientific studies upon review of SD 1 will replace the traditional opportunity to request studies after the license application is filed,~ 18 C.F.R § 4.32(b)(7). Based on the comments on SD1, the City will prepare and distribute Scoping Document 2 and new or revised workplans for any necessary additional studies. Pursuant to the workplans, the City will conduct the studies necessary to prepare a draft license application and begin preparing the draft EA. In preparing the draft license application, the City will substitute the draft EA for an Exhibit E to its license application, s 18 C.F.R §§ 4.38(f) & 4.41(f). When completed, the City will distribute the draft license application and the draft EA at the same time for review and comment. The documents will provide the information required in the second-stage consultation package: a draft license application, study and information-gathering results, and a written request for review and comment.1 ~ 18 C.F.R § 4.38(c}(4). The draft EA will incorporate the results ofthe City's studies together with proposed plans for environmental protection, enhancement and mitigation, including preliminary drawings for any structural environmental measures. Preliminary comments, including dtaft recommendations and mandatory license terms and conditions or prescriptions, will be due ninety (90) days after the City distributes the draft license application The City intends to submit its application to the Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation for water quality certification under Section 401 ofthe Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341, at the same time it distributes the draft EA and draft license application. See 18 C.F.R. § 4.38(t)(7)(i). WlLKINSON, BARKER, KNAUER&. QUINN Mr. John H. Clements January 19, 1995 Page 3 and draft EA for review. ~ 18 C.F.R § 4.38(cX5). The City will hold a public meeting and arrange additional site visits as needed. 2 Based on the comments, recommendations, terms and conditions and prescriptions received, the City will finalize the license application and revise the draft EA The City will then file its license application, including the revised draft EA, with the Commission, completing second-stage consultation. ~ 18 C.F.R § 4.38(cX10). Impor- tantly, throughout the coordinated process and pursuant to the Communications Protocol incorporated in the MOA, information, including summaries of all coordination meetings, transcripts of public meetings, conference call reports, periodic progress reports and contact logs documenting verbal communications will be maintained on file with the Commission and be available to the public at the offices of the City and Cape Fox. After the application is filed, the · City will continue to provide the Commission with information on its application, including periodic progress reports, the results of any remaining studies, any additional or revised proposed environmental protection, enhancement and mitigation measures, evidence of further consultation, and documentation on the resolution of any remaining disagreements with resource agencies or Native American tribes. After the City files its license application, the Commission will conduct an adequacy review of the license application and upon completing the adequacy review, the Commission will issue public notice of the license application and the availability of the draft EA The notice will solicit interventions and provide sixty (60) days for submitting comments and final recommendations and mandatory license terms and conditions or prescriptions. Once the City responds to the submissions, the Commission will issue staff's draft EA Comments on staff's draft EA will be received within sixty (60) days of its issuance and, if necessary, the Commission will institute the Federal Power Act Section lO(j) process,~ 18 C.F.R § 4.34(b) & (e). The Commission can then issue a final EA, complete the Section lO(j) process and issue an order on the license application. D. REQUEST FOR WAIVER The CitY respectfully requests that the Commission waive Sections 4.32(b)(7), 4.34(b), 4.41(f) and 4.38(f) ofits regulations, to the extent the requirements are inconsistent with the coordinated license application and environmental review process. Section 4.32 (b)(7) should be waived to the extent it requires the Comniission to issue public notice of tendering of the license application and permits interested parties to request additional scientific studies after the license application is filed. Under the coordinated process, the substantive elements of this notice and comment procedure will be completed prior to filing the license application. 2 If the written comments demonstrate substantive disagreement, additional meetings will be held in compliance with the Commission's requirements for dispute resolution during second-stage consultation. 18 C.F.R. §§ 4.38(c)(6)-(8). WI!..K.INSON, BARKER. KNAUER & QUINN Mr. John H. Clements January 19, 1995 Page4 Interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on SD 1 and, at that same time, also request studies in addition to those requested during the first-stage consultation process. Section 4.34(b) should be waived to the extent that it requires the Commission to issue a notice that the application is ready for environmental analysis ("NREA"), which would usually initiate the environmental review process and provide sixty (60) days for agencies to submit initial comments and recommendations and mandatory terms and conditions or prescrip- tions. Under the coordinated process, agencies will have submitted preliminary recommenda- tions and mandatory terms and conditions or prescriptions upon review of the draft license application and draft EA. Thus, when the City fi1es its license application and revised draft EA, the environmental analysis will be almost complete. The City will have already incorporated those preliminary comments, recommendations, mandatory terms and conditions or prescriptions in the application. Rather than issuing an NREA, following its adequacy review, the Commis- sion will notice the filing of the license application and the availability of the revised draft EA. That notice will solicit interventions, final comments and recommendations, mandatory license terms and conditions or prescriptions. After the Commission receives the final recommendations and mandatory terms and conditions or prescriptions, staff will issue its draft EA and the Commission will again receive comments before finalizing the EA. Finally, as stated above, the EA will contain most of the environmental reports and other information required in an Exhibit E as outlined in Section 4.41(f). While seeking waiver of Section 4. 41 (f), the City is aware that it must still file with the Commission any information typically included in the application, but not typically included in an EA. Similarly, the City seeks waiver of Section 4.38(f) to the extent it requires documentation of the three-stage consultation process and a discussion of consistency with comprehensive plans. Under the Communications Protocol incorporated in the MOA, throughout the coordinated process, the City will document agency and public consultation in its periodic progress reports, rather than documenting the consultation process in the application. The City, however, will include a summary of the three-stage consultation process in the license application and make available the progress reports to entities upon request. Thus, in as much as Section 4.41(f) and 4.38(f) would impose unnecessary duplicative requirements on the City, they should be waived. The City'.maintains that good cause exists for granting the requested waivers. Coordinating the environmental review and application preparation processes will result in a more efficient and comprehensive review of the Proj~. Advancing requests for information that the public, federal and state resource agencies, and the Commission make before the application is filed will improve the quality of the environmental information developed about WI!..KINSON, BARKER, KNAUER&. QUINN Mr. John H. Clements January 19, 1995 PageS the Project. 3 Allowing the public and state and federal resource agencies to review and comment on application related materials simultaneously with the EA will reduce the time and effort associated with Project review. Final recommendations and mandatory license terms and conditions and prescriptions will not be solicited until after the final license application and revised draft EA are made available. Further, staff will issue a draft and final EA before completing the environmental review process for the Project. While integrating preparation of the EA and the license application will change the scheduling of some events, no major consultation requirement will be omitted. Ill. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the City respectfully requests that you grant the waivers described herein pursuant to your authority under 18 C.F.R. § 375.314(c)(4) & (c)(9). Further, the City respectfully requests waiver of any other provision ofPart 4 ofthe regulations that might otherwise conflict with the coordinated application and environmental review process described herein. 3 1~7t.a:_L_ ~onald H. Clarke Counsel to the City of Saxman Of course, the Commission retains the authority under Section 4.32(g) of its regulations to request additional information from the City throughout the process. Prior to filing the license application and form.al invocation of Section 4.32(g), the City voluntarily agrees to submit to that authority. March 9, 1995 (See Distribution List) Subject: Dear: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No.ll393 Scoping Document 1 li)~ The City of Saxman (City), Alaska, is proposing to construct a small hydroelectric generating plant near Mahoney Lake, about 5 miles northwest of Ketchikan. The project must be licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (PERC) before construction can begin. Previously, the City sought input from interested parties during the Stage I consultation process in accordance with FERC regulations (18 CFR 4.38(b)). An Initial Consultation Document (lCD) was distributed on March 16, 1994, to interested agencies to provide a general overview of the proposed project design, operation, and potential impacts. Following distribution of the lCD, two agency/Native American/public meetings were held in Ketchikan on April26, 1994, to discuss the proposed project and potential environmental impacts, and identify data to be obtained and studies to be conducted as part of the FERC consultation process. Written comments were due within 60 days following the joint meetings or by June 25, 1994. Comments received on the lCD were incorporated into a Final Consultation Document (FCD). The FCD, which was distributed on August 8, 1994, outlined the studies that are currently being performed during the Stage n consultation process and contained copies of all consultation correspondence and responses that were developed in reply to concerns addressed in agency comment letters. Consistent with the authority granted under Section 2403(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the City will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project and will file that as part of its license application to the FERC in lieu of preparation of Exhibit E, the environmental exhibit traditionally prepared as part of a license application. To that end, the City has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the FERC and the U.S. Forest Service establishing cooperative procedures for the preparation of the EA. Under this MOA, FERC and the Forest Service have agreed to advise the City in the preparation of the EA to assist the City in developing a document that complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) with respect to analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project. The details of this cooperative procedure were set forth in the February 13, 1995 letter from FERC to the individuals and entities currently on the project distribution list. HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 March 9, 1995 Page 2 To support and assist the environmental review of the project, the scoping process is being initiated to ensure that all pertinent issues are identified and analyzed, and that the EA is thorough and balanced. The attached Scoping Document I (SDI) is being circulated to solicit written comments from federal, state, and local agencies, Native American groups, and all other interested parties. The specific request for your written comments is identified in Chapter 3.0 of the SDl. In addition to written comments, two scoping meetings are planned to solicit any verbal input and comments you wish to offer on the scope of the EA. Both meetings will be held at the Westmark-Cape Fox Hotel, 800 Venetia Way, Ketchikan, Alaska. The first meeting will be at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, April 12, and will be oriented toward the public. The second meeting will be oriented toward the resource agencies and will begin at 9:00 AM on Thursday, April13. The public and agencies may attend either or both meetings, however. Written and verbal comments will be treated equally. A site visit is tentatively planned for the afternoon of April12. Those who would like to visit the site should contact Mr. Doug Campbell at the Cape Fox Corporation, (907) 225-5163 prior to April 1. Those attending the site visit should plan to meet in the lobby of the Westmark- Cape Fox Hotel at 1:00 P.M. You may direct any further questions or concerns to me at (206) 453-1523, or Mr. Vince Yearick, Office of Hydropower Licensing, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., (202) 219-3073, or Mr. Linn Shipley, Acting District Ranger, U.S. Forest Service, Ketchikan, AK, (907) 225-2148. We invite your participation in the scoping of the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. -n11 UtCtJ i/ StimtLG U6 Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services cc: Guy Galloway-City of Saxman Doug Campbell -Cape Fox Corporation John Braislin -Betts, Patterson, & Mines Don Clarke-Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, & Quinn Jack Snyder -HDR Engineering DISTRIBUTION LIST U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Office P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506..0898 Ms. Tamra Faris Supervisor-Protected Resources Management Division National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99602-1668 Nevin Holmberg U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 3000 Vintage Blvd. Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801 N atipnal Park Service Alaska Region 2825 Gamble Street Anchorage, AK 99503 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. Forest Service Region 10: Alaska Region Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628 Mr. Linn Shipley Acting District Ranger U.S. Forest Service 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. David Rittenhouse U. S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Sams U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Don Ranne U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Affairs Anchorage Regional Office 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 10: Bothell Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, SW Bothell, W A 98021-9796 Mr. Arthur Martin Regional Office Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1120 SW 5th A venue, Suite 1340 Portland, OR 97204 Ms. Lois Cashell Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 N. Capitol St. NE Washington, DC 20426 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P. 0. Box 3-8000 Juneau, AK 99802 Honorable Ted Stevens U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Honorable Frank Murkowski U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Honorable Don Young House of Representatives 2331 Rayburn House Office Boulevard Washington, D.C. 20515 Kerry Howard, Acting Director Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box 110030 Juneau, AK 99811-0030 Ms. Lisa Weissler Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box 110030 Juneau, AK 99811 Ms. Susan Viteri Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box 110030 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Joan Hughes Alaska Department of Envirorunental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Barry Hogarty Alaska Department of Envirorunental Conservation DEQ/SE Region DEC 540 Water Street, Suite 203 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Judith Bittner Alaska Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 107001 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 Mr. John Dunker Alaska Department of Natural Resources/Water 400 Willoughby A venue Juneau, AK 9980 1-1796 Mr. Bill Geary Alaska Department of Natural Resources Parks & Outdoor Recreation 400 Willoughby A venue Juneau, AK 9980 1-1796 Chris Westwood Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry 2030 Sea Level Drive, #217 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Frank Rue, Director Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 Mr. Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Hoffman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sealevel Drive Room 207 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Mike Haddix Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Carol Denton Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Glenn Freeman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Paul Novak Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Doug Larsen Wildlife Biologist Alaska Depanment of Fish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Honorable Tony Knowles Governor, State of Alaska P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811-QOOI Mr. Dick Emerman Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 W. Fourth A venue Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Dennis Meiners State of Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy P.O. Box 112100 Juneau, AK 99811-2100 Mr. Riley Snell Alaska Industrial Development Agency 480 W. Tudor Anchorage, AK 99503 Alaska Public Utilities Commission 1016 W. Sixth Avenue,. Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. C. L. Cheshire, Director University of Alaska -Southeast Economic Development Center -UofASE 7th A venue and Madison Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Robert Warner Librarian University of Alaska -Southeast 7th A venue and Madison Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Freitag Southern SE Reg. Aquaculture Association 2721 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. William J. Halloran Southern SE Reg. Aquaculture Association 2721 Tongass Ketchikan, AK 99901 Senator Robin Taylor Alaska State Senate State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Bill Williams Representative 352 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Honorable Jim Carlton Mayor Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Mike Rody Borough Manager Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Borough Planner Ketchikan Borough Planning 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jim Boetberg Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Phyllis Yetka Assembly Member Ketchikan Gateway Borough Box. 958 Ward Cove, AK 99901 Honorable Alaire Stanton Mayor City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. William Jones Acting City Manager City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Fred D. Monrean City of Ketchikan Department of Public Works 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Thomas Stevenson Manager Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Rich Trimble Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Andrew Ketchikan Advisory Committee P.O. Box 7211 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. and Mrs. Fred Atborp Ketchikan Advisory Committee 10 Creek Street Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Mr. Larry Painter Ketchikan Advisory Committee P.O. Box 6181 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Ralph C. Gregory Citizen's Advisory Committee Federal Areas P.O. Box 7011 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Bridget Stearns Ketchikan Public Library 629 Dock Street Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Mr. Lew Williams Publisher Ketchikan Daily News P.O. Box 7900 Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Ms. Belinda Chase Ketchikan Daily News P.O. Box 7900 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Bob Konet News Director KTKN Radio 526 Stedman Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Nancy Watt Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 5957 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Bob Martin, Director 11ingit-Haida Regional Electrification Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, AK 99821 Mr. John Arriola President Tsimshian Tribal Association P.O. Box 7162 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Richard Jackson President Tongass Tribal Council P.O. Box 3380 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Ester Shea Tongass Tribe 835 E. Seasame Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Chas Edwardsen Vice President Haida Society 3213 Timberline Court Ketchikan, AK 99901 * Honorable Harris Atkinson Mayor, City of Metlakatla Metlakatla Indian Comm. P.O. Box 8 Metlakatla, AK 99926 Mr. J. L. Bennett Ketchikan Pulp Company P.O. Box 6600 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. 0. J. Graham Ketchikan Pulp Company P.O. Box 6600 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Allis May Davis Tongass Conservation Society P.O. Box 1102 Ward Cove, AK 99928 Mr. Eric Hummel Tongass Conservation Society P.O. Box 3377 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Mike Moyer Tongass Conservation Society 501 Front-B Ketchikan, AK 99901 Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 419 Sixth Street, Suite 328 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Kate T essar Alaska Services Group P.O. Box 22754 Juneau, AK 99802 Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 521 Haines, AK 99827-0521 Mr. Don Chenhall Chenhall Surveying P.O. Box 5860 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. J. C. Conley Service Auto Parts, Inc. 3806 Tongass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. David Kiffer 123 Stedman Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jack Lee Tongass Sportfishing Association P.O. Box 5898 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Craig Moore KTN Area State Parks Advisory Board 9883 N. Tongass Highway Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. June Robbins Legislative Information Office 352 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Sherrie Slick Alaska Congressional Delegation 109 Main Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Tena Williams 755 Grant Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Mary Klugherz McDowell Group 320 Dock St., #201 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. and Mrs. Forrest DeWitt Box 5252 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Guy Galloway Administrator City of Saxman Route 2, Box 1 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mayor, City of Metlakatla Metlakatla Indian Comm. P.O. Box 8 Metlakatla, AK 99926 Mr. J. L. Bennett Ketchikan Pulp Company P.O. Box 6600 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. 0. J. Graham Ketchikan Pulp Company P.O. Box 6600 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Allis May Davis Tongass Conservation Society P.O. Box 1102 Ward Cove, AK 99928 Mr. Eric Hummel Tongass Conservation Society P.O. Box 3377 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Mike Moyer Tongass Conservation Society 501 Front-B Ketchikan, AK 99901 Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 419 Sixth Street, Suite 328 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Kate Tessar Alaska Services Group P.O. Box 22754 Juneau, AK 99802 Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 521 Haines, AK 99827-0521 Mr. Don Chenhall Chenhall Surveying P.O. Box 5860 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. J. C. Conley Service Auto Parts, Inc. 3806 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. David Kiffer 123 Stedman Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jack Lee Tongass Sportfishing Association P.O. Box 5898 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Craig Moore KTN Area State Parks Advisory Board 9883 N. Tongass Highway Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. June Robbins Legislative Information Office 352 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Sherrie Slick Alaska Congressional Delegation 109 Main Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Tena Williams 755 Grant Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Mary Klugherz McDowell Group 320 Dock St., #201 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. and Mrs. Forrest DeWitt Box 5252 Ketchikan, AK 99901 ' OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 0 SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE 3601 "C" STREET, SUITE 370 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-5930 PH: (907) 561-0131/FAX: (907) 561-6134 Mr. Micheal Stimac HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 1200 500 i08th Avenue, NE Bellevue, W A 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac: 3 CENTRAL OFFICE P.O. BOX 110030 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0300 PH: (907) 465-3562JFAX: (907) 465-3075 April 5, 1995 TONY KNOWLES, GOVEf!_NQR 0 PIPELINE COORDINATOR'S OFFICE 411 WEST 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 2C ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-2343 PH: (907) 278-8594/FAX: (907) 272-0690 SUBJECT: MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT STATE ID #AK9504-08JJ-FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 SCOPING DOCUMENT 1/STAGE II CONSULTATION Thank you for submitting copies of the Scoping/Stage II Consultation document for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric project proposed near Ketchikan to the State of Alaska. The document and your correspondence explain the special review procedures approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Mahoney Lake project. The State strongly supports the consolidation of review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) with FERC preapplication consultation review. Bringing NEP A requirements to the front of the process allows assessment of issues at an early stage prior to State coastal consistency review and filing of the final license application. The State encourages FERC to consolidate review stages for other applicable hydroelectric projects within Alaska. The Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) serves as the primary contact within the Governor's Office for coastal zone management issues and coastal project reviews. We note that HDR submitted documents to both our office and to the Governor's Office. Please be advised that DGC is responsible for addressing coastal zone management issues during project reviews. While you are welcome to send copies to the Governor's Office, the Southeast Consistency Review Section of DGC must receive copies of project documents and correspondence to process project reviews. For Mahoney Lake, please send all correspondence to Ms. Christine Valentine of the Southeast Consistency Review Section, and please remove Ms. Diane Mayer, Ms. Lisa Weissler, and Ms. Susan Viteri from your distribution list. The enclosed project information sheet includes a State Identification# (#AK9504-08JJ). Please refer to this number along with the FERC project # in all future correspondence to this office regarding this review. We thank HDR Engineering for directly distributing the Scoping/Stage II Consultation document to review participants. By a copy of this letter and the enclosed project information sheet, we are reminding review participants that final Scoping/Stage II Consultation comments are due to HDR Engineering by May 15, 1995. The comment deadline is set in accordance with FERC procedures. We are also reminding review participants of the dates for upcoming meetings and a site visit. As the process for obtaining a FERC license requires extensive preapplication assistance, this review is informational in nature. The purpose of this review is for the reviewers to provide you with information about pertinent environmental and socioeconomic issues, identify reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, suggest additional studies, and identify permits which will be necessary. The information provided during this review should assist you in developing the FERC license application. A consistency review per the Alaska Coastal Management Program ordinarily occurs when all permit applications and public notices required for the project are received. When FERC ) officially accepts the hydroelectric application, a public notice will by issued by that agency. DGC will consult with FERC to discuss the appropriate timeframe for the pending coastal consistency review. Please call me at 465-3177 if you have any questions or comments. cc. Jackie Brown, Governor's Office, Juneau Linn Shipley, USFS, Ketchikan Sincerely ~~~ Christine Valentine Project Review Coordinator Vince Yearick, PERC/Office of Hydropower Licensing, Washington D.C. PACKET DISTRIBUTION LIST Joan Hughes, DEC, Juneau Lana Shea, DFG, Juneau Jack Gustafson, DFG, Ketchikan Elizaveta Shadura, DNR, Juneau John Dunker, DNR/DOW, Juneau Bill Garry, DNR/DPOR, Juneau Judith Bittner, DNR/SHPO, Anchorage Bill Ballard, DOT /PF, Juneau Mike McKinnon, DOT/PF, Juneau Melanie Fullman, Coastal Coordinator, Ketchikan Gateway Borough The Honorable Alaire Stanton, Mayor, Ketchikan The Honorable Jim Carlton, Mayor, KGB Charles Denny, President, Cape Fox Corporation, Ketchikan Louis Thompson, Kavilco Inc., Ketchikan Rick Harris, Sealaska Corporation, Juneau Ron Wolfe, Klukwan, Inc., Juneau NOTE: If you did not receive a copy of the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Seeping Document 1, you may request one from Michael Stimac, HDR Engineering/ Inc. (phone 206-453-1 523). ~u ~ u~ ©[F ~[L~~~~ OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION CONTACfS DEC Joan Hughes ............ 465-5345 Fax: DFG Jack Gustafson .......... 225-2027 DNR John Dunker ............ 465-2533 tefcA;J:.,~"~ !'1e!~,, ~ ;:::;._,/! -'"'V1 ZZB-66!0 465-5362 228-2676 586-2954 Zi.J7--'rtf 37 PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET PROJECT TITLE: Mahoney Lake Hydro Project 2nd Consultation-Seeping STATE LD. NUMBER: AK 9504-0811 DGC CONTACT: Christine Valentine Phone: 465-3177 Fax: 465-3075 APPLICANT/PROPONENT: Saxman, City of AGENT: Michael Stimac Phone: 206-453-1523 Fax: DIRECT FEDERAL ACTION: No REVIEW TYPE: NEPA-SCOPING ACTIVITY TYPE: HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LOCATION: Nearest Coastal District: KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH Project is INSIDE the District Boundary District Plan Approved: Yes REVIEW SCHEDULE: 50 DAYS REVIEW MILESTONES: TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR CENTRAL OFFICE CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNIT 240 MAIN STREET_ SUITE 500 P.O. Box 110030 JuNEAU, AK 99811 Day 1: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 04/05/95 *First Scoping Meeting (7:00pm-public oriented) ......... 04/12/95 **Site Vistt ................................ 04!12/95 *Second Scoping Meeting (9:00am-resource agency oriented) . 04!13/95 Comments Due To HDR with copy to DGC: ........... 05/15/95 *Seeping meetings will be held at the Westmark-Cape Fox Hotel in Ketchikan, Alaska. **If you plan to participate in the site visit, you should contact Mr. Doug Campbell at the Cape Fox CorporatiOn, (907) 225-5163 prior to April 1. PROJECT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED UNDER STATE I.D. NO. AK 9403-33JJ (First consultation) STATE APPROVALS (AGENCY, APPROVAL TYPE AND NUMBER): None FEDERAL APPROVALS (AGENCY, APPROVAL TYPE AND NUMBER): None EXTENSION GRANTED FOR: CLOCK STOPS: Stopped On: Reason#: REQUESTOR FOR EXTENSION: CLOSEOUT INFORMATION _ !. Formal Information Request _ 2. Project in UnorganizeD Borough _ 3. DNR Disposal of Land _ 4. Miscellaneous Applicant Request _ 5. Proposed Finding En Route _ 6. Public Hearing Held 7. Field Review -8. SMCRA = 9. Unusually Complex Project Restarted On: ELEVATION TO: Director Commissioner ELEVATION BY: ACTION AT CLOSEOUT: Closeout Date: District Comments Received: Yes For Conclusive Consistency Determinations: For Other Reviews: Comments Submitted: Yes ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Closeout entered into computer: No No Consistent = Consistent with Stipulations Inconsistent Withdrawn i t April 5, 1995 Mr. Jim Thrall Locher Interests, Ltd. 406 West Fireweed Lane, Suite 101 Anchorage, AK 99503 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Dear Mr. Thrall: lil\ In response to your request, HDR Engineering, Inc., on behalf of the City of Saxman and the Cape Fox Corporation, is pleased to provide you with the enclosed copy of Scoping Document 1 for the above-referenced project. This document was originally distributed to interested agencies and Native American groups on March 9, 1995. Please contact me if you have questions concerning the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ·rn~ [!f;:~Lf_ 1/ Stirrtu..., U6 Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing and Environmental Services cc. Doug Campbell,_ Cape Fox Jack Snyder, HDR HDR File, B.4. ~· HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue. N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004·5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 April 5, 1995 Mr. Stan Sieczkowski Manager, Operations & Maintenance Alaska Energy Authority 480 West Tudor Anchorage, AK 99503 · Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Dear Mr. Sieczkowski: lil\ In response to your request, HDR Engineering, Inc., on behalf of the City of Saxman and the Cape Fox Corporation, is pleased to provide you with the enclosed copy of Scoping Document 1 for the above-referenced project. This document was originally distributed to interested agencies and Native American groups on March 9, 1995. Please contact me or Jack Snyder if you have questions concerning the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. 7YJt Lof)ad t/ '5im?L6/)~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing and Environmental Services cc. Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Jack Snyder, HDR HDR File, B.4.1 HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 1 08th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004·5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 KETCHIKAN P"L7BLIC UTILITIES 2930 TONGASS AVENUE MUNICIPALLY OWNED ELECTRIC TELEPHONE WATER Return Receipt Requested Mr. Michael V. Stimac KETCHIKAN. AlASKA 99901 April 12, 1995 Manager, Ucensing & Environmental Services HDR Engineering, Inc. 500 -1 08th Avenue N E, Suite 1200 Bellevue, WA 98004 TELEPHONE 907-225·1000 FAX 907·225·1888 rA~ ~ 31 ~SEn hD~:" Subject: MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC No. 11393) Dear Mr. Stimac: Please accept this as our comment of record for the Mahoney Lake Environmental Assessment. As an Intervener in this project, and the only utility with a Certificate of Need and Necessity to provide power to this community, we have very a strong interest and concerns in the proposal to add the Mahoney Lake project to our power system. Therefore we ask that you very carefully consider our comments and concerns regarding this project and its impact to this power system. If the Mahoney Lake project were the cost effective and reliable solution to our power needs, we would to welcome it. However, our previous studies and the study recently done by HDR lead us to the conclusion that the Mahoney Lake project simply will not meet Ketchikan's needs at this time. For that reason, the Ketchikan City Council asked last year that the City of Saxman defer development of the Mahoney Lake Project since we are committed to developing another power resource (see attached). On the surface, one might think that the 42,000 MWH maximum potential offered by Mahoney would be a valuable resource during our critical periods. If, however, you refer to tables 2 and 3 in your scoping document, you will see that we would still have been running our diesels over the past few months even if Mahoney were on line today! We recognize that these tables only reflect one operating scenario, but the fact remains that the project proposed has very limited storage and would be of little value during our critical low water, high demand months. Mahoney Lake is in the same vicinity as our other local hydroelectric projects. It stands to reason that if Ketchikan Lakes and Upper and Lower Silv1s are critically low during the first part of the year, then so will Upper Mahoney Lake which is only a couple of miles north of Silvis. The Mahoney project does not offer power, when we need it most. In order for the Mahoney project to be financially feasible, it needs to be operated when water is available. Since the project as presently planned has little storage H:\USEA\NANCYL\WP\OAT A\007-A6.COA Mr. Michael V. Stimac April 12, 1995 Page 2 capacity, the only way to achieve financial feasibility would require KPU to curtail its lower cost embedded hydro facilities to use the Mahoney hydro power during certain periods of the year. Since the Mahoney drainage is in the same weather pattern as KPU's current hydras, we may be at a spill condition at the same time Mahoney would be. Our major hydro resource (Swan Lake) has contract provisions which do not allow injection of new resources at any time power is available from the Swan Lake facility. The seeping for this project appears to be premature. It would seem that FERC would expect there to be at least tentative terms negotiated for the sale of power to be produced by the project before proceeding with seeping. The only discussion held to date with KPU on the issue of rates was in April, 1994 where we were asked to consider terms that would favor the purchase of Mahoney Lake power over our other resources. While this may be the only way to make the project economically feasible, we are not willing to sign a "take or pay" contract or otherwise accept preferential use of Mahoney Lake power, because we do not accept the proposed operating scenarios, nor has the cost been established. Approximately one halt of our hydroelectric power comes from hydroelectric resources owned by KPU. Because these facilities were buiit many years ago, our embedded costs allow these hydras to produce very inexpensive power for our community, as low as one or two cents per KWH. Power purchased from the Mahoney Lake project may cost us many times that amount. Considering the difference in cost, it would be most imprudent for us to purchase power from Mahoney in lieu of producing power from our own resources preferentially. The other half of our hydroelectric power comes from Swan Lake. This is power we are contractually obligated to purchase second to our own hydroelectric resources. Once Swan Lake has been essentially exhausted, we are free to use our diesel power or purchase other power. This means that if Mahoney were on line, our existing contract requires that we exhaust Swan Lake before purchasing Mahoney Lake power. Considering the current wholesale power rate of 6.6 cents per KWH, it appears likely that economics alone would dictate that KPU purchase Swan Lake power before Mahoney. The economic feasibility of the Mahoney Lake project appears to be based on the preferential use of Mahoney Lake power by KPU, which is simply not an acceptable option for the ratepayers of KPU who would be forced to pay extraordinary amounts for the use of Mahoney Lake power over the cost of operating KPU's own hydras. Since April of 1994, there have been no further negotiations with KPU to establish the terms of a more acceptable power sales agreement or even define the avoided power cost. Further, there have been no discussions regarding other significant economic issues such as overall management of the project, operation and maintenance and H :\USERINANCYLIWPIOA T A\007·A6.COR Mr. Michael V. Stimac April 12., 1995 Page 3 potential wheeling of power to Metlakatla. Since even tentative terms for the purchase of power have not bE3en established, there can be no meaningful investigation of the economic viability of this project. Under the only terms proposed thus far for purchased power, the Mahoney Lake project does not appear to be cost effective by any means, at least for the Ketchikan area ratepayers. KPU has investigated this project three times over 20 years and on each occasion opted for more economically feasible projects. Further, we are concerned about relying on a future power resource from an agency that has not been in the power business, nor has any operating expertise. We are concerned with the ability of a small community of 400 people to secure funding for a $25-40 million power plant. Finally, we have technical concerns regarding the design of the project. For the project to be a meaningful addition to the Ketchikan area power system, it should include a dam for additional storage. A dam might allow the additional storage we would need to have a truly flexible power resource. With additional storage, we could dispatch our resources so that we can have more power "in the bank" when we need it. As it is, Mahoney appears viable only if we use the water when it is raining the most (and immediately available to us). Unfortunately, that is when we need it the least. As it is, Mahoney is essentially a run-of-river project. Further, the interconnection of the Mahoney Lake transmission line to the Ketchikan system should be moved to Beaver Falls. This would significantly enhance our system reliability. During a system failure, the Ketchikan Substation North breaker must often open. If the Beaver Falls and Upper Silvis powerhouses could support the load from the Ketchikan Substation, we would often be able to keep downtown Ketchikan in service. Unfortunately, the load is too great for them to serve so the downtown area suffers blackout. If another resource were added to the south end of our system, we could often keep our center of population in service even if Swan Lake or Bailey tripped off line. In addition to losing some system reliability, tying in Mahoney at the Swan Lake transmission line adds another layer of vulnerability to that resource. Specifically, if Swan Lake trips off line, Mahoney would also. Having Mahoney interconnected at Beaver Falls would be a vital component of our ability to successfully use it as a resource. There is another compelling reason for tying in Mahoney at Beaver Falls rather than the Swan Lake transmission line. The community of Metlakatla has identified a need for additional hydroelectric power. With the City of Saxman and Cape Fox seeking a market for Mahoney Lake power. there seems to be good potential to negotiate the terms of a power sale to Metlakatla with KPU wheeling the power from Beaver Falls to Mountain Point. Wheeling the power this shorter distance would be more efficient than bringing it through the Swan Lake transmission line. For reasons noted above it would also be more reliable. The economic analysis of this project would be H:\USER\NANCYL\WI"\OA T AI007·A6 .COR Mr. Michael V. Stimac April 12, 1995 Page 4 incomplete without pursuing the market potential of Mahoney Lake power in Metlakatla. We remain supportive of the economic development efforts of the City of Saxman. At some point, the Mahoney Lake project may well offer a valuable source of power for an interconnected Southern Southeast Alaska, as well as, a source of revenue for the City of Saxman. In the near term however, the Mahoney' Lake project does not meet the electrical needs of the Ketchikan area when considering economic feasibility. That's why we never built the project ourselves. Further, it is even less economically feasible when you add an anticipated mark-up for the power for the benefit of the City of Saxman, who would obviously expect a return on their investment, if they use their own funds. These issues should be addressed before a permit for the Mahoney Lakes Hydroelectric Project is issued. TWS:nll Attachment cc: Ketchikan City Council KPU Advisory Board Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corp. Forrest DeWitt. Mayor. City of Saxman Jim Scudero. Mayor of Metlakatla Sincerely, KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES ~ /":Jfi: Thomas W. Stevenson General Manager Jim Deherrera. Ketchikan District Ranger, USFS Vince Yearick, Office of Hydropower Ucensing, FERC H:\USER\NANCYL\WP\OATA\007·A6.COR I ' l t ! ~.jty.· {)f ~ (·~et£hikan Mr. Forrest DeWitt, Mayor City at Saxman Saxman City Hail Saxman, Alaska 99SO 1 Dear Mayer DeWitt (- July 28, i 594 r ;:;2 =/c~r Slr2-s-t ..,.::.rr~,,,.C,... .l. ~<::''C ::,...,cc~• ....... _, .,,.... I • ' ~ ..... 1"'\ '""!' J -· -r-----3 -r r' ,-.:::::., -• I ... , --"!' tl J'l -· .......... -' ---•• 1 =-;;{ :~:; -2::-: :;s The c;ty Ccunc:i or the Cty at Ketc!1ikan has asked me to write :a you regarding ihe Mahaney Lake Hydraelec:ric projec.: mat you are c:..!ITently reviewing fer .:::assibte deveicpment. The c;ty Ccunc:t recsntty came to the City of Saxman :o oe briefed by your c::msuitarns and Cape Fox staff and we appreciate •1ery much yat:r sharing the gca.Js you have tar development of :ne Mahoney Lake Projec:. After disc.:ssion and review of me srrec:s at the Mahoney Lake Prcjec: on the development ot the !rnertie Projec:, it is c!ear thar we cannot prccsed with the lnte.rtie if the Mahoney Lake Prcject is buiit ffrst. Tna:r means the lang range planning fer the ·trnertie wiil have been lest and we will have to refund monies spent to date ttlat have been acvancsd on the lrnenie. The c:::mmunity wiil lase :tlis sao million dollar grant Tnraugh tl1e joint efforts of the c:ty at Saxman, the City of Ketc.'1ikan and the Katc."'likan Gateway Borough, the Legislative Uaiscn has been suc::ssstui in promoting and in obtaining the initial funding tor this projec: whic."'l has been a priority projec: ;or cur whole area for many years. From a presentation (which is attac.'1ed) from Ketchikan Public Utilities. it is c!ear that the timing at your projec: wiil C."'eae the termination of the Swan lake and Tyee lake lntertie. The C;ty CcunCI has asked that the City at Saxman delay development or the Mahoney lake Projea so that it wiil c:::me on line arter the lrnenie Project comes on line. The City Councl is in a position suc."'l that it cannot endorse or emer imo negotiations with the City at Saxman for the Mailoney Lake Project because if your projec: c:::mes en line prier to the lrnertie Project. the !ntertie Project wiil oe lost forever with the iunoing scurcs as legislated through Senate Bill 106/126, Eghteernh Lagislarure-F:rst Session. Tnere!cre, entering into a purchase power agreement on Mahcr:ey wiil etfec:ively terrmnare the prajec: the community has said fer many years is its gcat-::o build J'le lrnertie. Tne Counc:! and I sincsrely appreC:ate the ;.act :tlat me Mahaney !2ke Prqect is an im~:crl2!1t ec:::ncmic developmern projec: :cr the Cty of Saxman. We succcrt ycu in :hat regard. Uniorrunarely, the timing of ihe projec:: placss us in ihe unc::micrtable ~csiticn of Lfr. Fom!st DeWitt Juty 28., 1994 Page z r r kiiling a project we need as a utility in order to best provide a long term power source for ail our customers and which we promoted and obtained funding for through the State. Mayor, this is obviously a very important issue to ail parties and if you feel you cannot delay the Mahoney lake Project. let's get together and diSC'..JSS where we go from here. Attachments cc: Ketchikan C!ty Councilmembers KPU General Manager ... 001-Fl..2 Sincerely, "' - /.· ~ //. ~ -..___:. /, ---'-._. ._ ' -"·~--· _c....._ .' .... f • .----... Alaire Stanton, Mayor City ot Ketc..,ikan r r July 21, iSS4 MEMORANDUM TO Mayer Alaire Si:anton ~d C:'i:y Cor..mc:i h\ FROM I,~--). Tncmas W. Stevenscn, K?U General Ma.na<;e~ SUBJECT: ~CCNOMJCS OF THE PROPOSc!J S'NANJT'(~= IN-r=::lilE .lND i1iE iMP.~CT OF THE PROPOSeD MAHCNE'f U.K:= ;..;vDROE 7 =·:l~lC F.llC:UTY CF 'T"rlE C:T'f OF SAXMAN/C.lP~ :=,:JX C::RP0RA ilGN I ;~ave inCic8ed ~o T:e C~ur.cii T.ar ::t:e impac:: of the Mahoney I -=!<a ~rajec: causes sc:ric~s prcc1ems ~cr me lcng ra.n~e ~tanning mar t11e LJtiiity :~ad c:::-:e :n its cueSL to cman j1e fina.nc:ng and uitimare e::::nSLTUc:icn of me Swa.njTyes fma;je. 2nerly, 11e Utiiity)1as pL!rsued the e::::nsuuc:icn cti:he Swa.n(Tyee lrne::e ~cr ever 3 years. ~r :he period sine~ 19SJ when I c:m-:c: ~a tne Utiiity, and !n fac:. dur.r.g llie interviewing ~rcesss. it was mernicr.ed :a me tt1a: ~e mas: impcr..am !cr.g :cr.:;: :c:ivity ::nar the e::::mmunity 'Named was :a have ii:s long :arm power scurc~ in ::iaes ·tia :t11s interne. Tne !asr four years we have had the SwanjTyee lntertie as the tee :-~ianal ;:ricrity far Saumeast Alaska ..• Eec.ri~lrnertie :nc Read Corridor. =.·,e:y lefisi~cr :ha has sc:rved tt'lis area sine~ I SSG has mace diis lmertie a ;:ricrity. Tr.e c:::nmunity :e~:sia:ive iiascn has had us make presemaricns to cbtain ttle funding ~r ttlis ~rcjec:. Tne Utility e::Juld have buiit tt'le Mahcney L.:ke P:-ojec:. rt was [asL :xcicred in the mid iSSO's and has had no !ess than three prciessianat reviews fer feas:trirty. Tne Swan Lake/Lake Tyee lntertie faciity 'trc:S c..,osen fer tne fcilowing .-acscns: 1. It provides us with an additionaJ 80,000,000 kWH's ot alec:ridty. 0Ne wiil use about 163,CCO,COO kWH's in 1894). 2. :t will maintain or reducs ttle e::st at anergy from our partiC:oaicn in tne Four Dam ?cot bec::use we c::n spread our ovemead c:JS!S ave: :cciticnal :<WH sales sines we wiil start using energy that is literally •water over tl"le d2m" ~ Tyee and unused ar present. .i ·'XIT~l :t wiil ;Jrcvide us with tne abiiity to transfer e!ec:nc:ty t:ac!< :nd fari:h t:e!Ween ?erersburg, Wrange!l :nd Ketc:,ika.n in emergencies. it wiil provide far joint dispatch and !aim cpe! a.cicns of our 7Na majcr hydrae!ec:nc ~c!iities. r llemorandum ~ l.l.ayor and C1ty C:lWlcl Juiy 21. 1954 ?11ge 2 r ::. It wiil provide us with the ac::sss ~a aJl addii:ionaJ hydroe!ec:nc sites between Ketchikan and the end of the line at Petersburg when c::nsicering future power suppiy sources. 6. rne Tyee Project already has a third bay installed within the pcwerhouse and it wiil only require S3-9 miilicn to ins-.a.il a generator ~pabie of praduc!ng betWeen 10-15 MW's at peaking power. 7. rne coerating ftexibiiity plus the additional hydroe!ec:nc sites tna:r: wiil cec::me available to ail Soutl1eas;:: Alaska L!tilities wiil be an invaluable tad in providing energy options far the future with the add.iticn crt th1s intertie link. 8. The lmertie itseff may provide an cptfcn for the Mahaney Lake project and prajecs like it fer sales opporrunities to Other Southeast utilities in the future. 9. The lmertie provides an income stream tO pay fer the lnten:ie and therefore the cost to Ketd"likan residentS is nil and the pries of the energy tha.r goes ac."''ss the t:r-..:nsmission line is a known quantity. (Currern1y, 6.6 cems per Kwh). WHAT HAPPENS IF THE MAHONEY LAKE PROJECT ENE.::tGY IS USED BEFORE 11-IE INTE..::rTlE POWE.=\? .,. 1. The intertie will not be buiit as the energy from the lntert:ie wculd not start being used by KFU ratepayers until the year 2007. 2. ., .... .l.. car.::=_:;_ A I would not recommend to the Cound that we build a trd"lsmission Une that wou1d not be used fer 9 years ather than for surplus saJes to the puip miil. 8. We wou1d not be abte to repay or justify ec:::JnomicaUy a trd"lsmission Une that would not be used for 9 years. The State L=gisla:ture will stop annual a.!locaticns tewards this prajec:-sines it will be ec::momically inieasibte to continue. We 'Mil lose a longer term energy saurcs with its buiit in cperationai benefits QnC:uC::ing the fact that the State has aopraved trle iuneing sourcss for the lntertie through its legisla:ture), tor a short term ix tl1at provices none of the operationai options. We substitute a prajec: :hat wiil interc::nnec: hydro sites that have different dimates for prOJec:s that lie in the same hydro area i . .e. when we are in crougtTt in our own hydras. Mahoney wiil be in draugMt also. lnis past year when we were running our diesels cue ra insutficern i<iinia!l. Tyee w-c=S in a soiil c::naiticn. rneretore. we wiif lose some ct tha:t spiil :n c:imares to baJancs cur rescurcs neer_s. • :t r r Uemorandu:m -Uayor and C.'ly C;)unc:J Juiy 2"1.. 1994 Page J ::. We wiil substitute me Four Dam P-:cl 1a1:e ct :nergy fer 2. higner Mai1cney Lake power rate. c. We have ~ncems as to whemer tr:e Mai1cr.ey l2..ke .:rcje~ wiil c::nsiSLemJy crccuce uc to .:1 MW's ci ~rm ::ewer, ·..:ncer t:t:e scsnaric :rcc:::::sed. And we are I • ' ' • desirc~.,;s .:::i havir.g :he energ c:::::me ~r.ro ne KPU system ·::y ;merc:::nnedr.g with cur ::a. . .: 't<.V ::ransmissicn !ir.e ~o ;rcvice fer sc.J·e~ :n case .scmeming i1acr:ens to the i ~ 5 't<V Swan L.:.ke t:r-.::.r.smissicn :ir.e. (An q:ricn we are :rying ~o ir.c:::::rcorate into ::i":e Swan /Tyee lmertie.) r • We wiil !cse :.il surplus power saies avaiiable to use tnrcur;n cur agreemem with the Fcur Cam ?coi. C)..N THE !N"'iE.=tTlE AND THE MAHONEY LAKE PROJECT SE BUILT S&MULTANEOUSL Y'? . I. Yes. St..rr :-:eitt":er wiil be c::st sTec:::ve and nerther wiil ;:rcvice a return on the :nvesnnern :a :t'ie :uiicers ct :t:e ::rc!ec:s.. So wniie the ans.ver s yes the reality is that ::hey wiil r.ct ce buiit simuttanecusty . .. .. HOW SHOULD Tr!E TWO PROJECTS aE SUIL T? 1. From the ~rosr:ec:ive at the c::::mmunity and its putiiey cwned utifrty, we have c:!etermined mrcugh cur long ia.ru;e planning to prccsed with ::he interde prajec: because ct its O!=erationaJ ile.."<ibiliiy and its greaer kWH avaiiaciirty and bec2use ct the favcrable c:::st c:::nsiceraticns ::ttrough use at Stc:• e funding that we are unfikeiy ~o ever receive again tcr tl'lis prcjec:. As J'le c::mmunities stated gaai cf being the number one regional pricrfty 7cr the last severaf years (a memter at that team was Mayer DeWitt) we placsd ii: on our legisiaive priority list as something we •rrcrned as a c:::::mmunity. 2. Frcm tt:e crosoec:fve at the City ct Saxman and Ca.ce Fax. it orov1ces an . . . . ec::ncmic deveicpmem oppcrwntty wMidl wiil provide a :nes.6{ and permanent inc:::me sueam it A. They are able ~o obtain a cermanern sales agreement with KFU fer a set price for purc.'1ase ct the power. 8. A scmewnat higher risk involves selling me ):)ewer ~o us uncer PURPA (Public Utiifty Reguiarcty Pciic:es Ac: ·:t :878) wMic.'1 mandates mat KPU purc!"lase the pcwer ar :he avoiced c::::st ct j':e next scurc:; ct :!ec:Mcai generation we wcuid IJse :r :.he Manoney L.:.ke prc1ec: 'Nere net a.vaJiacle. r r J.lemocandwn -1la'yor and Cly Counc::l Juty Zl. 1994 ?age 4 C. Tnis means that Manoney would sucptant, at :resent. the power we generate at.:t ct cur Saiiey Diesal Genera:rcrs if :hey C81 get j'te ;c.c;!ity buiit betcre the !mertie is buiit (Tnat avaiced C.:SL would have to be derarminea). 1 ). If the imertie language recuires us to purc.'1asa me power from the lmertie regardless. tlen ttle avoided cost wculd be whatever the prevaiiing Four Dam Peal cost would be. 2) If the lmertie is conSiTUc:ed nrst. then j'te avoicea cost is the Four Darn Pool prevaiiing cost. SO WHAT DO WE 001 1 . If the c;ty C.:jundl agrees to enter imo a lang tenn power safes agreement with the City at Saxman for power our cf Mahoney Lake, you are diec:ively kiiling the lrnertie projec!. 2. If ttle c;ty at Saxman builds the Mahcney lake projea before we have me lmertie built, we are kiiling the lntertie projec:. .. 3. If we don't provide a guarantee ct anergy at a set price to ttle City of Saxman. it may make their prcjec: more diffiCJl:t to develop. 4. Sines Saxman particpated in the L.:!Qislative Uaison with the ottler governments on this ls:and.. and since the Mahoney Lake projec: was net one at those projec:s, it wcuid saem that in the interests ot working togettler tor the furure of the Island, they wcuid agree to de!ay the devecpment ot Mahoney Lakes to be the ·nexr' generating sourcs to c::me en line for the community after the lntertie wnid'l tl1ey hetped to promote. 5. It is C:ear tl1at one or bottl at tl'lesa projec::s wiil fall rf we try to build tl1em c:JnCJtTefitty, so we should stic!{ to our original plans. To do Ottlerwise is going to c:ea:te havoc, hard feelings and the lass at economic opportUnities for all; if net in the short run; but then in the future. SHOULD THE COUNClL ENCORSE THE MAHONEY LAKE PROJECT? 1. Yes. ~rovided that it is agreed that it wiil c:Jme on line after the lmertie is c:JnStTUc:.ed. Otherwise, we should respec:fuily dec!ine to enter into any c::mrc:.e:: with Saxman for Mahoney Lake power, AND, 2. Yes, once the City ct Saxman's inanc.aJ partner. me Cape Fcx C.:Jrpcrat:ion and KPU have settled the Beaver Pdls land aisoure. ' . r r Memor:andum-l.layor and C3y C~W1c::::1 Juiy Zl~ 1994 P'sge 5 3. To do otherwise wiil mean the ec::ncm1c teasibiiity and and ::o :he Swan(Tyee lntertie. DOES THE MANAGEMENT OF K?U SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAHONEY LAKE PROJECT? ' I • 2. ~ ..... Yes, with me c::ncsms accressed accve cut: of :tie way. Yes. i we ·:::.n agree to have :he ~ower :r.rer irno ::t:e KF 1J sysem on ·:::ur 34 . ..5 kV transmission :ine. if we c:m t:e a r:arcr:er in assuring mar t':e quaiity c::rnrct ar.d :ne c::::nSiruc:icn wiil provice rcr ccerating amc:encf and keep ct:;e:ations and ,11aimenancs to a minimum . ..1. We C311 :£;;res :a maxtmiz.e me CUU:::t..rt: with =he ·:::SL: of the :·c.c:iity. WHY DIDN'T KPCJ SUIL!J MAHONEY UKE AFTER Si1JOY1NG !TTriREF DIFFERENT TIMES? 1. The ffrst time we didn't buiid ;t ·.vas ::ecsuse we ct:;ted to buiid Swan lake. 2.. Tne sec::::nd time we Cidn't :uild t was aec=t 1c::e we warned to cptimizs our pa.t"tiC:;::aricn in tt'le RJur Dam Peat and buiid the imertie. WHY ISN'T USE OF MAHONEY LAKE POWE..':\ CHEAPE.':\ THAN RUNNING THE 8AiL..C"f DIESELS"? 1. It isn't cec:ause the avcided c::::st crt running Baiiey is simply the c::::st of fuel and the wear on \Me generators. All ather c::StS are aiready b&.ng inc-...:rred at the present time. 2.. If we leave 11e 8ailey generators ccwn, and usa Mahcney Power, we still inc-..Jr all c:-..!rrent c::StS of running Saiiey, so we pay wha:r sver tl1e c::sr :s determined to be and maybe trla.t c::::s;:: is as;ac!isi1ed a a levei higMer .nan our ac:JaJ avoided c::sts. WHAT OTHER CONCERNS DOES THE MANAGE.:'VlE..:I..IT OF KFU HAVE ABOUT TrfE MAHONEY U.KE PROJECT? 1. Tnat rt is being c::nsrruc-..sd cutSice :t1e sc::pe and c::rnrcl at the Utffrty which wiil have to rely en its auu:::ut:. yer we have no manat;;emern cversi<;nt or c::::nrrcl on :,cw it gers c::nsuuc:ed or ·~mere it :rners irno CL!r sys:em fer :he :eSL' use or the Utility. r Lle.mor.uldum -J.layor ma Oy Council Juiy 2"1., ,994 ?ages r 2. That KPU is a not a tor-prcift municcally owned utility that cetermined 11a:r the Ma11cney Lake prc1ec: was not the project it teit was in the t:esr imeresr ci the ratepayers and the c:::mmunity it serves inc!ucing the City or Saxman, a: a pries less man we would now expect 'tle prqec: will c:::st us by adding prctits to the City at Saxman and Cape Fox Corporation. iWS;ntl Attac!'lmenrs cm..;:::_a ~: ... L ... . . Ill . ., ."'!'. I .. :~·.1 I I T j .: I . I :r· .. • I . I I ·I "· 1.'.1 i~i I I .. lrJ u 'T ~ .. • fi.i I I .............................. _ .. ..,., ........ -•• -, ................ 0 ........... , ...................... .,. ............................... ,. 0 0 ........... "''"' ''''f41 !l., .. ••• r • • _; • :,!,•: .';;, :. ~ . l'J >·· · I f 'I :_ , ,, : r.r. 1.1.1 f.l; ·. •·• ::J 1.11 IIJ Ill I I I .. II; Ill I . ··-., .. I. I .... ·! .. ··•. :t: ,, I I 1.1 .1 II r! • (, I .:t 11 .: r.r c • >·· :.• y "· .. ·,:. lf.l r·IJ ''· In r:·r t'f Cl Itt • ·' ··l 1.1) •n 11,1 ·~I -:-·1 1.1 I ')I ~tl tn •-· rJr {'J •. 1, '! 1 1 n '.) ~.., •. 1.1 1 . , '.' , , '-' 1. •. r . . (' 1 ~·J •1 1 r•l r•J •r .1 1.1 1 ~·1 11 ·1 lr~ 1:·1 r:.• I I (•I '·'I ~'I II I 10 Ill I I I ,• . . !.-:,., t ! . . .. ·. ~:. : ... tf) I ,. 'I·'-I(J r.:. ~ •. 1 f·, t:l (;.I o ('J ., •. to ,..._ 1-~'' ·-"' ,~, '!.1 ·-· I::J ~I "='' T "' t•J , ... '" 1n -~ •-f ..• t'l ''I ,, n ~I ·~i '! ·:I (·t t·l ~··I t'.l .~~~ I ·.. ~ fJ I I ) t ' I ~-~1 " , ' ( I , ·'I '1 .1 '}I r., J 1· .. t:• 1.1, {··I , ... r:•l f .•• I ·• r:•f 111 '1.1 I ·.. I .... l.fl .t.:l t;•f 11) r:-·1 u H.l lr 1 • .... 1·- ·:I t · ' 11.1 ' .• t1l t.'' t· J I , f ,__ 1-.. '·. I •:;1 o:~' ':II r:•,l •:•.1 '.IJ fll 1 · .. •II I til '.II I .. 1 ·. II) rtf t I '.J •.:1 1::1 1 '1 '·" ' • .1 ' .. If, I f ' I •:.t ':.J • .. ;• 1,.1 •:.'.1 ·:.• •.:.1 ··I • .. I I 'I t: ., ·:·1 •: I I ,,I ,. , •.··1 , ·I ,, I ~··· I ·I rt r·r '··I (.'I .~, ~ r .' '.IJ I ;IJ •::• u •:.) ('J (J t::1 u 0 •:• 0 1.~1 t:l u r.:;r u •::t u •.::r (:·r Cl t'l c. I r-r ,...., , .. , c::t (.1 t'f •:·f t•l (.,f ~;, ~~.I (:1 \'.1 (•.1 '.1.1 to r:1 .1 ~'.t r:r.t r.•J (CJ u_r tr.t I . . I fl " I I ··-• I I • I' ., I l'f I ,., ... •1 .• ••1 •lr •'1 1 .. I . 1 .. 1· .. 1 .. I . I . I ··· 1 ·-I ·~ 1 · .. o I I .. I • · I · j I r I I I o I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I r I I 1 I I I I It .1 I I t I . "I I .. I . I . I . I . I . I··· 1 ·. I .. I ·. t ·• 1·. I ·~ 1 .. -r ·•1 I·• -~r ., -1 .. , ., ··I ·:I ~1 '·' ~r ~1 -:1 •n I ··· ''' •r' '" "1 lit 11 .1 lrJ UJ til u 1 •1 .1 11,1 '·'·' ~t.l I -f· •. I ··· 1··-f ·- lrl 111 111 hi lrl 1· .. 1-... I ··· 1·-f ,, "1.1 ··I ·-:1 ... 1 'IJ 'IJ 11,1 1.0 ••:1 u:r (.'J I··· •.·1 ·:1 1•1 1· .. 111 1··, PJ r.·J ''.' c.·r 1· ... •:t .l •:tl Ll 1 •1 I •. ,,. 1 '1 I . ·.:1 ., ,., ,.,, ('' • •. f,l •• , 1.'.1 l.ft I ··· :::.II} 1··1 •:.1 1 ·1 ~·I ~II 1 · .... , lrt rp •.C.f , .. I··· 1.11 :·:1 ·~1. 1 ·} Ill •·1 I · •·1 Ill 'If '.11 t•l 1 '1 Ill f • 11 .1 I.;J •· r:f II,.~·. ·I .j 111 ·I •rr 111 111 'II 1· .. 1 · .. 1 -. I ·. I •. •.r1 •.t .l •:11 ~-.: 1.1.1 ' .. • .. • ... f', ':'\I t:l ·-· ··-'·" .., .. ··~-"·-· I.IJ '.0 f-.. I H I:IJ •r:r •:1 r '·'I l.t r •tJ. ltJ r:t) •.II \II l .. tl I t ··I '·" u c 1 ,., ,., ... 1 'I' 11 .• 1 ·. •.1.1 ~~~ •:J I... I)' I I I I '' , I I I .' I " I .,, ... , i.• I C l \.J 111 1 '' 1.11 '" 1 11 ''' •.•1 •11 r.11 •:•1 r.::1 t.:l ,... . ........... '.'' .. c:·f r:·l I: . .J 0 u (.'1 p I (•.I "':' ,., •::.1 0 ("J { I t~ I \'I --- t •• •·-...... \11 f ••• t1) (~I J ·~·) OUU(.:J •· .. C.l tJ U n Cl {·.I ( • J 1:, I f~l t' J t\1 Ill .. , u 1\1 ~~ t.r.t I'' .d ,,, ·-·1 >·· ·u :J .fJ VI :;-.., I ·' ., .. 1·-.,_ . U ·I·· ''I ,, ,,, ''- . . ·-' Lfl , ... C.' I , .. til l" 1\f l . Ill >- ~t i·· . I . .' . .. · ; "~'.'";· .'(. ·~,, ..• 1,. ·:.nt.·.:, •··· ,. !.r J,"''' I • .. . I • • ~·.,' •:• .. '· :) ~ I ,I - • :.•4' : .. ,: I l I ;•'; . ' I .. I. ~ I •.' . ~ .. I . ! ,~ ; '· ; . I . I • .,.. .. • • • • I ·~; i •.'·;. ·. 1 .. ;.t~1,t~'<'. . i .: ·. p. ~\ -< ({) tfl -··· .1 r:r f\' ~·· (t) r m -·· rl· --"' "< (() -I ({) w 8' I -+ A. co "< co (4 1-1 (f) en ( m ~ m 0 m (\) , ~ .. • ... , t \...# l u • '-" t\.J I\J 1'-1 l\.l IU 1\.l _._ o o o o o n o n n n LO 10 10 10 10 LO 10 10 10 10 __ ._ o on r• , ,-, n n n n '~'~ tr, 1C1 tr• ,,, ,,, 111 II• "' ,,, o 10 en --1 n~ o 1 I'-t.-J 1\l -· o w tu ~,, dl u1 1'-t.l 1-...1 o -f. -.. _... -· __ ., _ .. _..... _, _ ... _.. -'" _...... _.... __ ., __..... _ .... __..... _., 10 Ul lQ Ol ffi {n ('0 00 --1 -..a --.a -a -...1 01 Ol Ol Ol 1:.. U1 oo m 1\l co m c~ ~ o en --1 m '~ l'l w en m t ... ) -• ( .. .) to co ---a u, O) w ...... _.. tn a::.. m 01 14.. --1 _.. 01 t...J ,,) o ---"' --"' -en ---• m N tJ, m C...J o _. (...J 1::.. o ...... , o a, ---1 _._ f-. f'\.l W 00 lO "'I Cl 01 ........ (...J (...J ..... , Ul -1 1'\l (:... l\l a, Ol O) m 0) O) rn 01 Ch m m m m m m w 01 01 (h -1 en ·~ .p.. .,:.. p. .p. f:.. ·~ .J:.. t" l:.. J... 1:.. ~ (:.. 1:.. 14 1:.. (\l 10 f:.. -1 -1 --l -1 -a --L ..... , --1 -1 --1 ~ -.1 -a -1 -I -1 -·1 -.a -..a .(:.. ........ -1 Ul 01 0) (H Ul1 tn tn Ut 01 Ul 01 U1 Ut l.ll L)l CJ\ I J& j:.. f-.) 1::... t.J..J -.a -.t -1 -1 -1 ---1 ·-1 --1 -1 -1 --1 -.a --1 -1 -....J .,, -.a Co ICI lfl 01 en ro ro en (P m co m o:l m m m ro w m m rn N 1\l N l\l f\l N I"-) N I\J J'\.J N l'l l'l 1'\l hl ''' l'-l oooooooooooc)ooooo oaooooooooo~ooaoo aoooooooooooooooo ·~ ,.. .,:.. ., .... :.. ,.. I;. I:-(AI t~) t-.l _.. ....... .-4 ~ _._ _... -u ({) '0 co --~ --1 ........ --· ..... _, 0 1:.. ...... 0 (...J 1:.. 1:.. .~ .f.. .~ a:.. ...... , o I'-~ m cu l\l l\.l N 1'-l l\l I~ _.. 0 ID fu ..... , l I I l'l 1'-l I\.) I >.l -• ........ I 0 ..... ·~ ·~ ·1~. (\) --"' r-t' _._ co l\l o, -~ ~ ·1:.. Ol -I -1 o cp CJ1 o o w _.. -· 1\l (l) (,j (..,) (-:) ()' r• L 0 0 {Jj ' ' . 00 '0 Ul Ul j\) _ .... hl Q) (...J {.JI -..a 01 I{) {,.) {).) 01 I') __ .. f._ 01 01 W 01 -• 10 (.-.1 C11 01 C1 I'-) Cl I II .._, {)j l')} -·1 0 (.h ,. 0 ...... , -,, en ()) o:J 10 Ot --1 If) I I t ... l (...J (h ( • .} 0 u, j:.. 10 {,} j::.. (H I l 1 --1 ti.l ()) _. 1' '•t' );; ·: :i ,;;l .. :j . .• itJjl:l.:.::l~:t.·.u,,, .. I' . • . • , . •. . • . •I.· .····,: • .. •· . ·.• .. ',·,'·,·· .. · ~··.·. ..: •. · ••• ,'•·.·,~·;· .• · 1\' :,1' ,,:. '1\· '.,·.: .. ··.\· '•.1'· . . . • . . .. .. ·1 1··•J·,•.;~·\t.•"l''~'r.· ··'. •:···1· ; ··· l~l 11 : I' t.q' ~·~A:l~r'\ t;:. tl.',d•·i!·.'iJt.·lli;(· ;~!.,•.~.· I ··.' •· 1 I ' • • : i,j' . ,. ~.!·, '! \J~i.HttJ ii:·, ~~ · .. 1d· >': '1::· l.:. . . 'II : 1 f. 1\·~ ...: "1'1\ :z:~ ~ ..... • .... ~ •.: I·"' :l' ?J!' II '" . JJ I:··. '; ·,: .' · .. . .. .. l\ .... c .... 'llll~zl ·'~"~~~~~'.~ ••. ,.,,,•;.\a!.···• •·• ;.r•.l'•'··· ····• l~ftl ... "' •. 6/.1 • .. ··• t.l.t., ... ·' .... X ·n J.: c -< r:JO ;n~ oz it m ·U ({I Ill r.: ·z ;n rn ·o :tJ ~(,) 1: .. < ({I ({I () rn z TJ H 0 ., t) April 14, 1995 Mary Stensvold U.S. Forest Service 201 Katlian, Suite 109 Sitka, AK 99835 Subject: Mahoney Lakes Hydroelectric Project Dear Ms. Stensvold: It was a pleasure meeting you last week at the Alaska Rare Plants Forum. It's nice to match a face with a familiar name and voice. I found the discussions whetted my appetite for more opportunities to do plant work. I am writing regarding the Mahoney Lakes Hydroelectric Project, which is located about 7 miles north of Ketchikan. lbis project is being proposed by the Cape Fox Corporation-the Native corporation of the village of Saxman. lbis project will take water from Upper Mahoney Lake at 1959' elevation, run it through a tunnel and penstock to the turbine at 150' elevation where power will be generated, and discharge the water back into a creek just upstream of Lower Mahoney Lake. The upper lake is on Forest Service land; the generating station and the lower lake are on Cape Fox Corporation land. The Forest Service's Ketchikan Ranger District has decided that the project proponent should write the Biological Evaluations, and then Bill Baer of the USFS will sign them. HDR Engineering is designing the project and preparing environmental documents for the project on Cape Fox's behalf. I will be preparing the BEs and am beginning that work now. You stated that you have developed a format for plant BEs that I might use. Could you please send it soon so I can start on the evaluation? Recognizing that a Biological Evaluation would be necessary and that the project area includes habitats that may support sensitive species, we contracted with the Alaska Natural Heritage Program to conduct a survey of sensitive plant species late last summer. Perhaps you've had an opportunity to look at the report on that survey. We found what appears to be Carex lenticularis var. dolia near the project area but not where we expect it would be affected by the project. We found Platanthera chorisiana in sites that would be directly and indirectly affected by the project. The information in the Heritage Program report indicates Platanthera chorisiana has been identified in few locations in the southern Tongass Forest; however, you have stated that it has actually been found at many sites. I would appreciate it if you would send me information on those additional locations so I may consider them in the BE. Thank you for your attention to this. Please call me if you have questions about the project. Sincerely, HDRENGINEERJN~INC. ~~ cc: Bill Baer, I<etchik.an Ranger District HDR Engineering. Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2689 Telephone 907 274-2000 Fax 907 274-2022 April 20, 1995 Mr. Gerald Hope, President Ketchikan Indian Corporation 429 Deennount Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 ·Dear Mr. Hope: lil{ In response to a request at the scoping meeting held in Ketchikan on April 12, HDR Engineering, Inc., on behalf of the City of Saxman and the Cape Fox Corporation, is pleased to provide you with the enclosed copy of Scoping Document 1 (SD 1) for the above- referenced project. The SD 1 was originally distributed on March 9, 1995, to solicit comments from agencies, interested parties, and Native American groups. The SD1 initiates the scoping process for the project with the intent of ensuring that all pertinent issues are identified and analyzed and the Environmental Assessment that is being developed will be thorough and balanced. As explained in the SD 1, written comments are due on May 15, 1995. Please contact me if you have questions concerning the SD 1 or the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. (Y)iY;ttd_ tl STJ~I..£6 Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing and Environmental Services cc. Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Jack Snyder, HDR ~·e~l HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004·5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 April 25, 1995 (See Attached List) Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Dear: fil\ Enclosed are the draft minutes from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) Scoping Meetings that were held on April12 and 13, 1995, for the above-referenced project. Please review the minutes and forward any changes or comments you may have by May 9, 1995. We appreciated )'Our attendance at the meetings and look forward to your participation in this project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. /fJI i!.ha& v StitWlb 00 Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services Enclosure cc: Vince Yearick, PERC Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Jack Snyder, HDR Mark Dalton, HDR Lisa Fortney, HDR John Morsell, NES Wade Lindsay, WBKQ HDR File, B.4.1 HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 ,08th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004·5538 Telephone 206 453-1 523 DISTRIBUTION LIST Ms. Teresa Trulock Ketchikan Ranger District U. S. Forest Service 3031 Tongass Ave. Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Don Ranne Ketchikan Ranger District U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jim DeHerrera U.S. Forest Service 3031 N. Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Brockman U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 23193 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Vicki Davis U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 23193 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Nan Allen Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 810 First St., NE, Room 1004 Washington, ·Dc 20426 Mr. Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, Room 205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Carol Denton Alaska Department of Fish and Game ~030 Sea Level Drive, Room 205 Ketchikan; AK 99901 ~ Mr. Rich Trimble Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jan Risla Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Melanie Fullman Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front St. Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. William Jones City of Ketchikan 334 Front St. Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Wendy Harkins Sitka Electric Department 1306 Halibut Point Road Sitka, AK 99835 Mr. Hank Newhouse P.O. Box 9508 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Craig Moore State Parks Advisory Board P.O. Box 5776 Ketchikan, AK 99901 o\t~f"t MEETING MINUTES I-il\ PROJECT: SUBJECT: ·DATE: PLACE: ATTENDEES: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11393 National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) Scoping Meeting, Evening Session April 12, 199;¥; Ketchikan, Alaska Wendy Harkins·Sitka Electric Department; Hank Newhouse; Rich Trimble-Ketchikan Public Utilities; Craig Moore-State Parks Advisory Board; Don Ra.nne, Teresa Trulock-USFS; Nan Allen, Vince Yearick- FERC; Wade Lindsay-Wilkenson, Knauer, Barker & Quinn; John Morsell-Northem Ecological Services; Mark Dalton, Mike Stimac, Jack Snyder, lisa Fortney-HDR Engineering. The meeting began at 7:10pm. An agenda (copy attached) and Scoping Document 1 (SDl) were available fo.r attendees. Jack Snyder welcomed everyone, explained that Doug Campbell was unable to attend this meeting, explained the protocol for the meeting (e.g., sign in and indicate if wish to provide testimony, the meeting is being taped, identifying yourself before speaking, etc.), and he reviewed the agenda. Mike Stimac reviewed the project history to date from receiving the preliminary permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which gave the City the exclusive right to study the project and to file a license application by the end. of the term of the permit. This permit has a term of three years and was received in June 1993. By the end of May 1996, the City of Saxman has to file its license application for the project. Once the project looked feasible, the studies were scoped Qut and preliminary design work was done. On March 16, 1994, the Initial Consultation Document was issued, which contained a brief description of the project and its operation and discussed the study programs to be implemented to develop the environmental documentation. It sought input from the public and the agencies. The first-stage consultation meetings were held on April 26, 1994, same format as these NEPA scoping meetings, one meeting for the public and another for the resource agencies and a site visit was also held. The comment period lasted for 60 days following the meetings. That ended the first- stage of consultation and started the second stage. The Initial Consultation Document was then modified according to the agency letters that were received and the document was distributed as the Final Consultation Document on August 8, 1994. As a result of the comments that were received and the applicant's understanding of the project, it appeared that the environmental impacts would not be too significant. In July of 1994, a meeting was held with the FERC to explore the possibility of developing an Applicant -prepared environmental assessment (EA). This was a procedure that was authorized by the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. How this HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 4!)3.., 523 differs from a normal licensing process is that the applicant in a normal situation would file the license application with the FERC. The FERC would then begin the NEP A process and write the EA. Under this new procedure, the NEPA process starts earlier in the process. It happens before the license application and the preliminary draft EA are filed with the FER.C. When the Final Consultation Document was distributed, the letter that promulgated that document indicated that this was the approach that would be taken. That necessitated the development of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City of Saxman, Cape Fox Corporation, U.S. Forest Sexvice (USFS), and the FERC. The MOA sets forth the fact that an Applicant-prepared EA. will be developed, a schedule of how the events might occur, and provided for communications protocol between the parties. The MOA was signed on January 13, 1995. In February, the FER.C issued a letter to all parties on the distribution list waiving certain regulations because the timing of those regulations do not apply with this EA process, and that the Applicant-prepared EA would be developed and the EA. would be filed in place of Exhibit E of the license application. On March 9, 1995, the SDl was sent out to everyone on the distribution list and indicated the scoping meetings would be held today and tomorrow. Mike Stimac stated that HDR needs to receive written comments from resource agencies and the public by May 15, 1995. Depending on what kind of feedback is received, SDl may be revised to include comments and distributed again as Scoping Document 2 (SD2). If little or no significant comments are received, a second scoping document will not be issued, but instead a letter will be distributed informing parties of this. The preliminary draft EA and the draft license application are tentatively scheduled to be distributed by September 1995 for review and comment. The agencies and public will have a 90-day comment period. About two-thirds of the way through the comment period, a public/agency meeting will be held to discuss the results of the studies and respond to any questions and to clarify concerns about the project. This will help to rerme the information that g<>;es into the agencies comment letters. The comments of the draft license application and draft EA will be due, along with draft mandatory and recommended license terms and conditions or prescriptions in December of 1995. The draft EA and the license application are scheduled to be filed with the FERC in January 1996. The last three items on the project chronology relate to what happens with the document and process once the application is flied. Vince Yearick of the FERC will talk about those when he's up here. Mike Stimac explained that the purpose of the scoping meetings is to identify issues, concerns and opportunities associated with the proposed action. According to NEPA, it should conducted as soon as possible in the process. Normally, in a regular licensing proceeding, NEPA does not begin until the third stage of consultation. Tiris is actually being done now as part of the second stage and having it completed sooner before the application is rued with the FERC. Mike Stimac explained that the participation of the federal, state, and local agencies, any Native American group and interested persons is requested to identify significant environmental and socioeconomic issues related to the proposed action, determine the depth of analysis and significance of issues to be addressed in the EA, identify how the project would or would not contribute to cumulative effects in the Mahoney Creek basin, identify reasonable alternatives that should be evaluated, eliminate from detailed study the issues and resources that do not require detailed analysis during · review of the project, and to solicit additional study requests. This ·will be the last opportunity for resource agencies to request additional studies. If requests are submitted, they must conform to 18 CFR 4.32.b.7. You must describe the study, the basis for the request, who should participate and. conduct the study, the methodology and the objective, whether the methodology . , 2 is accepted by the scientific community, how the results will be used by the requesting agency, how long it might take to complete the study, and why the objectives cannot be achieved by using the existing data or study program. Mike Stimac requested additional information that would be beneficial to analyze the impacts of the project. Information, quantified data, or professional opinions that may contribute to defining the geographical and temporal scope of the analysis and identifying significant environmental issues; identification of, and information from any other environmental document or similar study (previous, on-going, or planned), relevant to the proposed Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Existing information and any quantified data that would help to describe the past and present actions and effects of the project and other developmental activities on environmental and socioeconomic resources; information that would help characterize existing environments and habitats; identification of any federal, state, or local resource plans, environmental impact statements (EIS), and future project proposals in the affected resource area, such as proposals to construct or operate water treatment facilities, recreation areas, water diversions, timber harvest activities, or fish management programs; documentation that would support a conclusion that the proposed project contributes to adverse or beneficial effects on resources, including but not limited to (a) how the project interacts with other hydropower projects and other development actiYities within the affected area, (b) results from studies, (c) resource management policies, and (d) reports from federal, state, and local agencies; and documentation showing why any resources should be excluded from further study or excluded from further consideration. Mike Stimac stated that all comment letters should be filed by May 15, 1995. He asked if there were any questions and there were none. Vince Yearick explained the NEP A process and how the USFS and the FERC need to complete NEPA to issue permit/license under their respective jurisdictions. The FERC issues licenses for non-federal hydropower projects, those projects developed by private individuals or utilities versus the Bureau of Reclamation or other federal agency. The USFS issues Special Use Permits. For this project, because there are USFS lands involved, the environmental document, which FERC believes will be an EA., will serve as the NEPA background for their licensing decision and for the USFS to make their permitting decision. One thing that is different in this particular project is that the Applicant intends to prepare their own EA. This is an option that was brought about by the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. The intent is to speed up the licensing process, to allow the applicant to prepare their own environmental documents. If it's an EA., they can do it themselves or they can hire someone to do it. If it will be an environmental impact statement, they can do another option which is Third Party Contracting. The FER.C believes an EA would be needed because no new darn would be constructed and it would use existing impoundments, which minimizes some of the potential environmental impacts. Both the FERC and USFS are involved because of federal permits, which is what triggers NEPA. The intent of the Applicant-prepared EA. is to speed the licensing process. The application preparation work is being completed the same time the environmental analysis is being done. Typically, the application is prepared and filed with FERC and then the FERC begins their review of the project. FERC would begin scoping after the application is filed and would write the environmental document that leads to a licensing decision. For this project, the EA. will be prepared along with the license application. One of those regulations that was waived is di.e requireiJ!ent to file the Exhibit E, or the environmental report, with the application. The 3 EA will take the place of the Exhibit E in the application. The ultimate goal is for the EA to be as complete as possible when the FERC receives it, so little rewriting will have to be done at that time. Preliminary terms and conditions and recommendations will be requested when the preliminary draft EA is distributed. That way when the document is filed with the FERC, it will include an analysis of all of those recommendations, so major changes will not have to be made to the document once it is received. For those providing comments, it is important to submit your terms and conditions with the preliminary draft EA. The applicant can then incorporate your comments into the EA and'the FER.C will have a head's up as to what to expect when the final comments come in. Once the application is filed, the FERC will review the application for adequacy, and assuming it is okay, the FERC will issue a public notice that the application has been filed and that it has been accepted (meaning there are no deficiencies in it). At that point, there will be a 60-day period for anyone to file interventions on the project. There are two types of interventions, one is to become a party to the proceedings. This means anytime anyone sends any correspondence to the FERC, they have to send it to the intervenor also. If the intervenor sends any correspondence, they have to copy all the other parties. It also provides an opportunity for opposing licensing of the project. This has some ramifications later on down the line for the FER.C. It is termed a Commission action, where the project is voted on by the five commissioners. Final terms and conditions, which hopefully will be very similar to the preliminary tenns and conditions, will be issued. A 60-day comment period will follow. The FER.C will take all of the comments and make the EA their own document. The FERC will make any changes to the terms and conditions and issue a FERC draft EA. A public comment period will follow and after that the Final EA will be issued. Lastly, the FER.C will issue its licensing decision. The time from when FERC receives the application to issuing a license is about 1 year, unless major modifications to the EA are needed. Vince Yearick asked if there were any questions. He clarified that the environmental review was happening in the pre-filing stage. There were no questions .. Rich Trimble asked Teresa Trulock of the USFS if this was the same as what the USFS does for a timber sale EAIEIS. Teresa said that it was a little different because it involves FERC. Rich Trimble asked if FERC was the lead agency the way the USFS is lead agency for a timber sale EIS. Teresa Trulock said yes, except FERC is requiring an EA or EIS whichever it ends up to be. Vince Yearick said that by doing a cooperative NEPA document, efforts are reduced because it avoids the USFS doing a separate EA from the one FERC does. It's another way of consolidating the process by the applicant preparing the EA and involving the two federal agencies. Rich Trimble asked when the permits would be issued. Vince Yearick said that the application needs to be filed by June 1996 and a decision would take about a year, so that would be June 1997. Mike Stimac said that the application would be filed by January 1996. Vince Yearick said that is probably ambitious and would be January 1997 given all the comment periods. He said i! could be possibly be a shorter time period. Mark Dalton asked Teresa Trulock about the USFS action on the Special Use Permit, if that is the"" only actio!! they take, if there is a FONSI or record of decision that the USFS will issue. . ' 4 ilo t ,., Teresa Trulock said that it would be FERC that makes the decision as lead agency. Vince Yearick said it was the Special Use Permit that triggers NEPA. Teresa Trulock said that since FERC is lead agency, FERC will be signing the document but USPS will review and approve it. Hank Newhouse said that for an example on the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, there was a NEPA document developed that was strictly for the Special Use Permit. Vince Yearick said that for the Black Bear Lake Project, FERC did do an EA. on it. Jack Snyder reiterated that FERC did an EA. but that Hank Newhouse was talking about the USPS. Hank Newhouse said the USPS portion of that did issue a decision notice as a result of categorical exclusion ... Teresa Trulock finished that it was a categorical exclusion beyond what PERC required. Jack Snyder stated that there was a lot more USPS land involved on that project. Hank Newhouse said there was a Special Use Permit for the cabin and trail. Teresa Trulock said the Black Bear Lake Project was a little bit more involved. Jack Snyder agreed. Jack Snyder described the proposed project. He described the project design and its location between Upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes. He explained that the natural topography of the area. He presented a topographic map of the area and pointed out the project features. He showed where the existing logging road is and how it will be extended south around the lower lake. The transmission line will be buried from the powerhouse to the existing logging road and then continue as an overhead line to the Swan Lake Intertie. Jack Snyder summarized how the proposed project would operate and how it would be constructed. Jack explained that most of the project would be underground. An upper tunnel would be located about 80 ft. below the lake surface (lake tap) of Upper Mahoney Lake and would convey water 1,400 ft. to a vertical shaft. The water would drop 1,200 ft. and continue to a lower tunnel which would run to the powerhouse. The powerhouse location was chosen because of the impassable barrier to upstream migration of fish. Jack explained the normal operation of the impulse turbines. Jack showed the powerhouse layout including where the staging area is planned. A videotape of aerial footage for the project area was shown to illustrate the existing site conditions, which Jack narrated. Vince Yearick asked what above-ground structures there would be at the project. Jack Snyder explained a small valvehouse will be situated at the top of the vertical shaft. He explained how a dam was considered fc;>r the upper lake but the avalanche danger would be too great to construct, operate and maintain a dam. He described the type of the rock found in the area and that it is metamoxphic which is good for tunneling. He asked if there were any questions, there were none. Mark Dalton described the resource issues that have been raised to date. Initial consultation ~eetings. were held about a year ago with ongoing agency consultation of the study plans. Land disturbance issues -an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is being prepared as well as a NPDES storm~ater pollution prevention plan. 5 Botanical issues -sensitive, threatened and endangered species that could be impacted. To date, no threatened or endangered species have been identified. However, in consultation with USFS, a few sensitive plant species as designated by the USFS do occur within the project area. In response, a survey was conducted last September of the project area starting with the access road at the terminus of the existing logging road, coming around to the powerhouse site and some work around the upper lake to try and characterize the plants that do occur in the area. That survey was conducted by HDR staff and the Alaska Natural Heritage Program. A copy of that report has been provided to the USFS (Mary Stensvold). Terrestrial issues -Concern for a population of mountain goats that were relocated by Fish & Game in 1991 to the area of the upper lake and to make sure the timing of project construction will not cause adverse impacts. Other concerns are loss of habitat (wetlands) due to construction of the project. Identification of where wetlands are and to relocate project features around wetlands where practical, primarily the access road. The overhead transmission line will be raptor-proof designed to protect raptors and other birds from electrocution. A field assessment of wetlands occurred in June 1994, along with a ground survey to locate raptor nest sites along the project access road, tailrace & powerhouse site. In addition, a bald eagle nest survey_ of the project area was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). The survey also included areas up to the White River and across George Inlet. A wetlands functional assessment will be prepared and a limited discussion of the functions and values of wetlands that do occur in the area and a biological evaluation (BE) of wildlife species will be prepared in consultation with the USFS. A Plant BE will also be prepared with the USFS. Both of these reports will be contained as a technical appendix to the EA. Aesthetic resources-main concern is what will be the impact of construction and operation of the project on the visual qUality. of the area. The EA will characterize the existing visual quality and estimate what the potenti3i changes might be from construction. Recreation issues -what impact the project will have on current recreation opportunities. Socioeconomic issues -the impact of project construction and operation on the local economy. Historical/ Archaeological issues -concern about how project construction and operation will affect historical or archaeological resources in the area. Consultations are being held with State Historic Preservation Office. Aquatic issues -Impacts to fish in Mahoney Lake system, and Lower Mahoney Creek, spawning of sockeye salmon, temperature in gravels. Upper Mahoney Lake temperature· profile continuously monitoring at depths of 20 ft. increments from the surface to 100 ft. to model water column temperatures. Stream flow, water quality, and temperature data are being collected at the tailrace. The collection of raw data will continue through May 1995. Data collection began in June 1994 and some challenges have been incurred. The temperature device at Upper Mahoney Lake has not been located for the past few months because.there is too much snow. Two temperature probes were placed in Lower Mahoney Lake. An animal chewed on one of the cables, so some data were lost, but redundant recorders made sure we have sufficient data . .., 6 John Morsell described the three field trips that occurred in 1994. The first visit was in mid-June and the intent was to get an idea of the resident fl.sh living in Lower Mahoney Lake/Lower Mahoney Creek and the portion of Upper Mahoney Creek from the falls down to the lake. A variety of sampling and observational techniques were used to get the information needed. Another field visit was made in late August, which was timed to coincide with the maximum number of salmon in Lower Mahoney Creek to get some idea of how many of those salmon were making into the lake and to possibly do some mapping of spawning areas in the lake. At that time, most of the sockeye sahnon were still in the creek so a third field visit was made in the third week of September. At that time, flows were substantially higher due to heavy rains and most of the sockeyes that were in the lower creek had made it into the lake. John was successfully able to map the spawning areas in the lake. The field studies are essentially completed. The data analysis is mostly complete. The fi.sh infonnation will be integrated with the temperature infonnation during preparation of the EA to try and make some predictions on incubating salmon. Jack Snyder lead the discussion of agency/public comments on the project. Some people had identified themselves on the sign-in sheet as wanting to make public testimony. Don Ranne asked how the project fits in with the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie Project and the potential Lake Grace project. Will this project be able to replace any of those others? Jack Snyder responded that there are a variety of ways that those projects could interact with each other. Jack stated that average loads in the Ketchikan area exceed the capacity of the Ketchikan Public Utility (KPU) system, therefore, they have been running diesel generators from December to April. As the demand grows, the problem will worsen. There is demand that projects could be brought on-line. Mahoney Lake is one project, the intertie project is another and Grace Lake are additional new resources that could help meet this demand. Whether Mahoney Lake could replace any of these? According to the current projections of load growth, the Mahoney Lake Project could handle all of the additional growth in demand for the next 10 years. At that point, you begin to get into the need for diesel or another resource. How the intertie would meet those needs and how Grace Lake would meet those needs, Jack stated he was not qualified to respond to that. He stated he understood that Grace Lake is about the same size of Mahoney Lake and may have a little bit more storage,_:IJut it has other issues with it, such as located in Misty Fjords Park and would need a long transmission line. The intertie project could meet the needs of Ketchikan if there was power available at the right price. ' Rich Trimble asked if it wouldb~,economically feasible to put both the Mahoney Lake Project and the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie Project on-line at the same time. Jack Snyder said that according to his infonnation from the economic analysis that was completed for the Mahoney Lake Project, it showed the intertie project is not economic. He was unable to tell if the intertie and Mahoney Lake at the same time would be economic because he doesn't know what basis the intertie power would be. Jack said the analysis that was completed looked at different scenarios, depending on how the project was fmanced, where the money comes from, what the demand is, and how it grows over time. A few people on the sign-in sheet indicated that they would like to comment on the project. Request for comments or testimony was made at this time. "' 7 Hank Newhouse asked if the Cape Fox Corporation was putting up funding for the project. Jack Snyder said that the City of Saxman is the project sponsor. The preliminary permit is in their name. The intent is that when construction fmancing begins, the City of Saxman will sell bonds to finance construction. The Cape Fox Corporation has an agreement to act as their development agent at this point in the project. Funding is coming from a variety of sources for these studies. One of the main sources is a ~ent of Energy grant that will give the project some federal monies. · Hank Newhouse also added that some changes were needed to the distribution list, such as adding the Ketchikan Indian Corporation (Gerald Hope is President), Organized Village of Saxman (which is different than the City of Saxman-Joe Williams, President), and the Tongass Tribe's new president is Bea Watson. Rich Trimble stated that as a utility to which the City of Saxman intends to sell the Mahoney Lake power, KPU has a very keen interest on bow you go about the project and at what cost the power is sold. KPU is an intervenor in the project. This means that KPU' s interest is so deep that they made it formal. The City of Ketchikan bas formally requested the City of Saxman to defer development of the project. It is true, Ketchikan is running out of power. Under those conditions, one would think that KPU would have an interest in any project that came along. Why would KPU voice concern about the Mahoney Lake Project and the reason is because it provides power but not when KPU needs it and at a cost that KPU should be expected to pay. KPU is responsible to find an alte.P.:sative that will provide a long-term or even intermediate term solution to their shortage and mticipate at what cost they should be expected to pay for this. This is all in a letter that KPU will provide to HDR. KPU believes that scoping is premature because terms for power purchase by KPU have not been negotiated. There was a meeting where it was suggested that KPU purchase Mahoney Lake power in a preferential manner. KPU has their own economic and contractual constraints. KPU cannot simply purchase all the power in that kind of manner. There seems to be a conflict. On one hand, the City of Saxman needs to sell the power to make the project economically feasible. KPU has other power that they will use frrst and have to use first, specifically, KPU own hydroelectric projects at a very low cost to pay them off (Beaver Falls, Silvis, and Ketchikan Lakes). There is an existing contract where KPU has to purchase Swan Lake power after they use their own·resources. It will not allow KPU to develop another project or purchase third party power under the same preferential treatment. They must purchase Swan Lake power until the lake level gets low. Only at that point can they consider running diesel generators or purchasing third party power. The economic analysis assumed that the City of Saxman could sell that power. KPU takes issue with that. KPU must negotiate with the three other utilities in the four- dam pool to purchase power other than Swan Lake. They would have to agree to that. That would decrease their revenues if KPU purchased Mahoney Lake power over Swan Lake power. They would not be able to purchase enough kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity over the intertie now and the short term to be able to market bonds for that project. You have indicated the Mahoney Lake Project could replace any of those other projects for the next 10 years. But the operating scenario you have shown indicates there is not enough demand in the year 2000. KPU will be running their diesels. I understand that Jack may not agree with everything I am saying, I am simply pointing out this is an issue. "' ' , 8 If KPU is connected with Mahoney, there are some things they would like to see. First, they would like to have a dam built for extra storage capacity and to alleviate concerns of needing power. KPU would prefer to have the transmission lines go to the Beaver Falls Project to the south versus to the north to the Swan Lake transmission lines. If Swan lake drops off-line, Mahoney Lake would drop off-line. If brought around to Beaver Falls and Swan Lake drops off- line, the downtown area of Ketchikan could remain with power, where it is unable to do now because there is too much load on that substation. Not only would it enhance KPU system reliability, it would enhance the revenue potential to keep it on-line. Another issue is the potential to wheel power to another market -Metlakatla. The BA should address potential markets. The,·· Mountain Point substation was built with capacity for interconnection to Metlakatla anticipating that an intertie would be established some day. The City of Metlakatla has identified· they have a shortage of power. Hank Newhouse stated that he' -liked the Mahoney Lake Project because it bas very low environmental impacts. Another reason is that it is being developed by the native community of Saxman. Unfortunately, KPU bas not always been a good citizen in working with the native community. Also, with the current congressional climate, dollars are scarce-subsidized power for communities_like Kak:e and other native villages is going to disappear. That will drive up their costs tremendously. Already they are paying approx. $0.25 kWh. If KPU takes the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee intertie project, that will leave communities like Kake out of the line and Kake would very much like to tie into the intertie. If Ketchikan pulls the power this way, it does not leave the option open for small communities like Kake. Kake has done much to diversify their economy. Their timber is gone, but they have their hatchery and fish processing plant. Options are cut off for other communities in southeast Alaska. I think the Mahoney Lake project is real good for the community of Ketchikan because it allows other communities to come on-line. Black Bear Lake Hydro will be coming on-line soon. I was talking to another party of the four- dam pool and the intent of the intertie project was not to come to Revilla Island but it would stay on the north side of Ernest Sound and go across to Thome Bay on Prince of Wales Island, tie into the Black Bear Lake Hydro Project and go around and get Metlakatla to tie the grid that way. To tie into Beaver Falls d~ make sense. Eventually, tieing the grid together in the longer term makes more sense. In the ~bort-term in a real tough dollar environment for the community of Ketchikan, the Mahoney Lake Project makes more economic sense. These other items can be negotiated and worked_ out nnct can be done with a lot less environmental impact to Revilla Island. The Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie project will have a lot more environmental impact. Jack Snyder reminded the participants that comments are needed by May 15, 1995 and will be addressed in SD2. The meeting ended at 8:45 pm. 9 0 v.P..f1 MEETING :MINUTES lilt PROJECT: SUBJECT: DATE: PLACE: ATTENDEES: - Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, PERC No. 11393 NEP A Scoping Meeting, Morning Session April 13, 199,4'~ Ketchikan, Alaska William Jones-City of Ketchikan; Melanie Pullman-Ketchikan Gateway Borough; Steve Brockman, Vicki Davis;.USFWS; Jack Gustafson, Carol Denton-ADFG; Wendy Harkins-Sitka Electric Department; Jan Risla- Ketchikan Public Utilities; Craig Moore-State Parks Advisory Board; Tom Somrak, Jim DeHerrera, Teresa Trulock-USFS; Nan Allen, Vince Yearick-FER.C; D. Campbell-Cape Fox Corporation; Wade Lindsay- Wilkenson, Knauer, Barker & Quinn; John Morsell-Northem Ecological Services; Mark Dalton, Mike Stimac, Jack Snyder, Lisa Fortney-HDR Engineering. The meeting began at 9:15am. Doug Campbell welcomed everyone. He reminded everyone to sign in, especially if they were interested in testifying. This meeting is called as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. It is a required step in the process. The meeting is being recorded. The minutes of the meeting will be issued to everyone signed in and to everyone on the mailing list. Scoping documents, agenda were made available to attendees. Doug asked them to please identify yourself, your name and who you are representing when commenting. Even though the intent of the meeting is to take testimony, Doug stated he would feel more comfortable and it would be more productive if this was more of an informal question and answer discussion on the issues. However, if anyone wishes to make a prepared statement, that is acceptable. The people are here to answer any questions and hopefully deal with any of the issues that may be raised. Mike Stimac reviewed the meeting agenda. Mike Stimac reviewed the project history to date from receiving the preliminary permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (PERC), which gave the City the exclusive right to study the project and to ftle a license application by the end of the term of the permit. This permit has a term of three years and was received in June 1993. By the end of May 1996, the City of Saxman has to ftle its license application for the project. He explained that this isn't the first time developers have looked at the Mahoney Lake Project, previous studies date back to the Carter administration. Once the project looked feasible, the studies were scoped out and preliminary design work was done. On March 16, 1994, the Initial Consultation Document was issued, which contained a brief description of the project and its operation and discussed the study programs to be implemented to develop the environmental documentation. It sought input from the public and the agencies. The first-stage consultation meetings were held on April 26, 1994, same format as these NEPA scoping meetings, one meeting for the public and another for the resource agencies and a site visit was also held~ The comment period lasted for 60 days following the meetings. That ended the first- HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue. N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004·5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 :' stage of consultation and started the second stage. The Initial Consultation Document was then modified according to the agency letters that were received and the document was distributed as the Final Consultation Document on August 8, 1994. As a result of the comments that were received and the applicant's understanding of the project, it appeared that the environmental ·impacts would not be too signifi~t. In July of 1994, a meeting was held with the PERC to explore the possibility of developing an Applicant-prepared environmental assessment (EA). This was a procedure that was authorized by the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. How this differs from a normal licensing process is that the applicant in a normal situation would file the license application with the FERC. The FERC would then begin the NEP A process and write the EA. Under this new procedure, the NEPA process starts earlier in the process. It happens before the license application and the preliminary draft EA are flied with the FERC. When the Final Consultation Document was distributed, the letter that promulgated that document indicated that this was the approach that would be taken. That necessitated the development of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City of Saxman, Cape Fox Corporation, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the FERC. The MOA sets forth the fact that an Applicant-prepared EA will be developed, a schedule of how the events might occur, and provided for a communications protocol between the parties. The MOA was signed on January 13, 1995. In February, the FERC issued a letter to all parties on the distribution list waiving certain regulations because the timing of those regulations do not apply with this EA process, and that the Applicant-prepared EA would be developed and the EA would be flied in place of Exhibit E of the license application. On March 9, 1995, the Scoping Document 1 (SD1) was sent out to everyone on the distribution list and indicated the scoping meetings would be held yesterday and today. Yesterday, a site visit was held in the afternoon and an evening meeting for the public. This morning's meeting is oriented towards the resource agencies. Comments are due on issues and the project on May 15, 1995. Those comments should be addressed to me. My name, address, and phone number are all contained in the SD 1. Looking ahead, if we need to modify the SD 1 as a result of feedback that we receive, if we add or delete issues, then a SD2 will be issued in June 1995 while working towards finalizing the license application and the EA. In September 1995, we hope to send a draft of the EA and the license application to all parties for review. This will have a 90- day comment period. About two-thirds of the way through the 90-day comment period, a public and agency meeting will be held where information can be exchanged to make sure we understand what concerns there may still be and to answer any questions the resource agencies may have. At the end of the 90-day comment, formal comments will be submitted regarding the draft application and, because we are doing NEPA earlier, and under this modified procedure, those letters will also need to contain draft mandatory and recommended license terms and conditions and prescriptions. That will be tentatively in December 1995. Our hope would be to turn it around, modify the application and submit it to the FERC in January 1996. Three other dates on the chronology relate to what happens with the Draft EA and license application once PERC receives it. Vince Yearick of the FERC will talk about those procedures. Mike Stimac explained that the puq>ose of the scoping meetings is to identify issues, concerns and opportunities associated with the proposed action. According to NEP A, it should be Conducted as soon as possible in the process. Normally, in a regular licensing proceeding, NEPA does not begin until the third stage of consultation. This is actually being done now as part of the ~Second stage and having it completed sooner, before the application is flied with the PERC. ' 2 l· ,. Mike Stimac explained that the participation of the federal, state, and local agencies, any Native American group and interested persons is requested to identify significant environmental and socioeconomic issues related to the proposed action, determine the depth of analysis and significance of issues to be addressed in the EA, identify how the project would or would not contribute to cumulative effects in the Mahoney Creek basin, identify reasonable alternatives that should be evaluated, eliminate from detailed study the issues arid resources that do not require detailed analysis during review of the project, and to solicit additional study requests. This will be the last opportunity for resource agencies to request additional studies. If requests are submitted, they must confonn to 18 CFR 4.32.b.7. You must describe the study, the basis for the request, who should participate and conduct the study, the methodology and the objective, whether the methodology is accepted by the scientific community, how the results will be used by the requesting agency, how long it might take to complete the study, and why the objectives cannot· be achieved by using the existing data or study program. Mike Stimac requested additional infonnation that would be beneficial to analyze the impacts of the project. Information, quantified data, or professional opinions that may contribute to defining the geographical and temporal scope of the analysis and identifying significant environmental issues; identification of, and infonnation from any other environmental document or similar study (previous, .on-going, or planned), relevant to the proposed Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Existing infonnation and any quantified data that would help to describe the past and present actions and effects of the project and other developmental activities on environmental and socioeconomic resources; infonnation that would help characterize existing environments and habitats; identification of any federal, state, or local resource plans, environmental impact statements, and future project proposals in the affected resource area, such as proposals to construct or operate water treatment facilities, recreation areas, water diversions, timber harvest activities, or fish management programs; documentation that would support a conclusion that the proposed project contributes to adverse or beneficial effects on resources, including but not limited to (a) how the project interacts with other hydropower projects and other development activities within the affected area, (b) results from studies, (c) resource management policies, and (d) reports from federal, state, and local agencies; and documentation showing why any resour~ should be excluded from further study or excluded from further consideration. Mike Stimac reiterated that all comment letters or additional study requests should be submitted to him by May 15, 1995. Vince Yearick introduced himself and Nan Allen, the fisheries biologist from the FERC. An applicant-prepared EA will be prepared that will be filed as part of the license application. That option came about from legislation as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The intent of that was to shorten the length of time from when the FERC receives the license application to when they make a licensing decision on a project. The intent was to make the opportunity available to have an environmental document fairly complete when FER.C receives it, so that FERC does not spend as much time on it intemally reviewing and rewriting work that has already been done by the Applicant. In this case, it is a cooperative EA, which means that the USFS will also be using the document to support their decision on conditions that will go into their Special Use Permit for-the project because the project occupies USFS land and FERC will use it to guide the~ decision whether or not to issue a license for the project. 3 ":" A couple of regulations were·waived, or more accurately some things were pushed into different time frames. Some of the comment periods were moved to the pre-filing stages. Mike Stimac mentioned one of those and that is the time period to request additional srudies on the project. Typically, that happens after FERC receives the application, it is noticed in the Federal Register, and there is opportunity for anyone to request additional studies. In this case, that time is now. This is the last time to requeSt additional studies. Also, we are asking for more stringent and earlier review on the part of the agencies that are involved in the process. You will be receiving a copy of the preliminary draft EA for the Mahoney Lake Project. The applicant will be asking for preliminary terms and conditions from the agencies, such as the Section (4)e conditions from- USPS, and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG), what you think your final terms and conditions might look like for this project. The terms and conditions of the license are needed now in order to be analyzed in the EA before it is f:tled with FERC. If they are not included, FERC will have to rewrite the document which will lengthen the processing time and defeat the purpose of the applicant-prepared EA. More up-front work is required by the agencies so that less commitment is needed once the application is flled. So the preliminary terms and conditions will be requested in the comment period for the preliminary draft EA. Once FERC receives the application, some review will still be required. A check for adequacy that are required for license applications. Since FERC is working with the applicant, it is anticipated that the application will be acceptable because they will have reviewed and commented on it prior to filing. A public notice will be issued that FERC has accepted the application. Interventions on the project can be filed at this time. This is also the time to flle fmal terms and conditions on the project. That information. should be similar to the preliminary comments that FERC received from the draft. The FERC and USFS will make it their own document and issue it as a joint draft EA. Comments will be solicited on that document and a fmal EA will be issued. A license decision will then be made, and if the decision is to approve the license, what kind of measures should go in to the license. The USFS will also use this to issue their Special Use Permit. If all goes well, it will take approximately 1 year to issue a licensing decision from the time FERC receives the application. The Energy Policy Act did require FERC to develop regulations on how the process will work for applicant-prepared EA's. Nothing official is expected for a while. Concentration is on processing the Class of 1993 relicensing applications. There is not a lot of attention being paid to developing new regulations. A draft schematic of how the modified process will work is available up here at the front. The applicant of a proposed project near Haines, Alaska is also utilizing this method of completing their own EA. It is a fairly popular idea and will be more popular if it works the fust few times by obtaining a quick licensing decision. The intent is to speed things up and avoid duplication of efforts. However, it does require some more involvement up front. Questions? There were none. Jack Snyder described the propased project. He described the project design and its location between Upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes. He presented a topographic map of the area and illustrated how the site will be accessed from the existing logging road near the Swan Lake ti:ansmission line near White River travels south towards the lower lake. The transmission line will be buried from the powerhouse to the existing logging road and then continue as an overhead line -~o the Swan Lake transmission line. ' 4 Jack Snyder summarized how the proposed project would operate. and the construction methods proposed. Jack Snyder explained that most of the project would be underground. An upper horizontal tunnel would be located about 80 ft. below the lake surface (lake tap) of Upper Mahoney Lake and would convey water 1,400 ft. to a vertical shaft. The water would drop 1 ,200 ft. and continue to a lower 3,500 ft. horizontal tunnel which would run to the powerhouse. The powerhouse location was chosen because of the impassable barrier to upstream migration of fish. Jack explained the normal operation of controlling the upper lake like a storage reservoir without the need to construct a dam. A videotape of aerial footage for the project area was shown which Jack Snyder narrated. Steve Brockman asked if there was a layout of construction camp facilities or staging area. Jack Snyder explained that construction proposed for this project is not labor-intensive. The tunnel operation would typically take.:34 people to do the tunneling operation and maybe another 2-3 people involved in the excavation of the tunnel spoils. A total crew would be 6-8 people during construction of the main tunnel. The raised bore section needs a 2-man crew to run the drill rig above and another 2-man crew will excavate the spoils as it falls from above. That phase of construction would require a 4-man crew. Not a lot of construction personnel at the site during this part of construction. Jack Snyder showed the powerhouse site plan where the staging area is planned. This is where the contractor would place his job trailer and stockpile rebar and various construction materials. It is not anticipated that the construction crew would live at the site. With the access road, they could commute to the job site from Ketchikan. A small staging area would also be at the top of the vertical shaft where they would level off a pad to set up the drill rig. Jack pointed out anticipated spoils areas which would include 3,000 yards of shotrock and above approx. 1,200 yards of shotrock from the upper excavation. These areas will be identified in the erosion and sediment control plan. Mark Dalton described the resource issues that have been raised to date in that the project has been studied since the 1970's. The scoping document appendices include the study plans that were proposed last year and a brief summary of where the study plans are to date. Land disturbance issues -The applicant will prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as an appendix to the EA. In addition, a NPDES stormwater pollution prevention plan will be prepared. Botanical issues -Concern about USFS-designated sensitive plant species as well as threatened and endangered species that could be impacted. To date no threatened or endangered species have been identified. However, in consultation with USFS in Ketchikan and Mary Stensvold in the Sitka office, a survey was conducted last September of most of the project area starting with the terminus of the existing logging road, coming around to the powerhouse site and some work around the upper lake to try and characterize the plants that occur up there. That survey was conducted by HDR staff and Alaska Natural Heritage Program. A copy of that has been provided to the USFS (Mary Stensvold). A copy will also be given to Teresa Trulock at the end of the meeting. As a result of that work, a biological evaluation (BE) will be prepared. The USFS uses this as a management tool to assess what kind of impacts there might be to the sensitive plant species and whether or not management measures are appropriate to offset impacts. This, ~ill also be included as a technical appendix to the EA. This is a requirement ' 5 generated out of the need for a Special Use Pennit because the project occupies USPS lands. The BE will be signed off by a USPS representative. Terrestrial resource issues that have been raised -What impacts construction of the project will have on species in the area, in particular, a population of mountain goats that were relocated by ADPG in 1991. -; Loss of habitat (wetlands) due to construction of the project. Identification of where wetlands are and relocate project features around wetlands where practical, primarily the access road. The overhead transmission line will utilize raptor-proof design to protect raptors and other birds from electrocution. To datet no threatened or endangered species have been identified. Field surveys occurred several times during the summer of 1994 which included a field assessment of wetlands and other habitats in the area, including a ground survey for nesting raptors (goshawks) in the project area. In addition, cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) a bald eagle nest survey was conducted in June 1994. A wetlands functional assessment will be prepared and a wildlife species biological evaluation will be prepared in consultation with the USPS. Other issues include aesthetic resources -what impacts the project will have on the visual quality of the area. What impacts to potential recreation opportunities might occur as a result of construction and operation of the project. Socioeconomic issues-what can we anticipate happening to the local econotny as a result of construction and operation of the project. Consultations are being held with:the State Historic Preservation Office about any concerns of how project construction and operation will affect historical or archaeological resources in the area. Aquatic resource issues-impacts to fish in Mahoney Lake system, and Lower Mahoney Creek, spawning of sockeye salmon, temperature in gravels. At certain times of the year, Lower Mahoney Creek becomes impassable to certain species of salmon. The outlet of Upper Mahoney Creek where the delta is located has been identified as a spawning area for sockeye salmon. The concern is impacts to spawning habitat as well as maintaining the viability of that habitat for overwintering eggs and hatching in the spring. As a result, water quality data has been obtained. In the Upper Mahoney Lake, a temperature probe was placed at the proposed lake tap location and is continuously monitoring at depths of 20 ft. increments from surl'ace to 100 ft to model water column temperatures. Because there has been so much snow at Upper Mahoney Lake, we have been unable to locate the temperature monitoring device for the last few months, even using a metal detector. At the tailrace, stream flow, water quality, and temperature data have been recorded. Two temperature probes were placed in Lower Mahoney Lake and an animal chewed on one of the cables. Some data were lost, but redundant recorders made sure we have sufficient data. The collection of data will continue through May 1995. John Morsell described the ~.field trips that occurred in 1994. The first visit was in mid-June and the intent was to get an idea of the resident fish living in Lower Mahoney Lake/Lower Mahoney Creek, South Creek which is a tributary to Lower Mahoney Lake, and the portion of Up}5er Mahoney Creek from the falls down to the lake. A variety of sampling and observational , 6 -~ .. techniques were used to get the information needed. A second field trip was made in late August which was timed to coincide with the maximum number of salmon in Lower Mahoney Creek and to get some obsexvations of how many of those salmon were making into the lake and possibly to do some mapping of spawning areas in the lake. At that time, most of the sockeye salmon were stranded in Lower Mahoney Creek. A third field trip was scheduled for the third week of September. Following some heavy rains, the stream flows were substantially higher and most of the sockeye that were in the lower creek had made it into the lake. John was successfully able to map the spawning areas in the lake. The field studies are essentially completed. The data analysis is mostly complete. The technical report will be included with the EA. The fish data will be integrated with the temperature data during preparation of the EA to try and attempt to model intergravel temperature post-project to predict what the impacts might be on salmon egg incubation. Vicki Davis asked about the studies for the USFS and if studies would be conducted for USF\VS candidate species. Mark Dalton responded that no, usually there is an overlap of USF\VS and USFS designated species. · Vicki Davis asked if there were plants that may not overlap, if those were looked at too. Mark Dalton said he would have to review that again. Vicki Davis asked about suxveying species other than those listed. Mark Dalton said he looked for sign or use, such as for goshawks. Vicki Davis asked Mark Dalton if he intends to look at candidate species. Mark responded no, not at this time. Mike Stimac asked if there were any other questions on anything covered so far, such as project design and operation, the licensing process, environmental smdies or issues to be addressed. Jack Gustafson said that it was mentioned about fish migrating up from saltwater may encounter a barrier or partial barrier at certain stream flows, so that raises the question as to what the effect of discharge is from the hydroelectric project would be during those months that fish are migrating in the stream. That is something that should be looked at in more detail to actually quantify at what flow condition~ fish passage is available under natural flows and try to enhance or replicate those flows during tiffies when fish migrate so that it doesn't create a more severe barrier. It needs additional work. Jack Snyder responded that the applicant hasn't provided hydraulic data to the agencies to see how the operations will work. When the agencies receive that data, it will shed some light on that issue. The total drainage area for the lower lake outlet is 5 sq. miles. The upper lake drainage is 2.1 sq. miles so that equates to roughly 40% of what is going out the lower lake. The other 60% is from drainages downstream of the diversion area. If the project shuts down, the inflow will be reduced by 40%, a lot of other water is still coming into the lake. iack Gustafson would like to know at what flows that threshold is reached where fish passage is available. Knowing that, there may not be a problem because under natural conditions, it is a problem som~times. Only the Olympic swimmers make it up through that barrier. Jack Snyder 7 stated that we have an idea of where that threshold is. Some fish were getting through at low flows. Mark Dalton added that the sockeye were moving through the banier. It was the pink salmon not making it. More field work is not anticipated at this time. Once you analyze the hydraulic information, it will give you a better idea. Nan Allen stated that under the aquatic section where it is asterisked for cumulative effects analysis as well as site-specific analysis. Those issues listed under the aquatic resources section look to be project effects as opposed to cumulative effects. I suggest moving those cumulative effects from aquatic resources into the recreational section and dropping the asterisks. Mike Stimac lead the discussion of agency/public comments on the project. Steve Brockman and Vicki Davis from USFWS had indicated on the sign-in sheet as wanting to make public testimony. Vicki Davis stated that as far as her comments, they have been addressed. Steve Brockman stated that he will save his comments for a letter. Mike Stimac asked if there was anything in particular he was concerned about. Steve Brockman asked for clarification if there were no fish in the upper lake. John Morsell responded that appears to be the case. Steve Brockman asked if that had been looked at. John Morsell stated that it was studied in the early 1980's. Grayling had been stocked in the upper lake many years ago and follow-up showed the fish had disappeared. The last word was that there was no fish up there. Steve Brockman asked if the shoreline around the upper lake went straight down all the way around. Jack Snyder replied that there was a slide down at the far end where it is a little shallower but overall, it is very steep with little habitat and a very sterile environment. Steve Brockman asked about the effect of using the project tunnels to dewatering the upper creek, will it be diminished or dried up. Jack Snyder stated that flows in the upper creek would be diminiShed when the lake level drops below the outlet elevation. There is roughly a mile and a half of drainage area that feeds that section where springs, small tributaries coming down so there will be some inflow from drainage down to the lower lake. Steve Brockman asked if the lake level would be dropped by 75 ft. Jack Snyder stated that yes, the lake level will fluctuate from where it is full down to the lake tap. Steve Brockman stated that there will probably be a 80-90% depletion from the creek. Jack Snyder said that probably will be the case but it will vary seasonally. On the outflow of water from the tunnel, Steve Brockman wanted to know where is that in relation to where the creek currently is. Jack Snyder described how the creek comes out of the upper lake, goes through a little valley, turns and drops about 1,200 ft. down the waterfall, and at the bottom, there is one last .waterfall and a pool, and the creek flows about 800 ft. through the woods in a braided channel into the lake. The powerhouse would be situated at the base of that last wate~all. The water would be returned into that pool. There will be no loss of habitat , 8 "~ •• •1:.j in the lower creek from the falls down to the lake. In previous proposed arrangements for Mahoney Lake, the powerhouse was not situated there and would have caused the creek to be dried up in that section between the falls and the powerhouse. Steve Brockman asked about the spawning area near South Creek if there was an alluvial fonnation and if spawning habitat was potential or actual. John Morsell confmned that there is currently spawning activities there, approximately 25% of the fish spawn there and the other 75% spawn at the delta from Upper Mahoney Creek. Steve Brockman asked how the access road will cross Lower Mahoney Creek and South Creek, if by free-span bridges or culverts. Jack Snyder replied that it would be free-span bridges. Steve Brockman stated that the timing of construction should be planned to be appropriate. Doug Campbell stated that this has been looked at closely in the field. Steve Brockman stated that when the snow is gone from Upper Mahoney Lake, he would like an opportunity to go up there. J~ck Snyder said that be should coordinate with Doug Campbell. They will be going up in June 'to remove the temperature probe as soon as the ice is gone. Mark Dalton asked John Morsell if there were any fish in the 800 ft. stretch of Upper Mahoney Creek from the powerhouse location to the lower lake. John Morsell replied that he saw a few Dolly Varden. He stated that there are three log jams in this area and the creek dries up in low flows, so there are no fish in the middle section and some fish at the end. He stated it is poor fish habitat. Mike Stimac asked if anyone had any more comments. Jack Gustafson asked if there were any steelhead in the system. John Morsell said he saw one juvenile rainbow trout/steelhead in the lake. Therefore, they must spawn in the lake. Steve Brockman stated that steelbead are as strong a swimmer as sockeye so it is possible to get past the barri~r. John Morsell said that if steelhead are present, it is a small population. Vince Yearick stated that regarding cumulative effects of recreation/land use, if there was anything else going on between Upper and Lower Mahoney lakes such as logging activity and road construction. He wanted to know if there was much recreation utilization of the area. Teresa Trulock stated there was s~me recreation that occurs near the project site. Jack Snyder asked Doug Campbell to explain how access to the site is managed. Doug Campbell stated that road access is limited to individuals. Access is mainly from saltwater, beaching the boat and hiking up the lower creek to the lake. Steve Brockman asked if the road will be gated. Doug Campbell said that it already is. Steve Brockman asked if it was on the Ward Lake Road. Doug Campbell confmned that it was and said the gate is located approximately 7-8 miles from the end of the access road. Steve Brockman asked if people fish the White River. Doug Campbell said yes. Most of the recreation could be considered dispersed and is very minimal. 9 Someone asked if the land would be opened up for recreation. Doug Campbell said it would not be encouraged because it is considered a liability to the Cape Fox Corporation. Craig Moore asked about FERC's regulations on recreation. Vince Yearick said those regulations could be found in 18 CFR 2. 7. Steve Brockman asked when does the lower creek dry up, if it was in late summer. John Morsell replied yes. Jack Snyder said actually it infiltrates into the ground. Steve Brockman asked if this was constant. Jack Snyder said it gets lower in the summer. Vicki Davis asked if the upper creek dries up. Jack Snyder replied that it was the section from the last waterfall to the lake that the water infiltrates the alluvial materials. Vicki Davis asked if more water would be added to the system. Jack Snyder replied that new water could not be created but depending on the time of the year it would be above/below/at the baseline. Steve Brockman said that flows will be more uniform. Jack Snyder stated that generally that is true. Doug Campbell asked Jack Snyder to review the history of the hydraulic data. Jack Snyder stated that a gage had been at the lower creek for 12 years. A gage was located at the outlet of the upper lake for 6-7 years. So the gage data provides more precise data versus simulating data from another gaged creek nearby. Steve Brockman wanted to know the nature of the blockage on the lower creek. John Morsell stated that there are steep cascades, boulders, lined by rock walls and is gorge-like. The water is fast and turbulent at high fl~ws. The worst blockage is about 100 ft. downstream from the lake outlet. · Steve Brockman asked if there was room for improvement in the creek for fish passage as part of mitigation. Jack Snyder stated that you have to be careful because if you make it too easy, pink salmon will get into the lake. Pink salmon get into the lower creek, but they can't get up to the lake. It adds a variable. Steve Brockman wanted to know about the effect of the drainage rate and lake elevation levels. Jack Snyder stated we don't want to fool with the lake elevation. The project will stabilize the flows, the flows will be more consistent. Forty percent of the flow leaving the lower lake will be project related but the other 60% will be unaffected. The average will be taken for net flows. Jack Gustafson asked about supplementing flows during low flow times. Jack Snyder stated that since only 40% of lower lake outlet flows were project-related, supplementing flows should not be necessary. High rain fall events will continue to control lower lake outlet flows as is the case now. Vicki Davis wanted to know what would happen in the event of a dry year, would contingencies 6e made to make water available. Jack Snyder stated that the applicant would have to make do with what is available. During a low water year, it usually shows its effects in faWwinter. The project would,~rate for a shorter period of time or at lower loads. , 10 'f• Jack Gustafson asked if the drawdown would occur all the way to the lake tap. Jack Snyder said the lake would be drawn down to just above the lake tap because it would be undesirable to draw air into the pipe. At that point, it becomes a run-of-river project. When the lake starts to rise from increasing inflows, the project could increase its output. Doug Campbell thanked everyone for attending. He encouraged attendees to contact team members if there any further questions or concerns. Jack Snyder reminded attendees that written comments are due by May 15, 1995. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 am. 11 I.Q 0 L ~ • 8 "' 0 rl I • "" ., . I """' ... a 0 I 0 H I a! s II en "" l rt '1111 11.1 ... •• rl ~ H ' . a l I I ... g . ·~ 0 . . ... I , • I ! •• A a ft. .I i ~ i m Cll 1 I ·~ & . ~ re o B i ~ 'U ~ a ; 1 ~ "' ' "' e ... • ~ 1 ~ 3' ... I &Itt' ~ \}.} -i I I ' 111 ~ ct. i N .... I 0 •• Q I I J •• H ... C'4 .... 0 •• N ' . '• n i· CJ t •• fi s e •• GO p 0 .. CJ) 0 " I{~ • o:l ' . ~ 0 '-r. ~ .. OS/QS/95 09:08 t't202 21' '125 FERCIOHL/DPR ((ZJ 002/00S .... - ~I is accepted by the scic=tific ~tnm.unity. b.oVr' the results will be UKI4 by the Iequesting agency, bow long it might take to complete the study, and why~ obj=ve& QIQDot be achieved by u.sh:lg tbe exiiting c1af.a or stw:ty program. Mike Stimac requested additional information that would be beneficial to analyze the impacts of ~project. InfoJ:mation, quantified dala, or profeasioiJaJ ~ that may coDUibute to defiDia:l,g tbc geographical and 1empo.ral scope of the analy&is and idamfying sigDi&ant ~ issues; identification of, and informa.t:ion from my other environmental document or similar .study (prev.iau&, on-goi.Dg, or planDed), relevam: to tbe proposed M.aholle)' I..ake lilydzoelecuic Project. Existing il:lformation and any quaDtifi.ed dala that would help to deicr.ibe the put aDd present a.ctio.as and effects of the project a.od other developmental actividea on enviroameotal and soc.ioeconomic resoutcea; information that would. help chmaerlzc e:xiJting =vi:roDDlcnts and habitata; ideDtificatio.n of uy fcdml, state. or local te&OilR:e plan&, euvtroa:meatal impact statements (.SIS), and future project proposals in the affected resource area, such aa }m)POI8ls to eonmuc.t or operate wan:r treatment facilities, ~ areas, 9/lter diversions, timber harvest activities, or fish ma.oa,gema:m programs; documentmou rhat would support a coaclusion that. d1e proposed project ce.nuibute~ to adverse or beDeficial effects on resow:cea, including but not limited to (a) how the project interaas widl otbe.r hydropower pmje.:t.s and other development actbfitie& witbio. the affected area, (b) rewlts from studi.es, (c) resoun:e management policies, and (d) reports ftom federal, state, and loc.al.agencifls; and documentation &bowing why any resources should be excluded from further study or exduded from further consideration. Mike Stimac stated that all comment letters should be filad by May 15, 1995. He asked if tbe.:re were any questions aDd theie we.re none. "•£ lit)._._, Vince Yearick explained the NBPA p;rocess and how the Uia.n.d the FER.C nc:ed to complete NBP A to ia111e pennitllicense under tbei.r respective juri&d.ic s. The FRC iJ&uea liceDsas for non·fedel:al hydxopower p.rojects, those projec:u developed y private iDdivid.uals or ntjlif.ies versus the Bureau of bclamatton or otht".r federal age.oc . The USPS illuea Special Use Permits. For this project, because there are USPS lands involved. the e.nvimnmcatal documeat, which FBR.C believes will be an BA. will serve u the NBPA ~for their &easing decision and for the USFS to ~ their permiWng d.eci.aion. One tbing that is diffelellt in this particular project is tbat the Applicant inceada to prepare their own EA. This is 111 option that was brought about by rhe National Energy Policy Act of 1992. Tbe iment iJ to £peed up the liccniing proeeu, to allow the .. ~licaat to prepare their own environmental doc:n!DeDts. Jf it's an EA. tbcy ca.a do it tbemselvea or they can hire someone to do it. If it will be an environmental impact statement, they can do anotber optiou which is Third Party ContractiDg. The F'BRC be.lieves an BA would be 1lCCdec1 bc:.cause no new dam would be coostructc4 and it would use exiating impoundments, which minimizes some of tlle :PC4=ltial e.a.viroJ11nent aP impaQ&S. Both ~ FSRC and t7SFS :In' mvolvec:i because of fedcml pc:I'D'Jita, which ~ wbJ.t., triggers NBPA. 1be intent of the Applit:aDt·prepared BA is to speed the.JiceDsintProce.ss. 1b.e application prepa:radon work is being completed tbe same time tbe ez:avil'alameatal uaJ:y&i.s is being done. Typically, the. application is prepared and filed with Fim.C and then the PERC · begins ~ llMew of tbe project. PERC would begin acoping after the application is filed a.D4 would write the euvi.J:onmental docuawut that leads to a liceasing decilion .. Per this project. the BA wlll be prcpa.rcd along with the license application. One of those regulations that was waived. is ibe requ~ent to flle tb:. Bxhibit B, or the envizoamental mpatt, with the application. "l1le . . 3 0.5/05/95 09: 09 '82.02 21P "~125 FERCIOHL/DPR _1161 u u ;$/ u .ll.~. #/; E.A will take the place of tho Exhibit B in tbc applk.atian. The ultimale goal is for the BA to be as complete as possible when the FERC receives it, so little rewriting will have to be doDe at that time. Pre1i.J:niJwy terms and conditions and recommendations will be rcqucaled wheD the preliminary draft BA is distributed. That way when the document is filed with the F.ER.C, it will include an analysis of all of those recommendations, so major changes will not have to be made to the document once it u received. Por those providing comments, it is imponant to submit your temls and conditions with the pnaHminaey draft EA. The applicant can then iDcozpozate your comments into the EA and'tbe PERC will bave a head's up as to what to expect when the final comments come in. Once the appHcarion is filed, tbe FBRC will review the application for adequacy. and assuming it is okay, the FBRC will issue a public notia: tbal the application bas been fUed and that it has been accepted (meaning there are no deficiellci.es in it). At that point. there will be a 60-day period for anyone to file interventions on the project. 1'here a:e two types of interventions. one is to become a pany r.o the proceediDgs. This means anytime anycme &ends any ccmespoDdence to the FERC, they bave to send it to the intervenor also. If the inle.Neaor sends any correspondence, they have to copy all the other partie&. It.also provide& an opportu.nity for opposing licensing of the project. This ba& some ,.mificaticms later on down tbe line for the F'BRC. Zt is termed a Commission actior, '"here the project ia voted on by the five commissionen. Final terms anu ~tions, ,, aich hopefully . will be very sjmjJar to the preliminary t:erms and conditions, will be issued. A ~day comment period will follow. The FBR.C will tab all of the commentS and make the EA tbeir own document. The FBRC will make any cbanges to ~ term& and conditions and islue a FBRC diaft EA. A public comment ~ period will follow and after that the Pinal E.A will be issued. Lastly, the PERC will issue its ~ licensing decision. 'Ibe time from when FBR.C receives the applica.ti.on to issuing a license 1f (O ~ about 1 year, uDlesa major mod.ifu:ations co the BA are needed. Vince Yearl.c.k asked if there 0 were any questions. He clarified that the environmental review was h&ppeDing in the pre-filing stage. There we:e no questions., Rich Trimble asked Teresa Trulock of the usr: if this was the same as what the USPS does for a timber sale· BA/BIS. Teresa &aid that it was a little different because it involve~ FER.C. 'Rich Trimble asked if PERC was the lend agency the way the USFS i5 lead agency for a timber sale BIS. Tc:re&& Trulock said yes, except PERC is requiring an EA. or ms whichever it ends up to be. ViDce Yearick said that by doing a cooperative NBPA document, effo:ts a.re reduced because it avoids the USPS doing a sepa:ate EA. from the one FmlC doei. It's anotber way of consolidating the process by the applicant preparing the BA and involving the ·two fcdenl agencies. . \ _. ,.,._ ,-."- Rich Trimble asked wben the permits would be issued. Vince Yearick~ that the application needs to be filed by June 1996 and a decision would take about a year, so that would be .JUDe 1997. Mike Stimac said that the ap,plicati.o11 would be f'lled by Jam.wy 1996. Vince Yea.dck r.aJ4 that i& probably ambitious and w~uld be January 1997 given all the comment perioda. He aai.d i~ could be possibly be a sh~ time period. . . Mark Dalton asked Tere&a. Trulock about the USFS action on tbe Special Use Permit. if that is the~o_nly actio~ they rake, if there is a FONSI or record of decision tbat the USPS will issue. 4 05/0G/95 09:11 it202 21~ ~125 FERC/OBLIDPR 14JDD4/U~. 11 stat.ed that we Da.ve an idea af where that tb.tmbold is. Some filh were geuia& t:iu:ough at low tlow&. Mark Dalton added tbat the sockeye were moving tlu:ough l:be barrier. It waa the pink salmon not making it. Mm:e field work: is not IDti~ at this t.ime. Once jou aml~ the hydraulic information, it wm give you a beUct idea. . ~ . '.' .. . Nan Allen stale4 tbat under tbe aquatic section whem it is asreriskcd for cua:mlative effects analysis as well as site-~peci& analy&is •. TbaJe issiJC& listed u.adu tho aquatic ~ aecdon look to be pl'Oject eff'ect& as opposed tD cum:alativ~ effects. I .auggeat moviD,g tbose cumulative effects from aquatic resouteeS iiUo the tecreatioDal section and dJgpping the ~~~~ ) -.. ,..._ 4,.."tfa ...... ~ic.$ ~;ON', Mike Stimac~ • discusaJon of asency/public comments on the project. Steve Brockman aDd VICld. Davis from USPWS had iDdkated on t11c sign-in abec:t as waDtiDg to make public. testim.Olly. Vicki Davis &rated that as 1ar a& her commenu, tbey have been addleascd. Stew Brockman stated tbat he will save his commetlti for a letter. Mike Stimac. asked if cbero was anything in pa:rticu1ar ha wu ccmce.rned about • .. Steve Bl'ockman. asked. for cla:riflcation if there were no fish ia the uppel' Jake. 1ohD M.or&c1l respouded tbat appean to be the cue. Steve Bmcknwl asked it tba1 had been looked at. 1o1m Motsellawed tbat it wu stlld.k:d in the eaxly 1980's. Gmyliug bad been stocked in tho upper lake many yew ago a.ud fallow-up showed. the fish had diaappeared. The last wOtd wu tbat tbe:e was no fish up there. .• \1 Steve BroclaDan asked if the sbm:e1iDe amund tbe upper lake weat straight down all tbe way around. Jack Snyder replied that there wu a slide down at the far cad wbcta it ia a little .shallower but overall, it is very steep wi!h little babitat and a very lteEilo ei1Vi:mmDeDt.. Steve Bmckman asked about the effect of using the project tnnnel.B to dewatering the upper creek, wm it be diminished or d.ried up. Jack Snyder stated that flow& in tbe upper cree:t would be diminished when tbe Jake, level drops below the outlet elevation. 1bere i& roughly a lll.i.lc and a half of drainage area that feed.s that SL"tiDn wile= sptings, small tributaries coming down so there will be some U1flow from draiDage dawn to the lower lake. Su:ve BrocJanaa asked. if the lake level would be dropped by 7S ft. Jack Snyder stated tba1 yes, the lake level will f1JldJ1ate from where it il full down to the Jake tap. Steve Brockman stared that there will pmbably be a 80-90~ depletion £ram the creek. 1aclc · · Snyder saU1 that probl.bly will be t.bc. cue but it will vary seasonally. · On the outflow of w-=-tram me .tl:lmWl, Suwe ltroc'JEmaa wanted to kDow Wbe.re ia tbat in re1a.tioD to wl='e the~ cummtly ia. Jack Snyder described how~ creek comes.out of the upper ~. goea through a little valley, tu.ms and dmp& abOut 1,200 ft. down. the waterfall, and it the baU.am, theze il ooe J,.&t.~ aDd a pool, ID4 tbc c:reek flowa about 800ft. through tbo woods in a bnided channel into the lab· 'lbe powerhouse would be &ituatM at the base of thai la.&t wat•~all. ne warcr would. bo n:rDnlfXI into that pool. There will be no lou af babicat ' . 8 o.e;ostae os: u tt2o2 219 "lZ5 FERC/Oil.IDPR ria 00&/005 ~~·:~:~· 1'<. .in tho lower creek from the falls down to the lake. In previous pzoposed amngemeata for Maboaey. Lake, tbe powcrlmuse was uat sitUat&:d tbere aDd would have tq~:11sed the creak to be dxiecl up in that sectiaD between the falls and the powerhouse. . SteVe Btockman uked about the spawDiDg axea nc:ar South Cleek if there was u alluvial foanad.on aDd Jf spawni.Dg babltlt was potential at actual. lobn M011i011 co&WN1ed tbat tbcre il cmrt:Dtly spawniDJ activities tbete, approximately 2SS of the fish ap&Wil tbem ud d1e other · 15 S spawn at the delra from Upper Mahoney Cmek. SteVe Brockman asked. hOw the access·l'D&d wW. emu Lowe Mahoaey Creek aad South C:.reds;, if by freHpan bridges or culvetU. lack Snyder .replied. that it would be freo..span br:idps. SteVe BrocJcman stated tbat the timing of COiliCrUCtiDfl should be planned. to·~ appl'Opliar.o. Douc CampbeD. stated that this has beezJ looked at closely in the field. Steve Brockman staled that wileD the &now is gone from Upper ~Y Lakl:. he would Jib au opportUDity to go up them. JAck Snyder said tbat .be &bould coardiDate witb. Doug CampbdL They will he loin& up in ·l'u.ne ro xemov~ tbo ~peral111'e pmbe u 100%1 u ~ ico is goue • .. Mark Daltcn asbcl John Monell if tbere were uy fish in tbe 800 ft. st:mrch of Upper M•hmley Cmek from the powedlouae location to the lower lab . .fohn Monell replied that be saw a few Dolly Vardtm. Be &tatecl that there me th:n:e log jams in this area and tba a:eek ·d.rles up ill low flows, so tbere are DO fiJh iD the middle section and some fish at thO end. He atatcc1 it is poor fish habitat. · ldi.k8 Stimac asked if anyone had uy mo.re comments. lack Gustafsoa asked if them were any steelbead ill the system. lolm Mm1e11 aaid he aaw ODe . juvenile rainbow traatl~d iD the lake, Tbemfore, tbey JDUil spawn in the lake. Stave B:rcaclcrmm stated tbat steel head are aa mung a swimmer u soc'kcyc ·ao it i& poasiblc to get put the bm:iet. J'olm. Monell said that if at.eelhead are present, it is a small populatiou. ViDce Yearick stated tbat regudmg comularive effects of ~d. use, if t1w:e waa anything c1&e going on between Upper and Lower Mahooey laba au.dl u logging activity ID4 Mad ccmctmc:tion. Be wanted to know if tb.e.rc wu much !eCnl&tion utDization of tbD area. emsa Trulock stated there w~ .. 'Pmc maeadon that occun aear the project lite. lack Snyder asked Doug Campbell to explain how ac::cess to the sUe i& mmapcl. Doug CampbeU. staled that road acceu is limitec:1 to individuals. Aa:ess is mainly from lli1Water, beacbtng· the boat aDd hiking up cbe lower creek to the lake. Steve Brockman uk.ed if tbe road wD1 be ptad. Doug C8mpbc1l aakl that it alzeady il. Steve Brockman ub:d' if it was 011 • Ward Lake load. Doug Campbe.U confirmed. tbat it was a.n4 said • gate is located approxiuwely 7·8 miles flom th.e CD.d of the access road. SteVe BrOckman asked if people fish the White lij.ve.r. Doug. Campbell said yes. Most of the :recreatioll could be CODsidered dispersed &ad is very minimal. :i. · "tAC6ti• ~~ ~ Ae.t. -/ e I /;JR6e~ ..,._, o&rfS' ~ . ~ d0·4 j ,.,., .t.c,.... ,.. ......... ~. ~ ,....._, ~ ~;... ..-. . ..._ ~ --.... n4A!:r Gc... ~ tS't:llf"'C.. '-'Jfl:l . 111111f"Na.lf6tP. May <J. 1995 Vicki Davis Ecological Services-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P 0. Box 23193 Ketchikan. AK 99901 Subject: Mahoney Hydroelectric Project Dear Ms. Davis: I enjoyed meeting with you and Steve Brockman of your office at the Mahoney Hydroelectric agency scoping meeting in Ketchikan last week. 1 thought the meeting went well and I appreciated all the agency comments that were offered at that meeting. In response to your comments, I am providing you with information related to the project that should address some of the issues you raised. First. I have enclosed a copy of the sensitive plant species survey conducted by staff of the Alaska Natural Heritage Program. This document presents the results of the field survey of the Mahoney project area on U.S. Forest Service lands conducted by ANHP and HDR staff. Please don't hesitate to call Anne Leggett of our staff about the specifics of the survey. I have also researched our records of previous consultation with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff about the project and the need to consider other species such as category 2 candidate species. Enclosed is a letter from John Lindell which discusses certain species of concern that may occur in the vicinity of the project. including two subspecies of peregrine falcon. the Alexander Archipelago wolf. and three categocy 2 animal species. One subspecies of peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) has been delisted and the wolf has been placed in categocy 2 candidate status since our written correspondence with Mr. Lindell. We conducted ground surveys of the project area for other species of concern in June, 1994. John Lindell also mentioned in his letter two category 2 plant species. One of these (Carex lenticuiaris var. dolia) was sought (and found) on U.S. Forest Service lands during the sensitive plant survey. The other (Calamagrostis crassiglumis) was not been sought during the plant survey. Please note that no mention was made in that letter of the spotted frog being a species of concern. We conducted our field surveys based on the input from agencies such as the U. S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While our surveys did not reveal the presence of spotted frogs in the area. we were not specifically looking for them. I would appreciate additional guidance from you if we are to consider the spotted frog further in our environmental assessment. Thank you for your assistance with this project. I look forward to working with you on this imponant proJect for the community of Ketchikan. Sincerely. HDR ENGINEERING. INC. "'-r ·;,,......_,.~ .''. ~ : .-t ;., t'--':7¢r'L , \ Mark Dalton Director of Environmental Services Enclosure cc: Mike Stimac. HDR Bellevue Doug CampbelL Cape Fox Corporation HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2689 Telephone 907 274-2000 Fax 907 274-2022 11-K84LH ~1T~1T~ @~ £~&\~[K\~ DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME DIVISION OF HABITAT AND RESTORATION May 11, 1995 Mr. Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing and Environmental Services HDR Engineering, Inc. 500-108th Avenue NE, Suite 1200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Seeping F~RC Project No. 11393 Dear Mr. Stimac: TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR 2030 SEA LEVEL DRIVE, SUITE 205 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901·6067 PHONE: (907) 225-2027 FAX: (907) 225·2676 We have the following comments regarding this current phase of the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric project and our review of the "Seeping Document 1" prepared.by HDR Engineering, Inc: Lower Mahoney Creek. Concerns need to be addressed in more detail regarding flow- dependent impediments to migrating fish in lower Mahoney Creek. We agree with the draft Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Studies report of December 1994 that a potential issue of concern is the blockage of lake access to migrating sockeye salmon during some flow conditions in Lower Mahoney Creek. This report states that, "Ve~y low flows prevent access and, presumably, extremely high flows would also create blockage conditions due to high velocity." It is important to know under what flow conditions adult sockeye salmon currently access Lower Mahoney Lake. Although the project can probably be designed and operated to accommodate the flow conditions which provide passage for migratory fish under natural conditions, the information presented thus far does not clearly show that this is the case. Consequently, the applicant must assure that post-construction operational flows will be such that they do not cause more of a blockage to migratory fish at the time of spawning than occurs under natural conditions. If the information currently available is not sufficient to determine this, then additional study should be accomplished to address this concern. · ' ·,·() rr:ryci;-c oaner b v C. D. Mr. Michael V. Stimac 2 May 11, 1995 Although gage data may be available, or at least estimated at the location of the partial barrier, no data appears to be available to correlate this with the timing of fish movements into the lake. Consequently, it appears that at least one season of on- site field data needs to be collected at the location of the boulder barrier during the time of the spawning run. This data is necessary to verify that the predicted fish movements actually can and do occur at specific estimated flow parameters. We recommend that the applicant hire a qualified contractor to collect the following data during, at least, the 1995 sockeye spawning run. A. Velocity and discharge data on Lower Mahoney Creek. Data collection devices should probably be located where they could also be used and maintained after the hydroelectric project is constructed. Locations to be evaluated should probably include consideration of placing gaging instrumentation at the present partial boulder barrier, even if a gage is located elsewhere on Lower Mahoney Creek. This may be particularly helpful if the physical configuration of the barrier experiences change over time. B. Visual or electronic verification of the timing of blockages to fish passage and the thresholds where flow levels permit fish passage. This data is needed so that it can be correlated with the flow data that is collected. The results of this data collection will be used to assure that adequate fish passage will be provided during the operation of this hydroelectric facility. We feel that the regulation of flows to replicate natural conditions during the spawning run is the best way to achieve fish passage and do not recommend barrier modification in Lower Mahoney Creek. Maintenance of Groundwater Upwelling Flows and Incubating Eggs. It is unclear what hydrological effects might occur in spawning redds if the hydroelectric plant is shut down for extended periods of time during September-May to allow for the recharge of Upper Mahoney Lake. This impact should be modeled to assure that sockeye salmon redds will not become dewatered or experience mortality from the manipulation of stream flows. The Necessity of Post-construction Monitoring. The applicant needs to plan and implement a post-construction fisheries monitoring program to assure the operation of this hydroelectric facility maintains natural fish productivities. Included in this should be plans to continue to monitor intragravel temperatures in sockeye spawning areas until the project is complete and for at least 5 years after operation begins. Data collection needs to be sufficient to determine Mr. Michael v. Stimac 3 May 11, 1995 cause and effect relationships to fisheries and recommend remedial actions in the event this becomes necessary. Request for Preliminary Stipulations at this Scoping Phase. At the meeting on April 13, 1995, it was requested that the agencies provide detailed preliminary stipulations at this stage of the project. Stipulations for fish habitat permits at stream crossings will be developed when applications are processed by DGC for state review. Other requests for stipulations by ADF&G will be based primarily upon the above referenced topics and informational needs. An operating constraint for ADF&G is that past and current budget cuts are causing the Habitat and Restoration Division of the Department of Fish and Game to have insufficient staffing. Additionally, in the future, this situation may cause ADF&G to ask project applicants to seek fish and wildlife information from the Federal agencies, or result in our deferring the development of final stipulations to the U.S. Fish and Wildli Service, or National Marine Fisheries Service. The Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project, though, must be designed and operated so as not to degrade the naturally-occurring aquatic productivity of this system. We hope our comments thus far will help to accomplish this objective. More detailed stipulations will be forthcoming or deferred to an alternative source once all of the information has been collected and the final review is initiated. We hope this response is sufficient to provide the input necessary for assisting in moving to the next phase of this project. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, G~ Habitat Biologist cc: Lana Shea, ADF&G, Douglas Christine Valentine, DGC, Juneau Joan Hughes, ADEC, Juneau John Dunker, ADNR, Juneau Guy Galloway, City of Saxman Nevin Holmberg, USFWS, Juneau Steven Pennoyer, NMFS, Juneau May 12, 1995 (See attached list) Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Dear: 1-il~ Enclosed are the minutes from the April 12 and 13, 1995, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) scoping meetings for the above-referenced project. As a reminder, written comments regarding Scoping Document 1 are due on May 15, 1995. We look forward to your continued participation in this project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ?4~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services Enclosure cc: Vince Yearick, FERC Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Jack Snyder, NDT Don Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, & Quinn HDR File, B.4.1 HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue. Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 · MAil-ING LIST U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Office P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Ms. Tamra Faris Supervisor-Protected Resources Management Division National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99602-1668 Nevin Holmberg U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 3000 Vintage Blvd. Suite 201 Juneau, AK 9980 l Mr. Steve Brockman U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 23193 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Vicki Davis U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 23193 Ketchikan, AK 9990 l National Park Service Alaska Region 2825 Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99503 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. Forest Service Region 10: Alaska Region Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628 Mr. Jim DeHerrera District Ranger U.S. Forest Service 3031 Tong ass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 1 Mr. David Rittenhouse U. S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Sams U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Don Ranne U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Affairs Anchorage Regional Office 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I 0: Bothell Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 Mr. Arthur Martin Regional Office Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1120 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1340 Portland, OR 97204 Ms. Lois Cashell Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 N. Capitol St. NE Washington, DC 20426 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, AK 99802 Honorable Ted Stevens U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 t ~ * j; 1 ' l Honorable Frank Murkowski U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Honorable Don Young House of Representatives 2331 Rayburn House Office Boulevard Washington, D.C. 20515 Ms. Christine Valentine Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box 110030 Juneau, AK 99811-0030 Ms. Joan Hughes Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby A venue, Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Barry Hogarty Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation DEQ/SE Region DEC 540 Water Street, Suite 203 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Judith Bittner Alaska Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 107001 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 Mr. John Dunker Alaska Department of Natural Resources/Water 400 Willoughby A venue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Mr. Bill Garry Alaska Department of Natural Resources Parks & Outdoor Recreation 400 Willoughby A venue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Chris Westwood Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry 2030 Sea Level Drive, #217 Ketchikan, AK 99901 2 Mr. Frank Rue, Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 Mr. Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Hoffman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sea Level Drive Room 207 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Mike Haddix Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Carol Denton Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Glenn Freeman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Paul Novak Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Doug Larsen Wildlife Biologist Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Honorable Tony Knowles Governor, State of Alaska P.O. Box llOOOI Juneau, AK 998Il-0001 Mr. Dick Emerman Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 W. Fourth Avenue Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 9950 l-234I Mr. Dennis Meiners State of Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy P.O. Box 112100 Juneau, AK 9981I-2100 Mr. Riley Snell Alaska Industrial Development Authority 480 W. Tudor Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. Stan Sieczkowski Manager, Operations & Maintenance Alaska Energy Authority 480 West Tudor Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. Jim Thrall Locher Interests, Ltd. 406 West Fireweed Lane, Suite 10I Anchorage, AK 99503 Alaska Public Utilities Commission 1016 W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 9950 I Mr. C. L. Cheshire, Director University of Alaska -Southeast Economic Development Center-UofASE 7th Avenue and Madison Ketchikan, AK 9990I Mr. Robert Warner Librarian University of Alaska -Southeast 7th A venue and Madison Ketchikan, AK 99901 3 Mr. Gary Freitag Southern SE Reg. Aquaculture Association 272I Tong ass A venue Ketchikan, AK 9990 l Mr. William J. Halloran Southern SE Reg. Aquaculture Association 272I Tongass Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Senator Robin Taylor Alaska State Senate State Capitol Juneau, AK 9980I Mr. Bill Williams Representative 352 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Honorable Jim Carlton Mayor Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Mr. Mike Rody Borough Manager Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 9990I Ms. Melanie Fullman Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Department 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Mr. Jim Voetberg Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 9990I Ms. Phyllis Yetka Assembly Member Ketchikan Gateway Borough Box 958 Ward Cove, AK 9990 I t f i ' i • Honorable Alaire Stanton Mayor City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. William Jones Acting City Manager City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Fred D. Monrean City of Ketchikan Department of Public Works 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Thomas Stevenson Manager Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass A venue Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Mr. Rich Trimble Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tong ass A venue Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Mr. Jan Risla Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Andrew Ketchikan Advisory Committee P.O. Box 7211 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. and Mrs. Fred Athorp Ketchikan Advisory Committee I 0 Creek Street Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Mr. Larry Painter Ketchikan Advisory Committee P.O. Box 6181 Ketchikan, AK 99901 4 Mr. Ralph C. Gregory Citizen's Advisory Committee Federal Areas P.O. Box 7011 Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Ms. Bridget Stearns Ketchikan Public Library 629 Dock Street Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Mr. Lew Williams Publisher Ketchikan Daily News P.O. Box 7900 Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Ms. Belinda Chase Ketchikan Daily News P.O. Box 7900 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Bob Konet News Director KTKN Radio 526 Stedman Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Nancy Watt Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 5957 Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Mr. Bob Martin, Director Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrification Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, AK 99821 Mr. John Arriola President Tsimshian Tribal Association P.O. Box 7162 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Richard Jackson President Tongass Tribal Council P.O. Box 3380 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Bea Watson, President Tongass Tribe Box 8634 Ketchikan, AK 9990I Ketchikan Indian Corporation 429 Deermount Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Mr. Chas Edwardsen Vice President Haida Society 32I3 Timberline Court Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Honorable Harris Atkinson Mayor, City of Metlakatla Metlakatla Indian Comm. P.O. Box 8 Metlakatla, AK 99926 Mr. J. L Bennett Ketchikan Pulp Company P.O. Box 6600 Ketchikan, AK 9990I Mr. 0. J. Graham Ketchikan Pulp Company P.O. Box 6600 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Allis May Davis Tongass Conservation Society P.O. Box Il02 Ward Cove, AK 99928 Mr. Eric Hummel Tongass Conservation Society P.O. Box 3377 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 419 Sixth Street, Suite 328 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Kate Tessar Alaska Services Group P.O. Box 22754 Juneau, AK 99802 Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 521 Haines, AK 99827-0521 5 Mr. Don Chenhall Chenhall Surveying P.O. Box 5860 Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Mr. J. C. Conley Service Auto Parts, Inc. 3806 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Mr. David Kiffer 123 Stedman Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jack Lee Tongass Sportfishing Association P.O. Box 5898 Ketchikan, AK 9990 l Mr. Craig Moore KTN Area State Parks Advisory Board 9883 N. Tongass Highway Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Ms. June Robbins Legislative Information Office 352 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Ms. Sherrie Slick Alaska Congressional Delegation l 09 Main Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Tena Williams 755 Grant Street Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Ms. Mary Klugherz McDowell Group 320 Dock St., #20 l Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Hank Newhouse P.O. Box 9508 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. and Mrs. Forrest DeWitt Box 5252 Ketchikan, AK 9990 I f t Mr. Guy Galloway Administrator City of Saxman Route 2, Box 1 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Doug Campbell Cape Fox Corporation P.O. Box 8558 Ketchikan, AK 9990 l Mr. Jack Snyder Western Regional Manager Northrup, Devine & Tarbell, lnc. 4601 NE 77th Ave, Suite 185 Vancouver, W A 98662 Mr. John Braislin Betts, Patterson & Mines 800 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98161-1000 Mr. Don Clarke Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn 1735 New York Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 6 MEETING MINUTES lil~ PROJECT: SUBJECT: DATE: . PLACE: ATTENDEES: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11393 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Scoping Meeting, Evening Session April 12, 199/~ Ketchikan, Alaska Wendy Harkins-Sitka Electric Department; Hank Newhouse; Rich Trimble-Ketchikan Public Utilities; Craig Moore-State Parks Advisory Board; Don Ranne, Teresa Trulock-USFS; Nan Allen, Vince Yearick- FERC; Wade Lindsay-Wilkenson, Knauer, Barker & Quinn; John Morsell-Northern Ecological Services; Mark Dalton, Mike Stimac, Jack Snyder, Lisa Fortney-HDR Engineering. The meeting began at 7: 10 pm. An agenda (copy attached) and Scoping Document 1 (SD 1) were available for attendees. Jack Snyder welcomed everyone, explained that Doug Campbell was unable to attend this meeting, explained the protocol for the meeting (e.g., sign in and indicate if wish to provide testimony, the meeting is being taped, identifying yourself before speaking, etc.), and he reviewed the agenda. Mike Stimac reviewed the project history to date from receiving the prelimina.tX permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which gave the City ·the exclusive right to study the project and to file a license application by the end of the term of the permit. This permit has a term of three years and was received in June 1993. By the end of May 1996, the City of Saxman has to file its license application for the project. Once the project looked feasible, the studies were scoped out and preliminary design work was done. On March 16, 1994, the Initial Consultation Document was issu~, which contained a brief description of the project and its operation and discussed the study programs to be implemented to develop the environmental documentation. It sought input from the public and the agencies. The first-stage consultation meetings were held on April 26, 1994, same format as these NEPA scoping meetings, one meeting for the public and another for the resource agencies and a site visit was also held. The comment period lasted for 60 days following the meetings. That ended the first- stage of consultation and started the second stage. The Initial Consultation Document was then modified according to the agency letters that were received and the document was distributed as the Final Consultation Document on August 8, 1994. As a result of the comments that were received and the applicant's understanding of the project, it appeared that the environmental impacts would not be too significant. In July of 1994, a meeting was held with the FERC to explore the possibility of developing an Applicant-prepared environmental assessment (EA). This was a procedure that was authorized by the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. How this HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-, 523 differs from a normal licensing process is that the applicant in a normal situation would file the license application with the FERC. The FER.C would then begin the NEPA process and write the EA. Under this new procedure, the NEPA process starts earlier in the process. It happens before the license application and the preliminary draft EA are filed with the FERC. When the Final Consultation Document was distributed, the letter that promulgated that document indicated that this was the approach that would be taken. That necessitated the development of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City of Saxman, Cape Fox Corporation, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the FERC. The MOA sets forth the fact that an Applicant-prepared EA will be developed, a schedule of how the events might occur, and provided for communications protocol between the parties. The MOA was signed on January 13, 1995. In February, the FERC issued a letter to all parties on the distribution list waiving certain regulations because the timing of those regulations do not apply with this EA process, and that the Applicant-prepared EA would be developed and the EA would be filed in place of Exhibit E of the license application. On March 9, 1995, the SD.l was sent out to everyone on the distribution list and indicated the scoping meetings would be held today and tomorrow. Mike Stimac stated that HDR needs to receive written comments from resource agencies and the public by May 15, 1995. Depending on what kind of feedback is received, SOl may be revised to include comments and distributed again as Scoping Document 2 (SD2). If little or no significant comments are received, a second scoping document will not be issued, but instead a letter will be . distributed informing parties of this. The preliminary draft EA and the draft license application are tentatively scheduled to be distributed by September 1995 for review and comment. The agencies and public will have a 90-day comment period. About two-thirds of the way through the comment period, a public/agency meeting will be held to discuss the results of the studies and respond to any questions and to clarify concerns about the project. This will help to re:fme the information that goes into the agencies comment letters. The com,Ipents of the draft license application and draft EA will be due, along with draft mandatory and recommended license terms and conditions or prescriptions in December of 1995. The draft EA and the license application are scheduled to be f~ed with the FERC in January 1996. The last three items on the project chronology relate to what happens with the document and process once the application is :filed. Vince Yearick of the FERC will talk about those when he's up here. Mike Stimac explained that the purpose of the scoping meetings is to identify issues, concerns and opportunities associated with the proposed action. According to NEP A, it should conducted as soon as possible in the process. Normally, in a regular licensing proceeding, NEPA does not begin until the third stage of consultation. This is actually being done now as part of the second stage and having it completed sooner before the application is filed with the FERC. Mike Stimac explained that the participation of the federal, state, and local agencies, any Native American group and interested persons is requested to identify significant environmental and socioeconomic issues related to the proposed action, detennine the depth of analysis and significance of issues to be addressed in the EA, identify how the project would or would not contribute to cumulative effects in the Mahoney Creek basin, identify reasonable alternatives that should be evaluated, eliminate from detailed study the issues and resources that do not require detailed analysis during review of the project, and to solicit additional study requests. This will be the last opportunity for resource agencies to request additional studies. If requests are submitted, they must conform to 18 CFR 4.32.b.7. You must describe the study, the basis for the request, who should participate and conduct the study, the methodology and the objective, whether the methodology 2 t ' ,i is accepted by the scientific community, how the results will be used by the requesting agency, how long it might take to complete the study, and why the objectives cannot be achieved by using the existing data or study program. Mike Stimac requested additional information that would be beneficial to analyze the impacts of the project. Infonnation, quantified data, or professional opinions that may contribute to defining the geographical and temporal scope of the analysis and identifying significant environmental issues; identification of, and information from any other environmental document or similar study (previous, on-going, or planned), relevant to the proposed Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric· Project. Existing information and any quantified data that would help to describe the past and present actions and effects of the project and other developmental activities on environmental and socioeconomic resources; information that would help characterize existing environments and habitats; identification of any federal, state, or local resource plans, environmental impact statements (EIS), and future project proposals in the affected resource area, such as proposals to construct or operate water treatment facilities, recreation areas, water diversions, timber harvest activities, or fish management programs; documentation that would support a conclusion that the proposed project contributes to adverse or beneficial effects on resources, including but not limited to (a) how the project interacts with other hydropower projects and other development activities within the affected area, (b) results from studies, (c) resource management policies, and (d) reports from federal, state, and local agencies; and documentation showing why any resources should be excluded from further study or excluded from further consideration. I'' Mike Stimac stated that all comment letters should be filed by May 15, 1995. He asked if there were any questions and there were none. 'J Vince Yearick explained the NEP A process and how the USPS and the FER C. peed to complete NEP A to issue permit/license under their respective jurisdictions. The PERC issues licenses for non-federal hydropower projects, those projects developed by private individuals or utilities versus the Bureau of Reclamation or other federal agencies. The USFS issues Special Use Pennits. For this project, because there are USPS lands involved, the environmental document, which FERC believes will be an EA, will serve as the NEPA background for their licensing decision and for the USPS to make their permitting decision. One thing that is different in this particular project is that the Applicant intends to prepare their own EA. This is an option that was brought about by the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. The intent is to speed up the licensing process, to allow the applicant to prepare their own environmental documents. If it's an EA, they can do it themselves or they can hire someone to do it. If it will be an environmental impact statement, they can do another option which is Third Party Contracting. The PERC believes an EA would be needed because no new dam would be constructed and it would use existing impoundments, which minimizes some of the potential environmental impacts. Both the PERC and U~FS are involved because of federal pennits, which is what triggers NEPA. The intent of;the Applicant-prepared EA is to speed the licensing decision process. The application preparation work is being completed the same time the environmental analysis is being done. Typically, the application is prepared and filed with PERC and then the FERC begins their review of the project. PERC would begin scoping after the application is flled and would write the environmental document that leads to a licensing decision. For this project, the EA will be prepared along with the license application. One of those regulations that was waived is the requirement to file the Exhibit E, or the environmental report, with the 3 application. The EA will take the place of the Exhibit E in the application. The ultimate goal is for the EA to be as complete as possible when the FER.C receives it, so little rewriting will have to be done at that time. Preliminary terms and conditions and recommendations will be requested when the preliminary draft EA is distributed. That way when the document is filed with the FERC, it will include an analysis of all of those recommendations, so major changes will not have to be made to the document once it is received. For those providing comments, it is important to submit your terms and conditions with the preliminary draft EA. The applicant can then incorporate your comments into the EA and the FER.C will have a head's up as to what to expect when the fmal comments come in. Once the application is ftled, the FERC will review the application for adequacy, and assuming it is okay, the FERC will issue a public notice that the application has been flied and that it has been accepted (meaning there are no deficiencies in it). At that point, there will be a 60-day period for anyone to file interventions on the project. There are two types of interventions, one is to become a party to the proceedings. This means anytime anyone sends any correspondence to the FERC, they have to send it to the intervenor also. If the intervenor sends any correspondence, they have to copy all the other parties. It also provides an opportunity for opposing licensing of the project. This has some ramifications later on down the line for the FERC. It is termed a Commission action, where the project is voted on by the five commissioners. Final terms and conditions, which hopefully will be very similar to the preliminary terms and conditions, will be issued. A 60-day comment period will follow. The FERC will take all of the comments and make the EA their own document. The FERC will make any changes to the terms and conditions and issue a FERC draft EA. A public comment period will follow and after that the Final EA will be issued. I.a.stly, the FERC will issue its licensing decision. The time from when FERC receives the application to issuing a license could be about 1 year, unless major modifications to the EA are needed. Vince Yearick asked if there were any questions. He clarified tJlat the environmental review was happening in the pre-filing stage. There were no questions .. . .. Rich Trimble asked Teresa Trulock of the USFS if this was the same as what the USFS does for a timber sale EA/EIS. Teresa said that it was a little different because it involves FERC . • :· + Rich Trimble asked if FERC was the lead agency the way the USFS is lead agency for a timber sale EIS. Teresa Trulock said yes, except FERC is requiring an EA or EIS whichever it ends up to be. Vince Yearick said that by doing a cooperative NEP A document, efforts are reduced because it avoids the USFS doing a separate EA from the one FERC does. It's another way of consolidating the process by the applicant preparing the EA and involving the two federal agencies. Rich Trimble asked when the permits would be issued. Vince Yearick said that the application needs to be filed by June 1996 and a decision would take about a year minimum, so that would be June 1997. Mike Stimac said that the application would be filed by January 1996. Vince Yearick said that is probably ambitious and would be January 1997 given all the comment periods. He said it could be possi~ly be a shorter time period. Mark Dalton asked Teresa Trulock about the USFS action on the Special Use Permit, if that is the only action they take, if there is a FONSI or record of decision that the USFS will issue. 4 Teresa Trulock said that it would be FERC that makes the decision as lead agency. Vince Yearick said it was the Special Use Pennit that triggers NEPA. Teresa Trulock said that since FERC is lead agency, FERC will be signing the document but USFS will review and approve it. Hank Newhouse said that for an example on the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project, there was a NEPA document developed that was strictly for the Special Use Pennit. Vince Yearick said that for the Black Bear Lake Project, FERC did do an EA on it. Jack Snyder reiterated that FERC did an EA but that Hank Newhouse was talking about the USFS. Hank Newhouse said the USFS portion of that did issue a decision notice as a result of categorical exclusion ... Teresa Trulock finished that it was a categorical exclusion beyond what FER.C required. Jack Snyder stated that there was a lot more USFS land involved on that project. Hank Newhouse said there was a Special Use Pennit for the cabin and trail. Teresa Trulock said the Black Bear Lake Project was a little bit more involved. Jack Snyder agreed. Jack Snyder described the proposed project. He described the project design and its location between Upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes. He explained that the natural topography of the area. He presented a topographic map of the area and pointed out the project features. He showed where the existing logging road is and how it will be extended south around the lower lake. The transmission line will be buried from the powerhouse to the existing logging road and then continue as an overhead line to the Swan Lake Intertie. Jack Snyder summarized how the proposed project would operate and how it would be constructed. Jack explained that most of the project would be underground. An upper tunnel would be located about 80ft. below the lake surface (lake tap) of Upper Mahoney Lake and would convey water 1 ,400 ft. to a vertical shaft. The water would drop 1 ,200ft. and continue to a .lower tunnel which would run to the powerhouse. The .powerhouse location was chosen because of the impassable barrier to upstream migration of fish. Jack explained the nonnal operation of the impulse turbines. Jack showed the powerhouse layout including where the staging area is planned. A videotape of aerial footage for.the project area was shown to illustrate the existing site conditions, which Jack narrated. Vince Yearick asked what above-ground structures there would be at the project. Jack Snyder explained a small valvehouse wHJ be situated at the top of the vertical shaft. He explained how a dam was considered for the upper lake but the avalanche danger would be too great to construct, operate and maintain a dam. He described the type of the rock found in the area and that it is metamorphic which is good for tunneling. He asked if there were any questions, there were none. Mark Dalton described the resource issues that have been raised to date. Initial consultation meetings were held about a year ago with ongoing agency consultation of the study plans. Land disturbance issues -an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is being prepared as well as a NPDES stonnwater pollution prevention plan. 5 Botanical issues -sensitive, threatened and endangered species that could be impacted. To date, no threatened or endangered species have been identified. However, in consultation with USFS, a few sensitive plant species as designated by the USFS do occur within the project area. In response, a survey was conducted last September of the project area starting with the access road at the terminus of the existing logging road, coming around to the powerhouse site and some work around the upper lake to m-and characterize the plants that do occur in the area. That survey was conducted by HDR :-staff and the Alaska Natural Heritage Program. A copy of that report has been provided to the USFS (Mary Stensvold). Terrestrial issues -Concern for a population of mountain goats that were relocated by Fish & Game in 1991 to the area of the upper lake and to make sure the timing of project construction will not cause adverse impacts. Other concerns are loss of habitat (wetlands) due to construction of the project. Identification of where wetlands are and to relocate project features around wetlands where practical, primarily the access road. The overhead transmission line will be raptor-proof designed to protect raptors and other birds from electrocution. A field assessment of wetlands occurred in June 1994, along with a ground survey to locate raptor nest sites along the project access road, tailrace & powerhouse site. In addition, a bald eagle nest survey of the project area was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). The survey also included areas up to the White River and across George Inlet. A wetlands functional assessment will be prepared and a limited discussion of the functions and values of wetlands that do o~cur in the area and a biological evaluation (BE) of wildlife species will be prepared in consultation with the USFS. A Plant BE will also be prepared with the USFS. Both of these report~ will be contained as a technical appendix to the EA . . , Aesthetic resources -main conc~rn is what will be the impact of construction.~and operation of the project on the visual quality of the area. The EA will characterize the existing visual quality and estimate what the potential changes might be from construction. Recreation issues -what impact the project will have on current recreation opportunities. Socioeconomic issues -the impact of project construction and operation on the local economy. HistoricaU Archaeological issues ,... concern about how project construction and operation will affect historical or archaeological resources in the area. Consultations are being held with State Historic Preservation Office. Aquatic issues -Impacts to fish in Mahoney Lake system, and Lower Mahoney Creek, spawning of sockeye salmon, temperature in gravels. Upper Mahoney Lake temperature profile continuously monitoring at depths of 20 ft. increments from the surface to I 00 ft. to model water column temperatures. Stream flow, water quality, and temperature data are being collected at the tailrace. The collection of raw d,ata will continue through May 1995. Data collection began in June 1994 and some challenges have been incurred. The temperature device at Upper Mahoney Lake has not been located for the past few months because there is too much snow. Two temperature probes were placed in Lower Mahoney Lake. An animal chewed on one of the cables, so some data were lost,· but redundant recorders made sure we have sufficient data. 6 1 John Morsell described the three field trips that occurred in 1994. The first visit was in mid-June and the intent was to get an idea of the resident fish living in Lower Mahoney Lake/Lower Mahoney Creek and the portion of Upper Mahoney Creek from the falls down to the lake. A variety of sampling and observational techniques were used to get the information needed. Another field visit was made in late August, which was timed to coincide with the maximum number of salmon in Lower Mahoney Creek to get some idea of how many of those salmon were making into the lake and to possibly do some mapping of spawning areas in the lake. At that time, most of the sockeye salmon were still in the creek so a third field visit was made in · the third week of September. At that time, flows were substantially higher due to heavy rains and most of the sockeyes that were in the lower creek had made it into the lake. John was successfully able to map the spawning areas in the lake. The field studies are essentially completed. The data analysis is mostly complete. The fish information will be integrated with the temperature information during preparation of the EA to try and make some predictions on incubating salmon. .; Jack Snyder lead the discussion of agency/public comments on the project. Some people had identified themselves on the sign-in sheet as wanting to make public testimony. Don Ranne asked how the project fits in with the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie Project and the potential Lake Grace project. Will this project be able to replace any of those others? Jack Snyder responded that there are a variety of ways that those projects could interact with each other. Jack stated that average loads in the Ketchikan area exceed the capacity of the Ketchikan Public Utility (KPU) system, therefore, they have been running diesel generators from December to April. As the demand grows, the problem will worsen. There is demand that projects could be brought on-line. Mahoney Lake is one project, the intertie project is another and Grace Lake are additional new resources that could help meet this demand. Whether ~Q.ney Lake could replace any of these? According to the current projections of load growth, the Mahoney Lake Project could handle all of the additional growth in demand for the next 10 years. At that point, you begin to get into the need for diesel or another resource. How the intertie would meet those needs and how Grace Lake would meet those needs, Jack stated he was not qualified to respond to that. He stated he understood th~t Grace Lake is about the same size of Mahoney Lake and may have a little bit more storag(f,. but it has other issues with it, such as located in Misty Fjords Park and would need a long transmission line. The intertie project could meet the needs of Ketchikan if there was power available at the right price. Rich Trimble asked if it would be economically feasible to put both the Mahoney Lake Project and the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie Project on-line at the same time. Jack Snyder said that according to his information from the economic analysis that was completed for the Mahoney Lake Project, it showed the intertie project is not economic. He was unable to tell if the intertie and Mahoney Lake at the same time would be economic because he doesn't know what basis the intertie power would be. Jack said the analysis that was completed looked at different scenarios, depending on how the project was fmanced, where the money comes from, what the demand is, and how it grows over time. A few people on the sign-in sheet indicated that they would like to comment on the project. Request for comments or testimony was made at this time. 7 Hank Newhouse asked if the Cape Fox Corporation was putting up funding for the project. Jack Snyder said that the City of Saxman is the project sponsor. The preliminary permit is in their name. The intent is that when construction financing begins, the City of Saxman will sell bonds to fmance construction. The Cape Fox Corporation has an agreement to act as their development agent at this point in the project. Funding is coming from a variety of sources for these studies. One of the main sources is a Department of Energy grant that will give the project some federal monies. Hank Newhouse also added that some changes were needed to the distribution list, such as adding the Ketchikan Indian Corporation {Gerald Hope is President), Organized Village of Saxman (which is clifferent than the City of Saxman-Joe Williams, President), and the Tongass Tribe's new president is Bea Watson. Rich Trimble stated that as a utility to which the City of Saxman intends to sell the Mahoney Lake power, KPU has a very keen interest on how you go about the project and at what cost the power is sold. KPU is an intervenor in the project. This means that KPU's interest is so deep that they made it formal. The City of Ketchikan has formally requested the City of Saxman to defer development of the project. It is true, Ketchikan is running out of power. Under those conditions, one would think that KPU would have an interest in any project that came along. Why would KPU voice concern about the Mahoney lake Project and the reason is because it provides power. but not when K.P.:U needs it and at a cost that KPU should be expected to pay. KPU is responsible to fmd an alt~rnative that will provide a long-term or even intermediate term solution to their shortage. and anticipate at what cost they should be expected to pay for this. This is all in a letter that KPU will provide to HDR. ._, KPU believes that scoping is premature because terms for power purchase ID' KPU have not been negotiated. There was a meeting where it was suggested that KPU purchase Mahoney Lake power in a preferential manner. KPU has their own economic and contractual constraints. KPU cannot simply purchase all the power in that kind of manner. There seems to be a conflict. On one hand, the City of Saxman needs to sell the power to make the project economically feasible. KPU has other power that they will use flrst and have to use frrst, specifically, KPU own hydroelectric projects at a very low cost to pay them off (Beaver Falls, Silvis, and Ketchikan Lakes). There is an existing contract where KPU has to purchase Swan Lake power after they use their own resources. It will not allow KPU to develop another project or purchase third party power under the same preferential treatment. They must purchase Swan Lake power until the lake level gets low. Only at that point can they consider running diesel generators or purchasing third party power. The economic analysis assumed that the City of Saxman could sell that power. KPU takes issue with that.pu must negotiate with the three other utilities in the four- dam pool to purchase power Other .. than Swan Lake. They would have to agree to that. That would decrease their revenues if KPU purchased Mahoney Lake power over Swan Lake power. They would not be able to purchase enough kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity over the intertie now and the short term to be ~qi.e to market bonds for that project. You have indicated the Mahoney Lake Project could replace any of those other projects for the next lO years. But the operating scenario you have shown indicates there is not enough demand in the year 2000. KPU will be running their diesels. I understand that Jack may not agree with everything I am saying, I am simply pointing out this is an issue. 8 If KPU is connected with Mahoney, there are some things they would like to see. First, they would like to have a dam built for extra storage capacity and to alleviate concerns of needing power. KPU would prefer to have the transmission lines go to the Beaver Falls Project to the south versus to the north to the Swan Lake transmission lines. If Swan Lake drops off-line, Mahoney Lake would drop off-line. If brought around to Beaver Falls and Swan Lake drops off- line, the downtown area of Ketchikan could remain with power, where it is unable to do now because there is too much load on that substation. Not only would it enhance KPU system reliability, it would enhance the revenue potential to keep it on-line. Another issue is the potential to wheel power to another market-Metlakatla. The EA should address potential markets. Th~ , Mountain Point substation was built with capacity for interconnection to Metlakatla anticipating that an intertie would be established some day. The City of Metlakatla has identified they have a shortage of power. Hank Newhouse stated that he liked the Mahoney Lake Project because it has very low environmental impacts. Another reason is that it is being developed by the native community of Saxman. Unfortunately, KPU has not always been a good citizen in working with the native community. Also, with the current congressional climate, dollars are scarce -subsidized power for communities like Kake and other native villages is going to disappear. That will drive up their costs tremendously. Already they are paying approx. $0.25 kWh. If KPU takes the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee intertie project, that will leave communities like Kake out of the line and Kake would very much like to tie into the intertie. If Ketchikan pulls the power this way, it does not leave the option open for small communities like Kake. Kake has done much to diversify their economy. Their timber is gone, but they have their hatchery and fish processing plant. Options are cut off for other communities iJ! southeast Alaska. I think the Mahoney Lake project is real good for the community of Ketc~ because it allows other communities .!0 come on-line. Black Bear Lake Hydro will be CQ~ing on-line soon. I was talking to another party of the four- dam pool and the intent of the inte$e project was not to come to Revilla Island but it would stay on the north side of Ernest Sound and go across to Thome Bay on Prince of Wales Island, tie into the Black Bear Lake Hydr!tProject and go around and get Metlakatla to tie the grid that way. To tie into Beaver Falls does make sense. Eventually, tieing the grid together in the longer term makes more sense. In the short-term in a real tough dollar environment for the community of Ketchikan, the Mahoney Lake Project makes more economic sense. These other items can be negotiated and worked out and can be done with a lot less environmental impact to Revilla Island. The Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie project will have a lot more environmental impact. Jack Snyder reminded the participants that comments are needed by May 15, 1995 and will be addressed in SD2. The meeting ended at 8:45pm. ~ t 1. --~ '• 9 MEETING MINUTES lil~ PROJECT: SUBJECT: DATE: PLACE: ATTENDEES: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, PERC No. 11393 NEPA Scoping Meeting, Morning Session April 13, 199.4:5" Ketchikan, Alaska William Jones-City of Ketchikan; Melanie Pullman-Ketchikan Gateway Borough; Steve Brockman, Vicki Davis-USFWS; Jack Gustafson, Carol Denton-ADFG; Wendy Harkins-Sitka Electric Department; Jan Risla- Ketchikan Public Utilities; Craig Moore-State Parks Advisory Board; Tom Somrak, Jim DeHerrera, Teresa Trulock-USFS; Nan Allen, Vince Yearick-FERC; D. Campbell-Cape Fox Corporation; Wade Lindsay- Wilkenson, Knauer, Barker & Quinn; John Morsell-Nortbem Ecological Services; Mark Dalton, Mike Stimac, Jack Snyder, Lisa Fortney-liDR Engineering. The meeting began at 9:15am. Doug Campbell welcomed everyone. He reminded everyone to sign in, especially if they were interested in testifying. This meeting is called as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. It is a required step in the process. The meeting is being recorded. The minutes of the meeting will be issued to everyone signed in and to everyone on the mailing list. Scoping documents, agenda were made available to attendees. Doug asked them to please identify yourself, your name and who you are representing when commenting. Even though the intent of the meeting is to take testimony, Doug stated be would feel more comfortable and it would be more productive if this was more of an iilformal question and _answer discussion on the issues. However, if anyone wishes to make a prepared statement, that is acceptable. The people are here to answer any questions and hopefully deal with any of the issues that may be raised. Mike Stimac reviewed the meeting agenda. Mike Stimac reviewed the project history to date from receiving the preliminary permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission {FERC), which gave the City the.exclusive right to study the project and to file a license application by the end of the term of the permit. This permit has a term of three years and was received in June 1993. By the end of May 1996, the City of Saxman has to file its license application for the project. He explained that this isn't the first time developers have looked at the Mahoney Lake Project, previous studies date back to the Carter administration. Once the project looked feasible, the studies were scoped out and preliminary design work was done. On March 16, 1994, the Initial Consultation Document was issued, which contained a brief description of the project and its operation and discussed the study programs to be implemented to develop the environmental documentation. It sought input from the public and the agencies. The frrst-stage consultation meetings were held on April 26, 1994, same format as these NEPA scoping meetings, one meeting for the public and another for the resource agencies and a site visit was also held. The comment period lasted for 60 days following the meetings. That ended the fli'St- HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004·5538 Telephone 206 453-1 523 stage of consultation and started the second stage. The Initial Consultation Document was then modified according to the agency letters that were received and the document was distributed as the Final Consultation Document on August 8, 1994. As a result of the comments that were received and the applicant's understanding of the project, it appeared that the environmental impacts would not be too significant. In July of 1994, a meeting was held with the FER.C to explore the possibility of developing an Applicant-prepared environmental assessment (EA). This was a procedure that was authorized by the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. How this differs from a normal licensing process is that the applicant in a normal situation would file the license application with the FERC. The FERC would then begin the NEPA process and write the EA. Under this new procedure, the NEPA process starts earlier in the process. It happens before the license application and the preliminary draft EA are flied with the FER.C. When the Final Consultation Document was distributed, the letter that promulgated that document indicated that this was the approach that would be taken. That necessitated the development of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City of Saxman, Cape Fox Corporation, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the FERC. The MOA sets forth the fact that an Applicant-prepared EA will be developed, a schedule of how the events might occur, and provided for a communications protocol between the parties. The MOA was signed on January 13, 1995. In February, the FERC issued a letter to all parties on the distribution list waiving certain regulations because the timing of those regulations do not apply with this EA process, and that the Applicant-prepared EA would be developed and the EA would be filed in place of Exhibit E of the license application. On March 9, 1995, the Scoping Document 1 (SOl) was sent out to everyone on the distribution list and indicated the scoping meetings would be held yesterday and today. Yesterday, a site visit was held in the afternoon and an evening meeting for the public. This morning's meeting is oriented towards the resource agencies. Comments are due on issues and the project on May 15, 1995. Those comments should be addressed to me. My name, address, and phone number are all contained in the SDI. Looking ahead, if we need to modify the SDI as a result of feedback that we receive, if we add or delete issues, then a SD2 will be issued in June 1995 while working towards fmalizing the license application and the EA. In September 1995, we hope to send a draft of the EA and the license application to all parties for review. This will have a 90- day comment period. About two-thirds of the way through the 90-day comment period, a public and agency meeting will be held where information can be exchanged to make sure we understand what concerns there m.ay still be and to answer any questions the resource agencies may have. At the end of the 90-da~( ~omment, formal comments will be submitted regarding the draft application and, because we are doing NEPA earlier, and under this modified procedure, those letters will also need to contain draft mandatory and recommended license terms and conditions and prescriptions. That will be tentatively in December 1995. Our hope would be to tum it around, modify the application and submit it to the FERC in January 1996. Three other dates on the chronology relate to what happens with the Draft EA and license application once FER.C receives it. Vince Yearick of the FERC will talk about those procedures. Mike Stimac explained that the purpose of the scoping meetings is to identify issues, concerns and opportunities associated with the proposed action. According to NEP A, it should be conducted as soon as possible in the process. Normally, in a regular licensing proceeding, NEPA does not begin until the third stage of consultation. This is actually being done now as part of the second stage and having it completed sooner, before the application is flied with the FER.C. 2 Mike Stimac explained that the participation of the federal, state, and local agencies, any Native American group and interested persons is requested to identify significant environmental and socioeconomic issues related to the proposed action, determine the depth of analysis and significance of issues to be addressed in the EA, identify how the project would or would not contribute to cumulative effects in the Mahoney Creek basin, identify reasonable alternatives that should be evaluated, eliminate from detailed study the issues and resources that do not require detailed analysis during review of the project, and to solicit additional study requests. This will be the last opportunity for resource agencies to request additional studies. If requests are submitted, they must conform to 18 CFR 4.32.b.7. You must describe the study, the basis for the request, who should participate and conduct the study, the methodology and the objective, whether the methodology is accepted by the scientific community, how the results will be used by the requesting agency, how long it might take to complete the study, and why the objectives cannot be achieved by using the existing data or study program. Mike Stimac requested additional information that would be beneficial to analyze the impacts of the project. Information, quantified data, or professional opinions that may contribute to defining the geographical and temporal scope of the analysis and identifying significant environmental issues; identification of, and information from any other environmental document or similar study (previous, on-going, or planned), relevant to the proposed Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Existing information and any quantified data that would help to describe the past and present actions and effects of the project and other developmental activities on environmental and socioeconomic resources; information that would help characterize existing environments and habitats; identification of any federal, state, or local resource plans, environmental impact statements, and future project proposals in the affected resource area, such as proposals to construct or operate water treatment facilities, recreation areas, water diversions, timber harvest activities, or fish management programs; documentation that would support a qQDclusion that the . . proposed project contributes to adverse or beneficial effects on resources, including but not limited to (a) how the project interacts with other hydropower projects and other development activities within the affected area, (b) results from studies, (c) resource management policies, and {d) reports from federal, state, and local agencies; and documentation showing why any resources should be excluded from further study or excluded from further consideration. Mike Stimac reiterated that all comment letters or additional study requests should be submitted to him by May 15, 1995. Vince Yearick introduced himself and Nan Allen, the fisheries biologist from the FERC. An applicant-prepared EA will be prepared that will be filed as part of the license application. That option came about from legislation as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The intent of that was to shorten the length of time from when the FERC receives the license application to when they make a licensing decision on a project. The intent was to make the opportunity available to have an environmental document fairly complete when FERC receives it, so that FERC does not spend as much time on it internally reviewing and rewriting work that has already been done by the Applicant. In this case, it is a cooperative EA, which means that the USFS will also be using the document to support their decision on conditions that will go into their Special Use Permit for the project because the project occupies USFS land and FERC will use it to guide their decision whether or not to issue a license for the project. 3 A couple of regulations were waived, or more accurately some things were pushed into different time frames. Some of the comment periods were moved to the pre-filing stages. Mike Stimac mentioned one of those and that is the time period to request additional studies on the project. Typically, that happens after PERC receives the application, it is noticed in the Federal Register, and there is opportunity for anyone to request additional studies. In this case, that time is now. This is the last time to reques~ -~ditional studies. Also, we are asking for more stringent and earlier review on the part of tbe agencies that are involved in the process. You will be receiving a copy of the preliminary draft EA for the Mahoney Lake Project. The applicant will be asking for preliminary terms and conditions from the agencies, such as the Section (4)e conditions from USFS, and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG), what you think your final terms and conditions might look like for this project. The terms and conditions of the license are needed now in order to be analyzed in the EA before it is filed with FERC. If they are not included, FERC will have to rewrite the document which will lengthen the processing time and defeat the purpose of the applicant-prepared EA. More up-front work is required by the agencies so that less commitment is needed once the application is filed. So the preliminary terms and conditions will be requested in the comment period for the preliminary draft EA. Once FERC receives the application, some review will still be required. A check for adequacy that are required for license applications. Since FERC is working with the applicant, it is anticipated that the application will be acceptable because they will have reviewed and commented on it prior to filing. A public notice will be issued that FERC has accepted the application. Interventions on the project can be filed at this time. This is also the time to file final terms and conditions on the project. That information should be similar to the preliminary comments that FERC received from the draft. The FERC and USFS will make it their own document and issue it as a joint draft EA. Comments will be solicited on that document and a fmal EA will be issued. A license decision will then be made, and if the decision is to approve the license, what kind of measures should go in to the license. The USFS will also use this to issue.!heir Special Use Permit. If all goes well, it will take approximately 1 year to issue a licensing decision from the time FERC receives the application. The Energy Policy Act did require FERC to develop regulations on how the process will work for applicant-prepared EA's. Nothing official is expected for a while. Concentration is on processing the Class of 1993 relicensing applications. There is not a lot of attention being paid to developing new regulations. A draft schematic of how the modified process will work is available up here at the front. The applicant of a proposed project near Haines, Alaska is also utilizing this method of completing their own EA. It is a fairly popular idea and will be more popular if it works the first few times by obtaining a quick licensing decision. The intent is to speed things up and avoid duplication of efforts. However, it does require some more involvement up front. Questions? There were none. Jack Snyder described the proposed project. He described the project design and its location between Upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes. He presented a topographic map of the area and illustrated how the site will be accessed from the existing logging road near the Swan Lake transmission line near White River tnvels south towards the lower lake. The transmission line will be buried from the powerhouse to the existing logging road and then continue as an overhead line to the Swan Lake transmission line. 4 Jack Snyder summarized how the proposed project would operate and the construction methods proposed. Jack Snyder explained that most of the project would be underground. An upper horizontal tunnel would be located about 80 ft. below the lake surface (lake tap) of Upper Mahoney Lake and would convey water 1,400 ft. to a vertical shaft. The water would drop 1,200 ft. and continue to a lower 3,500 ft. horizontal tunnel which would run to the powerhouse. The powerhouse location was chosen because of the impassable barrier to upstream migration offish. Jack explained the normal operation of controlling the upper lake like a storage reservoir without the need to construct a dam. A videotape of aerial footage for the project area was shown which Jack Snyder narrated. ' .. Steve Brockman asked if there was a layout of construction camp facilities or staging area. Jack Snyder explained that construction proposed for this project is not labor-intensive. The tunnel operation would typically take 3.,.4 people to do the tunneling operation and maybe another 2-3 people involved in the excavation of the tunnel spoils. A total crew would be 6-8 people during construction of the main tunnel. The raised bore section needs a 2-man crew to run the drill rig above and another 2-man crew will excavate the spoils as it falls from above. That phase of construction would require a 4-man crew. Not a lot of construction personnel at the site during this part of construction. Jack Snyder showed the powerhouse site plan where the staging area is planned. This is where the contractor would place his job trailer and stockpile rebar and various construction materials. It is not anticipated that the construction crew would live at the site. With the access road, they could commute to the job site from Ketchikan. A small staging area would also be at the top of the vertical shaft where they would level off a pad to set up the drill rig. Jack pointed out anticipated spoils areas which would include 3,000 yards of shotrock and above approx. 1,200 yards of shotrock from the upper excavation. These areas' will be identified in the erosion and sediment control plan. . .. Mark Dalton described the resource issues that have been raised to date in that the project has been studied since the 1970's. Thescoping document appendices include the study plans that were proposed last year and a brief summary of where the study plans are to date. Land disturbance issues -The applicant will prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as an appendix to the EA. In addition, a NPDES stormwater pollution prevention plan will be prepared. Botanical issues -Concern about USFS-designated sensitive plant species as well as threatened and endangered species that could be impacted. To date no threatened or endangered species have been identified. However, in consultation with USFS in Ketchikan and Mary Stensvold in the Sitka office, a survey was conducted last September of most of the project area starting with the terminus of the existing logging road, coming around to the powerhouse site and some work around the upper lake to try and characterize the plants that occur up there. That survey was conducted by HDR staff and Alaska Natural Heritage Program. A copy of that has been provided to the USFS (Mary Stensvold). A copy will also be given to Teresa Trulock at the end of the meeting. As a result of that work, a biological evaluation (BE) will be prepared. The USFS uses this as a management tool to assess what kind of impacts there might be to the sensitive plant species and whether or not management measures are appropriate to offset impacts. This will also be included as a technical appendix to the EA. This is a requirement 5 generated out of the need for a Special Use Permit because the project occupies USFS lands. The BE will be signed off by a USFS representative. Terrestrial resource issues that have been raised -What impacts construction of the project will have on species in the area, in particular, a population of mountain goats that were relocated by ADFG in 1991. Loss of habitat (wetlands) due to construction of the project. Identification of where wetlands are and relocate project features around wetlands where practical, primarily the access road. The overhead transmission line will utilize raptor-proof design to protect raptors and other birds from electrocution. To date, no threatened or endangered species have been identified. Field surveys occurred several times during the summer of 1994 which included a field assessment of wetlands and other habitats in the area, including a ground survey for nesting raptors (goshawks) in the project area. In addition, cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) a bald eagle nest survey was conducted in June 1994. A wetlands functional assessment will be prepared and a wildlife species biological evaluation will be prepared in consultation with the USFS. Other issues include aesthetic resources -what impacts the project will have on the visual quality of the area. What impacts to potential recreation opportunities might occur as a result of construction and operation of the project. Socioeconomic issues-what can we anticipate happening to the local economy as a result of construction and operation of the project. Consultations are being held with the State Historic Preservation Office about any concerns of how project construction and operation will affect historical or archaeological resources in the ... area. Aquatic resource issues -impacts to fish in Mahoney Lake system, and Lower Mahoney Creek, spawning of sockeye salmon, temperature in gravels. At certain times of the year, Lower Mahoney Creek becomes impassable to certain species of salmon. The outlet of Upper Mahoney Creek where the delta is located has been identified as a spawning area for sockeye salmon. The concern is impacts to spawning habitat as well as maintaining the viability of that habitat for overwintering eggs and hatching in the spring. As a result, water quality data has been obtained. In the Upper Mahoney Lake, a temperature probe was placed at the proposed lake tap location and is continuously monitoring at depths of 20 ft. increments from surface to 100ft to model water column temperatures. Because there has been so much snow at Upper Mahoney Lake, we have been unable to locate the temperature monitoring device for the last few months, even using a metal detector. At the tailrace, stream flow, water quality, and temperature data have been recorded. Two temperature probes were placed in Lower Mahoney Lake and an animal chewed on one of the cables. Some data were lost, but redundant recorders made sure we have sufficient data. The collection of data will continue through May 1995. John Morsell described the three field trips that occurred in 1994. The first visit was in mid-June and the intent was to get an idea of the resident fish living in Lower Mahoney Lake/Lower Mahoney Creek, South Creek which is a tributary to Lower Mahoney Lake, and the portion of Upper Mahoney Creek from the falls down to the lake. A variety of sampling and observational 6 techniques were used to get the information needed. A second field trip was made in late August which was timed to coincide with the maximum number of salmon in Lower Mahoney Creek and to get some observations of how many of those salmon were making into the lake and possibly to do some mapping of spawning areas in the lake. At that time, most of the sockeye salmon were stranded in Lower Mahoney Creek. A third field trip was scheduled for the third week of September. Following some heavy rains, the stream flows were substantially higher and most of the sockeye that were .. in the lower creek had made it into the lake. John was successfully able to map the spawning areas in the lake. The field studies are essentially completed. The data analysis is mostly complete. The technical report will be included with the EA. The fish data will be integrated with the temperature data during preparation of the EA to try and attempt to model intergravel temperature post-project to predict what the impacts might be on salmon egg incubation. Vicki Davis asked about the studies for the USPS and if studies would be conducted for USFWS candidate species. Mark Dalton responded that no, usually there is an overlap of USFWS and USPS designated species. Vicki Davis asked if there were plants that may not overlap, if those were looked at too. Mark Dalton said he would have to review that again. Vicki Davis asked about surveying species other than those listed. Mark Dalton said he looked for sign or use, such as for goshawks. Vicki Davis asked Mark Dalton if he intends to look at candidate species. Mark responded no, not at this time. ' Mike Stimac asked if there were ally other questions on anything covered so fu, such as project design and operation, the licensing process, envirorunental studies or issues to be addressed. Jack Gustafson said that it was.mentioned about fish migrating up from saltwater may encounter a barrier or partial barrier at· certain stream flows, so that raises the question as to what the effect of discharge is from the hydroelectric project would be during those months that fish are migrating in the stream. That is something that should be looked at in more detail to actually quantify at what flow conditions fish passage is available under natural flows and try to enhance or replicate those flows during times when fish migrate so that it doesn't create a more severe barrier. It needs additional work. Jack Snyder responded that the applicant hasn't provided hydraulic data to the agencies to see how the operations will work. When the agencies receive that data, it will shed some light on that issue. The total drainage area for the lower lake outlet is 5 sq. miles. The upper lake drainage is 2.1 sq. miles so that equates to roughly 40% of what is going out the lower lake. The other 60% is from drainages downstream of the diversion area. If the project shuts down, the inflow will be reduced by 40% , a lot of other water is still coming into the lake. Jack Gustafson would like to know at what flows that threshold is reached where fish passage is available. Knowing that, there may not be a problem because under natural conditions, it is a problem sometimes. Only the Olympic swimmers make it up through that barrier. Jack Snyder 7 stated that we have an idea of where that threshold is. Some fish were getting through at low flows. Mark Dalton added that the sockeye were moving through the banier. It was the pink salmon not making it. More field work is not anticipated at this time. Once you analyze the hydraulic information, it will give you a better idea. Nan Allen stated that under the aquatic section where it is asterisked for cumulative effects analysis as well as site-specific analysis. Those issues listed under the aquatic resources section look to be project effects as opposed to cumulative effects. I suggest moving those cumulative effects from aquatic resources into the recreational section and dropping the asterisks in the aquatics sections. Mike Stimac lead the discussion of agency/public comments on the project. Steve Brockman and Vicki Davis from USFWS had indicated on the sign-in sheet as wanting to make public testimony. Vicki Davis stated that as far as her comments, they have been addressed. Steve Brockman stated that he will save his comments for a letter. Mike Stimac asked if there was anything in particular he was concerned about. Steve Brockman asked for clarification if there were no fish in the upper lake. John Morsell responded that appears to be the case. Steve Brockman asked if that had been looked at. John Morsell stated that it was studied in the early 1980's. Grayling had been stocked in the upper lake many years ago and follow-up showed the fish had disappeared. The last word was that there was no fish up there. "J Steve Brockman asked if the shoreline around the upper lake went straight down all the way around. Jack Snyder replied that there was a slide down at the far end where it is a little shallower but overall, it is very steep with little habitat and a very sterile environment. Steve Brockman asked about the effect of using the project tunnels to dewatering the upper creek, will it be diminished or dried up. Jack Snyder stated that flows in the upper creek would be diminished when the lake level drops below the outlet elevation. There is roughly a mile and a half of dra.:irtage area that feeds th.at section where springs, small tributaries coming down so there will be some inflow from drainage down to the lower lake. Steve Brockman asked if the lake level would be dropped by 75ft. Jack Snyder stated that yes, the lake level will fluctuate from where it is full down to the lake tap. Steve Brockman stated that there will probably be a 80-90% depletion from the creek. Jack Snyder said that probably will be the case but it will vary seasonally. On the outflow of water from the tunnel, Steve Brockman wanted to know where is that in relation to where the creek currently is. Jack Snyder described how the creek comes out of the upper lake, goes through a little valley, turns and drops about 1 ,200 ft. down the waterfall, and at the bottom, there is one last waterfall and a pool, and the creek flows about 800ft. through the woods in a braided channel into the lake. The powerhouse would be situated at the base of 8 that last waterfall. The water would be returned into that pool. There will be no loss of habitat in the lower creek from the falls down to the lake. In previous proposed arrangements for Mahoney Lake, the powerhouse was not situated there and would have caused the creek to be dried up in that section between the falls and the powerhouse. Steve Brockman asked about the spawning area near South Creek if there was an alluvial formation and if spawning habitat was potential or actual. John Morsell conf1m1ed that there is currently spawning activities there, approximately 25% of the fish spawn there and the other 75% spawn at the delta from Upper Mahoney Creek. Steve ·Brockman asked how the access road will cross Lower Mahoney Creek and South Creek, if by free-span bridges or culverts. Jack Snyder replied that it would be free-span bridges. Steve Brockman stated that the timing of construction should be planned to be appropriate. Doug Campbell stated that this has been looked at closely in the field. Steve Brockman stated that when the snow is gone from Upper Mahoney Lake, he would like an opportunity to go up there. Jack Snyder said that he should coordinate with Doug Campbell. They will be going up in June to remove the temperature probe as soon as the ice is gone. Mark Dalton asked John Morsell if there were any fish in the 800 ft. stretch of Upper Mahoney Creek from the powerhouse location to the lower lake. John Morsell replied that he saw a few Dolly Varden. He stated that there.are three log jams in this area and the creek dries up in low flows, so there are no fish in the middle section and some fish at the end. He stated it is poor fish habitat. 'J .... Mike Stimac asked if anyone had any more comments. Jack Gustafson asked if there were any steelhead in the system. John Morsell said he saw one juvenile rainbow trout/steelhead in the lake. Therefore, they must spawn in the lake. Steve Brockman stated that steelhead are as strong a swimmer as sockeye so it is possible to get past the barrier. John Morsell said that if steelhead are. present, it is a small population. Vince Yearick stated that regarding cumulative effects of recreation/land use, if there was anything else going on between Upper and Lower Mahoney lakes such as logging activity and road construction. He wanted to know if there was much recreation utilization of the area. Based on the geographical scope of SD 1 , there may be no cumulative impacts on recreation/land use, but there might be if scope is expanded. Teresa Trulock stated there was some recreation that occurs near the project site. Jack Snyder asked Doug Campbell to explain how access to the site is managed. Doug Campbell stated that road access is limited to individuals. Access is mainly from saltwater, beaching the boat and hiking up the lower creek to the lake. Steve Brockman asked if the road will be gated. Doug Campbell said that it already is. Steve Brockman asked if it was on the Ward Lake Road. Doug Campbell confmned that it was and said the gate is located approximately 7-8 miles from the end of the access road. 9 • Steve Brockman asked if people fish the White River. Doug Campbell said yes. Most of the recreation could be considered dispersed and is very minimal. Someone asked if the land would be opened up for recreation. Doug Campbell said it would not be encouraged because it is considered a liability to the Cape Fox Corporation. Craig Moore asked about PERC's regulations on recreation. Vince Yearick said those regulations could be found in 18 CFR 2. 7. Steve Brockman asked when does the lower creek dry up, if it was in late summer. John Morsell replied yes. Jack Snyder said actually it infiltrates into the ground. Steve Brockman asked if this was constant. Jack Snyder said it gets lower in the summer. Vicki Davis asked if the upper creek dries up. Jack Snyder replied that it was the section from the last waterfall to the lake that the water infiltrates the alluvial materials. Vicki Davis asked if more water would be added to the system. Jack Snyder replied that new water could not be created but depending on the time of the year it would be above/below/at the baseline. Steve Brockman said that flows will be more uniform. Jack Snyder stated that generally that is true. Doug Campbell asked Jack Snyder to review the history of the hydraulic data. Jack Snyder stated that a gage had been at the lower creek for 12 years. A gage was located at the outlet of the upper lake for 6-7 years. So the gage data provides more precise data versus simulating data from another gaged creek nearby. ·J ... Steve Brockman wanted to know the nature of the blockage on the lower creek. John Morsell stated that there are steep cascades, boulders, lined by rock walls and is gorge-like. The water is fast and turbulent at high flows. The worst blockage is about 100ft. downstream from the lake outlet. Steve Brockman asked if there was "room for improvement in the creek for fish passage as part of mitigation. Jack Snyder stated that you have to be careful because if you make it too easy, pink salmon will get into the lake. Pink salmon get into the lower creek, but they can't get up to the lake. It adds a variable. Steve Brockman wanted to know about the effect of the drainage rate and lake elevation levels. Jack Snyder stated we don't want to fool with the lake elevation. The project will stabilize the flows, the flows will be more consistent. Forty percent of the flow leaving the lower lake will be project related but the other 60% will be unaffected. The average will be taken for net flows. Jack Gustafson asked about supplementing flows during low flow times. Jack Snyder stated that since only 40% of lower lake outlet flows were project-related, supplementing flows should not be necessary. High rain fall events will continue to control lower lake outlet flows as is the case now. 10 Vicki Davis wanted to know what would happen in the event of a dry year, would contingencies be made to make water available. Jack Snyder stated that the applicant would have to make do with what is available. During a low water year, it usually shows its effects in fall/winter. The project would operate for a shorter period of time or at lower loads. Jack Gustafson asked if the draw down would occur all the way to the lake tap. Jack Snyder said the lake would be drawn down to just above the lake tap because it would be undesirable to draw air into the pipe. At that point, it becomes a run-of-river project. When the lake starts to rise from increasing inflows, the project could increase its output. Doug Campbell thanked everyone for attending. He encouraged attendees to contact team members if there any further questions or concerns. Jack Snyder reminded attendees that written comments are due by May 15, 1995. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 am. 'J 11 MAY-15-95 MOH 7:32 FIRST CITY BUILDERS 2255653 P.B2 KETCHIKAN AREA STATE PARKS ADVISORY BOARD 9883 N. T ongass, Ketchika~ Alaska 99901 May 14, 1995 HDR Engineering Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue. WA 98004-5538 RE: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11393 Attention: Mike Stimac The Ketchikan Area State Parks Advisory Board appreciates your informing us about the above project. We often take inlere.~t in many projects that may have implications for outdoor recreational opportunities in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, even though they may not involve State lands. We would like to offer the following comments regarding outdoor recrea~ional uses on the Mahoney I..akc Hydroelectric Project area. Our information suggests there is currently minimal recreational use of the upper or lower Mahoney Lakes. Limited sport fishing occasionally occurs in the lower Mahoney Lake, with access from the salt water (George Inlet). There are reports of some fall deer hunting in the area. on the ridge to the souLh of lower Mahoney Lake, but again this activity is minimal. As a participant in the Ketchikan Trails Coalition, we are aware of several types of users that recreate on the a1pine ridges above upper Mahoney Lake. Hikers traverse the area, and there is a primitive and difficult route connecting to the Deer Mountain trail system. Access can be had from the White River,. the Silvis Lakes/John Mountain trail system,. and the Deer Mountain system. The Kelchikan Snowmobile Club has accessed the upper Mahoney basin from a logging spur off the White River road. and they report the winter snowmobiling opportunities here are expansive and exeellent. possibly better than the popular Slide Ridge/ Harriet Hunt areas. Their only problem accessing the area is that the logging spur is often below the snow line. A Ketchikan ski club once proposed a ski lift to the upper Mahoney Basin, and conducted a snow study for the area. It's our understanding they have abandoned the proposal, however. Though the current recreational uses of the project area are limited. we would urge that access still be allowed for existing and future users. That would include salt water access to lower Mahoney I ..ake, and alpine access to the upper Mahoney basin. ~. rely, (';t.~ M Moore, Chair IN Jt£PLY lW"ER TO: United States Department of the Interior FISH AND 'WILDLIFE SERV1CE Southeast Alaska Ecological Services 3000 Vinragc Blvd.., Suite 20 I june2u, Ahslca 99801·7100 Services 1200 May 19, 1995 Mr. Michael V. Stimac Licensing and Environmental HDR Engineering, Inc. 500-108th Avenue NE, Suite Bellevue, Washington 98004 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Seeping FERC Project No. 11393 Attn.: Lisa Fortney Dear Mr. Stimac: The following comments respond to your March 9, 1995, Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project seeping Document 1. On May 15, 1995, Ms. Lisa Fortney of your staff granted the u.s. Fish and Wildlife service (Service) an extension of one week to provide these comments. We apologize for the need for this extension, and appreciate your approval thereof. The document requested the Service's assistance in identifying issues that should be addressed in the environmental analysis (EA), and provides a final opportunity to request additional studies. Issues to be addressed in the EA are identified below, followed by a request for two additional studies. Issues that should be addressed in the EA include the following: It appears that flows in Upper Mahoney creek, between the power plant discharge point and Lower Mahoney Lake, will be more uniform throughout the year than occurs naturally. Spring flows will be reduced, while late summer and winter flows may be increased. Please indicate if this will be the case, and evaluate its impact on sockeye salmon that spawn in the lake immediately below the inlet. The effects of the altered stream flows on passage of sockeye and pink salmon through Lower Mahoney creek, between Lower Mahoney Lake and George Inlet, should also be evaluated. Of particular concern is how such flows would affect the partial blockage in the stream, which currently allows sockeye salmon, but not pink salmon, to reach the lake. The effects or any temporary shut-downs, for maintenance or other reasons, should be described. Accommodations should be made to provide flows in Lower Mahoney Creek, adequate to provide currents through the substrate at spawning sites, from spawning through the alevin life-stage. such flows may be necessary to provide passage through Lower Mahoney Creek to Lower Mahoney Lake. If a by-pass structure is required at the powerhouse to provide such flows, the project plans should accommodate this need. Timing of construction should be addressed in the EA. In-stream work should be avoided when eggs are in the gravel and when adult salmon or alevins are present. Measures to control siltation of spawning gravels, from both construction runoff and long-term operation should be evaluated and described in the EA. Construction near raptor nests should be avoided during spring and summer nesting periods (see discussion of raptor nests, below). Cumulative impacts on the environment of all projects and proposals in the vicinity of the project should be considered. Cumulative impacts are defined as those impacts that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (e.g., timber harvest, mining, road construction, outdoor recreation, sport and subsistence hunting and fishing, etc.). The effects of dewatering a substantial portion of Upper Mahoney Creek should be evaluated and described. We note that lenticular sedge, Carex lenticularis var. delia, a Category 2 candidate for Federal listing as endangered or threatened, was located along Upper Mahoney Creek during a plant survey done in September, 1994 1 • The potential effects to this plant species from dewatering the stream are of particular concern. One other Category 2 plant species, Calamagrostis crassiglumis, was identified in our letter of June 21, 1994, as potentially occurring on the project site. This species was not identified in the September survey, although the species was not specifically sought, and surveyors noted that many of the plants had senescenced and were difficult to identify. Calamagrostis canadensis was found in both the Upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes areas (Duffy 1994, Appendix E). The identity of this Calamagrostis should be verified, to ensure that it is not actually c. crassiglumis. The potential for avain collisions and electrocutions on the transmission lines should be addressed. We recommend the lines be located and equipped as recommended in the following references: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC),1994, Mitigation bird collisions with power lines: the state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C. (phone 1-800-334-5453, or write to Edison Electric Institute, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20004-2696. Request item #06-94-33). Olendorff, R.R., A.D. Miller, and R.N. Lehman. 1981. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines: the state of the art in 1981. Raptor Research Found., cfo Dept. of Veterinary Biol., Univ. Minn., St. Paul, Minn. 55101. Construction underground transmission times, where feasible, will largely eliminate conflicts with raptors, and is encouraged. Locations with high potential for avain collisions (e.g. stream crossings, mountain passes, etc.) should be identified for above-ground portions of all alternative transmission 1Duffy, M. 1994. Southeastern Alaska: a AK, Anchorage. 34pp. The Mahoney Lakes area of Revillagigedo Island, sensitive species survey. AK Natur. Her. Prog., Unif. line routes, to allow a reasonable evaluation of the alternatives. Areas identified as likely flight corridors should be avoided if possible. otherwise, lines should be marked to improve their visibility. Several new products are available for economically marking lines. These are described in APLIC (1994). Recent surveys in southern Southeast Alaska have documented the spotted frog, Rana pretiosa, a Category 2 species for Federal listing, although the species was not identified as potentially occurring in the project area in our letter of June 21, 1994. Because of this new information, we believe it prudent to inform the applicant of the potential for this species to occur in the project area. We would appreciate receiving any information on the status of the species in the project area. Please contact John Lindell of this office if you would like information on survey techniques (907) 586-7240. If the species is present, the EA should evaluate potential impacts. The effect of the proposed action on each of the species listed in our letter of June 21, 1994, should be addressed in the EA. This includes the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), arctic peregrine falcon (F. p. tundris), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni), lenticular sedge (Carex lenticularis var. dollis), and slimstemmed reedgrass, (Calamagrostis crassiglumis). The arctic peregrine falcon has been delisted, however, the Service is required to monitor the species for five years following delisting. We would appreciate any information available on the species. A current list of threatened, endangered, and candidate species in Alaska is enclosed for your information. The potential to affect nesting bald eagles should be evaluated. The Service recommends a minimum 330-foot buffer of undisturbed habitat be left around all bald eagle nest trees. A larger buffer is recommended if vegetation or topography do not adequately screen a nest from view with a 330-boot buffer. If helicopters or other aircraft will be used during construction or operation of the facility, all flight paths should be a least 1,000 feet from eagle nests. No construction should be done within 660 feet of any eagle nest between March 1 and May 31. Active eagle nests should be avoid between March 1 and August 31. The habitat in the vicinity of Lower Mahoney Lake and along the access road and transmission line corridors appears to be suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelets and northern goshawks. Potential effects on both of these Category 2 candidates should be addressed in the EA. We recommend that the project area be surveyed for nests of these species, using methods shown to be effective at detecting such nests. Formal study requests are included below. Additional studies that should be accomplished prior to licensing include (1) a nesting survey for marbled murrelets and (2) a nesting survey for northern goshawks. These requests are structured to conform with 18 CFR section 4.32(b)(7), as identified in the Scoping Document. Marbled Murrelet Nesting Survey: This species is a Category 2 candidate for Federal listing as threatened or endangered. This species is listed as threatened in the lower 48 states. Lack of information on the species across its range limits our ability to provide protection. This lack of data is particularly acute in Alaska. The Mahoney Lakes Hydroelectric Project area provides suitable nesting habitat (high-volume, old-growth coniferous forest). The species feeds in the ocean, often many miles from its nest site, and is known to use waters in the vicinity of the project. Who should conduct the Study: surveyors should be familiar with the vocalizations and behaviors of marbled murrelets. Environmental consultants are available with experience in these surveys. Depending on personnel constraints, the Service's Migratory Bird Management Office may be available to conduct the survey if funding is provided. This alternative is offered only as a possibility, and does not constitute an offer or commitment. To discuss this possibility, contact Kent Wohl in our Anchorage office at (907) 786-3503. Objectives: The objective of the study is to document whether nesting by murrelets is or is not likely in the project vicinity. If nesting is indicated, identification of nest trees would be attempted. Methodology: Dawn watch surveys as described in Kuletz et al.2 are requested. Dawn watch surveys should begin 120 minutes before sunrise and end 15 minutes after sunrise. survey points should be spaced at 400-yard intervals. The vicinity of the powerhouse and staging area could be adequately surveyed to detect the presence of nesting (although not necessarily the location of individual nest trees) with two or three survey points. The access road and transmission corridors could be surveyed with approximately four survey points per mile. The proposed transmission line corridor is approximately 5.5 miles long, so 22 survey points would be required. The alternative transmission line corridor is approximately four miles long, so 16 survey points would be required. A total of 41 points would be required for the entire project. Acceptance by the scientific community: The technique has been shown to be effective, and results from such surveys have been published in scientific symposium proceedings (Ralph et al.)3 • Dusk watch surveys have been less successful, and are not recommended. Utility of the Study: The requested study can be used to identify stands used by murrelets for nesting. .This information wll} help the applicant minimize impacts to the species by avoiding these stands to the extent possible. If avoidance is not possible, the information provided by the survey, combined with monitoring during project operation, may provide data on nesting murrelets' response to construction and operation of such facilities. Such data is currently unavailable. Time required: Two surveyors could complete filed work in 22 days. Additional 2 Kuletz, K.J., N.L. Naslund, and D.K. Marks. 1994. Exxon Valdez oil spill restoration report: identification of marbled murrelet nesting habitat in the Exxon Valdez oil spill zone. Restoration Project R15, Final Report. u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, AK. 3Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds). 1995. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet: an interagency scientific evaluation. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR. surveyors would shorten the time required to complete field work. presence of nesting is indicated by murrelet activity and behavior, field work would be required to locate nest trees (about 10 days). could take an additional 90 days. If the additional Reporting Adequacy of existing data: Existing and planned wildlife surveys in the project area are not likely to provide any information on the presence of nesting murrelets. Northern Goshawk Nesting Surveys: This species is a Category 2 candidate for Federal listing as threatened or endangered. Management agencies lack adequate information about the distribution and biology of this species. The project area appears to provide suitable nesting habitat, but has not been adequately surveyed for the species. Who would conduct the study: Environmental consultants are available to conduct the requested survey. The Service's Migratory Bird Management Office may be available, if funding is provided. This alternative is offered only as a possibility, and does not constitute an offer or commitment. Please contact Philip Schempf in our Raptor Management office in Juneau at {9076) 586-7243 if you wish to discuss this possibility. Methodology: Broadcast call surveys following the methods of Kennedy and Stahlecker' and Joy5 are requested. The objective of this study is to determine if the species nests in the project area. If a nest is located, responses to construction and operation of the hydroelectric project could be monitored. Acceptance by the scientific community: The technique is proven, and results of such surveys have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Utility of the study: Results of the study could be used by the applicant and the Service to cooperatively design the project to minimize impacts to the species. Nest sites could be avoided during construction of facilities, especially during the nesting period. Monitoring of nest activity and success could occur, which would provide valuable information on the effects of the facil~ty on nesting goshawks.. The Service would find such information useful during coordination on similar projects elsewhere. Time required: Approximately one month of field work during the spring/early summer nesting period would be required. Reporting could take an additional 90 days. Adequacy of existing data: Visual searches for nests, as described in the seeping documents provided, are likely to fail to detect nests that exist. 'Kennedy, P.L., and D.W. Stahlecker. northern goshawks to taped broadcasts of 3 Manage. 57(2):249-257. 1993. Responsiveness of nesting conspecific calls. J. Wild!. 5 Joy, S.M., R.T. Reynold, and D.G. Leslie. 1994. Northern Goshawk broadcast surveys: hawk response variables and survey cost. Studies in Avian Biol. No. 16:24-30. ' ' Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project. The Service will continue to work with the applicant in planning the project. If you have any questions, please contact Steve Brockmann at (907) 225-9691. enclosure: spp. list cc: Mark Dalton, HDR Engineering, Anchorage ADFG, Ketchikan NMFS, Juneau ADEC, Juneau ADEC, Juneau EPA, Anchorage ADNR, Juneau ADGC, Juneau rg Supervisor OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OFRCEOFMANAGEMENTANDBUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR C1 SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE 3601 "C" STREET, SUITE 370 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-5930 ~ CENTRAL OFFICE C1 PIPELINE COORINDA TOR'S OFFICE r P.O. BOX 110030 411 WEST 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 2C JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0030 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-2343 PH: (907) 465-3562/FAX (907) 455-3075 PH: (907) 271-4336/FAX: (907) 272-0690 PH: (907) 561-6131/FAX: (907) 561-5134 May 19, 1995 1-A35LH Mr. Micheal V. Stimac HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Ave., NE Bellevue, WA 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac: SUBJECT: MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRlC PROJECT STATE ID #AK.9504-08JJ/FERC PROJECT #11393 NEP A SCOPING REVIEW Thank you for sending a copy of the meeting notes from the April 12 and 13, 1995 National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) scoping meetings for the Mahoney Lake project. We regret that the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) was unable to attend the scoping meetings. This letter is submitted as DGC's response to the NEPA scoping review for the Mahoney Lake project. The Mahoney Lake project is a proposal by the City of Saxman to construct a small (9.6 megawatt) hydropower plant near Mahoney Lake, about 5 miles northeast of Ketchikan. The purpose of the project is to provide the Ketchikan area with an additional energy supply. The First Consultation Phase of the FERC review was completed in 1994. In the past, the next step in the FERC process has been the Second Consultation Phase. For the Mahoney Lake project, FERC agreed to a new procedure where the NEPA analysis begins early in the process instead of after filing of the license application. The current scoping review was the first step in the NEP A process. An Environmental Assessment (EA) will be developed and submitted to FERC in place of Exhibit E of the license application. HDR anticipates that the next steps in the FERC/NEPA process are: (1) review of scoping comments and determination of whether a second scoping document is necessary, and (2) distribution of the draft EA and draft license application, tentatively scheduled for September 1995, for NEPA and Second Consultation Phase review. Scoping comments on "Scoping Document 1" were due on May 15, 1995. This office received a copy of the Department of Fish and Game's scoping comments which were sent to you directly. We have not received scoping comments from anyone else. Apparently, comments were either sent directly to you or other review participants were unable to * 0 comment due to staff shortages and large workloads. As a suggestions, HDR could review comments submitted during the First Consultation Stage of the FERC review for issues that should be addressed during the NEPA analysis. The State's coastal consistency review can commence when DGC receives: (1) a Coastal Project Questionnaire, (2) copies of all necessary state and federal permit applications, (3) supporting information, including maps and drawings, which describes the project, (4) an ACMP public notice is made, and (5) FERC officially accepts the license application and the application is public noticed (this usually occurs at the Third Consultation Phase of the FERC review). If you have any questions regarding this letter or the Alaska Coastal Management Program, please contact me at 465-3177. Thank you for providing an opportunity to participate in the FERC/NEPA process. cc: Joan Hughes, DEC, Juneau Lana Shea, DFG, Juneau Jack Gustafson, DFG, Ketchikan Elizaveta Shadura, DNRIDOL, Juneau John Dunker, DNRIDOW, Juneau Melanie Fullman, Coastal Contact, Ketchikan Vince Yearick, FERC, Washington D.C. Sincerely "/··~~ c__· Christine Valentine Project Review Coordinator May 24, 1995 (See attached list) Re: Mahoney lake Hydroelectric Project PERC Project No. 11393 Dear: @\ As a result of the seeping meetings held on April 12 and 13, 1995, an alternative transmission line route is being investigated for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. The original ·proposal (North Alternative) entailed routing the electrical transmission line northward from Lower Mahoney lake to the White River area, where it would connect to the Swan lake Transmission Line. The new alternative (South Alternative) to be evaluated is to route the overhead transmission line southward from Lower Mahoney Lake to connect with the existing transmission line at Beaver Falls. A new access road would still be constructed northward from the powerhouse to connect with the existing forest road a mile north of Lower Mahoney Creek. The two alternatives are shown on the attached figure. The South Alternative resulted from a specific request made by Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). The transmission line running from Mahoney Lake to Beaver Falls would provide a direct connection into the existing system that provides electricity to the downtown area of Ketchikan, and would enhance KPU's ability to continue to provide electrical service to that area in the event of temporary failure of the Swan Lake system. One quarter of the length of the transmission line route leading southward is located on land owned by the Cape Fox Corporation; the remainder is on land presently managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The South Alternative is over one mile shorter than the North Alternative, but will be somewhat more expensive to construct. Construction of the transmission line between Lower Mahoney Lake and Beaver Falls would require clearing the route of trees for a width of approximately 100 feet and a length of 20,170 feet from the site of the step-up transformer located at the east end of Lower Mahoney lake. The land along this route is presently undisturbed and is primarily steep forested slopes. The cut trees will be removed from the route using helicopters. The poles supporting the electrical line will also be set by helicopter. No access road will be constructed southward from Lower Mahoney Lake and ground disturbance will be limited to that necessary for tree removal and pole placement. Access for line maintenance will be by helicopter, boat, and on foot. The South Alternative is 6,100 feet shorter than that of the North Alternative, and will allow the clearing necessary for the North Alternative to be avoided. HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206453-1523 May 24, 1995 Page 2 We would appreciate hearing your questions and potential concerns about this new transmission line alignment by June 23, 1995. We plan to incorporate information you provide into the Seeping Document 2. Your input will help us determine what type of additional issues we may need to address and whether additional field studies will be necessary. If you wish, you may reference comments you provided previously and state how your questions or concerns about the new alignment differ from those you previously expressed. Thank you for your interest in this project. If you have any questions, please call me at (206) 453-1523. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. -~/fStifl_ao~~.J Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing and Environmental Services Enclosure cc: Vince Yearick, FERC Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Jack Snyder, ND&T Mark Dalton, HDR Don Clarke, WKBQ HDR File, B.4.1 c;') t'l 0 ""' ';C a t'l 12 ~ - 'Z. 13· 'C"' 1 .,.... .h·; ~,.-1-t:. ' ~. :f ,·.' .~ I . -, •" ,.\ 'I . ·.v ' Northern AJtemative, 115 kV I 26,282 feet long, folows existng road 13B kV tuied me from powerhouse to s~ .....,,..,.,.,._. '(~ '; ,(\ "~ 6,180 feet long Southern Alternative, 34.5 20,170 teet long, no existng road. helcopter constructed f., '\\ lntercomection Point to /f-. ::::. . · Beaver Fals Transrrission L.ile :::.:_.! 1 ,...,-;i: . . ' rW~' ~ ..•• ,.;•)\ .,,:.~ '/ ·~\·g·/-1 ~ ">..) •• ~ "· ~ ; " -_:...·/·,tP;. ·~' ' ~-/(. 1/· " t:.:l ...:! ~- .... / ;' g"' ... _. ~· { (·I OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 0 SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAl. OFFICE 3601 "C" STREET, SUITE 370 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-5930 PH: (907) 561-6131/FAX: (907) 561-6134 ~ENTRAL OFFICE P.O. SOX 110030 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811..0300 PH: (907) 465-3562/FAX: (907) 465-3075 TONY KNOWLES. GOVERNOR 0 PIPELINE COORDINATOR'S OFFICE 411 WEST 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 2C ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-2343 PH: (907) 278-8594/FAX: (907) 272..0690 DISTRIBUTION LIST Mahoney Lake Hydro -AK 9504-0SJJ New "South Alternative" Joan Hughes, DEC, Juneau Lana Shea, DFG, Juneau Jack Gustafson, DFGr Ketchikan Elizaveta Shadura, DNR, Juneau John Dunker, DNR/DOW/ Juneau Bill Garry, DNR/DPOR, Juneau Judith Bittner/ DNR/SHPO, Anchorage Bill Ballard, DOT/PF, Juneau Mike McKinnon, DOT/PF, Juneau Melanie Fullman, Coastal Coordinator, Ketchikan Gateway Borough The Honorable Alaire Stanton, Mayor, Ketchikan The Honorable Jim Carlton, Mayor, KGB Dave Arrasmith, USFS, Ketchikan Louis Thompson, Kavilco, Inc., Ketchikan Rick Harris, Sealaska Corporation, Juneau Ron Wolfe, Klukwan, Inc., Juneau Attached are: May 24, 1995 letter from HDR Engineering {2 p.) and a map showing "Transmission Line Alternative Routes". As a result of comments received during NEPA scoping, a new route alternative is being investigated. Comments on the new route alternative are due to HDR Engineering by June 26, 1995. DGC Contact: Christine Valentine, Project Review Coordinator ./ 4 .::C- Phone: 907-465-3177 Fax: 907-465-3075 ~~ • ~I * ~ ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY /:g ALASKA ~ ENERGY AUTHORITY 480 WEST TUDOR ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 June 1, 1995 Michael V. Stimac Manager, licensing and Environmental Services HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 1 08th Avenue N. E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 907 I 561-8050 FAX 907/561-8998 Subject: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project; Proposed Transmission line Routing Dear Mr. Stimac: The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) has reviewed your May 24, 1995 correspondence concerning an alternate transmission line route for the subject project, connecting with the Beaver Falls Project rather than with the Swan lake Transmission Line, as originally proposed. AEA, as owner of the Swan Lake Project and Swan Lake Transmission line has reservations concerning the interconnection of the proposed Mahoney lake Project with the Swan Lake line. Potential conflicts between operation of the Mahoney Lake Project and operation of the Swan Lake Project transmission line, including AEA's planning and implementation of scheduled outages of and maintenance of the line, are of significant concern. Further, a separate connection of the Mahoney Lake Project to the city of Ketchikan via the Beaver Falls Project, as stated in your letter of May 24, 1995, would improve Ketchikan Public Utilities ability to provide reliable service to that area. Improved reliability and increased flexibility in operation of the area's power system are important issues which require consideration in the planning of this project. Therefore, the AEA recommends adoption of the South Route, as proposed in your letter, as the preferred alternative for this project. Stan Sieczkowski Manager, Maintenance and Operations SS/JHT/cjp Copy: D. Beardsley, AEA V. Yearick, FERC T. Waggoner, KPU J. Thrall, LIL File Alaska State Legislature < :l:>a1rman. State CJpnol luneau :\ld~ka 99B0l-ll8:? !907 465·3873 Fax 19()7: 465-392c udic1ary Commtttee RECEIVED JUN 1 2 1995 \',:,· C~<1:rman. Transporratton Comm1tree .\1.-miYr 352 Front Street l--:erd11bn :'daska 9990! Resources Commtttee Senator Robin L. Taylor I 90 71 :?25 ·80R8 Western Leg1slauve Forestrv Task Force June 7, 1995 Mr. Michael V. Stimac, Manager Licensing and Environmental Services HDR Engineering, Inc. 500 1 08th Avenue NE, Suite 1200 Bellvue, WA. 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac: .nr..-,, "'""':::. {)fll Thank you for seeking my input on the South Alternative transmission line proposed for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. While the southern route may cost somewhat more, I believe in the long run it will prove more beneficial to the overall project. A direct connection at Beaver Falls offers more future options, including the potential of power sales to Metlakatla. Routing power through the Swan Lake project would be subject to interruption should the Swan Lake system fail. The direct connection at Beaver Falls makes more sense logistically. While I support the southern alternative, I believe the eventual construction of a road along the access route would be of long-term benefit to the project and to the community it is intended to serve. Sincerely, ~~lx;/r-- Robin L. Taylor RL T/ja cc: Representative Bill Williams Thomas W. Stevenson, KPU D1strict A: Hvder • Ketchikan • Kupreanof • Meven; Chuck • Petersburg • Saxman • Snk..1 • \\-ranl!ell June 13, 1995 Steve Brockman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ketchikan Field Office Ketchikan, AK 9990 l Dear Mr. Brockman, This letter is to confirm the date of the bald eagle survey along the transmission line route proposed in Alternative B of the Mahoney Lakes Hydroelectric Project. The route proposed in Alternative B runs from Lower Mahoney Lake to Beaver Falls on the west side of George Inlet. I have scheduled a helicopter flight for July 10, 1995 with Temsco Helicopters, Inc. You will be accompanied by Eric Meunch of the Cape Fox Corporation. I will call you closer to that date to discuss specific times with you. If you have any questions please call me. Sincerely, HDR Engineering, Inc. Sdut~~'// Saliy Boggs Staff Scientist cc: Mike Stimac Eric Meunch HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7118 Telephone 907 274-2000 Fax 907 274-2022 f ! ,, f f • • June 14. 1995 William H. Baer, Supervisory Biologist U.S. Forest Service Ketchikan Ranger District 3 03 1 T ongass Avenue Ketchikan. AK 99901 Subject: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Information Needed to Complete Biological Evaluations Dear Mr. Baer: li):-{ We at HDR Engineering. Inc. have prepared preliminary draft Biological Evaluations for both plants and animals for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Copies of these documents are enclosed for your review. In these evaluations, we have presented information on the threatened, endangered, or sensitive species that may use Forest Service lands affected by the project, and the project's potential effects on species likely to be present. We will also be including information in these documents on species that we understand may be designated as sensitive in the next several months: spotted frog (Ra.na pretiosa), Salix reticulata ssp. glabellicarp~ and Botrychium ascendens. The documents will be completed after additional field surveys are done this summer. Since you will be reviewing and signing the Biological Evaluations when they are completed, we would appreciate your review of them now so we know whether they will meet Forest Service standards. Several specific questions about these documents and about our approach toward completing them are raised below. Upper Mahoney Lake and most of Upper Mahoney Creek are on lands managed by the Forest Service. The project components near Lower Mahoney Lake, the access road, and one of the alternative transmission line rouks are almost exclusively on lands owned by the Cape Fox Corporation. Earlier this year, a second alternative transmission line route leading southward from the lower lake was added to the project design under consideration. Most of that route is on lands managed by the Forest Service. Based on our experience with a project located partly on Chugach National Forest lands, we believe that, for sensitive species, we need to address only the effects of the project activities that occur on Forest Service lands (those for which the Forest Service may issue a permit). Therefore, in the plant BE, we plan to address the project's potential effects on sensitive plants only on Forest Service lands. In the animal BE, we will address the effects of all project components (whether on private or federal lands) on threatened and endangered animal species, but may limit our discussion of the project's effects on sensitive species to impacts that occur on Forest Service lands. In particular, where we must do field surveys to address impacts on sensitive animals, the HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage. Alaska 99503-2689 Telephone 9in 274-20oo Fax 907 274-2022 William H. Baer June 14, 1995 Page2 observations will be made only on Forest Service lands. We would appreciate confirmation that this approach is appropriate. We believe the information available on cenain sensitive species may not be sufficient to allow us to determine whether they may be affected by the proposed hydroelectric project. Therefore, we propose to conduct additional field surveys during mid-July 1995. Attached are brief descriptions of these surveys. We would appreciate it if you would review these plans and let us know whether they appear likely to provide us with the necessary information on spotted frogs, Queen Charlotte goshawks, and sensitive plant taxa. We would be happy to provide more information on our methods if you need it. If you believe the information presented in the BEs 'on any other taxon may not be sufficient to serve as the basis for our evaluations, please inform us of that so we may discuss it and revise our survey plans. Mark Dalton from this office will be in Ketchikan next week, on June 21 and 22, to discuss with the Forest Service and other agencies the additional field studies requested during recent scoping. I understand that you will be at those meetings. If you are able, it would be most helpful if you could review the attached plans and draft BEs before then. Either I or Sally Boggs (our wildlife biologist) will try to contact you early next week to see if you have any questions about them. Thank you for your attention to these requests. Please call me or Sally Boggs if you have any questions. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~I!~ Anne Leggett Project Biologist Attachments cc: Jim DeHerrera, Ketchikan District Ranger ,. ' Proposed 1995 Field Surveys for Forest Service Species of Concern Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project BDR Engineering, Inc. Plants A survey for sensitive plants was conducted on the Forest Service lands near Upper Mahoney Lake and northeast of Lower Mahoney Lake in September 1994. Since then, an additional transmission line route has been identified that is located on Forest Service lands south of Lower Mahoney Lake to Beaver Falls. Because that route includes habitat types that may support sensitive plant species and those plants could be affected by the project, a survey should be done. HDR staff will walk the southern transmission line route during mid-July 1995, seeking sensitive plant taxa and taxa proposed for designation as sensitive (see draft Biological Evaluation for Plants). A survey of intensity level 4 ("general") will be done, as defined in draft survey protocol information provided by Regional Botanist Mary Stensvold. Attention will be focused on any unique habitats that might be more·likely to support one or more of the sensitive plants. A list will be made of all species identified, and all plants observed will be identified to a level sufficient to determine whether they are or are not one of the sensitive taxa. Any plants that cannot be determined to not be one of the sensitive plants will be collected if an adequate population is found. If any sensitive plants are located, information will be collected on the location, habitat type, and approximate population size. Survey results will be documented in a short memorandum. Animals HDR will do biological surveys for two animal species of concern on Forest Service lands: the spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) and the Queen Charlotte goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi). The areas surveyed for these animals will include Forest Service lands northeast of Lower Mahoney Lake affected by the access road and northern transmission line and Forest Service lands along the southern transmission line route between Lower Mahoney Lake and Beaver Falls. Surveys will be conducted during mid-July 1995. Cape Fox Corporation personnel will flag the proposed southern transmission line route across Forest Service lands in advance of the surveys. Survey results will be documented in a brief memorandum. The spotted frog is expanding its range into coastal southeastern Alaska. It is a category 2 candidate species and may be listed by the Forest Service as sensitive in the near future. The Mahoney Lakes area has not been investigated to date to determine the presence of the spotted frog. Frog habitat includes permanent shallow ponds with emergent vegetation associated with rivers and streams. Beaver ponds and muskegs are possibly used for breeding. HDR staff will investigate potential frog habitat by walking a transect(s) to visually detect frogs. Baited minnow traps will also be set in representative habitat areas. Any frogs caught will be identified using Amphibians of the Western United States by ,, Stebbins. This process should indicate if there are spotted frogs present but not indicate population size. The Queen Charlotte goshawk is a category 2 species that is also listed as sensitive by the Forest Service. Active goshawk nests have been located on the northwestern quaner of Revillagegido Island but Forest Service lands in the project area have not been inventoried. The goshawk survey will follow the Alaska Region Goshawk Inventory Protocol for 1992. Point samples will be located at calling stations 150 meters apart along the southern transmission line route and the part of the northern route that passes through Forest Service lands. The clearing for the transmission line will be 30 meters wide so one transect along the route will provide adequate coverage for the survey (transects are recommended to be 260 meters apart). r T l J ~ I f 4 ! l l June 15, 1995 (See attached list) Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 11393 Dear: This letter is to confmn the meeting which will be held on Thursday, June 22, 1995, at 9:00am at the Westma.rk-Cape Fox Hotel in Ketchikan to discuss the requests for additional studies for the above referenced project. These additional study requests are set forth in letters from the Alaska Department ofFish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senrice and resulted from the scoping process for the project. All matters identified in the letters will be addressed at the June 22 meeting. A primary concern that will be discussed is the effects on flows in Lower Mahoney Creek due to project operation and the potential impacts of those effects on anadromous fish passage. In that regard, enclosed, for your information, is a flow regime report that discusses the flows in Lower Mahoney Creek when upstream migration occurs and the impacts of project operation on those flows. The report includes a correlation of flow data with anadromous fish observations in Lower Mahoney Creek and Lower Mahoney Lake in 1994. Please call me at (206) 453-1523 if you have any questions or comments concerning the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project or the June 22nd meeting. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. -Mi ~a& V. SllMoLU-tJ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services cc: Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Mark Dalton, HDR Anchorage Jack Snyder, NDT John Morsell, NES HDR File, B.4.1 HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1 523 Mr. Vince Yearick Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Division of Project Review 810 First St., N.E., Room 504 Washington, DC 20426 Mr. Jim DeHerrera U.S. Forest Service 3031 N. Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Brockman U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 23193 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Hoffman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, Room 207 Ketchikan, AK 99901 1 l l • t l JU/'1 19 '95 01 : 18Pf·1 U S FISH & WILDLIFE u.s. PlSH •'WILDLtFE SERVICE FAX COVI:K t'Aut: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Servtces Ketchikan Sub·Office P.O.Box ·31 93 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 F'. 1 (907) 225·9691 (FAX) 225·"893 Please Deliver To: :¥Jlw ~09:? «':a I I i Department: ____ H ..... , w.· .... ;...;62~'~-----.· Address: FAX Number ; • Tel. Number: ________ ....;. • THIS IS PAGE 1· OF A '.J.. PAGE DOCUMENT DATE: TIME: _____ _ TRANSMITTED BY: _____________ _ COMMENTS: ________________________________________ __ .. • . . : .. ·:. ·:~·:.~~\ ===----~===-···;~'..::~;.: ~: '- =f -w The Birds of I w c.n Misty Fiords d1aill acli~te glacle1s: lhe Unult. lAdlJC ar.:l ·~ Ch\ckamln. EXletlSille deddUOUS WOOIIafldS Md (•J alllaf tnidcets are round Jbng lhe braided c:hannala o1 NAT I 0 NAI~ HO NUIIENT ..-(I_ tlaltSirmrs. Sucfl blrda • lhe Amalcan Rlldslart, 1\.) A Bil'clwatdl~r'• Cheeldlat ~ Waltlllng VIreo and Hammond's Rveatdler art _, common Ill tile Mon~trnenl on~ hllha1e drlhi&JIS. lbls •• a p111UminatY IJsl af lhe ~rda kno~n lo DCCLJT tn lhe t.lllsl» FlDrda Nallonal Uonuman1. t<nowledga of '. h bird taooa In "*'V ltl~lete and tw e•act c seasonal abundance and breading &latus of mafl)' !{4 rpeaaa bas )let tu ba <letumlnsd. lllls lbt Is pre· UJ HRiecl as a buelhe gajd;t whllft will ba modltied as ~ .,.,.. ~orma11on Is galwced kom lhe area.. ....... auavdlons and comments Bfe encouraged. ~ Please repmt slgh'll~s along Vflh Cornplele d&td ?i notesto: · t.lislV Fiords Na11ona1 tJonvmenl Wldlife Blotoglsl 3001 T ong1S$ Kelehikan. Alasll• 1930 I (9D1t 225-2148 Thls list ls basec:J on tlla reallcl& o! S1.wen end Nana "TJ ~ ~ MacDonald, Daniel 0. Gbson. Jacl\il Ciln\erbury ~ H MIa~ FfGJds National MDlllllll&nl a)mprlses aboul USFS •. AOF&G and USFS peraonnel. _j 2.3 million aaes wltbin the Tongasa Naliorql Q _j Foresl ol Solllhaasl ASa-"•· It Is a coastal v;asvstem U) H 0 3 of gi<KiaHr canted llol'dland &fl\lrladof prollded SNSORI _, 00 bays and aS1LJarlas. lheM ftataraa provide rid1 ~ insluwe mBIIRB wal .. f8 faf I Varletr CJf blldi .. IRDhtd-UPOO·May c.n I SpSpaill" (J;J (Jl Jng Malbtod ._uuelets, loons and waterfowl SUSllllmer ~ne-Mid-Augusl _, H w I.L. Misty Aords llaatb\11 Monooanllla• example' d F FaU hl.e AufiUII·Novembar (J;J (Jl ball mainland and istand hlllbialt Maunlakt rugaa W \VIItltr DICimber-Febru.ry :::J oHer a staap, l:lasaCiad topography wlh exCSnllvt E alpkut (above 3.000 IHt) 1nd aubllplna (2,500-a.ooo 0.. Ill felltl) hilbllal. Se.sona1 Slatus Cod11 ~ Tlle rares1 o1 Ml&ti' Flarda Ia • segmall1 of tht NO!th .. ... Amadean coaslllllamparate raillo18S1. Rds toreslla Common lo Abwndlnt IS) c If) dominated by SIN spruce anlf wellaln hemlock wflh u Uncom'flon -., Nlir\y Cont'llon 01 scauaretl radcedlu 1ncl Vellowcellar, brohen br open A Rare to Very Uncommcn :0 .. muskeg. Birds vHdl reach lhelr F•alc llaundance 111 0 Qocalim•l 0 01 lhis folaslare tha Town1811d's WIUtdlr, Paclfle.alopa Acclr:lenla'l N ~ + 5 F~al&:hll' and Uannit lhrush. ...., Thr" major rfva11 on ltla matn,.nlt of Mls1rt Aords . ,,..,.,.... (II Q.. ~ H ~ H 3: 00 m H ...... U') :J ~ .... .. .... IS) ~ ~ IJl .... ~ ..., SP.BClES . Red·ll1footed loon Podlic loon Common looll VeBow·'blllec:t loon Horned G1eb8 ~d-flac:ked Grebe West8lnGrebe fo1kecHolled S01m Pe1ael Ooub!&-etesled Cc:lrmcx'on1 Pelagic Cormoionl Amedcon811tan 8lleHtMon r~a..,...,.-c Sp Su F W u u u u c u c c c u c tf R 0 R I u . u u u 0 u u - u u .. , . c:,..;:__ ..... Q '· • ~1uO~ -· ..... -·· Groen1NingeiftaQ1. .;;~· .. ··-·:,-:;:-.! :({ ·'C .. ~ .. --#:····c u :·· ·· ·. I·u n MollaRI NodhamRntol 81~..~&-Wngedfeal NOIIhernSt!OV&Iec Godlauil -.~ u e l:utoalon Wigeoo AmedCGA Wigeon Cmvolbock RlrQ-necked Duck Greater k:oliP ltwJBqiJn DuCk Oldlquaw llock Soole• SUifScole1 Whlle-v.'fnged Scoler Common Goldeneye 8orrow'a GotdelrlliJve Bullleheaa Hooded Mergonse1 Common MBigamet Red·bteodod Netgc:ner Osptey Boldiogle "Ollham Honiel ShcqJ-ohlftned Hawk NOI'II\emG~ Red-tolled Howt;: Amell l<e111el Mwlin R + • -• U R U R n - n - R R R • u 0 u u u u u u 0 -u u u 0 u u c c c c c u c c u 0 u u C R C C c . c c u u u u c c c c u -u u R Q A · c c c c R -R • U U U R R R A R u u u . R n· n - . R R ll R SPBClRS Pelagrina fo'tcon 8lleGIOU18 Rock Ptamlgan Sofa AmeilconCoot Sonl:NIQane Sempalmatad Aoltet ICBdHI 8bt::t Oplercalchet Grealel Vellowleg• leller Yalowlags SGI·l»V~ Wonc:IGiin.g Totllor Spotted~·· lladc tomrona Zmsan~ec leaal Saactllper PectOJal Salldplpar flock SmdpP., DuAIIR long-billld D.owltd\81 COMmon Snipe- ~Gd lllaclt-teggad ICI11lwata Alctlclum Common MUKa Pigeon Gu111emo1 Molb11tdM.melal Rht\oca10sAuWet ltand-toled Aegaoo Moumlng Dove Weltam saaacn.o.v-. Gtaat Holned Owl NCMib8fnPvQmr-O..., BortedOwl Sho1kKI8d OwJ Nadham~B40d Co111moo Nlgbtha""- Biacic~ \/QIIBc'$ S\11111 SpSu f W 0 . 0 - c c c c ecce . n . 0 • R coc u . u R R R R R R A c tJ c u -u R R R U R U u c u c R c U U R U R cue c u c R 0 U u . u u u -n 0 u uou u .u u - c u u c u u u tJ c c c c u u u n R R + -0 n R R R u u u 0 A R A R R R R Q R -R -u u u u --R R U tJ II •I tl r c:.:: =f --<p CD c.n SP~IKS sp Su F w; Rulaullbnmlngljrd C C R .. - Belted 1Ct1gfisher c C C c ':'? Red~ Sop$'Ucker C c C -~ DownvWoodpecker u U u u Holly Woodpedier U u U U ltvae-loedWoodpecl:eJ R R A R Nodheanftk:ker u U U 0 l7j =='= ~ ~ ~ :(;) Aldat' Rtcdc:hw . 0 u U -~ tfcmcnand's Rvcolcher u u u --...... Pacltic-llopef\rcoldlel c c c . ~ Woatern Ktngbftd -+ • -§ EC»>am KinQblrd -+ • - Homed l<llk A • R • "• Swalow c c u - Vjalei-Qf6ell Swallow U U U - Northam Aough-\nllnged ~oflow A R R - Boll\ Swallow U U U - Sttilktl'"l JQy C C C C 8Jaclc-blled Magpie --0 - Noc4hWesle.!'l00W C G C C :,;;! CGmmon Raven C C c c :><: 801801 Chickadee --t • :z: Chaslnut-badutd ctickodee c c c c p Radbaaaated Nu1halch 0 0 R -:g Brown Creepel u u u u ~ Wkltaa W.al C C C U RJ AmiPJconfWw u u u ... m G~d Ktlglal C C C C (j Auby-cmwnad IJnglat u u u . -OJ M~ Bluebird R -R • Sl.vaiNan"alhiU&h C c C - Hemtltu~Uihc c c -~ --,--:-~~ C C R Vor'adlhlulb-... ·,v~ C C C A -·"" ~ .:~?g u c BohmlloAWoKwlng~-<. .. ;/ ~ • R R Cedar WcuiAdng , U U U -"V Northam flldca ... • R · R • ~ hlope.-. staling. . A R. R R w Walblng\ibo ·--~-:.;;; lJ tJ U ~dvteo • R - Osc:Jo'\g&-(:10\IMBd Wa'bler C C - VellowWorbrer C C - MangoolaWOiblet -o -v.ot.... . • '7 11. .:;. D.\,u.:,u Sp Su F Townsend· a Wolbler cc c llaclpol Wobfer -.. Amerlcon nedllart u u u Nodhetn Wola.lltvw'h R R R MocQifllrG(a WOibl8f u u u Common Velbw1hroot u u u Mon'a Warbler CCC ~ H 5 H 3 o<! rn H u.. (/) W..letn tanager u u u Am811can Jret Sparrow R . D SavOII.ftab !iparrow cue F011 Sparrow CCC SOilQ $J)Qrrow CCC t.lncoh·•Sponow CCC 9olclaR-c~d Spa«ow c • u \\Ne-crownad Sparrow u . u ttorrll· Sparrow + Oalkyed .hn::o CCC loplqnd~ u . u lled-ll.dftgfld BkJdcbbd u u u lusty llf:JdMd u R u l!rcJwn.lleadod CO'wblld A R R AneGto5beclc u u u ComplledbV Sl'we HeW 4 .lacttkl Canlerbllllf 1992 w R u u u ::J ...._..,01111-.CliiiDI. Nlllontil4111gln. -...,,.rg._ . .,,...n,..,. E ~eotldlloi\Oitwll:aroilellt_CM!f .... Yall~. ik 11'119D'N • .-.cf'MMC•IIfhUibA.~mna~lqi"q' ... " tiiiiCitt .... 4111CihtCIQIII1C'fpolcv.~•lloult"•u"*"dtah :; S.CitiOif•' ~"lc .. I•JI•. Walflng:o.,.oc »2» . .... (Sl c... c: ::r -'f c:c u- ; -N /;::> Ul c:: Ul ...., Ul ~ t::J ~ DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION June 20, 1995 Mr. Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing and Environmental Services HDR Engineering, Inc. 500-108th Avenue NE, Suite 1200 Bellevue, W A 98004 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Scoping FERC Project No. 11393 Dear Mr. Stimac: TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR 2030 SEA LEVEL DRIVE SUITE205 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901-6000 PHONE: (907) 225·2475 RECEIVED JUN 2 7 1995 I apologize for not writing sooner and providing you with wildlife considerations in the area of the proposed Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project. Although several terrestrial and semi-aquatic species ofwildlife inhabit the area (e.g. wolves, black bears, otters, mink, beavers, and deer), I would like to give special consideration to mountain goats which were introduced adjacent to Upper Mahoney Lake on 10 August 1991. At the time of the transplant, seven of fifteen captured goats were outfitted with radio collars. During 15 August 1 991 through 24 February 1994, I obtained 124 relocations of the collared goats (see attached map). Distances goats moved away from the Upper Mahoney release site varied among individuals. However, within a short time several nannies had settled in and have subsequently remained on the timbered ridge northwest of Lower Mahoney lake. This frequent use can be seen in section 26 on the attached map. Further, of the 100 relocations shown on the map, 32 were made within the immediate vicinity of Upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes (sections 25-27 and 34-36; outlined in red). All radio collars are now off the air and further relocations are therefore not possible. Nonetheless, during an 8 September 1994 aerial survey, 8 of 14 observed adults and 2 of 4 observed kids were within the area delineated as section 35 on the map. Elevations of relocated goats varied from 400 to 3,300 feet. However, the majority of the relocated goats were observed at elevations between 2,000 and 3,000 feet. Development of the proposed hydroelectric facility will likely have minimal impacts on goats that have established niches distant from the site. However, goats inhabiting the areas immediately adjacent to Upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes may be affected, at least during the construction phase of the project. Noise and human activity associated with construction may cause the goats to leave the area and seek out new niches elsewhere. Whether or not displaced goats would move back into the area once construction is Mr Michael V Stimac -2-June20, 1995 completed is difficult to say; however, I suspect there is a reasonable chance that they would; particularly on the steep, south-facing, timbered slope on the north side of Lower Mahoney Lake. This area appears to provide excellent escape terrain from predators as well as good wintering habitat. I hope this brief summary showing the distribution of radio collared goats proves useful to you. I would be happy to discuss this with you in more detail at your convenience. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Area Wildlife Biologist) cc: Bruce Dinneford, ADF&G, Douglas Jack Gustafson, ADF&G, Ketchikan ' f 4 • ~-.. --._ \; /-' _ ;:!::' . '...31 1 , ),zo l ; J 32 ":-;~o::;- 1 1 , B .1. ,.j. '-."'--34::'?. ~ 35 \ ----""' ..,.._ / / I " --I (-.:_ ~ ' I I --"1"" ·;, //' -f'-) -_;;::::3.J : "'=~~;_:::::) -_ --:-_,' 1\ ' ":,. "")\ (\ ·• I ~--(. ~--· ~~;~~-;J\ '!,\ :;,· I ·-_,/ r . ~~-:J .. _ < _ \ ---'"Q~ ~ -,_ , . _ .--.1-/ .· . ~' ;f-' 0 . ' Harrt<t Hunt ':--·, r L, -~., I ..,/. s~-~\ ~--~ ... "' ~-/ .. -.. ·.,' ~\,~ v,a·~--=-\.-,~.-=--~-::.-.e,--" \~-:-· -" =-, ~ ~~· · /--· f;,?}if:L?~\,~;; · ~·~/~~~;*~"--:,;,:_)·-~(~1¥~'~>:.~ _· r _-~ _,.j / " !?-~ ?<r:0· -t--· ~ ·-~--1 /] )... _ -'"-<::"'_.-,:;, .. C:f>..·::<;r I -"'--~.,..,. ---_, 'y ( ' / """ _:;-"""'·' ..... :\• .r--r -~;:,-'~'--.:::, '-' , ; , , . "\.;--' ~~ "'"'_.-rot'""'\'·' \'v'"•\J", .. ;-S::,. , ~, . ' !"'V_• r\ . -· I I " . . --: ~·· ·'-.J ·---:~ ·..::-<' :"---·-·, ....._ ,....:::._ \ 1 "'. _ .......__~.... • ~ V;: "-"' )r1-""'- 1 \J{h1te R.hret"·~ 1 ..-: • · M · 1 · 5 .{./, 'l. .... !lox ISCO\lt Camp ' , , J ountam goat re ocauons; I August 1991 -24 _ --::::::.J...---~" \:;.\'. · rev """ -~ ""-· . 11 \);\\ ·. February 1994. Black dots represent independent :_.... .,--:-.__~_;'-' ~.'-z\1 -~~ '\:/relocations. Goats were introduced immediately _ '.-::;-_) Xi'~1:, \. .::>(·'!., t): i ----=·· . ,!)',/ ..-:;::::::., ;.;r, ~\ I Ji , ~:~-~)_-adjacent to Upper Mahoney lake on 10 August 1991. ~-·./-: · :< ~ '. t 1 ·; 1 '· < .. -. : :r'j,'l/ ; .. --:."· j;'- ~ <;) t>l c--. ~ 36 C'l, t-112 I \ \ ~ .:i " '' " . • P:•~l ' . ·./').. t,'( "' -·. \ • '-:....~-~ !_ : ·\ \.'""' ---~ ~ ' '' L'''·' -, ·. ·--. ·-.;. _.._,. -E~~'',,', -; ,_ '-' ' ' . ' '. ' OU:dc-<~ (::' ' · . -{~ :.---\ .,.-. 1 L: -.\,.· 0 { t 31 :-..." :.~ -( Diana M~ 32 ~ : tr>· ~ (' - <:!1 ; ·n-. -1\.__ ...... • 34-~~. -;r=== •. ,_..,__ ~\-.. ;. • 31' '!. :\_32_ '\,.., ,_--; "~;;;;:r.:- :..--~ ...._.. . :: . .......--:-·~~ ., "· '\ --: -< 1 :o I.· : ' .-' , (_, . . . Lake ·,~ -~ John Mtn Mahoney-· _ . , '--'-"- / ~~--..;-2!5 _,..." ~6a.... ·.,_ 4 ' · • 11-. ./ Mtn ~ __ ·/ ' .. -~ ~----3 .2 1 I '-, , -~; t ~,J_;j>:f. ~ ..::_ --!'· \.: -• ----•·;;;;,.,•.. ,._,' · -- !• " _· . --""" ~· ·-.-.., ·--• v· .,.. ::--. --_.-~ ~"---~u~-::.': : t ~;~~~ ~:-.~~ . ~--:--,'"~-~:----_"__ +'----=-=-----~::,__"' ., ! . -' _.. I "" 'I~ '/·• ··i' ' -~-. •-..: --:.. \ ~:--...--', f ~--r .,. ·L::__-iCe-'/_. :::l --_._..: I -·--• ,, II##--'-·•• . _ --1 • ~ ....__ """"-Siljli.w -• ~ . --, ' • • ./ • < I ' • •· ~~q_...._,.,._.. '' -f»JcL I ' l ·c.n...., --• -; ' v; --;...___' ·-----) ':-~-,; -~· -... /---.:: .;:__.:-a... ---r'll"'"'' ;: --' .;.., 1 1"' .,.~--.~~ •"-' ~----.0 _,--,... -~ ""-::::F •. :;;~·-Ito• ~~:::.L. c,.-k,....__:- \ I ' ·_; ,~·-.:::_: i " ) ::· . . • -~-tfF::, 11 --\ ::_ ~--. : --~--· •• .£;_ , -, 0' , ' . -o ., ---. . -• r , ,.,r,.. c:c----._.,.·~.=..· -, ··-;;;. , , ··" ;1\ \ \ ' C.' "'-/'"' I"" • -Vz... ___,__., ~--~" ~;--·~..::::""'-"''-' Be::Wtr,atts,;. \ ' ~..-.....' ~ \.--:-:.:-FISh M'tn ,_/ :......:: /.' ' -.._ ~~,.. . ~ -~'400-:-:---r-·-~ ·~ >' .;,:~'' _ '.,-, ~ ·--:-. ....-.&"' -::f -'-... _ -. \_ S.t~,, L,c.iot . I ', '-<=·-""':" \, ·% . . 5 \ . ..:. ' -. t:'/ ./ • ... • ' -,.._____;""' / --l .................... --\ : '. ~~· i -\. :;:; .. \ -. , . ---. :.~7 ___ ....:.,.-;:~ ,._f>l~t:IJ<e----~ '-'~ -----r·----' .. -_-......-/ '\,J--;' ~~-~-~'£ .. Iii.-.(I/ · /( • , _.. , • -~-~eak •• #1 ~J /• ,..:..:.-·.-···::, ·: .•• -. '·._ .'-, ~~~ -.. /!! I '-..,._ .. \-,_.--1 -r • I? " Aov:Jones " ·---0 1 •. ,· ·. -_, .. -) ~ ·. .., '"" · o · , , ' ' -· -a ' ~-.. ·-\ · '· · l ;;,';~R-. \ 1 .-~ I ·'ii' 1 1\ --:• I ( G'"""u' , Mtrl"' . -~~ • Twuv-. · , ·, __ ::>i• c:_·-;/1 sx~--'·\\ 1,\_l'-_ ~.--::.':;)·I:~; -;5 __ ...-..... ·"' --->~.-~ :.:-_xuKJ·• i-ks-~-1 /_ j \:.:.:"',?/' ·. ·: '<. '-1::"''. • ._ -~"!.-:...~06r_ ----~ _____ 14 ._u -~ ~-ta 1 t'l'·7 ? / ..""''-. ' ' ~ ' '..::::;_ -' "' . -' ' .... "') /t : / ! _-: '>t'~,".i: '\ ""~;' %'-:'~ __...-. ,. -~·f;_ ' .. ""' ( _::r I -, '2( ~ -~ '\ ,_;;;; • :-:: ' -. ,; '• -·:· --' ... t;:::·•. • ''<...,_ ,' ) .,. \ 5 ·~ \~ e-. C'.l ...,) -<: .... ,._ ' ---• ~-.!'~&; .. · • r .:,-•• _.. -,. ~· • -• ;-. -::;: I -~· f ' ;' . ..._;:::::-.... ,.-::~~ 1 • • ., { -¥. :v·. --.10/~' •_., · ·--4---~,----:· ___ ;_': · -)~ -;· / . : f..:' • • i ./!_, , ( --, "" -. .. -.. , ~-~ -, --· . ..., I / - . • I__; ' -::; .":;'. ( :::--~..,_!-:-/ .-' f\ . ( . ·--~::.,y.~~--~'7 . ' • /_;> , ('_) .' :1 d _, -.4t.~~\;. , _ 0 __ .•Achilles. ·-_."-,:._-~--'""'._ .J /'/' ~ / ,#'; -r=-=-·JO,--.._ • ",;...., ""-,., f', ' ' --... ·--~ ' --~. : --~etehikan\, ';;J .. ,. ,..."1•· 2'"' • '-P~ 21 22 ••.• .-Mtn 2Y · 24"':.. _, i9/ y a 20~·--· "'-8M ~ \."" ~i c. ~ ,.. V· • \ ' , ~ ' .....__,.. . ,. / :J ·1!. i:.e..oel "-, ! -:! ~-, ' :\. ..._; --/ .--! • I~·_: /' ~ , ' s<t<>~ •• .. ::~.""':, ~ ...... I' 7: ·v" \ ; "'-~" ---" .-/ ,.,. o•<J_... ! 1 -._.,, .. n-. 1 l'--·o , .,,. • 1 '----v -__.,..-__.~ 1 ~ ...... --~-... ~ .......... '"/·-~:;._~;.)~ Sro.tr..u·; ~ . ...._._ ~ Y _.-:_ ,/ -::: -._..Sr"s June 20, 1995 Ellen Hall Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. 10900 NE 8th St. Bellevue, W A 98004-4405 Subject: Dear Ms. Hall: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, Ketchikan Economic Evaluation Report NORTHROP. DEVINE& T.<\R.BELL.INC. ENGINEEI'!ING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE Several months ago we had a brief telephone conversation where I mentioned to you an economic evaluation study that was performed by Economic and Engineering Services (EES) for HDR Engineering, Inc. The study was done in support of a FERC License Application for Mahoney Lake. This study compared the costs of the Mahoney Lake Project to other alternatives for Ketchikan, including the Swanffyee Intertie. At that time, I agreed to transmit a copy of that report to you when it was available. Attached please fmd for your information a copy of the above referenced report. I hope this is of interest to you in your Swan Lak:efryee Intertie work. Since we last spoke, I have moved from HDR Engineering to Northrop, Devine & Tarbell, Inc., but I am still involved in the Mahoney Project. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Thanks. Sincerely, NORTHROP, DEV1NE & TARBELL, INC. '_);fl-- ack Snyder, PE Western Regional Manager cc file Mahoney Lake M. Stimac (HDR) D. Campbell (Cape Fox) M. Dalton (HDR w/ copy) 4601 N.E. 77th Avenue • Suite 185 • Vancouver. Washington 98662 • Telephone: (206) 253·8235 • Fax (206) 253-9164 ' t * June 20, 1995 Dick Emerman. Senior Economist Alaska Division of Energy 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Subject: Dear Dick: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, Ketchikan Economic Evaluation Report NoRTHROP. DEVINE & TARBELL. INc. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE Several months ago we had a brief telephone conversation where I mentioned to you an economic evaluation study that was performed by Economic and Engineering Services (EES) for HDR Engineering, Inc as part of the FERC License Application work for Mahoney Lake. This study compared the costs of the Mahoney Lake Project to other alternatives for Ketchikan. including the S wanffyee Intertie. At that time, I agreed to transmit a copy of that report to you when it was available. Attached please find for your information a copy of the above referenced report. I hope this is of interest to you. Since we last spoke. I have moved from HDR Engineering to Northrop, Devine & Tarbell, Inc., at their Vancouver, WA. location, but I am still involved in the Mahoney Project. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Thanks. Sincerely, NORTHROP, DEVINE & TARBELL. INC. J~/~~ / ack Snyder. PE Western Regional Manager cc file Mahoney Lake M. Stimac (HDR) D. Campbell (Cape Fox) 4601 N.E. 77th Avenue• Sutte 185 ·vancouver. Washington 98662 • Telephone: (206)253-8235 • Fax (206) 253·9164 ~ {[~7~\\ \\~ ;! ~.:._~ ~ United States Departmer.:: of Agricu ture Forest Service Alaska Region 00( J:~ z~ lq9$ i@ 1 .. J Mr. Michael Stimac (HDR ENGINEERING, INC. HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N E. Bellevue, WA 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac: Ketchikan Ranger District 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225 2148 TT/TDD (907) 225-0414 File Code: 1950/2720 Date: June 21, 1995 I have reviewed the proposed south alternative as referenced in your letter dated May 24, 1995. The following are my comments. Cultural Resources As mentioned in our letter to you dated June 21, 1994, if you contract your cultural resources survey, you will need to submit a research design and the qualifications of your primary investigator. This holds true for the south alternative as well as the rest of the project area on National Forest System (NFSl lands. Wildlife The shorel1ne north and south of lower Mahoney Lake should be surveyed for eagle nests that could impact the timing of construction activities. Due to the proximity of overhead transmission lines to probable eagle concentrations, you will need to consider measures to reduce potential eagle electrocutions. The revised Tongass Land Management Plan dated August 1991 recommends that we manage natural beach fringe and estuary habitats to favor w1ldl1fe, fish, recreation, visual and other resources associated with beach fringe and estuary areas. If the south alternative is chosen, the powerline corridor should be located at least 500 feet from saltwater where possible. Fish Tree harvest activities on NFS lands will need to comply with area standards for harvest1ng around stream channels. Lands It appears that the studies required for the south alternative will be of minimal impact. At this time I am waiving the need for an investigative special use permit. If at any time during your preliminary studies ground disturbance or vegetative removal become necessary, you are required to contact this office to see if a permit is needed. Caring for the Land and Serving People ~~n!~ ?I! ~ecy~l~ Paper -~ ' i t ,...;~ ''"'~-A'i\ !~ .. iJ ',\. -:-,£!) "-~ Mr. St: mac 2 Recreation & Scenic Resources If the south alternative is chosen, the right-of-way clearing and tower structures should be located low on the existing steep slopes just behind the beach fringe buffer using topographic and vegetative features to minimize visual impacts. Although the south alternative is somewhat shorter in length, the impact from ground and vegetative disturbance will be greater since the road north to the Swan Lake Transmission Line will still be constructed Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the south alternative. any quest1ons, please contact Teresa Trulock at this address. Sincerely, If you have ~I ; i ,-i -, c' ,_ /J . .:: , ;;.\_ /1 _,. .. , t~ .... l'i jiMMY J_ DEHERRERA District Ranger CC: Doug Campbell, Cape Fox e Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper -l'lt. .-r-oe-<'\IV'\""-0""'"'"~11n.,\ ... ~ ... 06/21/95 08:52 'a-202 219 0125 FERC/OHL!DPR @]001 FEDERAL ENERG'Y REGULATORY C:O~:I:SS:I:ON WASB:ING'l"'N OFFICE ~~COPY MESSAGE (Facsimile) -Machine No. 202, 219-0125 TO:_I11: ~~ 6../-~A-'Z.- OFFICE: /-fQ/2...-r:;.,..,_<. 1 """ DATE:,·&/. z s- 'l'IME: oa s-r FROM:. v't NC ~ 'iCA*:1 ~ PHONE: ::;2.0 '2..-"2.. t Ck -:7 C?-3 oFFI( e: 0 1-1-L D P 12-... t..-;r:_ s. t"- SUBJECT: /11, /44toH:f) - This t-...ransmi. tt.al consists of cover sheet plus .!::(__ paqes • R.EMAR.i\.5 : St> ~~ c a """'-~ ::;:::-t ve r e.c..: tP Ei...o ~ ~£.(; @:G ~ 6(?·-2-t ~, '"' v~ <::::::::...:7 . .. -- 06/21195 08:53 '0'202 219 0125 FERC/OHL!DPR Vince - I see no aquatic issues in the alternative routing of the powe~ line and no additional aquatic study needs. My recommended change to SD-1 is to delete all asterisks on issues under Aquatic Resources section 5.5.2. R~garding 5.1.2 Geographic Scope section (page 20) for cumulative impacts, it looks like the geog scope could be narrowed. Last two sentences read: "Further, the project induced effects on upwelling and water temperature in the lower lake could impact the sockeye salmon population and any related recreational fishery. Thus, we have defined the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis as the Mahoney Creek basin from Upper Mahoney Creek to the outlet of Lower Mahoney Creek." Upwelling and water temperature are only project effects, so this could be reworded to narrow the geog scope of cumulative analysis to the recreational sockeye fishery area -which seems to be Lower Mahoney Lake only, with maybe a short reach into Lower ~ahoney Creek. Thanks, Nan @] 002 06/21195 08:53 'B-202 219 0125 From: Slatter, Edwin (SLATTER-E) To: YEARICK-V Date: Tuesday, June 20, 1995 10:28 am Subject:Mahoney Lake Update -Reply FERCIOHL!DPR THE SOUTH ALTERNATIVE TRANS.MISSION UNE CORRIDOR NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY PROPOSED IN THE SDl APPENDIX A IF TIIERE IS A GOOD CHANCE IT WILL BE Tim CORRIDOR CONSTRUCTED FOR THE PROJECT. TIIE ONLY CHANGE IN THE SDl NEEDED IS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY PLAN IN APPENDIX A WHERE TIIB ALTERNATIVE SHOULD BE NOTED AND CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTIFIED UNDER WHICH IT WOULD BE INVENTORIED, INCLUDING A SCHEDULE FOR INVENTORY IF NECESSARY. CC: WARREN-G ~003 ' ~ 06/21/95 08:54 ~202 219 0125 From: Keller, Carl J. (KELT ER -C) To: Yearick-V Date: Wednesday, May 31, 1995 10:17 am Subject: Mahoney FERC/OHL!DPR Although HDR's May 24, 1995letter delineates on a map the Southern alternative transmission line routing, I'm still unsure whether tb.is is the least-environmentally damaging, or most acceptabk:. You may wish to express to HDR that we feel a discussion is needed in the application/EA as to why the alignment is proposed where it i · to avoid :!yerse impacts to the biological resources as, or is an inventory planned to be conducted along this alignment? HDR should also identify reasons (other than those mentioned in their May 24th letter) why this Southern alignment may be preferred when compared to other alternatives . ....._~ /11: it!! , C»z,t. h~ e::;o,.......~ ~ h..-;r lllllo<... ~ <JA:r f ~ :f, -IT> ,~ "':PI"~ "/"117 e» --~~. :r c,;~ : -l#t~~Jv$ ~,.z;-?D ~~ f'b$$: bIt: tSt:"'y:> ~ ,t.s~ "- A--a',/'; 'f' ltn,,._,e .s~ -ue.a? ..r, ~ fi1J004 06/21/95 08:54 '5"202 219 0125 From: Keller, Carl J. (KEI I ER-C) To: Yearick-V Date: Wednesday, May 31, 1995 9:25am Subject:Mahoney Lake FERCIOHL!DPR !iiJoo5 This responds to your May 31 E-Mail message regarding Cape Fox's new alternative to route the power generated southward toward the Beaver Falls area. Not knowing any more about this alternative at this time, the following are con~ that ~ to mind which the applicant/contractor should thoroughly address in the· aPPlicatio3' . 1) Why this routing as an alternative? Describe the benefits of this alternative versus the other,..~ alternatives, including financial (balancing). Axe there potential environmental/natural resource benefits of this option versus the other considerations? Has this alternative routing of the power to the Beaver Falls area been designed to avoid/minimize all possible adverse impacts (ie., avoid any old-growth or mature timber resources, avoid crossing wetland habitats, minimize effects to bald eagles and other large birds by designing the power line to conform to raptor protection standards, avoid any other sensitiv habitats, minimize the visual effect to the area, etc.)? Migh• this new routing alternative create additional access opportunities for recreationists (hunters, fishemen, campers, hikers, photographers, nature watchers, etc.) to the Tongass ational Forest that may otherwise not oo available? CC: MITCHNlCK-A ~ June 23, 1995 Mr. Michael V. Stimac yREatER kEtChikan ChamBER or CommERCE p.o. Box 5957, kEtChikan, ataska 99901 (907} 225~3184 Manager, Licensing and Environmental Services HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac: It has long been a priority of the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce to see the development of a stable supply of electrical power for our community's future. Toward that end, we have supported KPU's efforts to develop an intertie between Tyee and Swan Lakes. We have been aware that the Mahoney Lake project and the intertie were being developed separately, and concerned about the sense of "competition" between them. Your correspondence tells us that KPU has proposed a realignment of the Mahoney Lake project in order to connect to the Beaver Falls power system. We would like to know whether this realign- ment will allow a more cooperative planning process so that the two projects may both go forth to development. We believe the community would be well served by a further discussion of this possibility in future publications about Mahoney Lake. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Vu~' 7!;)afR_aJr.d2 Emesta Ballard President .by_: .:;4tt/tA. t~n.L Se (!J'"C.<I-o- Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce JUN-28-95 MON 07:09 USFS KRD/MFNN FAX NO. 9072258738 P. 01 Unitec s-:;;a~es Depart:men~ o: Agriculeu~e Fo~es~ se::vice Resio::. :c Ke~ehikar-R~~ge= Dis==ic~ Mist:v ?iores Na~iona: Monument: 303:.Tonsass Avenu~ K~-:;;chikan, Alaska 99SOl (907; 225-2148 '!":'/n!:> (90'7) 22s-o~:.~ :-c 0A~ ?y' ~ . ·-·=~:~-'-:-:-b~TE."""""~·~_....;-. C,r_/,...;;..; .. ',l;.;;.'J/e"""'"':r _______ _ I ~ ... -·· .-.? ~.' _.. LOC..7;..TION //'V/5: t---r.ruvq;;.-,.L ..... r -·-~ · .... ~, ............... . r ... . -t - FROM &e~th "'&SN~ ~::£ .. I;;;~;' /&nwM<-ttY'_· ;.;..-__ ·:· --~~~;~~~~~~t~1;~;;~!::~~ -~~ .. · > NOM3ER OF_}:~AGES /3 · ·.·J-· ···: .. {Ip:c!udes Cover ?age) ··~····-·· ····------·-·_.;. ___ -·-. -------· ~~~;:;~~l COMMENTS: #.s ~VefS"n!'p. c.1&«;7"' /11-*' .77/n£- .t#IPAfJJ.Ee/ I #lt'lfi/4U/ 4Jl7 ~.1'. !<.) f t ~ t ! JUN~26-95 MON 07: ;.,:~ : .... :!. S:t~~e..r. ~._·:..;.·.·:~Ci"'!·:.! A~;. ;,;./:•.;·-:: -:.r~·s: Se:'vic.e F'~;;;i:ic Soui:'IWC!:! R<.::.#eareh St.:t;on G-. --·~er..,1: 7 t-t:.i :: :;;,.;~r ;:;. -.~c:-: P sv·.:-~ zc [~] ·.~"':4"'""';~ ' \ .. "'· "";..:; USFS KRD/MFNM :~ ....... ~ ·· .. ~ .. " \. ~;:_..,..,. FAX NO. 9072258738 .....,..._)• •.:~\ .. .., -P. Surveying Maibled Murrelets at Inland Forested Sites: A Guide Peter VJ. C. Paton C. John Ralph Harry R. CartGr S. Kim N~!scn ""'' -. ... ...................... .. t:""'·""=' ., -··. -.. ~·-., ~,-;~. ~~- JUN~26-95 HON 07:10 USFS KRD/MFNN FAX NO. 9072258738 Pa<.or.. f'l:ter •:;.,· C.: R...;;:-.'-,. C. ~(;n:-: c~r.:r, H:~!T)' R: \"e:~or.. S. K:~. :99-.1 Survey in~ ~rbl(t~ m~:rrclct~ at inl~nd fvrf:s:.:d sit~: a ~:uide. G::-:. Tc:~h. Re;:-. ?SI.\'-l:W B~~· ;:,.,;,.~-. C:A: ?:.cit:.:: Sa::.l:w:st !\:se!~~~ Sau~. ?=•t 5-:~ce. ~:. S. ~;:.,~e:tl ~= Apic:.t.:ture: ;. ?· !."''c mo:~:bicd ':":')Yn'Clct J,f!,.:~,-:l"'!':··aAJ.?n.:.:." r.1/1:""1t.Cra:..:.t), 3. teAbirC, ncr::.:: !t"' :"ore.t:.c.~ :::.:.:.~...:.» t:,m! ~l.)udX.J.:H .A.!,.UK.\ .JC~t.~ lO SaM<l C:-...... W:.:.lor;u.).. ae-:.:=.u::.e of ;..~::: !'<~C:l-:::· .:!.:.::~ aszoci.i.:ion "'·;:..~ oid·gro':ll·!.'t !o'!'estt .. :'ele:tr~'"le;'' ~C.~~= ~4!"'..1;::-s '!':'!'!:.:! l ree:..~~ '\.: ~~:e;:; ::'l:..·!"!"':t~et .:.::~t:-:h<..J:o:; ..tf;.d usc ~u.::.:s :.,:.,roug~~:;;.'( r='l!;c.;. ~:a:~ t:u!~~ G~s.:::Oc:t Jl ;;.:,."~"-!'·=· :zc.c ~::::;~ ~oi u.::-v~:.~::g m.·.:o~c.: m:.:~=l:~ :.:.~= ~· rt>e.:u;.;::.c~ :=t C.:.~t,)r.:~.a .:! • ...: Ot~:~~.::! <!~~"~ ~~~;Sa;;.:! : QS(; 7:a.:z;:~~; \:.1n boe uJt~ :~ 1~;~:cst 1.::!\-i!Y ?.:.:~~ ov:r il!"g~ :l~:::. '-.. :~ ~~.:.. ~;:e!'; .1t Sta-:.e;, C'l" -;.t.:X::;,C.!~~. Sr:..~:f.lr'!l!"Y COcn!i :.:s:..~~ lr. tr..::::tiv:-;:'l\.":~:cry r.:~:..~(.):: c~:: X \u•.;J 'v ;.~;"'·~y sm:.:i :..:rc:.r.~:::. !iUC~ ~:.; ;,::O,j .... .,,i...~~' ~:..."":"'N"( ~..;.:.;. :n .a~:u~ t..> nt:-..:: ,:e;:r.~,. v~g::ut.ic-~ .v;;i p!-::--·;;..i:;~ .;..."\:.:;; ;;:~.:~:.: h.! ew~!e~;G .,.!. ~.;:::h ~::e.u::. ~i:t;. ·;he ;u: .. ~..: .;.w;.:...:.::·,. .. :":.»:-:~ :..'"t:at c.J.n X u~ec :::::. Cez:~~ st-..~ic~ :.:-;:.! .:e.:.a:::or..~i:~: a:::"-::::.· pa:.t!!O:i L.,~ ?0'~.,~ .. ~:. H£:TIC:'.!Ci "tt.nr~·: :n~t:"D~C.O ':':':Lo"'!"!"Cict. erc,cr.:.T"::JJrfPi-.:6S ,.,....(;r,"'''(fl"a.tU.t. St:\~r:.. :e:n~C': :e::~ .. ~!:=!;.;es, Oid .. gro\\·th :·Otes-u. D:.:.:·~~-~. ?s:ift;; :"~o:o:..~we!t The Authors: P£TER \V.C. ?.\ "!'0' ·.a. a.; a::~.~:.!m!! ':.."'a r:?Cr. "'~ ?~?!rC..!.J -. .. ·;;:~f~ ~~o~ogu: ·;.. .~:l :"' _ $ution* :i "f~X.:'N::;~i.;·e Rcse1~1 :..:~:~ . .1: A!'t:ti.~. :a::.:·. C.jOH~· :t\LPH ~j.! :~:.£~ ... · "·ild::fe !:tioi~;:i;: w::."l i.~~ :.;:lo:.. ::t,,RRY !l.. C.\~TER ;.:; ~ ;,:•::~:c~ ,,~;.:-<::H -..·,::: :::: :\\)t".i\e: ?::atr .. t: 'il;:C:life ~~i~!:;~ C.:::::~i. f=!~n a~..:. 'X:;.;:,;;"!$~""\'\-~~. ~:.s. :·~~::~..r.-:~~;. ·:.·: !~:e~o:-. ~i.xc;~. C.!:!. S. KI~: :"ELSO~ iS~ :-~;c:::-=. ssiis:A.-1~ ··••i!.."l ;;.c 0~;c:-. (;.'C~ .... :a ... -~ • .. ;.:~:Ji.if.::: R~c:..:rch ~nit. Vrc,O"": S,~::.¢ ':_,:,.,tvcr.--t~y. :""'·-:.1.;.; C:;.v.~" · :JrJw:::.g -,;· )·::::-,:1:: ~Ji\~~ c:c ':":".:.rb·;:,: :-;1:.: ""!"!.~: ::e$::.."!:g :: ln ~·;;·J~;;;:i;~·~: :-j.· .. ~::~:;. ;·;": ::ee. 3~g B::'!:t. S\::~: fo'.U;(, :::n::-.t; C~k"c:7t:a Publisher: Pacific Sou:hwest Research Station P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, Cali1ornia 94701 August 1990 P.03 t .,. ~ JUN:26-95 MON 07:10 USFS KRD/MFNM FAX NO. 9072258738 P. 04 Surveying Marbled Murrelets at Inland Forested Sites: A Guide Peter W. C. Paton C. John Ralph Harry R. Carter ~-Kim Nelson CONTENTS ··---- Introduction ·····--··-·····--·-··-------···--·---···--···················--·--------···-------··---· .. ····--···1 Surveying -----··-·-·-·-·-··· .. ·----···-··-····---···-·· .. ···-·····----···-·····----·--···--··--····--····--····--·-1 Types of Survey:s ........................................................................................................................ l D.!!a Cclh':CliO:'l .......................................................... ;· .............................................................. :: G<:ncral Sur ,·e.' ............................................................. '"-·····---·-················-·-··· ..................... 2 ~~cr.h~s ...................................................................................................................................... ~ ?;;.c:c-rs to b¢ Considered ............................................................................................................ ::; S:.:r,·ey ::crr:1 ............................................................................................................................... 4 lntl"nsire Invenlory·Sur\·eys .•••.•....•••••• -.................................................................................. '7 >·tc;.-:ocs .... ·····~-~ ~ ................ -~··· ......................... -~·-··· ...................................... ·--~~ .. ·~·····~ .. -~. "* .................................................... 7 ?:;uip:ttcn~ ~CCCcd :r~ :r.e F:cld '7 Da~ Coilc.::~:::C. ........... ~········-·············-·········-················*·"·······~······-·····················~-·················~·: In:.e.ns!,·e In\·en:o:-~· D:~ FQrtn ...................................... ~ ................ ~ ... ~ ............................... * ....... h .... Ve;etaLlO•~ :>-.!:a Fur::: (Op:ionali References ··--·-··---···-· .. ·····--···-·---····---··-·-·····-···-··········-······················---···--·--··--······ 9 : ~:S()A Forest S.Crvte"' ("..-., Te~h. :<.~"?· ;>SU.'. ::0. I 090. JUN~26-95 MON 07:11 USFS KRD /MFNM -'NTRODUCTJON ,.., . ., l:c m:l!blcd rr:urrch!t 1Brar:f:y!'tu~piws ma,.rnora::.~; l':a.:; recently bc:ome s ~;x:.ci~s of partic~Jar co~cc:-n i.O lat;U n::tr.Jgers in !.he P~i:ic Sc!'L"lwcsr !>-.!cause of i::s c iosc 3SSOCia- t::•r: w:th old-~row~h f:.m:s:s. 1::.<: r:mge (:;"(~c:-t::s £:0.:1 souL':::.:.!.s: A::Jska sot:th :o San~ C:-.-z, ::t non."'lcm CaEfom:a. ':"he ::.s. F:i.'l and \Viidlifc Sen:i:;~ :nclud:::$ :.h1:> !::c!:<"~i:n:-d i:1 Category a. :lLd is can~idcri:1g i! :·or iis=.:ng :!.i ~ thn.:::!=cned spec,c.s. ~:-1iquc among :.i'11: t.,c !:l.:l.rblcd mt.:..'"::'('!li:l is [he only ~;'·.:cizs 1...~-..::.t nest:> m u-c.::s. Sc:v~n lrt:c :~cstS hlivc l:>l.'.en d.::~:ire:::!: ri:!"cl! in Sibc:ia in :...'-:e L: .S.S.R. \K.U?.yaKin 1963. Labzy-...tic 1987, :-:,·chac\ ! 986"; and ;cur :n ?\or:.." A:r:enca t:3inford and ot.'ler~ !(;75. Qain!~m and Hu:;ncs :9S~, Slr,ger ami othe:s 19~0). ,\~though much s~i:! needs ~o be !e:!.."':lC~ abOut the sp<:\:!e.:>. :lata C>\'i.:~ the pt!St i G y~-:: s~o·n· ~1c murr'l!!cts :o o-~ :::!ose; y :J~s;~:.::i:ucd with old-g:-owLi :en ;rc:-ous forests ::~ t.'l.;; svuthe:-:~ ;·:::ts of it) :-:.1n'c (Can:r:r:d £:i:k~or:.l9S8. Nei~on 1989. ?aLCr: ;;~.d R:liph 1983, Sc~::, ::s~d C:::ncr 19&:-i. L'm.ii the late 1980 · s. ·.:.·6:k on ::::n~:.:sing rn2rhle-..C :<n:.~:relet.~ :;·:n1ariiy focused o~ !J..._ci.-;!t-sc: z:.:lun\.!ru'lce. an~ a sys~~mat:c :::.:-!.hod to c~nsus this s;x;ct;.;;; nv~r ta:g:: areas at sea h.as been ·vclopcd (Sealy :l.:·~;.! C:::.:·:.~:! 9S.:;. M.urrelet sur\'eys at i:ai:!."l::i .:~ were limitcc! hcfor::>. ~ 98-:-. ?:1wn ar:d olhers ~:n ;>res:{ and '-:~bmr.nnd o:.."lc:s ;::1 pres~:: o.otc:::tcd ~•arblcci mt;rrt:lci.S :iuri;1g :·:::ld work in 19S5-S6 ~o c:u3B!ify !.:'":e abt.:!1;!:i.'1.ces cf all ci:.rn:~ ~::as in se!ecteC smn\.!s ~~.:0ug~v..::~ n~;::h·..._.·esl~n Cal!icrtii:: a.1~ (:·r~~~n. Tney Sluod at fix~:! :en::;;.:s pc~r.ts a.-:d ;ot;n~ec..! bi.rd.S fer ~-m!m:tc penc(:;;;. then r::oved on. i;.ach momir:g. they \'isited 1:2 . :;:::--t~us points. Thcs~ ~c!lSj.S~:: ofle~ s~med as ~teas !5 :.o ZC> ::~ :nutc.s ai1cr officiai sur.rific. Ca.:·~:-ar.d Sa."\dc:r !ested a su.··vl.':-' ;;·,;;r.hod in ! 9R7 cesi$-'~Cd sci-:!y ic:rc.,~nsu.>ing m.a:b!~!mu~let$ :, : a fix~d point i:l :.i-te mc~:ng a:-.C: evening dr..:.f.r:g t.'le oreeding :!:-:d non-brccdi:-:g scasor.s i:1 ?r:tiri~. Creek RcdY:oo:::s Sute ?~!rk. Hcmbold~ Cou:1~Y~ C:!!:f-~mia. Tb.is t~::.:1!<;ue "'·~s st:r:- :::l~~irr..d so L"-l!t dctectior: r:~.~as could "!;>; comp~·:e l>~l·,..·;::.:;r. ;;::ys. tim~ of d.ly. seasons. ar.c year.>. in !988. 1"\:lson ·:J9S9) teste.C a combin~tio::l of rcr;d z:d ;\·;:.!king nnsectS in Oregon .'l!nC d;ff:::rf;>:t types of fir.e.C. s~ticn ;;~L!:'lts. She aiso tcst:ci :.he ~..>se uf :r.urrcic:t Llp<; rc:::c:-c:n;:: to c::c:~ responses from birds. which ::iid !let i:'lc:-e.as; m:.:rre!e: .. :·:zction :':ltC:s. !n Cali!'.:m:i:~, ?o.ton 3.."1C ibl;>h <1988! .:!i;a::>- l ~ .. ;;~d ~ sc;-i!;s of ~·41:::._;,:~ ar.Q road L--:lT"!sec:S ey !!s:~g 1 ~ ... i:ljn:.:ce : :r.::::~s at 8 :.o !2 sta:ion:>: ~ t.-:L"\S~t oc: dcte."'tnir.e. ;..":.: <'.is:::::.t- t:.)n ci na.:rrc!ctS thrcL.:~hout !..;"le S~r:: i:-: 198S-S9. They iour:::! r:·:~rrclet..c: h~d a pat:!1~· \!i~~~!.!!±C~:'l c·:J:r~S?Qndi~g ~tile :.ist:i· :0 ,tion of re:nn!l.nt old-g:owtl': sum!:\ .. .,.it.n murre!e:.s c!e:.;;:.::cc! on ;lrtc::, H.lny: S:tndcr. 7orn. ~Lc:~~!' ~ 1~\.hors;. i)83 Ap~.J lS. l !elf. !,..·;;:s~d .1: P:t,~•:ZG Sa.:t:')\llfes: :<.cscs~:~ S~u:>n. ;:.;s:>A F"re::t s~rv..cc.. Art:au. <.::.:..:.f . USDA t'on:$: Serv1;;c Gen. Tech. Rep. PSV."-120. 1990. NO. 9072258738 P. OS .!4 pcr..;;e~t of 1 iO t:"3:t.s~:s. !."": Or~gon, murr~;e:.-'' "'·cr~ d.e~'·.::~C Otl :a c! 30 {67 pe~eru ~ !:"ar.sects i:1 ! 9SS fJ\ :!s:~'n i 9S~~~ a:1d. c:1 S8 of 1:37 (6! percent; roaJ. transec-ts surveyed i:1 !989 (::\'clso:: !990). T~;is :~.::..:cr.r ·..,·ork S\!.f;ge:.;ts that it :s ?))S:.bi: ;:o dctc~un~ murrelet u.~ pat".e:-n!\ of ::1!and. sites. The:: ?ac!i:c Se:toi:-c Group, a prof¢SSiun::l s::iem.ifi~ or~~r.:;:;a :ic::. has t.ake:: a ieae :-ole :n coordinut!!:£ r.d prorno'-'r:i: rei~h on m::rbied murrele:s, snd in providi:1£ :-~archers ar:li la."ld rnar.ag~ w::.h star:da..-di:zect teeh:1ique:rto derer.r:ir:e tr.'Jr- rclet use of inland sires. t:r:!ii re::::::a!y. li:.:le was bown about murreit:: a.:tivi[)' pam:nlS ::t fores:cci area,. In 1937. rese:r;;hers a~ :he Croup':> meet:.'lg at Asilom~. Caliiorn:a. emphasize~ :~a: standarcli7..ed ce.nsus tecr .. ~:'lic;t:es :l~deC. to ~ dev~iope~ to li:~rvey mumiet ac:.:n:y, an.:i we we:c :!Skcd ~c pmd..:ce c..::-:sas ;:-ro~ocoh. 7he originai ver:>!~m was drafted;.; ! 988 :<~id us::d :c.r :.·::.:·~:;ec;t surveys in Californta {Paten :md R~;;h 198S). :\e!s,)::: (!989) iic!d tes:.ed various census me:.i<J.O<.iE; m Ore~on in l9~,S. A:> a !'esu!l of :his new !nform~tior., ~he guide W;:!.S rt:Yis~c :.a !989. ·r!lese method.~ are oy no mear.s exh-austive ar:d rn(~ifi ::a:ions win need to be i.,corporateda~ :1ew information ~o:!"les a .. -ai:ao!e :rom different regtons. :Sr:t this :-cpc::t ?rovices =:. cr:t:::rete oasis on w:-ti:::!'! co fun.lie:-our i.:.:-:o-...le..:ige of :·narbied mu:-:·e:et.~sp--~ially c~ring this period of r-apid growth !rr m;.::rclct re~c:,. ~1is gt.:itie defines s: . .:s:r.:natic :ne:..~OCs tor s:.:!"'t:eyir.g ma:b!c~ :n:.x-e!e::s anti for quJn:.ifymg the:r ge09'!pf:l;: ai:>!:'!bc~~o~ ~'"l.d ac~i,·ity le•Jel.s in h ta::: foreste:i shes. The$.! SJ~\·e~·:,; ~re !!ll;;!'!ded lO prov:de i:ht:g:tLS l!U.O L~e :-e:ati\'"! :.c:ivi:y :.:\w~i::. . bre~CL~g bicicgy .. at:C selSo~~ ar;C ci:liiy u:.iv~£y pat;cms of :,;~i ~: i:npor"~:-!r seabi:d. SURVEYING Types of Surveys T;:, s:..'TVeoy ~a:b!e: =r:urreict::: ~t !nia.'"l.r:! for:s!ee si~es, •t.·:: t:s:::c three :;-pes of s~rvey:;: d) G:::.-,c:al, <:n lmcr.s±Ye Invcr::cry. :!..'10 · (3 j v cge~tior: Data. A Gcr.cral S:.Jrv-e:: is 3 tra:l~l.:c: :':ie:Md :o de~e-rminc :nc geogn!phic. d:S~br;iion over a w.id .... ;u~<~ of :he spcdcs (: . .: .. .:. st:ue or a ;.!.;"at!'..:ge). :f :.r~r:s~ts arc !a.!r·.-~.y!'-1 ::1 :<n!ni !":"IL:r:'l o:· !C:!~ 1ic;1r.-.s duf.ng :."le br:.:ccmg seaso.-. r_!\tz:: 15-Au~:.:;)l 15. WlL~ (;[ ' i1 ~ JUN~26-95 MON 07:11 USFS KRD/HFNM !;:;;:>: thn;c visi!.S b<.:lwcc~ Junt: :20 and At:gu!\t 15) tr:iorm::~~i.1n n:l r~l:u:·:c activity h:vc1s .. :lnd the prob~ble ::1hscnce cf :nu~e!cts cou~C. !\l::;o ~ C..::~~rncC~ An lr:£cr.:;i;·e ::~vCJ.llOL.t is dh;j~::cd.ll.l.bc usciuJ..tg nlOC~~or m~..:rrcicl ::sctivl<Y i.:\·ds~~-~~ific iorcs: s::.and.tii.cu f.Cl.rJlr~ i:::..--vc$: ins"De::.i.on fur land mar.ag.::m:::::t :sg_c.!'!ic~ or _t:m~:>er .-n1r.p:.m:rs1 Dau;::.~Jcrcct !.!Sing:..~~ !n:.c::sive lnvemorymc;..ioo ~uid be. uscj to rnon:ter a::.ivity leveis st L.'l-! sit~ o,·c.; t:rn~., dc!:::1llit~~ :h~ G~t::.:u i:~· of de:ec!!o:1s, C:.t:ation ~:'\d tim:r.g cf :lC~iv~ty. The I:uensi·..~e lnv~ntn:-v m ·h is a!so uscfi,;l tn \ic:..:-rmine fl'!ur~:::!c< pr~~nc.:c :u spe.c:fic siteswii.h suspected lo:::_ ~~'-·ci.:..; of activ;~,·. \~:nicr. Data s!;ou!~ be recor~ea ateact1 Gene:-al !)crv..:y or !n~~n~d\$c. inv.;.ntQ!Y site. Data Collection The unit of me.as:l!'c in bOth the General Survey and ln:..:n.,iv~ !:wcnmry mc.~.nods i:> "Detection·• oi a single bird oc !lock. ddined .as :r.c ~-:igi::ing or heam1g oj a single bird or a 11od:: v.f birC..r D.C!!118 in a simiiar rr..an!'..er. i=or example. 2.'1 unsee:1 :,:!d :'1ying !ITound in a ci:'cl~ overhead for 3. minutes con:inocusl~· ;;a! Eng wnt:!~ ~:.~single detection. If that bird slt:lppcc c~.l!ir:f!. fc:-more Lh:m a few sec::::-.Cs a:1d then stll'"~d tO calll$3i."'l in a~ uncxJX-.:.:tc::i at::'..'l., il'.e:1 i.;,e observer ~touid count 1: as two Jctcctions. as the oi.'>server was unccr..ain if it '11.'35 t.~e sznc bird cr .:1 cliffc:-cnt biro C3lling. Only when yccare rea.<:;On::l.b1yc::r:.ai:l th:.lt i~ is the s:1rne :r.ci·.:id.u:l! sho~.:!c you count it as :i s~ngh~ UClCCU\)n. Since most murr;!lCtS gynclj\llv reroail'll.!n.~n :.0 the obscrver-abo~t 75 ;">Crc::u o! ;Qr deiCriiODS or r;ar$C't.s con- dn~:.::.-1 in C:::!iiorr:J:i :.'ld Oreson a::: i:1 ;..i.is c:m:;~ory ,~c:i~~1:: ::189. Pa:.o:1 .:1r.C Raioh 1938)--kncwing ~he \'ariou:; ~l!.s, :s \'it~!. Wi::::1 you see::. flocks:::;;:~ mto two gro:.:p~. t."tcobs::::-.·:!;.;c:~ !.s !.tC:lteC: as a sL"lg!:: de>ection. 1f lwo smailer flocks ::oa:.~sc!:, t:-:_~ fiocks shouJ,i a:so be co~,;nteci as Lwc d:;:.c~:.;~n~. GENERAL SURVEY The oejcc:ives e; •~e G.:nc:al Survey in order or ~nori~;. are: •'Jc:crrr.mc Lhi! gcogr.:lpt:ic di.;;:ribt:tion of marbi.;:c r.i:.:.."'!;:~c:.:. Qvc: a w!c~ area cf ;.he species range at inland forcs:cd Si;cs. T!'l!s :ransr:.! :nc.rhod is ;:>:imui!y dc.;;ignct. ivr forc;:~.C sites t.1i!~ :'..r~ r~C!! :: f!:cessibic "''ith roads or ::.!il:;A In ~ggOC rc:ls \t.·hcre it is c!ifi!cuil to move throuzh th! fore.i\t.. ;.vc :\c£:r.':~: ~!.1\1:1~ t!'~ fixed. s:.ati~:J su:-vey mc:.ioOs of !.he lr.:ensiv~ !nve':'lt.;;: .. Survey. •De:e~i::c if the bi:"ds~i>pcar iO be using the ~~cific si:~s fc: :-:csu:1g or iOOSling, or :ncrely f:ying over t.he :;ilc :.o \or f~o:-n) .:~nomer in1and :>!!c. K:'lowledgc about l.'le vocaiiY.:llio:-.s a;;;;: beh~vior of murreiets in nest groves is limi:c:.!. ::o~~.·cvcr :::cc:'l: -..·ork: by Saslund an.d o:.."lers (i 9~0a, l990b) has given rcsc:rcii- ., FAX NO. 9072258738 P. 06 r.r~ tniight~. itldic~ticns ofpot~!l=..l:a.: :1Ci~n~ :.!:-~.:.t~ :nc!~~~ t,!:~~: flying 0-eh-,Yt· the forest c~nory .silcr:t!y ~r,c ~lifj~ !~:1..liag ~n: t:~ .. : 1;mbs. Some a:<:!s :U\"C birds activ~!~, ~£rcjr:; :!=:d c;.:;(;ng O\'·~: tr~ ~l.lnd for O\'Cr 1. !'lou!'S a~·:~~!' d:n\·n. '.\·t",:!c·. :tL ~:t~e: p!!!.c~., :=~~· bild.;; silniJly fly :n a str~g!u 1:nc !ligh ovtr th~ :~c:·c!\~ ::~,:~~;-·~. These differe!lces in bch.3vi(~; ~!zht 1nCjc.;;,le :1<::\tins .arc:!.' :l~ ... ...- 1~~~:-:t corrido:s .. rcspc:~~vci:-.'. The:cfnrc. :!""t:~ i:1t~!\~1!;· t'.n::i tirr.ir:g of caHing, fi:ght behav:or o£ birds. f!i~h;. altitud: ti.~ .. f:yi:!g C\:io·J.' or above the for~.s: :Z!.L,opy\ r::td i:Jr.l:lr::: ~~'1=~\ :": :c~l\:! possibly id;:ntify neS! grove:;~ • D;!t.:::m:ir.c rc!.:ni\'e rnurrcl::~;scri ..-::y le·. :::.Is ov;:r :.l ::.roaa .:.:.::..:. ~1f ihe species range. A mir::m ... :n of four ,·isits :o e:~ch.II;!ns:::: sta~icn shot:id be corn;l~~c daring the rr!urrc:c: b:-eedjng s~=.t· sc:1, !vt2.y lS ... Aug'..lsL l~. ·~·tt.1 ilt ~cast ~rcc. v!s;~ frc~ j~;:.: :5 to -~cgus~ !.5. to determine pre~ncc or a~se:1ce i;; the. :re:: c~!" 1r:~crcst. We know of no corrcc:1on !3.Ct~.">r3\'!!t;<lbte i.-' ::.:~::m1 ir::: tile ac:ual number of bircs using :.."ac area !rem :!lc num!x: cf det.CJ;:ions in an 1.-'Ca. Therefo:c, we can nvw en::·· mcascr.:: !evcls of muneiet.:~.cuvily (dco:::;tlon ra:.es} ar.o t;ypot!1es!7.c ~l'!.i.ll areas wilh iow detc;tion !eve;s ~robably h;,ve i~·;,.·c~ ~irti~ ~=-.J:: area.::; with high detection levels at :.he S3.."'l'lc.~ .:me of :h~ y;:;a; HDwevcr, .ill1 are; '.\.'i:!1 hig~ C!ctection :ate~ one ;;'ICI":lin; 1,·x:$ not r:~:Cessariiy me::L"l rnor~ birds ::.rc usin:; ~he s::.~d. a.'\ :-rwm:ict:> tc~d to ;;irc:!e over fores~d St:i.~ds !~~;son i.%9, ?:uor. ar.: ~3lph i 989). Repe3tC3 obscrva:lons (dc::c:.ions) of rn~:1y b!~.!s at a s!n;~e si:>! ;::ro;,ably indica:e more bi:ds tha."l ;:.r :1 -.:~ w;:h ~· :~~'"' de~ections oc:=.sionaUy .. F~rth:::-morc~ ca:.a !'ro:n or;.:. sc:;.G ~:·t :-..1ay cannot be comparee "'-i!.h da:.a from :u:o:l':c:-:;::.nc S:J.f\·e ;·cd i:r: J uiy. F:r.a:ly, s:a~Qs -~·:~n lo~' :nurreict:lc::!v~::; ;c, C!$ may n~t h:!ve aerections ~very ccn~J..c; C:;:"!:-.g t"le pe:lk cr tte bn::.cdHt!= se!So:t \!'\elson 1989). 7hcrcfcre, informar.!cr: c:1 the prcb~oi:! • • > ' > > ,OAt': • > ' > • .:!:lS..!:l.::e or mt::re~ct) :n a s:2no ts c::,tcu:tlO ~e~~~:nc. · .. \·h~c:t is ".::.·hy 'A'~ suggc~ at leas: four surveys per i..~~.S~! bcfcr~ oh~e..··vC!'Scsn conCiuCe tt:at::l;.::-r~~c:s are ;:~OOb!y r;ct ~si~~ ~:: ~e~ :.~:.~ y~r. Methods Or: ;..'lc b:!.Sis cf :.l:cs~ priorities .::m! k:tow:. inft:rrnut:r:n on :t~c ·' . . . :l . . . 1 . o:.:t~~!'"~~~ Vi: mu:r~!~!.; ~t s~;:J...1!")' S!~£ ... ,. .. c r.;J.v~ c~ve o~c -~:~:crl:E for s;;rvey!~; a 4-.ra.'!~C~ .. a gro:..;p e:: .. Si!ltio~s. t..~~t ·•·iii tx' \·:s:;.:C in a si~g!c :ncrair:g: •\ ":s:! :~:;:.::U~ ~·:~h!n (;I) km o;' salt ·.~.·~~.::-:~ C:lii~-c~nia :=.::~: Or\:~t'r.. :.r;C: t.:p to 75 ktn in \1-'i!..S::.:r.gtonl ;::Li$h Col!.irr:t:!a, J:'lC~ ,..:.Jaskz.. ·B~;::1 "5 mir:u:.e~ hcforc ofii;:iai i:.u·.r::;~ 2r .. C ~n~:.!ra:c. ... ,.~. . . m;r.~,;~~s. :.:t~r ~!!nns.c. •Sa:vcy ca~n tr~~sc~:. ~12t:~n fc: 10 m:r~:Jt<:~-; :.=-:cr: ~~,v:: or: t:) tr.~ n~xt s:.::::c·n. Try :o ma:~!r:1!z:.! !.he numoc-:-of ~!2-t;cr.:; vis:tc: on ~he ~:.msc:t. :,e:ng sur~ :.n visi;. the same :t~n1ber of stacon.s on .::zc!': visi~ tO :..ic trnr.sec:. C~nsu..-.; ~: ~0 H) St..'llions !::.~h :!~o:tl:i:.~ du:!~; :.~~ 120·~i:ll . .:t~ ~e::sus ?e.dOC. • ~·!:xia .. jzc :!l~ :i s:.zr.::e Xtt.A·cen smtio!'..s 1~ su:vc y a' Ll!zl! ;·,~ ~~ ~ possibl.:. 'H~ve survey pointS pi:.c~O cr. t.~.scct.-; tt: t::; 1 k.-:. ;~C.3 to Ot6 rn!!~;) ap::.rt. ccpcnd.ing on ro~C :or:d!tir>n~. i..C~;.J.:.e tra."!s:c-..~ 0:1 traiis. w:~;l a sp2cing ,of ~50 m be:,.,.-zcn ~~<::1"\A """'-•' c ....... ~ ........ r-..... -........ !~ •• -"""'·~~-........ ,._.t JUN~26-95 HON 07:12 USFS KRD/HFNH ~t;;tions, to minimize det~ti::g the sam(; birds from Jiffen:r:: ~~•im:~. SpJcing between sulions c:m ~~~1cr :e.rnaiP. consu~mor .:.:i~. dl!pcnding o:: :.h~ ObJectivt:s of ycur s~dy. Paton ~m! R::lph (1938} usd ever: Sj;lacing in lar;{: >tanjs of ri!i.atively immo~enc-.ous habita~. Nelson [in pre$:;] used uncvc~1 sp~cmg in ::-:.: iragmentcd Ore;on lanG~pe LO k~p an stations along a L:t:;~l ir. the s:une h2biUt ty";>e ie.g., yocn~. :r.att:re, old· ;7.)",...·t.f) S1311d.s). •:f possible, locJ::> St2tions whe::-c: t.lte view vf !he Sky iS :;::obsC"Ucted (e.g., a de.2..'"i:1g in t.'le fore.~:), so as to :r.axi:r.iz:c L'lc ::!·:u~cc ofse.:ing as well ;15 hearing birds. T.'lc!'i;houe~•c:ofa bird f::::ng di:cct!y o~·c:head aga!r:s: the sio:y is easier to spct. :h:J.n c.j:;.en•ing from a high po::1: :ryir:g to sec b!l'"dS tlyi:::g over the :;:,r.opy. •Vary st.atior. order 'tlctween visits :o avoids:Jrveyin.; s:ations :n the same time ~1ch ce~su.s. Reversing st2.:ion crdcr is !.1e best w:~y to avoid this Froblc:n. •If birds Jte deteCted at a s:a~:on during a 10-mi:m~ census. ~:1d moredcl.:iilcd infor~:mon on murre!erac:.i\·ity in t.L:.~a..~ is n~·cdcd. use the! intensive inventor/ mc!.hod. Factors to be Considered In snrvcying murre let act.ivity. several factors mas: bcconsid- ;::-.:d by the observe!'. i~ciudi~g !.hese: •Time or Year: ~·!u:Telets can be heard a: cer .. 1!n si~s d~ng :l~Ol>"t momhs of the y::.ar. but they a.'"\! most effectively ~ur..-ey::tl •.:ing :.~e summer mon=hs ·.\'hf::-1 acti, .. ity !evels a.-e gr~,e~. ar-d .,enoance i:> more consiste:-:t and longer in d~1mtion ~h :-:-.oming. Murreict dctc=!.rtb(l!t)· at inland sites appea.:> to nave :. ~rc-pc!lk lcv~i of :node:"ate iilU.:nsiry (possibiy d~ng ir!::Ut-~ ::~~n) and a ?e;lk i~ve: cf ::igh a~::vity (possibiy ac.-!:1g t..~e chick ~-::~oct) (P~~on ;!nd ?...:1l~h :9SS. ~clso:t i989.L .A..f~r !..1e pea~ ;·.:nod, th~ m:r:1"oc: of C.::~ecc:ons inh!:-:.:! ce:r~ses :r.ark~dly, ~!'CSt;m:l~ly bec:1usc. bird:; arc u~Cergo!ng a iiightl;;s~ mc~L .lt ~ ::J.. In C:~liforni~t. thQ prr.-pt>ck period cx:c:1ds f:()t~~ \·~:::~· 1 :o : ·.;n~ ! 5 u:.d the pea.~: ~cncC fr.:>m J ~ne 15 ~o -~ugusL l5 (C~~= ::;:Erickson 19S8.?:m:ma:-:dR:~!;-:h l9SS). InOregon.:.~ep."e· .='"'-·.~ak ~~rio.! lasts :·rum ~'•l:Jy :5 to J~!y 1 and :lie pt!t:.k pe~·:~c frOr:l : ·_iy: tO .o\ugu~~ 15 \:~elscn i 98~Y~. Definitive ii.fC:T."l~:.1on :s ;-:cL > ;;~ avo::i;able on ~he :.Jt':"l!!'!g of r::urrelct dete.::l:l'bi!:~y i:1 Was~• ~::£~Cn J:1;.i area~ f~thcr i.ortt, l!1.1o~;h it is ~ikeiy th~! pr~·pcak :..:1~ pc.ak peri~Js oc~ur 3~ rc:.:gh!y u,c s::!rr:e tir:~cs of yc::.r ove: 3 :>i1oner :1umb:::r of d:ly:s. ·.,;;,•e suggest :J':::: :.r:l!lSc;;:.s ·:an h~ ~"-rveyed :::ithcr curing :.~ ;>re-~.lic or pc~< p~ri'->ds. ~~houg~ t,::ds ~·i:l ~roro.hly b-z :-nor~ ::cnsiste:'lt.iy Cet.e:~eC du:-!~g i.i~~ ;-,~k perioc!.~. •£.nvirunm~nt.al Conditions: Avoid ~:<1:::!1£ !r:!:"IS~ct ~:.:: : ·vns r:~:u !o:..:ct noise. sct=ces. su::~ a~ loud cn::cks cr busy r.::aJ~. . f ;x>ssibk. About 75 :;:>crc;n~ of mu:Te:et d.:::c:::tions a:t us::~!ly C: b1rds heard cal!ing C"elso:1 1989. ?:uo::"J ~,d Ra!t:ll l%~). so :: ;s vi~i to ~i3C:! :;t:l:io~s 2w3y from louct no1se sou.--ces. A!s::·_ :,-it i!': :-=Ur.:ng hard or tht: ~is ~lc,....,·;nr; :sard do.l',.,i 3i"~·~l:'~ c:-:s~. !t !s nm worth ...... nile tc cens:.:s l:ndcr ac!'"ers::: WC<!ther ::~n,~it.ior.s whc:J t.ile prob:=.oility cf hcuin!:! a calii~c ~:!:Te!et is t!•m:n1She~ S L;r~·cv-.: C""' be A one: on ov~.: ...... ria··s-w'•h" •;-h. • w. •. ... "'""'• _.. • • w.~:-1.. ·.-: '""' -~•.b• ;. :ain or foggy momings, ;tS rn:!..'TciclS tc:-~c tO c~!l for ic1:gcr FAX NO. 9072258738 P. 07 pcri:xls S..\'ld at higher rateS on drizzly days than on c!e.ar mor..- ings . •Moon Cycle: During wim.ermonths, moonpr.asc may aff~: ml!r.'elct deteclions ~~ a specific site:, with mUT:"::kts less !i.'<:el y w :V.: detected on nights wiL'1 a full moon. •Time or Day to St:lrt/Stop Sun•ey: M:JJTckts arc more ii.icc!y :o be dcte:::ted at higher ievels curing the morei:1g t.W. ::t sunset (Nelson 1989. Paton and Ralph 1988). The nwnber :,i murreiet ee:ec:ic::s ar t.'o.:: same site on t.1e same day can be five to six. times grcalel'" during the morni.,g hour:>. Ther-.::fo-::. w-; suggest only uSing mom~g cot:nts fer tn.."lsect s1.:rve~·s. D:.:rir.g !!l~ pre-peak a."'d pea.~ periods of the br~ing ~n. stan your census ~5 ::ni::utes before official sunrise and cen;;us for 75 mir.l!tCS afttr sunrise tor a 120·minue census period. us~ the Na.uticai Aim31~ to de :.ermine SUT'.rise/st,mset times for you:- arca. do not rely on tide tables. the iocal ncv;·spape:-. or the loc.a! television station, which cen be 15 minutes diffe:cnt from :.he Naut!QI Alm3nac. Su..-veys in 1988 lasted 90 minures after s:mrise. but this appears 10 be :oo long a period of time for most stands. so we suggest reducing the time by 15 minutes. Mur- relru can be de:ectedinland fer up tO 3 hoursduringt!le peak: or· the breeding sca:son at selected sites (Nelson 19H9, Paton a."lG Ralph !988). During :he winter momhs, m:Jrre!~ can bG heard prior LCJ su~sc oniy on certain dayS-~ duration of detections :.S shorter tha."l dur.ng me breeding season, and calling can s:an eariicr (1 hour) tl"'an in t.he s:.~mmer. Due to the shon penod of dco:ect2bility of murrciets during the winter months. oniy t.~e Intensive Inventory Method should be used from Augus: IS to !-.'lay 1. If information on ever.i~g use of an area is desired, we: scgges~ a :e::sus !';;riod from 30 rninu~s rx::nre s~nsc.t :o 6IJ minute£ after s~:tset. Vario~;s. surveys have:: shown mu.."Tdcts to come!:;: after dark (Carter a-;d E:ickson 1988. ~elscn 1989, Pa!on and Ra.iph 198S). •Survey Location-Habitat Type: The pr.ma.ry objectiv~ ofi.bis f:rstphasc oft1.e Sl:l"Vey is to ge: 3!l ~cu.""ate pictOire of :..1-te d.ist:·ib:.tt!ll:l of ~2:bl~1 mn:"!'eletS in California, Oregon. Wash ingtc::. British Coturr.bia. and Alaska. Ir:form:itiCn on habiut a~soc:a:..on pn:te:-ns is limited, although da:.a collected to d::~e '>Uggest s. close association ·,~,·:th mat!ll"e a,.,d old-growth fores~. T:a:-:sccts c:1:1 be u~d to begin to ga;.1.e:-information on habit.a! u~.e. bui researchers n:ed ID he ::autloned that pa::erns suggest:;d cy tra1:scc~ or ime:1si ve surveys could be hard to ime~reL Bires d~~octec !lying over a ~ge rocky mo11ntain might be sim?ly :lying r"'a:".he: i!ll:.tnG. to theirncs< grove 5 miles 2v."3y. Surveying efforts should nm ~limited tc single habit:mypes, hnt ~he rang.: of :\\"atl<tble ~biut zypes should be '~sited to cietenr.ine habil..;!t use ;J~m:;ms. Detailed habi~t analy~s should probably ~ limited to actual nest sites cr suspected ne.st groves ba.;;ed or: murreiet behavior (i.e .. landing :n trees or flying through t:~~ C3!"10py). •Surve~· Location-Distance From Salt Water: Marbled murrcle:.s h3\"C b<:en recorded as far a!': 75 1cm i::~iand in British Coh.:r:abi3 (Crter 2r.d St-... "'1.1 y 1986. 19£7). altho~;gh most records oi murrelets are generally with11a 20 lc:m of the dcea.'1. Nelson (1990)re:oroed m3:"bled.murreletS 55 km inland in Oregon. but JUN~26-95 MON 07:12 USFS KRD/MFNM !::.::.u~d lltal t.;;:.y were Signi!'ica.'lt!y more abund.ant w~:hin 20 :..m r:f the coast th:m ru-eao; fa."!hcrin!.:L"ld. ~1arrt'!ie:s arekno~·n t.Ous:e Gm::dy Creek Redw~ State ?:ark, in nor!l~em Califom!a. 3Y km inland (Cart...--r and Erick.~~n 1988). In California a."l.d Oregon.lhere:~.te probab:~· i."''l:md si:.es fanner !lJatt 20 kl'Tl inlana ;..'"la:t th~ bird$ us;:. but t.IJemaJOrityoft!leswveysshoutd focus on site$ less than 20 km from the ocean or salt w2ter, except where murrclets an; strongly suspected to «:r.tlr farther inl.and. Evi- dence suggests that murre!ets may follow ~ru~.jor river dmin.ages. so old·growlh and mature stands along larg-e :i\'ers could be one type of area on which to focus you.r aaenrior.. In Washington, British Columbia. and southeastern Aiaska, mu!'reletS may OC· cur farther 1nland on aver.agc than fat·t.l)er south. •Areas witb Low Acth·iry Levels: The General SUT\·ey Method is designed .v ic~::t.iiy population Ci;):'lcer.:mtions of murrelets. ln Orego:t. ~elson (:989) :-eporte::i !'robabie nes:i:!g :1ggrepuons. which included o:tly..,. few ind.ivida1.1ls c:::.i!;ng fo:- short periods (20 IT.inutes or iess) in the morning. :n these silll.ltions. the !ntcnsivc l:wemory would probabiy be the mos~ :fiective teehniquetO usc :o ~axi:nizc L'lcprobabiiityci detecting l:>irds in the :u-e.a. Another :::hoice wouid be :0 :nc~llSC ;..'lc number of repe:itior.s of ~ch u-a:tsec~ !::! !he ll!'e.i:.. •F.quipment 1'\eeded: Equiprm:n: ior s:;rvcy;r:~ shou1d in- clude: a clipboard. ;>e.1c:l, Cala forms. 2 iigh; source (i.e., u hc.'ld!amp is mosr useful as it f.rees :.:p nands. cr ;;;. f'.ashligt;:). binocularS, compass. anc :1 tape recorder (optJ\Jnai. but e;t· uemcly useful in areas ci high activi:y). ror ::s:imaling veg:::.s- tion (optioncl). you w;l: need a pencil, c:ipoo:!:.!. cor:~;:>ass (optional). and a way :o me.'\Sure or estimate t:~ d::l.rneters .and disW1ces. Survey Form LQCare lh<.: cc.'lsus sr.a:.:or:s on a 7· ~ i2 minL!.IC l:.:s. Gcciol,;ic;.al Scrvey map. wrile the "!.:l:ion num ben on u~c :n:.~;.-. a::.c inc:;:c,~ the locations with ::ut ''X". Wri~ on ihe top oi c.:!ct: fc:m t.'::c following (figs. J. 2 ;: Circle one: Tt3fl~t or s:a:ionruy CO[.)nt Observer's Name: FuH name of L"le ob~rver r ra!ISI!Cl; Na.-ne of the :::lnSCCt First line: Columns 1-:; First. midd:e. a.•c last initia!s of o~rver Month, day. ar:d ye:s: 4 4-9 10 State/?rovincc: A=Ailsk.:l, C=Calife:r.":ia, O=O:egc=:. W=Wash::J.gton, 3=Br:ush Co!u:-r,bi:! ll-14 Follr-le~r cede for icx:ation cf ,::;:ts:::s m:."l:.~t •.a~y letters ca.'l 0e usee). 15-17 Pcrcem cioud cover. (i.e .. !.>=none, lOV:::=.n cloucy) 18 Precipi!.aticr.: C = ncne. F =!ow fo~. \'i::: misU c!rink, R =ram (su.rvey shouid he d 'scominu·~:!). FAX NO. 9072258738 P.08 19·:!.2 Offi.::ia: ~ur..rij;e fort.~; dste ~nd loc:.uo:~ (2.!-how clock. c .. g .• 5;00 ;;!..m. = 0500. or 6 p.m.: liiDi1, Seccr.a ar.d rerr.c:ir.inf· !ir~s {each line rt;Jre.~enrs one: ciezec- rior..i: Columns 23-24 Cer.sus station nuober. Fer each t!'a."'lse:::t y.::•i..! Nill i'.avc one or more census stations. ~umkr c;.:;::-, s-.. .-~~ion a.t'IO mark ~n with a !lag or St.:lk: :or !':.r:.urc reference. ~5-26 ~!imues of cbservz.:ion. Lcr.gL'l cf t:me l)f c;,.:nsus {csualiy 10 minutes). 2i .. :;n Timesu:tc:d2t!hc census st.atio!i, cr time of dct~ticn lf:!f:.Crthe firstm!nutest the ~l:;!uon. For C='"~!;!:;i~. if you Start;;.;.! at 0608 a:-:d c!i~ not hear any btr.:!~ for ! mir.ute, ¥"len saw a bu·d at 0609, tt:e:"l l.!ic 060S line would remain o~nk after tim~. ou: ;he 06C9 lir.c wouiC: ~.a ..-c d:.:.a-~ecord.ed in :-;l.l~. birds). 31-32 Tne bcs~ eStimate of the numb;!r of t-irds m ~'11!. c:m:.ction. (}:l.!.T.. bircs). 33·35 Lo'A't!St hci:tt ttH! hinl(S) are observed nyu1g a(x.,vc t.~ grol!:l<:! \oniy to be us;cd :·or ·:isua! dcte:::ions :. If you rer.orC 1n f~L !!lrilC'!l!~ thi.s ~t th,z_ wp c{ iorm. 36-38 L>\rC:tion in dc~(;CS to wh~re :ate m:.ur:lc~!.$) \\.'C~e tlf~t CClCC:.c.ci. f~orn lhC observ;;:~. 39 T.1e cir,j$' !x:ha\'ior (Be.~.) cu~i~; :.he det:::~~ion iF= tly over Cll.'lOpy: C "'.:ircle SttH~d 800\'C the ca.,opy, n = c:r;ie b~lo\1: :.;mc;:y, T =fly :hrct:g~ ~he ~~nd bt!lo"v the ~"'lopy :.o~~ L ~ la:;dint; ;n::! :ree. ~seen.!~ S = :aH from a st:niorJlry pc;nt. ~·J Typt 0'Y1l.) ·;)i OC!ie:--:;u.ion: \1·9or \1.:. t:~.::r.bcroi "keer .. ca!.i r:otes hea:d. wt~h ).. I !or more :h:1:1 (J !:~ci::~l~) .:2H !'lOt.::.> he:.t..rd: \V =~·in:; he.:::.s on~y: :l.:'IC ,, .. vtsuru ""i:.h nu t::!Es. ~ 1 \' cc.a!iat±O~ (vee .~t !.y]X'., B = ~Ctb ~Ci! an\i ht::rd: A :: al:ernale vocaHzs~:nn t~:H a'";;:.~~~=-.. ~ :.::tl~ ,: c· = al .. ;em:lle vc-..::::::i~·u.icn 3.r.d seen: H = nc:!.'":;i or.iy: S = s~:1cr.iy: \\.' =wi:ig be:uso:-:ty; :::1c.J = _i;;:~!>tH.::-,.:. 2 rr::J.rrelet fl0~-4·~r dive. .;2-=.,;:. The !'li~h~ -p~:..;...,. t.1e fin~i direction !h.; :nurrc!r.ts ~:cr~ !'l~~c~. i:1 jcgrees. 45~j Clo$e~: horizcn~l dis:.nnce. fr~~ !-,~ obscr\·er u.> :.he :r:t~ror(!iC~ a ~:rd t1y ir:g dirc.:~y ovcr:ic;.r: :t ~ 00 m ~e:;::t \\'C!.::d. :--..Jv~:::. h(~riz~nt~i Q.is\.:!~=~ cf :::e::~. .48 0~1tin:-::1~~ The ~u~Ocr ~f\: aux ~s Su.:i:":s3t the c~n:i\.!S s:.::::o~. 0= ~o s·~·~fts obse..""'·e."!~ ! =: -10 hir:JsC\ 7.=: ~-50 olr:is, 3=:>50. V:lu.-: ':;SwiftS :uc :lr.O:..'l;:r :lpccli:.sc:osci)' i:!.'l!iOC iatcd ..... l~i:oi<.:-gmwth f'o!es:s. nes;ing i:'i :-to!low snags. Li~t!;.: is kr:owr. alx>l!t :!'i.:::r dist.-'ib:.:ticn ar.ci any ~cici:.ona! d.lt.;) ~~llicr;:\.! by ~!."r:"e!e:. observers ,_,.,ocld be t:ttrtme!y cse.f~.:L •' :;~!),\ f.'on:-;.; Sr.rvt, .... (";.,..,. .,..,.,..;.., '!> .. "" o'"''' • ' ........ '"""•-~· JUN-26-95 MON 07:13 USFS KRD/MFNM FAX NO. 9072258738 P.09 C:rc:i~ cr.e. Transe:: St2!rO~Ci!Y Cour:: G~::: COO:"!t Pt; o: I ~~ma: _____________ _ O~::er ... e:-s S:.;. II; :n:::a:s Min. oc~ Mon~h :)ay Tame YP;.r Nu~. baros ~~~~s~t:. ____________________ __ S.: .. Pc!"cc~: 8 Cffi.:.a! Sunn~e ~\/ Tr.::~~e:et C!O'..:C Cover ~ or Sun~~! $ .... S v T Sire in~iai e o v Depan. Closes: ;..~eat.:~:! Di:~:.-:. Det. !'I :: p ::rec:ion Drs. !O Bire I I : ' I ! I I I . ! i i i : ! : I j I : I ! i 1 l i : I i I I I I . ,. . . I I I i l ' . ! : I ! . i . ! I • ' J I ' I I ! I : i I I i ' ; j ! l : I i I ! ,. l l ; I I j i I I ; ' ' I I ' . . I i ' I I I 'I I ' I . ' 1 I ! i t • ' i i ! i 1 : ! I ' j j j i ! i : I ! I ! i ' I ! i i i i : . I : : I · ! I • I : I I' ; i i j ,· ; I II i I 1 • I I I I I ; l ! 1 l I • i I i : . ! I I I i . I I I ! - I ! I f j I . I ; I ; ; ' I I . I 1 i I j j ! : i ; I : 1· 1 i 1 ! 1' ! i 1· , • i ! I I • I I : 1 l I I ! 1 • I : · ~ , ~ I • ! ~: . : ~~ ~ ' I I I I . i . I I : ! . I I I I : • : ; I ' I I ! i I ! . l I I : I I ' . • I I . ' ' . I . i ., i I I I ' I . I . : I : I I ' ! : i i . i I : I I I I I . I ' j • I , I I I' ! : !I ' ! ' ! I . I l ' I ! i ~ j j 1 ) I i I J . I I I 1 i 1 1 • a ! I I ; i ! : i ; i . I I I I : I i ; ' I I ; ~ 1 I ' I' ! I ; I I I ' i I I I ! ! • I ! ! : ' l : I ! I ! ~- l ?re~i::lt:!:tc~ ;?:ec.:: N=Nor~e. F.-Fog. C=D!;z2!~. i=l=r::"'i"' Sc~. (ceh3\'10r;: ;:=;;~,over. C=Circie. s .. cirt:~e Seiow, 7 :f:y :.~rougr:. :..=~2nc or S!G.:On2ry. 'J=;:r.:~r.own \;~~ ''''""'l'~a··l-n'· 'I •:;·,~,a·r #.,, .... ! • -~-"'u-'"'e• -· 'k· .-.r· ·~~·~ r:-•e• ""c~r-''-''· ··•~·e ·:.-ee·· ca•lc ( -) i-W"'....' ~"' • .., t• = .-..... -~ ...... ·. ~ --·"'f ··~ . ..,. ~-~ :.., -~ .J II .c.~· hl-i'lti:.JH•V· .·• I u..,.. >~ I I : y-:;. ~:Y?e): E=:?.et:-: s~n anc near:::. A=.:.::. voc., C=Alt. 'IX.:'. seen. \';:w;~s on!y . .;=.:et sc-J:-c : 1 . ~=ioiearc! oniy. S:See:-r o~•y·s1ie~~ I .... . . .... • . •• . -••• ; . ,. • • • • !"',.. • 4 -... ": • r: ... ' ~wrrt. v l:.:.JX s Swrr: r._:r.oorllo a. s,a. ... or.. v~nonf;',.-... v ... -. I -~---w-........ v : j ! Notes: ---l I 4115/!9 Figure ~-~t:is f;r~ reccrcs c:a:a 1n t.'le Ger.crai S~.:rvey ar.c l~:er:s:v,;; :r:·J<m:e!;' oi :n<!r:>;ec :':'lu:T"'""'~. \:SO,\ rv-rell Scrvu.:~ Gen. 7cch. Rc~. ~<;W.l~~ 'CXJn .j ' co M r-eo lO N N r-c:> en c5 :z: ~ u... .<.I ... t:i \.:. c) u (J ~ !? I·• 1:. V) lj ._J· . --·- . - ···-·-·- -·---·· ··---··----- L-r-...J~ ~l_LN_L_J..·_·-·L--_1----··..L.......l--L.-..L.. ··--··.....~.· ·_--..,_t-.......~···· J..---L._f .. ·---··· --· •.•. 1--· ·-· ----------__,~ ··--·---·--~ ~-~ i! 'jt Ill .. , •U ij 7. : ' t· JUN-26-95 : 14 USFS KRD/MFNM INTENSIVE INVENTORY SURVEYS ------------·-···-··· Ctlnc; anc.! S"tn;!cr: ..:.nd ~t.!~sor. ( 1909) t~s~;:d a!: :n:ensivc in· YCr.~ory ;x;rraqcc :~orr:1cJ.Sur1ng 1J~t<:itmounl ~.,d !~'{)e~t,f murr~lc: 3C:.ivi!y 4.t a slng!e sit~ .. ~:; ~·;.th 0-:nc:al S L:rveys~ ~,i~ is~ ~nsus rr:c!hod t..1;u c:on t--:: u£;:::.:! tnrocghoLlt 1!11.': spc::c;; · r:m;:e. Oh~rvcrs ;;hould mr our 3 census form after the day's obscrv:!tions. if cu:.:.t hu\·c occn rc::or~.~,; on upc (s.:.: ~k.:l~oWij. The. lntensiv~ !nvc:ltcrf is ccs!gnec to: •Dct;;:rm!ne mc.."!"cietacuviry icvdsatlsp.:::::r,;; s:t.::. 7hc best wa~" to me.asurw ;.he act:J:.tl ac!ivi!.v lc".:~: at l .-kc:ii':c ~it~ rt'cord aU d::-:ctlnns rror:1 n sin:.!ic pci:t!. \·:!.i.~:ion in tb.: ti;:-!CS ot hight lo,),:. :lr....:i no~c~ivity "-'~Ult.aa cz:u..-n orC:1sk rc~susp~ricC :J.r! ;.die~; th'! ;cvcJ of :.te!lvi~y noted if only :1. ~,:.,::.:;jr: C!~ ~~e dct~tior: pc:"ivC :s .s:un;;:.:c. •:\1onitnr r~bU'-':!. :::.b;.::"'C:L."l:.:~ ;;f ml!rr¢lc~ nc~:..-:~y !cvc!s ov.::· :!r:1e ~~a specl:lc s:tc: ::::~:-to-yc::l:.tor c:<~r~p:.:. !!'a s;:i<:s of :r.:cr4$ive iuvcntorics 0:1 d:ffc~~::~ C~} s a: L~c ~H!:c sit: ca:1 he cone withi:'l a rcl!!tive:y s.":;;:r~ per:od (e.g .. 1.5 i!:lys}. i.h~ m=n activiry level (o:-det~.:cuon :ndex) C:lll be c~lc•:::ucd ior th:.~t period. BCC3use murr:!ct a::::.ivity vari~s somewii.Oit frcrn day to O:ly. C.'fleciai!y !:t rciatic-n ~0 wcalhcr and ~:£hti:-~g, 3 $::1CS or intenslve censuses is :-cqtmcd to ob:.a.in 2 dcte:ticn ind.:x ~~.·t:ich ~an t-e !JJ;~-d to comp::.:e murretet a:tiv1ty .,.. i:..":i:t :!'le br:.ccing season, between "-~e b!"e:.!d!ng and non-br~t..~i::g s~son. ~nt1 beiwe.tn ye:l.~. !r: ?:lr..lcul.:r, rmrrn:lct :l!:uv::y 0\·~r :1 ~~ric> of years s!':ouid be ~~orr:p:1:-cd for mcni10rin1! purposes. ( ' •De!.er .. 1;nc ~"c .,~ ... .,! c·""'-JOn "'Criv'"' :··~c"" i'•q 1~ l"s' ... "' • -.. .......... _ .... ~-· !-' ... , .. ~ •... : •• ., -... t. . C,{.;tect.cn) a.~d =:.ctu:.!! nc~bc.."> of c!~~cciions \lud;c ~;d .,ist.:~! scp~:!!c!y} 3~:! spc,d'ic s!t~. •Dct::~t poo:Ji:!ucns or" low~_;cnsi:.i~s o~ :"'!"'t:r"'t;·"'LS~c . ,b~~-"'\,... oi :"!'lur."c:,_:s ""'·a ... : .. ,...n ,.,c \\'~"' .. c ,.. ... ,.-"'\>: .. ,'" ..... ,..,-.,·:·\· w. ~~-.-"-.!!:-~::;~-~_..~._.. '•V• .... -~~ ........... w .,.""'""' ~4. rc·vot~ arc io~.· .. they may bG VClC~tcd oniy :~r:~; ~ ShC:l pcnod of Lime .. Only :l :c·;..-dct~~ion=' sn~y cx:::.:r •ua spc=:::\: ~=l~Wil~tn ::: C:Jwr. or aus~: :lCtivily ;->c:-icd. :::n.:: :~cy r.~;:y :1nt he: c~:t.-.:=t~d c~ch :e:1su~ C~::·1~1g the ,eak actJvi~:-· period .:.':~ ~:-:.·: ~rcctin; s~=sor!. \'lhcre ~urre'~t~ 3Tt :!Jousht ~o be ;;b;;.--"'r ~ n\ir;im·J.A·1 of th re.e c~nsuscs shot.: !d :X. cor:ducrc1 oyer ths.~ ror ~;of !r.c ;'"" '~ a::Li\~it .. ., period b(~fc:c ~;.:rrciets aro con.sidc.:c.:i f~h~~.:·~t ;·rem~~::;. .. .;ite for the \\~:.!!". .r,..,.,,_;r: ... :y· ·r·,., ...,,r."'<: ...... ...._. • .,~ •o ;..~ ""''""' ,,_., ~~·-~ '"t flC"''l'!"' ..,,.,.~1••"'" """' • '-'"" V• \,l.,. ..W.!:f'~• 01o. W¥ tt.oh1-l•,;:~ t,i;•W •"' ,,, \""' J .olio• ·:: or :!r~ merely f:y~~; ovc: :::c :.i~c to ar.c !rom Ot!lc~ s::.c-'. ;..s :n ~b:: Gc~cral s~~~:e:.: ~·!ct~od .. ext:cpt t."tat~ mo:: dc~HCt.~ assess.· ~era~( use. o! a ~:ar!icu~ s:i1~ ::-.:-i~ be Ce:e:-mi:-:c::! over ~.he cr.t.!:c acti· . .-i~y;>e ricd. \:· ~ia:.!cr: in !~C ty;>e~ cf detCC:i(~:-;S a~d :!ct:\·itics w n:~:, nee~~ ~.>.t'::~;n U1e ~lctcc:.;on ~nee :.t t-.1:: s:1.-nc s::c C:.!!1 o~ :nca');;r:!c!. :c~r.cr~ :::::-ry: s~:;,-.it: .. Te~ :_L.c~t:::-:c ~:Jtit 1.Jt>1-. :Y.~S .-\~:-;! :5. i t-.:;a:. ~•cc: ~~ !''"'.:"i ... .Suo.an,.1:u Rc$;:;::c!l S::.uun. \.:.Si)A i'vn:s~ Sc::><o·tcc:, A=l. c..,l.\f. ;J:SDA. Fcr:.st Service-Gen. Ted1. ~c:p. PSW-120. l!r)C. FAX NO. 9072258738 P. 11 •D;;tcr:-ainc murr~!ct "'c:ivi;y :c\·~ls over :1 ~:-o:.1d ar~;. o~ ~t~ . .:- s:pcc:cs~ nm~c.. Th.:: !:"'!:t'"!='~''-'C ln\·c:1h.1r_v Sur-.·,:·:·· c;:t:-t be u~~'t ~v compaa~ mur:-clc: act!•,:lty lcv~i;;; b:-t·.,.~(.!:;:l st:!~ions -fttc "~Y ~:a~~''*'ck to usir.g: this lnc:.~od is th:~ pn:v o~l~ st~~icr1 c~:~ . .t.~~ ~ur·,··~)"t..'!C per obscrv;;r !':"to~:!lg. hv~·cvc!", if f\L;~~:ons ;!.r:: ~;~\,;,;:c a1 ·"·i\lc in:CrV:J.iS (i..Cu ~·\·:r-J! ~-:1 ap.:!rl _; 0( :trC p!:ccri in srl'.:t:!f;~ hnbi~t types~ then a::.iv;!y i::.vc!s C!l..~ be dctcrm:ncO over t'r~:.:: a:Cl$. \Vhcr: ~csigni,~g ~ur.t~y,:. one rr:u.'r \!~tcrrnin(: ,, . .r.~~:~~; :~ l$ n1cr:. impor...a:n to :neas4.;rc acn.:2.! ac~i,·i:y ic,·c!s aL. ~~,~~ iOC;liitic.,(using,hei~:~n~i ~·~ Zr:ve:::1....,ry :\ fc:hoc.) or :oobw!:1 ! (J ... minn!:'! s~mpics nf :tcuvity at more locaiitic~ {lh.-:. Ccn~;·::1 Scrvcy). Methods Sdcct u:.:cnsivc in,·rn:ory st:::uons with :1 :lear ··i..::w ni th~ s;.. ~-. s~.:c!l. ;Is :he eog~ of the for.:st or a cic-.Jr:r.'g. This wi!! maxi:niz~ yoar ;h:1n:cs of $C'.C!ng .. a5 w~H as hclting nit.:!'T~!ctc:;. Sl=.!:"u.: sd.:::~icn ana oili.:r :~spec:..;;. cf :::::: protocol shc:.zl<! folic'-" tt•~ Gc~c::li Survey ~1clilv.!. D~gi:. census.;.; mu~!.!~cs b¢for<! uiT .. c::.t~ $U!1risc ;;.nd .:cn:.:n:..:·: ftJr ~t icast 75 mit~:.:t~s a:'tc;-sunrise. Con~!:u.:c tO c~nsm: :·{~r io~~z, ..;~r: 75 :n:nut::~ af~r !\.t.:nrisc. if l~s~ ~h:ln 15 rr~inuu.:., h:.!s. e!:.r..s~C s!~ce lhc tu:;t Cc~c·c:i~rL Continu~ t:n~:; nv d~~c:::~:c:~> hi1Yr. oc::..:rrco fer 15 :ninut.:-s. "Csc .l MnC-hcid ~!~ rccordcrtorccor~ dc~cc!inn.'\. Kc~v y .. 1:.:7 eye:.; oil It.c ~k:y :mli shi:': yo-..:' :~.ng!c oi v1~w cOI\;'lwmly ~o cnsur:. th~t all ~c:.as v;sibl~ :!!C ~C\'C:~:.!. Usc 4.1 1~~ rc:orctcr tn ~c!~ PX'·~nt from mi~~:ng rr;urreh:! detections :1r:d ~.., 2ssi:>t in rccon~ it.g sima:u:nccus dc:~c~i~r:$. Ii u :-cco:-dcr is :lOl :~vaibblc. ycu mi~!":t ::1:s.-\ ~omc dct.::::ons c!:J:-1~g pc::OCs or !1lgh !!H.::-r~!c: 4!C~f\'"t~y. Equipment l'lleedad in the Field -:·?lo foHou..'"i:-lg c~: .. dp::1c:t:. :s !~c;;Gcd: t~p<: r:corCcr ;.:.:~ptlC!""4:'!:~· ·~·~~=h ·Jt,·i~!": JighlcC ct:~:~ a~spl~:y. spar;.;. upc rccnrticr hJt~~=<~~. C.'\L:a c;.ts~t:~ !,:!pes fnr =-~~or~cr. (>J:r:p~~.). b1r:e<.;u:~rs. '~n:J ~:;;:~ Oc~d. forms. p-.:::-:c:i ::4 c~se :')f t~~ r~.:;or\.!c: f:1:1u:-~ . Data Collected 1. {;sr! :!>:he. unit cf m~as~.;r:: :1 ... det~ctiun't (){ =: ~:ngi~ b:n.i o: :~o:k ofmu:Tc!c;.s {as !'or c~~:~O:!':li Survey). :~ Cci!cc: data en v:lri::t'!cs th~ s::m~ w~y a~ Cone ~n ::~,~ Gcr.c:-:1! Suf'·C>~·· 3. Y!Uc vert':! notes and l~i~(:f :l~:lrk en iT!~:p :.r..c ;.l.;C~s 'J.'~:c~~ ·.-.·c:-: ~os~ :x;cn~ivc!y used t~.g._ ""lots of !·~y:r:~. ~E up gJp =~ fc~CS~~t'O"·.t~ StrC~S. ~· 0!' ~·loLS ;lytr:g inlC g~p 1!1 fer est ~bout~ (i() rn ~7~\{ of ~he census :;it:::·:-. ~~·~n!;.;.;r:bc not~s on :.he h~1-:·~ £..11" tr:~: ~t.:l iom-:. Intensive Inventory Oata Form 7:tc form for :he lr:ir.l~in.~ in ~rcmory :::; the >.:!me. as th:i.t ior lh-:: r:~~~~:t; S-.:r.·c;:. Coi!.:::c~aii ·.·;ui.:;bk:;>a:;clcscrii:>c.C ;n the Oc;:.:r;:.: Survey Mctl'lod:;. vegetation Data Form (Opliona!) il no vcgct.ation maps :Jie avaiiabic ior ·~·our area, some .., I JUN~28-95 MON 07:14 USFS K.RD/MFNM y~gctation d41t."l should i:le collecu~d to provide r~sc:~rchcrs some i.i~ of l.hc r;·,-.: c;· iotL:~L :n yor:r a:ca. Oniy a icw mln:.::.cs :u~ nc;x:ca to coilecl vcgct=~tirm r.m.a at each s~tion or.c~ yo:~ ge: t!SCd LO the fonn (jig. 3}. Locate t.~Jc census station nn a 7-l/2 min~.:te L'.S. Ccologicol Survey map, writ.e the :annbcr on the r::zp, im:lic:u.ing the !Y-2tion with an "X~. Record oo the fos:m: (<t) Observer's full n.w1e; (b.> transect :-~arne and corresponding 4-lett.er code for r..'lc: tral'l.sec~ or fixed census poim; (c) S~c or PrO\'inc:e: (d) st.":.light-line distance :·rom the middie of the rransec< or the fixed census poim to tl":c :~c.:m:st salt water: ami {P-) t:'.S.timatc.c:! di.<\L'lnce to the ne:u-cst "oij- ;row!lJ" :>l<Uld. If the rrans~t is in the mid.::.ic ci c.n o!.:l-.;rowth FAX NO. 9072258738 P. 12 st:mc. then the distance would ~u~l zero. Ti1e ioliowing ±l!.:ll1re to be : .. ~o:ded: Record !.!~~~ t.rc~ "1'~· :.:-> :!nd c:.arnc~r at b!'C.lSt heig!!l (d.b.h.) of lhe 10 ciose$t car.o;.:· :..-..;:;:; to eac."l census pomt, up to 100 m f:cm me certl'US poi::t. R.::cord vcgcuni1.m c!am for cac:1 cen:;us poim on the c:ar.s~!. Lise a 4-le!ter cooc tc recor.:l. tree spec:es designations. R:::.:or:i ;;.b.h. to th.:: nearest W err.. Onh· record the a.b.h. of ::lnnr.~ :.roes. noL S:':l-'!l!er :rc-=s :r: th.e m;<::-cam,lpy. l7!fo:m~uion O!< :~::: d.b.!l.. of :he 13:ge~ :.recs 'vit."t:n 100 rr: of the-;ens:.:.~ po1nt1 -~ n~=.-:.0. b1.0t C:o n(•t ~kc< U'C::S. jusl :-:.:cord the d.b.h. ~f th canopy Q"CCS C:cs.e:s1 to t.'le ce:1sus point. If :.11crc arc r.ot : C carmpy tcc>!s w:thl:"l 100m cf tt:e census pc;::;.. L"!cn oaly r.::::crj :1-:c d.b.:.. of :.hose ::2nopy trees wi;hin t.~e 1CO·m rad.i!..!~. Observer Transect_n_a_m-,e-------4-ltr code 8 i i i 1 i I I State ---- Distance to ocean:. km ; Distance to nearesi'Ofd-growth stand to aast of transcct:_kmi Circle one: Transect Fixed-point count ; ! Tree species Tree OBH (em} ! I I j I i I i i ' ··-! i i i ' ! ! ; ! ! -l ' j l I i i ! i ! I i I J i l I I ! i I ! i ! I i ! I ! I I I I j : I I ! I ; I I ' . I i . 1 I i ! ! I ! . i . . j i I i ! I i I l ! i ! ' I I l ! ! I I I i J Notes: t -· f'Jgure a-l'"'IS t~r~ re::rCs Ve-g~ta!ie~ Oe:a re::;r:ed as ~art c~ t'1e c;~s;s ~~ marot~ ~urrt'l~:~ ';;S;)A Forest Scn1c:c: Oe.."''. Tech. Rc!). PSW·I20. 1990. JUN-26-95 MON 07:14 USFS KRD/HFNH REFERENCES :S:.nford. l,.lwrcn:.c C: E:liol. 3r;.;.:eG.: Sm,;cr.Stc .... c. ;;-:-.::. OisccweryQ(al'l,;::t and th" down,· 'oun~ nf the m:>.rbled murr<·h:l Wllio:: j>,.ile:.in S7::;;;:;. 3lS Cane:. ii"rrv R.: U':~son. R.id':a;:! A. i 9SS. Population ,;::nu~ :and con~r· •:.tiun p~obh:ms of tht marbled mul"rt!le! in Califvrni<~. I892·19g';"_ S.u~J~rnctn"· Ca.iif. ~?~· F;:~h a.~ti G~~; ·i·.: ~- C~r:cr. r!Mry R.; Sc::.aJy. £?"=•~~; G. i9S6. 'l;'e:or•ruund un vf COIIR:.&ll:~.k ... -s ,,. m:>.rbh:d. mvrn:h:~.o;. Cona;:,~ :'il!:473~77. C1r.cr. H.:t.r~ R.: Suol)'. S?::K"er G. ; ~S'7. Inl<~.nd recurGs of Gnwn:v youn:~ :>.ntl necr;ting marbicu murr<:ll':ts in Sorth Americ.:~. ~":"ltkt 63;5S·63 Kur>-U;in.A. ?. 1963. [Onii!C Di<>l<>ey uf Uu: long-hilled (m:lrbl~d) murr<:lct.; Ornilllolog:y~ 6:3 iS-;;:::. L.a.inyt:>::. V. :. ~9S7. (,\ ::udd<en l)~"'."'lrn:ncc ur the nest uf BN:Cit)·rtm:phili m.4f'mt111U.t in South Prim .. .,,.~ e.; :r.: w~~..zne:U:o. ~·.~~-. :c:Utor. DIS.L!lPUtlCt'~ ..nd ;,iQiii~Y of subi:~ oi tll<: r:a~ rJm. Vi.\div.:XI.O<, Ai>aoemiy~ ).:al•~ SSSR:S:I-06 (:.i.::sli•n ~,.,,:~\"'1': ~-!".';". C~lbeni. :"~>~u:-.J. :S:mc:y !...: S.:.'lelr. ;:~:ic ... : CA.:::.. D~v1d r> !990a. I'tcl'la,iur Ill' m:al'bled lfl&&rr<:lo:L.~ ;at two tr~c nC'SU in ~ntral Califurrt;;a. ?.actfic: $.;:otoir:! Gro~o:p awleun. [!."~ ?rl:.~~;. '\a~:~.~n..:. ::-.:~nc~ :,.; $:::!;cr. Steve W.; Sin&er, Stt:?h;n·~:::. l99vb .. -\ pr01)0$Cd ~tround li<::.n;n tt.-chniquc r.,r finding tree nesu of tnt m~tbl4i!d murrtlcl in npen canopy fort!tf~. ?aciiic: Seabird Group &l.!c:.ir..! 7,2S. t;SDA l~ot'<'>t Scavu.;c:. Ger.. Tc.;n. !tc?. P'SW· t:{•. l~C. FAX NO. 9072258738 P. 13 :"e::-.a~v. V. ,-\. : 95.6. (~cw infurm:ation on tile seabirds ur Sakhalin l,;l;t!ld · i::: L.itY~c:nb.X ~t.tiiit.c:.Si:1~1r:.ls.:;,::ne ::;ar ~l. Yl.:.t.ciivus~: Ai:.a.:=:' • :\4~k SSSR:7!-8l {En;:!tsn !t:lnsia:.:on b)· D. f.;.,e£t!i.t'...:u:,r.:!") Selson. S. ;.::...on. !~S)~ IU-v~l4iptn4o"nt of in\'tnlVS"J" t«hnic;ucs for sur,·c~in~ mnbl«< murr.:tl<"t.s (Brach.rnzmpiui.S lfllt171fi>N:UI.Ij ic tbc cent!'~ I ()r,v.:c.n c4,12:;t nn~('. ?ottlo~:-.ioi: On:l;t.."ft Dc:p. ::,~ .Jnd. ~~i!~~;: iC;..: ;:. 'S~11Ct1. S. :(v~!. !~9\:.1. D\1u .it.wtiOtl v( the naooarbh:rJ ntt.:rn.··h."t in ,,.t:~t.~r:1 Ort~ll. ?.,_~:~ ~:>1rci Gr-:>V? l>ul.l:::.:.."l. :'i::::.S-29. ).::lsor., $. ;(:!'11: ~:cAih~t•. ~;;.,;,~1 L.: Stern. )l.{a,'l; A .. V~rwj.::a::. ;).,,:;:! i. S':'..,;t.J. .:'-i<~a::.Thcmarblotdmtrrrqlel ill Ore:l•)ll, lS~-ln:'. :~:C.:.:~ ; iony :<. .• c:ci IICr.S~~::;, :ii>:.ri !l;:ti;:>n tl\c! ~mn~gc::mc:::: oi :.'lc: motrnlc..: r..u :r::i:: ?t.:~iiest.:orts of"'th. tt\:em f"\1\l~bon of Venebr;at.c j'".oi.)¢1~;:;:;. :;~ p:~-..,_ ;. ?;k,'l'l. ?::c: W. C: .. ihi!lf!. i.. ]nnn: C'tic.I.:<:Q<\, Ric~~r.:. ;\i:lrl)l .. d murrclt·t u.'~ vf :m inl:ond sii~ in nort.il,.·estern Califnr11i:l. ''" C.o.,.,,.;r. !i"::T) R .. -:Ji:~:·. StatU$, c:iis:r.t>;;;;o:-, a:-h! ~l>ll~!::rn::nt oi \he ma:bici! r::um::c:. ?untiat:r:r.$1'\: \\"cnerr. r:our:~J:.i:u'\ of V cr..c!)(tl~ 'l.:,r»u;~y f i'!1 ran:--.;": P:.ton. ?e:er \\'. C.: ibll:lh. C. jonr.. !vf!<i. G!!!!!;r.:!J)hic d::$1:ributinq ..,(In,· m:arblt.-d murrcl<:t in California at int:1na sites <lurinl! :ht l ~8S b~din~ $U.~n. ~":T.ne:'ll;,. c.-;,;j. i:>c;?. ci Fisnan.:i G:~~mc:: J! 'f>· ~:nian~ Su•1!l !-:..; 1-h:~hcs:. Je.fr !L 1,)~.:. l~ nf r..aGi..tat:::tn~ to ~K'".Jt~ m:lrl>h.:d. murr~ic' n~L ailS ?ro£rc~s kc:p.>:'t .,,,..,.,,.;,~ :'-1:·>· :. 1 <:.:::::; ; u:>·: 3.J. !91:.;. A:ll.:!'lor..~c: Aia£1:3 !let>· -.f Fi$h ;,...; G;ar.!:.-; :; ~ Saly, Spc::ncc:r G.; Cll.nc:·. !brf\ R. JQ~.~. ;\t·S.:Ol lli)lriilulion and n.:s:in~ habilott fit tll-6 m2rto«.u.1 ntul'1'"\llt:l in Urili.>il (.;Qiu•nt>~; 'J)rc.nMnc> 1:\ u._ c:unKrYation ufasvlitaril~· ncstin!l ,;cabirG. ;,, Crox;;;i. J. :' .. ;;v~r.~. i'. (i ;~.: Sc.,reibc:: .. R. \t.· ... ~i;crt. s,,l!i.IS ;.n~ .::-..nse!\.'3!i~ ni :./\~ ,..t. .. :-iJ' :i ;;c::::::-~.: !Cil?7c:n. ?I.e!. 2.: ':'17-':"!'6. S~gcr~ Steve '¥l.: :\;ul;.;n~. :'\.:.r.c:) L.; S&nR:~. St:ph.:ar.;c: ..\.: ~~i;1!':. C. ;\ .. r:-: 19QC"J. Dl-w.ryntlwotrl!'<.' ""sll\nflll.:m:.rblea murr .... t.:t. :•~;.::;:~,5..,~;,:,.: C.t.:ll."(( Ruliao.J.i,. li:l~ 9 f ·~ ! 11·K88LH DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE HABITAT AND RESTORATION DIVISION June 27, 1995 Mr. Michael V. Stimac HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 1 08th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac: Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 11393 TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR P 0 BOX 240020 DOUGLAS. ALASKA 99824-0020 PHONE. (907) 455-4290 RECEIVED JUN 3 0 1995 We have reviewed your proposal to reroute the overhead electrical transmission line which was originally proposed to go from Lower Mahoney Lake to the White River area. The changed routing would instead connect the transmission line in a southerly direction from Lower Mahoney Lake to the existing transmission line at Beaver Falls. No new reading would result from this change, but clearing on the coastal alignment would occur in a southerly direction rather than a northerly one. Our concerns with this proposed change are minimal. However, we recommend a bald eagle nest survey be conducted in the coastal forest between Lower Mahoney Lake and Beaver Falls during the active nesting period by qualified personnel using protocols established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We also recommend the transmission line alignment avoid the 500' -wide coastal fringe of forest to minimize the loss of habitat important for bald eagles, land otters, bears, and other species. If you have any questions regarding these comments or need additional, input please contact Jack Gustafson, Ketchikan Area Habitat Biologist, at 907-225- 2027. Thank you. Sincerely, ~ Lana Shea Regional Supervisor Habitat & Restoration Division cc: Jack Gustafson, AOF&G, Ketchikan Christine Valentine, DGC, Juneau Nevin Holmberg/ USFWS, Juneau LS/JG/Ic c 4851 f ! (16:3(1:95 11:12 'a'90i i86 335(1 ADM OF~ f::W_S_.;;;E..;..S ---la]OOl:OO:! 33184 Federal R.egisra:r I Vol. so. No. 125 I Thursday. June Z9. 1995 I Proposed Rules .a. A n.ew S 90.219 is added to mad as iollows: passiruld ol the signal booster filter are wpiified. § 9G.218 Use of Slgnall:loe&a~.,.._ . . . . . . 3. Sac:uon 94.9S IS adceci to r"ad as !.u:ensees .l'Uthcrtztd to operate radto 'ollows· !:}'Stems tn the frequency ~snds above • • 1. so MHx may employ 5ignsl booSters In 4CCOrd.anee with the fcllowtng ai:eria: [:!) Tl::le 01mplilieci signal is retransrniued only en the euct fre1:juoncy(iesl of the originating b.ue. fixad. mobila. or portable station(r.). The !:looster wi II fi II in only weak sig:utl areas :~.nd can..·un extend th" systarn 's s;cn:~.l coveraca noa. ..-· 5 !U.I$ Uso af sJgMI ta-.teq. Uc:ensees autbari7otd to operate mub.i'Dle ac!cires~J' '1\S in tbe 92B- 9Z9/9.52-96D ' '~32-132.5/941- 941 .. 5 MP· ·v / ·play signal ~OQSl"' ., /J\/l / i t.he (""'. -~ . to\ <jllf ;b) The booster must ba •quipP.~,... \.. with automatic; gatn cantrol e,i?" ~ll- wtlic::h wiillimi.t the totalp.... _,. \~ '<'~ of the unit to a ma:r.im~ ~ ~/ ~(II> !!!illiwatts uncier ilY 1~~+ ~ . L ·or or 'lin .. , • ..-emte channel ourpu ,~~r:. · (Class BJ u · ,.,.._ ;.. · (SOO ,. <f"'~ ~ i ch:In. 7~-J.!.,; mvet t... ~ .. of §90 . .;. {c} Boo. suffic:ient 1. :1::1 d 11tti'IUlSt'l oscillation. .At (d) The Iicon. .,.nhoritv to oper:na signal be. ..... ithout sepi.rate euthorh:aticn fton. .10 Commission. Typa•ac:c:epted equipment .mur;t be· ernploreclenci :he lic:a.nsee ml.lst•nsure th:.t al ;applicable rule requirements ate met. (e) t.i~:ensee~: employing Cla,;s B Jignal IJaostcD as defined. in § 90.7 are re!'lponsible for correcting tiDY ha:mful interferenc~: that tl'~e equiprnant may cause to other systems. PART 94-P~IVA TE OPERAnONA.L• FIXED MJCROWAVE SERVICE · ., bo •quipped .•• n c:onc:ol circ\.&icry ,,a tba tOtal output of the .:~00 mill.lwaus under all •• ons.. Booscors must meat the out· .-rui emmlssion limits o! § 14~7\. (c) Boasters will be installed wtth surficient isoiaUon betWMtn receiving and nt!'lnsmittin& c:ircuits to provent osc:i.Uation. tdl Tbe lictn.see is stvan authority to use siga::~l boostet~ without sepan~te 11utbarization from the Commission. Type-aeapcad IIIC{uipment must be employed :u'lci rhelic:ensee mu$l ensure th<lt ail applicable Nle raquirements are met. . (e) Ltc.niCMI$ employing Class B signal boosui'S as dtst'iD.ed ic § 94..3 are responsible for comactlng any i'w1Dful interimnce tha.t tha sicnal boastvr may QU.SU to other syswms. !~R Doc:. 95-lS":I Flleelti-%11-95: 1:45 :~ml IJIWNQ CCCI& 11'12- 1. The ~urhotity citation for part 94 ccnllnuas to read as follows: Audatmry: Sees. 4. lOl . .-e Slat., as :~rno.:ndl!d. ~O&G. lOIZ: 47 t:.S.C.. 154, 3a:J. unles• Cthet"Worift nQWd. r;-EPAATMENT OF THE INTEAtOR Flah and WUdtlle Sorvlce 2. Sac:Uon 94.1 is amended by •uic:ina the-definition Cor ··signal booster" ir1 alphab-ltic.:al otcior to read u follow11: § B&.3 DorlnJIIons. Signt:ll booster. 1\ device which . :~utamatially raewives. ~mplilin. and retr1nsmits on a one-w:ay or two-way basis. the signals rec:aivad from b:lse. Fixec!. mobile. and oon:~.ble stations. with no c;;llonge in frequency or :~~.~tharb:od bandwicith. A signal boo$.ler may be either narrowband (Clau AI. in .... nich caca th4! boastet ;:ampllfiet only those discrete frequent>ies \ntendad 10 retronsmitl.:d. or l:lraadband fCL;:ass Bl. 1r. Nhich C'.a:s., all ~ign;m ... ·nbin the .SO CFA Pan 17 El'lcl&IDgered •nd Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 1Z·Month Ancsifta tar a Petlllcm ta Ust the Queen ChartoTle Gosn.tt as Enc;t8ngered AGDI<:r; Fish ancl Wildlife Service. lntari.or. ACTVltl; Nottc:e of 11•monlh petition Ending. SUMM&AT: The Fish :~.ru:l Wildlife Sarvic:e rsorvia} announc:e:> a 12-month finding (or A patit!Cift \0 bst the Queen Charlotl~ gosb.lwk. (A.ccipiter seruilis ldlngi) uncier ~h, Endonpred Species Act. ;:a: ,,mended. Alter~ revi~ew of .:~.II available sc:iotntilic: infonn••nicn the Servir:a find that listing this species is net wammUid <~t this time. OATES: The finding IIN\OUtlc:ed in this doC\Imant was made en M.ty 19. 1995. AOORESS&s: Data, intormation. c:ommeats. or questions CODce.ming this petil.ion should be submitted to the U.S. Fish ~d WUd.lile Sel"'fice. 3000 VU:nage Blvd .• Suite 201. JunQU. Alaska 99801. · The p.tition findins. supporting ciata. and eomments ::~re avai.labt. fat public: inspec:ucn. by .:~ppointnumt, durin& nonnal bus;inass hours at the ahtwe address. FOR ~lfi'M£R INFORMATION CONTACT: ]obn Lindell. Endanserecl Species Biologist. Ecological Servl.c:ss {see AOOAU&E$ section) (907/586-1240). SUPPI.EMEMT .lAY IHfiORMATIDN: Bac.kp:tund ~ Section 4(b)(3)(S) of the Endangered Species Act (Ac:t] of 1973, as .vnenci.ed (16 u.s.c. 1531 et .seq.).~ tbat thfl Service J:nake a finding within 12 months or the date of.tha receipt or. val..id. petition on wbelhar the petitlon..:l action is (a) not wamanwcl. (b) warn.nted. or (c:) wammted out . pteciucied from i!nmediete proponl by otb.ar pending propc:o.Ab or.h.igber priority. On No..,ember Zl. 1991. the Setvica publisbad in thD Fedm&llt.ezi.aer (56 FR 58104) a no1lce of reView for an upd.lwd list of :tnlmal taxa th•n an being reviewed for possible addilion to the LiSt or Endangentci anci 1'1uoatened Wildlife. Among the s;~ec:ies included as Carecory Z c::ancli.datas was tbe northern goshawk (/l.t:r:ipit~r t:•ntili.J). By inclusion as a subspec:ie" the Quean Charlotte aosb4wlr. wu aisc:J designated a C;ategory .2 species at tbal time. · On May 9. 1994, the Service rec:eived a petition dated May 4. 1994., from the Southwest Center for Biological Divmhy. the Gnater Gila Bicdiversity Project. the Biod.ive~icy Legal Foundation. Greater Eco,.,tem Alliance. Save the West. Save Amenca·s Forests. Native Forut Nnwori:. Native Forest Council. Erie Holle • ..net Don Muller to list the Queen Chltlotte goshqwlt (/l.cc:ipitt:r gentili.s lainpl as enciangered pursuant tc the .End.anpzed Species Act. On A~:gust 2.6, 1994, (59 Flt. 44124} the Servic:o •n.nounced e so-Gay finding thar the petition presented substantial information inc:licaung r.bar lhe Nql.l8$ted. actia.n may btl wananlad and opened • comment period until Novemb•r 15. 1994. On January 4. 1995, (GO FR 1151 the Sor'<ica eatended th• comment pettod ~nril f,'ebruary 9. 1995. On February 24. 1995 (60 fR 10344} the Service nltmdecl the ctltnment perioc:l until FebNary %8. 1995. 1)6:J(I:95 11:13 fr90i i86 3350 .U>M OFC FWS ES ~oo:!:uu:! Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. lZS I Thursciay. June 29. 1995 I Proposod Rul~s 33785 The S"rv1t:e has reviewed the pwUtian. the literature cited in the petiticn. and other liu:ratu:e ~nd information ~v;~ilable in the Servic;e's tiles . .1nd contact~d pe~ons lmowled.gaabltt about ~his species. On the basis of the~~ sc1entific 11nc commercial information .Jv:ziiabh:. the Se:-vu::e finclings the petition is not warranted at this time. In th11 90-riay finding the Service reco~niud :he petitioners' concerns fo~ u·.e long-ter:n survival of the Queen Charlotte goshawk. The Service continu"s to share thOSIII concerns. The L'.S. For~st Serv:ce is evahating its la.nd management pract1ces t!trough t:'le dev.t1opment oC i:llarim rnlll148811l.81U suidelines 10 m.:linto~in wiable popuhuicns o! r.:mve wilcilife. o.."'ld co:tsidering long•1erm managemant .acllons th~ouch revision or the "Ionsass !'lauonal Forest und and Ruource Manage:ncm P!an. The Servh:e tlelieves :r.ere is opportunity to m:mase Cor the iong-term viability of the sosha"'·k t.l'l.roush Lie impiemeru;~tlon of these guieelim's a:1d the rnmagement !JIM. Howev.,r. i: is cie~r that withouf significant d-.:znges to the u~ting Tongass National Forost Lanci anti Rasoun.:e Management Plan. the i.ong• terro viability or the Quo•n Charlctte godlawJ.: m11y be seriously imperiled. !'he Q1.1een Charlotte gashewl' wUl therefore be retained on tha Set"Vice's list as a category 2 Qndidate speties. 1! ::ciditional elate become available~ tha Service may reusess the need to list thi:S ~?IICil!l$. Author The prim11ry author o{ this doc::.unent is john Linclell. Endange111d Speaes Biologi~t. Ecological Services (see• ADCFIESSES ~et.:tlon) (telephone 907/586- 7240}. Authority The &uthoritv fo::-this action is :he Endangered Spf:cies Act (16 U.S.C: 1531 e~l !'eq.). • Dllted: M:3y 111. 1995. ~ollie H. Beanie. Dircoc:nr. Fish and IVildUf~ Servlt:~. lfR D:~c. 95-1S975 Fileclli-28-95: &:.aS ami 11~1.1110 C:OOE .,, __ ~~------------------------- SO CFR Par1 , 7 Sndar'l;ered ar'ld ThriiOlltenod Wildlife and Plants; so-Day Flf'ldlf'lg for a Petition Tc List the Southern Tonent S~lamander AGENCY; Fish .:md Wlldlif• Servi~. ln.tc~eigr. ACTION: NctiC8 of 90·dey petition tin ding. SUioUIAAY: The Fish ana Wilt:1liCu Service (Sarviee) announces a 9o-d3y finciing on a pet.ition to list the southern tomnt stlamander IRhyacorrilon varj~!DlUS). under the Enciangurod Species Ac::t or 1973. IllS amended. The Service finds th&tthe petition p111sented substftntiol inform:::~ticn indiceting that listing th1s species may be warranteci. The Service 1niti11tes a statw; revi•w &Dei will prepare a l2·manth fiading. CIATU: The fin<iing announced in this document wu made on June 'J. 1995. The Servic:o will consider ;II ccmments received by July 31. 1995 in the status review and 12-mon:h Cindins !or this species. .r.Ot'RESSES:'Questions. c:omments. or information concerning this potition should bo submitted to the IJ.S. Fish and Wlldlifo Service, 2800 Cotla@e Way. Room E-1823. Sac:r:~montc. C:llifami~. 95825-1846. 'The petition. petition finding, supporting dita, end comments are available for public inspectiDn. by appointment. durlns nonnal businas;; hours at t."'te above address. FOR FURTHER INFORM&nON CON'!' ACT: Ann Crisnay. staff biologist . .u the above eddnss or talephone 916-91~Z1%S. SUPPLEMeNT AllY INFCRMA TJON: B~clcgroUDd Section "Cb)[3)(A) c! the Endangered S~ec:ie$0 Act of 1973, .15 amended (Ac:t) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et s~q.), requires that the Service make a finding on whether;;~ peti tiOI" !O list, de lin. or reelassily a specie5 presents substantial seiennr:.: or commercial information to demonstrale that tbe petitioned action may be warranted. A finding is to bo b:Jsad on all infonnation .available to the Service at tha tim~ the finding is made. To the maxjmwn e.u.nt practic:able. ~ finding is to be made within 90 days of the date the petition was received, and the finding is to be published promptly in the federal &egi.ster. 1r the fin~ing is positive. the Service i5 required tc comrnena a revi.tw of the st:1tus of the spec:ies involved if one has not alreAdy been initi~ted under the SeNiee's · intemal c~ndicbte assessment process. The Service has macie a 90-day finding on • petition to list the southern torrent Rlamander (Rhyocolriton variegows). On May ll, '199"'1, the Service 11!Ceiveci a letter from Stephan C. Volker. attomey for the Environmental Prolec:tion ln£orma1ion Canter. Nonhcoast Envlronmant:.l Center. Oregon N11tural Resourcas Council. C:llifomie Wllderness Coolltion, Friends of the Rinr. South fcrk Mountain De Cans.: Commiuea. Mef\docino Environmenbl C~!nt.rr. Sierra Club, ulifomia Spor"ifishin~o: Protection AUi~nee. Willits Environmen~l Center.a.nd i\nci(:IH Forest Defence Funci. to Ust t!'.o ~~-:r.~:~ torrent S3l:un:3nder as a thrc.:ztc:n111d $pdcies. The hmer was ci:tod Ml'y Z-l . ~994. and c:learlv identified. 1!111 abc:;ve mentioned parties as co-petitioners ~:of a petition dated May 2.3. 1994, authotlfd by John M. Gaffin of the Environmental Prowction .Lnformauon Canter. [nc.. The petition contained the name. 'il!n&ture. institutional affiliation. and ;dcire~ or the primary petttloner. Tho sou them tcn-ent sallll..rDilnder ':-las boen identified ~s 01 species (Cood a."'ld. Wue 199Zl that is disciac:t room c.ne Olympic nlamander (Bhyr:~otriUStl oJympieus), ~nd 'lhe oripiUII su~spec1es design.:nion cf Ffhyoc:atri'on ol_vmpit:us variegatus i£ no longer :applicable. The Service is usins the species' commo:1 name. southam torrent salamander. in :sccorrl with Good and Wake (1992). anc:! is not using the former sub-$pecies c:ommon n11me. 50uthem seep salamander. ;as identified in &he petition. The petitioners requested that lhr: Service list the southern ~errant salamant1er as threatened throughout its range. Hictoricaily. the sCM.athem tornnr s.Jamanciar has been described as occumng from Tillamook County, Creson. south alons the coast range intg nort.hwestem California including Del Nortl!, Humboldt. Siskiyou, Tlinity, and Mendocino cou:uies. The species resides in headwau•n hab1toal of conifer· dominated m:!ture and old·;rawth forests, and h:1s resnlctive habitat requirements. lL in~ bits mossy se11ps or headwaters or the mou-c:ovet8U mek.y .substrate (Corn and Bury 1989) of first and second order streams up to 1.200 feet 1n elevation (Nussbaumer a/. 1983). They b.ave :z low thermal r.m~ of S.e to u.o '"C (42 to 53 •n CBrettstrOm 1963. Nussbaum ~r a/. 1983) •. are highly sensitive to ciesicc;ation (~y 1958). IUld are aquatic obligates. They 11ra ~robably g)mmunal nesterS (Nussb..um 196Sl. md produce few eggs pert year (8.4 to · 10.0) (Nussbau:n eraJ.1983). The petitioners assen thut these characte=ristic:s :ninimiu the ability of southern torrent s:Uamander populations tc recovar from r.sdic:al habitat alterations. Tbe petitioners have cODCDm$ ebout lacaUzed extinction as a result Df continued. timber hat"VUt, habt~& degntd:3tlon •nd f:agmen&adon. anci aenetlc isolation. Althouzh the species appears lc be pn:sent lhrouahout Us historical range. ther; is 8Yidence or loalized papulation supprnsLc:rr. and e.lttirpation in the 5hOr1-l.erm ~ LCI past f JUL,ll '95 01:58PM SITKA RANGER DIST United States Department of Agriculture Tongass N.F. -Chatham Area-- Forest Service Sitka Ranger District Region 10 e USDA Forest Service. Sitka Ranger Dlstrlct, 201 Katllan, Suite 1 09, SHka, AK 99835 To: D h~~ kbz;d{ Unit: tJ U 12- From: O /i Cl¥> -~ ;..., {~ ( Unit: -···-· ~ ... -. ---.. -~- Fax Cover Page Fax No: 2 7-lf 7. 0)2.~. Verification No:. ______ _ Fax No: (907} 747-4253 Verification No: (10!) 747· Remarks: ·-p { ~. + ~-; ""-fl-<.v.i .-~'-' l~ ~ .. "'-//'\.:.:--.. -§...;? ~-e'(:; ~*'-.f , 1$.,-:3 ~ 0t-.-L.+~ f'h-t ~+cla~ k~ Off: LJZ-• • (z_.., <': -· ? 'j 0 I) b -• _L ' -_, . ) I &"(? k 1a 9k+= .;; l T"'"-' '· Total number of pages {excluding cover sheet): 2-- Date sent: 7 /t.. J lime: 2... 0 Q 1 .. SITKA RANGER DIST P ':> .... ALASKA. U.S.A. PLAT ANTHER.A CBORISIANA (Cham.) Reichb. ORC CRAIG QUAD.: Prince of Wales Island, OoverBay, ca. 1/2 mileS of Anderson Point, SS 0 17'28"N, 132.0 07'S3"W, 1m. muskeg. M.C. Stensvold 6150 Det. c~. ParJa:r, 1994 U.S. Forest Service· Alaska Region t4 University of Alaska Herbarium (ALA) PLAT ANTBERA CHORISIANA (Cbam.) Reic.bb. 9Aug 1993 ALASKA, U.S.A. ORC DIXON ENTRANCE QUAD.: Prince of Wales Island, Gardner Bay, 1 mile W of head of bay. 54°49'44"N, 132°01'47"W, 59S m. windswept plant communities oo rounded pavement of exposed rode, runnels of vegetation. M.C. Stensvold 6248 12Aug 1993 Det. C.L. Parker, 1994 U.S. Forest Service • Alaska Region ex University of Alaska Herbarium (ALA) t 1 J r ·* • ' . JUL 11 '95 01=58PM SITKA RANGER DIST He....,-. "'.) "ttc.l.C.. ., PLAiaS OF AlASU Sout:heaatem PLATANTHERA CHORISIANA (Cham.) Rchb. Chichagof Island, NW part. W side of Lisianski Inlet across from Pelican. About 1 mile SW of ~he mouth of Cann Creek at an elevation of about 800 feet. Growing in flat boggy meadow. •Helicopter landing area" NW1/4,SE1/4,Sec.23,T.45S.,R.56E. CRM Margaret Beilharz & Mary S~ensvold 6328 7 July 1993 Plants of Alaska Southeastern Platan.th.en1 ch.orfstana (Cham.) Reb b .. Chichagof Island. W side of IJslansld Inlet. Cann Creek drainage. About l/4 nule ssw: or thew mouth or cann Creek. Between upper end of the bog and old corduroy road. NWl/4,NWl/4. Sec 24, T45S, RSSE. CRM. Rare. widely &eatt;ered 1ndMduals tn gram1notd bog with law ertcaceous plants. 23 August 1993 Mary Clay Stensvold FOREST SERVICE HERBARIUM U.S. DEPII.ItT'WENT Q F AG"ICUI. TUIU: HABENARIA CHORISIANA Cham. 6286 (Set MUll II: 11-eJ STATEtco. Alaska, .southeast (Dto'to""ineCO (l'toet) FOResrtexPT.AREA Tongass N. F. Chichagof Island (NW .part) (ll••tll•riJ LOCAL.JTT West side of L isianski Inlet, across from Pelican, along Cann Creek. r•••'_,"•> YEC. TYPEIA.SSOC. PLANTS "OTI!Sa ABUNDANCE, HABIT, MA81TAT, HEIGHT, C.B.H. SCI I~ . I" I. OW IE" CCII. Cllt, FO"AG£/OT14Eit VAl-UE, u·e. Mary Clay Muller rColleci.V Muskeg. 3Z94 8/24/79 rN-•or> (D.,e) •200·, ,, 211'71 F' -=· . _, ~=}~~::~:.:··'::··· ··;:..~ .-;4·~~ July 12, 1995 Mr. Bill Baer U.S. Forest Service 3031 N. Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Dear Mr. Baer : Enclosed are the minutes from the June 21 and June 22, 1995, meetings for the above- referenced project. Please review these minutes and provide any corrections, additions, or changes by July 24th. If no changes are requested, these minutes will be considered fmal. We thank you for attending the meeting and look forward to your continued participation in this project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. 1YVe._hd (/ )tJfY!j.h !JIJ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services Enclosure cc: Vince Yearick, PERC Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Jack Snyder, NDT Mark Dalton, HDR Anchorage John Morsell, NES Don Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, & Quinn HDR File, B.4.1 Binder HOR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue. N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 July 12, 1995 Ms. Teresa Trulock U.S. Forest Service 3031 N. Tongass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Dear Ms. Trulock : I-i)~ Enclosed are the minutes from the June 21 and June 22, 1995, meetings for the above-referenced project. Please review these minutes and provide any corrections, additions, or changes by July 24th. If no changes are requested, these minutes will be considered final. We thank you for attending the meeting and look forward to your continued participation in this project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. IYl i'U1aJ_ ~ ?Jti rwtL i fJ Michael V. Stimac _./ (J Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services Enclosure cc: Vince Yearick, FERC Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Jack Snyder, NDT Mark Dalton, HDR Anchorage John Morsell, NES Don Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, & Quinn HDR File, B.4.l Binder HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue. N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004·5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 f T f ~ t July 12, 1995 Mr. Steve Hoffman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, Room 207 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Dear Mr. Hoffman : 1-i)~ Enclosed are the minutes from the June 22, 1995, meeting for the above-referenced project. Please review these minutes and provide any corrections, additions, or changes by July 24th. If no changes are requested, these minutes will be considered final. We thank you for attending the meeting and look forward to your continued participation in this project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. {r\i~ t! SMMOL/16 Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services Enclosure cc: Vince Yearick, FERC Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Jack Snyder, NDT Mark Dalton, HDR Anchorage John Morsell, NES Don Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, & Quinn HDR File, B.4.1 HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue. N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 July 12, 1995 Ms. Carol Denton Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, Room 205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Dear Ms. Denton: li)~ Enclosed are the minutes from the June 22, 1995, meeting for the above-referenced project. Please review these minutes and provide any corrections, additions, or changes by July 24th. If no changes are requested, these minutes will be considered fmaL We thank you for attending the meeting and look forward to your continued participation in this project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. fhicflcuJ U, 51imat 11~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services Enclosure cc: Vince Yearick, FERC Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Jack Snyder, NDT Mark Dalton, HDR Anchorage John Morsell, NES Don Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, & Quinn HDR File, B.4.1 HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue. N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004·5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 ' l ' ' t • 4 ' l July 12, 1995 Mr. Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, Room 207 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project PERC No. 11393 Dear Mr. Gustafson : Enclosed are the minutes from the June 22, 1995, meeting for the above-referenced project. Please review these minutes and provide any corrections, additions, or changes by July 24th. If no changes are requested, these minutes will be considered fmal. We thank you for attending the meeting and look forward to your continued participation in this project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. !:~~ti~~CS!i lti&L ~ Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services Enclosure cc: Vince Yearick, PERC Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Jack Snyder, NDT Mark Dalton, HDR Anchorage John Morsell, NES Don Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, & Quinn HDR File, B.4.1 HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue. N.E. Bellevue. Washington 98004·5538 Telephone 206 453·, 523 July 12, 1995 Mr. Steve Brockman U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 23193 Ketchikan, AK 9990 I Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project PERC No. 11393 Dear Mr. Brockman : Enclosed are the minutes from the June 22, 1995, meeting for the above-referenced project. Please review these minutes and provide any corrections, additions, or changes by July 24th. If no changes are requested, these minutes will be considered final. We thank you for attending the meeting and look forward to your continued participation in this project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~~~m~ 91·rn~ 116 Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services Enclosure cc: Vince Yearick, PERC Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Jack Snyder, NDT Mark Dalton, HDR Anchorage John Morsell, NES Don Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, & Quinn HDR File, B.4.1 HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue. N.E. Bellevue. Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 T ' • l Project: Date: Location: Time: Attendees: Meeting Notes Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project June 21, 1995 USFS Ranger Station, Ketchikan, Alaska 2:00PM Doug Campbell (Cape Fox Corp.) 1-i)~ Mark Dalton (HDR), John Morsell (Northern Ecological Services), Jack Snyder (NDT) Teresa Trulock, Bill Baer (USFS) Purpose: Review HDR's Flow Regime Report, review proposed study plans for summer 1995, and review draft biological evaluations (BE's) The following topics were discussed: l. Mark Dalton opened the meeting by explaining that the purpose of the meeting was to review study plans and remaining work to be done this year, to reach concurrence with USPS on scope and methodologies of proposed study plans, and to review the flow regime report and draft BE's prepared for the Mahoney Lake Project 2. Jack Snyder went through the flow regime report and described its features and how the report was prepared. Based on comments received at the scoping meeting in April, it was clear some additional data on pre-project and post-project flows in Mahoney Creek was necessary. The flow regime report is divided into four basic parts: a) description of how the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project fits into the other generation resources in Ketchikan; b) an analysis of average flow conditions pre-project and post-project in the bypass reach of Upper Mahoney Creek, in Upper Mahoney Creek downstream of the powerhouse, and in Lower Mahoney Creek downstream of the outlet of Lower Mahoney Lake; c) an analysis of pre-project and post-project flows during non-normal operating conditions such as plant shutdowns or plant full load operation periods; and d) an analysis of stream flows and salmon passage in Lower Mahoney Creek based on data collected in August and September, 1994. Jack Snyder presented a graphic depiction of the turbine operation and how deflectors could be used for short-term bypass purposes. One of the mam conditions of this report is that the project only impacts 39% of the drainage basin that feeds the outlet of Lower Mahoney Lake. Sixty-one percent of the drainage basin is unaffected by the project Post-project flows at the outlet to Lower Mahoney Lake are only slightly influenced by the project Meeting Notes Date: June 21, 1995 Page 2 Jack discussed the correlation prepared to show the relation between recorded flows in Upper Mahoney Creek (at tailrace) and Lower Mahoney Creek fish movement observations during August and September of 1994. This was then linked to a threshold flow that is presumed to pass sockeye into Lower Mahoney Lake. The intent of the summer 1995 field program is to better establish flows necessary to pass fish. Jack Snyder stated that during a dry season, project flows could be artificially "spiked" to increase flows to facilitate fish movement. John Morsell stated that no modification (including barrier removal) to Lower Mahoney Creek is proposed because of concern about introducing pinks into lake system in potentially significant numbers. 3 Bill Baer asked if Cape Fox would be monitoring flows and salmon passage at Lower Mahoney Creek this year. Mark Dalton and John Morsell answered yes and described the proposed study plan. The main purpose of the plan is to attempt to establish the threshold flow in Lower Mahoney Creek that will allow sockeye salmon passage up to Lower Mahoney Lake. Cape Fox staff will observe the creek every 3 days, and when sockeye appear in the middle section of Lower Mahoney Creek, John will come to the site for detailed observations. Lake population and spawning data will also be gathered at this time. No other passage or other fisheries studies are planned at this time. 4. Resident fish in Upper Mahoney Lake and Upper Mahoney Creek were discussed. John Morsell described USFWS' unsuccessful attempts at planting grayling in the Upper Mahoney Lake in the 1970's. There have been no concerns raised about resident fish in the Upper Mahoney Lake, and no studies are planned. 5. Mark Dalton discussed plants and the plant BE. According to Bill Baer, he had been advised by Mary Stensvold (USFS) that she is leaning toward more plant surveys because additional occurrences of choris bog orchid are not known. Mark stated that orchid field work will be done in July as described in the BE. Bill Baer explained that this would be very helpful because if additional populations are located in areas on USFS land not affected by the project, the impacts from project construction will be easier to accept. There have been 2 populations identified on Revillagigedo Island in the past, one near Back Island and one in Misty Fiords. Additional populations in the area, if found, will relieve USFS concerns. 6. Bill Baer provided comments on the draft plant BE. He said it looked good and was right on track. He had a few comments and clarifications on the draft that he provided to Mark Dalton. The orchid sensitive species is the USFS's main concern. He asked about 95 plants around Upper Mahoney Lake and what discussion could be added to the BE to address the impact of lake drawdown on these plants. Mark stated that this would be considered further. 7. Mark Dalton reiterated that the real driving force for additional studies this summer is the new alternate "southern" transmission line route. As long as studies are being done for this new route, additional data will be gathered in the project area too. 8. The animal BE was discussed. Bill Baer thought it looked very good, and provided a few comments on the draft document. He pointed out that if active eagle nests were found, that USFS may place restrictions on blasting during construction in the spring within Y2 mile of 'f l t i Meeting Notes Date: June 21, 1995 Page3 those nests. Bill was also satisfied vvith the goshawk and frog field survey work that is being proposed. Mark asked about USFS policy if a goshawk nest is located. Bill stated that typically, USFS requires that an area of suitable habitat (600 acres in size) be set aside around the nest 9. Bill Baer reminded the applicant that when selecting the transrruss10n line route for the "southern" transmission line, that we attempt to stay at least 500 feet from the shoreline, as USFS manages this strip of land as beach fringe area. l 0. The BE process was discussed. Bill Baer stated the applicant was right~on~track to address only USFS lands. On private lands, required studies should be worked out between owner, USFWS, and the State of Alaska. The USFS is satisfied that their concerns are being addressed on their lands. The applicant stated that the study plans being proposed to address USFS concerns will also be presented to USFWS and ADF&G to address their concerns at the June 22 meeting. ll Bill asked if HDR was using the USFS plant survey forms provided by Mary Stensvold when domg the plant survey Mark Dalton confirmed th.is was so. 12. Teresa Trulock asked about the status of the cultural survey. She reminded HDR!Cape Fox that the USFS wants to see a study/survey methodology or protocol, and information on the qualifications of the principal investigator before the survey is done. The need for an mvestigative special use permit to do th.is work is waived, but USFS still wants to see the methodology (research design) and investigator qualifications. HDR/Cape Fox agreed that this would be supplied to USFS soon. The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:00PM. Recorded by John l Snyder and Mark Dalton. 6/21195 h:\hyd\mahoney\ea\scoping\0621 note.doc Project: Date: Location: Time Attendees: Purpose: Meeting Notes Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project June 22, 1995 Westmark-Cape Fox Hotel, Ketchikan, Alaska 9:00AM Doug Campbell (Cape Fox Corp.) 1-D~ Mark Dalton (IIDR), John Morsell (NES), Jack Snyder (NDT) Teresa Trulock (USFS) Steve Brockman (USFWS) Steve Hoffinan, Carol Denton, Jack Gustafson (ADF&G) Review of Agency Response Letters to Scoping Meeting No.1, Review of Proposed Study Plans. 1. Mark Dalton opened the meeting with a discussion of the purpose of the meeting -to review comment letters and additional study requests made by USFWS and ADF&G, particularly as they are affected by the proposed southern transmission line alternative. 2. Jack Snyder reviewed the Flow Regime Report recently issued for review; he went through the report and highlighted the basic findings in the report. 3. John Morsell described the study plan for salmon monitoring at the outlet to Lower Mahoney Creek planned for August and September 1995. The purpose of this study will be to attempt to better determine the "threshold" flow where sockeye are able to pass up Lower Mahoney Creek to Lower Mahoney Lake. The flow regime report shows very little impact on natural flows during August and September. It should be possible for the project to increase releases if necessary to supplement natural flows, and to actually enhance fish passage if conditions warrant 4. A discussion of long-term monitonng followed. ADF&G has indicated that 5 years of post-project construction monitoring should be sufficient, but if we propose to enhance passage if necessary, monitoring of sockeye passage should occur every year, for the term of the license. Cape Fox agreed that a license condition requiring monitormg of sockeye passage, and release of extra water through the project to improve passage, for up to I 0 days per year, would be acceptable. The agencies could request this as a 4(e) condition. The stream gage would also be left in place in Lower Mahoney Creek indefinitely. Other long-term monitoring plans have not been proposed or developed yet. The Applicant will propose some monitoring plans. S USFWS expressed several concerns, that were discussed, including: a) What happens if the plant shuts down m winter -it seems flows are greatly reduced below the powerhouse. Would this adversely affect eggs incubating in the lake? b) Are dissolved oxygen levels greatly lowered when using deep lake water in the plant? Meeting Notes Date: June 22, 1995 Page 2 c) Would a bypass valve be as effective in oxygenating the water as the turbine itself'J A discussiOn followed. Mark Dalton stated that a technical report IS being prepared, arid will be issued for review, showing results of oxygen monitoring arid temperature studies having to do with upwelling water m spawning areas. This report will shed a lot of light on these issues. Preliminary results show lake oxygen levels, even at depth, are quite high. The pelton wheel turbine arid turbulent tailrace will also further oxygenate the water. Jack Snyder recalled a project in Northern Idaho called Smith Creek where fairly extensive oxygen monitoring was done. Steve Brockmari asked if reports on this monitoring cari be found arid sent to him. Jack Snyder will try to get this arid provide it to him. There were no further fisheries-related questions. 6. Mark Dalton reviewed the specific points of the USFWS letter with Steve Brockmari. USFWS concerns about upwelling in the spawning beds will be addressed in a technical report currently being developed. A draft water quality technical report will be provided to the agencies when it is available. Cumulative impacts will be addressed, but in general there is expected to be very little "cumulative" impacts due to little or no past or future planned developments in this basin. Recreation or logging impacts will be addressed in the EA, but these are mostly impacts, not "cumulative impacts". 7. Regarding plarits, the applicant will address all the species indicated as concerns to USFWS. The Carex species will not be impacted. Most plant work proposed this summer is due to the new "southern" transmission route. Doug Campbell explained KPU's desire for this southern route, arid that Cape Fox would rather use the northern route, but may offer the south route to the City as a sign of willingness to be cooperative. Some plant species observed last season will be re-visited to allow more positive identification to be made (last season's studies were conducted a little late in the year). Attempts to identify additional populations of USFS sensitive plant species will be made during the July field work. 8. Regarding birds, the standards referenced in USFWS 's letter will be utilized. HDR will follow the USFS protocols for bird surveys. 9. Additional spotted frog sampling will be done this summer using baited minnow traps -USFWS uses clams for bait. Traps are set in edge habitats in emergent vegetation along edges of streams arid ponds in back water areas where project impacts are likely to occur arid the habitat appears to be suitable. I 0. A bald eagle nest survey will be conducted July l 0 with USFWS and Cape Fox personnel. ll. Goshawks were discussed. Mark Dalton described the methodology that 1s proposed and has been accepted by USFS for studies on USFS land. The bas1c methods are the same as suggested by USFWS in their letter, but the intensity of the study will be considerably less. Recordings will be played about every 150 meters along trarismission line route. Steve Brockman is aware of goshawk survey protocols written up by USFS. If the methods proposed follow these same protocols and are acceptable to USFS, he agrees it will satisfy USFWS too. Teresa Trulock agreed that the proposed goshawk study plans are acceptable to USFS as they are currently proposed. l ' t t t Meeting Notes Date: June 22, 1995 Page3 12 Marbled murrelets were discussed. Mark Dalton stated that smce they are only candidate species, there is no regulatory requirement for the applicant to do any studies of this species. No studies are planned or proposed. USFWS stated that they still would like to see some information gathered. If good nesting areas can be identified, perhaps the transmission line route could be adjusted to avoid the best locations. USFWS suggested the study scope could be reduced considerably and still be acceptable, maybe just a few observations around Lower Mahoney Creek outlet area and at high probability stands of old growth along the beach. Mark Dalton agreed to produce a map, based on interpretation of aerial photos, showing the old growth stands and where project impacts might be. Based on this map and related information, Mark will propose a study methodology consistent with the amount of expected impacts. This was acceptable to USFWS and they will wait for Mark's proposal. I 3 ADF&G brought up goats and wants to be sure they are addressed m the EA. Mark Dalton agreed that they would be addressed in the EA, for both construction and post-construction impacts. HDR agreed to provide the final study plans and schedules ASAP. Meeting adjourned at ll: 15 AM Prepared by John J. Snyder and Mark Dalton United States Department of the Interior IN R.EPl Y R.EFER TO: Mr. Michael V. Stimic HDR Engineering, Inc. suite 1200 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sourheasr Alaska Ecological Services 3000 Vintage Blvd., Suire 201 Juneau, Alaska 99801-7100 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Re: Mahoney Lakes Hydroelectric Project Dear Mr. Stimic: !":') '1 ··q ,. 1 t""'"'" ', ~ !i·, ~~~w~'i ; . I 7 :~.:J"':") ~ ; '···'! ~~--~....,~ ..... t j L"~ ....... . :HDR ENGINEERING, INC.! ·---·~-------"' July 13, 1995 This responds to your letter of May 24, 1995, concerning an alternative transmission line route how being considered for the subject project. Many of the issues identified in our letter of May 19, 1995, are relevant to the alternative transmission line corridor. Our May 19 letter discussed transmission line designs and routes to minimize both electrocution and collision hazards for birds. These considerations apply equally to any alternative transmission line routes. The new route should be surveyed for raptor nests, to allow for scheduling of construction that will not conflict with nesting activities. The bald eagle survey conducted by Mike Jacobson of our Raptor Management Branch in June, 1994, did not cover the alternative transmission line route. Murrelet and 9oshawk nests surveys, as requested in our May 19 letter, should cover any alternative transmission line route. Vegetation surveys should also be done along the alternative route to ensure that no unique communities or candidate species will be adversely impacted. The southern half deer winter range. travels through or length. Potential of the alternative transmission line route passes through The originally proposed route, including the access road, adjacent to deer winter range for essentially its entire effects on the deer population should be addressed. Cumulative effect potentially resulting from use of the alternative transmission line route should also be evaluated. For example, if creation of the corridor will facilitate access for recreation, timber harvest, or other uses, the effects of adding these uses to the area, in consideration of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects should be evaluated. If construction of a road along the alternative transmission line is considered as an option, the effects of the corridor with and without the road should be evaluated and disclosed. Beaver Falls Creek appears to be the only anadromous fish stream crossed by the alternative transmission line route. In-stream work should be avoided this stream, if possible. Otherwise, such work should be scheduled when anadrornous fish, their eggs, or alevins are not present. In any case, the , operators of the Beaver Falls Hatchery should be contacted at (907)225-9605 ensure that construction of the transmission line does not unduly interfere with their operation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this modification. If you have any questions, contact Steve Brockmann at (907)225-9691. cc: Mark Dalton, HDR Engineering, Anchorage ADFG, Ketchikan EPA, Anchorage NMFS, Juneau ADEC, Juneau ADNR, Juneau Div. of Governmental Coordination, Juneau t l ' in f to .. ' ' ... - August 25, 1995 Ellen Hall, Project Manager Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation I 0900 NE 8th Street Bellevue, W A 98004 NoRTHROP, DEVINE & TARBELL, INc. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE Subject: Swan Lake-Tyee Intertie Environmental Impact Statement Project Report No. 1 Dear Ms. Hall: We have received a copy of the above referenced "Project Report No. 1" describing the·swan Lake- Tyee Intertie Project. As an engineering firm assisting Cape Fox Corporation (CFC) on its Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, we are familiar with the history, previous studies, and progress of the various electric generation projects in the Ketchikan area. On behalf ofCFC, we would like to provide you with comments on "Project Report No. 1 ". We believe that the information in the report presents an incomplete view of the Swan Lake-Tyee Intertie project as it relates to the Mahoney Lake Project. Some additional information should be included in the project report to make it more complete. For example, on page 4, a high-lighted section states " A 1991 study found that KPU could build and operate the intertie project without raising rates." This is predicated on several important assumptions, such as full state grant financing (now very unlikely), no-cost power from the Tyee Project (also very unlikely), and 1991 construction cost estimates (current cost estimates are much higher). Furthermore, an independent economic report by Economic and Engineering Services (EES) done in 1994 shows that significant rate impacts would occur with the intertie project under nearly all scenarios. Another area in the Project Report requiring more information is the presentation of the 1992 R.W. Beck Report on page 4. No mention was made of project costs, cost/benefits ratios, or the fact that diesel generation and several new diesel plants would be required under the intertie scenario described in that study. The last 3 paragraphs on page 5 also need clarification. The statement that "without a project such as the intertie project, operation of Lake Tyee Project would not take advantage of the designed generation capacity of the facility'' needs expansion. In reality, Petersburg and Wrangell retain control of the Tyee Project, which will meet their growing needs for many years with or without the Swan Lake intertie. No cost figures or other explanation are included as support for the statement on page 5. ' ' 4601 N.E. 77th Avenu.e • Suite 185 • Vancouver, Washington 98662 • Telephone: (360)253-8235 • Fax (360)253-9164 A discussion of energy transfers that could occur over the Swan Lake-Tyee intertie is presented in the last paragraphs of page 5. The facts that are presented do not tell the whole story. The Raytheon study projects that, in 1999, approximately 42,000 Mwh will be needed by KPU. This is the same amount of energy that can be produced by Mahoney Lake in its first year of operation, also 1999. What also needs to be mentioned is that diesel generation will have to resume in Ketchikan, even with the intertie in place, by 2013 because not enough energy will be available from Tyee to meet KPU's needs in addition to those of Petersburg and Wrangell. By 2038, less than 50,000 Mwh will be moving over the intertie, by 2046 less than 40,000 Mwh will be available. Diesel generation will increase back up to 30,000 Mwh by the year 2020. Finally, there is no discussion in Project Report No. 1 of project construction cost estimates or project financing and resulting energy costs. This is key information for everyone. A comparison of construction cost estimates made over the years would be useful. Such a comparison would show the estimated costs today have grown significantly from those made in the original studies. R.W. Beck's 1992 report stated an estimated cost·of .$55.6 million for the intertie, including all engineering, administration and a 20% contingency. We understand that today's estimates are significantly higher. We appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments and hope they will be reflected in future Project Reports. Feel free to contact me at any time. Sincerely, HROP, DEVINE & TARBELL, INC. ~u~~ ohn J. "Jack" Snyder, PE Western Regional Manager cc Kristin Avery (Foster Wheeler) Bill Angelus (USFS) Doug Campbell (Cape Fox) M. Stimac Don Clarke (Wilkenson Barker) Foster Wheeler Letter 2 August 25, 1995 ' i To: From: United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ketchikan Ecological Services Suboffice 624 Mill Street Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 MEMORANDUM September 7, 1995 Mike Jacobson, FWS-Raptor Management, Juneau, AK Steve Brockmann, FWS-Ketchikan Ecological Services Suboffice, K~tchikan, An. r Subject: Mahoney Lakes Bald Eagle Survey On July 10, 1995, I conducted a helicopter survey of the Mahoney Lakes Hydroelectric Project alternative transmission line route, which follows the shoreline of George Inlet between Lower Mahoney Lake and the Beaver Falls Hydroelectric plant at the south end of the Tongass Highway. The pilot was Rich Englert ofTemsco Helicopters. I was accompanied by Eric Muench of Cape Fox Corporation. The survey lasted from 8:00am until 9:00am. The sky was clear and calm, and survey conditions were otherwise ideal. One new nest was located in the NWI/4, NWl/4, Sec. 36, T74S, R91E. The location is plotted on the two enclosed maps. The nest was not active, although it was in good condition. The nest was approximately 20 to 30 feet from the top of a large, dead-topped spruce. It appears that the power line can be routed outside the recommended 330-foot buffer. HDR Engineering, Inc., of Bellevue, Washington, has contracted with Cape Fox Corporation to prepare NEPA documentation required for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license. Sally Boggs, staff scientist with HDR, located the tree ort the ground, marked it with a yellow placard, and completed the nest data sheet. She is sending the data form, which will be forwarded as soon as I receive it. While in the vicinity, Eric wanted to show me the remains of nest number 24, which he'd called about on June 7, 1995. The nest tree had been broken at 35 to 40 feet from the ground. Cape Fox had intended to leave a buffer, but now wondered if they needed to. After coordination with your office, they confirmed the nest number on the yellow placard, clearcut all around the remaining, nestless snag, and left another large spruce nearby. The enclosed photos show the remains of the nest tree. The yellow placard is circled on one of the photos. cc: ~~~- c.rVfichael Stimic, HDR Engi.neering, Bellevue, W A Vicki Davis, FWS, Ketchikan MAHO ~E. Y LAK£ TO BEAVER FALLS. PveliwnnAry Mc:..hon~y 1-tyJ,.. Powuline. Loc .. tton / I' NOATH ·~ ( A, ...... .., .... ,. "' ......... :, , .... ; ... ,;.,.. h "l>ev:t 2 " .... ... ~t.,r) • .-( • ..., .. .,.".,. , • .,...:.. .. , -~ 1\.c. peWIL'W'I j..,.. r•.:ltc. "ff_ .... .,.. .. " ...... Jifr.r&M•' ri "' lilllolch a J S • "'•Jt .~ 1\,ti' AU,._ ...... ~ .. ., -· ----·-- ,_ September 27, 1995 (See Distribution List) Subject: Dear: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 11393/ AK 9504-0SJJ Scoping Document 2 1-i)~ Enclosed is a copy of Scoping Document 2 (SD2) for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. SD2 is based on Scoping Document 1 that was distributed via letter on March 9, 1995, incorporates the comments and requests for additional studies received during the NEP A scoping process, and contains copies of all consultation correspondence and responses developed in reply to concerns addressed in agency comment letters and identified at the scoping meetings held in Ketchikan on April 12 and 13, 1995. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding SD2 or the licensing process for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Sincerely, I:IDR ENGINEERING, INC. 1l1i ()_fiOJ.i tl Sri~~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services Enclosure cc. Guy Galloway, City of Saxman Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Vince Yearick, FERC Jim DeHerrera, USFS . John Braislin, Betts, Patterson & Mines Don Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn HDR Engineering. Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington_ 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 MAllJNG LIST U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Office P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Ms. Tamra Faris Supervisor-Protected Resources Management Division National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99602-1668 Mr. Nevin Holmberg U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 3000 Vintage Blvd. Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Steve Brockman U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 23193 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Vicki Davis U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 23193 Ketchikan, AK 99901 National Park Service Alaska Region 2825 Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99503 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth A venue Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. Forest Service Region 10: Alaska Region Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628 Mr. Jim DeHerrera District Ranger U.S. Forest Service 3031 Tongass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 1 Mr. Steve Sams U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Affairs Anchorage Regional Office 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 10: Bothell Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 Mr. Arthur Martin Regional Office Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1120 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1340 Portland, OR 97204 Ms. Lois Cashell Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 N. Capitol St. NE Washington, DC 20426 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, AK 99802 Honorable Ted Stevens U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Honorable Frank Murkowski U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Honorable Don Young House of Representatives 2331 Rayburn House Office Boulevard Washington, D.C. 20515 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Ms. Christine Valentine Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box 110030 Juneau, AK 99811-0030 Ms. Joan Hughes Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Barry Hogarty Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation DEQ/SE Region DEC 540 Water Street, Suite 203 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Judith Bittner Alaska Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 107001 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 Mr. John Dunker Alaska Department of Natural Resources/Water 400 Willoughby A venue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Mr. Bill Garry Alaska Department of Natural Resources Parks & Outdoor Recreation 400 Willoughby A venue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Chris Westwood Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry 2030 Sea Level Drive, #217 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Frank Rue, Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 2 Mr. Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Hoffman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sea Level Drive Room 207 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Mike Haddix Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Carol Denton Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Glenn Freeman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 9990 l Mr. Paul Novak Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Doug Larsen Wildlife Biologist Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Honorable Tony Knowles Governor, State of Alaska P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811-0001 ' * i Mr. Dick Emerman Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 W. Fourth Avenue Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Dennis Meiners State of Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy P.O. Box 112100 Juneau, AK 99811-2100 Mr. Riley Snell Alaska Industrial Development Authority 480 W. Tudor Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. Stan Sieczkowski Manager, Operations & Maintenance Alaska Energy Authority 480 West Tudor Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. Jim Thrall Locher Interests, Ltd. 406 West Fireweed Lane, Suite 101 Anchorage, AK 99503 Alaska Public Utilities Commission 1016 W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. C. L. Cheshire, Director University of Alaska -Southeast Economic Development Center -UofASE 7th A venue and Madison Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Robert Warner Librarian University of Alaska-Southeast 7th A venue and Madison Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Freitag Southern SE Reg. Aquaculture Association 2721 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 3 Mr. William J. Halloran Southern SE Reg. Aquaculture Association 2721 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Senator Robin Taylor Alaska State Senate State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Bill Williams Representative 352 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Honorable Jim Carlton Mayor Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Mike Rody Borough Manager Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Melanie Fullman Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Department 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jim Voetberg Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Phyllis Yetka Assembly Member Ketchikan Gateway Borough Box 958 Ward Cove, AK 99901 Honorable Alaire Stanton Mayor City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mahoney lAke Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Mr. William Jones Acting City Manager City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Fred D. Monrean City of Ketchikan Department of Public Works 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. John Magyar Acting General Manager Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Rich Trimble Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jan Risla Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Andrew Ketchikan Advisory Committee P.O. Box 7211 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. and Mrs. Fred Athorp Ketchikan Advisory Committee 10 Creek Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Larry Painter Ketchikan Advisory Committee P.O. Box 6181 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Ralph C. Gregory Citizen's Advisory Committee Federal Areas P.O. Box 7011 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mahoney lAke Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 4 Ms. Bridget Stearns Ketchikan Public Library 629 Dock Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Lew Williams Publisher Ketchikan Daily News P.O. Box 7900 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Belinda Chase Ketchikan Daily News P.O. Box 7900 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Bob Konet News Director KTKN Radio 526 Stedman Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Nancy Watt Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 5957 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Bob Martin, Director Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrification Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, AK 99821 Mr. John Arriola President Tsimshian Tribal Association P.O. Box 7162 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Richard Jackson President Tongass Tribal Council P.O. Box 3380 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Bea Watson, President Tongass Tribe Box 8634 Ketchikan, AK 99901 t ' t t 1 Ketchikan Indian Corporation 429 Deermount Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Chas Edwardsen Vice President Haida Society 3213 Timberline Court Ketchikan, AK 9990 l Honorable Harris Atkinson Mayor, City of Metlakatla Metlakatla Indian Com.m. P.O. Box 8 Metlakatla, AK 99926 Mr. J. L. Bennett Ketchikan Pulp Company P.O. Box 6600 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. 0. J. Graham Ketchikan Pulp Company P.O. Box 6600 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Allis May Davis Tongass Conservation Society P.O. Box 1102 Ward Cove, AK 99928 Mr. Eric Hummel Tongass Conservation Society P.O. Box 3377 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 419 Sixth Street, Suite 328 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Kate Tessar Alaska Services Group P.O. Box 22754 Juneau, AK 99802 Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 521 Haines, AK 99827-0521 5 Mr. Don Chenhall Chenhall Surveying P.O. Box 5860 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. J. C. Conley Service Auto Parts, Inc. 3806 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. David Kiffer 123 Stedman Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Craig Moore KTN Area State Parks Advisory Board 9883 N. Tongass Highway Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. June Robbins Legislative Information Office 352 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Sherrie Slick Alaska Congressional Delegation 109 Main Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Tena Williams 755 Grant Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Mary Klugherz McDowell Group 320 Dock St., #201 Ketchikan, AK 9990 l Mr. Hank Newhouse P .0. Box 9508 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Randall Ruaro Keene & Curran 540 Water Street, Suite 302 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Des Moore 8175 Sehome Road Blaine, W A 98230-9564 Mahoney LAke Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Mr. and Mrs. Forrest DeWitt Box 5252 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Guy Galloway Administrator City of Saxman Route 2, Box 1 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Doug Campbell Cape Fox Corporation P.O. Box 8558 Keochikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jack Snyder Western Regional Manager Northrop, Devine & Tarbell, Inc. 22118-20th Ave. SE, Suite 205 Bothell, W A 98021 Mr. Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services HDR Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 91201 Bellevue, W A 98009 Mr. John Braislin Betts, Patterson & Mines 800 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98161-1000 Mr. Don Clarke Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn 1735 New York Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 t ' l ' • l 6 October 27, 1995 Ms. Cheryl Haven Ketchikan Indian Corporation 429 Deennount Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Dear Ms. Haven: fi)~ In response to your request, HDR Engineering, Inc., on behalf of the City of Saxman and the Cape Fox Corporation, is pleased to provide you with four additional copies of Scoping Document 2 for the above-referenced project. This document was originally distributed to interested agencies and Native American groups on September 27, 1995. Please contact me if you have questions concerning the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. • I '-If lA I /• ,;.Vl/ • ; t,..{ , __ ,., l. ~-i I ' /1M /1 I .>·t-.. .._,,.. f{ ~~...\_? ,/.,i \ \ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing and Environmental Services cc. Doug Campbell, Cape Fox HDR File, B.4.1 HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N E Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 Transmittal HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2689 Telephone HlR 907 .274-2000 Fax 907 274-2022 :.. I f A· -. ·~ u I f IAnemronJirr.,_?'l-/('rr .... c-,J;;,~-ty-,(f Ru."r}l!r !Date' /!.I LrS" IJobNo075S3-0D"2'0J~ ocf ITo U S.. ror("d yrvtc.Jii,..: ., I 3:.p~ t T ..;>r. !:J'A .. c;:::. Av-e 1"\ ~ i I keicl,•kto\" ,Ak "']jCjcd I IReaarding I h1 A h.-> Y'\ ( V\ J-"· f'--<. _.J-(1...1.d Cil.(_L(. r +Y 1 ~ Pr ~ ~ f l' f --·----· ,-. --·--· I J WI -8M'ICiing you: L1 AtuiCMd U Prints U Change order L._j Uncler ..,_,_-via tht fol'-ing ~: U Plans U Samples L_j Specifications U Sholl drawings L._l Copy of lener U2~~~~-------------------------------------------- 0.. No. DMcription .___ __ I ''/thr : f!x~~:t!jl:tz • ~;l:tr:?:/i:;r~L Copies L)_ TheM-tntnemm.d • c'-lcecl bel-. .1/, )ll'.t1A fvtt .... ~ For approval-f' / U ApprCM!d as submined U Resubmit copies tor approval U For your use U ApptCM!d as noted U Submit c:op•es for distribution UAsreques18d U Returned tor r::orrec:tions L._l Return c:arrec:ted prints UForr~/~mmem u~~~ne~r---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U For bidll 19 --U Prints nttumeclllftv 1-n to ua l.........u 1 l?lrlf.d( :6?-t0--rru 7 'h_""-'_"i.::.:> ~-~L--~ _k..M.c'eJ _ lY__ -<7 M t /21'/r.:Jfr_~~-M~A~'"-/r/ ·+~~.:,---;;;-;,;,/ ~~'~.-::~ A L£._,F-A-. .ht..c r ~ , ~ I ,.-;-/ 7"Xr a,.-{/, CA2 C'hc.;« '1' :6fr.u /1-'!J ,r-,c:.."?'l(..t-21" ::?j 4 c:z, r..&E #£ 1 (•"[ f # .-1 -: . .r. f c-:J-'?.Av""l £?I.e. a;.-H" r ~ C_('_ L!_-v ,_ ·'Z ~~,I_ -'d'L......... k-, L_&£C7 // ~ fr-?> ~ -tS ff~ --·---/ I T~-,, jcopyto 1/hi(, · & /lr\J{L(. ls19 ned /~f &:'/7, ..._ :._-; C r¢ (( "~"•'•ftotnf'IOted.,...._I"'IIIOItfyu&etonc::e '-· e · ' / ,_ l ' l I ~- A ' ! 1 .. 1 Transmittal HDR Engineering. Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2689 Telephone HJR 907 274·2000 Fax 907 274-2022 ... Z' I ~~ J I ~ !Attention I utztc r lo.te /1/o '/) !JobNo 0 75~ g -oo.l. ·6o;l. -;:;. , ) -1-f I I To '""/'-{ L1 ,' . !. I :r D v-q 4 ( tJ I cJ.t:"i....f. s ~-----r ;----J1 1) -' . -'- 1 (/Jr.:;; 4fi:A,kn-lfr.,C7Cr" ~,s,rtr· , . 1 ~ . .13l_7:•t;nrr de:. I -(~· ./,.. (c , ';.~ / ..,.~ H lC. ~?'L/ 9 0 I l "' -· I ~arding dLL.L~l 'l'~L __ JCf.C .. ----..you: ~Aftllehed L_j Under..,____ tNfoHGwiftg ii!IIIM: LJ ShOp drMngs LJ Copy of lener LJ Prinuo LJ Change order U Plans LJ S.mples LJ Specifac:ations u~~~h~~--------------------------------------------------- Copiea .,... No. o-ription L/. I /,:,. ... ' . I ,. Jn.t,,·,.., 1 • ..fJq·~·l'l •. "$¢ TheN-................ -cMdutd be'-: LJ For llj)pro\181 LJ For your use LJ As requested LJ Approyec:IIIS submitted LJ Approved as noted LJ Returned lor corrections LJ Resubmit copies for apprcw&l LJ Submit COPies lor distribution LJ lleturn corrected prints ~~rr~l=mment LJ~om.~~·---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LJ Fer..... ,. ---LJ Printa ~ ........... to .. ,...._._ ..)...,/'! -,~·;;' ,·,r:;' _.-r-/'.'A rt'-1-?•r,, ,• nr.·---. /' 1 ... -,/, _; •. ·-'-~-_(:~crr~1,t;·_l___1 ·L ,,_f,._,.; . -·c , .... 71 /l/c_{1 I ICOPVIO ·:··// ? lsianec:l -h!'t 1 c...&-t ~&-l tt~n••noc .. f"'OIad ...... ftOiftfyvt.MOflee ,---r- ,// G 8 United States Department of Agriculture Anne Leggett Forest Service HDR Engineering Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503-2689 Dear Anne: Alaska Region Ketchikan Ranger District 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-2148 TT/TDD (907) 225-0414 File Code: 2670 Date: November 14, 1995 r-.. ,.., ......... ---.. --·-... , ;:-,r"CE" rr:!l 1 ,, 1 • -• • •"' ,, <• r 1 li'C. :v~:.~ .' * . ··:· .. ::: ~ 1 ~--NO_V_._ I 1 !Clc..;•::: • I ~~~ I I I '--~--' I ' ur;o PiG·!t\:: :>; . r. 1 1 ra.;I\ ,_i\! 1 ~~ ......... ~. L.v. ......... ._ .... _. __ . ____ _ Please find enclosed comments on the Biological Evaluation (BE) . I forwarded the BE to Cole Crocker-Bedford at the Supervisor's Office. Comments can be located on pages 1,3, and 11. All in all the BE looks good. If you have questions or comments please contact me at the Districc Office. Sincerely, . /1}/J -4'(,> . AT l_';di C:-.:;.___. Bill Baer District Supervisory Biologist Caring for the Land and Serving People ~;~~~ P';,~._~;!~,Paper G t t ' i ' l Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Biological Evaluatzon for Plants INTRODUCTION BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR PLANTS Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Ketchikan Ranger District Tongass National Forest The City of Saxman, Alaska, proposes to construct a hydropower project in the Mahoney Lakes area.. approximately seven miles nonheast of the City of Ketchikan. On the City of Saxman's behalf. the Cape Fox Corporation has retained HDR Engineering, Inc., to design the project, prepare the environmental documentation. and acquire a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license and other permits for the project. Part of the hydropower project is located within Tongass National Forest, on lands managed by the Forest Service. Ketchikan Ranger District. A special use permit must be granted to the City of Saxman by the Forest Service before the project can be constructed and operated. It is Forest Service policy to review actions, through preparation of Biological Evaluations, to determine their potential for effects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and species formally proposed for listing as threatened or endangered (Forest Service Manual 2600, Chapter 2670). The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to analyze the possible effects of the proposed activities on threatened, endangered. proposed, and sensitive plants. The initial review of information indicated that the project area includes habitat types typical of those which may harbor sensitive plants. Therefore, field surveys were conducted for sensitive plant species in the portions of the project area on National Forest System lands. and follow·up surveys were conducted to acquire additional information on a sensitive species that was found in the project area. The survey results. other existing information on occurrences of sensitive species. and knowledge of project plans form the basis for this evaluation. PROJECT DE~C:RJPT!ON The hydropower project is located partly on National Forest System lands and partly on lands owned by the Cape Fox Corporation. which is the Native village corporation for the City of Saxman. The proposed project will use a lake tap -a tunnel into Upper Mahoney Lake about 80 feet below its surface -and a series of tunnels to convey water from Upper Mahoney Lake to the powerhouse located near Lower Mahoney Lake. After passing through the turbine, the water will be discharged into a bedrock pool in Mahoney Creek, which flows into Lower Mahoney L~ ( fv/.5L) No dam will be constructed. The upper lake surface is about 1.959 feet above mean sea level 'and the powerhouse is at about 140 feet above MSL. An access road will be constructed around the south and east sides of Lower Mahoney Lake to connel.'t with an existing private fur est road. The electrical transmission line will be underground from the powerhouse to a step-up transformer 10130195 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Biological Evaluation for Plants Two plants are expected to be added to the sensitive plant list prior to project construction: Salix reticulata ssp. glabellicarpa netted willow Botrychium ascendens upswept moonwon suspected suspected One plant could potentially be added to the sensitive plant list if it remains a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act: Calamagrostis crassiglumis thickglume reedgrass suspected PRE-FIELD REVIEW OF EXISTING TNFORMA TION A pre-field review of existing information concerning the sensitive plants listed above was conducted for the project area. This review included stereoscopic aerial photograph interpretation. Documents reviewed included Forest Service soils maps, the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List. A Working Guide to the Sensitive Plants of the Alaska Region (Stensvold 1994), regional floras (Hulten 1968. Welsh 1974. Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973. Argus 1973). Rare Vascular Plant Species of the U.S. Forest Service Alaska Region (DeLapp 1991-3), internal summaries of sensitive plant species information for the Ketchikan area (Krosse 1995), and the cf lfv Field Guide to Rare Vascular Plants of the National Forests in Alaska tMuller 1991 ). ,.~~fi'C•ldl Consultations were made with Mary Stensvold, Chris Iversonf'Bill Baer, Keuy Bttms, Cole oll,c~: Crocker-Bedford, Patti Krosse, and Bryce Smith of the ResigRal at.:td Ketchikan Supervisor's Office~~t~e Ala~ka ~egion, U.S. Fo~est Service; and Rob Lipkin ofthe Alaska Natural Heritage Program. (. t:::J' ;;,/! '-';:f'i, ..,_K'~r ry (:;,, u.r.I o~ flw tft:·1r kfr::. · R.?.-;:Jf!'r .t?,..t" I; 1'rf '' t':t; ,,._. PLANTS KNOWN. There were no previously documented sightings of sensitive plants in or near the project area. PLANTS SUSPECTED. The following general habitats occur in the pan of the project area that is on National Forest System lands: Q.igh-elevation lake margins. steep rock walls. subalpine heath. subalpine seep areas, subalpine coniferous forest, subalpine riparian shrub areas. rocky stream channeL waterfall, steep moist coniferous forest, ri)l(!rian f.':>rest, sloping wet coniferous forest, open shore pine forest, and muskeg/fen. The sensitive plants listed below were suspected to occur in the project area since the area contains appropriate habitat and/or is within the known or suspected range of the plants (Duffy 1994, Stensvold 1994, Krosse 1995). The habitat information below is primarily from Stensvold (1994). Carex lenticularis var. do/ia Known to o,£:~r in wet meadows. on lake shores. and at margins of snowbeds, to 3000 m~L-Six other occurrences known south of Juneau area \ I ?7 ' 3 (150 ~)600 10130195 i ' ' t ' l Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Biological Evaluallon for Plants Because of the known population's protection during this project. its several additional locations including another on Revillagigedo Island. and its wide range including much unexplored territory, the overall risk to this species due to project activities is low and the risk to the taxon's continued existence on Revillagigedo Island is low. Detennination Based on the rationale described above, the project (including mitigation measures) will result in the following impacts on the sensitive plants. The project may impact individuals of Platanthera chorisiana but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. The project may impact individuals ofCarex lemicularis var. dolia (only unknown populations) but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss ofviability. Additional Management Recommendations . 7 1 s 5a11 · ~. vl_e.· 1 ~'~e'£-~ t: ~-If any previously undiscovered sensitive plants are knowingly encountered at any point in time rltl• > .-1 -li" prior to or during implementation of this project, work will be halted until the district botanist .!. ~~,':~e and/or forest botanist is consulted and necessary mitigation measures are enacted. ·MONITORING No monitoring is recommended because this project is unlikely to affect Carex lenticularis var. dolia plants. and its potential for causing adverse effects on the continued existence of Platanthera chorisiana in the Revillagigedo Island ecological province is very low. T It\' 1 it\' 1 • .' <., '> ((. "' l o(.rr~< ~L-P' Vl':'-() h"'-"... C.((...~ (r.".J e lc.-t ~-vi} td.£v\. h fi ?J J ~). f\1 f J...k ~ II ~~·;,} (\ s <\ fu l;:. k ~('-'·'"~""-(J) f~ kh" .. lf fll(.di.l.qL, /)(<t<tf ""'<) (2.) <f. r ...... z. -sp~'-, ... , ,f s~,,,,~~~ v.. L" I. ( ~-~·~.(.. vl'-t>-~·1/q"'l'\. (..f JvlqlvLdl.t'•(f L f-t(, I .::( L I li ; Iii ) ( ' "'I \ rv V' L n ' ' ~ e~- tU /h' j1-<. '> 11 10130195 : ····~··:~·.,_ ·it ... ~~~t";~~~ .• ;-"~ ·~~~~ . ...;;.,:-<~ .. -; ~·~~·;;~~-.-wt;:~:~:'l;l~-~-·~"f:-.i~-~?-·,;.~~;--~:,.;...._,, --~ Transmittal HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2689 Telephone 907 274-2000 Fax 907 274-2022 "'>ii ~-""*"-- ID~ f),.J-/y-1(;.. f !Attention ':J;M T)..p 1-fc CC:-£-Y-If l'??'YfCL !Date 11/Zt/'f~ !Job No·-~y= I \To f). S. mrf'.[ r SC,-VIU:'_ l n5Q3_j __ -r::::>~a r;~ /1-v.e n~ 7 I k r -lr 1.. .J...,. .-.. IJd< _!}_!25£2 1 r--- I Regarding ·11Ja k~ ' tit 'li·. . ft; c{, <t o.£ l.u ~~ ~~(~ L We are sending you: ~Attached L.J Under separat8 cover via the following items: L_j Prints L.J Plans L_j Samples L_j Specifications l'!i L_j, Shop drawings L_j Copy of letter LJ Change order L.J~o~~~~r------------------------------------------------------------- Copi• Date No. Description I 1 /5 I o /oq / r. "-( Cvn-L-?f a~ ~ t:1A~--...._ ~ LZ. ~~---·--·-·-.. ·--.-['--·-? ··----- 1 ~-() /c) [,u ,_/ '~-Lu 12. '"fz..f-v... ~ /7J~ c;;·-------r--------------------~----- These are transmitted •• checked below: I XJ For approval L_j Approved as submitted L_j Resubmit copies for approval L_j For your use L_j Approved as noted L_j Submit copies for distributton L_j As requested L_j Retu?ned for corrections L_j Return corrected prints L_j For review/comment L_j .::Ot=h:=e.:..r---------------------------------------------------- f ~ L_j For bids d 19 ---L_j Ptinta returned after loan to us i !Remark~& /1c~ ~2~ ~~-~~ ~~4'-C _--'20. ~ i I g~ . {j41/-P/r &a-& A-t p·r--/_h. c -u ®:"/ d1rA-d ~c-~ «•? Lh '-" ; ?! I .x;;..-( C.....~ /' Z ..,/'?I 1VP< ( C--:1 br, ~ & __ .2<S_ ~ I o; ;z;-tr..-.. I ~ --;j(-x:..:::;= 6::-:1 J,._.{/ '1 tlu~;(:-<1 // ( &~..,._, /_ Ad··~ ~ -' A .-£ . I :,;;; // L ~.:.0', <_...-?'f_] L"'Y\LJ '-...s::-.L.' / '~-'':,£ '-I..P-1 .J \/ ~--J ffi C/1 L....'\ (_ r_:, 0 ..... -1 I_._ 1 !Signed ~4 .r r ~~l:;-;-;r-_j -7 I'. - m .., United States Department of Agriculture Anne Leggett Forest Service HDR Engineering Inc. 2525 c Street suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503-2689 Dear Anne: Alaska Region Ketchikan Ranger Distric~- 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907} 225-2148 TT/TDD (907) 225-0414 File Code: 2670 Date: December 13, 1995 Please find enclosed signed copies (cover page only} of the Biological Evaluations(BE) for the Mohoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. The BE's appear to be in order. If you have questions or comments please contact me at the District Office. Sincerely, ~!!!:-·~~· Bill Baer District Supervisory Biologist ·-~· ~ RECEIVED IN I\~CHOf{AGE Lo~~~-~-~-l f~rm " .. , ... ... Caring for the Land and Serving Peoplo ..,_._.. --e--·-"-""' ,....,.. __ .. ~ FROM HDR ENGINEERING, INC. I" r SIGNATURES 12.19.1995 16:35 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR ANIMALS Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Ketchikan Ranger District Tongass National Forest Preparedby: ~·~~(} -san B s ProJect Biologist Date: J/ j,p.; )9) I I HDk ENGINEERING, INC. Reviewed by: R'k<":.n-1rf 6~ William H. Baer Supervisory Biologist Ketchikan Ranger District Date: / ~/<~/?".s--1 , p. 2 f * i i I • 1 December 19, 1995 Tamra L. Faris Southeast Alaska Office Supervisor National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99802-1668 Subject: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Dear Ms. Faris: .. The City of Saxman is developing a hydroelectric project at the Mahoney Lakes near Ketchikan, Alaska. We at HDR Engineering are designing the project and preparing environmental documents and the hydropower license application for the project. In this role, we are acting on behalf of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for purposes of consultation required under Section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act. We have communicated with you previously about threatened or endangered species that might use the project area and have evaluated potential impacts to those species. The enclosed Biological Evaluation for Animals for the project, prepared for and signed by the U.S. Forest Service, documents our assessment of impacts on listed animal species. Based on this assessment, the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project is not likely to affect any of the listed species under National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction: humpback whale, Snake River sockeye salmon, Steller sea lion, Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon, and Snake River fall chinook salmon. We would appreciate written concurrence from you that we have satisfied the Section 7 consultation requirements for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. Thank you for your help to date on this project. If you have any questions about this, please call me or Sally Boggs at HDR. Sincerely, a::E~~ Anne Leggett Project Biologist Enclosure cc: M. Stimac, HDR -Bellevue D. Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation V. Yearick. FERC HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7118 Telephone 9fJl 274-2000 Fax 9fJl 274-2022 December 19, 1995 John Lindell, Endangered Species Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Alaska Ecological Services 3000 Vintage Boulevard, Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801-7100 . Subject: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Dear Mr. Lindell: The City of Saxman is developing a hydroelectric project at the Mahoney Lakes near Ketchikan. Alaska. We at HDR Engineering are designing the project and preparing environmental documents and the hydropower license application for the project. In this role, we are acting on behalf of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for purposes of consultation required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. We have communicated with you previously about threatened or endangered species that might use the project area and have evaluated potential impacts to those species. The enclosed Biological Evaluation for Animals for the project, prepared for and signed by the U.S. Forest Service, documents our assessment of impacts on listed animal species. Based on this assessment, the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project is not likely to affect the American peregrine falcon- the only listed species potentially occurring in the project area. We would appreciate written concurrence from you that we have satisfied the Section 7 consultation requirements for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. The Biological Evaluation for Plants is also enclosed for your information. No listed plant species potentially occur in the project area. Thank you for your help to date on this project. If you have any questions about this, please call me or Sally Boggs at HDR. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. L t1i-)-..c_ i-. 'i)Zl L Anne Leggett Project Biologist Enclosures cc: M. Stimac, HDR -Bellevue D. Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation V. Yearick. FERC Steve Brockman. USFWS -Ketchikan HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage. Alaska 99503-7118 Telephone 9f17 274-2000 Fax 9f17 274-2022 ' ~ + ' ! (.y ""'; ,., .... "U:;.-'@.eti%=11M.L Anne Leggett Project Biologist HDR Engineering, Inc. 2525 C. Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7118 Dear Anne Leggett: ' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERC National Oceanic and Atmosph~rjc Ad1_11ini9tn!!tion National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668 January 12, 1996 Thank you for your recent letter containing the Biological Assessment (BA) for the hydroelectric project at the Mahoney Lakes near Ketchikan. The BA evaluates the potential for effects to humpback whales, Steller sea lions, and listed salmon as a result of constructing a lake tap, a series of tunnels, an access road, and the transmission line. None of the activities will be within close proximity to marine waters. The Forest Service has determined that the proposed actions are not likely to affect these listed species. We concur with the conclusion that the proposed actions are not likely to affect endangered or threatened species within our purview. This concludes Section 7 consultation requirements for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. If new information or circumstances arise that could cause us to alter this determination, consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA should be reinitiated. For further coordination regarding Section 7 consultation, contact Tamra Faris at (907} 586-7235. Sincerely, · Ste~~er~<-<.~ Director, Alaska Region cc: USDA Forest Service, Ketchikan Ranger District FERC • United States Department of the Interior-· IN REPLY REFEil TO: Anne Leggett Project Biologist 2525 c Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7118 Dear Ms. Leggett: FISH AND WILDUFE SERVICE South~t Alaska Ecologic:al Sctviccs 3000 Vinrage Blvd., Suite 201 Juneau, Alaska 99801-71 00 ") ,, January 17, 1996 The u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the biological assessment, dated December 19, 1995, for threatened and endangered species that may occur in the vicinity of the proposed Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project near Ketchikan, Alaska. We apologize for the delay in our response. Your assessment was received during the three week Federal Government furlough. The assessment was prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory commission. It evaluated the effects of proposed actions on the endangered American peregrine falcon (~ peregrinus apatuml . For the purposes of Section 7 consultation, we agree that populations of the American peregrine falcon will not likely be adversely affected as a result of the proposed projects. Although not specifically required by the consultation provisions of the Endangered Species Act, we appreciate your consideration of the Service's Species of concern in the biological assessment. Your consideration of these species is important for their conservation and assists in preventing their inclusion on the Endangered Species list. These comments are offered for endangered and threatened species for which the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibility under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 usc 1521 ~seq.) and its amendments. The above comments are specific to the Endangered Species Act and do not reflect agency concerns regarding other organisms or habitats for which the Service has legislated responsibilities . t ' f • 1 ,. FEB-28-96 WED 15:05 P.Ol FAX TRANSMITTAL STATE OF ALASKA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR niVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION TONY KNOWLES GOVERNOR To: Mike Stimac, HDR Fax No.: 206 453 7107 From: Lorraine Marshall Project Review Coordinator PO BOX 110030 JUNEAU J\K 99811-0030 Telephone: (907) 465-3562 Fax: (907) 465-3075 Date: 2128/96 Phone 465-8790; email lorraine_ marshall@gov.state.ak.us Subject: Mahoney Pages:~ this cover page ltam(s) sent: 0 my ''tzy'' at compaljson of processes, $note from DNR, & 4D DOC note to reviewers c.¥-t/J Cl ~ l)G<:., procer;;lu;J /t:~J'Wt. ..lfd;b;_ Message: Mike: (1) could you please look at my fust attempt to do a side-by-side comparison? I admit it is not crystal clear (the concept is clear, but not the details). For instance, one question I have is Christine Valentine of my office marked the 1995 informational review (AK9S04-08J) as S~nd-stage consultation!NEP A scoping. I thought second-stage consultation included a draft application and I don't see one. Thus, this must be a phase of the sccond-Sl.age consultation, arid when we receive the draft license application it will still be second stage consultation. (I realize that second consultation is a time to execute the studies, prepare the draft, as well as submit the draft application to agencies.) (2) Could I get a copy of the National Energy Policy Act of 1992? That would be helpful. (3) In future document submittals. would you please include your phone and fax numbers (and email if you have it) on the cover page or in the cover letter? It is helpful for us to open up a document and there. at the front, find out all about you. © FEB-28-96 WED 15:06 P.02 r_-. . ( 'o'\0...1\)., t£J.!d.. {/met!~] \:J.,r:lf" {j_uu.u ~~-~;:;;4· First-stage consultation by applicant (60 days after meeting) State informational review; iden.tify studies & additional information, describe resource values and issues, etc. Second-stage: consultation by applicam (90 days after submittal of draft application unless disagreements) Draft application distributed Applicant answer deficiencies to all State informational review Applicant finalizes application in preparation for filing. ~ ~ Q Requests water quality certificaLion Third-stage consultation by applicant: File final application w IFERC PN by applicany &. FERC of filing Deter if studies adequate; if not, request additional information! studies FERC review if applicaton adequate FERC letter of deficiency, applicant r~-poDSe First-stage consultation ~info review, ID studies & add.l info , Second-stage consultation + NEP A scoping documents No. 1 & 2 Draft license applli;ation & prelim DEA distributed 90-day review & request studies (last opportunity to request studies) Precomment meeting Comments on draft license app & preliminary DEA with draft conditions DEA & fmal license app prepared. comments incorporated into DEA, for filing. Third consultation by applicant; File final app & DEA w!FERC FERC review the app for adequacy PERC assumes app is adequate and accepts (no defiCiencies) FERC PN app has been accepted v f t .. i • FEB-28-96 WED 15:06 FER.C accepts application & PN c1ead.line for protests & motions to intervene Submittal of oursWlding ad.d'l info FBRC PN app ready for environmental analysis Postriling ·----·-- FERC receives comments & conditions witltin 60 days after PN declaring app ready for environmental analysis FERC begins NEP A process FERC writes EA ACMP review {of all applications) lOj process FF..RC issue license P. 03 D~-4Fr P~wng------------------ '1..• 'ERC 60-day period for comments (oppose} or intervene N/A FERC action, determine final conditions FERC review, 60 days FERC take comments. make the EA their own document, issue a FERC DEA. Public comment period Final EA issued. FinalliceJHing decision. wJtvuL_ lt-CM J~ ? ~ ,r~~~ ;w;. ~-&} ~luJ",.. .Ji "r ff1~ ~ ~ (1-.,q4 ;w.r· ~' ~ ,;Ke, ~ . jyt'" FEB-28-86 WED 15:06 P.04 Author: johnd@jnu.dnr.state.ak.us (John Dunker) Lotus cc:Mail For: Lorraine Marshall '"11)4.£/zJ -CL- ~a~Depl=~ at CC2MHSl ;t/~ Date: 2/27/96 1: 55 PM Priority: Normal i&.J () tz,-J-CIJ<l..., TO: Lorraine Marshall at Gov_Juneau_DGC /le_frt:P . S: ~~~~~~~-~:.~~~~~::.:~~:-~~~---·· Message Contents ----··········-·------~~---~- Lorraine: ~-~~~ A ·side-by-side· analysis would be helpful. ~~ On moving the startup of the ACMP earlier, one reason to be wary of this is that reviewing agencies could then have to decide on consistency issues (and in some cases permitting also) without benefit of the completed EA. or determination of the FERC 11cense cond1t1ons. Thanks for the word on Mahoney l. Name: John Dunker E-mail: John Dunker <johnd@dnr.state.ak.us> Date: 2/27/96 Time: 1:51:45 PM C<!.-~ 911~ f * ~ FEB-28-98 WED 15:07 Lotus cc:Mail For; Lorraine Marshall Author: Lorraine Marshall at gov_Juneau_DGC Date; 2/27/96 11:55 AM Priority: Normal TO: dsturdev@envircon.alas~a at CC2MHS1 TO: lanacs@fishgame.alaska at CC2HHS1 TO: jackeg@fishgame.alaska at CCZMHSl TO: lizas@dnr.state.ak.us at CC2MHS1 TO: oha@alaska.net at CC2HHS1 TO: billg@dnr.state.ak.us at CC2MHS1 TO: johnd@dnr.state.ak.us at CC2HHS1 CC: Kerry Howard CC: Jackie TimothY CC: Jennifer Garland CC: Karen Essary Subject: Mahoney Lake Hydro P. 05 ··•··•···•··•···•·····•···•········· Message Contents ·-·······---························ To: Dave Sturdevant. DEC; Lana Shea Flanders. DFG; Jack Gustafson, DFG; Elizoveta Shadura, DNR; John Dunker. DNR; Judith Bittner, ONR; Bi11 Garry, DNR: Bob Bright, Ketchikan Coastal District (fax) Hello. Today I spoke with HDR who is handling the Mahoney hydropower project for the City of Saxman and Cape Fox. Background: prior scoping review AK9504·08J. and in 9/95 the State received a scop1ng document 2 (which was sent for informational purposes. not for review). I pulled this project out of the files after receiving a phone call from Melanie Fullman of the US Forest Service. Melanie had received a draft EA. and wondered What the status of the project was on the State's end. Hik.e Stimac of HDR informed me that the State did not receive the draft EA because only the federal cooperating agencies were to receive it (fS and FERC) and have part in it because it would eventually be adopted as their own document. He informed me that they would be distributing a license application and technical report in a weeK or so. He said that would start a 90·day review deadline. to comment with suggested terms and conditions. Then, after that (1 am not sure when) they would start work1ng on coastal management requirements and the 401. You are aware that the process being used for Mahoney project differs from the "old• FERC process. The old FERC FEB-28-96 WED 15:07 process is st1ll in place 1n regulation. but FERC may waive the regulation and allow the NEPA process. which has normally been done during the postf111ng stage. to be moved forward into the prefiling stage. The 2/13/95 public notice from FERC explains the situation. Hike mentioned that one benefit of this new process is it involves FERC in part of the process before the application gets filed. In the old process. when NEPA was done in postfiling stage. there wa no communicat1on witn FERC. Mike also mentioned it allows issuance of a license sooner. Again, when he gets the DEA out, they will start working on coastal management. They plan to file the application in June. The document would come out again by FERC as a DEA. I told Mike that there were a couple things to consider concerning coastal management. (l) He mentioned a 90-day review; however. all parties need to be aware that the coastal management review is driven by tne federal Coastal Zone Management Act regulations (15 CAR 930) which allow six months from the date of commencement of the state review, and the State procedural regulations under which we will initiate a 50-day review. However. if the review were extended for some reason, it could be accommodated by the fedral six-month time limit. (2) Concern1ng where to insert the coastal management review into the nnew" process. we want to be sure FERC has determined there are no def1c1enc1es and the project is ready for FERC's review (environmental analysis). We would want to avoid us doing a consistency review and. being too far in front of FERC. having FERC subsequently inform the applicant of a deficiency and ask for additional information. Hike agreed that is a good question, and needs careful consideration (where should the ACHP review be done) because if it is too soon. FERC may have questions because although they saw tne draft EA. FERC has not seen the draft application. I am sharing this With you so you can all be informed about process and be expecting the DEA soon. and to help me think about it. I'd like to do a side by side of the old and new process, and see where the best insertion point is for the ACMP review. My time is limited ... Lorraine P.06 f t • t FEB-28-96 WED 15:07 P.07 b~ DATE: February 27, 1996 '4.J:t)t, , TO: FROM: Project Reviewers (See Distribution List) Lorraine Marshall Project Review Coordinator Governmental Coordination TELEPHONE: 907-465-8790 F~ 907~3075 E-lYlAIL:I..crra.iD.t=_Manihall@gov.statc..ak.u:i SUBJECT: FER.C Preliminary Permit Application. Project No. l>-t:n fi:: -~ t., ,;,;,~ 8'-:..l. \:~......_,A~..., .. "'-.,.· . DRAFT DRAFT DRA.Fr Dear Anchorage friends: Here's my markup . .Pllew. Sony it took me so long to get to it. The quandry we are in is whether this memorandum should be revised. to reflect the new trend to waive FBRC regulations to move tbe post:filing NEP A to tbe front preflling stage. Keep that in mind as you review this letter. and see if you think footnote No. 12 captures it well eu.o~ or if we abould fint1 more out and discuss it further in the body of the letter. In our Mahoney FERC project Where the applicant is doing this process, Christine wrote a note that the FERC plans to change their regula.tions someday, and the applicant also mentioned a new 1992 law I had never beard of: tbe Energy Policy Act of 1992. I want to get a copy of that. do you folks have a copy in Anchorage? I.mraine 2127/96 Attached, for your i.Dformation, is a notice of a preliminary hydroelectrie permit application that has been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This application involves the _. A preliminary permit secures a priority position for a prospective developer. precludes the acceptanCe of another party's development application, and provides time to evaJ:uatc the fcaliibility of the proposed project. Upon receipt of an application for a preliminary permit. FER.C issues a notice to illfonn the public and allow opportunity for protestS, motions to intervene. or competing applications to be filed.. As a preUmioary permit does not authorize development and no effc:cts to the coastal resources are associated with it., the Division of Goverwnental CoordiDation (DGC) is providing this to you for infon:natioWil purposes. By copy of this letter, we arc also: (1) offering assistance to the applicant in developmenl of a contact list for review participams routinely involved in the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP); (2) forward.ing brochures to the applicant which provide explanation of the ACMP: and (3) providing information concerning the State's participation in reviews of the subsequent licensing process. FEB-28-96 WED 15:08 P. 08 Hydropower projects in the coastal zone are subject to review for consistency wirh the l)~ A ACMP, including coastal district coastal :tna.Dagement policies if located within the ,}:-,. boUildJrries of a coastal disnict1 with an approved program. FERC licenses undergo a six-,. step process. which are briefly described for reference. For more precise information, consult the FERC handbooks. Jl'refiling consultation <by a;eplicant.) If this project is pursued, the application undergoes a three-stage con~tation process prior to filiDg the license. application with FERC and ACMP review. Per FERC regulations, an applicant must consult with relevant federal and state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes. In addition, PERC conducts further consultation2 after the final application is filed. Sta.te response: DGC participates in prefiling consultation stages through State iiJform.ational reviews. Generally. DGC assigns State review munbers for record keeping pwposes, and review participants respond to the applicam and send copies of comments to DGC. The ~nses to the infonnational reviews should acknowledge the future ACMP review. identify all required permits, and discuss preliminary ACMP issues. The three preiilillg consultation stages include: 1. First-stye consnltadon (step 1). A1 tbe first stage, ~ is a ft!=eHmiRBI.Y. af!~HieatieB: ((NO, PRELIMINARY PERMITS ARE DIFFERENT TIIAN CONSULTAUON)) an applicant must confer with agencies on project design, impacts, alternatives, and needed smdies. To start the consultation process, tiJe applicant submits an information package, after which a meeting is held. State response: Reviewers xespond to the applicant by identifying: (1) studies to be done; (2) additional information; (3) the basis for needing the studies and information; (4) resource values and issues. including reviewers' goals and objectives for the resources; (S) recommended study methods and justifl.cation for the method; (6) that the use of each smd.y method they recommended is a generally acceprecl practice; and (7) how the studies and information will be useful in furthering its resource goals and objectives. The first stage ends when all agencies submit written comments or 60 2 C..oal:!Al reJOUree district means a unified municipality, organized boroughs which exerc:~Se planning and zo~ authotity. etc. .• as furdlcr ddi.ncd in AS 46.40.210. FBR.C':s ~n:su.lb.tion responsibilifie£ are in addition m the applicam's pr~ng consultation. See Ole ([lscussion in the: pu~t-miug section of this Jetter. ' * t "' FEB-28-86 WED 15:08 P.09 D~ days after the joint meetiDg is held (up to 120 days. if extended), Vlblcllcver OCCUIS ~J:',. fJ.rSt. 2. Second-sJ:a&e consultation (steps 2 and 3). During this stage, tbe applicant executes sttldies, prepares and submits a draft application and results of all studies and infoxmation requested during first-stage consultation to consulted parties. The draft application must respond to counnents made during first-stage collSl1ltation. State response: Reviewers respoDd. to the applieant, including evaluating how the issues they identifmd in phase one were addressed.. Based on these comments, the applicant finalizes the application in preparation for filing with FER.C. Also, during the second stage, FERC requires tbat the applicant submit a request for a water quality certification. 3 The second stage ends 90 days after the submittal of the draft applicalion when there are no substantive disagreements. or at the conclusion of a joint meeting held if an agency responded with substantive disagreements. 3. Third-sta&e consultation (step 4). This stage begins when the applicant submit'ii its final application to PERC. Concurrent with the filing, the applicant completes its consultation responsibilities by providing copies of the filed application to all agencies previously consulted and, if subsequently notified by FBRC of a deficiency. by providing a copy of the FERC request and its response. This stage includes: (1) public notices by the applicant and FBRC of fi1:in,g and tendering the application;" (2) det.ennination if studies are adequate, request and applicant response; (3) FERC review for aciequacy; (4) if defk:ienL, request and applicant response; (S) FBRC's acceptance of the applicationS and issuance of public notice: (6) submittal of 3 4 s 6 The water quality certification under !ledion 401 of the Clean Water At:.t will be included in the lieU~ uf 111.:: ACMP ~view. This FER.C DOtice, in combination with the applicant's notice:, provicks an opportUnity for intemted parties to inform FERC of Ule need for additional SUJdics. The Hy(3roeJearlc Proj~t Licens.i.Jl,g Handbook. Dccembc:r 1991. page 344, swcs: ""The FERC ... 'valtWCS whether the data and ana1yr.es ••• are adequate to condUCt envirODm.Cotal ""iews ... and to adequately eva!~ the m.eri.ts of the applicant's proposed mitigation and enhancement measures.- This notice estai)Ustles a dc:a<llilu:: fur pco~su a.nd ~ w intcl"Ycnc:. FEB-28-96 WED 15:09 P. 10 outsumd.ing additional information; 1 and (J) FERC public notice that the application is ready for environmental aoalysis.3 SIIIU r~sponse: see ~tep 5. Post-fiJin~ consultation by FERC (step S) b4>4 ~). Federallaws9 require FERC to consult with resource agencies and the public when processing applications. PERC's own coDSUlratl.on10 is in addition to the prefiliDg con..~tation conducted by the applicant, and occurs after a license application is filed. The FERC post-filing consultation involves filing of comments aud conditions within 60 days after the issuance of the public notice declaring the application ready for environmental analysis (step 4. item 5 or 7). State response: "!be State's review of the proposed project for consistency with the ACMP starts when DGC receives the F.ERC public notice declaring the application is ready for environmental analysis 11 a.od a complete packet (includi.Dg copies of any other applications for required authorizations which are subject to ACMP review). Thns, tbe ACMP review occurs conau:rently with the FERC postfiling consultation (step 5). Also within step 5. following receipt of comm.eDt.s, FERC irtitiatcs NEP A compliallcc activities,12 starting with seeping meetings. NEPA and ACMP arc separate laws, and ACMP 7 8 9 10 11 12 The process may pause ar this point w await filing of any requested additional information or stuely results tbat are still ou.tstan.di.og. This notice e£tablishes a comment period for agencies, tribes and concerned citiZens to file commears, r~o111, terms Uld conditions or pret;eriptinn. ... 1'hc ~al Power At:t. the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A), 3lld the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The Handbook. page 3-5. swes: "'I'he FERC's own consultation responsibility occur:s after a license application k filed, but to undersu.nd the proposed project in enough detail tO do the postfilin,g consultalion, the FERC has developed regulations hat reqaire applicants to do prefiling collSUlta.tion ... The determination tlla.t the applil::auon i.s n:ad.y for environmentaliLDI..lysis can also occur when FaC Issues a public notice of an accepted applit.atiou. proVided that all the information FERC needs is mclucicd in the applic.aUon initially fi1c4.. (Handbook. p. 3-44) According to current FE.RC regulations. tbe NEP A review requirements occur in the postfiling stage and follow receipt of COIIIJIIeD1S, mandatory term!\ and conditions. etc. Recently. there is a changiug trend to address NEPA in the from. of the process (prefiling stage). This ch.a.nge in process requires approval by FER.C (waiver of FERC regulations) This process was implemented in the Mahoney Lalce Project. The September 1995 scoping document stated; ·pursuant to ••• section 2403(b) of til Energy Policy Act of 1992, tbe City will plq)an: a ~aft envirolllllCntal a.\.~t .. .. The DBA will be submitted to tlle Commission •.• as pan or me license application." The FERC public notice dated 2113!95 discussed the process, as follows.. This :illows for a coordinated proceS£ whereby preparation of rhe applie:arion nce:urs along with f ~ I FEB-28-96 WED 15:09 P. 11 reviews are independent of NEP A. DGC should be included as a NEP A participant. SectiDD lOj DrOCeSS and Jkense tssu:uu:e (step 6) l)~4 In conjunction with the iut.Wlce of the NEPA document (EA or final EIS), the FERC makes f:J- a preliminary determination whether fish and wildlife recommendations are incoDSistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other applicable laws. Any party, affected resource agency or Indian tribe may file comments in response ro the preliminary determination of inconsistency within 4.5 days of its issuance. If then: are no comments finding it inconsistent, the order is issued by the FERC and license granted or dismissed. The licensing process concludes with the issuance of a licensing order or a dismissal. Alaska Coastal Management Prog:r:am Certain requirements concerning the ACMP should be noted by all parties. The ACMP has standing in the federal permit decision-making process. The FERC Handbook docs not mention the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which has jurisdiction over federal permitting actions in the coastal zone. Portions of the federal CZMA ~egulations, 15 CFR 930 Subpart D, are enclosed, which describe the obligation of parties who are required to comply with tbe federal consistency provisions of the CZMA. We point out some of the important points: 1. The State complies with 15 CFR 930.59(a) by providing applicants a one-stop multiple pennit review. Thus. the State requires a complete packet of applications for other permits before consistency review can be initiated. 2. The State, per its procedural regulations 6 AAC 50, conducts 30-or 50-day reviews. However, the federal timc:fra.mes in 930.63 provide six months following commcncemem of State review. 3. The State's objection within six months following commencemem of review precludes issuance of any federal or state resource permit (such as the FERC license) per 930.64 and . 65. preparation of the: NEPA. Wllcullle license application is fllcd. it will be accompauied by a DBA (tn lieu of exhibit E). FERC then independently reviews tile application and DE.A ana issues a draft EA for public comm~nt. FERC would decide whether to license the eproject and, if so, under what conditiom. FEB-28-96 WED 15:10 P. 12 4. Page 3-55 of the Handbook. SLaU;;~ llm.t "If the FERC decides to use its own conditi.ollS in lieu of those recommended by the agencies, after giving due weight to the expertise and statUtOry responsibilities of the agencies. FERC must be prepared tn demonstrate that the agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purpose of tb.e FP A or other applicable laws. and that the license conditions selected by tbe FERC adequately proteCt fish and wildlife." While tbe State of Alaska welcomes dialogue with PERC regarding State conditions, under ACMP the conditions are mandatory and may not be disregarded. () ~ As DOted earlier, no a<lion is n:qujied on your part at this time. Please call if you hav~4A"»o questions. You may reach me at 907-465-8790. 1 Enclosures: (application notice; 15 CFR 930 Subpart D. in part) Pisniburinn List (w/FERC notice. 15 CFR 930): Ali lliif, DNR DOL K.dlic Litzen, DNR DOMW Don McKay, ADF&G Elaine Pistore.l\1, DEC Tim Smith, SHPO cc (wlbroc.hures, IS CFR 930 quoteS. d.istri.bution list): __ , Applicant cc (w 15 CFR 930): _. FERC fercanch f II) g) ' ..... 0 ' .., 0 Stag«J ~ /oidW. ... !0-to.ta,.Ja• _,_-------, Comm~1h IW,btu-llaoto ..,..lllllf-"'c _,--------.... St~~ce2 CCI!dtotS!w4!w Dm/IApplimli>al•- ..eu-.c~,Jt.alo_...._ ____ , c--. .. .,..,.... ..... ylllldilllaololo6• Appl ic.ud Notifies fERCofAPEA Waiver Request,_...._ ____ ___ AppicatF- •tpqll!QOW!dQU c.-.icotiDno Prolocol 11100~~ ... a.. FERC Waiver Rcspooac NEPA Scopine SP.IIuued Publi.ol\1 ...... .... --90 .., • .,.--------..... Sta&e3 fiwlAppiF+aD .. I'I!IICT .... Nolioo (•""--Oiot)/--_._ ____ , c-enta Comm~1 Addili..US!Uy~ ....... .,..,.., ....... ..eft,._.------.... PERC Review Do(sjnrilr"""'"' ,.,.....Lt!l!r la"""tin!folg ...,. ....... to .., .. ... Soofioaa.-" Stage2 Conduct Studies Study R.esulta Iaued NEPA Scqpinc •n.ll-...., --..-)0 4ayr ... ID-1 iroao4 CoiiUIMatJ due"" scopine 30 Uys .ncr......,qs. SD-2 if needed__.--...-.---, FUC ioner oUiti-e iPCqruJia!.r!!Pit, Addihnllilll'onnliaft filttlanol .. .;.- Rudy Car EA N«icc FERC Not ice AII!Ueo!im ,...... ln-lio .. ProhluryCoad•.,•• fiuiConjljpN 4oo whir liO...,. ...A .. ____ A<aptuce lAIWr Stage J DEA and Final Application F iled FERC issues DEA c ... ..,tshtjn]Qdm FERC issues FEA Licensing Decision ~¥&¥~ ®~ m~~~~m OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERN)AENTAL COORDINATION 0 SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE if CENTRAL OFFICE 3501 ·c· STREET, SUITE 370 P.O. BOX 110030 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503·5930 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0030 I PH: (907) 259·7470/FAX: (907) 551·5134 PH: (907} 465·3562fFMafaT"m1f·~~6 Mr. Michael Stimac HDR Engineering, Inc. 500 1 08th A venue NE Suite 1200 Bellevue, W A 98004-5538 Dear Mr. Stimac: SUBJECT: MAHONEY LAKE HYDRO PROJECT NO. 11393 STAGE II CONSULTATION/DRAFT EA STATE REVIEW NO. AK9603-24J TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR CJ PIPELINE COORDINATOR'S OFFICE 411 WEST 4TH AVENUE. SUITE 2C ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501·2343 PH: (907} 271-4317/FAX: (907) 272·0590 /'1 Cl ,... c), :> 7, I "!<1 f.o fi) I ~ IE U W ff ~· wr R-2 Bl6 ~~ HDR ENCIINEERING.INC. The Division of Governmental Coordination received the draft license application and preliminary draft environmental assessment that you submitted for the stage II consultation and NEPA review of the City of Saxman's proposed Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project. The site of the proposed project is at Upper Mahoney Creek, at George Inlet. The entire project is located within the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. You distributed the document directly to most of the reviewers. We appreciate receiving a copy of your distribution list. Please replace Joan Hughes with Dave Sturdevant's name on your distribution list (same address). Mr. Sturdevant handles reviewsthat involve 401s. As the process for obtaining a PERC license requires extensive preapplication consultation, this State review is informational; because the draft EA is included, the review is also NEPA. The purpose of . this stage II consultation and NEPA review is for the reviewers to provide you comments on how issues they identified in stage I consultation were addressed, and to provide you NEP A comments on the draft EA. In addition, to the extent possible, State reviewers should identify necessary permits. The first stage consultation was done in 1994 (State review No. AK9403-33J) and in April 1995 the State participated in a NEPA review of the scoping document during the stage II consultation period (AK9504-08J). The enclosed project information sheet includes a State review number. Please refer to this number in any future correspondence regarding this review. S!ncerely, , / 11 (} c_f) ~ ~ "-~Jt~ a-=-~arshall Project Review Coordinator A.t A "'li:l LJ " •. , :• : r rl ·:• •"'; '~df\l.:>f:) , C C, ~u ~ u~ (Q)[F ~[L~~~~ OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION CONTACTS DEC Dave Sturdevant ......... 465-5276 Fax: 465-5274 228-2676 586-2954 247-8439 DFG Jack Gustafson .......... 225-2027 DNR John Dunker ............ 465-2533 DISTRICT: Jennifer Carmen ...... 228-6610 PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET PROJECT TITLE: Mahoney Lake Hydro Project 2Nd Consultation-Draft EA STATE I.D. NUMBER: AK 9603-24JJ DGC CONTACT: Lorraine Marshall Phone: 465-8790 Fax: 465-3075 APPLICANT/PROPONENT: Saxman, City of AGENT: Michael Stimac, HDR Phone: 206-453-1523 Fax: 206-453-7107 DIRECT FEDERAL ACTION: No REVIEW TYPE: NEPA-INFORMA TIONAL ACTIVITY TYPE: HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LOCATION: Nearest Coastal District: KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH Project is INSIDE the District Boundary District Plan Approved: Yes REVIEW SCHEDULE: Other REVIEW MILESTONES: TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR CENTRAL OFFICE CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNIT 240 MAIN STREET, SUITE 500 P.O. Box 110030 JUNEAU, AK 99811 Day 1: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03/27/96 Comments Due To HDR with copy to DGC: ...... on or before 05/30/96 (with headings per HDR 3/l/96 letter) PROJECT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED UNDER STATE I.D. NO. AK 9504-0SJJ (NEPA-Scoping); AK 9403-33J (First consultation) STATE APPROVALS (AGENCY, APPROVAL TYPE AND NUMBER): n/a FEDERAL APPROVALS (AGENCY, APPROVAL TYPE AND NUMBER): n/a DISTRIBUTION LIST Mahoney Lake Hydro -AK 9603-24JJ Dennis Meiners, DCRA/Energy, Juneau Dave Sturdevant, DEC, Juneau Lana Shea Flanders, DFG, Juneau Jack Gustafson, DFG, Ketchikan Elizaveta Shadura, DNA, Juneau John Dunker, DNR/DOW, Juneau Chris Westwood, DNA/Forestry, Ketchikan Bill Garry, DNA/DPOR, Juneau Judith Bittner, DNR/SHPO, Anchorage Bill Ballard, DOT /PF, Juneau Mike McKinnon, DOT/PF, Juneau Jennifer Carmen, Coastal Coordinator, Ketchikan Gateway Borough The Honorable Alaire Stanton, Mayor, Ketchikan The Honorable Jim Carlton, Mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough Mike Rody, Borough Manager, Ketchikan Gateway Borough Tom Fitzgerald, City Administrator, Saxman Jim DeHerrera, USFS, Ketchikan Robert Major, Cape Fox Corporation, Ketchikan Louis Thompson, Kavilco, Inc., Ketchikan Rick Harris, Sealaska Corporation, Juneau Ron Wolfe, Klukwan, Inc., Juneau NOTE: The Draft Application and Draft Preliminary EA were distributed directly to reviewers. If you need a copy of these documents, contact HDR or DGC immediately. ~ [ij ~ ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION NOTICE OF DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATIOII AND PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMJ;NT (PDEA) (March 6, 1996) lLeen Take notice that the following hydroelectr~c application has filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. Type of Application: Major Unconstructed Pt·oject b. Project No.: 11)9)-000 c. d. e. f. Applicant: City of Saxman, Alaska Name of Project: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Location: Partially within the Tongass National Forest, on Upper Mahoney Lake, northeast ol the city of Ketchikan, Alaska. Applicant Contact: Mr. Doug Campbell Cape Fox Corporation P.O. Box 8558 Send Comments to: Ketchikan, Alaska 999Cl (907) 225-516) Mr. Michael V. Stimac HDR Engineering, Inc. 500-lOBth Avenue, NE Suite 1200 Bellevue, WA 98004-5538 (206) 453-152) g. FERC Contact: Vince Yearick (202) 219-J07J h. Saxman mailed a copy of the PDEA and Draft License Application to interested parties on March 1, 1996, The Commission received a copy of the PDEA and Draft License Application on March 4, 1996. i. j . As discussed in the Commission's February lJ, 1995 letter to all parties, with this notice we are soliciting preliminary terms, conditions, and recommendations on the PDEA and comments on the draft license application. Saxman intends to seek benefits under § 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (PURPA), and believes that the project meets the definition under § 292.202(p) of :·, ;: r. ~ ·-~ r.·, 1 Project No. 11393-000 - 2 - k. 1. 18 CFR for a new dam or diversion. As such, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the state agency exercising authority over the fish and wildlife resources of the state )&ave mandatory conditioning authority under the procedures provided for at § JO(c) of the Federal Po•1er Act (Act). All comments 01 the PDEA and draft license application for the Mahoney La<e Project should be sent to the address noted above in item (f) with one copy filed with the Commission at the following address: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Dockets -Room lA 888 First Street Washington, DC 20426 All comments must bear the heading "Preliminary Comments", "Preliminary Recommendations", "Preliminary Terms and Conditions", or "Preliminary Prescriptions". Any party interested in commenting must do so before May JO, 1996. With this noti~e, we are initiating consultation with the BT~TE HISTORIC PRESERV~TION OFFICER (SHPO), ns required by~ 106, National ~istoric Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisor{ Council on Historic Preservation, J6 CfR 800.4. Lois D. Cashell SccretCiry March 1, 1996 (See attached list) Re: City of Saxman, Alaska Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393/ AK 9504-08J PACKET li)~ HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), on behalf of the City of Saxman, Alaska, is pleased to provide you with the enclosed Draft License Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) for the above-referenced project. These documents are being distributed pursuant to §tage II of the consultation process under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations (18 CFR §4.38). Ple3Se review th .. Draft License Application and PDEA and provide HDR with your written comments no later than May 30, 1996. To facilitate incorporating your comments into a Final License Application and EA before they are filed with the FERC, we encourage you to provide your written comments before May 30. In addition to comments regarding the Draft License Application and PDEA, pr~lirninary license terms and conditions, and recommendations on the PDEA are also being requested at this time. All comments should bear the heading "Preliminary Comments", "Preliminary Recommendations", "Preliminary Terms & Conditions", or "Preliminary Prescriptions". The Draft License Application and PDEA have been distributed to the entries on the attached distribution list that are shown in bold type. All others have received this letter only. If you would like to receive the documents or need additional copies, please let me know. Ple3Se do not hesitate to call me should you have questions concerning the Draft License Application or the PDEA for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. We appreciate your interest in the project and look forward to receiving your comments. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ?n/~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing and Environmental Services cc. Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue. N.E Bellevue. Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453·1523 li~cl:ll.t~:o f.1 ~ 0 ;"1 1 fiJt'J'S fi •• .,, • 1.' ·~ 1~;;~. ';. j") !1 .. ·: 0 w.\,;j•v_y Engmeenng Construction Services ' t ·.~ t March 1, 1996 (See attached list) Re: City of Saxman, Alaska Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393/ AK 9504-081 HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), on behalf of the City of Saxman, Alaska, is pleased to provide you with the enclosed Draft License Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) for the above-referenced project. These documents are being distributed pursuant to Stage II of the consultation process under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations (18 CFR §4.38). Please review the Draft License Application and PDEA and provide HDR with your written comments no later than May 30, 1996. To facilitate incorporating your comments into a Final License Application and EA before they are filed with the FERC, we encourage you to provide your written comments before May 30. In addition to comments regarding the Draft License Application and PDEA, preliminary license terms and conditions, and recommendations on the PDEA are also being requested at this time. All comments should bear the heading "Preliminary Comments", "Preliminary Recommendations", "Preliminary Terms & Conditions", or "Preliminary Prescriptions". The Draft License Application and PDEA have been distributed to the entries on the attached distribution list that are shown in bold type. All others have received this letter only. If you would like to receive the documents or need additional copies, please let me know. Please do not hesitate to call me should you have questions concerning the Draft License Application or the PDEA for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. We appreciate your interest in the project and look forward to receiving your comments. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ;W/~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing and Environmental Services cc. Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue. Washington 98004·5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 Engineering Construction Services DRAFf LICENSE APPLICATION & PDEA DISTRJBUTION LIST1 U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers Alaska District Office P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Ms. Tamra Faris Supervisor-Protected Resources Management Division National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99602-1668 Mr. Nevin Holmberg U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 3000 Vintage Blvd. Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Steve Brockman U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 23193 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Vicki Davis U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 23193 Ketchikan, AK 99901 National Park Service Alaska Region 2825 Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99503 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, W A 98101 U.S. Forest Service Region 10: Alaska Region Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628 Mr. Jim DeHerrera District Ranger U.S. Forest Service 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Sams U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Affairs Anchorage Regional Office 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 10: Bothell Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 Mr. Arthur Martin Portland Regional Office Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 101 S. W. Main St., Suite 905 Portland, OR 97204 Ms. Lois Cashell Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First St. NE, Room A-1 Washington, DC 20426 Mr. Vince Yearick Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 810 First St. NE, Room 504 Washington, DC 20426 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P .0. Box 3-8000 Juneau, AK 99802 1 Entries shown in bold type received copies of the Draft License Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment. Entries in regular type only received the letter of transmittal. 't ' Honorable Ted Stevens Chris Westwood U.S. Senate Alaska Department of Natural Resources Washington, DC 20510 Division of Forestry 2030 Sea Level Drive, #217 Honorable Frank Murkowski Ketchikan, AK 99901 U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Mr. Frank Rue, Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game Honorable Don Young Habitat Division House of Representatives P.O. Box 25526 2331 Rayburn Juneau, AK 99802-5526 House Office Boulevard Washington, D. C. 20515 Mr. Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Ms. Lorraine Marshall Habitat Division Alaska Division of Governmental 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Coordination Ketchikan, AK 99901 P.O. Box 110030 Juneau, AK 99811-0030 Mr. Steve Hoffman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Ms. Joan Hughes Habitat Division Alaska Department of Environmental 2030 Sea Level Drive Conservation Room207 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Mike Haddix District Manager Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Environmental Commercial Fisheries Management and Conservation Development Division 540 Water Street, Suite 203 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Judith Bittner Ms. Carol Denton Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Fish and Game State Historic Preservation Office Conunercial Fisheries Management and P .0. Box 107001 Development Division Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. John Dunker Alaska Department of Natural Mr. Glenn Freeman Resources/Water Alaska Department of Fish and Game 400 WDloughby Avenue Sport Fish Division Juneau, AK 99801-1796 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Bill Garry Alaska Department of Natural Resources Mr. Paul Novak Parks & Outdoor Recreation Alaska Department of Fish and Game • 400 Willoughby Avenue 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Ketchikan, AK 9990 l ~ 2 Mr. Doug Larsen Wildlife Biologist Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Honorable Tony Knowles Governor, State of Alaska P.O. Box 110001 Juneau,~ 99811~1 Mr. Dick Emerman Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 W. Fourth Avenue Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Dennis Meiners State of Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy P.O. Box 112100 Juneau, AK 99811-2100 Mr. Riley Snell Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority 480 W. Tudor Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. Stan Sieczkowski Manager, Operations & Maintenance Alaska Energy Authority 480 West Tudor Anchorage, ~ 99503 Mr. Jim Thrall Locher Interests, Ltd. 406 West Fireweed Lane, Suite 101 Anchorage, AK 99503 Alaska Public Utilities Commission 1016 W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 9950 1 3 Director University of Alaska-Southeast Economic Development Center-UofASE 2600 -7th A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Robert Warner Librarian University of Alaska-Southeast 7th A venue and Madison Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Freitag Southern SE Reg. Aquaculture Association 2721 Tongass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. William J. Halloran Southern SE Reg. Aquaculture Association 2721 Tongass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Senator Robin Taylor Alaska State Senate State Capitol Juneau,~ 99801 Mr. Bill Williams Representative 352 Front Street Ketchikan, ~ 99901 Honorable Jim Carlton Mayor Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Mike Rody Borough Manager Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Coastal Coordinator Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Department 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Phyllis Yetka Assembly Member Ketchikan Gateway Borough Box 958 Ward Cove, AK 99901 Honorable Alaire Stanton Mayor City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Karl Amylon City Manager City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Fred D. Monrean City of Ketchikan Department of Public Works 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. John Magyar Acting General Manager Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Rich Trimble Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tong ass A venue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Andrew Ketchikan Advisory Committee P .0. Box 7211 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. and Mrs. Fred Athorp Ketchikan Advisory Committee 10 Creek Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Larry Painter Ketchikan Advisory Committee P .0. Box 6181 Ketchikan, AK 99901 4 • Mr. Ralph C. Gregory Citizen's Advisory Committee Federal Areas P.O. Box 7011 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Bridget Stearns Ketchikan Public Library 629 Dock Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Lew Williams Publisher Ketchikan Daily News P.O. Box 7900 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Belinda Chase Ketchikan Daily News P .0. Box 7900 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Bob Konet News Director KTKN Radio 526 Stedman Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Nancy Watt Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 5957 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Bob Martin, Director Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrification Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, AK 99821 Mr. John Arriola President Tsimshian Tribal Association P.O. Box 7162 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Richard Jackson President Tongass Tribal Council P.O. Box 3380 i Ketchikan, AK 99901 ' Ms. Bea Watson, President Tongass Tribe Box 8634 Ketchikan, AK 9990 1 Ketchikan Indian Corporation 429 Deermount Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Chas Edwardsen Vice President Haitla Society 3213 Timberline Court Ketchikan, AK 99901 Honorable Harris Atkinson Mayor, City of Metlakatla Metlakatla Indian Comm. P.O. Box 8 Metlakatla, AJ< 99926 Mr. J. L. Bennett Ketchikan Pulp Company P.O. Box 6600 Ketchikan, AJ< 99901 Mr. 0. J. Graham Ketchikan Pulp Company P.O. Box 6600 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Allis May Davis Tongass Conservation Society P.O. Box 1102 Ward Cove, AJ< 99928 Mr. Eric Hummel Tongass Conservation Society P.O. Box 3377 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 419 Sixth Street, Suite 328 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Kate Tessar Alaska Services Group P.O. Box 22754 Juneau, AK 99802 5 Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 521 Haines, AK 99827-0521 Mr. Don Chenhall Chenhall Surveying P.O. Box 5860 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. J. C. Conley Service Auto Parts, Inc. 3806 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. David Kiffer 123 Stedman Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Craig Moore KTN Area State Parks Advisory Board 9883 N. Tongass Highway Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. June Robbins Legislative Information Office 352 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Sherrie Slick Alaska Congressional Delegation 109 Main Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Tena Williams 755 Grant Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Mary Klugherz McDowell Group 320 Dock St., #201 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Hank Newhouse P.O. Box 9508 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Randall Ruaro Keene & Currall 540 Water Street, Suite 302 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Des Moore 8175 Sehome Road Blaine, W A 98230-9564 Mr. and Mrs. Forrest DeWitt Box 5252 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Tom Fitzgerald City Administrator City of Saxman Route 2, Box 1 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Doug Campbell Cape Fox Corporation P .0. Box 8558 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Jack Snyder Western Regional Manager Northrop, Devine & Tarbell, Inc. 22118-20th Ave. SE, Suite 205 Bothell, W A 98021 Mr. Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services IIDR Engineering, Inc. 500 -108th Avenue NE, Suite 1200 Bellevue, W A 98004-5538 Mr. Jolm Braislin Betts, Patterson & Mines 800 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98161-1000 Mr. Donald H. Clarke Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn 1735 New York Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 ' ' ., 6 March 7, 1996 Ms. Lana Shey Alaska Department of Fish & Game P .0. Box 240020 Douglas, AK 99824-0020 Re: City of Saxman, Alaska Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393/ AK 9504-0SJ Dear Ms. Shey: Copies of the Draft license Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment for the subject project are enclosed at the request of Mr. Jack Gustafson. If you have any questions regarding the documents or the project, please let me know. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. m/~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services enclosures cc: Jack Gustafson Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453·1523 Engineering Construction Services March 7, 1996 Mr. Christopher Estes Alaska Department of Fish & Game Sport Fish Division 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 Re: City of Saxman, Alaska Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393/AK. 9504-0SJ Dear Mr. Estes: 1-i)~ Copies of the Draft License Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment for the subject project are being sent to you under separate cover at the request of Mr. Jack Gustafson. You are also being placed on our distribution list to receive future correspondence related to the project. If you have any questions regarding the documents or the project, please let me know. Sincerely, HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ;w./~ Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services cc: Jack Gustafson Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 500 108th Avenue. N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Telephone 206 453-1523 Engineering Construction Services ' '" • United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Southeast Alaska Ecological Services 3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 201 Junelu, Alaska 99801-7100 IN RJU'LY R£1'Eil TO: (00 r;; (iil ~ n \P r· lj D u; \!!) u; u \Y ~~ ! ~.!i u I MAY I 3 1996 i :.::,, -Preliminary Recommendations-I HDR ENGINEERING, tNC. Mr. Michael v. Stimac HDR Engineering, Inc. 500-108th Avenue, NE Suite 1200 Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11393-000 Dear Mr. Stimac: May 7, 1996 The U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service appreciates the cooperation of the applicant in their willingness to address our concerns related with the above referenced project. The service has reviewed the Draft License Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) and offers the following comments and recommendations. The service finds that the PDEA adequately describes the effects associated with the proposed project. We concur with the recommendations listed on page 53 of the PDEA for bald eagles; i.e., burying the transmission cable from the switchyard to the point west of the eagle nest (tree) where the transmission line turns south; construction activities within 660 feet of a nest tree, if in active use, be scheduled from September 1-March 1; and the use of raptor- proofing measures as outlined by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC 1994). In addition, we recommend; 1) that helicopter operations be prohibited within ~ mile of a bald eagle nest during the nesting season, March 1-August 31; 2) that direct overflights of active eagle nests be prohibited; and 3) that no blasting occur within ~ mile of any active eagle nest. For fishery resources the Service recommends; 1) that the run of sockeye salmon in Lower Mahoney Lake be monitored for a period of four years, after startup, to determine that the run is being maintained; 2) determine that the proposed 12-inch bypass does provide the additional water necessary to maintain the upwelling needed to preserve sockeye spawning habitat in lower Mahoney Lake; and 3) that construction activities affecting Upper Mahoney Creek be prohibited from August 1-June 15. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. cc: ADFG, Ketchikan NMFS, Juneau EPA, Anchorage Mr. Doug Campbell Cape Fox Corporation P.O. Box 8558 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 ~eM Sincerely, ~~ Nevin D. Holmberg Field Supervisor Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Dockets -Room 1A 888 First Street Washington, DC 20426 f ' i May 9, 1996 Tamra Faris Supervisor, Protected Resources Management National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region P.O. Box 21668 Juneau,AJC 99602·1668 Subject: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Dear Ms. Faris: I writing to transmit to you the proposed aquatic resources monitoring plan for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric project. This plan is being transmitted to you and other fish and wildlife resource agencies to aid the review of the Mahoney Lake Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (EA). The monitoring plan was developed based on comments previously received from agencies about the project. Our intent is to provide your agency with this information in order to facilitate your review of and comment on the project. We would appreciate your comments by May 17 in order to be included within the draft EA to be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on May 31, 1996. Comments received after that date will still be considered but will have to be included in a supplemental filing to the FERC. I appreciate your prompt review of this document. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have additional questions about the project. Sincerely, HDR Alaska, Inc. ~~~ Mark Dalton Director of Environmental Services Enclosure cc: Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Mike Stimac, HDR HDR Engineering. Inc. X:\MAR.K\MAHONMFS.DOC 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 9950S.2639 Telephone 907 274-2000 Fax 907 274-2022 May 9, 1996 Jack Gustafson Area Habitat Biologist Department of Fish and Game 2030 Sea Level Drive, Suite 205 Ketchikan, AK 99901-6067 Subject: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Dear Mr. Gustafson: I writing to transmit to you the proposed aquatic resources monitoring plan for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric project. This plan is being transmitted to you and other fish and wildlife resource agencies to aid the review of the Mahoney Lake Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (EA). The monitoring plan was developed based on comments previously received from agencies about the project. Our intent is to provide your agency with this information in order to facilitate your review of and comment on the project. We would appreciate your comments by May 17 in order to be included within the draft EA to be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on May 31, 1996. Comments received after that date will still be considered but will have to be included in a supplemental filing to the FERC. I appreciate your prompt review ofthis document. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have additional questions about the project. Sincerely, HDR Alaska, Inc. f.lh-rz-tL ~-r----_ Mark Dalton Director of Environmental Services Enclosure cc: Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Mike Stimac, HDR HDR Engineering, Inc. X:\MARK\MAHOADFG.DOC 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2639 Telephone 907 274-2000 Fax 907 274-2022 .; ' -+ ' f "- ' ._ " l • May 9, 1996 Duane Peterson Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 201 Juneau, AJaska 99801-7100 Subject: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Dear Mr. Peterson: I writing to transmit to you the proposed aquatic resources monitoring plan for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric project. This plan is being transmitted to you and other fish and wildlife resource agencies to aid the review of the Mahoney Lake Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (EA). The monitoring plan was developed based on comments previously received from agencies about the project. Our intent is to provide your agency with this information in order to facilitate your review of and comment on the project. We would appreciate your comments by May 17 in order to be included within the draft EA to be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on May 31, 1996. Comments received after that date will still be considered but will have to be included in a supplemental filing to the FERC. I appreciate your prompt review of this document. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have additional questions about the project. Sincerely, HDR Alaska, Inc. Jtrr~~~ Mark Dalton Director of Environmental Services Enclosure cc: Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Mike Stimac, HDR HDR Engineering, Inc. X:\MAR.K\MAHOFWS.OOC 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2639 Telephone 907 274-2000 Fax 907 274-2022