The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMahoney Lake Hydro Correspondance 1994= ECEIY ‘PDR MAY 2 0 1994 a Industrial Development Alask oF Mr. Riley Snell and Export Authority Alaska Industrial Development Agency 480 W. Tudor Anchorage, AK 99503 Re: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Dear Mr. Snell: 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. ViLehact’ I. Mu, aC ach in Li ( Michael V. Stimac Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services Enclosure ce: Veronica Slajer, City of Saxman Doug Campbell, Cape Fox Corporation Emesta Ballard, Cape Fox Corporation Don Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, & Quinn HDR File, B.4.1 HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1200 Telephone 500 108th Avenue, N.E. 206 453-1523 Bellevue, Washington 98004-5538 MEETING MINUTES h:\hyd\mahoney\stage1\0426mtg.min PROJECT: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11393 SUBJECT: Joint Agency/Native American/Public Meetings, Morning Session DATE: April 26, 1994 PLACE: Ketchikan, Alaska ATTENDEES: 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, Emesta Ballard-Cape Fox Corporation; John Morsell-Northern 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 (ICD) 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. Jack 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. Jack 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 FERC Licensing process. He stated that the preliminary permit was received in June 1993 and expires in May 31, 1996. A license application must be submitted to the FERC 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 concerns on the project and the proposed studies discussed in the ICD. HDR should receive written agency comments by June 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 June 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. John 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 western shore of Lower Mahoney Lake. The proposed studies would update and expand on the existing data. Two field visits are anticipated in June and in September to coincide with sockeye spawning. Impacts to these spawning gravels will be determined and suitable mitigation measures developed. Jack Snyder asked John to discuss Upper Mahoney Lake. John 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 will be conducted. A field survey will 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 will be conducted. In regard to permitting, a stream crossing Title 16 permit and Corps of Engineers permit are anticipated. Questions: None. Lisa Fortney discussed the proposed archaeological and historical studies. She stated that a cultural study of the Mahoney Lake area was conducted in 1981 by the Army Corps 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 will entail performing a literature 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. The National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service will 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 will 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. The USFS Plan, USFS ROS, and recreation inventories would be reviewed. The 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 will be estimated based on past trends, population and demographic forecasts. Recreation opportunities will be evaluated to see if the demand can be met. The project impacts will be assessed. Debby stated that there are no recreation facilities at the project site. A recreation mitigation plan will 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 USFS Visual Management System to describe the natural visual character of the project area. Impacts from construction activities and project features will 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 Klugherz (McDowell Group) asked if recreation as it relates to tourism would be Teviewed. 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 Corporation. The upper portion of the project would be located on USFS land and that portion includes the lake tap, the vertical shaft, and most of the tunnels. Cape Fox owns the area around the powerhouse, access road, and the transmission 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. Jack 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. Jack asked if there were any other questions. There were none. Jack 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 all of the agencies. Even if the agency has no concerns at this time, a letter stating "No comment" would be appreciated. The study plans will be finalized by incorporating any agency comments and distributed again after June 25. Jack stated that a site visit was required by the FERC regulations. 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 has grave concerns about the Mahoney Lake Project and the timing of it all 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. Jack 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 Klugherz (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 Farmers 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 Klugherz (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, Jack 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. MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11393 SUBJECT: Joint Agency/Native American/Public Meetings, Evening Session DATE: April 26, 1994 PLACE: Ketchikan, Alaska ATTENDEES: Phyllis Yelte, Ketchikan Gateway Borough; Ms. Barnes-Alaska Forest Association; D. Campbell-Cape Fox Corporation; V. Slajer, S. Dickinson- City of Saxman; J. Snyder, M. Stimac, D. Howe, M. Dalton, V. Bakker, L. Fortney-HDR Engineering; J. Morsell-Northern Ecological Services The evening session was scheduled to begin at 7:00 pm. Two people registered for this session. Jack Snyder reviewed the Initial Consultation Document and explained the Mahoney Lake Project. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm. MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 JOINT AGENCY/NATIVE AMERICAN/PUBLIC MEETINGS APRIL 26, 1994 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. AGENDA iB INTRODUCTION iesersreramrertenten cps totem er tocterrer ei iottenon senior ee elienlen ela Doug Campbell Cape Fox Corporation TF PROJEGT DESCRIPTION Fre ctey 5 certo tot ot 0 tote 0) 2 torrap ayforfor oroiienter of arte Jack Snyder HDR Engineering, Inc. Ml. ERG; EIGENSINGIPROGESS <oitercrercoster orto rte arson tototrortouter etrento ner ize 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 ............2200ee00- Debby Howe HDR Engineering, Inc. Aesthetic RESOurCces i650. ccc 10 fo 01 3 1c cco 5 5 cc Debby Howe HDR Engineering, Inc. Leip WS erei oe rtertey oto rte oto erie of er leted sf Toh ere ot wo Te ers Lisa Fortney HDR Engineering, Inc. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan ............. Jack Snyder HDR Engineering, Inc. V. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ARCTIC OCEAN of peeereeert rt ’ pan r ALASKA \ Ps REVILLAGIGEDO ? ? v6 ¢ \ : ext een |, of (ee a WC pyre 2 Laie SS ED Xs or easee on ae > < i ee PACIFIC. OCEAN 4 LOCATION MAP VICINITY MAP CITY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA APPUCATION FOR UCENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 PROJECT LOCATION MAPS FIGURE 1-1 UPPOR WAMOMEY Lint HORA, WED 1958.0 __ UPPER... MAHONEY aroma ae a LOCATION LAKE h CITY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA APPUCATION FOR UCENSE MAHONEY. LANE WORODLEC TC PROECT PROECT WO. 11393 UPPER TUNNEL AND LAKE TAP FIGURE 2-2 ine. TUNNEL SECTION Seal T= 20-0 INTERTIE : 0 LBS se eats S \ il ‘a SN ‘ \ TRANSM 6. \ My ff = — - ie vA — Three-Stage FERC Hydroelectric Licensing, he Relicensing, and Amendment Process sa RELICENSE Notice of intent to Acceptance of File for New License Preliminary Permit LICENSE Initial Consultation, Documents tb A jes and the Public AMENDMENT Joint Agency & Public Meeti , ‘Conference Calls) Ste Visk FIRST STAGE CONSULTATION Written Respoi “Final steyminaton” Draft Licensing Plan, Agency AMENDMENT PLAN Concurrence, Licensing Plan Submit Request for Dispute Resolution to FERC for Unreasonable Agency Study Requirements licant Studies and Negotiation re: Mitigation i Late ncy Requests < Studies Prepare Draft Exhibits Submit Draft and Draft for Results for Agency Review Review FERC Comment on Draft ) SECOND STAGE Written Agency Comments CONSULTATION on Draft and Results Joint Ai Meeting(syConference Calis: to Resolve’ Disag enon on Mitig: man Enhancement Measures Incorporate A Comments Incorporate in Final "Ap ication -FERC Comments Submit Final Application to FERC Conduct Reasonable & Necessary Studies Prepare rt on Additional Studies Submit Final Application to Agencies Letter from FERC: Acceptance/Deficiencies/ Request for Additional Information Correct Deficiencies, Provide Additional Information to FERC and Agencies THIRD STAGE CONSULTATION FERC Public Notice FERC Receives & intervenor Comments & Sug; License Article FERC Prepares EA or EIS FERC Decision of License and Articles LICENSING STUDY PLANS WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY Purpose The purpose 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 E, 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. Agencies to Be Consulted . USFWS a COE & Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Existing Information Water Quality Existing temperature data will be updated (See Appendix D). Sources of existing information may include USFWS, COE, and ADNR. Water Quantity Sources of existing stream flow information are described in Section 5.0 of this document. Study Tasks Literature Review The Applicant will investigate the following sources of information: USFS United States Geological Survey USFWS COE ADNR ADFG 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 temperature probe at the same depth as the proposed intake and one at the lake surface. 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. Stream 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 cm below the lake bottom and the lake water probes will be placed about 10 cm 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 surface to bottom will be measured within deeper portions of Lower Mahoney Lake four times per year to determine stratification patterns. Water Quantity Stream flow will be measured near the Project using a Stevens Type AA or Unidata digital continuous stream gage recorder. On Mahoney Creek, one unit will be installed near the proposed powerhouse location. The exact location of the gage will depend on stream 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 help 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 E (18 CFR 4.41). FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES Purpose 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: a Fish population surveys Agencies to be Consulted " USFWS a NMFS 5 USFS . COE a ADFG Existing Inf ; Information for the Mahoney Lake drainage may be available from the USFWS, NMFS, COE, USFS, and the ADFG from previous studies. Some of the existing information is included in Appendix B. Tasks 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 determine 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 western end of Lower Mahoney Lake near the outlet of Upper Mahoney Creek. Surveys 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. Results 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 incorporated into final reports to be included in the appendix of the FERC License Application. The Fisheries Resource section of the FERC License Application will be prepared incorporating the study results and in accordance with the FERC regulations (18 CFR 4.41). WILDLIFE AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES Purpose The purpose 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. Agencies to be Consulted: s USFWS a USFS a ADNR 2 ADFG Tasks Preliminary Review In this phase, all existing data on plant and animal 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 current set of aerial photographs and field verified through random sampling and consultation. Field Surveys Two field visits will be scented to confirm 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 incorporated 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). HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Purpose The purpose 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 archaeological/cultural 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 cultural resource inventories and registers maintained by the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will be reviewed. Native American and Agency Consultation The Cape Fox Corporation 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 field 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 FERC 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 produce adverse effects on any cultural Tesources found. Results The results of the cultural resources investigations will be presented in two reports: 1) a cultural resources background report; and 2) a summary Exhibit E document. These reports will be designed to meet FERC regulations set forth in 18 CFR 4.41. Draft copies of each report will be circulated for review, after which comments will be incorporated 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 information, 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 E 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 II will include the evaluation of existing and future recreation demands in the Project area. Phase III will identify the potential impacts created by the Project on recreation and will evaluate alternatives, recommend mitigation and provide costs, if necessary. dy Tas 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. Phase II - 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 III - 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 Purpose 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. Existing Visual Conditions A summary of existing visual conditions that addresses both Project facilities and the adjacent landscape will be addressed. Existing visual resource 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 waterfalls 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 Resources 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 regulations (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. Metho: Agencies will be consulted and existing land use maps, plans and policies will be collected. Existing Land Use and Ownership Existing land use and ownership will be identified. Identification of wetlands, floodlands, prime or unique farmland as designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, and lands owned or subject to control by government agencies will be identified. Proposed New Land Uses Areas affected by the proposed project will be determined. Compatibility of Existing and Proposed Uses Land use plans and policies for the project area will be reviewed to determine 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 construction 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. Agencies to be Consulted USFWS NMFS USFS COE ADNR ADFG Tasks The following tasks will be performed in order to prepare the ESCP: 1. Existing site conditions will be evaluated including climate, topography, geology, soils, vegetation, surface 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. Estimates will be made on the amount of tunnel spoils and locations for disposal sites will be identified. 10 4. Timing of construction activities will be identified and evaluated in terms of alleviating erosion potential. 3. Specific locations and techniques for controlling potential erosion and sedimentation during Project construction and operation will be identified, mapped, and detailed drawings 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 disturbed 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 geomorphic processes, Project operation, and sediment delivery will be characterized and discussed. Results A Draft ESCP will be prepared that details the Project area geology and soils, and characteristics of the Project segments. This 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 If yes, please Affiliation Phone Number i provide address Lim Contos Jao 0413 oadlow oe EA LAAE CY mre PX A cu TK 22 F -/0e0 ae | iy te. oan " Z2S-DESIJ hint. B Ne Ewl. dan Moors /] [eo /Hoe [avs-tiyd | - | — | I 9630 Seahevel Dr. ctAstke lance |eas-ae7 ee Mike, Shrones Ee Federe | Bucldixy | Dow Kaun USES ~ Keke LLS- Blo) ves Ka tessKars. BK | , kta cal | Scan Debinon | zasaie |e (eee soo Dee : ll sea Klochere | M@Eenell Gap [5-4 460 ae Wuhan ao Tengass Me aurea 335-3) Pn ckonhal heat ' MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 11393 APRIL 26, 1994 JOINT AGENCY/NATIVE AMERICAN/PUBLIC MEETINGS SIGN-IN SHEET — ee = al