Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConnell Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 11599 Scoping Document 1 December 1998CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC Project No. 11599 SCOPING DOCUMENT 1 Ketchikan Public Utilities December 1998 Table of Contents CONNELL LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SCOPING DOCUMENT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 SCOPING 2.1.‘ Purposes of Scoping 2.2 Scoping Meetings 2.3. Site Visit 3.0 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 4.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 4.1. KPU’s Proposed Action 4.1.1 Project Description 4.1.2 Project Operation 4.1.3 Proposed Protection and Mitigation 4.2. Modifications to KPU’s Proposed Action 4.3 No Action 4.4 Alternatives Considered by KPU but Eliminated from Detailed Evaluation 5.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS AND RESOURCE ISSUES 5.1 Cumulative Effects 5.1.1 Resources that Could be Cumulatively Affected 5.1.2 Geographic Scope 5.1.3 Temporal Scope 5.2 Resource Issues 5.2.1 Geological Resources 5.2.2 Water Resources 5.2.3. Fishery Resources 5.2.4 Terrestrial Resources 5.2.5 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 5.2.6 Aesthetic Resources 5.2.7 Cultural Resources 5.2.8 Recreation and Other Land Uses 6.0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OUTLINE 7.0 SCHEDULE FOR PREPARING DEA AND LICENSE APPLICATION December 1998 Scoping Document 1 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Connell Lake Project is located approximately five miles north of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska. The Project would utilize the water supply and head developed by the existing Connell Lake Dam. Connell Lake Dam was constructed by the Ketchikan Pulp Company and began storing water in 1952. The water supply was developed for the recently closed Ketchikan Pulp Company mill located on Ward Cove. The hydroelectric Project would utilize the existing water supply pipeline to deliver water to the hydroelectric plant constructed at one of two locations on the shore of Ward Cove. The Project is located on lands owned by the United States Forest Service (USFS), Ketchikan Pulp Company, and Ketchikan Gateway Borough (alternative powerhouse location). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a three-year Preliminary Permit for the Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project on July 24, 1997. The permit gives Ketchikan Public Utility District (KPU) priority for filing a development application while conducting engineering and environmental feasibility studies. KPU intends to file an application for a “Major Project-Existing Dam” with a total installed capacity of S MW or less (18 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Subpart G, Section 4.60). KPU is utilizing the Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment (APEA) process to prepare an application for an original license for the Project. A communications protocol has been distributed to interested entities. Under the APEA process a draft NEPA Environmental Assessment (DEA) will be prepared in lieu of Exhibit E of the License Application. The DEA will be prepared in conformance with the Commission’s regulations governing the APEA process (Order No. 596, issued October 29, 1997). The Commission, under the authority of the Federal Power Act (FPA), may issue original licenses for up to 50 years for the construction, operation and maintenance of nonfederal hydroelectric developments. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, issuing an original license for the Project requires preparation of either an environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In accordance with Commission regulations that govern the procedures to be followed in the APEA process, KPU will prepare a Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) that analyzes the issues raised during pre-filing consultation and the scoping process. The PDEA will include descriptions and evaluations of KPU’s proposed action and action alternatives. The PDEA will be circulated to all participants for review. KPU will then file with the Commission a license application and a draft EA (DEA) that addresses the comments and recommendations received on the PDEA. The Commission will evaluate KPU’s DEA and, if it meets the commission’s criteria and standards, will issue is own DEA for comment followed by a final EA (FEA). December 1998 Scoping Document | Page 1 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Scoping 2.0 SCOPING 2.1 PURPOSES OF SCOPING The purposes of this scoping document are to: e Invite participation of federal, state, and local agencies, native groups, and other interested parties to identify significant environmental and socioeconomic issues related to the proposed action. e Determine the depth of analysis and significance of issues to address in the DEA. e Identify how the Project would or would not contribute to cumulative environmental effects in the Connell Lake basin. e Identify reasonable alternatives that should be evaluated. e Eliminate from detailed study the issues and resources that do not require detailed analysis during review of the Project. e Solicit additional study requests. This Scoping Document is being made available to agencies, the public, and other interested participants. All issues raised during the scoping comment period will be reviewed and decisions made as to the level of analysis needed in the preparation of the DEA. If preliminary analysis indicates that any issues presented in this Scoping Document have little potential for causing impacts, the issue or issues will be identified, and the reasons for not providing a more detailed analysis will be given in the DEA. Any dispute over additional study requests that cannot be resolved between the Applicant and the requesting party will be referred to the Commission for resolution. 2.2 SCOPING MEETINGS In addition to written comments solicited by the Scoping Document, KPU will hold two scoping meeting to solicit any verbal comments and viewpoints that people may wish to offer about the Project. These scoping meetings are an important part of the NEPA review process. KPU invites your attendance at any of the meetings to help us identify the scope of issues that should be analyzed in the DEA. The times and location for the meetings are as follows: December 1998 Scoping Document | Page 2 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Scoping Agency Meeting Public Meeting Date: February 2, 1999 Date: February 1, 1999 Time: 8:30 am — 11:30 am Time: 7:00 pm — 10:30 pm Location: Ted Ferry Civic Center Location: Ted Ferry Civic Center 888 Venetia Avenue 888 Venetia Avenue Ketchikan, AK Ketchikan, AK The scoping meetings will be recorded, and all statements (verbal and written) will become part of the public record for the Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project. Individuals participating in the meetings will be asked to clearly identify themselves for the record. Interested parties who choose not to participate, or who are unable to attend either scoping meeting, may submit written statements until April 3, 1999. These will become part of the official Project file (see Section 3.0). 2.3. SITE VISIT A visit to the proposed Project site is intended to give resource agencies, tribal and native Corporation representatives and any other interested parties a first-hand observation of the Project site. The time and location of the site visit are as follows: Date: February 2, 1999 Meeting Place: Connell Lake Dam Time: 2:30 pm December 1998 Scoping Document 1 Page 3 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Request for Information 3.0 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION This Scoping Document and the scoping meetings are designed to provide further understanding of the Project and to encourage all interested parties to participate and contribute input on important environmental issues and reasonable alternatives to be considered in the DEA. We request federal, state, and local resource agencies, native groups, other interest groups and individuals to forward, or present at the scoping meetings, information that they believe will assist the Commission in conducting an accurate and thorough analysis of the Project-specific effects, as well as cumulative effects, of the Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project. Types of information requested include, but are not limited to the following: Comments on the scope of issues presented in this scoping document, and whether any other issues need to be included. Information, quantified data, or professional opinions that may contribute in identifying and defining the scope of important environmental issues. ldentification of, and information from, any other environmental document or similar analyses of studies (previous, on-going, or planned) relevant to the proposed Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project. Information and quantified data that would help describe the existing resources of the Project area, including physical, chemical, biological, and socioeconomic resources. Identification of any federal, state, or local resource plans, environmental impact statements, and future Project proposals in the affected resource area. Documentation to support a conclusion whether or not the proposed Project would contribute to adverse or beneficial effects on resources, including but not limited to a) how the Project interacts with other hydropower projects and other developmental activities within the affected area, b) results from studies, c) resource management policies, and d) reports from federal, state and local agencies. Consideration of alternatives to the proposed action. Documentation showing why any resources should be excluded from further study or consideration. December 1998 Scoping Document 1 Page 4 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Request for Information You may submit the requested information at the scoping meetings, or in writing. Written material must be received no later than April 3, 1999. Send all written comments to: Mr. Don Thompson WESCORP 3035 Island Crest Way Suite 200 Mercer Island, WA 98040 All written filing must clearly identify the following on the first page: Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 11599) Any additional study requests must conform to the requirements of 18 CFR section 4.32(b)(7), which requires the requester to describe the study and the basis for the request in detail, including who should conduct and participate in the study, its methodology and objectives, whether the methodology is generally accepted in the scientific community, how the study results would be used by the requesting agency to assess resource issues under their jurisdiction, how long the study would take to complete, and why the study’s objectives cannot be achieved using data already available. Copies of the additional study requests should be received by April 3, 1999, by Mr. Don Thompson at the address above, and sent to: David P. Boergers, Acting Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing 888 1* Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 December 1998 Scoping Document 1 Page 5 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Proposed Action and Alternatives 4.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 4.1. KPU’s PROPOSED ACTION The Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project would be located approximately 5 miles north of Ketchikan and would utilize the water supply and head developed by the existing Connell Lake dam. The water supply was developed in the early 1950’s for the recently closed Ketchikan Pulp Company mill located on Ward Cove. The hydroelectric project would utilize the existing water supply pipeline to deliver water to a hydroelectric plant constructed at one of two locations on the shore of Ward Cove. Connell Lake Dam was constructed by the Ketchikan Pulp Company and began storing water in 1952. Since that time, the lake has supplied approximately 45 mgd (70 cfs) to the mill on a continuous basis. The existing dam is approximately 78 feet high and impounds approximately 8,370 acre-feet of stored water. Water from the dam is transferred to the mill through approximately 3 miles of wood stave and steel pipe and two sections of concrete lined tunnel. However, due to a decrease in demands for pulp, the plant was closed in early 1997 and its water supply is being considered as a water source for the proposed hydroelectric plant. 4.1.1 Project Description The project will use the existing Connell Lake as the water supply source for the hydroelectric project, a penstock which utilizes the existing pipeline plus 2 new sections of steel pipe, a powerhouse located at the pulp mill, and a discharge tube which leads to Ward Cove. Pertinent statistics on the project are presented in Table 4-1. Connell Lake The lake can be operated between the crest of the spillway gates, elevation 254, and approximately elevation 210. The existing outlet works on the dam discharge to a concrete forebay which then discharges to the 60-inch wood stave pipe. This section will be modified and a 77-foot section of 48-inch steel pipe will be added to fully pressurize the entire pipeline and take advantage of approximately 44 feet of additional head. Penstock The existing pipeline will be used to convey up to 130 cfs to the powerhouse. Since the pipeline will be pressurized to the reservoir elevation, an increase of about 50 feet, the a portion of 48-inch wood stave pipe will require additional bands to withstand the additional pressure. Based upon discussions with the suppliers of wood stave pipe, approximately 2000 feet of the existing pipe will need to be re-banded. December 1998 Scoping Document | Page 6 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Proposed Action and Alternatives The penstock to the powerhouse will take off of the existing 48-inch steel pipe approximately 100 feet north of the filtration plant and run approximately 600 feet to the powerhouse. Several alternative sizes for the penstock were investigated (42-, 48-, and 54-inch) and the 48-inch was found to be the most cost effective. Powerhouse , Turbine, and Generator There are several potential locations for the powerhouse on the site of the closed pulp mill. Mill personnel identified several potential locations in the vicinity of the existing wood chip silos on the east side of the complex. The preliminary selected site is located adjacent to the silos, within 200 feet of the shore of Ward Cove. The powerhouse is planned to be rectangular steel and concrete building with approximately 2400 square feet of floor space. The building will house the turbine, generator, and controls as well as a small office and storage space. The turbine will be a horizontal Francis type unit with maximum output of approximately 1.9 MW at 195 feet of net head. The turbine runner elevation will be approximately 5 feet above the tailwater elevation of 18 feet. The generator will be a horizontal synchronous type with a nominal output of 1.9 MW at 4160 volts. Switchyard The switchyard will be located just east of the powerhouse and will include the transformers, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches and will transform the generator output to 34.5 kV. An overhead line will connect to KPU’s existing 34.5 kV line along North Tongass Avenue. Added Water Source Water from the upper reaches of White River would be diverted into upper Ward Creek and provide an additional supply of water for the project. This water sources would include a small diversion structure on the White River and approximately 1 mile of transmission pipeline to upper Ward Creek. Alternative Site for Powerhouse An alternative similar to the plan described above exists with the only major difference being the location of the powerhouse. The location of the powerhouse and transmission facilities for this alternative is the upper end of Ward Cove, approximately 2,000 feet east of the North Tongass Ave. bridge. December 1998 Scoping Document | Page 7 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 4-1 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Project Description Existing Reservoir Normal Maximum Operating Level 254 feet Surface Area at Elev. 254 400 acres Reservoir Storage at Elev. 254 8370 acre-feet Reservoir Storage at Min. Pool (El. 210) 970 acre-feet Existing Dam Type Concrete gravity Structural Height 76 feet Crest Length 600 feet Dam Crest Elevation 263.5 feet Spillway Crest Elevation 250.0 feet Top of Spillway Crest Gates 254.0 feet Penstock Length of existing 60-inch wood stave pipe 12,750 feet Length of existing 48-inch wood stave pipe 1,780 feet Length of existing tunnels 1,675 feet Length of existing 48-inch steel pipe 375 feet Length of new 48-inch steel pipe (@ dam) 77 feet Length of new 48-inch steel pipe (@ p. h.) 600 feet Powerhouse Size 2,400 square feet Type Concrete substructure with steel frame Number of Units 1 Capacity 1.9 MW Type of Unit Horizontal Francis w/ synchronous bypass Switchyard Location Adjacent to powerhouse Intertie To KPU 34.5 kV line along N. Tongass December 1998 Scoping Document 1 Page 8 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Proposed Action and Alternatives 4.1.2 Project Operation The project operations for this study were developed based on maximizing average annual energy generation at the least cost. In order to achieve this goal it was assumed that reservoir level sensors will be installed to provide real-time control over reservoir releases for hydropower, fishery and other uses. It was further assumed that plant operation will have dispatch priority over all other KPU-owned generating resources. An energy generation model was developed to estimate average monthly and annual energy generation for the project. The model takes into consideration natural inflow to Connell Lake, diversion flows from the adjacent White River, assumed minimum instream releases below the dam, excess spill, conveyance losses, turbine and generator efficiencies, and assumed reservoir operating criteria. Energy for station service use and transmission losses are also accounted for, resulting in average annual net energy delivered to customers. ~ Since inflow to Connell Lake is much higher than the available storage capacity, monthly target reservoir levels have been established to maximize energy production and to minimize undesirable spills from the reservoir. Flow releases for fisheries and other instream uses were based upon preliminary estimates. These releases will be modified as additional information becomes available from on-going IFIM studies. In a typical month, the priority of operations are: (1) meet the minimum flow requirements; (2) fill the reservoir to the target elevation; (3) release water into the penstock for power generation up to the capacity of the turbine; and (4) spill the excess into Ward Creek. 4.1.3 Proposed Protection and Mitigation KPU proposes to construct and operate the project as described in the above sections and will provide the following measures to protect the environment: e During construction, provide erosion and sediment control measures ¢ Remove the minimal amount of vegetation during construction of the penstock, powerhouse, switchyard, and transmission line ¢ Coordinate construction activities with the resource agencies to avoid disturbing major wildlife species known to frequent the project area e Design the powerhouse and tailrace to blend with the surrounding terrain December 1998 Scoping Document 1 Page 9 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Proposed Action and Alternatives 4.2. MODIFICATIONS TO KPU’S PROPOSED ACTION Protection, mitigation and enhancement measures not proposed by KPU will be considered. Alternative measures could include recommendations by resource agencies, other organizations, the general public, or the Commission. 43 NOACTION Under the no-action alternative, the Project would not be constructed. No changes in the existing environment would take place. The no-action alternative is the baseline from which the proposed action and any action alternatives are compared. 4.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BY KPU BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION A number of alternatives hydropower projects were considered for the Ward Creek drainage area but were eliminated in favor of the proposed project. As outlined below, these alternatives involved changes in size and configuration of the proposed development, other locations, and additional supplemental sources of water for the energy production. e Turbine Capacity. A range of turbine capacities between 70 and 150 cfs were considered in the feasibility analysis before a capacity of 130 cfs was selected. The smaller sizes were less economical and did not maximize the use of the resources. The larger sizes were less economical and reduced the amount of water available for instream flow needs. e Lower head alternative. The selected alternative provides an interconnect between the existing Connell Lake Dam and the existing penstock to increase the available head for the project. An alternative without this interconnect was less economical since it developed about 40 feet less head while utilizing the same amount of water and hence lower energy production. The cost of the interconnect was minimal. e Perseverance Lake Alternatives. Two alternatives utilizing the additional head available at Lake Perseverance were considered and eliminated. The first alternative was a run-of-the-river project with an intake near the outlet from the lake and a powerhouse located on the shore of Connell Lake. It was eliminated because of economics, the undesirability of reduced flow in the creek between the two lakes, and the difficulty of designing an adequate intake structure which would handle the fluctuations in Lake Perseverance. The second alternative considered a diversion from the north shore of the lake to a powerhouse located on Ward Creek just upstream of Ward Lake. This project did not prove to be as economical as other alternatives and compromised the economics of the selected alternative. December 1998 Scoping Document | Page 10 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Scope of Cumulative Analysis and Resource Issues 5.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS AND RESOURCE ISSUES 5.1. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS According to the council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing NEPA (50 CFR 1508.7), an action may cause cumulative impacts on the environment if its impacts overlap in space and/or time with the impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities. Considering the initial consultation document, agency and public comments, and our review of studies and reports to date, we have outlined below our proposed geographic and temporal scope of analysis for cumulative effects in the DEA. 5.1.1 Resources that Could be Cumulatively Affected At this time, we have tentatively identified the following resources that could be cumulatively affected by the Connell Lake Project: recreational opportunities and fisheries resources. 5.1.2 Geographic Scope The geographic scope of analysis for cumulatively affected resources is defined by the physical limits or boundaries of (1) the proposed action’s effect on the resource, and (2) contributing effects from other hydropower and non-hydropower activities. The geographic scope of our cumulative analysis will include the Ward Creek/Connell Lake drainage basin. 5.1.3 Temporal Scope The temporal scope of our cumulative analysis in the DEA will include past, present, and future actions and their effects on each resource that could be cumulatively affected. Based on the potential 50-year license term for the Connell Lake Project, the temporal scope will look 50 years into the future, concentrating on the effect on the resources from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical discussion will, by necessity, be limited to the amount of available information for each resource. We will document the present resource conditions and the results of our studies in the DEA. December 1998 Scoping Document 1 Page 11 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Scope of Cumulative Analysis and Resource Issues 5.2 RESOURCE ISSUES A list of resource issues and concerns that have been identified for analysis in the DEA is presented below. Those issues identified by an asterisk (*) will be analyzed for cumulative, as well as site-specific, effects. This list is not intended to be exhaustive or final, but is an initial listing of potential issues that have been identified. For convenience, the issues have been listed in categories related to technical disciplines. 5.2.1 Geological Resources e Whether construction activities and long-term operation, including excavation and foundation building would cause or increase slope instability at the various project features. 5.2.2 Water Resources e Are the existing estimates of water availability accurate and will estimates based upon a newly installed stream gauge negatively impact energy production estimates and project economics? 5.2.3. Fishery Resources* e Will the operation of the Project affect existing fishery resources in Connell Lake and tributaries thereof? ® lake level drawdown and shoreline dewatering © water quality modifications © disconnection of tributaries from the lake system (prevent upstream spawning migrations of adfluvial salmonids from the lake to the stream) e Will the operation of the Project affect existing fishery resources in Ward Creek, including important stocks of salmon and steelhead? © streamflow modifications below Connell Dam - fishery habitat - fish passage - food/invertebrate production - water quality modifications - water temperature - dissolved oxygen - turbidity, etc. e Will the operation of the Project affect existing fishery and aquatic resources in Ward Lake? lake level modification due to Ward Creek flow reductions © shoreline habitat alteration © water quality modifications December 1998 Scoping Document 1 Page 12 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Scope of Cumulative Analysis and Resource Issues e Will project operations affect upstream passage of adult salmon and steelhead into Ward Creek? powerhouse tailrace discharge - false attraction flows - straying/migration delays e Will project construction activities affect lake (Connell and Ward lakes) and stream (Ward Creek) aquatic habitats and water quality? e Will proposed protection and mitigation measures be sufficient to prevent or mitigate any adverse impacts to fishery and aquatic resources affected by project construction and operation? 5.2.4 Terrestrial Resources e Will construction or operation result in adverse impacts to plant communities or critical habitat of sensitive plant or animal species? e Will proposed protection and mitigation measures be sufficient to prevent or mitigate any adverse impacts to plant communities or sensitive species habitat? 5.2.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species e Will construction or operation result in adverse impacts to populations of federally listed candidate threatened, endangered, or sensitive species? 5.2.6 Aesthetic Resources e Whether the penstock and powerhouse would impact he visual quality of the area. e The degree that construction and operation of project facilities would adversely impact the visual quality of the area. 5.2.7 Cultural Resources e Whether project construction would adversely impact cultural resources that may exist in the area. 5.2.8 Recreation and Other Land Uses* e Whether project construction and operation would affect recreation opportunities. e Whether project construction and operation would affect other land uses in the Project area. December 1998 Scoping Document 1 Page 13 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Draft Environmental Assessment Outline 6.0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OUTLINE The tentative outline for the Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project DEA is as follows: I SUMMARY I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR POWER Il. | PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. Applicant’s Proposal 1. Project Facilities and Operations 2. Proposed Environmental Measures 3. Mandatory Requirements B. No-Action Alternative iC Other Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis IV. AGENCIES AND ENTITIES CONTACTED V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. General Description of the Basin B. Cumulative Effects Analysis Gc: Proposed Action and Other Recommended Environmental Measures 1. Geological Resources a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 2. Water Resources a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3. Fishery Resources a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4. Terrestrial Resources a) Wildlife Resources (1) Affected Environment (2) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations (3) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts b) Botanical Resources (1) Affected Environment (2) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations (3) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts December 1998 Scoping Document ] Page 14 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Draft Environmental Assessment Outline 5. Threatened and Endangered Species a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 6. Aesthetic Resources a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 7. Cultural Resources a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 8. Recreation and Other Land Uses a) Affected Environment b) Environmental Impacts and Recommendations c) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts December 1998 Scoping Document 1 Page 15 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project Schedule 7.0 | SCHEDULE FOR PREPARING DEA AND LICENSE APPLICATION The approximate schedule for completing licensing activities in the alternative licensing/APEA process for the proposed Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project follows: Licensing Activities Draft Communications Protocol circulated to agencies and 9/30/98 interested parties ee Request to Approve Use of Alternative Licensing Procedures filed 11/12/98 with the Commission (with Communications Protocol) Notice of Request to Approve Use of Alternative Licensing 12/4/98 Procedures published in Federal Register Comments due on Request to follow APEA process 1/3/99 (30 days following Notice) . FERC Order approving Request to follow APEA process 1/10/99 Six-month progress report due to the Commission 12/31/98 Initial Consultation Package and Scoping Document 1 (SD1) sent 12/30/98 to Agencies, Native Organizations and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) - 30 days prior to meeting Public Notice of Scoping/ Joint Meeting (15 days prior to meeting) 1/14/99 First Stage Consultation/Public Scoping Meeting held in 2/1/99- Ketchikan 2/2/99 Comments on ICD and SD1 due (60 days after meeting) 4/3/99 Applicant issues Scoping Document 2 (SD2) and files it with 4/99 Commission Six-month progress report due to the Commission 6/31/99 F | PDEA and Draft Application issued and circulated to agencies and 11/99 interested parties (including environmental study results) Notice of PDEA and Draft Application published in Ketchikan 11/99 Daily News, Anchorage Daily News, and Federal Register Six-month progress report due to the Commission 12/30/99 Comments, Recommendations and Conditions due (90 days after 2/00 PDEA and Draft Application issued) License Application and DEA filed at the Commission and sent to agencies and interested parties December 1998 Scoping Document 1 Page 16 Connell Lake Hydroelectric Project