HomeMy WebLinkAboutSect11_SD_2_NETC
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20426
March 5, 2020
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Project No. 14873-001 – Alaska
Nuyakuk River Hydroelectric Project
Nushagak Cooperative, Inc.
VIA FERC Service
Reference: Scoping Document 2 for the Nuyakuk River Hydroelectric Projects (P-
14873-001)
To the Parties Addressed:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is currently reviewing
the Pre-Application Document (PAD) submitted by Nushagak Cooperative, Inc.
(Nushagak Cooperative) for licensing the Nuyakuk River Hydroelectric Project
(Nuyakuk River Project) (FERC No. 14873). The project would be located on the
Nuyakuk River, in the Dillingham Census Area, Alaska. The project would occupy 357
acres of Bureau of Land Management lands.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended,
Commission staff intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA), which will be
used by the Commission to determine whether, and under what conditions, to issue a
license for the project. To support and assist our environmental review, we are beginning
the public scoping process to ensure that all pertinent issues are identified and analyzed,
and that the EA is thorough and balanced. Although our current intent is to prepare an
EA, there is a possibility that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be required.
The scoping process will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether
the Commission issues an EA or an EIS.
Our preliminary review of the scope of environmental issues associated with the
proposed licensing of this project was described in Scoping Document 1 (SD1), issued on
November 8, 2019. We requested comments on SD1, conducted environmental site
reviews, and held scoping meetings on December 11, 2019, to hear the views of all
interested parties on the scope of issues that should be addressed in the EA. Based on the
meetings and the submission of written comments, we have prepared a Scoping
Project No. 14873-001 2
Document 2 (SD2) to reflect our current view of issues and alternatives to be considered
in the EA. Key changes from SD1 to SD2 are identified in bold and italicized type.
SD2 is being distributed to both Nushagak Cooperative’s distribution list and the
Commission’s official mailing list (see section 10.0 of the attached SD1). If you wish to
be added to or removed from the Commission’s official mailing list, please send your
request by email to FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or by mail to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426. All written or emailed requests must specify your wish to be
removed from or added to the mailing list and must clearly identify the following on the
first page: Nuyakuk River Project No. P-14873-001.
If you have any questions about SD2, the scoping process, or how Commission
staff will develop the EA for this project, please contact Julia Kolberg at (202) 502-8261
or julia.kolberg@ferc.gov. Additional information about the Commission’s licensing
process and the projects may be obtained from our website, www.ferc.gov.
Enclosure: Scoping Document 2
SCOPING DOCUMENT 2
NUYAKUK RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA
PROJECT NO. 14873-001
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Office of Energy Projects
Division of Hydropower Licensing
Washington, DC
March 2020
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 4
2.0 SCOPING .................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 PURPOSES OF SCOPING ................................................................................... 6
2.2 COMMENTS AND SCOPING MEETINGS....................................................... 7
2.2.1 Issues Raised During Scoping .......................................................................... 8
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................... 20
3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................... 20
3.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL .............................................................................. 21
3.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities ............................................................................. 21
3.2.2 Proposed Project Operation ........................................................................... 21
3.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ............................................................... 22
3.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................ 22
4.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND SITE-SPECIFIC RESOURCE
ISSUES ............................................................................................................................. 22
4.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................. 22
4.2 RESOURCE ISSUES ........................................................................................... 23
4.2.1 Geologic and Soils Resources ......................................................................... 23
4.2.2. Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................... 23
4.2.4 Recreation and Land Use .............................................................................. 25
4.2.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 25
4.2.6 Aesthetic Resources ........................................................................................ 26
4.2.7 Socioeconomic Resources............................................................................... 26
4.2.8 Developmental Resources .............................................................................. 26
5.0 PROPOSED STUDIES ............................................................................................ 26
6.0 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND STUDIES ............................................. 28
7.0 EA PREPARATION SCHEDULE ......................................................................... 30
8.0 PROPOSED EA OUTLINE .................................................................................... 31
9.0 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS .................................................................................. 32
10.0 MAILING LISTS ................................................................................................... 34
APPENDIX A – STUDY PLAN CRITERIA
APPENDIX B – PROCESS PLAN AND SCHEDULE
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of the proposed Nuyakuk River Project (Source: PAD). .................... 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Nushagak Cooperative’s initial study proposals for the Nuyakuk River Project.
(Source: PAD) ............................................................................................................ 27
4
SCOPING DOCUMENT 1
Nuyakuk River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14873-001)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC), under the
authority of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 may issue licenses for terms ranging from
30 to 50 years for the construction, operation, and maintenance of non-federal
hydroelectric projects. On October 7, 2019, Nushagak Cooperative, Inc. (Nushagak
Cooperative), filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD) for the proposed Nuyakuk River
Hydroelectric Project (Nuyakuk River Project) (FERC No. 14873-001).
The Nuyakuk River Project would be located on the Nuyakuk River in the
Dillingham Census Area, Alaska (figure 1). The total installed capacity would be 10-
megawatts (MW) with an average annual generation of approximately 62,691megawatt
hours (MWh). A detailed description of the projects is provided in section 3.0. The
proposed project would occupy 357 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,2 the Commission’s
regulations, and other applicable laws require that we independently evaluate the
environmental effects of licensing the Nuyakuk River Project as proposed and consider
reasonable alternatives to the licensees’ proposed action. At this time, we intend to
prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Nuyakuk River Project that describes
and evaluates the probable effects, including an assessment of the site-specific and
cumulative effects, if any, of the proposed actions and alternatives.
Although our current intent is to prepare an EA, there is a possibility that an
environmental impact statement (EIS) will be required. The scoping process will satisfy
the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the Commission issues an EA or
an EIS.
1 16 U.S.C. § 791(a)-825(r) (2018).
2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42. U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370(f) (2012).
5
Figure 1: Location of the proposed Nuyakuk River Project (Source: PAD).
6
2.0 SCOPING
This Scoping Document 2 (SD2) is intended to advise all participants as to the
proposed scope of the EA and to seek additional information pertinent to this analysis.
This document contains: (1) a description of the scoping process and schedule for the
development of the EA; (2) a description of the proposed actions and alternatives; (3) a
preliminary identification of environmental issues; (4) a proposed EA outline; and (5) a
preliminary list of comprehensive plans that are applicable to the projects.
2.1 PURPOSES OF SCOPING
Scoping is the process used to identify issues, concerns, and opportunities for
enhancement or mitigation associated with a proposed action. According to NEPA, the
process should be conducted early in the planning stage of the project. The purposes of
the scoping process are as follows:
• invite participation of federal, state and local resource agencies, Alaskan
Natives, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the public to identify
significant environmental and socioeconomic issues related to the proposed
project;
• determine the resource issues, 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 project area;
• identify reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that should be evaluated
in the EA;
• solicit, from participants, available information on the resources at issue; and
• determine the resource areas and potential issues that do not require detailed
analysis during review of the project.
7
2.2 COMMENTS AND SCOPING MEETINGS
Commission staff issued SD1 on November 8, 2019 to enable resource agencies,
Alaskan Natives, NGOs, and the public to more effectively participate in and contribute
to the scoping process. In SD1, we requested clarification of preliminary issues
concerning the Nuyakuk River Project and identification of any new issues that need to
be addressed in the EA. We revised SD1 based on the comments received during the
scoping period, which ended February 4, 2020. SD2 presents our current view of
issues and alternatives to be considered in the EA. To facilitate review, key changes to
issues from SD1 are identified in bold and italicized type.
We conducted scoping meetings in Anchorage, Alaska on December 11, 2019 to
identify potential issues associated with the projects. A court reporter recorded oral
comments made during both scoping meeting. Those who were unable to attend the
scoping meeting in person were able to attend via teleconference.
In addition to the oral comments received at the scoping meetings, written
comments were also received from the following entities:
COMMENTING ENTITY FILING DATE
Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Council December 9, 2019 and
January 15, 2020
Pat Vermillion December 11, 2019
U.S. Department of Commerce - National Marine February 4, 2020
Fisheries Service
Alaska Department of Fish and Game February 4, 2020
Royal Coachman Lodge February 4, 2020
United Tribes of Bristol Bay February 5, 2020
Alaska State Historic Preservation Office February 5, 2020
All comments received are part of the Commission’s official record for the
project. Information in the official file is available for inspection and reproduction at
the Commission’s Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. Information also may be
accessed through the Commission’s eLibrary system using the “Documents & Filings”
link on the Commission’s webpage at http://www.ferc.gov. Call (202) 502-6652 for
assistance.
8
2.2.1 Issues Raised During Scoping
The issues raised by participants in the scoping process are summarized and
addressed below. The primary purpose of SD2 is to identify issues to be analyzed in the
EA. Therefore, we revised SD1 to address only those comments related directly to the
scope of environmental issues. The summaries do not include every comment received
during the scoping process. For example, we do not address comments that are
recommendations for license conditions, such as protection, mitigation, and
enhancement (PM&E) measures, as the need for these measures will be analyzed in
the EA or any license order that is issued for the project. We also do not address
comments or recommendations that are administrative in nature, such as requests for
changes to the mailing list. Those items will be addressed separate from the EA.
Lastly, we do not address comments on the need for environmental studies. The need
for studies will be addressed during the upcoming ILP study planning process.
General
Comment: U.S. Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) states that section 3.2.3, Proposed Environmental Measures, of the scoping
document is incorrect because it only identifies environmental measures for terrestrial
resources. NMFS contends that the PAD and the applicant’s November 14, 2019
additional information request response, also propose the following environmental
measures for fisheries resources: a minimum flow in the bypassed reach, a tailrace
barrier, and a diversion structure to deflect upstream migrating adult salmon away
from the intake. NMFS asserts that these features should be included as
environmental measures in the SD2 and evaluated in the EA for their potential merit.
Response: We agree that the proposed 1,000-cfs minimum flow is an
environmental measure and have modified section 3.2.3 accordingly. However, we
disagree that the other two measures identified by NMFS are proposed environmental
measures and have not added them to section 3.2.3. The proposed diversion structure
is a project design feature that is primarily intended to facilitate flow diversions into
the project intake, and therefore, is included in the project facility discussion in section
3.2.1 of the SD2. Although the applicant states in section 3.3.6 of the PAD that it will
evaluate whether a tailrace barrier is needed to protect migrating fish in the project’s
tailrace, it does not propose a tailrace barrier at this time. Nevertheless, the EA will
evaluate the effects of all project features including the diversion structure, and any
proposed or recommended PM&E measures such as a tailrace barrier, on migrating
salmon and other aquatic resources.
9
Comment: The Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Council (Council)
objects to FERC holding a single scoping meeting in Anchorage. The Council states
that the development of the proposed project is of interest and concern to residents in
communities close to the park and that these individuals, tribes, and other local entities
will not receive adequate opportunity to participate in the scoping process due to the
significant travels costs associated with attending the scoping meetings in Anchorage.
The Council requests that FERC convene one or more additional public scoping
meetings in Dillingham.
Response: We agree that it is important that local individuals, Alaskan Natives,
and other entities engage in the licensing process for the Nuyakuk River Project. A
limited travel budget, weather considerations in traveling to remote areas, and a need
to keep the study plan development process on track resulted in the necessity to hold
the project scoping meeting in Anchorage. Those who were unable to attend the
scoping meeting in person were able to attend via teleconference or submit written or
electronic comments to the project record. Additional meetings will be held in
Dillingham as part of the study planning process, during which members of the public
may make further comments on the project. The timing and location details of these
meetings will be filed with the Proposed Study Plan.
Comment: Pat Vermillion asks what other studies have been done for
alternative energy sources. United Tribes of Bristol Bay (UTBB) asks when an
economic feasibility study will be conducted for the project.
Response: In making its licensing decision, the Commission considers whether
the hydropower project can be constructed and operated in a fashion that is in the
public interest. It does not look to alternative sources of energy as reasonable
alternatives to the project because the Commission cannot compel a licensee to
construct alternative sources to provide the needed power. In evaluating the need for
the project, the EA will evaluate the regional need for power using the most recent
forecasts for the energy market in which the project would be located and the likely
source of that power. The scope of the need for power analysis encompasses such
factors as whether there is a regional need for power, displacement of non-renewable
fossil fuels, and diversification of generation mix. Future power demand and supply,
the protection of fish and wildlife, and the protection of recreational opportunities are
examples of the factors that will be considered in the Commission’s broader public
interest finding of whether to license the project or not, and if so, under what
conditions.
10
Additionally, the Commission’s regulations require the applicant to provide a
detailed statement of project costs and financing with its license application. This
information would be used in the EA to describe the costs of constructing and
operating the project, the estimated sale price of the power at the time of licensing,
estimated annual operating expenses, and estimated total annual revenue. Whether
the project is economically feasible based on the conditions in any license that may be
issued for the project would be a business decision of the licensee.
Comment: The Council requests that FERC accept the following as
comprehensive plans under section 10(a)(2) of the FPA: the Nushagak Mulchatna
Subwatershed Prioritization Process (Nushagak Mulchatna Watershed Council, 2001);
the Nushagak River Watershed Traditional Use Area Conservation Plan (Nushagak
Mulchatna Watershed Council, 2012); the Strategic Conservation Action Plan for
Southwest Alaska Watersheds (Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership, 2017);
the Bristol Bay Comprehensive Management Plan and Final EIS (Bristol Bay Study
Group, 1985); and the Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off
Alaska (ADFG et al., 2012). NMFS also recommends including the Strategic
Conservation Action Plan for Southwest Alaska Watersheds (2017) as well as the
Nushagak River Watershed Traditional Use Area Conservation Plan (2018).
Response: We revised section 9.0 to include the Strategic Conservation Action
Plan for Southwest Alaska Watersheds (2017) because the plan is already included in
FERC’s list of approved comprehensive plans for Alaska. FERC has evaluated the
other plans submitted by the Council and NMFS and determined that they meet the
requirements of a qualifying comprehensive plan under section 10(a)(2) of the FPA.
Therefore, we revised section 9.0 to also include these plans.
Comment: The Council requests that FERC utilize meeting minutes related to
hydroelectric development within Wood-Tikchik State Park as public comments, as
well as previous studies and public comments received during FERC licensing
processes P-13238 and P-14356, both hydroelectric facilities proposed within the
boundaries of Wood-Tikchik State Park, when compiling Proposed Study Plans.
Response: In order to ensure that FERC considers available information when
deciding on the appropriateness of a study request, it must be filed in the project
record. Additionally, study requests must explain how the information contained in
these filings is relevant.
Comment: Royal Coachman Lodge states that, given the potential effects of the
project on the local ecosystem, FERC should prepare an Environmental Impact
11
Statement (EIS) rather than an EA.
Response: As discussed in section 1.0, our current intent is to prepare an EA;
however, there is a possibility that an EIS will be required. This decision will be
finalized upon review of the final license application and the applicant’s proposal for
the project. Based on our experiences with projects of similar size and scope, and in
consideration of all scoping comments received from state and federal agencies and the
public to date, we think that an EA would be enough at this time. However, consistent
with NEPA and its implementing regulations, if we determine in the EA or at a point in
time thereafter that the project would significantly affect the quality of the human
environment, then we would prepare an EIS.
Comment: UTBB asks what other state or federal permits would be required for
the project.
Response: The EA will describe how the Commission will comply with the
additional regulatory requirements or authorizations that are needed by the
Commission prior to license issuance (e.g., section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
section 401 of the Clean Water Act). However, the EA will not address any other state
or federal permits the applicant may need to obtain because such permits and
approvals are outside of the Commission’s licensing purview.
Aquatic Resources
Comment: EPA requests that the EA analyze the effects of project facilities
(e.g., diversion structure) and project operation on the stream channel, stream banks,
and sediment transport in the project area.
Response: We have modified the SD2 to include these issues.
Comment: EPA and UTBB request that we include an analysis of the effects of
project operation on ice processes in the project area. Alaska Department of Natural
Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (Alaska DNR Parks Division),
NMFS, and UTBB request that we analyze the effects of icing on the structural
integrity and operation of project facilities.
Response: Lower flows during project operation could affect ice formation in
the bypassed reach, notably due to lower flow velocities causing ice-cover formation in
areas of the falls that may not be ice-covered under existing conditions. Therefore, we
have revised section 4.2.2 to include the effects of project operation on river ice
12
processes.
However, we see no reason for the EA to assess the effects of icing on the
structural integrity and operation of project facilities. The applicant will be required to
file design drawings and a supporting design report with its final license application
that demonstrates that its proposed structures, including the diversion structure and
intake, are safe and adequate to fulfill their stated functions during all potential
operating conditions (e.g., during periods of low and high flow, and open-water and
ice-covered conditions). Once the license application is filed, Commission staff will
perform a safety assessment and review of the project’s design before any license
would be issued.
Comment: Multiple commenters request that we include an analysis of project
effects on upstream migrating adult and downstream migrating juvenile (fry and smolt)
pink, chum, coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon passing through the project area.
This would include the effects of the project diversion structure, intake, penstock,
turbines, tailrace, and reduced flows over the falls during project operation on
upstream and downstream anadromous fish migrations, including the potential for
false attraction, delay, increased predation risk, injury and mortality (e.g., intake
impingement and turbine blade strike), or passage failure.
Response: We have modified the SD2 to specifically highlight the effects of
each of the project’s relevant facilities (e.g., diversion structure, intake, penstock,
turbines, tailrace) as well as reduced bypassed reach flows on upstream and
downstream juvenile and adult anadromous fish migrations through the project area.
We understand that the Nuyakuk River is an important salmon producer and
that all five species of anadromous Pacific salmon are present in the project area.
However, for the purposes of this SD2, the term “anadromous fish” is synonymous
with naming all five species of Pacific salmon.
Comment: EPA requests that we analyze the effects of project operation and
project structures on fish behavior and nutrient distribution (e.g., fish holding and
feeding stations) in the project area.
Response: We have modified the SD2 to include the effects of project operation
and the physical presence of project facilities on fish use and fish habitat in the project
area.
Comment: Pat Vermillion requests that we include an analysis of project effects
13
on dissolved oxygen levels, and corresponding effects on juvenile salmon and their
migrations.
Response: We have modified the SD2 to include this issue.
Comment: Pat Vermillion and NMFS state that proposed project operation (i.e.
a minimum flow of 1,000 cfs) is inconsistent with the flow requirement of Alaska Stat.
Ann. § 41.21.167(e) (West 2019) which specifies that minimum flows be maintained at
a level that is equal to 70 percent of inflow. Pat Vermillion requests a detailed
description of proposed project operations at river flows below 5,000 cfs. Alaska DNR
Parks Division states that the proposed 1,000-cfs minimum flow is inconsistent with
Alaska DFG’s instream flow reservations for the Nuyakuk River, which range between
1,600 and 2,700 cfs on the low end during the winter and are considerably higher
during the remainder of the year.
Response: Under section 814 of the FPA, “no licensee may use the right of
eminent domain under this section to acquire any lands that, prior to October 24, 1992,
were owned by a State or political subdivision thereof and were part of or included
within any public park, recreation area or wildlife refuge established under State or
local law.” Although we recognize the potential conflict between the applicant’s
preliminary minimum flow proposal and the minimum flows allowed under Alaska
Senate Bill 91 and Alaska DFG’s instream flow reservations, the Commission does not
administer Alaska state law. Instead, staff’s analysis of minimum flow alternatives in
the EA will be based on the Commission’s requirements under sections 10(a) and 4(e)
of the FPA. This would include balancing the benefits and costs of minimum flow
alternatives and determining that the project as licensed is best adapted to a
comprehensive plan for improving the Nuyakuk River waterway. The EA will assess
the effects of project operation and minimum flows across the full range of hydrologic
conditions, including when inflow falls below 5,000 cfs.
Comment: Pat Vermillion questions whether the project would be shut down
and removed if it’s determined after licensing and during project operation that it is
having an unexpected adverse effect on the salmon runs and fisheries.
Response: The EA will assess the effects of the project on the Nuyukuk River
salmon fisheries. Although Commission licenses do not typically include requirements
to shut down and remove projects in the event of unforeseen environmental impacts
that occur during project operation, they do include a standard article that allows for
the license to be reopened, after notice and opportunity for hearing, to make
14
reasonable modifications to project facilities or operations to address impacts on fish
and wildlife resources.
Comment: Pat Vermillion states that the proposed project would reduce salmon
fry and smolt populations by a certain percentage each year, and therefore, aquatic
resources would be cumulatively affected by the project.
Response: The EA will analyze the effects of the project on juvenile
anadromous fish survival through the project area, including whether any such losses
would affect anadromous fish populations over time. However, juvenile anadromous
fish losses due to project operation would be a result of the direct effects of the project
and would not be a cumulative effect as defined by NEPA. As explained in section 4.1
of the SD2, a cumulative effect is the effect on the environment that results from the
incremental effect of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions. We have not identified any other specific actions in the
watershed that are in addition to the proposed project that would also affect
anadromous fish populations. Therefore, we see no reason to include a cumulative
effects analysis for aquatic resources in the SD2.
Comment: NMFS states that the project will contribute to cumulative effects
because there are reasonably foreseeable future actions that would occur as a result of
the project. The addition of over 100 miles of transmission lines could result in
improved access to undeveloped and pristine habitats. Additionally, the reliable and
low-cost electricity generated by the project could result in additional settlement at
existing villages and make mining more viable, which would affect water quality,
fisheries, and habitat.
Response: The EA will consider access-related direct effects of the transmission
line and other project facilities. However, the remaining actions cited by NMFS are
too speculative to assess in a meaningful way. In the event that NMFS or others
become aware of any reasonably foreseeable specific actions occurring in the project
area and that may affect the same resources under consideration here, we would
consider the need for a cumulative effects analysis at that time.
Comment: The Council requests that the EA evaluate the potential for the
project to increase total dissolved gas levels due to turbine operation.
Response: The proposed run-of-river project would include: diverting flows
from the river above the falls; routing them through an intake, power tunnel, and
turbines; and discharging them back to the river through a tailrace at the base of the
15
falls, thus bypassing about 2,000 feet of the river at the falls. A project configured in
this manner would not include any of the features (e.g., high-head dam, spillways,
outlet works) that typically cause elevated total dissolved gas levels when water is
passed through them causing turbulence and/or plunging of flows and the forcing of
entrained air into solution at depth. In fact, routing flows through the turbines instead
of over the falls would reduce total dissolved gas levels over existing conditions because
it would reduce the amount of flow that is subject to turbulence and entrainment of
atmospheric gases when passing over the falls. Instead, the diverted flows would be
routed through the turbines which would extract energy from the water and discharge
flows into a less turbulent environment in the powerhouse tailrace below the falls. For
these reasons, we see no evidence that the project would increase total dissolved gases
and see no reason to evaluate this issue in the EA.
Comment: Jennifer King requests that the EA evaluate the potential for the
project to have beneficial effects on aquatic resources due to the reduction of barge
transport in Bristol Bay and the Nushagak River of up to 1.6 million gallons of diesel
fuel per year that would be displaced by project operation.
Response: We have modified the SD2 to include this issue.
Comment: NMFS requests that the EA evaluate the effects of project
construction and operation on the introduction and spread of invasive aquatic species.
Response: We have revised the SD2 to include this issue.
Comment: Royal Coachman states that two years of study under the Integrated
Licensing Process is not enough time to fully understand the movements of
anadromous fish through the project area. It requests that studies be conducted over a
five-year period.
Response: Under the ILP, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects will
approve a study plan, which will consist of a compilation of various studies that must
be completed before the Commission will issue its notice that the application is ready
for environmental analysis and is proceeding with preparation of the EA. The time
needed to complete the various studies will be study-specific, and will be based on
multiple factors, including the availability of existing information, the study methods
proposed, and the adequacy of the data collection efforts at meeting the study
objectives. Although the ILP process plan currently provides for two study seasons and
this is typically enough time to collect the necessary data to inform the Commission’s
16
NEPA analysis and develop license requirements, it’s possible that studies could
continue for more than two years.
Comment: Royal Coachman requests that FERC determine the minimum flow
required to operate the project turbines. NMFS states that another turbine size may be
more efficient during winter, when flows in the river are lower.
Response: The Commission’s regulations require the applicant to include the
minimum and maximum hydraulic capacity of the proposed turbines in the final
license application, and the EA will assess the effects of turbine operation on bypassed
reach minimum flows across the full range of the turbines’ operating conditions and
Nuyakuk River stream flows. This analysis would include the applicant’s proposed
turbines and their flow operating ranges as well as any alternative turbine
configurations recommended by any entity in response to the Commission’s ready for
environmental analysis notice.
Terrestrial Resources
Comment: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requests that the potential
presence of invasive terrestrial species be investigated
Response: We assume that this is a request for an analysis in the EA of the
potential for the project to introduce or spread invasive terrestrial species rather than a
study request. Section 4.2.3 already states that the EA will address the effects of project
construction and operation (project roads and facilities) on distribution and abundance
of invasive plant species. Therefore, no change to the scoping document is necessary.
Comment: EPA states that it is uncertain whether or to what extent bears utilize
the falls for feeding on salmon under existing conditions, and requests that the EA
assess whether changes in river flow during project operation would affect the number
of bears using the project area for feeding.
Response: We have revised section 4.2.3 to include the effects of project
operation on bear use of the project area for feeding.
Comment: Multiple commenters request that the EA assess the effects of project
construction and operation (e.g., increased noise and disturbance, physical presence of
project facilities) on wildlife species, migrations, and their habitat, including the
Mulchatna caribou herd’s population size, calving range, and migration routes.
17
Response: We have revised section 4.2.3 to include the effects of project
construction and operation, including increased noise and disturbance, on these
resources.
Comment: The Council asks that we analyze the potential effects of noise on
furbearer presence, trapping, and subsistence use during project construction and
operation.
Response: We have revised section 4.2.3 to include potential effects of noise on
furbearer presence, trapping, and subsistence use during project construction and
operation.
Comment: Multiple commenters state that Nuyakuk falls serve as a food
resource at a critical time of year for birds preying on outmigrating juvenile salmon.
Pat Vermillion states that at certain flow levels there are a lot of birds and at other flow
levels the birds disappear. Therefore, the commenters request that the EA assess the
effects of reduced flows during project operation on birds feeding at the falls.
Response: We have revised section 4.2.3 to include the effect of project
operation on birds feeding on fish at the falls.
Comment: UTBB requests that the EA identify the timing of transmission line
construction and assess the number of streams and acres of wetlands the transmission
line would cross. UTBB and EPA request that the EA analyze the effects from project
construction and operation on wetlands.
Response: The Commission’s regulations require the applicant to include a
construction schedule in Exhibit C of the final license application that would identify
the proposed timing of transmission line construction. We have revised section 4.2.3 to
specifically include an analysis of project construction and operation, including the
transmission line, on streams, riparian habitat, and wetlands.
Comment: BLM requests that the EA assess the potential for the proposed
transmission line to cause wildfires.
Response: We have revised section 4.2.3 to include the potential for the
transmission line to cause wildfires.
Recreation and Land Use
18
Comment: Kay Andrews requests that the EA analyze the potential for the
proposed transmission line right-of-way to become a transportation corridor into areas
that currently lack access, including Wood-Tikchik State Park. The Council requests
that the EA assess an alternative that includes a transmission line route and
transportation corridor from Ekwok to Dillingham.
Response: The EA will analyze the effects of the proposed action. This analysis
would include considering the potential to increase ATV and other vehicle access to
remote regions along the transmission line route. If the applicant proposes a
transmission line route from Ekwok to Dillingham, staff would analyze the effects of
that alignment on all resources, including any unintended access; however, the EA
would not consider a requirement to add a transmission line or transportation corridor
from Ekwok to Dillingham unless it was part of the proposed project or a specific
foreseeable action of another entity brought on because of the proposed hydropower
project.
Comment: The Council requests that the EA assess the effects of project
construction and operation, including noise, on recreation, commercial businesses,
and tourism. The Council also requests an assessment of the applicant’s conduct of
environmental studies, including monitoring equipment, noise, and contractor
presence, on these resources.
Response: We have modified sections 4.2.4 (recreation) and 4.2.7
(socioeconomics) to specifically include the effects of noise and other project
construction and operation activities on recreation resources in the area. However, we
do not conduct an analysis for pre-licensing environmental studies because issuing a
license is the federal action under consideration by the Commission. The license
applicant must obtain the necessary rights to conduct environmental studies to develop
its license application.
Comment: The Council requests that the EA assess the potential for the project
to cause increased access to the project area for hunting, and the effects of such
increased access on hunting regulations.
Response: We have revised section 4.2.4 to include the effects on hunting
access. However, state hunting regulations are not a matter of the Commission’s
jurisdiction and we do not speculate on how the state might modify its regulations due
to any potential increase in hunting access as a result of the project.
19
Cultural Resources
Comment: Pat Vermillion and Corey Warnock indicate that the impacts of the
project on the use of a natural portage site with historic fishing, hunting, and cultural
significance should be considered in the EA.
Response: We have revised sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 to include project effects on
trails, including portage routes.
Aesthetic Resources
Comment: Pat Vermillion requests that the EA include an analysis of project
effects on aesthetic resources. Alaska DNR Parks Division requests that the EA
analyze changes to the soundscape (i.e., ambient noise levels) during project
construction and operation.
Response: Section 4.2.6 of the SD2 includes the effects of project construction
and operation on aesthetic resources including ambient noise levels.
Comment: NMFS requests that the EA assess the effects of light pollution
during project operation on aesthetic resources.
Response: We have revised section 4.2.6 to include this issue.
Socioeconomic Resources
Comment: Pat Vermillion requests that we include an analysis of the economic
impact to Royal Coachman Lodge and other users of the Wood-Tikchik State Park in
our EA.
Response: The EA will evaluate the effects of project construction, operation,
and maintenance on such socioeconomic resources as recreation, tourism,
governmental services, etc. Consistent with the FPA, the effects will be assessed at the
broad public interest level, rather than at the individual level of economic effects on
specific entities and their property.
Comment: UTBB asks how many people will be needed for the construction
phase of the project and whether members of the local community will have hiring
preference. Kay Andrews requests that the EA analyze the effects of the project on the
displacement of employees of the existing diesel generation facilities.
20
Response: Section 4.2.7 of the SD2 includes the effects on employment during
project construction and operation. However, the number of people employed, and the
source of those employees would be determined by the licensee.
Comment: UTBB asks whether other electricity needs, including the Aleknagik
landfill, Float Plane Road, and Johnny Tugatuk Road, located along the transmission
corridor, could benefit from the electricity generated by the project.
Response: The need for power discussion in the EA is based on the regional
energy demand. Predicting whether energy needs for other specific developments
located along the transmission corridor could be met by the proposed project is beyond
the scope of the Commission’s NEPA analysis.
Climate Change
Comment: NMFS requests that the EA analyze the effects of climate change on
the timing and availability of water during the projected license term and how the
project would be designed to accommodate those changes.
Response: We see no reason to include such an analysis in the EA. It is up to
the applicant to decide how to design the project to help meet the energy needs of the
region. This decision is based on, among other things, the regional energy demand,
how the project would be used to help meet that demand, and the applicant’s
streamflow and generation forecasts for the Nuyakuk River over the 30- to 50-year
term of a FERC license. Any future changes in any of these factors (or others) that
could prompt the licensee to seek a modification to project facilities or operations
during the term of a license would be more-appropriately addressed in the future
through a license amendment proceeding.
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with NEPA, the environmental analysis will consider the following
alternatives, at a minimum: (1) the no-action alternative, (2) the applicant's proposed
action, and (3) alternatives to the proposed action.
3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the no-action alternative, the proposed project would not be built (i.e., there
would be no change to the existing environment). No environmental protection,
21
mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. We use this alternative to
establish baseline environmental conditions for comparison with other alternatives.
3.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL
3.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities
The proposed project as described in the PAD and updated in the applicant’s
November 14, 2019 Additional Information Request response, would consist of a
diversion structure, intake, powerhouse, tailrace, water conveyance system, generation,
transmission lines, and appurtenant facilities. The diversion structure would not span the
river and instead would extend at about a 30-degree angle relative to the stream bank
about 100 to 300 feet into the Nuyakuk River. The structure would impound an
approximately 1-acre area of the river and facilitate flow diversions into the intake.
Flow from the intake would pass first through a conveyance channel and then into either
one or two conveyance tunnels, depending on the outcome of bathymetry, sub-bottom
profiling, and geotechnical investigations associated with project development. The
tunnels would deliver flow to the 100-foot-long by 50-foot-wide by 30-foot-high
powerhouse which would house two 5-MW Kaplan-style turbine generating units. Flow
would pass out of the powerhouse through a 100 to 150-foot-wide, 450-foot-long open
channel tailrace. Power generated by the project would be conveyed via a 135-mile-long
system of 34.5-kVa transmission line.
The estimated average annual generation would be 62,691 megawatt-hours. The
location of the facilities is shown in figure 1.
3.2.2 Proposed Project Operation
The applicant proposes to operate the project in a run-of-river mode, such that
outflow from the project approximates inflow. For those months in which the total
available inflow to the powerhouse is less than the project’s total hydraulic capacity of
7,550 cfs, a minimum instream flow of 1,000 cfs would be provided through the
bypassed reach, while the remainder of the available flow would be passed through the
powerhouse. The Nuyakuk River experiences high flows between early summer and
early fall.
22
3.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures
Nushagak Cooperative proposes to operate the Nuyakuk River Project with the
environmental protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures described
below.
Aquatic Resources
• Maintain a 1,000-cfs minimum flow in the bypassed reach during project
operation.
Terrestrial Resources
• Design the transmission line to incorporate the latest raptor protection
guidelines, and install collision avoidance devices on the line at appropriate
locations to protect migrating birds.
3.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Commission staff will consider and assess all alternative recommendations for
operational or facility modifications, as well as protection, mitigation, and enhancement
measures identified by the Commission, the agencies, Alaskan Natives, NGOs, and the
public.
4.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND SITE-SPECIFIC RESOURCE
ISSUES
4.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for
implementing NEPA (50 C.F.R. 1508.7), a cumulative effect is the effect on the
environment that results from the incremental effect of the action when added to other
past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency
(federal or non-federal) 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.
Based on our review of the PAD and preliminary staff analysis, we have not
identified any resources that may be cumulatively affected by the proposed operation and
maintenance of the Nuyakuk River project.
23
4.2 RESOURCE ISSUES
In this section, we present a preliminary list of environmental issues to be
addressed in the EA. We identified these issues, which are listed by resource area, by
reviewing the PAD and the Commission’s record for the Nuyakuk River Project. This
list is not intended to be exhaustive or final, but contains those issues raised to date that
could have substantial effects. After the scoping process is complete, we will review the
list and determine the appropriate level of analysis needed to address each issue in the
EA.
We reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service database of Information for
Planning and Consultation and found no record of threatened, endangered, or candidate
species or critical habitats in the proposed project location. Therefore, no effect on
endangered species from project construction and operation are anticipated at this time;
thus, endangered species would not be addressed in detail in the EA.
4.2.1 Geologic and Soils Resources
• Effects of project construction and maintenance activities on soil erosion
and sedimentation.
4.2.2. Aquatic Resources
Water Quality
• Effects of project construction activities on water quality (e.g., turbidity and
suspended sediment) in the project area.
• Effects of project operation on water temperatures and dissolved oxygen in
the Nuyakuk River in the project area, and corresponding effects on fish.
Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat
• Effects of project operation on flows through Nuyakuk Falls.
• Effects of project construction and operation on river ice processes in the
affected reach of the Nuyakuk River (i.e., above, within, and below
Nuyakuk Falls)
24
• Effects of changes in river hydraulics due to the presence of the diversion
structure and reduced flows in the bypassed reach on the stream channel,
stream banks, and sediment transport in the project area.
• Effects of project construction activities, including transmission line
construction, on resident and anadromous fish passage and aquatic habitat
in the Nuyakuk River and other streams in the project area.
• Effects of the project diversion structure, intake, powerhouse, and
reduced flows in the bypassed reach during project operation on
downstream migrating resident and juvenile anadromous fish, including
the potential for injury and mortality from intake and turbine
impingement and entrainment, passage delay, increased predation risk,
or passage failure.
• Effects of the project diversion structure, intake, powerhouse, tailrace, and
reduced flows in the bypassed reach during project operation on upstream
migrating resident and adult anadromous fish, including the potential for
false attraction and passage delay, injury and mortality due to turbine
blade strike via the draft tubes, increased predation risk, and passage
failure.
• Effects of the physical presence of project facilities (e.g., diversion
structure, intake) and lower flows in the bypassed reach under project
operation on fish use and fish habitat in the project area (e.g., above,
within, and below Nuyakuk Falls).
• Effects of project construction and operation on the introduction and
spread of aquatic invasive species.
• Beneficial effects of reduced transport of up to 1.6 million gallons of
diesel fuel per year that would be displaced by project operation, and the
corresponding beneficial effects on aquatic resources due to the reduced
risk of hazardous fuel spills during transport.
4.2.3 Terrestrial Resources
• Effects of project construction and operation on wildlife habitat,
25
including riparian and wetland habitat.
• Effects of habitat loss and alteration from construction of the
intake/diversion, powerhouse, tailrace, airstrip, dock, access roads,
maintenance and residential building, switchyard, and transmission line on
caribou (Mulchatna Herd) and other wildlife and plant species.
• Effects of project operation (i.e., lower flows in the falls) on birds and
bears feeding at the falls due to potential changes in upstream and
downstream fish migrations through the falls.
• Effects of noise, improved access from project access roads, and increased
human presence on caribou, furbearers, and other wildlife.
• Effects of the new substation and transmission line on the potential for
raptor and other bird electrocutions and collisions.
• Effects of the new transmission line on the potential for wildfires.
• Effects of project construction and operation (project roads and facilities)
on distribution and abundance of invasive plant species.
4.2.4 Recreation and Land Use
• Effects of project construction, operation and maintenance on recreational
resources and use in the project area, including recreation trails and
portage routes and hunting access.
• Effects of project construction, operation and maintenance on Wood-
Tikchik State Park and its management objectives.
• Effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on
transportation resources, including the potential for the transmission line
corridor to be used as a transportation corridor.
4.2.5 Cultural Resources
• Effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on properties
that are included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
26
Historic Places.
• Effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on subsistence
activities within the project area, including trails and portage routes used
for subsistence purposes.
• Effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on Traditional
Cultural Properties and practices within the project area.
4.2.6 Aesthetic Resources
• Effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on aesthetic
resources in the project area, including visual resources and sound levels.
• Effects of light pollution during project operation.
4.2.7 Socioeconomic Resources
• Effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on
socioeconomic resources, including housing, employment, transportation,
governmental services, subsistence resources, and local tourism.
4.2.8 Developmental Resources
• Effects of proposed or recommended environmental measures on project
generation and economics.
5.0 PROPOSED STUDIES
Depending upon the findings of studies completed by Nushagak Cooperative and
the recommendations of the consulted entities, Nushagak Cooperative will consider, and
may propose certain other measures to enhance environmental resources affected by the
project as part of the proposed action. Nushagak Cooperative’s initial study proposals are
identified by resource area in table 1. Detailed information on Nushagak Cooperative’s
initial study proposals can be found in the PAD. Further studies may need to be added to
this list based on comments provided to the Commission and Nushagak Cooperative from
interested participants, including Alaskan Natives.
27
Table 1. Nushagak Cooperative’s initial study proposals for the Nuyakuk River Project.
(Source: PAD)
Resource Area Proposed Study
Geologic and Soils Resources
Conduct an assessment of rock composition via
hard rock drilling techniques to identify the
viability of the substrate for supporting project
infrastructure.
Water Quality and Quantity
Assess water quality in the Nuyakuk River at the
project site.
Collect hydrologic data via stream gaging at the
project site.
Assess and model sediment transport in the
project area.
Fisheries Resources
Assess fish species seasonal distribution and
abundance at the project site.
Conduct bathymetric modeling of Nuyakuk Falls.
Conduct Nuyakuk Falls fish passage evaluation
and modeling.
Terrestrial Resources
Assess wildlife presence, distribution, and
migration.
Assess the presence of rare, threatened and
endangered species.
Assess botanical species presence and
distribution.
Assess invasive weed presence and proliferation.
28
Resource Area Proposed Study
Assess wetland presence, type, and quantity.
Recreation and Aesthetic
Resources
Conduct a comprehensive visual and recreation
assessment of the project area to define the extent
of the recreational activities that occur in the
project area and assess potential project impacts
on recreational and visual resources.
Cultural Resources
Conduct a cultural resources assessment in the
project area to include a desktop analysis and
field studies in consultation with the affected
Alaskan Natives and the State Historical
Preservation Office.
Socioeconomic Resources
Conduct a desktop analysis to define the existing
population and social and economic conditions in
the project area and assess the impacts associated
with project development and operations.
6.0 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND STUDIES
We are asking federal, state, and local resource agencies, Alaskan Natives, NGOs,
and the public to forward to the Commission any information that will assist us in
conducting an accurate and thorough analysis of the project-specific and cumulative
effects associated with licensing the Nuyakuk River Project. The types of information
requested include, but are not limited to:
• information, quantitative data, or professional opinions that may help define
the geographic and temporal scope of the analysis (both site-specific and
cumulative effects), and that helps identify significant environmental issues;
29
• identification of, and information from, any other EA, EIS, or similar
environmental study (previous, on-going, or planned) relevant to the proposed
licensing of the Nuyakuk River Project;
• existing information and any data that would help to describe the effects of the
project and other developmental activities on environmental and
socioeconomic resources;
• information that would help characterize the existing environmental conditions
and habitats;
• the identification of any federal, state, or local resource plans, and any future
project proposals in the affected resource area (e.g., proposals to construct or
operate water treatment facilities, recreation areas, water diversions, timber
harvest activities, or fish management programs), along with any
implementation schedules);
• documentation that the proposed project would or would not contribute to
cumulative adverse or beneficial effects on any resources. Documentation can
include, but need not be limited to, how the project would interact with other
projects in the area and other developmental activities; study results; resource
management policies; and reports from federal and state agencies, local
agencies, Alaskan Natives, NGOs, and the public;
• documentation showing why any resources should be excluded from further
study or consideration; and
• study requests by federal and state agencies, local agencies, Alaskan Natives,
NGOs, and the public that would help provide a framework for collecting
pertinent information on the resource areas under consideration necessary for
the Commission to prepare the EA/EIS for the project.
All requests for studies filed with the Commission must meet the criteria found in
Appendix A, Study Plan Criteria.
The requested information, comments, and study requests should be submitted to
the Commission no later than February 4, 2020. All filings must clearly identify the
following on the first page: Nuyakuk River (P-14873-001) Hydroelectric Project.
Scoping comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 C.F.R.
30
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission’s website
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up
to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, please send a paper copy to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE, Washington, D.C. 20426.
Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of
new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support.mailto:ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov.
Any questions concerning the scoping meetings, site visits, or how to file written
comments with the Commission should be directed to Julia Kolberg at (202) 502-8261 or
julia.kolberg@ferc.gov. Additional information about the Commission’s licensing
process and the Nuyakuk River Project may be obtained from the Commission’s website,
www.ferc.gov.
7.0 EA PREPARATION SCHEDULE
At this time, we anticipate the need to prepare a draft and final EA. The draft EA
will be sent to all persons and entities on the Commission’s service and mailing lists for
the Nuyakuk River Project. The EA will include our recommendations for operating
procedures, as well as environmental protection and enhancement measures that should
be part of any license issued by the Commission. All recipients will then have 30 days to
review the draft EA and file comments with the Commission. All comments on the draft
EA filed with the Commission will be considered in preparation of the final EA.
The major milestones, with pre-filing target dates are as follows:
Major Milestone Target Date
Scoping Meetings December 2019
License Application Filed June 2023
A copy of the process plan and schedule, which has a complete list of licensing
milestones for the Nuyakuk River Project, including those for developing the license
31
application, is attached as Appendix B to this SD1.
8.0 PROPOSED EA OUTLINE
The preliminary outline for the EA for the Nuyakuk River Project is as follows:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDICIES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Application
1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power
1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
1.3.1 Federal Power Act
1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions
1.3.1.2 Section 10(j) Recommendations
1.3.2 Clean Water Act
1.3.3 Endangered Species Act
1.3.4 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
1.3.5 Coastal Zone Management Act
1.3.6 National Historic Preservation Act
Other statutes as applicable
1.4 Public Review and Comment
1.4.1 Scoping
1.4.2 Interventions
1.4.3 Comments on the Application
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1 No-action Alternative
2.2 Applicant’s Proposal
2.2.1 Project Facilities
2.2.2 Project Safety
2.2.3 Project Operation
2.2.4 Environmental Measures
2.2.5 Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions
2.3 Staff Alternative
2.4 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions
32
2.5 Other Alternatives (as appropriate)
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
3.1 General Description of the River Basin
3.2 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives
3.2.1 Geologic and Soil Resources
3.2.2 Aquatic Resources
3.2.3 Terrestrial Resources
3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
3.2.5 Recreation and Land Use
3.2.6 Cultural Resources
3.2.7 Aesthetic Resources
3.2.8 Socioeconomic Resources
3.3 No-action Alternative
4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 Power and Economic Benefits of the Project
4.2 Comparison of Alternatives
4.3 Cost of Environmental Measures
4.4 Air Quality (as needed)
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Comparison of Alternatives
5.2 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative
5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
5.4 Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
5.5 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans
6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (OR OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT)
7.0 LITERATURE CITED
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
APPENDICES
Appendix A – License Conditions Recommended by Staff
9.0 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. section 803(a)(2)(A), requires the
Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal and state
comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways
affected by a project. Commission staff has preliminarily identified and reviewed the
plans listed below that may be relevant to the Nuyakuk River Project. Agencies are
33
requested to review this list and inform the Commission staff of any changes. If there are
other comprehensive plans that should be considered for this list that are not on file with
the Commission, or if there are more recent versions of the plans already listed, they can
be filed for consideration with the Commission according to 18 CFR 2.19 of the
Commission’s regulations. Please follow the instructions for filing a plan at
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/complan.pdf.
The following is a list of comprehensive plans currently on file with the
Commission that may be relevant to the Nuyakuk River Project:
Alaska Administrative Code. 2012. 5 AAC § 39.222 Policy for the Management of
Sustainable Salmon Fisheries. Juneau, Alaska.
Alaska Administrative Code. 2003. 5 AAC § 75.222 Policy for the Management of
Sustainable Wild Trout Fisheries. Juneau, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2011. Alaska Anadromous Waters Catalog -
Southwestern Region. Anchorage, Alaska. June 1, 2011.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Black
Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) Conservation Action Plan. Anchorage,
Alaska. April 2007.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, et al. 2012. Fishery Management Plan for the
Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska. June 2012.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Alaska's Outdoor Legacy: Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): 2009-2014. Anchorage,
Alaska.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Wood-Tikchik State Park Management
Plan. Anchorage, Alaska. October 2002.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Bristol Bay Area Plan for State Lands.
Anchorage, Alaska. April 2005.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Nushagak & Mulchatna Rivers
Recreation Management Plan. April 19, 2005.
Bristol Bay Study Group. 1985. Bristol Bay Comprehensive Management Plan and
34
Final Environmental Impact Statement. April 1985.
National Park Service. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. 1993.
Nushagak Mulchatna Watershed Council. 2001. Nushagak Mulchatna Subwatershed
Prioritization Process. June 2001.
Nushagak Mulchatna Watershed Council. 2012. Nushagak River Watershed
Traditional Use Area Conservation Plan. 2012.
Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership. 2017. Strategic Conservation Action
Plan for Southwest Alaska Watersheds. Anchorage, AK. 2017.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al. 2008. Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan. Version
II. Anchorage, Alaska. November 2008.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Alaska Seabird Conservation Plan. Anchorage,
Alaska. 2009.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Regional Seabird Conservation Plan. Pacific
Region, Portland, Oregon. January 2005.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Steller’s Eider (Polysticta stelleri) Recovery Plan.
Fairbanks, Alaska. September 2002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri) Recovery
Plan. Anchorage, Alaska. August 1996.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d. Fisheries USA: the Recreational Fisheries Policy of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
10.0 MAILING LISTS
The list below is the Commission’s official mailing list for the Nuyakuk River
Project included in this scoping document. If you want to receive future mailings for
these proceedings and are not included in the list below, please send your request by
email to efiling@ferc.gov or by mail to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. All
35
written and emailed requests to be added to the mailing lists must clearly identify the
following on the first page: Nuyakuk River (P-14873-001) Hydroelectric Project.
You may use the same method if requesting removal from the mailing list below.
Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified
via email of new filings and issuances related to these projects or other pending projects.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or
toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.
Secretary
Oregon Public Utility Commission
PO Box 1088
Salem, OR 97308
Ken Lord
Attorney-Advisor
U.S. Department of Interior
4230 University Dr. Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99508
Susan Walker
Marine Resources Specialist
NOAA Fisheries Service
PO Box 21668
Juneau,AK 99802
Thomas Meyer
General Counsel
NOAA General Counsel for Fisheries
PO Box 21109
Juneau, AK 99801
Cory Warnock
McMillen Jacobs Associates
5771 Applegrove Ln
Ferndale, WA 98248
Governor of Alaska
Alaska Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811
Governor of Oregon
Oregon Office of the Governor
900 Court Street NE
RM 160
Salem, OR 97301
Lisa Murkowski
Senator
U.S. Senate
709 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Daniel Sullivan
Senator
U.S. Senate
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Ron Wyden
Senator
U.S. Senate
221 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
36
Jeff Merkley
Senator
U.S. Senate
313 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
Bobby Armstrong
Nushagak Electric & Telephone
Cooperative
PO Box 350
Dillingham, AK 99576
Kerry Long
Regional Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan
Region
222 West 7th Avenue, #14
Anchorage, AK 99513
Dr. James W. Balsiger
Regional Administrator
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Alaska Region
PO Box 21668
Juneau, AK 99802
Sean Eagan
Hydrologist
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Alaska Region
PO Box 21668
Juneau, AK 99802
Kate Savage
Marine Mammal Specialist
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Alaska Region
PO Box 21668
Juneau, AK 99802
Thomas Meyer
Attorney Advisor
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Alaska Region
PO Box 21109
Juneau, AK 99802
David Hobbie
Chief, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Alaska District
PO Box 6898
JBER, AK 99506
Mary Leykom
US Army Corps of Engineers
Alaska District
PO Box 6898
JBER, AK 99506
Karen Mouritsen
Acting State Director
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Alaska State Office
222 West 7th Ave., Suite 13
Anchorage, AK 99504
37
Scott Crockett, State Conservationist
U.S. Department of Agriculture
National Resources Conservation Service
Alaska State Office
800 West Evergreen Avenue, Suite 100
Palmer, AK 99645
Eric Marchegiani
Public Utility Specialist
U.S. Department of Agriculture
PO Box 771876
Eagle River, AK 99557
Ricky Hoff
Supervisor
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Alaska Regional Office
3601 C Street, Suite 1100
Anchorage, AK 99503
Keith Kahklen
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
3601 C Street, Suite 1100
Anchorage, AK 99503
Christian Zimmerman
Center Director
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Alaska Science Center
4210 University Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508
Marcia Combes
Acting Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alaska Operations Office
222 West 7th Avenue, #19
Anchorage, AK 99513
Matthew LaCroix
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public
Affairs
Aquatic Resources Unit
222 West 7th Avenue, #19
Anchorage, AK 99513
Betsy McCracken
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Division/Regional Administrators
Division
222 West 7th Avenue, #19
Anchorage, AK 99513
Greg Siekaniec
Regional Director
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Alaska Region
1011 East Tudor Road, MS 381
Anchorage, AK 99503
Jennifer Spegon
Energy Project Coordinator
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Anchorage Field Office
1011 East Tudor Road, Mail Stop 121
Anchorage, AK 99503
38
Franklin Dekker
Hydrologist
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Habitat Restoration
4700 BLM Road
Anchorage, AK 99507
Debbie Steen
Recreation and Fire Management
Specialist
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99503
Susanna Henry
Refuge Manager
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Togiak National Wildlife Refuge
PO Box 270 MS 569
Dillingham, AK 99576
David Schmid
Acting Regional Forester
U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Region
709 West 9th Street
Juneau, AK 99802
Julie Anderson
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Commerce,
Community and
Economic Development
PO Box 110803
Juneau, AK 99811
Amber LeBlanc
Director
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
Division of Water
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
William Ashton
Storm Water and Wetlands Manager
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
Division of Water
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Doug Vincent-Lang
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
PO Box 115526
Juneau, AK 99811
Jason Dye
Area Manager
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Bristol Bay Management Area
Dillingham Area Office
PO Box 230
Dillingham, AK 99576
Kevin Keith
Statewide HydropowerCoordinator
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Sport Fish Aquatic Resources
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99518
39
Joe Klein
Engineer II (Statewide Aquatic
Resources Coordination Unit)
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Sport Fisheries
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99518
Robin Dublin
Southern Region Program Manager
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Subsistence
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99518
Sylvia Kreel
Hydro Large Project Coordinator
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Office of Project Management &
Permitting
550 W. 7th Ave, Suite 1430
Anchorage, AK 99501
Clark Cox
Southcentral Regional Manager
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Mining, Land, and Water
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 900C
Anchorage, AK 99501
Brittany Smith
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Mining, Land, and Water –
Leasing Unit
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 900C
Anchorage, AK 99501
David W. Schade
Chief, Water Resources Section
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Mining, Land, and Water
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1020
Anchorage, AK 99501
Kim Sager
Natural Resource Specialist
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Mining, Land, and Water
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1020
Anchorage, AK 99501
Candice Snow
Resource Assessment and Development
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Mining, Land, and Water
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 900c
Anchorage, AK 99501
Kenneth R. Papp
Division Operations Manager
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Geological and Geophysical
Surveys
3354 College Road
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Judith Bittner
State Historic Preservation Officer
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Office of History and Archaeology
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1310
Anchorage, AK 99501
40
Richard VanderHoek,
State Archaeologist, Deputy
SHPO
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Office of History and Archaeology
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1310
Anchorage, AK 99501
Ricky Gease, Division Director
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1380
Anchorage, AK 99501
David Griffin
Project Coordinator
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1380
Anchorage, AK 99501
Alison Eskelin
Area Ranger
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
PO Box 1822
Dillingham, AK 99576
Kristin Schubert
Commission Section Manager
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
701 W 8th Ave, Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99501
Bryan Carey
Hydroelectric Project Manager
Alaska Energy Authority
813 W. Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99503
Bryce Edgmon
Representative
Alaska House of Representatives
State Capitol, Room 416
Juneau, AK 99801
Lyman Hoffman
Senator
Alaska Senate
State Capitol, Room 518
Juneau, AK 99801
Norman Van Vactor
President & CEO
Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp.
PO Box 1464
Dillingham, AK 99576
Andy Hall
Director
Bristol Bay Borough Chamber of
Commerce
PO Box 224
King Salmon, AK 99613
Tod Larson, City Manager
City of Dillingham
PO Box 889
Dillingham, AK 99576
Janice Shilanski
City of Dillingham
Historic Preservation Commission
PO Box 889
Dillingham, AK 99576
41
Sonja Marx, Librarian
Dillingham Library
306 D Street West
Dillingham, AK 99576
Kay Andrews
Mayor of Aleknagik
PO Box 87
Aleknagik, AK 99555
Clarks Point Village Council
PO Box 90
Clarks Point, AK 99569
Richard King
Ekwok Village Council
PO Box 70
Ekwok, AK 99580
Luki Akelkok
Ekwok Village Council
PO Box 70
Ekwok, AK 99580
Lorraine King
Ekwok Village Council
PO Box 70
Ekwok, AK 99580
Sylvia Kazimirowicz
Ekwok Village Council
PO Box 70
Ekwok, AK 99580
Stuyahok Ltd.
PO Box 50
New Stuyahok, AK 99636
Manokotak Village Council
PO Box 169
Manokotak, AK 99628
Herman Nelson
Koliganek Natives Limited
Koliganek, AK 99576
Portage Creek Village Council
1762 Abbott Road
Anchorage, AK 99507
Margie Aloysius
EPA/IGAP Coordinator
Aleknagik Traditional Council
PO Box 115
Aleknagik, AK 99555
Bobby Andrew
President
Aleknagik Natives Limited
PO Box 1630
Dillingham, AK 99576
Ralph Anderson
CEO
Bristol Bay Native Association
PO Box 310
Dillingham, AK 99576
Jason Metrokin
President & CEO
Bristol Bay Native Corporation
111 W 16th Avenue, Suite 400
Anchorage, AK 99501
Gayla Hoseth
Director of Natural Resources
Bristol Bay Native Association
PO Box 310
Dillingham, AK 99576
42
Cameron Poindexter
President & CEO
Choggiung Limited
PO Box 330
Dillingham, AK 99576
Courtenay Carty
Tribal Administrator
Curyung Tribal Council
PO Box 216
Dillingham, AK 99576
New Koliganek Village Council
PO Box 5057
Koliganek, AK 99576
New Stuyahok Traditional Council
PO Box 49
New Stuyahok, AK 99636
Levelock Village Council
PO Box 70
Levelock, AK 99625
Aleknagik Traditional Council
PO Box 115
Aleknagik, AK 99555
Alaska Historical Society
PO Box 100299
Anchorage, AK 99510-0299
Crystal Enkvist
Alaska Power Association
703 West Tudor Road, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99503
Mike Rovito
Deputy Director
Alaska Power Association
703 West Tudor Road, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99503
Brent Petrie
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Anna Sattler
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
TDX Power
615 East 82nd Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99518
The Nature Conservancy
715 L Street, Suite 100
Anchorage, AK 99501
Jan Konigsberg
Director
The Natural Heritage Institute
7511 Labrador Circle
Anchorage, AK 99502
Bud Hodson
Owner
Tikchik Narrows Lodge
PO Box 220507
Anchorage, AK 99522
43
APPENDIX A
STUDY PLAN CRITERIA
18 CFR Section 5.9(b)
Any information or study request must contain the following:
1. Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the information to be
obtained;
2. If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or
Alaskan Natives with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied;
3. If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest
considerations in regard to the proposed study;
4. Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal, and
the need for additional information;
5. Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect, and/or
cumulative) on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the
development of license requirements;
6. Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred data
collection and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a schedule
including appropriate filed season(s) and the duration) is consistent with generally
accepted practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers relevant tribal
values and knowledge; and
7. Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable, and why
proposed alternative studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs.
44
APPENDIX B
NUYAKUK RIVER PROJECT PROCESS PLAN AND SCHEDULE
Shaded milestones are unnecessary if there are no study disputes. If the due date
falls on a weekend or holiday, the due date is the following business day. Early filings or
issuances will not result in changes to these deadlines. In the preliminary schedule
provided in the PAD, Nushagak Cooperative proposes to complete various milestones
ahead of the schedule provided below. Based on Commission staff’s experience, their
projected schedule may not be reasonable. Therefore, Commission staff modified the
process plan to be consistent with the Commission’s regulations and Commission’s staff
experience in implementing the ILP.
Responsible
Party Pre-Filing Milestone Date FERC
Regulation
Nushagak
Cooperative NOI/PAD filed 10/7/19 5.5, 5.6
FERC Tribal Meetings, if needed TBD 5.7
FERC Issue Notice of Commencement of
Proceeding and Scoping Document 1 11/11/19 5.8
FERC Scoping Meetings and Project Site Visit 12/11/19 5.8(b)(viii)
All
Stakeholders
File Comments on PAD/Scoping
Document 1 and Study Requests 2/4/20 5.9
FERC Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary) 3/20/20 5.10
Nushagak
Cooperative File Proposed Study Plan 3/20/20 5.11(a)
All
Stakeholders Proposed Study Plan Meeting 4/26/20 5.11(e)
All
Stakeholders File Comments on Proposed Study Plan 6/25/20 5.12
Nushagak
Cooperative File Revised Study Plan 7/25/20 5.13(a)
All
Stakeholders File Comments on Revised Study Plan 8/9/20 5.13(b)
FERC Issue Director's Study Plan Determination 8/24/20 5.13(c)
45
Responsible
Party Pre-Filing Milestone Date FERC
Regulation
Mandatory
Conditioning
Agencies
File Any Study Disputes 9/13/20 5.14(a)
Dispute Panel Select Third Dispute Resolution Panel
Member 9/28/20 5.14(d)
Dispute Panel Convene Dispute Resolution Panel 10/3/20 5.14(d)(3)
Nushagak
Cooperative File Comments on Study Disputes 10/8/20 5.14(i)
Dispute Panel Dispute Resolution Panel Technical
Conference 10/13/20 5.14(j)
Dispute Panel Issue Dispute Resolution Panel Findings 11/2/20 5.14(k)
FERC Issue Director's Study Dispute
Determination 11/22/20 5.14(l)
Nushagak
Cooperative First Study Season 5.15(a)
Nushagak
Cooperative File Initial Study Report 8/24/21 5.15(c)(1)
All
Stakeholders Initial Study Report Meeting 9/8/21 5.15(c)(2)
Nushagak
Cooperative File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary 9/23/21 5.15(c)(3)
All
Stakeholders
File Disagreements/Requests to Amend
Study Plan 10/23/21 5.15(c)(4)
All
Stakeholders
File Responses to
Disagreements/Amendment Requests 11/22/21 5.15(c)(5)
FERC Issue Director's Determination on
Disagreements/Amendments 12/22/21 5.15(c)(6)
Nushagak
Cooperative Second Study Season 5.15(a)
Nushagak
Cooperative File Updated Study Report 8/24/22 5.15(f)
All
Stakeholders Updated Study Report Meeting 9/8/22 5.15(f)
46
Responsible
Party Pre-Filing Milestone Date FERC
Regulation
Nushagak
Cooperative
File Updated Study Report Meeting
Summary 9/23/22 5.15(f)
All
Stakeholders
File Disagreements/Requests to Amend
Study Plan 10/23/22 5.15(f)
All
Stakeholders
File Responses to
Disagreements/Amendment Requests 11/22/22 5.15(f)
FERC Issue Director's Determination on
Disagreements/Amendments 12/22/22 5.15(f)
Nushagak
Cooperative
File Preliminary Licensing Proposal (or
Draft License Application) 1/31/23 5.16(a)-(c)
All
Stakeholders
File Comments on Preliminary Licensing
Proposal (or Draft License Application) 4/11/23 5.16(e)
Nushagak
Cooperative
File Final License Application 6/30/23 5.17
Nushagak
Cooperative
Issue Public Notice of Final License
Application Filing 7/14/23 5.17(d)(2)