The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPA1773.......-...-e6.--_-..1_--.. SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT fEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMieS_ON PROJECT No.7114 -~ -0~r--~~ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY :;=0 ~-o~~COMMENTS -----=1.{)r--=~ON THE ~ FEDERAL ENERGY REGULAT'ORY COMMISSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1984 VOLUME 2C TECHNICAL COMMENTS -TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES -SOCIAL SCIENCE AUGUST 1984 DOCUMENT No.1773 ""__ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY _.-----' ..... - - LO """o ""CO M ooo LO LO ""M M FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT NO.7114 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COMMENTS ON THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION DRAFT ENVIRONHENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1984 Volume 2C Technical Comaents -Terrestrial Resources -Social Science Document No.1773 Susitna File No.6.4.6. -rK I Lf-~5 ,55 F4~;L V\.o.1113 August 1984 ARLIS .Alaska Resources LIbrary &If f'·,.)OIThatJOn Services Anchorage,Alaska ----,---------- .... .... .... ..... .... VOLUME 2C TABLE OF CONTENTS Cross-Reference Index Subject Index Technical Comments Terrestrial Resources TRROOI -TRR081 Social Science SSCOOI -SSCl71 Bibliography Note:The attached Bibliography 1S for the enclosed Technical Comments only • ARLIS .Alaska Resources LIbrary &"InformatIOn Services AntollO.rage.Alaska ._------"------------------_.~------$--------------- ~-]J J 1 J J 1 J J ~1 1 1 CROSS-REFERENCE INDEX This Index organizes the Technical Comments by the Section in the DEIS to which they refer.Each Technical Comment is listed by its alphanumeric code opposite a Section of the DEIS.If a Technical Comment deals with more than one Section,it is listed opposite each Section with which it deals. DEIS SECTION SUMMARY 1.PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF ACTION 1.2 NEED FOR POWER 1.2.1 Historical Energy Requirements 1.2.1.1 Perspective on Geography and Economy of the Region 1.2.1.2 Energy Use in the Region 1.2.2 Present Energy Scenario 1.2.3 Future Energy Resources 1.2.4 Load Growth Forecast 1.2.4.1 Alaska Power Authority Forecasts 1.2.4.2 FERC Staff Projections 1.2.5 Generation-Load Relationships of Existing and planned Railbelt System 1.3 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1.3.1 Alternative Project Designs 1.3.1.1 Previous Studies 1.3.1.2 Applicant's Studies 1.3.1.3 Staff Studies 49702 840820 1 SEE COMMENT NOS. NFPOOl,NFP002,NFP003, NFP004, NFP005,NFP006,NFP007 ALTO 01 AQROOl,AQR002 NFP008,NFP009,NFPOlO,NFPOll NFP012,NFP013,NFP014 NFP015,NFP016,NFP017,NFP018,NFP019,NFP020,NFP02l NFP022 NFP023, NFP024,NFP025 NFP026,NFP027,NFP028, NFP029,NFP030,NFP03l NFP032, NFP033,NFP034 ,NFP035 NFP036,NFP037 ---1 _-----l _J J J 1 1 J I J ]1 J 1 )J DEIS SECTION 1.3.2 Other Hydroelectric Alternatives 1.3.3 Non-Hydroelectric Alternatives 1.3.3.1 Petroleum Fuels 1.3.3.2 Natural Gas 1.3.3.3 Coal 1.3.3.4 Peat 1.3.3.5 Geothermal Energy 1.3.3.6 Tidal Power 1.3.3.7 Solar Energy 1.3.4 Non-Structural Alternatives 1.3.4.1 Effects of Conservation on Demand 1.3.4.2 Effects of Rate Revision on Demand 1.4 SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT 1.4.1 Susitna Basin Development 1.4.2 Non-Susitna River Hydroelectric Development Plans 1.4.3 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario 1.4.3.1 Scenario Evaluation 1.4.3.2 Data Assumptions for Gas Scenario 1.4.4 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario 1.4.4.1 Scenario Evaluation 1.4.4.2 Data Assumptions for Coal Scenario 1.4.5 Scenario Compari~on and Combined Scenarios 1.4.5.1 Hydroelectric Scenarios 1.4.5.2 Thermal Scenarios 1.4.5.3 Combined Scenarios REFERENCES 49702 840820 2 SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT002,ALT003,ALT004 I NFP038 ,NFP039 NFP040,NFP041, NFP042,NFP043 NFP044 NFP045 NFP046 NFP047 NFP048 NFP049 NFP050,NFP051,NFP052,NFP053 NFP050,NFP053 NFP054,NFP055 NFP056 ,NFP058 ,NFP059 NFP057,NFP059 NFP060,NFP061 NFP063 NFP063 NFP062,NFP063 ~-~:]"--~~J __J I ]1 1 I J 1 ]1 J 1 J DEIS SECTION 2.PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT 2.1.1 Location 2.1.2 Facilities 2.1.2.1 Watana Development 2.1.2.2 Devil Canyon Development 2.1.2.3 Construction and Permanent Site Facilities 2.1.3 Construction Schedule 2.1.3.1 Watana 2.1.3.2 Devil Canyon 2.l.4 Construction Workforce Requirements 2.1.5 Operation and Maintenance 2.1.5.1 Operation 2.1.5.2 Maintenance 2.1.6 Safety Inspections 2.1.1 .Access Plan 2.1.8 Transmission Line Electrical Effects 2.1.9 Compliance with Applicable Laws 2.1.10 Future Plans 2.1.11 Recreation Plan 2.1.11.1 Inventory and Evaluation of Potential Recreation Development Areas 2.1.11.2 Implementation and Description of the Proposed Recreation plan 2.1.11.3 Recreation Monitoring Program 2.1.12 Mitigative Measures Proposed by the Applicant 2.1.12.1 Land Resources 2.1.12.2 Water Quantity and Quality 2.1.12.3 Fisheries 2.1.12.4 Terrestrial Communities SEE COMMENT NOS. NFP064 NFP066 NFP065 ALT005 AQR003 AQR004 49702 840820 3 ~~-]_~J -,-·1 ")1 -.1 J 1 1 1 1 DEIS SECTION 2.1.12.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 2.1.12.6 Recreation Resources 2.1.12.7 Socioeconomic Factors 2.1.12.8 Visual Resources 2.1.12.9 Cultural Resources 2.2 SUSITNA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 2.2.1 Alternative Facility Designs 2.2.1.1 Applicant's Studies 2.2.1.2 Alternative Watana Facilities 2.2.1.3 Alternative Devil Canyon Facilities 2.2.2 Alternative Access Corridors 2;2.2.1 Applicant Studies 2.2.2.2 Corridors Studied 2.2.2.3 Development of Plans 2.2.2.4 Description of Most Responsive Access Plans 2.2.3 Alternative Transmission Line Corridors 2.2.4 Alternative Susitna Development Schemes 2.2.4.1 General 2.2.4.2 Watana I-Devil Canyon Development 2.2.4.3 Watana I-Modified High Devil Canyon Development 2.2.4.4 Watana I-Reregulating Darn Development 2.3 NATURAL-GAS-FIRED GENERA~ION SCENARIO 2.3.1 Alternative Facilities 2.3.2 Location 2.3.3 Construction Requirements 2.3.4 Operation and Maintenance 2.4 COAL-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO 2.4.1 Alternative Facilities 2.4.2 Location 49702 840820 4 SEE COMMENT NOS. TRROOl SSCOOl;SSC002;SSC003 NFP067 NFP068 NFP068 NFP068 NFP068 NFP069 ALT006;ALT007;ALT008 NFP069 -J __I i 1 1 J 1 J J J J 1 1 j 1 DElS SECTION 2.4.3 Construction Requirements 2.4.4 Operation and Maintenance 2.5 COMBINED HYDRO-THERMAL GENERATION SCENARIO 2.5.1 Hydro Units 2.5.1.1 Browne 2.5.1.2 Chakachamna 2.5.1.3 Johnson 2.5.1.4 Keetna 2.5.1.5 Snow 2.5.2 Thermal Units 2.5.2.1,Facilities 2.5.2.2 Location 2.5.2.3 Construct ion Requi rements 2.5.2.4 Operation and Maintenance 2.5.3 Transmission 2.6 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2.7 MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS 2.7.1 Land Resources 2.7.1.1 Geology and Soils 2.7.1.2 Land Use and Ownership 2.7.2 Climate,Air Quality,Noise 2.7.3 Water Quantity and Quality 2.7.4 Fisheries 2.7.5 .Terres tria I Communi ties 2.7.5.1 Plant Communities 2.7.5.2 Wildlife 2.7.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 2.7.7 Socioeconomic Factors 2.7.8 Visual Resources 2.7.9 Cultural Resources REFERENCES 49702 840820 5 SEE COMMENT NOS. NFP069 NFP069 ALT009,ALTOIO NFP070 ALTOII,ALTOI2,ALTOI3,ALTOl4 ALTOI5,ALTOl6 ALTOI7,ALTOl8 ALTOl9 TRR002 ALT020 SSC004,SSC005 J i J J J I 1 )-)]-) DEIS SECTION 3.AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT 3.1.1 Land Resources 3.1.1.1 Geology and Soils 3.1.1.2 Land Uses and Ownership 3.1.2 Climate,Air Quality,Noise 3.1.2.1 Climate 3.1.2.2 Air Quality and Noise 3.1.3 Water Quality and Quantity 3.1.3.1 Surface Water Resources 3.1.3.2 Surface Water Quality 3.1.3.3 Groundwater' 3.1.4 Fish Communities 3.1.4.1 Watershed Above Devil Canyon 3.1.4.2 Devil Canyon to Talkeetna 3.1.4.3 Below Talkeetna 3.1.4.4 Access Roads and Transmission Line Corridors 3.1.4.5 Fishery Resources 3.1.5 Terrestrial Communities 3.1.5.1 Plant Communities 3.1.5.2 Animal Communities 3.1.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 3.1.7 Recreation Resources 3.1.8 Socioeconomic Factors 3.1.8.1 Population 3.1.8.2 Institutional Issues and Quality of Life 3.1.8.3 Econrnny and Employment 49702 840820 6 SEE COMMENT NOS. SSC006 ALT02l AQR005,AQR006 J AQR007 J AQR008 J AQR009 J AQROl3 AQROlO,AQROll J AQROl4 AQROl2 TRR003 J TRR004 J TRR005 J TRR006 J TRR007 J TRR008,TRR009 TRRO 10 J TRRO 11 SSC007 SSC008 SSC009 ~-~]__J )1 J ))1 1 1 ]J 1 I -1 3.1.8.4 3.1.8.5 3.1.8.6 3.1.8.7 DEIS SECTION Housing Community Services and Fiscal Status Transportation Human Use and Management of Wildlife SEE COMMENT NOS. SSC010 Resources 3.1.9 Visual Rsources 3.1.9.1 Landscape Character Types 3.1.9.2 Prominent Natural Features 3.1.9.3 Significant Viewsheds.Vista Points.and Travel Routes 3.1.10 Cultural Resources 3.2 SUSITNA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 3.2.1 Land Resources 3.2.2 Climate.Air Quality.Noise 3.2.3 Water Quantity and Quality 3.2.4 Aquatic Communities 3.2.5 Terrestrial Communities 3.2.5.1 Plant Communities 3.2.5.2 Animal Communities 3.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 3.2.7 Recreation Resources 3.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors 3.2.9 Visual Resources 3.2.10 Cultural Resources 3.3 NATURAL-GAS-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO 3.3.1 Land Resources 3.3.1.1 Geology and Soils 3.3.1.2 Land Use and Ownership 3.3.2 Climate.Air Quality.Noise 3.3.2.1 Climate 49702 840820 7 SSCOll SSC012.SSC013 ALTO 22 SSC014.SSC015 ~--]_~__t J 1 1 ]J 1 J J 1 1 1 1 DEIS SECTION 3.3.2.2 Air Quality and Noise 3.3.3 Water Quantity and Quality 3.3.4 Aquatic Communities 3.3.5 Terrestrial Communities 3.3.5.1 Plant Communities 3.3.5.2 Animal Communities 3.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 3.3.7 Recreation Resources 3.3.8 Socioeconomic Factors 3.3.9 Visual Resources 3.3.10 Cultural Resources 3.4 COAL-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO 3.4.1 Land Resources 3.4.1.1 Geology and Soils 3.4.1.2 Land Use and Ownership 3.4.2 Climate.Air Quality.Noise 3.4.2.1 Climate 3.4.2.2 Air Quality and Noise 3.4.3 Water Quantity and Quality 3.4.4 Aquatic Communities 3.4.5 Terrestrial Communities 3.4.5.1 Plant Communities 3.4.5.2 Animal Communities 3.4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 3.4.7 Recreation Resources 3.4.8 Socioeconomic Factors 3.4.9 Visual Resources 3.4.10 Cultural Resources 3.5 COMBINED HYDRO-THERMAL GENERATION SCENARIO 3.5.1 Land Resources 49702 840820 8 SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT023 TRROl2.TRROl3 SSCOl6 SSCOl7 ALT024 SSCOl8 SSCOl9 __J 1 )I 1 J 1 1 1 J ~} DEIS SECTION 3.5.1.1 Geology and Soils 3.5.1.2 Land Use and Owner.ship 3.5.2 Climate,Air Quality,Noise 3.5.3 Water Quantity and Quality 3.5.4 Aquatic Communities 3.5.5 Terrestrial Communities 3.5.5.1 Plant Communities 3.5.5.2 Animal Communities 3.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 3.5.7 Recreation Resources 3.5.8 Socioeconomic Factors 3.5.9 Visual Resources 3.5.10 Cultural Resources REFERENCES 4.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 4.1 PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1.1 Land Resources 4.1.1.1 Geology and Soils 4.1.1.2 Land Use and Ownership 4.1.2 Climate,Air Quality,Noise 4.1.3 Water Quantity and Quality 4.1.3.1 Surface Water Resources 4.1.3.2 Water Quality 4.1.3.3 Temperature 4.1.3.4 Ice Processes 4.1.3.5 Groundwater 4.1.4 Aquatic Communities 4.1.4.1 Plant and Invertebrate Communities 49702 9 840820 SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT025 SSC020 ALT026 ALT027,ALT028 ALT029,ALT030,ALT03l,ALT032,ALT033 TRROl4 TRROl5,TRROl6,TRROl7 TRROl8 SSC02l SSC022 SSC023 ALT034,ALT035 AQROl9 ALT036 ,ALT037,ALT038 NFP07l,NFP072,NFP073, NFP074,NP075,NP076 AQROI5, AQROl6,AQROl7,AQROI8,AQR020,ACR021,ACR022,AQR023 , AQR024 ,AQR025, AQR026.AQR027,AQR028.AQR029, ALT039 AQR030,AQR031, AQR032. AQR033,AQR034. AQR035,AQR036.AQR037.AQR038 _~J __-.J J 1 I ]1 1 )]-) DEIS SECTION 4.1.4.2 Fish Communities 4.1.5 Terrestrial Communities 4 .•1.5.1 Plant Communities 4.1.5.2 Animal Communities 4.1.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 4.1.7 Recreation Resources 4.1.8 Socioeconomic Impacts 4.1.9 Visual Resources 4.1.10 Cultural Resources 4.2 SUSITNA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 4.2.1 Land Resources 4.2.1.1 Geology and Soils 4.2.1.2 Land Use and Ownership 4.2.2 Climate,Air Quality,Noise 4.2.3 Water Quantity and Quality 4.2.4 Aquatic Communities 4.2.5 Terrestrial Communities 4.2.5.1 Plant Communities 4.2.5.2 Animal Communities 4.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 4.2.7 Recreation Resources 4.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors 4.2.9 Visual Resources 4.2.10 Cultural Resources 4.3 NATURAL-GAS-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO 4.3.1 Land Resources 4.3.1.1 Geology and Soils 4.3.1.2 Land Use and Ownership 49702 840820 10 SEE COMMENT NOS. AQR039, AQR040,AQR041,AQR042,AQR043, AQR044,AQR045, AQR046,AQR047,AQR048,AQR049,AQR050,AQR051,AQR052, AQR053,AQR054,AQR055 TRR019,TRR020 TRR02l,TRR022, TRR023,TRR024, TRR025, TRR026,TRR032, TRR029,TRR027,TRR028,TRR030,TRR031 SSC024,SSC025, SSC026, SSC027,SSC039 SSC028,SSC029,SSC030,.SSC031,SSC032,SSC033 SSC034,SSC035,SSC036 SSC037,SSC038 ALT040 TRR033 SSC039 SSC040,SSC041, SSC042,SSC043 ~_._]-----J --~___J -~'.•.1 )]J 1 )1 ] DEIS SECTION 4.3.2 Climate,Air Quality,Noise 4.3.3 Water Quantity and Quality 4.3.4 Aquatic Communities 4.3.5 Terrestrial Communities 4.3.5.1 Plant Communities 4.3.5.2 Animal Communities 4.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 4.3.7 Recreation Resources 4.3.8 Socioeconomic Factors 4.3.9 Visual Resources 4.3.10 C~ltural Resources 4.4 COAL-FIRED GENERATION SCENARIO 4.4.1 Land Resources 4.4.1.1 Geology and Soils 4.4.1.2 Land Use and Ownership 4.4.2 Climate,Air Quality,Noise 4.4.3 Water Quantity and Quality 4.4.4 Aquatic Communities 4.4.5 Terrestrial Communities 4.4.5.1 Plant Communities 4.4.5.2 Animal Communities 4.4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 4.4.7 Recreation Resources 4.4.8 Socioeconomic Factors 4.4.9 Visual Resources 4.4.10 Cultural Resources 4.5 COMBINED HYDRO-THERMAL GENERATION SCENARIO 4.5.1 Land Resources 4.5.1.1 Geology and Soils 4.5.1.2 Land Use and Ownership 49702 840820 11 SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT04l,ALT042 AQR071 TRR034 SSC044,SSC045 SSC046 ALT043,A4T044,ALT045 TRR015 SSC047,SSC048 SSC049 SSC050 ALT046 SSC051 ----1 --==J =----=]=~)-.-l _J __J ~.....~I 1 )J J J 1 i DEIS SECTION 4.5.2 Climate,Air Qual-ity,Noise 4.5.3 Water Quantity and Quality 4.5.4 Aquatic Communities 4.5.5 Terrestrial Communities 4.5.5.1 Plant Communities 4.5.5.2 Animal Communities 4.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 4.5.7 Recreation Resources 4.5.8 Socioeconomic Factors 4.5.9 Visual Resources 4.5.10 Cultural Resources 4.6 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 4.7 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 4.7.1 Land Resources 4.7.1.1 Geology and Soils 4.7.1.2 Land Use and Ownership 4.7.2 Climate,Air Quality,Noise 4.7.3 Water Quantity and Quality 4.7.4 Aquatic Communities 4.7.5 Terrestrial Communities 4.7.5.1 Plant Communities 4.7.5.2 Animal Communities 4.7.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 4.7.7 Recreation Resources 4.7.8 Socioeconomic Factors 4.7.9 Visual Resources 4.7.10 Cultur~l Resources 4.8 RELATIONSHIP TO RESOURCE PLANS AND UTILIZATION 4.9 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4.9.1 Proposed Project 49702 840820 12 SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT047,ALT048 ALT049 TRR036 ,TRR037 TRR038 SSC052 SSC053,SSC054 SSC055 ALT050 ALT05l,ALT052 ALT053 ALTO 54 TRR039 TRR040 SSC056 SSC057 SSC058,SSC059,SSC060,SSC061,SSC062,SSC063 ALT055,ALT056 .)~..._.J J I J 1 J J 1 ])j DEIS SECTION 4.9.2 Alternatives 4.10 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 4.10.1 Proposed Project 4.10.2 Alternatives 4.11 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG TERM-PRODUCTIVITY 4.11.1 Proposed Project 4.11.2 Alternatives REFERENCES 5.STAFF CONCLUSIONS 5.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5.1.1 Proposed Project 5.1.1.1 Land Resources 5.1.1.2 Climate,Air Quality,Noise 5.1.1.3 Water Quantity and Quality 5.1.1.4 Aquatic Communities 5.1.1.5 Terrestrial Communities 5.1.1.6 Recreation Resources 5.1.1.7 Socioeconomic Factors ,- 5.1.1.8 Visual Resources 5.1.2 Alternatives 5.1.2.1 Land Resources 5.1.2.2 Climate,Air Quality,Noise 5.1.2.3 Water Quantity and Quality 5.1.2.4 Aquatic Communities 5.1.2.5 Terrestrial Communities 5.1.2.6 Recreation Resources 5.1.2.7 Socioeconomic Fac·tors 5.1.2.8 Visual Resources 49702 840820 13 SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT056 TRR04l SSC064 ALT057 ALT058 ALT058,ALT059 ALT060 AQR056,AQR057 TRR042, TRR043, TRR044,TRR045 ALT06l,ALT062 NFP077 ALT063 ,ALT064 ALT065 TRR046 SSC065 -~-]]J )1 J ]I J ) DEIS SECTION 5.1.3 No-Action Alternative 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.2.1 Power Generation 5.2.2 Flow Regulation 5.2.3 Access Plan 5.3 MITIGATIVE MEASURES 5.3.1 Land Resources 5.3.1.1 Geology and Soils 5.3.1.2 Land Use and Ownership 5.3.2 Climate,Air Quality,Noise 5.3.3 Water Quantity and Quality 5.3.4 Aquatic Communities 5.3.5 Terrestrial Communities 5.3.6 Recreation Resources 5.3.7 Socioeconomic Factors 5.3.8 Visual Resources 5.3.9 Cultural Resources 5.4 RECOMMENDED AND ONGOING STUDIES 5.4.1 Land Resources 5.4.1.1 Geology and Soils 5.4.1.2 Land Use and Ownership 5.4.2 Aquatic Communities 5.4.3 Terrestrial Communities 5.4.4 Recreation Resources 5.4.5 Socioeconomic Factors 5.4.6 Visual Resources REFERENCES APPENDIX A.LOAD GROWTH FORECAST:THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY FORECASTS A.l METHODOLOGY A.2 LOAD PROJECTION 49702· 840820 14 SEE COMMENT NOS. NFP078 ALT066 ,ALT067 TRR047 NFP079,NFP080 AQR058,AQR059 ALT068 SSC066 ALT069 NFP081,NFP082 AQR060,AQR061,AQR062 AQR063,AQR064,AQR065 ,AQR066 TRR048 SSC067,SSC068,SSC069,SSC070 SSC071 NFP083, NFP084,NFP085 NFP086 ~~J )J ~.J ~l J ]]···1 )-] DEIS SECTION A.3 WORLD OIL PRICE A.3.1 Some Current Views A.3.2 Masking Effect of Inventory Changes A.3.3 Some Recent Trends and Their Meaning A.3.4 APA oil Price and Load Proje~tion A.3.5 FERC Projections REFERENCES APPENDIX B.FUTURE ENERGY ~ESOURCES B.1 INTRODUCTION B.2 PETROLEUM FUELS B.3 NATURAL GAS B.3.1 Reserves/Resources B.3.2 Pricing of Natural Gas B.3.3 Future Price of Natural Gas B.3.3.1 Completion of the ANGTS B.3.3.2 Completion of Gas Pipeline to Alaskan Gulf and Construction of LNG Export Facilities B.3.3.3 Construction of Facilities to Export Additional Volumes of Cook Inlet Gas B.3.3.4 No Additional Facilities for Export of Cook Inlet Gas B.3.3.5 Future Gas Prices B.4 COAL B.5 PEAT B.6 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY B.7 TIDAL POWER B.B SOLAR ENERGY REFERENCES 49702 840820 15 SEE COMMENT NOS~ NFP087,NFPOBB,NFPOB9,NFP090 NFP092 NFP09l,NFP094,NFP095 NFP096 NFP097 NFP098 NFP099 ,NFPlOl NFPlOO NFPl02~NFPl03,NFPl04 NFP105 NFP106 NFP107 ]j I 1 1 J 1 1 "j 1 1 J ]B J DEIS SECTION APPENDIX C.ENERGY CONSERVATION C.l ENERGY CONSERVATION AND THE NATIONAL ENERGY ACT OF 1978 C.2 CONSERVATION OF OIL'AND NATURAL GAS--THE POWERPLANT AND INDUSTRIAL FUEL USE ACT OF 1978 C.3 THE PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY POLICIES ACT OF 1978--RATE DESIGN,LOAD MANAGEMENT,AND REDUCTION OF THE GROWTH RATES IN THE DEMAND FOR ELECTRIC POWER C.4 RATE DESIGN AND LOAD MANAGEMENT--THE NARUC RESOLUTION NO.9 STUDY APPENDIX D.345-kV TRANSMISSION LINE ELECTRICAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS D.l INTRODUCTION D.2 OZONE PRODUCTION 0.3 AUDIBLE NOISE D.4 RADIO NOISE 0.5 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS D.5.1 Electric Fields 0.5.2 Magnetic Fields 0.6.ELECTRICAL SAFETY REFERENCES APPENDIX E.GEOLOGY AND SOILS E.l AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT E.l.l Proposed Project E.l.l.l Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin E.l.l.2 Lower Susitna River Basin 49702 840820 16 SEE COMMENT NOS. NFP108 -J J ))-.I i }J J 1 1 »i DEIS SECTION E.I.I.3 Power Transmission Line Corridors E.I.2 Susitna Development Alternatives E.I.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs E.I.2.2 Alternative Access Routes E.l.2.J Alternative Power Transmission Routes SEE COMMENT NOS. 17 E.I.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites E.I.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives E.I.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario E.I.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario E.I.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario .~ E.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT E.2.1 Proposed Project E.2.1.1 Watana Development E.2.1.2 Devil Canyon Development E.2.1.3 Access Routes E.2.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities E.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives E.2.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs E.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes E.2.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes E.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites E.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives E.2.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario E.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario E.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario ALT070,ALT07l E.2.4 Comparison of Alternatives E.2.4.1 Susitna Development Alternatives E.2.4.2 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives E.3 MITIGATION RE-FERENCES 49702 840820 ~_~J )J ]1 J J J J J ")J ~ DEIS SECTION APPENDIX F.LAND USE F.l AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT F.l.l Introduction F.l.2 Proposed Project F.l.2.1 Upper and Middle Susitna Rive~Basin F.l.2.2 .Power Transmission Line Corridor F.l.3 Susitna Development Alternatives F.l.3.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Design F.I.3.2 Alternative Access Routes F.l.3.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes F.l.3.4 Alternative Borrow Sites F.l.4 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives F.l.4.1 Natural-Gaa-Fired Generation Scenario F.l.4.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario F.I.4.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario F.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS F.2.1 Proposed Project F.2.1.1 Watana Development F.2.1.2 Devil Canyon Development F.2.1.3 Access Routes F.2.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities F.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives F.2.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs F.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes F.2.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes F.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites F.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives F.2.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario F.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario 49702 840820 18 SEE COMMENT NOS. SSC072 J SSC073 SSC074 J SSC075 SSC076 1 J ))]J 1 I J 1 1 1 1 ]1 i 1 DEIS SECTION SEE COMMENT NOS. F.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario SSC077 F.2.4 Comparison of Alternatives F'.2.4.l Susitna Development Alternatives F.2.4.2 Power Generation Scenarios F.3 MITIGATION F.3.l Mitigative Measures Proposed by the Applicant F.3.l.1 Dams and Impoundment Areas F.3.l.2 Construction Camps and Villages F.3.l.3 Recreational Use F.3.l.4 Access Route Corridors F.3.l.5 Transmission Line Corridors F.3.2 Additional Mitigative Measures Recommended by the Staff REFERENCES APPENDIX G.CLIMATE.AIR QUALITY,NOISE G.l AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT G.l.l Proposed Project G.l.l.l Climate G.l.l.2 Air Quality G.l.!.3 Noise G.l.2 Susitna Development Alternatives G.l.3 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario G.l.3.l Climate G.l.3.2 Air Quality,_Noise G.l.4 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario G.l.4.l Climate G.l.4.2 Air Quality G.l.4.3 Noise G.l.5 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario G.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 49702 840820 19 SSC078 ALTO 72 ALT073 ---~J __J 1 J I 1 j 1 DEIS SECTION G.2.1 Proposed Project G.2.1.1 Climate G.2.1.2 Air Quality G.2.1.3 Noise G.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives G.2.3 Natural-Gas-Fired Gen~ration Scenario G.2.4 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario G.2.5 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario REFERENCES APPENDIX H.WATER RESOURCES H.l BASIN CHARACTERISTICS H.l.l River Morphology H.l.2 Habitat Types H.2 FLOW REGIMES H.2.1 Pre-Project 8.2.2 Post-Project H.3 HABITAT ALTERATION H.4 WATER TEMPERATURE H.5 WATER QUALITY H.5.1 Salinity H.5.2 Suspended Solids H.5.3 Nitrogen Gas Supersaturation H.5.4 Nutrients REFERENCES APPENDIX I.FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES 1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 1.1.1 Plant and Invertebrate Communities 1.1.2 Biology and Habitat Suitability Requirements of Fish Species 49702 840820 20 SEE COMMENT NOS. ALT074,ALT075 ALT076,ALTOn ALT078,ALT079,ALT080 AQR067,AQR068 AQR069 AQR070,AQR072,AQR073 AQR074 AQR075 AQR076 ---=I ----']--------l 49702 840820 I ~~-,J 21 ,I I I 1 ]] ~~]1 1 I j 1 1 J -1 j I -) DEIS SECTION 1.2.3.1 Plant Communities 1.2.3.2 Invertebrate Communities 1.2.3.3 Fish Communities 1.2.4 Power Transmission Facilities SEE COMMENT NOS. T ,..I.1 ..L."'.Lt •.1 1.2.4.2 1.2.4.3 REFERENCES Plant Communities Invertebrate Communities Fish Communities APPENDIX J.TERRESTRIAL BOTANICAL RESOURCES J.l AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT J.1.1 Introduction J.1.2 Proposed Project J.l.2.1 Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin J.1.2.2 Lower Susitna River Floodplain J.l.2.3 Power Transmission Corridor J.1.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species J.l.3 Susitna Development Alternatives J.l.3.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs J.l.3.2 Alternative Access Routes . J.l.3.3 Alternative Power Transmissibn Routes J.1.3.4 Alternative Borrow Sites J.L 3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species J.l.4 Non-Su.itna Generation Alternatives J.l.4.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario J.1.4.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario J.1.4.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario J.1.4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species J.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS J.2.1 Proposed Project 49702 840820 22 TRR049 TRR049 --=:]-'-1 ------l ---~_~-=s '~J ~]_1 J J 1 )J i J 1 --j J.2.i.5 Threatened and Endangered Species J.2.l.l J.2.1.2 J.2.1.3 J.2.1.4 DEIS SECTION Watana Development Devil Canyon Development Access Routes Power Transmission Facilities SEE COMMENT NOS. TRR050 TRR05l J.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives J.2.2.l Alternative Dam Locations and Designs J.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes J.2.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes J.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites J.2.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species J.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives J.2.3.l Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario J.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario J.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario J.2.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species J.2.4 Comparison of Alternatives J.2.4.l Susitna Development Alternatives J.2.4.2 Power Generation Scenarios J.2.5 Conclusions J.2.5.l Proposed Project J.2.5.2 Alternatives J.3 MITIGATION J.3.l Measures Proposed by the Applicant J.3.l.l Avoidance J.3.l.2 Minimization J.3.1.3 Rectification J.3.l.4 Reduction J.3.l.5 Compensation 49702 840820 23 -.-J --3 ----l _J ~J J )I 1 I J J )I DEIS SECTION J.3.2 Evaluation of Proposed Measures J.3.3 Recommended and Ongoing Studies REFERENCES APPENDIX K.TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE RESOURCES K.l BACKGROUND K.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT K.2.1 Proposed Project K.2.1.1 Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin K.2.1.2 Lower Susitna River Basin K.2.1.3 Power Transmission Line Corridor K.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives K.2.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs K.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes;Power Transmission Line Routes;and Borrow Sites K.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Scenarios K.2.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario K.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario K.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario K.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT K.3.1 Proposed Project K.3.1.1 Watana Project K.3.1.2 Devil Canyon Deve~opment K.3.1.3 Access Routes K.3.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities K.3.2 Susitna Development Alternatives K.3.3 Non-Susitna Generating Alternatives K.3.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario K.3.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario SEE COMMENT NOS. TRR052;TRR053;TRR054;TRR055;TRR056;TRR057;TRR058 TRR059; TRR060;TRR062 TRR061;TRR063 TRR064;TRR065;TRR066;TRR067;TRR068;TRR069 TRR070; TRR071;TRR072;TRR073 TRR074;TRR075 TRRO 76;TRRO 77 49702 840820 24 ___J ___J 1 I J 1 J I I J J J )1 }-J DEIS SECTION K.3.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario K.3.4 Comparison of 'Alternatives K.4 MITIGATIVE ACTIONS K.4.1 Proposed Mitigation K.4.2 Recommended Mitigation K.S SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS K.S.1 Proposed Project K.S.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Project REFERENCES APPENDIX L.RECREATION RESOURCES L.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT L.1.1 Introduction L.1.1.1 Historical Perspective L.1.1.2 Statewide Overview L.1.2 Proposed Project L.1.2.1 Regional Setting L.1.2.2 Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin L.l.2.3 Lower Susitna Basin and Cook Inlet Area L.1.2.4 Transmission Line Corridors L.1.3 Susitna Development Alternatives- L.1.3.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs L.1.3.2 Alternative Access Routes L.1.3.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes L.1.3.4 Alternative Borrow Sites L.1.4 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives L.1.4.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario L.1.4.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario 49702 840820 2S SEE COMMENT NOS. TRR078 TRR079,TRR080,TRR08l SSC079 ~-~-l DEIS SECTION I 1 1 -1 SEE COMMENT NOS. ---'J 1 J L.l.4.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario L.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS L.2.1 Proposed Project L.2.1.1 Watana Development L.2.1.2 Devil Canyon Development L.2.1.3 Access Routes L.2.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities L.2.1.5 Proposed Recreation Plan L.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives L.2.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs L.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes L.2.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes L.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites L.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives L.2.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario L.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario L.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario L.2.4 Comparison of Alternatives L.2.4.1 Susitna Development Alternatives L.2.4.2 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives. L.3 MITIGATION REFERENCES APPENDIX M•.VISUAL RESOURCES M.l VISUAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS CRITERIA M.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT M.2.1 Proposed Project M.2.1.1 Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin M.2.1.2 Power Transmission Line Corridor SSC080 SSC08l,SSC082 SSC083 SSC084, SSC085,SSC086 SSC087 SSC088,SSC089 SSC090 SSC091 SSC092 SSC093,SSC094,SSC095 49702 840820 26 ·....=J ~-3 __.J -.=.J 1 .....··1 j 1 I I 1 1 J ]I I DEIS SECTION M.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives M.2.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Design M.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes H.2.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Line Routes M.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites ~ H.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives M.2.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario H.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario M.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario H.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IHPACTS H.3.1 Proposed Project H.3.1.1 Watana Development M.3.1.2 Devil Canyon Development H.3.1.3 Access Routes H.3.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities H.3.2 Susitna Development Alternatives M.3.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs H.3.2.2 Alternative Access Routes H.3.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Line Routes M.3.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites H.3.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives H.3.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario H.3.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario H.3.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario H.3.4 Comparison of Alternatives H.3.4.1 Susitna Development Alternatiyes H.3.4.2 Power Generation Scenario M.4 MITIGATION H.4.1 Hitigative Measures Proposed by the Applicant H.4.1.1 Additional Study 49702 840820 27 SEE COMMENT NOS. SSC096 SSC097 ALT08l SSC098 SSC099 SSClOO ssclOl -~----3 '--~J J 1 J J ]i -1 i DEIS SECTION M.4.1.2 Best Development Practices M.4.1.3 Creative Engineering Design M.4.t.4 Use of Form,Line,Color,or Textures M.4.2 Additional"Mitigative Measures Recommended by the Staff REFERENCES APPENDIX N.SOCIOECONOMICS N.I AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT N.I.I Proposed Project N.I.I.I Introduction N.I.I.2 Population N.I.I.3 Institutional Issues N.I.I.4 Quality of Life N.I.I.S Economy and Employment N.1.1.6 Housing N.I.I.7 Community Services and Fiscal Status N.I.I.8 Transportation N.I.2 Susitna Development Alternatives N.I.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs N.I.2.2 Alternative Access Routes N.I.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes N.I.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites N~I.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives N.I.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenario N.I.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario N.I.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario N.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS N.2.1 Proposed Project N.2.1.1 Watana Development N.2.1.2 Devil Canyon SEE COMMENT NOS. SSC102 SSCI03,SSCIOS SSC104 SSCI06,SSCI07.SSCI08,SSCI09,SSCllO,SSClll 49702 840820 28 ._]"~~~1 1 i -J J ]}J DEIS SECTION SEE COMMENT NOS. N.2.1.3 Access Routes N.2.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities N.2.1.5Alternative Borrow Sites N.2.2 Susitna Development Alternatives N.2.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs N.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes N.2.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes N.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites N.2.3 Non-Susitna Generation Alternatives N.2.3.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Scenarios N.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation Scenario N.2.3.3 Combined Hydro-Thermal Generation Scenario SSCl12 N.2.4 Comparison of Alternatives N.3MITIGATION N.4 RECOMMENDED AND ONGOING STUDIES SSCl13 REFERENCES SSCl14,SSCl15,SSCl16 SSCl17 SSCl18,SSCl19,SSt120,SSCl2l,SSC122,SSC123,SSC124, SSC125,SSC126 SSC127,SSC128.SSC129,SSC130,SSC13l SSC132,SSCl33,SSC134 SSC135,SSC136,SSC137 29 0.1.1.5 Transmission Corridors 0.1.2 Susitna Development Alternatives 0.1.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs 0.1.2.2 Alternative Access Routes APPENDIX O..CULTURAL RESOURCES 0.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 0.1.1 Proposed Project 0.1.1.1 Introduction 0.1.1.2 Geoarcheology 0.1.1.3 Regional History and Prehistory 0.1.1.4 Middle and Upper Susitna Basin 49702 840820 -----:J -------J ~-------l __J ]I ]J -1 J ]1 DEIS SECTION 0.1.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes 0.1.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites 0.1.3 Non-Susitna Power Generation Alternatives 0.1.3.1 Natural Gas-Fired Generation scenario 0.1.3.2 Coal-Fired Generation scenario 0.1.3.3 Combined Hydro-thermal Generation Scenario 0.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 0.2.1 Proposed Project 0.2:1.1 Watana Development 0.2.1.2 Devil Canyon Development' 0.2.1.3 Access Routes 0.2.1.4 Power Transmission Facilities 0.2.2 Susitna DeveloIXBent Alternatives 0.2.2.1 Alternative Dam Locations and Designs 0.2.2.2 Alternative Access Routes 0.2.2.3 Alternative Power Transmission Routes 0.2.2.4 Alternative Borrow Sites REFERENCES 49702 840820 30 SEE COMMENT NOS. SSC138 ,ssc139 SSCi40,SSC141 SSCl42, SSCl43, SSCl44,SSCl45,SSCI46,SSCl47,SSC148, SSCl49,SSC150,SSClSI SSCl52 SSCl53,SSCl54,SSC155,SSCI56,SSC157 SSCl58,SSC159, SSC160,SSCI61,SSC162 SSC163,SSC164 SSC165,SSCl66,SSC167,SSC168 SSCl69 SSC17 0,SSC171 - ...., SUBJECT INDEX This Index classifies the Technical Comments by subject matter.Each Technical Comment is listed by its alphanumeric code opposite a subject discussed in the DEIS and its accompanying Technical Comment.If a Technical Comment deals with more than one subject,it 1S listed opposite each subject with which it deals • 49712 840820 1 TECHNICAL COMMENT SUBJECT REFERENCE NUMBERS ;~ Alternatives ALT030,ALTO 31 ,ALT032, ALT033,ALT046,ALT047, ALT048,ALT049,ALTO SO , ALTOS3,ALTOS4,ALTOS S, ALTO 56 ,ALTOS9,ALT061, ALT062,ALTO 64 ,ALT06S,-ALT066 ,ALT067 ,ALT070, ALT07l TRR014,TRROlS,TRR016,,.,.TRR017,TRRO 18,TRR033, TRR036 ,TRR037,TRR038, TRR039,TRR040, TRR046, TRR047 ,TRR061,TRR062, TRR063,TRR078 SSC016,SSC020,SSC021 SSC022,SSC023,SSC039, SSC041,SSC042,SSC049, SSCOS1,SSCOS2,SSCOS3, 'SSCOS4,SSCOSS,SSCOS6, SSC063, SSC064,SSC06S, SSC076,SSC077 ,SSC079, SSC091,SSC092,SSC093, SSC09S,SSC096,SSC099, SSCIOO,SSCIOI Bear TRROOS,TRR006,TRR007, TRROlS,TRR027,TRR028 , ,~TRR029 ,.TRR044,TRROS3, TRROS4,TRROSS,TRROS6, TRR062,TRR066,TRR071,-TRR073 ,TRR07S,TRR079 Bering Cisco AQR094,AQR09S Caribou TRROO4,TRR02S,TRROS2, TRR068 ..,49712 840820 2 49712 840820 4 49712 840820 5 TECHNICAL COMMENT SUBJECT REFERENCE NUMBERS Impacts ALT064 ,ALT065 ,ALT068 , AQR143 TRROO8,TRR021,TRR023, TRR025 ,TRR026 ,TRR030, TRR031 ,TRR033, TRR034, TRR035 ,TRR036,TRR037 , TRR039 ,TRR040,TRR041, TRR042 ,TRR043 ,TRR044 , TRR045 ,TRR046, TRR051, """"TRR057 ,TRR064 ,TRR065, I TRR067,TRR069 ,TRR070, TRR072 ,TRR076,TRROn, 'l TRR078,TRR079,TRR080, I TRR081 SSC003,SSC007,SSC015, f!iS1I';SSC017, SSC023,SSC024, SSC025,SSC026,SSC028, SSC030,SSC031,SSC037, SSC039, SSC041, SSC042,....SSC043, SSC044,SSC045,I J SSC046,SSC047,SSC048, SSC050,SSC051, SSC052,..,·SSC053,SSC054,SSC056, I SSC058,SSC059, SSC060, SSC061,SSC062,SSC063, '1 SSC064, SSC067,SSC069, ,SSC076,SSC077,SSC081, '.I SSC082, SSC083,SSC084, SSC085,SSC086,SSC087, SSC088,SSC089, SSC090, SSC091,SSC093, SSC094, SSC095,SSq06,SSCI08, SSCI09,SSC142,SSC144, SSC146,SSC149, SSC150, SSC153,SSC155,SSC156, SSC157,SSC159, SSC160, SSC161,SSC162,SSC163, SSC166,SSC168, SSC169, SSC170 Incubation AQR045,AQR047,AQR048 AQR056,AQR077 ,AQR1l6 AQR117,AQR1l9,AQR120 AQR121,AQR137 lristream Flow AQR059,AQR062,AQR067 Land Management SSC006,SSC072 ,SSC078 Land Use ALT046 ,ALT050,ALT062 SSC020,SSC032, SSC051, SSC053,SSC054,SSC073, SSC074,SSC075,SSC076, sscon 49712 840820 6 TECHNICAL COMMENT SUBJECT REFERENCE NUMBERS Oil (See World Oil) OPCOST Model NFPOO2,NFP050,NFP051, NFP053,NFP063,NFP070, Peat NFP044 ,NFPlO5 !""i Peregrine Falcon TRROOI,TRROO2,TRROIO, I IRaOII,TRR0l8,TRR032, TRR058 pink Salmon AQR055,AQR092,AQR093 AQR131,AQRl44 Planning Horizon NFP050 Population TRROO4,TRR025,TRR052 I SSC008,SSCOIO,SSC028, I SSC030,SSC057, SSC066, SSCI06, SSCI09,SSClll , .-SSC1l2 I Population Projections SSC008,SSC029,SSC033, SSC07I,SSCI03,SSC107, SSC1l3 1"""\ I PRODCOST Model NFP003,NFP005, NFP050, NFP054,NFP055,NFP060,....NFP062 ,NFP063 ,NFP068 ,I I NFP069,NFP070I Proposed Project ALT057,ALT058 ,ALT059, !""'!ALT066 ,ALT067 I AQR021 TRROIO,TRR041,TRR046, TRR047 ,TRR064...,SSCOO6,SSC007,SSC009, !SSCOll ,SSC024,SSC025, SSC026,SSC033, SSC034, 1 SSC035, SSC074,SSC075, I SSC078,SSC080,SSC081,i SSC083,SSC086,SSC097, SSClb4,SSC108,SSClll , SScll2 Railbelt Economy NFP009,NFPOIO,NFPOll , Raptors TRR008,TRR030, TRR031, TRR045 ,TRR057,TRR067 , TRROn,TRR076,TRR081 Rate Design NFP049 1 Rearing AQR081,ACR087,ACR097 ACRI08 Recreation Resources SSC007,SSC018,SSC021, SSC024, SSC026,SSC039, SSC044,SSC045, SSC047, SSC048,SSC052, SSC056,,-,.SSC064,SSC065,SSC079, SSC080,SSC081,SSC082, 49712 840820 8 TECHNICAL COMMENT SUBJECT REFERENCE NUMBERS Recreation Resources SSC083,SSC084,SSC085, SSC086,SSC087,SSC088, I"""!SSC089,SSC090,SSC091, SSC092,SSC093,SSC094, SSC095 RED Model NFP084 ,NFP085 Reliability NFP034 ,NFP035 Reservoir NFP065 ,NFP071,NFP073 , ~NFP074 ,NFP075 ,NFP076 AQROO2,AQR032 ,AQR038 AQR052,AQR061,AQR062 AQR064 ,AQR065,AQR076 AQR109,AQR131,AQR132 AQR133,AQRl43 TRR019,TRR058,TRR068 """I Reservoir Temperature Model AQR030,AQR038 I Retirement Schedule NFP032I I Rime Ice ·TRR020,TRR050 ~ River Temperature Model AQR033,AQR046,AQR066 I AQR074,AQR098,AQRl09 !AQR122,AQR124 Salmon ALT019,ALT030,ALT031, ALT032 ,ALT033,ALT049 AQR012, AQR013,AQR053 AQR054,AQR056,AQR063 AQR078 ,AQR080,AQR096 AQR100,AQR106,AQR1l5 AQR1l9,AQR126,AQR127 ~AQR129,AQR137,AQR141 AQRl42 I Salmon Access AQR025 ,AQR058,AQR060( j AQR072 ,AQR103,AQR107 l AQR1l2,AQR 11 4,AQR135 Salmon Growth AQR042 ,AQR043 ,AQR046 AQR049,AQR050,AQR057 AQR082, AQR086,AQR101 AQR102,AQRllO,AQRlll AQR123,AQR125 ,AQRl38 AQR139 Salmon Outmigration AQR051,AQR088,AQRl28 Sediment AQR006,AQROIO,AQR023 AQR025,AQR026 ,AQR028 AQR121 Side Channel AQR041 Side Slough AQROO7,AQR023,AQR068 ~.Slough AQROll ,AQR014,AQR020 AQR022,AQR029,AQR035 AQR036,AQR047,AQR058 ...,. 49712 840820 9 49712 840820. 10 - TECHNICAL COMMENT SUBJECT REFERENCE NUMBERS ~ Thermal ALT020,ALT061 TRR059 1"'"SSC016,SSC019,SSC049, SSC063 Threatened/Endangered,Species (See Endangered Species) ~Tidal Power NFP046 ,NFPI07 Transmission Lines and Corridors NFP033,NFP056,NFP068 NFP069,NFP070 ALT012,.ALT013,ALTOI4,-ALT034 ,ALT035,ALT081 TRROOI,TRR002,TRR009, TRROII,TRR024,TRR029, TRR032 ,TRR051,TRR074 , TRR075 .SSC027,SSC032,SSC036, SSC039,SSC061,SSC072 , SSC073,SSC087,SSC098, ,SScI02,SSCI29, SSCI69, SSC170 Tributary AQR025 ,AQR026 ,AQRI07 AQR 11 4 ,AQRll5 Turbidity AQROIO,AQR030,AQR076 .....AQRl26 Vegetation TRR014,TRROI9,TRR020, TRR024 ,TRR035,TRR042, -TRR046 ,TRR049 ,TRR050, TRR051,TRR074 Visual Impacts ALT020,ALT045 SSC027,SSC034, SSC035, SSC036,SSC049,SSC055, SSC096,SSC097,SSC098, SSC099,SSClOO,SSGI02 .-Visual Resources SSCOll ,SSC016, SSC019, SSC022,SSC027,SSC099, SSCIOI Watana NFP064,NFP071,NFP072 , NFP073 ,NFP074 ,NFP075 , NFP076 ALT039 AQR002,AQR015,AQR032 AQR099,AQR1l4,AQR135 AQR136 "~SSC082 ,SSC144 Water Quality NFP066 ,NFP077,NFP081 , NFP082 ALT028 ,ALT047 ,ALT063 AQR004 Water Quantity NFP066,NFP077 ,NFP081, -~NFP082 , ALT027,ALT063 ..... 49712 11 840820 .... n I !"1 ,! 'i' I 49712 840820 12 Technical Comment TRROOI SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT -TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Peregrine Falcon,Transmission Lines and Corridors ...,. - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 2-27 Section 2.1.12.5 Paragraph 10 of.page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment,"North of Nenana the proposed transmission line would pass near peregrine nesting habitat 1n the hills overlooking the Tanana River to the south.Several historical peregrine nesting sites are located within these hills.Two of these locations are within one mile of the proposed route ll • TECHNICAL COMMENT:Confusion occurs 1n this statement through the use of - ...,. - !""'1 ,I the terms "nesting sites"and "locations".The terms are not interchangeable.A nesting location (nesting territory)is occupied and defended by only one pair of birds at a time.Nesting locations often contain several alternate nests (nest sites)constructed in different years at dis tances up to several hundred meters apart. Based on a recent survey conducted 1n June 1984,the peregrine falcon nesting location at Nenana 1S situated 1.4 miles east of the proposed transmission line route.No known nesting locations occur within 1 mile of any project facilities. 46681 - - ..... - - Technical Comment TRR002 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Endangered Species,Peregrine Falcon,Mitigation,Transmission Lines and Corridors LOCATION IN DElS:Vol 1 Page 2-48 Section 2.7.6 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DElS comment "No other alternatives would likely require mitigative measures for threatened and endangered species." TECHNICAL COMMENT:This discussion of the alternative hydro sites as expressed above is incorrect.The Tanana River corridor in the proposed Johnson hydro site is prime raptor habitat (ADNR 1984).Four nest locations ·0 f the endangered peregrine falcon are located along the shoreline of the proposed Johnson reservoir and may be significantly impacted by the project. Three of these four nest locations were documented as active in 1983 (Money 1984 pers.comm.).The strong potential that one or more of these nest locations would be abandoned with the project would make licensing of this project very difficult,if not impossible. 44131 - -~ Technical Comment TRR003 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Moose,Habitat ....LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 3-31 Section 3.1.5.2 Paragraph 4 of the - - - - - - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment,"Although moose range through all habitat types of the project area,riparian or,lowland forest habitat near the r1.ver is preferred during the important overwintering and calving stages.Particularly important overwintering habitat likely occurs in the projected impoundment zones.1I TECHNICAL COMMENT:This statement is misleading.As noted I.n Appendix K (p.K-6),during calving,"moose were principally 1.n areas dominated by sparse to medium-dense,medium-height spruce and upland brush/willow habitat types ll and average elevational occurrences of radio-collared moose during May and June were at 2400 to 2700 feet (Ballard et al.1983),well above the impoundment ·zone.Therefore,it 1.S incorrect to state that riparian or lowland for'est habitat ~~river is preferred during calving. Similarly,,available data collected during the previous eight winters do not indicate that "riparian or lowland forest habitat near the river 1.S preferredH as overwintering habitat.Average elevational occurrences of radio-collared moose from December through March (during six winters)were at 2200 to 3000 feet (Ballard et al.1983)•Mos t moose were observed in upland brush/willow and sparse to medium-dense,short to medium-height spruce habitat types (Ballard et a1.1982). 44131 'I I ~, .- ..... ..... Technical Comment TRR004 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Caribou~Population LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-31 Section 3.1.5.2 Paragraph 7 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The DEIS notes ~liThe Nelchina herd in the upper and middle basin comprises about 20 ~000 individuals ~ranging over about 20~000 mi 2 .••These areas are used by a small (ca.2000 individuals)subherd of the Nelchina herd.1I TECHNICAL COMMENT:Latest estimates place the Nelchina herd at approximately 25,000 individuals and the upper Susitna-Nenana subherd at approximately 1,500 animals (Pitcher 1984)• 44131 - - Technical Comment TRRO"05 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear,Access Roads -LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 3-33 Section 3.1.5.2 Paragraph 2 of the - - - - - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment,"Overwintering dens are frequently established in loose soils on slopes in upland habi tat,through which the proposed access road to Watana would pass." TECHNICAL COMMENT:The mean eleva.tion of the 50 brown bear dens located in the Susitna project area from 1980 through 1983 was 4,040 feet,of which nine (18 percent)of the dens were below 3,500-feet (Miller 1984,Table 23). The proposed.Denal i Highway-to-Watana access road will exceed the 3,500 foot contour along about 7.5 miles of its approximately 42-mile length (Alaska Power Authority 1983,Exhibit G).None of the 50 brown bear dens identified since 1980 are in the vicinity of the proposed road;the nearest dens were at higher elevations in the Chulitna Hills along the upper Tsusena Creek and ~n the uplands bordering upper-middle Watana Creek,all at least 2 miles from and.up to 2,000 feet higher than the neares t portion of the proposed access road (Miller 1984,Fig.8). 44131 Technical Comment TRR006 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear,Habitat LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol I Page 3-33 Section 3.1.5.2 Paragraph 2 of the - .- ~ I I COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment,"After emergence from the den,bear move to the lowland forest along the river to take advantage of early spring plant growth and moose concentrations." TECHNICAL COMMENT:This statement ~s misleading.Although brown bear use of the impoundment areas is highest ~n early spring after den emergence,all brown bear do not move there at that time as the DEIS statement implies.As can be seen in Table K-3 (p.K-l8 of Appendix K)over 50 percent of all aerial brown bear observations during May and June occurred in upland areas. As indicated on page K-l7 of Appendix K,female brown bears with cubs were more frequently observed in upland areas away from the impoundments during the whole year • 44131 - - Technical Comment TRR007 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 3-33 Section 3.1.5.2 Paragraph 3 of the .- - 'i I COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment,"In the area of the proposed impoundments,black bear overwintered in dens in the forest along the river at elevations averaging 2000 ft.(600 m)mean sea level (MSL).About 55 percent of the known dens are within the projected boundaries of the proposed impoundment." TECHNICAL COMMENT:Based on the most recent data (Miller 1984),34 percent of all black bear dens known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed impoundments have elevations near or below the normal maximum operating levels (NMOL)of the reservoirs.The 26 dens that have been identified ~n the vicinity of the Watana impoundment (NMOL =2185 feet above MSL)range ~n elevation frpm 1675 to 3450 feet above MSL.About 58 percent (15)of these dens occur at or below 2200 feet above MSL.The 21 dens that have been discovered in the vicinity of the Devil Canyon impoundment (NMOL =1455 feet above MSL)range in elevation from 1400 to 4340 feet above MSL.Only one of these dens or about 5 percent is likely to be inundated.An additional 13 dens have b,een discovered to date outside the impoundment zones ~n the downstream study area (between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna).Most of the dens located by radio tracking during the three winters following the first winter of study were first-time discoveries,not repeats.This suggests that den re·-use rate may not be particularly high and that dens do not appear to be a limiting resource. 44131 - 1"'"1 I I I .., I I, Technical Comment TRR008 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIROBHENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Eagles,Raptors,Impacts,Filling LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-33 Section 3.1.5.2 Paragraph 6 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Update of raptor and raven nest locations and numbers. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Additional raptor surveys of the project area were conducted in late May 1984.Results of these surveys will be publiShed 1n an upcoming report.A summary of the results of these surveys is presented below. A total of 67 raptor/raven nesting locations are now known to occur in the vicinity of the project area 1n the middle basin of the Susitna River drainage.These include 3 goshawk,23 golden eagle,10 bald eagle,6 gyrfalcon.and 25 common raven nesting locations.One of the 3 gosh.awk,12 of the 23 golden eagle,7 of the 10 -bald eagle.3 of the 6 gyrfalcon and 15 of the 25 raven locations are in the vicinity of the Watana project area. The remainder.including 2 goshawk.11 golden eagle,3 bald eagle.3 gyrfalcon,and 10 raven nesting locations,are 1n the vicinity of the Devil Canyon proj,ect area. One goshawk,5 golden eagle.3 bald eagle.and 8 raven nesting locations will be inundated during filling of the Watana reservoir (assuming a normal maximum operating level of 2185 fee t and a maximum flood level of 2202 feet).One additional golden eagle nesting location will be partially inundated;however,2 of the 3 nest sites at this location will remain approximately 115 feet above maximum operating level and 100 feet above max1mum flood level.Nest sites at 6 additional raven nesting locations will be inundated,but sufficient cliff will rema1n above water in their 48411 - Technical Comment TRR009 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT·STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Habitat,Transmission Lines and Corridors LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-33 Section 3.1.5.2 Paragraph 7 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The DEIS comment that the transmission line route would "pass through"the Susitna Flats Game Refuge -an area of "high densities of waterbirds." TECHNICAL COMMENT:The proposed transmission line passes through the extreme northeast corner of the Susitna Flats Game Refuge and avoids the higher-use southern portions.Approximately 4 miles of line will be within the boundaries of the refuge.The DElS statement is unclear and Leads to the impression that the transmission line will impact a large portion of the refuge. 45261 - .... .... ~i 'i I I """'I I I I Technical Comment TRR010 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Peregrine Falcon,Endangered Species,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-34 Section 3.1.6 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO;DEIS statements regarding peregrine falcons ~n vicinity of the proposed dams,reservoirs,and access routes. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Only two sightings of peregrine falcons in the project area have bE~en recorded.Alaska Power Authority (983)Exhibit E,Chapter 3,page E-3-375 states:"There were no confirmed sightings of peregrine falcons in the middle Susitna Basin during 1980,1981,or 1982,despite the substantial number of man-hours spent on ornithological field work and on raptor s.urveys (Kessel et a1.1982).White (1974)saw two individual peregrines during a June 10-15,1974 survey;however,he found no sign of nesting.White (1974)stated that the Yenta-Chulitna-Susitna-Matanuska drainage basin "seemingly·represents a hiatus ~n the breeding range of breeding peregrines •••,"and Roseneau et al.(1981)stated that "the Susitna and Copper Rivers both provide •••very few...potential nesting areas for peregrines." 44131 Technical Comment lRRGll SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Peregrine Falcon,Transmission Lines and Corridors,Endangered Species LOCATI ON IN DEI S: page Vol 1 Page 3-34 Section 3.1.6 Paragraph 4 of the COMMENT IN ID~FERENCE TO:DEIS statements regarding historic peregrine falcon nesting locations near the transmission line. ~, l TECHNICAL 44131 COMMENT:Please refer to Techni cal Canttlent lRRGC1. Technical Comment TRR012 - - SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:wildl ife Resources ,Natural Gas Plants LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 3-59 Section 3.3.5.2 Paragraph 4 of the COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment,"The Kenai Peninsula supports a wide array of wildlife populations.Concentrations of moose,caribou,and intensive use by black bear occurs northwest of Kenai and Soldotna.Other species occurring ~n the Kenai area incl ude brown bear,Dall's sheep, mountain goat,and wolf.1I- waterfowl occur in all areas with available natural gas.An area of TECHNICAL COMMENT:The above comments were made in the discussion of the ..... !j i natural gas'-fired scenarw.The gas facility would be located near the community of Kenai.Kenai ~s surrounded by lowland spruce-birch forest and associated wetlands,'about 40 miles 'away from the nearest Dall sheep or mountain goat habitat • 44131 - ... Technical Comment TRR013 TOPIC AREA: SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM Wildlife Resources,Habitat LOCATION IN OEIS: page Vol 1 Page 3-59 Section 3.3.5.2 Paragraph 5 of the - - I ! COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comments,"Anchorage is bas ically urbanized and provides limited wildlife habitat.However,moose and other wildlife do use the area on occasion.South of Anchorage along the Seward Highway, Potter Marsh supports a large number of waterbirds." TECHNICAL COMMENT:The referenced description underestimates the value of Anchorage I s wildlife habitat.Between 2000 .and 2500 moose inhabit.the Municipality of Anchorage (Municipality of Anchorage 1980).Most of these animals range into the subalpine zone of the Chugach Mountains in spring, summer and learly fall.In late fall or winter,however,they depend upon the traditional winter range--the lowlands of the Anchorage BowL Wintering areas for moose are found within the city in Chester Creek Park,along the Chester Creek drainage,on the Point Campbell Mil itary Reservation,in the Campbell Creek drainages,and east of Ship Creek near Fort Richardson.In addition to Potter Marsh State Game Refuge (which 1S within the Municipality),waterfowl nesting and brooding areas occur within the city at Connors,Blueberry,Strawberry,and Lake Hood,Lake Spenard,north of Klatt Road,and southwest of Earthquak~Park (Municipality of Anchorage 1980). 44131 - .... ~~,-",,,.,,,,.Jo .Techn~l Comment TRR014 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM -TOPIC AREA:Vegetation,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Pages 3-68 and 3-69 Section 3.5.5.1 All - Paragraphs COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The DEIS plant community descriptions for the combined hydrothermal sites. TE CHNI CAL COMMENT:The plant community descriptions are not site-specific and generally lack the vegetative detail necessary to adequately describe detailed site descriptions see the Evaluation Report on Non-Susitna Hydroelectric Alternatives Appendix II.- - ..... 'l I ....,. I I the areas and with which to make meaningful si te comparisons.For more 49311 Technical Comment TRR015 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear,Alternatives .> LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-69 Section 3.5.5.2 Paragraph 3 of the - - - l r-t I '1 r page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The DEIS statement,"Black and brown bear are abundant in the areas above Chakachamna Lake and just downstream.High altitude,riparian habitat supports the most bear.Bear become less common in downstream habitats along the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers." TECHNICAL CmlMENT:The downstream habitats along the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers are important bear habitat.Black bears intensively utilize the McArthur River drainage in spring.Brown bears heavily utilize the Chakachatna River (above the confluence of the Chakachatna and Middle Rivers)during the sockeye and chum salmon runs (Bechtel,1983).Project impacts on salmon in these rivers may significantly impact the availability of summer foods for bears,and result in population-level impacts. 44131 Technical Comment TRROl6 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Furbearers,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-69 Section 3.5.5.2 Paragraph 4 of the - page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment,"Furbearers occur along the Nenana River but do not appear to be very common." TECHNICAL COMMENT:This statement significantly underestimates the importance tltnd abundance of furbearers along the Nenana River. The area along the Nenana River from the Nenana-to-Clear-to-Browne-to-Healy region receives intensive fur trapping (M.Robus 1984,pers •carom.).The area has belen described as important furbearer habitat containing the full individual trappers are modest,total take from the region is substantial (ADNR 1984)"The comment made here is misleading in that it understates and- range of Interior Alaskan fur bearers (ADNR 1984).Although harvests of underestimates the importance of furbearers in the region.Refer to """'! ! 1 Appendix II (Non-Susitna Hydroelectric Alternatives)for further information relative to the Browne Project. 45441 Technical Comment TRR017 - .- SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT _TECHNICAL COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:Wildlife Resources,Habitat,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-69 Section 3.5.5.2 All paragraphs """ - ..... - - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DElS description of the wildlife at each alternative hydro site. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The wildlife descriptions presented here lack sufficient detail to adequately assess the significance of impacts of the alternative hydroelectric projects.Please refer to our Eva 1 uat ion Report on Non- Susitna Hydroelectric Alternatives (Appendix II)for further detail • 45191 - Technical Comment TRR0018 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNI CAL COMMENT FORM .-TOPIC AREA:Peregrine Falcon,Endangered Species,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-69 Section 3.5.6 Paragraph 9 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO: Johnson Reservoir area. DEIS does not mention peregrine falcon use of - - - TECHNICAL Cm1MENT:There are four peregnne falcon nest locations that may be significantly impacted by the proposed Johnson hydroelectric project. Three of these nest locations were active in 1983.For further details see the Eval:uation Report on Non-Susitna Hydroelectric Alternatives (Appendix II)and Technical Comment TRR002. 44131 - Technical Comment TRR019 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNI CAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Climate,Vegetation,Reservoir -LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 4-37 Section 4.1.5.1 Paragraph 5 of the -COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The DEIS comment that reservoirs would moderate - .- -- """! i i 1 I diurnal temperature fluctuations which might affect local rainfall patterns .and humidity. TECHNICAL CO~~NT:Measurable precipitation ~ncreases during winter are not expected to result from the impo~ndments (Wise 1984 pers.comm.;Clagett 1984 pers.camm.).Precipitation,particularly snowfall,is highly variable at present 1n the middle Susitna Basin,and it would be difficult to attribute chnnges in precipitation distribution or quantity to the presence of the Watana or Devil Canyon reservoir.The impoundments will be largely ice covered during winter (around Nov.20-May 30)and will contribute only slight evaporative loss once frozen.Any precipitation changes during fall would be most:noticeable on the windward shore.Moisture picked up by winds blowing over the impoundment waters in fall will be confined to the lower airmass layers.The impoundments are so narrow that only small increments of moisture 'will be picked up and this will be deposited on the immediate windward side of the reservoir (Windler 1984 pers.comm.).Prevailing wind direction during October and November at the Watana Station ~s east- northeast (R &M 1982,Vol.5)•Evaporation from the reservoirs may contribute sl ightly to local summer precipitation (Wi se 1984 pers.comm.; Clagett 1984 pers.comm.),but the potential increase ~s expected to be too small to affect vegetation in a measurable way. 46671 ;~Technical Comment TRR020 SUSITNAHYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Rime Ice,Vegetation,Wildlife Resources' LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 4-37 Section 4.1.5.1 Paragraph 6 of the COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment,"When r1me ice accumulations are -. thick,branches and twigs can break,damaging vegetation." reservo1rs or downstream reaches is not expected to form on vegetation (Wise other objects in the immediate vicinity of the dam outlet facilities,where water spray may form an ice coating.Because impacts from rime ice will be very localiz1ed,its formation is not expected to affect browsing moose or snowshoe harE~s in the vi cini ty. - - - ,-. I TECHNICAL COMMENT: ~984 pers.comm.). Rime 1ce from the influence of open water 1n the Rime ice will probably be deposited o~vegetation and 45451 Technical Comment TRR021 SUSITRA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRORMENTAL IMPACT STATEHENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Moose,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 4-38 Section 4.1.5.2 Paragraph 3 of the - -. .... """'i I COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Moose impact estimates. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The estimate of 1800 moose that presently range through the area of the Watana impoundmen't loS an overestimate.The estimate is intended to represent th.e fall population of the area occupied by moose whose home ranges overlap with areas to be directly altered by operation and maintenance of the impoundment (Ballard et al.1983).The number includes these animals,but also incl udes an unknown number of animals whose home ranges do not overlap wi th the impoundment,but do overlap with the home ranges occupied by these animals.In other words,estimates of the number of moose occupy1.ng the Ballard et al.(1983)"primary zone of impac t n necessarily incl ude an unknown number of moose that do not traverse the impoundment area,but are present within the "primary zone of impact"at any point in time. Estimates of the numbers of moose occupying the "secondary"and "tertiary zones of impact"would not be subject to this bias because it can be assumed that the number of zone nonresidents present within a zone at any point in time is equ~ll to the number of zone resideI!ts outs ide the zone at that time. However,it should be pointed out that the estimate of 8,000 moose in the "secondary"and "tertiary zones of impact"loS associated with both the Watana and Devil Canyon impoundments (see Table 5 of Ballard et al.1983) and not just the Watana impoundment as loS implied on page K-4l.It should be made clear that most moose occuring within the "primary zone of impact" 48721 .... .... .... Technical Comment TRR022 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:Moose LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-38 Section 4.1.5.2 Paragraph 3 of the page (Refer,ence Figures 4-11 and 4-12) COMMENT IN RE:FERENCE TO:Figures 4-11 and 4-12 are misleading. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Without defining the extent of the upper and middle' Susitna Basin in these figures,the reader may mistakenly assume it includes the entire mapped area rather than the much smaller area actually included. In any event,the figure does not accurately portray.what its title implies. Figure 4 of Ballard et al.(1983)shows that general overwintering ranges in .the upper and middle basin are much more extensive than that shown, particularly ~n the upp.er basin,along the MacLaren River,between the Oshetna and Tyone Rivers,and elsewhere. The same comment also applies to Figure 4-12,which is inconsistent with Figure 14 of Ballard et a1.(1982).The latter figure shows extensive cal ving season observations in the Oshetna and MacLaren River drainages,in the upper bClLsin,and elsewhere.These are not shown in Figure 4-12 of the DE IS even though they are within the upper and middle Susitna Basin. 49361 !""" echnical Comment TRR023 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Moose,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 4-38 Section 4.1.5.2 Paragraph 6 of the .~ - .., I I ! l COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS statement regarding impediment to river crossings by moose during calving season caused by ice-free water • TECHNICAL COMMENT:The likelihood and significance of this impact mechanism ~s overstated.The calving season in the downstream floodplain,as defined by Modafferi (1983),extends·from May 10 through June 17.This is a period of mild to warm air,temperatures not likely to cause cold stress to a swimming moose.In any event,the Susitna River is normally either ice-free or undergoing break-up (which would be hazardous to moose crossings)during this period under natural conditions • 49351 Technical Comment TRR024 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Moose,Vegetation.Transmission Lines and Corridors,Access Roads LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 4-38 Section 4.1.5.2 Paragraph 7 of the 1""'1 1 I COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Statements regarding ut ilization of forage 1.n disturbed areas based on study by Wolff and Zasada. TECHNICAL COMMENT:This statement 1.S misleading because it fails to describe relevant differences between the type of disturbances studied by Wolff and Zasada (1979)and the type of disturbances associated with transmission line clearing.Of the 15 disturbed sites studied by Wolff and Zasada,only 2 (Wickersham 4 and Bonanza Creek)were created by procedures (clearing and logging)similar to methods that will be employed on the transmission lines and access routes for the Susitna Project.The other sites Wolff and Zasada examined were created as a result of fire or river disturbances on floodplains--sites with very different plant competition and soil nutrient scenarios and successional pat terns.The DEIS states that brows e ut il iza t ion measured by Wol f f and Zasada (1979)ranged from 0 to 50 percent and averaged 20 percent.This statement is incorrect as the actual range presented in their paper is 0 to 81 percent for all stands sampled. Furthermore,as Wolff and Zasada (1979)suggest,the low browsing intensity measured at many sites was a reflection of population levels below carrying capacity rather than on avoidance of the disturbed si tes as implied in the DEIS. However.eV~!Q if average moose useage is as low as 20%.and if the cl eared right-of-way produce substantially more available forage than found in older 45251 - Technical Comment TRR025 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:Caribou,Impacts,Population - ..... l I ~ I LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-41 Section 4.1.5.2 Paragraph 1 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment,"•••the Nenana-Upper Susi tna caribou subherd,which constitutes about 2,000 individuals and 10 percent of the bas i n'lo1ide herd.n TECHNICAL COMMENT:The size of the Upper Susitna-Nenana subherd 1.S currently estimated to be about 1500 animals.The total Nelchina caribou herd population is estimated to be 25,000 individuals (see Technical Comment TRR004).The Upper Susitna-Nenana subherd would therefore comprise approximately 6 percent of the herd. 45231 - Technical Comment TRR026 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IHPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:Dall Sheep,Impacts I~ - .- - -, 1 ! ""'I ! LOCATION IN DEIS:Vall Page 4-41 Section 4.1.5.2 Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Updated information on Jay Creek lick impacts • TECHNICAL COMMENT:The following summary u based on the most recent information on the Jay Creek Lick (Tankersley 1984).A minimum of 31 percent of the observed 1983 sheep population traveled 5 miles or more to the Jay Creek lick area,which is below alpine sheep habitat in the lower 4 miles of Jay Creek.Sheep travel to this area even though another smaller lick with similar chemical anomalies is located wi thin their alpine range. The Jay Creek lick soil,containing significantly high levels of sodium,~s exposed in several areas mostly between 2200-2400 feet.Sheep at tracted to the area spent about.14 percent of the time below 2200 feet.The Watana impoundment normal maximum operating level is designated as 2185 feet with an average a11lnual drawdown of 120 feet.These proposed impoundment levels ~~directly inundate any major licking areas.Erosion may result in the loss of some licking and resting areas,and the reservoir may inhibit some travel across Jay Creek to well-used sites.However,reservoir impoundment levels will be between 2070 and 2150 feet during the period of peak sheep use which will minimize the extent of this potential conflict. 44131 Technical Comment TRR027 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONHENTAL llIPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear,Access Roads -LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 4-41 Section 4.1.5.2 Paragraph 8 of the .- .., I COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS Comment "Dis turbance during winter denning could result:in den abandonment;this would be most likely to occur along the Denali-Watana access route." TECHNICAL COMMENT:The mean elevation of the 50 brown bear dens located ~n the Susitna project area from 1980-1983 was 4040 feet.Only nine (18%)of these dens were below 3500 feet (Miller 1984,Table 23).The proposed Denali Highwray-to-Watana access road will exceed the 3500 feet contour along about 7.5 miles of its approximately 42-mile length (Alaska Power Authority 1983,Exhibit G).None of the 50 brown bear dens identified since 1980 are wi thin the vicinity of the proposed road.The nearest dens were at higher elevations I.n the Chulitna Hills and in the uplands bordering Watana Creek, all at least 2 miles from and up to 2000 feet higher than the nearest portion of the proposed access road (Miller 1984,Fig 8).Therefore, disturbance of brown bears during winter denning along the access road appear to be~an unlikely occurrence,not a likely occurrence as stated • 46791 - - - - I~ ,.., I l Technical Comment TRR028 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONKENTAL DlPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:Bear,Filling LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-43 Section 4.1.5.2 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS Comment,"About 55%of the known black bear dens would bie inundated by reservoir filling." TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR007. 46751 Technical Comment TRR029 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear,Transmission Lines and Corridors LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-43 Section 4.1.5.2 Paragraph 3 of the - - page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Reference to black bear use of transmission lines right-af-way. TECHNICAL COMMENT:It is not all clear black bear would not make use of the ,.., I ,.,.. 'l I I f-''1' I j net increase in available forage produced within transmission line right-of- way.This should be explained or the statement deleted. 45221 - - - Technical Comment TRR030 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FOD TOPIC AREA:Eagles,Raptors,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-45 Section 4.1.5.2 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS Comment,"Specific impacts would inc!ude: Loss of 12 to 14 golden eagle,4 bald eagle,1 gyrfalcon,2 goshawk,and 13 raven nesting locations" TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR008 for an update on raptor nest impacts. 46731 - Technical Comment TRR03l SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Eagle,Raptors,Impacts LOCATION INDEIS: page Vol 1 Page 4-45 Section 4.1.5.2 Paragraph 2 of the COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO: numbers. Update of raptor and raven nest locations and recent data on the number of raptor and raven nest locations occurring in the project vicinity.- - ,...., I "1 .I TECHNI CAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR008 for the most 49161 - Technical Comment,TRR032 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Peregrine Falcon,Transmission Lines and Corridors,Endangered Species LOCATION IN DEIS: the page Vol 1 Page 4-45 Section 4.1.5.2 Paragraphs 5 &6 of - :I COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS Comment,"North of Nenana,the transmission line route would pass within 1 mile of 2 historical peregr~ne falcon nesting locations and within 2 to 5 miles of several others." TECHNICAL COMMENT:The two historic peregrine falcon nesting locations referred to in the referenced statement are actually nest sites of the same nesting location.The nearest is 1.4 miles from the proposed transmission line.PleaSE!see Technical Comment TRROOI. 46741 -Technical Comment TRR033 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Wildlife Resources,Habitat,Alternatives,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 4-74 Section 4.2.5.2 Paragraph 9 of the COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Inconsistency ~n estimates of acreage inundated. TECHNICAL COMMENT:There appears to be an inconsistency and probably an - ~ I error in thl~acreage figure and percentage presented here relative to the effects of the Watana I configuration (Le.,37,000 acres and 85%)when compared to the data presented in Table 4-11 (p.4-71)and in paragraph 5 of page K-74 ,Appendix K. 48681 Technical Comment TRR034 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ~-TECHNICAL COMMEBT FORM TOPIC AREA:Moose,Impacts,Natural Gas Plants,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 4-79 Section 4.3.5.2 Paragraph 1 of the - - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment on mOOSe congregating and impacts. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Moose during the winter concentrate ~n the area north- northeast of the proposed Bel uga gas site.During the winter this area tends to have dense aggregations of moose,forming in what are called 'moose yards'(Cook Inlet Region,Inc.and Placer Amax.Inc.1981).Although the number of acres disturbed by the proposed facility are small.major impacts on the local moose population would result from increased human population ~n the area.In such dense concentrations,moose in the area could easily be impacted by legal and illegal hunting activities--especially if an additional 400 people were present in the area (See DEIS,p.2-39).Impact of the initial construction phase of the proposed facility,and the potential disturbance caused by the 28-33 people required to operate and maintain the facility (See DEIS.p.2-39),coupled with the existing ready access into the Olson Creek area,could result in moose abandoning their traditional winter range. 44131 Technical Comment TRR035 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Wildlife Communities,Vegetation,Impacts,Habitat LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 4-83 Section 4.4.5.1 Paragraph 2 of the COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Reclamation of mined lands TECHNICAL COMMENT:The DElS states,1IOver the 30-year life of the coal units an additional total of about 225 (90 ha)acres of vegetation would be temporarily removed for solid waste disposal at the plant sites,and a total of about 2250 (910 ha)acres of vegetation would be temporarily removed for surface mining of coal.It would be expected that the waste disposal and surface mine sites would eventually be rehabilitated.If soils could be adequately restored on these areas,rehabilitation should be no more difficult than the rehabilitation of borrow sites or other temporary facilities planned for the proposed Susitna project." Present coal m~ne reclamation methods practiced in the State are different from the revegetation plans proposed for the Susitna Project.Alaska State regulations requ~re that reclaimed sites exhibit 90 percent of their original plant cover values.Coal operators are required to put up a monetary bond until this criteria is reached.To accomplish this ~n a rapid manner,coal operations use grasses for revegetation. The grasses meet the cover requirements,but produce low quality wildlife habitat (Elliott 1984).Susitna project revegetation plans,on the other hand,emphasize natural revegetation with native plants which will more rapidly produce valuable wildlife habitat.Because of this,the return of coal stripped land to viable wildlife habitat will take much longer than the time estimated for restoration of Susitna land.The DEIS estimate of the number of acres needed for mining may be correct,but it underestimates the long-term impact of mining on local wildlife populations. 49581 - - ,- Technical Comment TRR036 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Wildlife Resources,Impacts,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 4-88 Section 4.5.5.2 Paragraph 5 of the l~ COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS description of animal communi ties ~n the combined hydrothermal generation scenario. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The potential impacts of the proposed projects on animal connnunities as provided by FERC does not address many of the species- specific problems that would occur.In addition to the brown bear fisheries affected by the Chakachamna project,nesting raptors (e.g.bald eagles), trumpeter swan nest areas,important waterfowl habitat (especially mol ting areas for the Tule White-fronted goose),black bear use of downstream fisheries (especially ~n the upper reaches of the McArthur River),and potential long-term loss of the downstream r~par~an communities on the McArthur and Chakachatna Rivers (important moose calving and winter habitat) would all be adversely impacted.The Keetna site would eliminate salmon runs to Prairie Creek and the attendant brown bear concentrations,and impact moose fall and winter concentration areas and parts of caribou winter range.The Johnson 8i te would impac t caribou and moose winter range and, moose calving areas,high use areas for black bears,nesting areas for peregrine falcons and other raptors J and approximately 30 J OOO acres of lowland wetlands (area estimated from USGS topographic maps)important as waterfowl nesting J molting J and resting habitat.In addition to mountain goat and Dall sheep,the Snow Project will impact a moose wintering area and waterfowl nesting and molting areas. Please refer to our Evaluation Report on the Non-Susitna Hydropower Alternatives (Appendix II)for more detailed information. 44131 - - Technical Comment TRR037 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Wildlife Resources,Impacts,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-88 Section 4.5.5.2 Paragrapb 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Description of wildlife impacts. TECHNICAL COMMENX:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR036. 49411 -. Technical Comment TRR038 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Endangered Species.Alternatives LOCATION IN OEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-88 Section 4.5.6 Paragraph 6 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS summary states that no impacts to threatened or endangered species would occur as a result of the non-Susitna power generation alternatives. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR018. 45431 Technical Comment TRR039 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Wildlife Resources,Habitat,Alternatives,Impacts ....LOCATION INDEIS: page Vol 1 Page 4-94 Section 4.7.5.2 Paragraph 4 of the .- COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment that the value of the affected habitat in the combined hydrothermal scenario may be lower than in the other suggested alternative p.ower generation scenarios. TECHNICAL COMMENT:There 1S no basis provided for why the value of the affected habitat might be lower for the combined configuration.The value of affected habitat at each hydrothermal alternative site has not been fully addressed in the DEIS.For example,the value of the proposed Johnson site as moose wintering and calving habitat,the area I s importance to migratory waterfowl,and the presence of four peregrine falcon nesting locations,have not been addressed by the DEIS.For more detailed comments and site habitat evaluations see the Evaluation Report on Non-Susitna Hydroelectric Alternatives (Appendix II). 49481 ..... """ .... ..... ..... Technical Comment TRR040 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Endangered Species,Impacts,Alternatives LOCATION IN DElS:Vol 1 Page 4-94 Section 4.7.6 Paragraph 7 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment that no impacts to threatened or endangered species would be expected as a result of construction and operation of the proposed Susitna project ~any alternatives. TECHNICAL COMMENT:This statement is incorrect.Please refer to Technical Comment TRR018 • 49331 Technical Comment TRR041 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECBNI CAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Wildlife Resources,Impacts,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-101 Section 4.10.1 Paragraph 4 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Statement regarding irretrievable loss of fish and wildlife populations. TECHNICAL COMMENT:We disagree that fish and wildlife populations destroyed or displaced by dam construction and reserV01r filling would be irretrievably lost.Displacement of animals or populations is not the equivalent of an irretrievable loss,since the animals or populations concerned are not necessarily lost.this is particularly true for populations below carrying capacity which is the present case for moose 1n the Susitna project area.In addition,it is feasible to enhance nearby or di stant habi tat in order to maintain or replace animals or populations that would be destroyed by the Proposed Project.This enhancement of adjacent or di stant lands for wi ldli fe has been proposed in the License .Application (APA 1983)and is incorporated into project plans. 49501 Technical Comment TRR042 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Vegetation,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 5-2 Section 5.1.1.5.1 Paragraph 3 of the -,~ - - -- COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Percentages of vegetated areas in upper and middle Susitna Basin. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The percentages of the vegetated area within the upper and middle Susitna Basin as presented on page 5-2 actually represent the percentages of the vegetated area within the Watana and Gold Creek watersheds (see Technical Comment TRR049).The Watana and Gold Creek watersheds encompass less land area than the upper and middle Susitna Basin, hence the values given in the DEIS would overstate the actual percentages of vegetated area to be affected by the project within the upper and middle Susitna Basin. 48601 - ,- .- Technial Comment TRR043 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Wetlands,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 5-2 Section 5.1.1.5.1 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Statement on wetland impacts. TECHNICAL COMMENT:It should be stated here that the wetland area - - - identified as potentially affected represents an extremely liberal es timate (see Vol.1,Sec.4.1.5,p.4-35,para.4)and that almost none consist of marsh and pond-type palustrine wetlands that the average reader would envision. 48611 - Technical Comment TRR044 - -, .... - ,..., - - - ..... SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNI CAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 5-3 Section 5.1.1.5.2 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment that the Susitna project would result in a loss of 50 percent of availahle denning sites. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR007. 49491 Technical Comment TRR045 - - - - - i~ .- .- SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Eagles,Raptors,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 5-3 Section 5.1.1.5.2 Paragraph 1 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE:The DEIS statement that the Susitna Project would result in the loss or disturbance of 4 bald eagle and 16 to 18 golden eagle nesting locations. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR008. 49431 ""'" I~, TOPIC AREA: SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM Vegetation,Impacts,Alternatives,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 5-5 Section 5.1.2.5.1 Paragraph 5 of the - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Impacts to vegetation from alternative Susitna dam disturbances vs proposed project impacts. TECHNICAL COMMENT:We disagree that impacts to vegetation from alternative Susitna dam locations would be similar 1n magnitude to impacts of the proposed project.The 16,OOO-acre difference in inundation area between Watana-Devil Canyon and the Watana I -Reregulating Dam project (see Sec. 4.2.3,p.4-7,Table 4-11)should be considered a significant difference (see Sec.5.2.1,p.5-7,para.6,2nd sentence). 48621 Technical Comment TRR047 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ~TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Wildlife Resources.Proposed Project.Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 5-7 Section 5.2.1 Paragraphs 2 &3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Statement that adverse impacts projected for the -alternative hydro and thermal scenarios are generally less than those projected for the proposed Susitna project. TECHNICAL COMMENT:After reviewing the alternative projects.it appears - --~ ..- - - obvious that the alternative hydrothermal scenario has greater environmental impacts than the Susitna development.It is very important that the FEIS incorporate the information made available in Appendix II (Non Susitna Hydroelectric Alternatives). 48631 - - Technical Comment TRR048 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVlRORMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Habitat,Mitigation LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 5-11 Section 5.3.5 All paragraphs COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Candidate mitigation lands for habitat .-. - compensation through enhancement. TECHNICAL COMMENT:In reference to the DEIS statements regarding lands for habitat compensation,the Power Authority has identified,on a preliminary basis,candidate lands for habi tat compensation.These lands are shown 1n attached maps,which were transmitted by letter from the Power Authority to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (APA 1984).The Department of Natural Resources has,accordingly,incorporated this information on candidate lands into their Susitna Area Plan Public Review Draft (ADNR and USDASCS 1984).A portion of the Draft is also attached • 44131 TRR048 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 33A WEST 5th AVENUE·ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 May 30,1984 Susitna File No.6.18.4.1 Phone:(9On 277·7641 (9On 27&0001~ .~ Mr.Dick LeFebvre Deputy Di recto r Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Water Management Pouch 7-005 Anchorage,Alaska 99510 SUBJECT:5usitna Hydroelectric Project Comments on Agency Draft Susitna Area Plan Candidate Lands for Habitat Compensation Dear Mr.LeFebvre: The Alaska Power Authority has identified.on a preliminary basis, candidate lands which may be suitable for enhancement measures to compensate for habitat losses which may result from the 5usftna Hydroelectric Project.In response to your letter of April 25,1984, in which you requested infonnation on these lands to assist development of the public review draft of the Susitna Area Plan,I enclose copies of the appropriate maps from the agency draft of the Susitna Area Plan ·with the candidate lands marked on theiR (Attachments I through V).A matrix comparing the lands in question with respect to their merit for wildl ife mitigation 1s included (Attachment vI). It should be emphasized that identification of the candidate lands is preliminary,and that the land areas described in the enclosures are many times larger than the actual acreages expected to be required for habitat compensation.Ouring state Fiscal Year 1985,the Power Authority will sponsor continuing studies to refine acreage and locational requirements for candidate lands.We will keep you infonned of the results of these continuing studies. Several additional points should be noted.The lands identified on the maps and matrix are all included within the 5usitna Area Plan.Other state and federal lands not included in the 5usitna Planning Area are also under active consideration by the Power Authority.With the e~cept1on of federally owned lands in the northern portion of the Lake Loui~e Subregion,all of the identified candidate lands within the 5usitna Planning Area are state-owned.These lands have been identified through careful review of the 5usitna Area Plan agency review draft and ADF&G Habitat Division maps prepared in conjunction with the 5usitna Area Plan. 2423/217/F2 - - .- TRR048 Mr.Dick leFebvr~ Page 2 On a preliminary basis,we believe that Petersville Road Subregion . management subunits la,1b,3c,and 4a should be given highest priority for consideration as candidate lands for moose habitat compensation. As noted in the agency review draft,this area supports the highest intensity of moose hunting activity in the Susitna Planning Area.The area has high habitat enhancement potential,relatively good access, and is near several established and planned settlements. Second-priority consideration is being given to Susitna Lowlands Subregion management subunits 6d,6e,13d,and 13e.This area consists of a high proportion of habitat with high enhancement potential for moose and is important to the support of several moose populations. The area is near corrmunities of the Willow Sub-Basin and Anchorage,and affords good access by boat and aircraft. Susitna lowlands Subregion management subunits Sa,5b,7a,7b,Sc,11a, and 12a,although more remote from settled areas.,are also under consideration as candidate lands because of their high habitat enhancement potential for moose.Lands in the Lake Louise Subregion are less suitable in this regard but have been included in the analysis because of their high accessibility by road,boat and aircraft,and because of the proximity to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project area. I hope that the enclosed information will be helpful in coordinating Susitna Area Plan preparation with Susitna Hydroelectric planning.The Power Authority wants to ensure that the Susltna Hydroelectric Project receives full consideration by the Susitna Area planning team,and that all infonnation necessary for this coordination is provided. If we can provide further infonnation to assist planning team efforts, please contact Mr.Thomas Anninski at 279-6611. Sincerely, ~n1s~~~~jett~~~~~ Enclosures as Stated. TJA:JSF:it cc:Mr~William E.Larson,Harza-Ebasco,w/enclosures Ms.D.Jane Drennan,Pillsbury,Madison &Sutro,w/enclosures Commissioner Don W.Collinsworth,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,w/enclosures Resources COlTlTllttee,w/enclosures Mr.Carl Yanagawa,Alaska Department of Fish and Game, w/enclosures 2423/217/F2 -I - TRR048 Reo ••~Ilrltlfe Hab. IlTLnLIFE HAR.,PUBLIC REC.,FORESTRY,"liTER RF.S ••MINERAl.S;011 &Ga. PU8LII:REC .."llnllFE HAS ••"ATER RES.;Forestry,Mln~ral.,all &;,as SETTt.EMf.HT;Wlldl1f~H.ob.,Puhl10 Rec.,Agrlculture.Forestry,Oll &Gas IINRESOLVED AREA --Proposed resolutIon:part SETTi.Et<f.NT,part "ltOUFE HAR ••~U8LTC REC.,FORESTRY BOROUGH tAJ'm RANK -Values:Settl.ement. .... FORESTRY,"ILDl.IFF.IIAB.,PII1I1.1C REC.,"ATER RF.S.;/llnerd ••nl1 &Gas "TlnLlFE 1IA8.,PURLtC lIEC.,WATER RF.S.;For~stry,011 &Gas SETTLEHF."T~Fares,ry.'ubllc ~ec~~ytldllfe Kab ••all &1-as Cnttl1F.RCIAL OEVF.LOPMENT,PIIRI.-rc REt.;Forestry,"Ildltfe Hah.,Oll &(;35,Mineral. l'IN'RESOL\I'ED AREA --Proposed'resolutlon.:RF.~OUACE HAN'AGEHF.HT --Valuel!ii:F'orcstry. ~Ildltfe Hab.,A~~tcultu~e 1III1T 2 -TOltOSRA )-r ~r.~;;;: -J/~'~(if - .},-/(;*5;61 .?" 090 ~.\fl..",f,;·~1ap scale ·Cu i:~",r("'-,<j%'~"'" ~C/)'7~1-----:;-P--"",..---r"';'_"'",,,:,·~·.,..~t:::::;;:::;:~icf:l~~t1':-'--:'". Ih~[70'U i .~J \(,<- ~~~j ~ o 7'~~0;1 1tr.T.UllIT 3 -;,AT!! CR./AtfllER un; 3a WIl.nLIFE HAB ••PUBLIC 0 REC ••WATER RES.; Fo,est,y~Minerals, OU &Ca. Jb IlNRESOLVElJ AREA -- Proposed resolution: SET11.f.HF.NT 3e UnRESOLVED AREA -- Proposed reso lut ion: part SETTLEMENT,part FORESTRY,"ILntlFE ffllB.,PUBLIC Rf.C. 3d UNRESOLVElJ AREA -_ Proposed resolution: SETn.EHF:HT 3~BOROUGH LAND 8AHlC -- \'alues:5ettl~m~nt~ Publl0 Reo.,WIldlIfe Hab e,A£r1cul ture P€-T€RSV1Q€ROAD RD. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS (Oesilitnattons vrlcten 1n CAPITAl..LETTERS .Ire prl",.ry de-sl:1it:natlon.i tho5e in lower case letters are second.lq desl«n.c1ons;.'re••ahawn with .t.rl (.,'dill 'he proposed for lelltll.r.lye des1p;n.ltlon.) IIIItT I -Pl':Tl!RS CIt./nOTO CIt. MGT.IIIIIT 4 -HOOSE CU:EJ:C01l.RlOOR *,4.0 PUAUC REC.,"ti.OLIFF.HAR.,'JATF.R RES.;Forestry,OIL &Gas 4b AG'RICU1.tuRF..;~ectlementt 'iJl1dlife Hab.,nil .&r.as MGT.IIIIIT 5 -T1lAPPI!:R CREEl( 5.SETTLEMENT;PublIc Reo ••"l1dl1 fe Hab.,Forestry,011 &Gas Sb PUAl.IC REC.;Wildlife Hab.,Fore.try.011 &Cas PlGT.U!ltT 6 -ROCU'S uas ••SETTLEHEI/T;Puhl10 Rec.,Wlldllfe Hab.,Fore.try 6b B.OROUGH lA.'m BANK -Values:Agrtc.,Settlement..Wllrl11fe Hab.,Public R.~c",F"Orestry &c UtLnLIFE HAB.~UAT~R R£~.~Fores-try,Puhlic 'Rece,l-{tnerals s niL I;-Gas.d WILOLlFE HAB.,PURLIC REC.,"ATER RES.;Fore5try,011 &Gas MGT.UIO.T 7 -RARIDEOX CaEEI( 1.SETTLE~f.I/T;Fore.try,Publ10 Reo ..'oILldllfe "ah ••011 &Gas 1b AGRICULnIiU~;Settlement.Forestry,WilcHife Han ••Puhlic RlI!!c ..,Otl .&Cas 1c PURI.lC REC.,WllDLtFE lIAR ••\lATER RES,;Forestry,HineraIs,Oil &Gas 7d W'IlnJ.lfP:HAB.,PI]RlIC REC.,YATER RES.j Forestry,~ftl'\era19~011 &Cas .' IOCT. l- Ib (,Ie Id I~ I'IGT • 2a c.......2b '<20 2d 2~ ,...;.".', ... T22N -Catun , "...........<"s;,""~ '\ ~N ,;., .'",",' <:- ~... <. --;-1 Co ~::!2!.~ --~ .L G' T23N Il~N ,, ~-."'"'",.0 ~I ---=:. <J~ 'Z. ."C j' ,'"( ...r'f'l1ill \ _L""I!I""'.-"'iAIct',. _~_""'~I '~+-.,,¥.,~ <.~1"" ..t-==~--_._-- ;;-, .'>-R~-.'".-~'. \, \ < ,.". - R9W c< , I;;' )/ oo 9d 10a R6W ,•"JHI'J.-yx I""l·f·.« ).I I ]1 ~1 1 ~J ~J -J 1 '1 -].'J )1 o .,. T1~ TBN T9 N 111./' I .•d,. t-3 ~ J:'- 00 .' J~~O Map scale TIIN L.I~!~ ~.I ~ "'".r·'·"··-----------) .~MlLE.> I'"o~TIO'':' SI't"llllll Jlj I .. 0"" 2a I 1-'1,',<1 !1,1I l.n"T " "" ''..''=>.•~_..._)~.~'--....,0°'.l .'~-R5W \...--.": 3a .1 1 I '.J 1 I .\.~~~'~'.--j '?f. I ,., <'-------_....._--- '-'-~-_.:; ,~ I ~'"'l,l lJ\(~ :;'f~) \j.,' "!'.-.) ;.~ ,,~hc'":7},.;s:-~ PU~LIC i '.0.'.". ~~.' Designations written in CAPITAL LETTEKS are primary designations;those in lower case letters are secondary designations;areas shown wi th stars (*)wi 11 be recommended for legislative designation. MGT.UNIT 1 --GLENN HIGHWAY Ia SETTLEMENT;Public Kec.,Forestry, Wildlife Hab.,Oil &Gas Ib WILDLIFE HAB.;PUblic Kec .•Uil &Gas Ic PUBLIC REC.;Wildlife Hab .•Forestry,Uil &Gas Id WILDLIFE HA~.,FORESTRY;Public Rec .•Oil &Gas Ie SETTLEMENT;Public Rec .•Wildlife Hab •• Forestry MGT.UNIT 2 --LAKE LOUISE EAST 2a SETTLEMENT;Wlldlife Hab.,Water Res., Publ ic Rec.,Oil &Gas 2b SETTLEMENT;Wildlife Hab.,Water Res., Public Rec.,Oil &Gas MGT.UNIT 3 --LAKE LOUISE/SUSITNA LAKE 3a PUBLIC REC.;Settlement,Wildlife Hab., Oil &Gas 3b PUBLIC KEG.;Settlement,Wildlife Hab., Oi 1 &Gas MGT.UNIT 4 --LAKE LOUISE WILDLIFE ~~BITAT 4a WILDLIFE HAa.,PUbllc Hec.,Forestry,Oil &Gas 4b PUBLIC REC.;Wi ldl ife Hab.,Forestry,·Oil &Gas MGT.UNIT 5 -.,.LAKE LOUISE ROAD 5a SETTLEMENT;Public Rec.,Wildlife Hab., Oi 1 &'Gas 5b WILDLIFE HAB., .~0') .'," .-:~~ .._~.......... h --~'" ~:.(':'" I -;~./ ,." ?' -I .'\ -'-'-:-,' '''Je --_. ;/.-\'~ - W Dv.I')~7 r IlC'O ~.~'1'['+.<t':JHO ..R ~E v.'2~1'"j~1 i~R ~E.l~'~,j,,~-N7 ~f"'''hlJ ..~~.I ..M LAKE:-UJUlse ~LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ~~~~o:,,~ :-:-.")- 00 ! 1,. l"c,~" :~("mull uJ"1I l.ok< !TIIN --.---"'-1- T~I~·" J -:;~··r'tI'·- i/.I C""-b,.,"hlON e".{.'-....I ~.l.,,,,,~ I"IAI~"'. /. / wflg lAb Cariblllf JAIl, ·,.nr4nttl"LAkt Hat ''''l~f .Gaul!Tmil .i~c:::;:--~_.~~-.,..~- \"., L.. { "",~-,~ '\ .>- Q/ ('1'0 ).."" 2b 28 .-.----~.__.._--."- ~~~!.'1l111~f I l t ""...I .•,h 'J;\\.1....•T,'.. ).I (';.suor...~,1IJ..·1 o,e=.·)~it~lll~\-~~~~N'.1 '-""=:,,1.~:-~j~_-.rf-_-P./-I .•11 '~.' 1/...",...,.I , '~~.f2'~:'~;-~:~-~-':v, ,"... ~~I·}8~ .~/"lOon ~~---- rr" \'f""'0. ........-----:.--,L I +"c '--to MILtS ~~'I 1'J t.~"'.,,",I'a p s C.a e -r~~oW r~5WR7W r"'~ f .-...-T I 'C MATG-H ~~...i',=::,.---r -....{~-,u·"-.J ~~...(!''.I,1'ltI!Je<~te••",.•J 10' dAJuiIl •_'7'.p~~.!::;,,,I C _ )(1 D "TIil'"I +$<_t H"'''''l;im~i""*''''''''11'\.(38 \"'-,ft' •Colli'" lflk" ;7 ~~ _{\".I l>~I 'RaW -r~ .,. 't",;,'i' .l' "'-~RIOW- J .J ,_J J ,...~I .~_J J ATTACHMENT VI TRR048 7.....=:I.. §• .. -=.. !• . i ,.i _ il •i; ................1---=---J--='--+-"::"--+-~-+---rr--"T1 ....-_.- i!i:i!lf•a:;::I jr.;-,.:;i rll I !=r ~II i :l.. j ~... =i;; ~-.....\. iJ .. 'i... Ii"...'". ::.. .........:I•::I 0i2.. ~!i:=i -:ill .... '"..~.8 'A.... 11;;11;;if;; ,paI'.--.. =i..- I i i I;..-.......- .~....=....-....-- !if...I ;; ~:=::-~..-- i .-...... i..- - .... ..... - ...,;.,;•. !S a s I .. ~~ !:ii...J: !! i!J i!J • •ill ill .,;.....,;=~~~............ ,...,zi.·: !!!!!! ...........'Ii .-••••0 I:;:==~;: 'I I J !!!!;;.. .. ....0&....Ii wi • • •.0 0 -==.=;:;:;::;: ~Ji!iJ...... :I 9 ~_.~-~~------------------ SUSITNA AREA PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT -Suml11ary .,"V'-__--....._~... ,. • -..'. PREPARED BY: ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AND THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH IN COOPERATION WITH: ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILlT1ES KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT JUNE 1984 ~NATURAt RESOURCES - ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES •555 CORDOVA ST.·ANCHORAGE,AK.995 I0 - - - t 1 TALUEtBA K01JlCTAlHS SUBBEGIOll The folloring section describe.lanclulu{policy within the Talkeetna Mountain Subregion.It is.divided intotvoparts.Theflrst"is an overview of resour- ces and their aumagement for the subregion as a whole.The second presents specific statements of unagement intent.land use designations.prohibited uses.and aumagemeat guidelines for eacb of the subregion's three _nagement units.The land use plan's proposals on two issues-the borough's Talkeetna Mountains Special Use District and the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric project -overlap several unagement uDits and are therefore presented in the first part of this subregion summary under the section on management sUllllllary.Haps showing land ownership in the subregion and boundaries of management units and subuDits are presented at the end of tbe first part. I.SOBDGXOll OVBI.VIEW A.Background The boundaries of the Talkeenta Hountai118 Subregion are'the planning area boundaries.on the nortb and east (these coil1cide with the boun- dary of the Hatanuska-Susitna Borough).a line that approximates the northern edge of the Hatanuska River drainage on tbe south.and on the west.a line that roughly follows the 2.500'contour.These boun- daries generally encompass only the upper portions of the mountains. Lower-lying portions of river valleys which extend into the area such a.the Talkeenea.Sheep,and Kashvitna are included in the adjacent subregions. This subregion encompasses roughly 6 million acres.the majority of which is publicly owned.The northern half of the anit is primarily in federal ownership.the southern half is held by the State of Alaska.The state recently recei,ved tentative approval for nearly all of the approximately 80 township.0.840,000 acres)of federal land it had seleci:ed in the southern half of the area.There areapproxi- mately 206,000 acres of Native selected and interim conveyed lands in the area.MOsc of these lands are loeated in the Susitna River - Stephan Lake area and in the East Pork of the Chulitna R1verdrain- age.These Native selected lands are very likely to be conveyed.In addition to private land held by Native corporations there are also numerous scattered small parcels held by private ind1viduals.These holdings are generally of two types:state offered open-to-entry sites adjacenc to fly-in lakes (pri1lllU'.ily Wled for recreacional pur- poses).and federally patentedlllining claims loeated in the Nelchina area,tbe Clearwater MOuntaina and oCber mining areas.See the owner- shi~maps at the end of this seecion for more information. Access to the periphery of the subregion is provided by two major highway.-tbe Glenn on the south,the Parks on the west.The only road access inco the subregion is provided by the Denali Highway on the north.Th:l.s highway traverses 1II0scly alpine country in federal ownership from Paxson to cantwell.The State Department of Transpor- tation i8 presently working on improvemencs to the western end of this highway.A number of trails branch off from these highways and pro- vide a measure of access into the mountains.Other lIIeans of access include landing scrips,fly-ia lakes.and boatable rivers. Although most of this ragged area does not offer the potential for agriculture,forestry,or settlement found elsewhere in the study area.these limitationa are well balanced by the region's rich fish and wildlife..recreational and III1neral resources.This area is one of 'the most heavily used big game hunting areas in the state,offering moose,Dall sheep,bear.and caribou.The maj ori ty of the range of the 20.000 animals of the Nelchina caribou herd is located here.The area 1 s many lakes and rivers offer excellent fishing for sallllCn.lake and rainbow trout,grayling and other spec:1es.The subregion offers literally millions of acres of alpine country for hiking.camping. skiing and climbing •. These same alpine areas have a ricn and to a large degree unexplored potenCial for mineral development.Several areas -Hatcner Pass 1 Nelchina and Valdez Creek -are currently active producers of gold and otner precious minerals. TRR048 The Alaska Power Authority recently applied to the Federal Energy and Regulatory CollllD1ssion (PERC)for a license to build a ujor hydroelec- tric project on the Susitna River.TWo dams are proposed for sites at Devil's canyon and lIatana.(More on this proposal below.) B.Hanagement Summary The Talkeetna Subregion will be managed as a multiple use area emphas- izing the uses that are most important in the area now:recreation, including hunting arid fishing.protection of fish iIond wildlife hab- itat,and adning.Grazing.private recreational settlement (remote cabins).and personal use timber harvests are also uses appropriate in specific portions of this subregion.The vast maj ori ty of.this rugged.lllountainous area is expected to remain remote and very sparse- .y developed.Additional road access to the area and concentraced settlement on public lands will be concingent on a demonstrated need for such development in order to facilitate activities such as mining or dam constr~ction. 1.Settlement State and federal land disposals for private recreational.settle- ment are a very low priority in this SUbregion.The state will issue permits for remote cabin sites in this subregion under che remote cabin permit program in limited.select sites.Should the proposed Susitna hydropower project be developed.state land will be available for a workcamp or other settlement uses associated with the construction and operation of the dams.Most of these hydro-project related uses.however.are expected to occur on lands presently in Native ownership.If road access into this area is prOVided as a result of the hydro project native lands are likely to be developed for private recreational purposes.Settle- ment may be an appropriate use on public lands adj acent to areas developed by the natives although no lands are designated for this purpose at this time.(Demand for private residential and com- Illercial uses that may be associated with the project are discussed further under the section on Susitna hydro •.)Residential develop- Illent of public land also may occur in this unit concurrent with major lIlineral development.Any settlement in this subregion should be designed to Illaintain public access and protect fish and wildlife habitat and the area's-high scenic quality--particularly where the activities occur within the highway corridors. 2.Agriculture Grazing is the only agricultural use that is possible in this sub- region.Grazing will be limited to an area several hundred thou- sand acres in size in the southwestern portion of the subregion. nus area i8 relatively close to access and to land that could be used for farm headquarter sites.Hanagement guidelines will be applied to grazing activities to ensure compatibility with wild- life. 3.Forestry Although lllOSt of this unit is above tilllberline.Illajor drainages (e.g..the Susitna and Talkeetna rivers)have personal use and perhaps c01Dlllerc:1al tilllber harvest potential.If major develop- !Ilent.such as the Susitna hydro project occur there will undoubt- edly be aS80ciated deunds for structural timbers which could be Illet from these areas.In general.however.the state will set a higher priority on protecting the scenic.habitat,and recreation- al values of these forested areas rather than using these areas for commercial uses.Lilll1ted personal use harvests will be per- lII1tted in some areas. 4.&acreation/Fish and Wildlife This subregion will be managed to protect its current status as one of the major game harvest areas 1n the state for lllOose,cari- bou and sheep.StrealllS will be unaged to protect their ncrea,- TRR048 - - .•'..' - ,..... .~ - 5. 6. 7. 8. tion and coaimercial fisherYvaides.The area also will be ll1&naged to maintain a full range of summer and winter recreation activi- ties,including skiing,mountain climbing,hiking,and snow- mobiling.Adequate access for these recreation purposes should be tDaintained in public ownership.Because the Talkeetnas are a highly scenic but still relatively genele mountain range,the area is particularly suited for cross country,hiking.sk11ng and snow- mobiling.A system of trails running through this subregion should be identified and promoted.The state and borough should also seek funding to build and.if necessary.operate public use cabins along this trail system. Construction of the Susitna Hydroelectric project also could pro- vide increased opportunities for public recreation.primarily due to improved access.Any plans for recreation improvements in the subregion--forexample a trails system--should be coordinated with recreation plans associated with the proposed Hydro project. The plan rec01Dlllends that ehe southeastern portion of the Talkeetna Mountains be legislatively or adm1nistratively designated as the NNelchina Public Use Area N to protect the Nelchina caribou herd. This proposal would allow multiple use of the area,including mining.but would prohibit lands sales except for what might be required for resource development •.(See Management Unit 3 for IIIOre details.) Minerals This subregion will remain open to mineral exploration and devel- opment and to oil and gas leasing.Mineral development,including necessary roads and workcamps.should be designed to minimize impacts on important wildlife and recreation values in this unit. Access The road/rail system that would provide access to the Susitna hydroelectric project is the only major access improvement being considered in the area.The Power Authority's proposed access route.described in the FERC license aplication.would prOVide access to the Watana Dam site from the Denali H.:Lghway via Deadman Creek.The Devils Canyon site would be provided with access via a railroad spur from nesr Gold Creek (on the existing RR line)and via a road on the north side of the Susitna River from the Watana site.A final decision on the planned access route will be made through the environmental impact statement review process. Stream Corridors The headwaters of many major streams 11e in the Talkeetna Moun- tains.Management of these corridors will be determined on a case-by-case basis consistent with the management objectives for the more heaVily used downstream segments of the rivers.In gen- eral,the objectives for the rivers originating in this subregion will be to protect water quality,fish and wildlife habitat.and public access. Susitna Hydroelectric Project As mentioned,the two proposed'Susitna hydroelectric dam sites are located within this subregion.The plan does not address any of the basic issues concerning the direct'social,fiscal or environ- menta.l impacts of this project.This task is being addressed by the FERC licensing process and by the many state and federal agencies already vorking on the project.Several of the indirect impacts of the hydro project are,however.within the purview of the plan,and will be addressed here.(Note:Because the issues associated with the hydro project affect virtually the entire sub- region,othese issues will be discussed here for the whole sub- region rather than within each of the three tDanagement units.) TRR048 Four issues addressed by the plan are mitigstion lands,land own- ership.and recreation and settlement associated with the pro- ject.Each are discussed below. a.Mitigation Lands Construction of the Sasitna Hydroelectric project would have significant effects on terrestrial and aquatic habitats.One proposed metllod for mitigating the loss of wildlife nabitat that would be inundated or disturbed by the hydro project is to designate and manage nearby lands in a way tllat compensates for tllis loss.The Alaska Power Authority estimates that roughly 20.000 acres of land would be needed to adequately compensate for the predicted loss of habitat lands. No compensation lands have been depicted in this agency review draft plan.The'Po_rAuthority has prepared a description of the objectives to be mat by identifying mitigation lands,cri- teria for selecting such areas.and lastly.identified a large pool of possiblemitigadon lands.This information is pre- sented in AppendiX 2.The final determination of m1tigation atrategies and.if appropriate,m1tigation lands,will be done after the plan is complete • . b.Land Ownership Nearly all of the land where the proposed dams.reservoi rs, and associated facilities are planned to be located are selec- ted by or 1nteriDl1y conveyed to Cook Inlet Region Inc.and its village corporations.If the hydro project is approved,the state has the option to condemnor buy these lands or trade for lands in other areas.Roughly 40,000 acres of land are at issue.however.the Power Authority estimates as lit.tle as 16.000 acres will actually nave to be acquired.Final deci- sions related t.O land aquisition will be made in light of the plan I s .designations on land adj acent to the proj ect and on possible trading stock:lands.' c.settlement Associated with the Dam Project If the projeec is constructed thi8 would increase development pressures on the portions of the planning area that are al- ready settled and also.due to construction of new access, open new areas to settlement pressures.On the first of these two issues,suffiCient private land presently exists to accom- modate the predic.ted level of population growth associated with the p~ojec~.Regarding possible new settlement areas.no plans can be made until a final decision is made on the loca- tion and 1IIOde of new access into the area.However.wnatever route is ultimately chosen.DNR will follow a settlement policy of Mcommensurate impactM•'l'h1s means that in locations where the Power Authority is making a special effort (e.g ••~hroulilh road design and siting)to protect SOIll.8 aspect of enviroamental quality.DNa will not negate this effort through selling'land in the particularly sensitive area.On the other hand.portions of the area opened as a result of the project likely will be able to support some land sales (or cabin construction under the remote cabin program)with an acceptable level of environmental impact.OVerall,DNR does not intend to sell much land in this area.since it has lim1t~d physical capability to support settlement and is gen- erally sensitive to development. d.Recreation Associated with Dam Project The area surrounding the project has good potential for var- ious types of new.developed recreation activities.As part of the FERC application the Power Authority and the State Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation are working together to finalize a plan identifying areas for trails.camping,dis- persed recreation,etc. TRR048- ,j - - TRR048 "'Z _N "'_ :I N "':I ~"''''e ---------"'-~.,-----,~--,-,----,--,-,,-_.__.---_.---~""""_.~~,=--,_.._,- ..... (/)0 ..!!...... !I ,,~ I I I, J-I \•, In I \ \Z \-\is \=,-, ./,.,.. Z aCl I.J~•o. :E c( ~Z,... W $$lM W~ .J is ~ ~ .j:>o (Xl T2TN T28N () (.t11L.ES .:'1'1 LEGEND ..,,,,;./:/~:/~/~op,wfJU1fJ/i 1<::~~.;:,rrJ~~~ NOT £:Thi.1a••,••II ••h..bt••••n"olln"III "- own"",I,ln c••••:520 oc,u or ,.H...c.,"'''' 1101.I.d prl or.nol .ho "'all'10k ••which oW.o,public oro ,1II.d willi p,i.ol.loll. SCALE I:z~o.ooo 6 JANUARY .,84 C Lt:GISLATIV~LY llESIGNATED AREA ~fEDERAL c:::J STATE IZ2]STATE SELECTt:D E3 BOROUGH lincl.d.."'.cl.d londl)r::::n NATIVE (i..cl.dll ,,'.clld lond.)~~Q",~q~,~~J1 ~~.~EiSI p:n::~~~,I~~~~.)..on"oli·i·i"Cldll ~_,,~Olj'~~f~I ~/I Cl"rl I -1 r::J PUT STATE ANO BOROUGH LANO SALES CD $Ilbdhhloll CD R.",.III E:!iJ A"lelIlI.,. J J "I J <•.1 .,1 J J .1 J .1 1 1 1 I J j CI ..C~-j )1 -I --1 1 ••1 U.S.O.S.Quede: OulkJne H.el, Mt.He,.e Telk ..tne Mte.-. (,.f1ILf.S ,)0 II ;ID';ID :E I '" ~lf I IVIl.~l~~~-~h~~~-ft::t=-;-l~.(,.,~\~ITUS.(,...C·O'w."'-'---'_'T18';- --...-'......,)~--r--t---.--~-r.;-f~=+==:r::::::r=i~==i::~t:::r~1~]~f~r-l[~+,'"~~.(,.~~~~4-+f-~im~·~"*I·t--j~-L-~"I-" Designations In CAPITAL LETTERS arepriinary designations;Ihose In lower case lelleNl are secondary deslgnallons;areas shown with stars. will be proposed for legislative or admlnlstrallve designation. TALKEETNA MOUNTAINS........~ ter lIID'1 -D!IIALI IIllD&Y 18 PRIHARILY I'lUVAm lJlfl) Ib RlII.IC BI!'C..WIULIFE HAB.; forestry .Ie RlII.IC RPX:..WIllI..IfE IIAB.i forestry f-3 ~.::-. 00 J;ID 01,'" ;ID ;ID -011 .,o 'F.,••~--- TUSW.••I.~Dr-t---tf1H#~J-J-----L~I.J:1J1--l--.----'--'/-IP _3<~~~f~;fI i8 1~~.L-.l..!!~::i.l[l-I~Li'"'"U _..L- :PROPOSED NEW BOUNDARIES OF ;TALKEETNA MTNS.SPECIAL USE ;TRICT ARE THE 6AHE AS THE ,REGION BOUNDARIES ~I~ Co \ <.MILtS 1Gl'.IIU7 2 -Nll.QIJNl RDUC lIE IJJtVi -l/f2a roBUC ~m,WIl1lLIW Ht\BITAT.forestry .2b l'UBLIC Rm~FATlIIl.WIl:LUH!:HABITAT tcr.OUT 3 -II/SI'SID1 38 PIJIl,IC REClIEATlOO.WIlJX,J.FE IWIITAT;teIJ[lte cabilti.grlldqJ 3b l'UBUC QFmATIm,WIlDLIfE HABITAT,forestry 3c ruBLIC llFf2EATIOO.WIWLlFE Ht\BIW.grazing,IBDOte cablJlli\. 3d PU8\.TC RfCR~ATItIl}\flUlure tlABlTIITj rell'Ote cab!ns '~.p. 00 L,~.cJ ~J ~,c_.J J. J J -1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i ]1 ~o ~ 00 1 -DENALI HIGH.WA~MANAGEMENT UNITTALKEETNAKl'SSUBREGIONLANDUSESUMMARY I MGMT.UNITJ ANALYSIS LAND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS PROHIBITED MINERALS COMMENTS I SUBUNIT UNIT OWNERSHIP PRIMARY SECONDARY SURFACE MGMT.OF MGMT.OF NUMBERS (GENERALIZED)USE(S)USE(S)USE{S)1 LOCATABLE MINERALS LE.a.sEABLE MINERALS la This infor-Native Pri~arily Private Land-------------Native Lands mation will (patented,RecoPIIDended Uses:WildUfeltabitat, be added in interi~con-Public Recreation, the final veyed and Limited Settlement draft selected) lb Federal Wildlife Habitat Forestry Remote Cabins Open Available forDenaliHighwayPublicRecreation(personal use)Grazing leasingEast lc Upper Susitna Federal/Wildlife Habitat Forestry Remote Cabins Open Available forState/State Public Recreation (personal use)Grazing leasing Selected . 'Other uses such as material sales,land teases,remolecabin leases.elc.,thai are not specilically prOhibited may be allowed.Such uses will be allowed i'consistent with the management intent and -management guidelines 01 this unit,and with the relevant management guidelines .in chapter 2. I 2 -NELCHINA PUBLICLANDUSESUMMARYSUBREGIONTALKEETNAHTS.MANAGEMENT UNIT USE ARJ!;A MGMT.UNITI ANALYSIS lAND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS PROHIBITED MINERALS SUBUNIT UNIT OWNERSHIP PRIMARY SECONDARY SURFACE MGMT.OF MGMT.OF COMMENTS NUMBERS (GENERALIZED)USE(S)USE(S)USE(S)t i.,OCATABlE MINERALS lEASEABlE MINERALS 2a This infor-State/State Wildlife Hatitat Forestry GraZing Open Available for Nelchina Public P1ation will Selected Public Recreation Land Disposals leasing Ulle Area except be added in Propolled for caribou calving the final legislative or grounds .draft adminis trati ve designation as the Nelchina Public Use Area 2b State Wildlife Hatitat --Grazing Open Available for Caribou Calving Public Recreation Land Disposals 'leasing Grounds 'Other uses such as malerial sales,land leases,remole cabin leases, elc.,Ihal are nol specilically prohibiled may be allowed.Such uses will be allowed if consislenl wllh Ihe management inlenl and managemenl guidelines ollms unil,and wilh Ihe relevanl managemenl guidelines in chapler 2. J ,J J J • ~ ~o +'- 00 .1 1 J i J )~"""1 I )J 1 ]'1 'J i 1 1 LAND USE SUMMARY SUBREGION TALKBETNA KTS.MANAGEMENT UNIT 3 -WESTERN TALKEETNAS MGMT.UNITI ANALYSIS LAND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS PROHIBITED MINERALS COMMENTSSUBUNITUNITOWNERSHIPPR'*RY SECONOARY SURFACE MGMT.OF MGMT.OF .NUMBERS (GENERALIZED)US (S)USE(S)USE(S)t LOCATABLE MINERALS lEASEABlE MINERALS 3a This infor-State Public Recrea~ion Remote Cabins Land Disposals Open Available forRainbowLakemationwillWildlifeHabitatGrazingleasingbeaddedin the final draft 3b State Public Recreation Forestry Trapper Cabins Open Available for Proposed forTalkeetnaRiverWildlifeHabitat(personal use)Land Disposals leasing legislative or Grazing administrative designation 3c State/State Public Recreation Grazing Land Disposals Open Available forWellsHountainSelectedWildlifeHabitatRemoteCabinsleasing I State Public Recreation Remote Cabins Grazing Open Available for3dWildlifeHabitatLandDisposalsleasingSheepHaven I 'Other uses such as material sates.land leases,remote cabin leases,elc.,thai are not specifically· prohibited may be allowed.Such uses will be allowed if cOnsistenl with Ihe management in lent and managemenl guidelines of this unit.and with the relevanl management guidelines in chapler ~. t-3 ~o ~ 00 Technical Comment TRR049 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Vegetation LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page J-3 Section J.l.2 Paragraph 4 of the page Page J-26 Table J-7 Section J.l.2.l COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comments that Figure E.3.38 of Exhibit E represents the entire upper and middle Susitna -Basin. - - -- - TECHNICAL COMMENT:The DEIS states that Figure E.3.38 of Exhibit E represents the entire upper and middle Susitna Basin and then represents the data in Table J-7 as including this entire area.This is inconsistent with the Applicant I s definitions of the upper and middle Susitna Basins (see APA 1983,Figure E.3.3 in Exhibit E)which 1.S a larger area.The area represented in Figure E.3.38 1.S referred to as·the Watana and Gold Creek watersheds in Exhibit E (see APA 1983,Fig.E.3.36 of Exhibit E),which is a subset of the upper and middle Susitna Basin.We have not observed a redefinition of this latter area in the DEIS and,therefore,recommend that the area be clearly redefined or the text be made consistent with Exhibit E. The inconsistency affects all later tables and text where a percentage of total area is given. 48591 --------_._._-_._-- Technical Comment TRR050 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Rime Ice,Vegetation,Wildlife Resources LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 5 Page J-55 Section J.2.1.1.2 Paragraph 8 of the ,~ - - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS statements on rime ice. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR020. 49321 Technical Comment TRROS1 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Vegetation,Transmission Lines and Corridors,Impacts ..... - - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol S Page J-69 Section J.2.1.4.2 Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the page (Reference Tables J-30 and J-31) COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Incorrect numbers in Tables J-30 and J-31 and the resultant need for correction to other tables and text. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Two tables in the DEIS Volume 5 are incorrect;Tables J- 30 and J,...31,on pages J-70 and J-71,respectively.The correct figures for Table J-30 can be found in Table E-3-79 (Reference 1.370.2)in the Responses to Agency Comments on License Application,submitted February 1S t 1984. Discrepancies in Tables J-30 and 31 are due to errors 1n the right-of-way clearing widths used.The clearing width used in Tables J-30 and 31 was 190 feet from Gold Creek to Healy and 290 feet from Gold Creek to Wi llow.The correct clearing width as used in revised Table E-3-79 is 130 feet from Gold Creek to Healy and 230 feet from Gold Creek to Willow. The corresponding text in the DEIS Volume S should be changed as follows: (p.J-69)J.2.1.4.2 Healy-to-Willow Segment Construction •••Approximately 3400 acres (1400 ha)of vegetation would be crossed by the Susitna addition to the existing Healy-to-Willow intertie right-of-way (Table J-30).From Gold Creek to Healy the addition would be 130 feet (40m) wide,and from Gold Creek to Willow the addition would be 230 feet (70m) wide.The area of 3400 acres (1400 ha)represents a worst-case estimate ••• •••As a worst-case estimate,the Healy-to-Willow segment would cross about 2400 acres (970 ha)of potential wetland types (Table J-31)••••• 47411 Technical Comment TRR051 Page 2 Due to changes in Tables J-30 and J-31,summary Table 4-3 in the DElS Volume 5,page 4-34 is in need of revi sion as follows: - Affected Acreage by Vegetation Type Potential Total Wetland Vegetated Acreage ~ Facility and Type of Loss Forest Shrub land Tundra Area Affected Vegetation Disturbance Transmission Line Corridors 5900 2900 1500 10,000 6700 Ml!ll Portions of the DEIS Volume 1 text that subsequently require modification include: Page 4-35,paragraph 6,first sentence: The 10,000 acres (4050 ha)of vegetated area to be crossed"by the proposed transmission corridors (Table 4-3)represent a worst-case estimate of vegetation that would be impacted •••• page 4-35,paragraph 6,last sentence: As a worst-case estimate,6700 acres (2700 ha)of potential wetlands would be •••• Addi tional portions of the text and/or tables may also need to be modi fied to reflect these changes. 47411 - ...- - .- Technical Comment TRROS2 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Caribou,Population COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Estimated s~ze of the Nelchina herd and the Upper Susitna -Nenana subherd • TECHNICAL 48641 COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR004. .._._----'---------.~.._-_._---_._---~--------'----_._-----------_._--- - Technical Comment TRR053 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Brown Bear Denning LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-19 Section K.2.l.l.5 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment,"Of 31 dens found l.n the area,only three occurred at eLevations below 2,500 ft (760m)." TECHNICAL COMMENT:On the basis of Miller (1984),the number of brown bear dens observed in the area should be amended to 50 dens.It remains true, as stated,that only three of these dens were below 2,500 feet and that none of them were in the impoundment zones or near project features. 46781 ------------------------------ Technical Comment TRR054 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear - - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-19 Section K.2.1.1.5 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment,"Miller (1983)surveyed for black bear in a 1,600 square-mile (4,200 km 2 )study area with in the upper and middle Susitna Basin." TECHNICAL COMMENT:The 1,600-square mile area referred to encompassed only the middle Susi tna Basin between Devil Creek and the Vee Canyon gauging station;this was the 1980/81 study area (Miller and McAllister 1982). This upstream study area was retained during the 1981/82 and 1982/83 programs (Miller 1983 and 1984,respectively).During 1981/82,a downstream study area was added,extending over approximately 447 square-miles (l157 sq.km)from about Portage Creek to Curry (Miller 1983).This downstream study -area was retained in the 1982/83 program (Miller 1984). Therefore,the sentence quoted above from Appendix K should be amended to state that black bear studies conducted by Miller and McAllister (982) during the 1980/81 season included aI,600-sq.mi (4,200-square-mi Ie km) area of the middle Susitna Basin,whereas subsequent studies during 1981/82 and 1982/83 were conducted over a total of 2,047 square miles (5,357 sq.km) including the middle Susitna Basin from Vee Canyon to Devil Creek,and a portion of the lower bas in extending from Portage Creek to Curry (Miller 1983,1984). 46771 .... """ ...... Technical Comment TRR055 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-19 Section K.2.1.1.5 Paragraph 7 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment states that 54 black bear dens were located by Miller and McAllister (982)and by Miller (983). TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR007 for updated information on black bear dens. 46761 - ..... - Technical Comment TRR056 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-19 Section K.2.1.1.5 Paragraph 7 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Statements regarding elevations of black bear dens. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR007. 48671 Technical Comment TRR057 ~, SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT -TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Eagles,Raptors,Impacts,Filling LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-23 Section K.2.Ll.l1 Paragraph 9 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Update of raptor and raven nest locations and numbers. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR008 for an update on the locations and numbers of raptor and raven nest locations in the project vicinity. - 48441 ,- "... - - ,.,. Technical Comment TRR058 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Peregrine Falcon,Endangered Species,Access Roads,Reservoir LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-30 Section K.2.1.1.18 Paragraph 1 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS statements regarding peregrine falcons ~n the vicinity of the proposed dams,reservoirs,and access routes. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRROlO. 48661 Technical Comment TRR059 - - .... ,~ SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Wildlife Resources,Habitat,Thermal LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-36 Sec tion K.2.3.1.2 Paragraph 1 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Wildlife description TECHNICAL COMMENT:As a point of clarification,the gas facility would be located near the community of Kenai which is surrounded by lowland spruce- birch forest and associated wetlands and is approximately 40 miles from the nearest Dall sheep or mountain goat habitat.Also,much of the area near Kenai represents high-quali ty moose,black bear,waterfowl,and furbearer habitat. 48691 Technical Comment TRR060 - TOPIC AREA: SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM Wildlife Resources - LOCATIO~IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-36 Section K.2.3.1.3 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS description of wildlife 1n Anchorage. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR013. 48701 - SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Wildlife Resources,Habitat,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS: paragraphs Vol 5 Page K-36 and K-37 Section K.2.3.3 All - ...... COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS description of the wildlife at each alternative hydro site. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRROl7. 48711 - ,...., - Technical Comment TRR062 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-37 Section K.2.3.l Paragraph 1 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Black and brown bear abundance at Chakachamna Lake hydro site. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical CommentTRR015. 49341 - - - ..- .- - - Technical Comment TRR063 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Furbearers,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-37 Section K.2.3.3.2 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comment,"Furbearers occur along the Nenana River but do not appear to be very common." TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR016 • 49451 Technical Comment TRR064 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNI CAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Moose,Impacts,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-38 Section K.3.1.1.1 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO: capacity. Preliminary calculations of winter carry~ng - -~ -- TECHNICAL COMMENT:Reference is made in the text to Table K-5,this table deals with trapper exports and dealer purchases of furbearer pelts,not calculations concerning moose winter carrying capacity.The table actually being referred to appears to be Table K-2. 45211 - - .- .... Technical Comment TRR065 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Moose,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-4l Section K.3.1.1.1 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Moose impact estimates. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The estimate of 2200 moose that presently range through the area of the Devil Canyon and Watana impoundments is an overestimate. Please refer to Technical Comment TRR021. 48731 .- - I~ - Technical Comment TRR066 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-46 Section K.3.1.1.1 (Reference Table K- 12)Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Statements regarding black bear denning. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR007 • 49461 ..- -- - - Technical Comment TRR067 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM .TOPIC AREA:.Eagles,Raptors,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-50 Section K.3.1.1.1 Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Update on raptor and raven nest locations and numbers. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR008 for an update on the number of raptor and raven nest locations to be inunda ted and the number occurring in the project vicinity. 48421 ,.,... ..... ""'" ,-. Technical Comment TRR068 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Caribou,Ice Cover,Reservoir LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-56 Section K.3.1.1.2 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS implication that the impoundment would create ice-related problems (floating ice,unstable ~ce conditions,open mud flats and snow drifts)that could hinder movements and pose threats of mortal and debilitating injury. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Current data indicate that caribou mainly cross the Susi tna River ~n the area between Deadman Creek and Jay Creek.These crossings occur during spring migration (crossing from early April to mid- May),as a result of post-calving movements (crossing in June and July),and cross~ng from August to October during autumn di spersal (pi tcher 1982, 1983).The movement period of interest,with regard to ice on and in the r~ver,is the spring crossing.Crossings during post-calving movements and autumn dispersals occur during ice-free periods at present,and will continue as under with-project conditions.Available historical records indicate that the Susitna River generally breaks up in early to mid-May (R&M 1981,pages 4-10 to 4-11).Under present conditions caribou cross the river in early to mid-April on the ice.Caribou crossing during late-April to mid-May might encounter open water,floating ice,unstable ice condi tions, and minimum water velocities of 2.5 to 5 ft/sec. Ice conditions that may exist ,with the proposed Watana dam in place have been simulated using the DYRESM Reservoir Temperature and Ice Model. Computer simulations have been performed using weather and water temperature data from 1971-72,74-75,76-77,81-83 (Appendix,Reservoir Temperature and Ice Model).The general trend for ice thickness and breakup,as determined from computer simulation,~s similar to general conditions presently observed on the river.That is,breakup would occur in early to mid-May, with thick ice still present on the reservoir in April. 49721 Technical Comment TRR069 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM ~' TOPIC AREA:Dall Sheep,Impacts .... LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-57 Section K.3.1.1.2 Paragraphs 1-8 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS statements relative to Jay Creek Lick impacts. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR026 for updated information on Jay Creek Lick impacts • 49371 Technical Comment TRR070 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Moose,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-60 Section K.3.1.2.1 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Moose impact estimates. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The estimate of 450 moose that would be affected by the - .Devi 1 Canyon impoundment appears to 'be an overestimate. Technical Comment TRR021. 48741 Please refer to - -I .... _. ..... Technical Comment TRR07l SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-64 Section K.3.l.2.1 (Reference Table K- 21)Paragraph 7 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Statements regarding black bear denning. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR007 • 49471 Technical Comment TRR072 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM ~, TOPIC AREA:Eagles,Raptors,Impacts,Filling - - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-65 Section K.3.1.2.1(Reference Table K-22) Paragraph 1 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Update on raptor and raven nest locations and numbers. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR008 for an upda te on the number of raptor and raven nest locations to·be inundated and the number occurring in the project vi-cinity. 48431 ~, - ..... - ..... Technical Comment TRR073 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear,Access Roads LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-67 Section K.3.1.3.l Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Access road disturbance to brown bear denning. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRROOS. 48651 .... Technical Comment TRR074 SUSITNAHYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Moose,Vegetation,Transmission Lines and Corridors,Access Roads - - LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 5 Page K-70 Section K.3.1.4.1 Paragraph 2 of the -COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The comment based upon Wolff and Zasada's 1979 study regarding uti lization of forage in right-of~way. .... TECHNICAL 49511 COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR024. ..... - - ._~ - 1""" - .- Technical Comment TRR075 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear,Transmission Lines and Corridors LOCATION IN DElS:Vol.5 Page K-70 Section K.2 .1.4.1 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Reference to black bear use of transmission line right-of-way. TECHNICAL COMMENT:please refer to Technical Comment TRR029 • 49401 Technical Comment TRR076 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Eagles,Raptors,Impacts,Natural Gas Plants LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 5 Page K-76 Section K.3.3.1 Paragraph 2 of the -COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Raptors 1n natural gas impacted areas. TECHNICAL COMMENT:There is no mention made in the discussion of animal communiti"es for the natural gas scenario concerning the projects impact on raptorial birds.There are 3 recorded bald eagle nest sites in the Chuitna River drainage (Cook Inlet Region,Inc.,and Placer Amax,Inc.1981)--all - - ~, ...., in close proximity to the proposed Chuitna combined gas plant. must address thes~bald eagle nest sites and probable impacts. 44131 The DEIS ..- ,.... - - - - - ,.... ..- Technical Comment TRR077 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Moose,Natural Gas Plants,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-76 Section K.3.3.1 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Statements on moose impacts. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR034. 49441 ,- -. ,.... Technical Comment TRR078 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Wildlife Resources,Habitat,Alternatives,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-79 Section K.3.4.Paragraph 1 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS comments on the value of habitat affected by combined hydrothermal scenario. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR039. 49521 Technical Commment TRR079 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT r""'"TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Bear,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K'"""83 Section K.5.1 Paragraph 8 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS statement on black bear denning impacts. TECHNICAL COMMENT:This statement is misleading.Please refer to Technical Comment TRROOT for an update on the percentage of black bear dens occurring in the vicinity of the impoundments that would be inundated.Based on all available information this percentage is 34 percent,not 55 percent (Miller, 1984).Moreover,the DEIS implies that the percentage refers to the entire Susitna basin or at least the middle and upper basin bear population. However,the dens considered in these percentage figures are based only on those dens in the vi cinity of the impoundment zones.If data were available for the entire basin or even just the"entire middle and upper basins and these data were included 1n these percentages,then the percentage of dens to be inundated would be far less • .... '""" - 49391- Technical Comment TRR080 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Dall Sheep,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 5 Page K-83 Section K.5.1.Paragraph 11 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS statements relative to Jay Creek Lick impacts. infonnation on Jay Creek Lick impacts.-- - - - TECHNI CAL COMMENT:Please refer to Technical Comment TRR026 for upda ted -49381 - -. Technical Connnent TRR08l SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Eagles,Raptors,Impacts COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:DEIS statements on numbers of eagle nest impacts. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The references to eagle nest impacts are not up-to-date.• Please refer to Technical Connnent TRR008 for the corrections. 49421 Technical Comment SSCOOI SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Mitigation LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 2-29 Section 2.1.12.9 Paragraph 3 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:liThe Applicant has recommended the investigation of all significant •••sites •••subject to unavoidable direct or indirect impact-" TECHNICAL COMMENT:FERC Staff should note that investigation (excavation) of all directly and indirectly impacted sites may not be necessary.Which sites .are investigated,and the extent to which they will be subject to investigation,will depend upon the manner and degree to which they can contribute to archeological research as measured against specific research questions currently being developed.The sentence should be rephrased as follows:liThe Applicant has recommended the investigation of significant cultural resource sites (i.e.,those eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places)that would be s~bject to unavoidable direct or indirect impacts resulting from project development.A mitigation plan to guide investigation is being developed on the basis of specific research questions for the project area.Preservation by .•••11 45971 Technical Comment SSC003 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONHENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Impacts,Cultural Resources _. !i ~ I LOCATION IN JDElS:Vol 1 Page 2-29 Section 2.1.12.9 Paragraph 3 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"sites that would be exposed to potential impacts ll TECHNICAL CO:MMENT:All impacts should be classified as direct or indirect, and references to potential impacts should be deleted.The DEIS notes (p. 0-1T)that "for legal purposes [potential impacts]may be considered as indirect impacts." 45981 """ - I~ ~ !I """1 I Technical Comment SSC004 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Mitigation LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 2-48 Section 2.7.9 Paragraph 6 of the page COMMENT IN RE:FERENCE TO:"Investigation •••required for •••sites exposed to direct and indirect impact,•••while preservation •••(with monitoring)for potentially impacted significant sites." TECHNICAL Cm1MENT:See Technical Comments SSCOO2 and SSC003. 46001 "'"' - - ..... - ..... 1"1 I Technical Comment SSC005 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Mitigation,Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 P.age 2-48 Section 2.7.9 Paragraph 6 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Significant sites l.n areas that would be impacted by non-hydro generat ion facilities would proba.bly be mitigable by avoidance.1I TECHNICAL COMMENT:The DEIS presents no evidence to support the conclusion that avoidance is more viable for non-hydro developments.Fossil fuel units must be loca,ted with respect to many factors and will not necessarily be eaSl.er to relocate.FERC staff should review the data and drop the sentence or (if appro1priate)rephrase it to suggest that non-hydro generation facilities may impact fewer significant sites because these facilities require smaller land areas and/or may be sited in environments that are likely to have f.ewer cultural resource si tes • 46011 - ..... Technical Comment SSC006 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 1"'"'TECOI CAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Land Management,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-4 Section 3.1.1.2.2 .Paragraph 2,3 - """ COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Description of future land status and management of project area and transmission corridor. TECHNICAL CUMMENT:This section should include a brief summary of the DEIS Appendix F discussion of land use planning,particularly noting the draft Susitlla Area Plan designation of the project area for multiple use. The Susitna Area Plan contains an overview of the management intent for the Talkeetna Mountain Subregion (including the project area)which states,liThe Talkeetna Subregion will be managed as a multiple use area emphasizing the uses that are most important in the area now ...Additional road access to the area and concentrated settlement on public lands will be contingent on a demonstrated need for such development in order to facilitate activities such as mini.ng or dam construction.1I In addition,a special section on the Susitna Hydrolectric Project addresses mitigation measures for a number of indirect impacts to land use,ownership,settlement and recreation that would occur with the project.Consequently,the proposed project would not adversely affect management of the Talkeetna Mountain Subregion. See ADNR et a1.(1984)and Technical Comment SSC074. 45581 -- - ,.- - - l""'\ I l l n I I Technical Comment SSC007 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-34 Section 3.1.7 COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Potential overuse,competition,and resource degradation. TECHNICAL COMMENT:In general,this section does not include any discussions of present or projected use of recreation resources in any of the project area,nor does it discuss the relative capacity of the resources to absorb greater use. The recreati.on plan proposed by the Applicant took into consideration recreation demand with the project and sensitive resource areas in terms of natural value,durability and recreation carrying capacities (License Application,Exhibit E,Volume 8,Chapter 7,Pages 43 through 47 and Pages 62 through 95).As a result of this effort,facilities were proposed which would meet projected demand and disperse use to minimize competition and protect sensitive resource areas. The plan addresses the requirements of the FERC regulations regarding recreation.In view of the abundance of recreational resources,and the paucity of road-accessible opportuni ties in the region,the plan wi 11 well serve the gE~neral publ ic. 47771 Technical Comment SSC008 .- SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM ,....TOPIC AREA:Population,Population Projections LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-38 Section 3.1.8.1 Paragraph 8 of the page,.... (Table 3-4) f"".COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The DEIS discusses three sets of baseline projections. They compare thj~three and choose from among them the ISER baseline for r-calcUlating socio,economic impacts. TECHNI CAL COMMENT:The DEIS ..SOC1.oeconom1.C forecasts for the Matanuska-Susitna ,~ Borough are based.on a report published in February 1983 by the Institute af Social and Economic Research (ISER)for the university of Alaska (ISER 1983a). These forecasts were computed by ISER by disaggregating a set of statewide forecas ts.which were also published in February 1983. The statewide forecasts from which the DEIS forecasts were derived were generated by ISER I S Man-in~·the-Arctic Program (MAP)Model (ISER 1983b).The forecasts are based on a seriE~s of assumptions concerning Alaska state petroleum revenues, industrial developments,and a number of other economic and demographic factors. These statewide forecasts were then distributed to each of 20 regions by a regionalization submodel.This submodel disaggregates statewide forecasts based on expectations i.n each region for bas ic and certain other economic development, leaving the sum total of regional population,employment,and all other forecasted factors equal to the state total for each year.Shifts in development trends among regions are not assumed to occur. Differences between the DEIS and License Application forecasts for the Mat-Su ,.,Borough are attributable mostly to the application of two different sets of I assumptions and different disaggregation procedures. n 44131 ..- - ..... -. Technical Comment SSC008 Page 3 among regions.The advisability of taking into account such region-specific factors is suggested throughout the documentation of the MAP Model.See for example,page E-l of the License Application Volume 2B,ISER (l983b)and the first page of the Introduction of ISER (l983a). While such shifts are relatively unimportant for the Railbelt as a whole,as indicated on Page E-25 of License Application Volume 2B,they are quite important for the Mat-Su Borough. In v~ew of the advan.tages offered by the Applicant's population forecasts for the Mat-Su Borough,i.t is suggested that the socioeconomic impact analyses presented in the DEIS be revised and based on the Applicant's forecasts • 44131 Technical Comment SSC008 Page 2 The differences l.n assumptions are l.n exogenous economic development scenarios and in state petroleum revenue levels.Of these two fac tors,the different assumptions for state petroleum revenues loS by far the more important l.n explaining differences in the statewide forecasts from which the two sets of regional forecasts are derived.The DEIS forecasts are based on state petroleum revenue forecasts generated in December 1982,while the License Application regional forecasts are based on petroleum revenue forecasts from 1981,at which time world oil prices were higher and future state revenues were expected to be at higher levels. The DEIS forecasts were prepared using the MAP Model's regionalization submodel, which disaggregates·statewide forecasts mostly on the basis of existing distribution of employment and population and expected exogenous developments that are at tributed to specific regions.The License Application forecasts were disaggregated from ~P Model forecasts for the six-region Railbelt,taking into account recent and expected trends in employment and population shifts between regions.In this disaggregation process,it was assumed that the recent trend toward greater development in the area north of Anchorage will continue,and that the overall growth rate in the Mat-Su Borough will be substantially greater than for the Railbelt as a whole. The License Application socioeconomic forecasts for the Mat-Su Borough offer two major advantages over those used in the DEIS.First,the state petroleum revenue forecasts used in the License Application socioeconomic forecasts for the Mat-Su Borough are substantially closer to those used in the July 1983 filing in support of the need for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project than are the revenue forecasts from which the DEIS forecasts are derived.The basis for the higher revenue forecasts used in the July filing is explained in detail in License Application Volume 2A. Second,the methods used in the License Application for disaggregating forecasts to the Mat-Su Borough take into account the trends in and expectation for shifts 44131 -, - Technical Comment SSC009 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIKONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FOlUl TOPIC AREA:Subsistence,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 3-41 Section 3.1.8.2 Paragraph 4 of the COMMENT IN RE:FERENCE TO:The discussion notes the importance of subsistence use and conflicts about the issue of subsistence use TECHNICAL COMMENT:The DEIS discussion of subsistence use is based on data - -i I~ for locations outside the proposed project area (DEIS Appendix N).There is no indication that project area communities are similar to locations where specific data exists.Without demonstrating this similari ty no generalization about the project area should be made from the data. See Technical Comment SSC104. 44131 -Technical Comment SSC010 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Population,Subsistence - - - - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Pages 3-44 to 3-49 Section 3.1.8.7 All paragraphs COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The assessment of human use of wildlife resources for the Susitna Project. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The Affected Environment and Envirornnencal Impact Sections of DElS Vol 1 include extensive discussions regarding human use of wildlife resources.This same topic has not been addressed for any of the five hydro alternatives or the thermal alternatives.Consequently I the overall impacts attributable to the alternative projects are likely to be greater than indicated. This comment also applies to DEIS Section 4.1.8. 44131 -- Technical Comment SSCOll SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IHPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-52 Section 3.1.9.3 Paragraphs 4-5 of page- TOPIC AREA:Visual Resources,Proposed Project 1 1 ,I COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Significant v~ews of project area TECHNICAL COMMENT:Discussion of viewsheds,of the affected environment, and visual sensitivity of areas would grea~ly assist ~n preparing discussions of impacts relative to the proposed projec t facili ties.The visual sensitivity of the area is particularly important in evaluating the overall significance of the visual impact.Information related to number of viewers,position and duration of views,distance from viewer and v~ewer intent would bring this section up to the level of discussion of visual impacts for the transmission line presented in DEIS Appendix M. 48931 Technical Comment SSC012 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-53 Section 3.1.10 Paragraph 2 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"•••study area for the proposed project contains a total of 423 •••sites ll TECHNICAL COMMENT:The numbers of affected sites in Watana dam and .... - l ! impoundment,Devil Canyon dam and impoundment,along access routes and along transmission lines do not match data in Table 4.5 of DAM (1984).FERC Staff should reVl.ew the data and correct the figures or explain the discrepancy • 46021 - Jll!II"fi!.. .... ~, ~I ,.., I I I Technical Comment SCCD13 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-53 Section 3.1.10 Paragraph 4 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Only one of the sites assessed to date has been termed.insignificant •••a large proportion of sites in the proposed •••impoundment areas (but not other project areas)will be judged significant." TECHNICAL CONMENT:Sites assessed to date appear to have been selected for systematic testing because reconnaissance survey yield a large number of artifacts.Hence,these sites may be atypical of the majority of sites 1.n the project ~Lrea.See Technical Comment SSC126. The stat.ement that sites outside impoundment areas will probably not be significant is questionable.The text should be revised to drop the parenthetical phrase "(but not other project areas).ll 46031 - ,..... I - Technical Comment SSC014 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources .LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-56 Section 3.2.10 Paragraph 8 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"It appears likely that the majority of these sites,which lack a stratigraphic context,will not be termed significant." TECHNICAL COMMENT:The stratigraphic context of a site is important,but it ~s not the only factor consid~red in evaluating significance.Site significance is a function of the extent to which data recovery at the site can answer research questions important in project area prehistory.The statement should be rephrased as follows:"•••it appear s 1 ike ly tha t the majority of these sites,Which lack a stratigraphic context,will not be termed significant unless these sites are shown to contribute information important in answering research questions in topics other than chronology.1I 46041 ...... .- - Technical Comment SSC015 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts LOCATION IN HEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-57 Section 3.2.10 Paragraph 2 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"A high proportion of these sites are likely ••• 1"""1 I I '1 I ,.., i I 1""'1' I significant,since a majority possess volcanic tephra stratigraphy.'1 TECHNICAL COMMENT:The presence of tephra stratigraphy is not a sufficient Cal though it may prove to be necessary in some cases).criterion for significance.Artifact type and density and artifact distribution within a particular site must be adequate to address specific research questions. The sentence should be rephrased as follows:·IIA high proportion of these sites are likely to be judged significant,since a majority possess volcanic tephra stratigraphy and may contain materials whose investigation can answer research que.stions important to the project area.II 46051 1 I p...l I I "'"" -- - Technical Comment SSCOl6 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Resources.Al ternatives.Thermal LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-62 Section 3.3.9 Para 2,3.&4 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Descriptions of visual resources. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The DEIS does not discuss the alternatives in enough detail to allow for an adequate evaluation or compar~son.This section should include discussion of visual quality.visual absorption capabilities. prominentviewsheds.viewer numbers,view duration,visual impacts related to roads and.transmission lines.and visual resources lost or impac ted and their significance. comparison of the thermal scenarios should also be made to the Proposed Project in the same terms.Discussions should include impacts caused by a~r pollution and strip mining.as well as associated trains and pipelines.The comparison should be made combining the impacts for the entire hydrothermal scenar~o versus the Proposed Project,not just by individual alternatives sites. Please refer to Appendix III of this document for further information. 48941 Technical Comment SSC017 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT..-DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts,Natural Gas Plants LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-62 Section 3.4 Paragraph 6 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Few cultural resources have been discovered 1.n the areas that would be affected by the natural gas generation scenario." TECHNICAL COMMENT:FERC staff should clarify how the "areas"are being defined.Although the nElS notes that surveys would be necessary to adequately assess impacts in these areas,the DEIS should make it clear that the lack of known resources is a result of lack of survey,not necessarily a lower site dl~nsity than in the Proposed Project area • ...,. ! 46061 ,~ ..... I I ~, Technical Comment SSC018 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Coal Plants LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-64 Section 3.4.7 Paragraphs 3-5 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Discussion of recreation resources TECHNICAL COMMENT:Discussion of recreation resources related to alternative sites needs to be more detailed in order to evaluate impacts and make fair comparisons with the Proposed Project.The DEIS should describe existing and proposed recreation sites as well as general levels of use l.n the vicinity of the al ternative project sites.Additional information on 1 I 1 '1 I recreation for the alternative hydro sites is available.See Appendix II of this document for more information on recreation for those areas. The fallowing references also include relevant recreation information:ADNR 1983a,ADNR and USDASCS 1982,ADNR et ale 1984,ADNR 1981. 48051 .- i ! -I ! Technical Comment SSC019 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Resources,Alternatives,Thermal LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-64 Section 3.4.9 Paragraph 6 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Descriptions of visual resources. values,absorption capabilities,and levels of use for all areas affected including transmission line and access roads. ~. I TECHNICAL COMMENT:This section should include discussions of scenic l 1 \i 1 i Please refer to Appendix III of this document for more information. See also ADNR and USDASCS (1983b)for resources at Nenana and Healy coal mines and scenic designations,and ADNR (1981)for the same areas.See also Technical Comment SSC049. 48951 Technical Comment SSC020 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT !TECHNICAL COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:Land Use,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-65 Section 3.5.1.2 Paragraph 8 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Several homesteads at Parson Lake TECHNICAL COMMENT:Change "Parsonll to "Larson". ,-, ! I I l i I l I 45591 Technical Comment No.SSC021 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNI CAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Hydroelectric,Alterna:tives LOCATION:Vol 1 Page 3-70 Section 3.5.7 Paragraphs 1-5 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Discussion of recreation resources TECHNICAL COMMENT:More information should be provided regarding recreation resources within the areas of the aLternatives. SSC018 and Appendix II of this document. 48061 See Technical Comment .., I !-I ~ I I -! ..... i 1 I 11 I Technical Comment SSC022 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Resources~Alternatives,Hydroelectric LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 3-71 Section 3.5.9 Paragraphs 5-10 9f the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Discussion of visual resources. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The DEIS does not discuss the alternatives 1.n enough detail to allow for an adequate evaluation or comparison.More information 1.S needed to adequately evaluate impacts of these alternatives and make comparisons wi the the proposed project.Discussions should include information on:visual quality of areas,visual absorption capabilities, prominent viewsheds,viewer numbers,view duration,visual impacts related to roads and transmission lines (including discussion of significance of visual impact from relocating major highways and railroad),and discussion of visual resources lost or impacted and their significance. In brief,the visual quality of the alternative sites tend to be as high or higher than the Proposed Project,the visual sensitivity of the sites is much greater,and a number of areas of state or nationally des ignated significance would be affected (compared to none for the Proposed Project)• Refer to Appendix II of this document for more information which should be included in the FEIS. 48961 1 ! 1"''\ - n, ! ! ~. I I Technical Comment SSC023 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page.3-71 Section 3.5.10 Paragraph 11 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Cultural resource sites are unknown in most of the areas that would be affected by the combined hydro-thermal scenario." TECHNICAL COI1MENT:See Technical Comment SSC017. 46071 ...., I""'f I I Technical Comment SSC024 ,-,. I SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-47 Section 4.1.7 Paragraph 3 of the page I I I COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Construction impacts on fishing sites TECHNICAL COMMENT:Although construction activities will alter some existing fish habitat,the DEIS should clearly place these resources and impacts into perspective,particularly concerning the construction of cofferdams,diversion tunnels,and dredging of the river.Currently,there 1.S very little or no sport fishing use of these sites,mainly due.to inacessibility and because these areas are in the glacially-affected mainstem which 1.S generally considered to be too turbid.for recreational fishing.Also,any 1.ncrease 1.n sediments due to construction is not anticipated to have any substantial effect due to the already high turbidity levels present in the Susitna.Therefore,it 1.S not anticipated that these construction activities will have an effect on fishing sites either at the construction site or downstream. ~ I I '"'"'I ! 49251 'i I I ""'l I I I Technical Comment SSC025 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-47 Section 4.1.7 Paragraph 6 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Prime sport fishing areas inundated TECHNICAL COJMMENT:The term tlprimel'regarding the tributaries mentioned is not approprLate in terms of popularity or fishing demand.The phrase "prime sport fishing areas"should be qualified so that the reader understands what is meant and so that an appropriate evaluation of impacts can be made.The following information would help qualify this phras-e: o Sport fish in the tributaries mentioned consists almost entirely of grayling ...., o While the resource (grayling)may be high quality ~n terms of numbers and size,the streams receive very little use due to their in,accessibility.Access to many tributaries is available only by helicopter with the nearest point of departure being the airport at Talkeetna,which is approximately a one-hour flight away • o !h,e tributaries are not "prime tl ~n terms of recreation demand. Th,ey are not on the same level of populari ty as salmon fishing and many good grayling streams exist that are much more easily accessible than the tributaries mentioned. 49221 - - - Technical Comment SSC026 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-47/48 Section 4.1.7 Paragraph 7 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Important fishing areas,recreation,impacts TECHNICAL COMMENT:Although the mouths of Tsusena and Fog Creeks may have spawning habitat for grayling and other species,they should not be considered important fishing areas because there ~s little or no use of these areas,primarily due to inaccessibility (See Technical Comment SSC025)• 49281 - I""'l, - - Technical Comment SSC027 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Resources,Visual Impacts,Transmission Lines and Corridors. LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page,4-48 Section4.l.7 Paragraph 7 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Significant"visual impacts of transmission line versus "incremental"impacts. TECHNICAL COMMENT:This paragraph 1.S confusing.FERC Staff states that visual'impacts would be significant,then later states that the visual impacts would be incremental since the lines would parallel existing facilities.Does FERC staff mean that the visual impacts are both incremental and significant?If so,what is the basis for the impacts being significant relative to similarly significant visual impacts of those portions of the transmission line not paralleling existing facilities? 48991 Technical Comment SSC028 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Population,Impacts i I ~ , I~ ~ I I ,~ ! I LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4 ...49 Section 4.1.8 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERl~NCE TO:The lead...in statement for this section notes that "the principal socioeconomic impacts related to the proposed Susitna project would be of the kinds commonly called 'boomtown'sudden,rapid,growth in population in a rural area,followed by a •••'bust'period". TECHNICAL COMMENT:This introductory statement sets the tone for much of the impacts chapter.The concepts of "boomtownll or "boom-bust"occur frequently throughout the section..The impression is that the "area"will experience this "boom,"a concept that is a subject of controversy and misunderstanding among socioeconomists.There certainly is agreement among parties (ISER,Applicant, and FERC Staff)that the communities of Trapper CreE:!k,Cantwell,and (to a smaller degree)Talkeetna are likely to experience.high growth rates.There is less agreement about the portion of expected growth that will be associated with the Proposed Project.The sources of disagreement stem from differences ~n baseline (without Project)projections,allocation of Project-related (impact) populations to communities,and the combination of baseline-project projections. To illustrate the variation ~n conclusions that can be created by varying combinations:if the ISER baseline ~s combined with the Borough impact projection,the project will create an increase of 118%over the baseline in 1990.If the Borough baseline is combined with Applicant impact projections,a 17%increase results.The difference between these percentages and the other impacts that are driven by population is significant.To further complicate interpretation,town boundaries and impact population retention rates are different for the models. 44131 Technical Comment SSC029 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Population Projections - - - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-50 Section 4.1.8 Paragraph 2 of the page (Table 4-4) COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The DEIS "revised applicant impac t projections" were based on an assignment o~inmigrants to several towns not included in the Appli.cant I s projections. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The Applicant submitted a rev~s~on of their impact projections to FERC on April 30,1984 (FOA 1984a).The revisions included an assignment of inmigrants to the towns added to the analysis in the DElS:Paxson, Healy,and Nenana. ""'"44131 Technical Comment SSC030 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM. TOPIC AREA:Speculative In-migration,Impacts,Population LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-50 Section 4.1.8 Paragraphs 1 and 8 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:A concern ~s expressed that the number of in-migrating job seekers will exceed the number of available jobs.The concern is based on the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline experience,has important consequences for the level of community services impacts.- TECHNICAL COMMENT:A report entitled The Assessment of the Potential for ,_Speculative In-migration is being prepared by the applicant.The report analyzes the level of speculative inmigration that occurred during construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS),the Revelstoke Hydroelectric Project and the Colorado Oil Shale Project.The analysis resulted in identification of project character-istics (variables)that affec.ted speculative inmigration.These,... variables were then examined for the Proposed Project. The identified variables were:1)size of peak construction work force,2) number of years to build up,3)amount of media exposure,4)site/community. ".... ,.... -44131 Technical Comment SSC03l SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:Impacts,Subsistence LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Section 4.1.8 Page 4-55 Paragraph 5 of the page -COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Impact on subsistence use ~n the Proposed Project area and its consequences for Native Alaskan culture TEGHNI CAL COMMENT:Several statements are made about the Proposed Project I s f"""potential impacts on subsistence activities and subsequent impacts on the economy and cultural heritage of Native Alaskans.Since no baseline levels of subsistence activities were established in earlier sections,the conclusion about impacts are premature (See Technical Comment SSC009)• ..... _44131 Technical Comment SSC032 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Transmissions and Corridors,Land Use LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-58 Sec tion 4.L 8 Paragraph 1 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:IIIf the proposed transmission line route went ,- .- ~, through existing residential areas or areas planned for development, controversies over reductions 1.n property values near the right-of-way would be expected.TemporCllry losses •••have been documented in some cases.II TECHi'HCAL COMMENT:The citation given in the DEIS (Appendix N,p.N-63)to support the statement about _transmission line effects on property values is an environmental study for a 450 kV transmission line proposed to connect New England with Quebec.The citation is not the best available on the 1.ssue.A more comprehesive document was produced by Mountain West Reserach,Inc.(1981). This document concludes that effects on land values are very site specific.Most research has.been conducted in urban and suburban areas and most pre"';'1975 research had methodological problems.Very little evidence 1.S available for asseSS1.ng.effects on remote areas.The transmission line for the Proposed Project crosses a variety of settings and is parallel to an existing line.In sum,there is no l~vidence available to indicate that the transmission line would have any significant effects on land values • This comment also applies to DEIS Vol 7 Page N-63 Section N.2.L4,Page N-63, Paragraph 4 of the page. 44131 ,- Technical Comment SSC033 '-~.---.- SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Population Projections,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS: page (Table 4-10) Vol 1 Page 4-58 Section 4.1.8 Paragraph 2 of the COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:1I •••inmigrants would change the way some community services are provided and severely stress current capacities.II The DEIS, with reference to Table 4-10,notes the kind,number,and timing of project- induced demand •. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The sensitivity of community.service impacts to baseline projections does not rece~ve adequate attention.Depending upon which baseline one chooses (see Tecnnical Comments SSC008 and SSC028),the timing and,hence,the planning needs for impacts can vary greatly.The timing is, of course,also sensitive to variation between models in baseline and "with- project ll numbers,and lack of agreement about both numbers,points to the importance of an effective monitoring program and a mitigation plan with flexibility to react to monitoring data. 44131 Technical Comment SSC034 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Impacts,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-64 Section 4.1.9 Paragraph 6 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:•••much of the highly scenic Vee Canyon area would be inundated." TECHNICAL CO:MMENT:Vee Canyon is approximately 300,..500 feet deep.The project will inundate only approximately 185 feet of this depth.This comment should be restated to indicate that the rapids through the highly scenic Vee Canyon area would be inundated. 49011 Technical Comment SSC035 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIROBMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Impacts,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-68 Section 4.1.9 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:No intention of opening the railroad to public, therefore,no opportunities for new views. TECHNICAL COMMENT:A final determination on the long term use of the railroad line has not yet been made by APA;public use has not been precluded. .... .... .... This comment:also applies to DElS Vol 6 Paragraph 2 of the page • 48861 Page M-53 Section 3.1.3.3 i~ - - - Technical Comment SSC036 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Impacts,Transmission Lines and Corridors LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-68 Section 4.1.9 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Transmission line right-of-way 1.S 300-510 ft.wide ·TECHNICAL COMMENT:Where the proposed transmission line parallels and shares the Intertie right-of-way (between willow and Healy),actual new right-of-way required would be approximate 1y 170 or 230 feet wide. 49021 ..... Technical Comment SSC037 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-68 Section 4.1.10 All paragraphs of section COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Number of sites subject to impacts TECHNICAL COMMENT:The numbers given for sites to be impacted by i~ construction and operation of various project segments do not match those provided by UAM (1984,Table 5.1).FERC staff should review the data and correct the figures or explain the reason for the discrepancies. 46081 Technical Comment SSC038 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM -TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources - - - -. - LOCATION IN DElS:Vol 1 Page 4-69 Section 4.1.10 Paragraphs 1-8 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Assessment of site significance TECHNICAL COMMENT:The term "significant"when used is generally understood to mean "eligible for tne National Register of Historic Places."No determinations of National Register eligibility have been made for any of the sites in the study area •.The text should be revised. 46091 - Technical Comment No.SSC039 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Alternatives,Transmission Lines and Corridors LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-75 Section 4.2.7 Paragraph 6 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Assuming that the relatively numerous public and private recreation areas could be avoided during final alignment,the transmission lines would constitute significant visual impacts." - - -TECHNICAL GOMMENT:This statement 1S confusing and needs some - clarification.Does FERC Staff intend to say that,assuming that the numerous recreation areas are avoided in the final alignment,the only significant impact to the public would be the lines'visual impact?Also, part of the reason that the other alternative transmission line corridors were not selected was because of their impact or proximity to recreation areas and areas of higher recreational use. 48141 - Technical Comment SSC040 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources .- - - - -i I I'[ I LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-76 Section 4.2.1.0 All paragraphs of section COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Assessment of site significance TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC038. 46111 Technical Comment SSC04l SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts,Alternatives ...... - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-76 Section 4.2.10 All paragraphs of section COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Use of term "potential impacts";mitigation through monitoring TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comments SSC002 and SSC003. 46121 - Technical Comment SSC042 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts,Alternatives """ LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-76 Section 4.2.10 Paragraph 5 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"The area of the Watana I reservoir would be - subject to the same impacts on cultural resources as the proposed Watana development except •••11 TECHNICAL COMMENT:Note that exact site elevations are unavailable at - - present because detailed contour mapping based on engineering surveys has not yet been undertaken.Site elevations are probably only accurate within 20 feet since the USGS maps have contour intervals of 100 feet.FERC Staff should reV1ew the analysis 1n th is paragraph and revise the wording accordingly. 46101 - .... - - - - Technical Comment SSC043 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-77 Section 4.2.10 Paragraph 1 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:1I •••indirect impacts •••due to destabilization of slopes and increased erosion." TECHNICAL COMMENT:Note that detailed information on impacts from slope destabilization and erosion is not yet available.In addition,impacts might be av.oided by moving the borrow areas,limiting their extents,or stabilizing slopes near archeologica.l sites.FERC Staff should rephrase statements on destabilization of slopes and erosion to indicate that impacts "mightll (rather than "would")occur.Also,a statement such as tne one above,on the potential for mitigating these,impacts,should be added. 46131 Technical Comment SSC044 - SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT .-TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Natural Gas Plants LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-79 Section 4.3.7 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:n •••it is unlikely that developing five combined- cycle gas plants •••would appreciably impact existing recreation patterns here.n TECHNICAL COMMENT:Impacts to existing recreation activities and resources could be extremely significant if access roads connecting these sites with the Anchorage area are constructed as a result of these projects.The area's close proximity to the Anchorage population could result in a drastic increase ~n recreation use and resultant impacts on existing recreation activities and area fish and wildlife resources. I!"" I "... - 48171 .- -- - .... - - -- - Technical Comment SSC045 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FOD TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Natural Gas Plants LOCATION IN lDEIS:Vol I Page 4-79 Sec tion 4.3.7 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Two natural gas-fired plants near Kenai would not appreciably impact recreation opportunities TECHNICAL COMMENT:This statement ~s difficult to substantiate without knowing locations of actual sites and related facilities such as transmission lines,pipelines,and access roads.In view of the proximity of proposed plants to existing recreation resources,it is unlikely that facilities could be sited without significant visual or no~se impacts. Due to the popularity of these areas for recreation,impacts could be significant.Potential impacts of these plants in the Kenai area could include~increased recreation demand from construction and operation personnel,impacts of associated transmission lines and pipelines on area recreation,and aesthetic impacts on recreationists due to the presence of the plants in an otherwise natural setting. 48181 Technical Comment SSC046 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ,...,TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts,Natural Gas Plants LOCATION IN DElS:Vol 1 page 4-80 Section 4.3.10 Paragraph 4 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Potential for impacts •••would appear to be limited." TECHNICAL COMMENT:This statement appears to contradict information presented in Appendix 0 (p.0-15)which notes that site specific surveys would be needed in both the Kenai>and Anchorage areas to assess impac ts. The statement also seems to contradict the last sentence in paragraph 4.3.10 which states the need for site-speci fie surveys and signi ficance assessments.The sentence should be rephrased as follows:"The potential for impacts to cultural resources 1n the designated locations for the natural 'gas-·fired generation scenario cannot be evaluated without site.-c specific surveys and signi ficance assessments."Al t ernatively,the ba sis for concluding that the potential for impacts appears to be limited should be clarified.Also,FERC Staff should explain briefly why avoidance and monitoring would be more feasible than data recovery. 46141 ~- .~ .... Technical Comment SSC047 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Coal Plants LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-84 Section 4.4.7 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Recreation impacts of three coal~fired plants at Nenana. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Recreation impacts of three coal-fired plants near Nenana would be more significant tnan stated.Impacts would include: o Loss of 450 acres of land near the Nenana and Tanana r1vers (both of which are proposed for recreation protection) o Noise (up to 1.5 miles away) o Increased access to r1vers and creeks o Up to three times the number of trains 1n the area o Increased demand resulting from up to 3,600 project-related people 1n the area for construction and 1,500 for operation o Impacts to sightseers from vapor plumes,reduced clarity of views, and reduction of color contrasts o Related impacts from mining operations 48191 ,.... ..... ..... - Technical Comment SSC048 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources t Impacts t Coal Plants LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol I Page 4-84 Section 4.4.7 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Recreation impacts of mining at Healy TECHNICAL COMMENT:Potential recreation impacts related to m~n~ng ~n the Healy area could be significant and should be discussed.Impacts would include up to 2,250 acres of potential recreation land disturbed during the 30-year life of the coal plants t a significant increase in recreation demand in Healy due to project-related population increases of more than ltlOO persons,and impacts on recreation patterns due to increased train traffic to Nenana and Willow • 48201 Technical Comment SSC049 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Impacts,Alternatives,Thermal .....LOCATION IN DElS:Vol 1 Page 4-85 Section 4.4.9 Paragraphs 8-9 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO: plants. Potential visibility changes due to coal-fired TECHNICAL COI!1MENT:Visual impacts related to coal-fired alternatives should be discussed in greater detail. See Technical Comments ALTOO?and ALT044 for more information on visual impacts related to coal-fired plants. document. 49031 See also Appendix III of this Technical Comment SSC050 .- SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 'il"'"DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources Impacts,Coal Plants LOCATION IN DEISz Vol 1 Page 4-86 Section 4.4.10 Paragraph 2 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Impacts •••under this scenario would probably be limited." - """ - TECHNICAL COMMENT:This statement appears to partially contradict information in Appendix 0 (pp.0-L5/l6)which notes that "significant.••sites would occur (in the Nenana area]"and that the Cook Inlet area has numerous sites.This statement should be rephrased as follows:l~mpacts to cultural resources in the designated locations for units that would be developed under this scenario cannot be evaluated without site-specific surveys and significance assessments."Alternatively, the basis for concluding that the potential for impacts appears to be limited should be clarified.Also,FERC Staff should explain why avoidance and monitoring would be more feasible than data recovery. 46151 - Technical Comment SSC05l SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-86 Section 4.5.1.2 Paragraph 9 of page- TOPIC AREA:Land Use,Impacts,Alternatives - .-i - - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Browne project inundation area TECHNICAL COMMENT:Given the distribution of planned ADNR land disposals indicated in Figure F-4 of the DEIS,it would appear that the inundation area for the Browne Project would affect disposal land.In fact;detailed land disposal map information shows that the dam and reservoir would be built on disposal lands.The reservoir would almost entirely inundate the Healy Agricultural Subdivision and numerous other disposal tracts.The access and utility corridors for the Browne Project would also cross disposal lands. 45601 ..... - - - Technical Comment SSC052 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Alternatives LOCATION IN DElS:Vall Page 4-88 Section 4.5.7 Paragraph 7 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Recreation impacts are not fully described • TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC056. 48231 Technical Comment SSC053 - SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Land Use,Impacts,Alternatives,Hydroelectric LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-89 Section 4.5.8 Paragraph 5 of the page - - - - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The inundation of areas or structures as a result of the Johnson impoundment TECHNICAL COMMENT:DEIS Appendix N (Sec N.2.3.3.l,Paragraphs 2 and 8) mentions of a number of possible impacts that would result from the Johnson impoundment which are not discussed in Vol 1.The most ser~ous of these impacts would be the inundation of the Native Community of Dot Lake.Other impacts noted in DEIS Appendix N but omitted in Volume 1 include the possible inundation of a lodge near the dam site and a portion of a pipeline.Other serious impacts not mentioned in either the DEIS or Appendix N would be inundation of a religious community at Dry Creek called the Living Word,and innundation of 30,000 acres of palustrine wetlands. 49751 - - Technical Comment SSC054 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Land Use,Impacts,Alternatives,Hydroelectric LOCATION IN DETS:Vol 1 Page4-89 Section 4.5.8 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The inundation of areas or structures as a result of the Johnson site impoundment. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Detailed map information (see Appendix II of this document for map representation)shows that areas or structures other than those mentioned in the DEIS might also be inundated.These would include a hignway maintenance station,three gravel pits,two gaging stations,a telephone line,and airstrips at Dot Lake and the Living Word.Dot Lake ~s a primarily Native community of approximately 70 persons.The Living Word is a religious community of approximately 200 persons occupying land near Dry Creek th,at would also be inundated. This comment also applies to DEIS Vol 7 Page N-70 Section N.2.3.3.l Paragraph 5 of the page. 49171 -~, - - ., I Technical'Connnent SSC055 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Impacts.Alternatives.Hydroelectric LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-90 Section 4.5.9 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Description and evaluation of visual impacts. TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC022. 49041 Technical Comment SSC056 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Alternatives - - ~, LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-97 Section 4.7.7 Paragraph 1,2,3 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Discussion of impacts TECHNICAL COMMENT:The comparison of alternative project impacts to the Proposed Project impacts should also discuss the importance of recreation resources lost as well as'just total acreage lost.Other impacts that 'should be discussed include:the amount of remote areas newly accessed; total mileage of transmission lines and access roads in sensitive areas; increased recreation demand due to access,construction and operation personnel,and other project facilities;and comparisons of existing use affected by each scenario. Please refer to Appendix II of this document for a compar~son of recreation impacts from the Proposed Project and the non-Susitna hydro alternatives. 49231 .- - ""'" - ."""'1 I ~echnical Comment SSC057 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:Population LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-98 Section 4.7.8 Paragraph 2 COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Healy having a largely Native population;being a primarily small Native community;naving a large proportion of Natives. TECHNICAL COMMENT:U.S.Bureau of Census,Census of Population and Housing figures for 1980 show the total population of Healy to be 334 including 317 Whites,4 American Indians,12 Eskimos,and 1 other.Based on these figures, Healy does not have a largely Native population. 44131 - - - ,.... - ..... Technical Comment SSC058 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Impacts,Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-99 Section 4.7.10 Paragraph 3 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Validity of evaluation and basis of evaluation TECHNICAL COMMENT:This section appears to equate the level of impact with number of sites affected.However,factors such as relative significance (or non-significance),mitigation costs,type of impact,-and the relationsnip to an overall mitigation plan all need to be considered. FERC Staff should review the data in light of these factors and alter the conclusions a~necessary. 46171 - i~ - Technical Comment SSC059 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Impacts,Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-99 Section 4.7.10 Paragraph 3 &4 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Use of term "potential impact" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC003. 46161 - Technical Comment SSC060 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Impacts,Cultural Resources,Access Roads LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4.-99 Section 4.7.10 Paragraph 4 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Basis of evaluation TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC058. 46181 TOPIC AREA: Technical Comment SSC06l SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM Impacts,Cultural Resources,Transmission Lines and Corridors - - "... LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-99 Section 4.7.10 Paragraph 5 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Basis of evaluation TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC058. 46191 - ..... Technical Comment SSC062 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Impacts,Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-99 Section 4.7.10 Paragraph 6 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Basis of evaluation TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC058. 46201 - f~ ~, Technical Comment SSC063 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Impacts t Cultural Resources t Alternatives t Thermal LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-99 Section 4.7.10 Paragraph 7 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Gas-fired and coal-fired scenarios would be less likely to have •••impacts t due to limited land disturbance." TECHNICAL COMMENT:This evaluation assumes that inundation is generally as destructive to archeological sites as construction.Susitna alternatives would indeed affect more land,but most of it would be in impoundments. This is something that needs to be evaluated in more detail t especially in light of the results of the National Reservoir Inundation Study.Coal-fired scenarios might impact as much or more land if one includes mine areas.In addition t OSM regulations concerning cultural resources could result in many National Register-eligible sites ~n mine areas being destroyed without mitigation.The net result may be more severe impacts under a coal-fired scenario.FERC Staff should rev~ew the evaluation in light of these issues and revise the conclusions accordingly. 46211 - .... .... .... .... .... Technical Comment SSC064 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 4-101 Section 4.10.2 Paragraphs 5-6 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Comparison of alternatives TECHNICAL COMMENT:The DEIS·should provide additional discussion of recreation resources and potential impacts.See Appendix II of this document for additional information on recreation impacts of the combined hydro-thermal alternative • 48401 o o .... - ..... ..... ...... ..... Technical Comment SSC065 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS=Vol 1 Page 5-6 Section 5.1.2.6 Paragraphs 1-5 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Significant recreation impacts of non-Susitna hydro alternatives TECHNICAL COMMENT:Significant recreation impacts listed for the non- Susitna hydroelectric alternative section should include: o Creation of new access to three remote areas Loss of significant fishing opportunities Sightseeing impact for recreationists in two National Parks,and one National Forest o Inundation of the Tanana,Talkeetna Rivers and Disappointment Creek,which are recommended for State protection. o Substantial increase in recreation demand would be created by the alternative hydro projects. See Appendix II of this document for additional discussion of potential recreation impacts related to the non-Susitna hydro alternatives • 48351 .... Technical Comment SSC066 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Access Roads.Population LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 5-8 Section 5.2.3 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Based on these considerations.the staff recommends that the Applicant adopt an alternative to the Denali Highway access plan that incorporates access from Gold Creek only." TECHNICAL COMMENT:The recommendation to change the access road ~s based solely on potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources.A more balanced approach is needed if the consequences for changing the access is to be fully understood.For example.if the Gold Creek access were used the population impacts would decrease for Cantwell and Healy but would increase significantly for Gold Creek and Talkeetna.Impacts at Trapper Creek could also increase to levels even higher than projected for the Denali Highway access.Moreover,the Railbelt from Talkeetna to Wasilla would also rece~ve increased impacts.The increase in population would,~n turn,produce increased demands for housing and a variety of community services and facilities. The approacll leading to the Applicant I s decision to propose the Denali Higllway access used a multidisplinary approach,attempting to balance the fish and wildlife concerns with socioeconomic,land use,recreation, hydrologic,geologic,engineering and econom~c concerns.FERC Staff conclusions about the Proposed Project (DEIS Section 5.1.1)and Alternatives (Section 5.1.2)are based on a multi-disciplinary approach.A similar analysis should be used before reaching conclusions about an alternative access route. 49651 - - - Technical Comment SSC067 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Impacts,Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 5-14 Section 5.3.9 Paragraph 3 &4 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Use of term "potential" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC003. 46231 - - - Technical Comment SSC068 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources - - - ,- LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 5-14 Section 5.3.9 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Twenty-two of these sites have been assessed as significant" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC038. 46221 """ - Technical Comment SSC069 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts,Mitigation - - - -- LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 5-14 Section 5.3.9 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Recommended mitigation •••[is]a monitoring program •••by the appropriate land-managing agency.1I TECHNICAL COMMENT:The land-managing agencies included should be identified.In many cases there may not be a state or federal agency involved (particularly lands which have been or are being conveyed to Native corporations). See Technical Comment SSC002. 46241 -- Technical Comment SSC070 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM -TOPIC AREA:Cul tural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 1 Page 5-14 Section 5.3.9 Paragraph 4 of the - - - - I~ - - - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Most.••sites occur in •••shallow •••contexts and appear to be of restricted areal extent,thus limiting the scope of investigation." TECHNICAL COMMENT:The extent of excavation necessary at a particular site to adequately mitigate adverse effects is not necessarily dependent upon its size.The extent of data recovery is determined by the way in which a site can contribute to the solution of specific research questions.Factors such as the size of the artifact sample necessary to address research questions will determine how much.of a site is excavated.The text should be rephrased as follows:"Most of these sites occur in relatively shallow sedimentary contexts and appear to be of restricted aerial extent.The limited extent and depth of sites,in conjunction with sampling methods to be developed in the mitigation plan,will likely limit the scope of data recovery." 46251 Technical Comment SSC071 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 1 Page 5-15 Section 5.4.5 Paragraph 6 of the page- TOPIC AREA:Population Projections COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:liThe Applicant states that studies are being conducted to:Update baseline and project-induced population projectionsl! TECHNI CAL COMMENT:The report summarizing this work was compLeted March,1984 - - ,..., - and submitted to FERC on April 30,1984.See FOA (1984a). 44131 Technical Comment SSC072 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT _TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Transmission Lines and Corridors,Land Management COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Currently only baseline information has been prepared and no policies or draft plans have been published." - .- LOCATION IN DElS:Vol 3 Page F-24 Section F .1.2.2.2 Paragraph 2 of the page - - ,- - TECHNICAL COMMENT:A plan map (ADNR and USDASCS 1982)and various resource elements (ADNR and USDASCS 1983a-1983f)were released in 1983 as the basis for the forthcoming Tanana Basin Area Plan.The Public Review Draft Tanana Basin Area Plan was published in May 1984 (ADNR and USDASCS 1984).The final will be available in October 1984.Also,the Fairbanks-North Star Borough Draft Comprehensive Plan,Side 1 and 2 maps,was released ~n January 1984 (FNSB 1984).The contents of these plans should be addressed 10 the FEIS. 45491 - Technical Comment SSC073 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Land Use,Transmission Lines and Corridors -LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 3 Page F-24 Section F.l.2.2.2 Paragraph 5 of the - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Discussion of state land ownership along the proposed transmission line route indicates that the Willow-Anchorage route extends through state land.The DEIS states "Much of the area is current ly used as state recreation lands and game refuges." TECHNICAL COMMENT:The last statement 1n the paragraph 1S incorrect insofar as it could give the mistaken impression that most of the Willow- Anchorage transmission line is routed across recreation and refuge lands. While much of the area east of the Susitna River,south of Willow and north of Point MacKenzie is recreation and refuge land (as noted on page F-20 of the DEIS),the proposed route in this area has been carefully chosen so that it only crosses 4 miles of the 302,OOO-acre Susitna Flats Game Refuge and does not cross the Nancy Lake Recreation Area.The portion of the corridor south of Knik Arm does not include such recreation and refuge lands. 45501 - ..... - Technical Comment SSC074 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Land Use,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 3 Page F-33 Section F.2.1.1.1 Paragraph 3 of the page - ..... COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The impact analysis states that land mqnagement 1n the project area is passive with few applicable definite management plans or regulations. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The draft Susitna Area Plan and the BLM Land Use Plan for Southcentral Alaska recommend lands which are within or around the Proposed Project area for multiple-use management (ADNR et.al.1984,BLM 1980)The Susitna Area Plan States:"most public lands are intended to be managed for multiple use.For this reason,the plan establishes management guidelines that will allow various uses to occur without serious conflicts. Management guidelines can direct the timing,amount,or specific location of different activities in order to'make the permitted uses compatible.II It goes on to say,liThe purpose of the plan is to layout a set of management policies for state and borough lands that will allow these lands to produce the greatest possible public benefits.1I 45511 ,.,... - - - Technical Comment SSC075 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DIPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Land Use,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DElS:Vol 3 Page F-36 Section F.2.1.1.2 Paragraphs 2-4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Discussion of land use planning efforts in project area reference only BLM (Denali Planning Block),Mat-Su Borough comprehensive plan,Talkeetna Mountains,and coastal zone plans. TECHNICAL C9MMENT:The Susitna Area Plan (ADNR et a1.1984),which was mentioned but not described on p.F-16 contains an overv~ew of .the management intent for the Talkeetna Mountain Subregion (including the project area)which states,lithe Talkeetna Subregion will be managed as a multiple use area emphasizing the uses that are most important in the area now ••••Additional road access to the area and concentrated settlement on public lands will be contingent on a demonstrated need for such development in order to facilitate activities such as mining or dam construction.IT In addition,a special section on the Susitna Hydroelectric Project addresses mitigation measures for a number of indirect impacts to land use,ownership, settlement and recreation that would occur with the project.Consequently, the Proposed Project would not adversely affect management of the Talkeetna Mountain Subregion. 45521 - Technical Comment SSC076 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL lHPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Land Use,Impacts,Alternatives,Hydroelectric ,-LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 3 Pages F-41 to 45 Section F.2.3 All paragraphs - - - .... ..- COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Identification of land use impacts of non-Susitna generation alternatives only addresses major land types and project acreage requirements. TECHNICAL COMMENT:There are qualitative and quantitative differences between areas.For example,recreational lands on the Kenai Peninsula or on the Talkeetna River are likely to be used by more recreationists and be valued more highly by recreationists than similar lands affected by some of the other alternatives.(See Appendix II of this document for more information)• 45531 - Technical Comment SSC077 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DfPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMElfr FORK TOPIC AREA:Land Use,Impacts,Alternatives,Hydroelectric COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Description of Browne Project inundating 10,640 acres and portions of Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad. - - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 3 page F-45 Section F.2.3.3 Paragraph 2 of the page - - - TECHNICAL COMMENT:Effects on ADNR disposal areas should be included.See Technical Comment SSC051. 45541 Technical Comment SSC078 -SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ,-TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Mitigation,Land Management,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 3 Page F-48 Section F.3.1.1 Paragraph 3 of the - ,..., I~ - page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Land use plans for Proposed Project area developed in cooperation with jurisdictional agencies TECHNICAL COMMENT:The paragraph should be modified to state that the Applicant is cooperating with the agencies to develop and implement land management plans for the Proposed Project area.The current wording could be construed to indicate that the actual plan development and implementation will be done by the Power Authority with assistance from the managing agenc~es;the agencies possess the expertise and capability and should properly be described as leading this effort.This revision would be consistent with the discussion in the third paragraph or DEIS page F-49.· 45561 Technical Comment SSC079 - SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT -TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Alternatives -LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 6 Pages L-23 through L-26 Section L.1.4 - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Recreation activities,resources,levels of use and relative significance of recreation for areas of the alternative sites TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC018. 49191 Technical Comment SSC080 SUSITHA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIlWNHENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ,-TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 6 Page L-26 Section L.2.1 COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Levels of use and resource significance .- TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC007. -48021 """ -! Technical Comment SSC081 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 6 Page L-27 Section L.2.1.1.1 Paragraph 8 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Prime fishing areas inundated TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSCD25. 49241 Technical Comment SSC082 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DlPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources',Impacts,Watana LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 6 Page L-27 Section L.2 .1.1.1 Paragraph 8 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Vee Canyon 1.S a f1designated scenic resource area Ir TECHNICAL COMMENT:The state has not designated any scen1.C or recreation resources in the study area.By whom was this designation made? Land use of the Susi tna Hydroelectric Project area has been addressed in a number of planning studies and in legislation (ADNR et ale 1984,ALliC 1983, ANILCA 1980,BLM 1980).Generally,no outstanding natural features or significant wildlife values have been identified.Consequently,th is area has been designated for multiple uses such as mining,oil and gas development,developed public recreation,and hydroelectric development. 47691 Technical Comment SSC083 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT -TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 6 Page L-30 Section L.2.1.2.2 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Warmer water temperatures potentially affecting sportfishing downstream of Devil Canyon TECHNICAL COMMENT:Al though the temperature al teration could affect the freezing front,it is unclear how sportfishing activity would be adversely affected unless FERC Staff ~s considering ice fishing which constitutes an extremely small,if not non-existent,sportfishing opportunity ~n the Susitna River below Devil Canyon • .... ..... .... ....49261 Technical Comment SSC084 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIlIDRMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts -LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 6 Page 1-31 page Section L.2.l.3 Paragraph 2 of the ,~ - - - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Upgrading the 2l-mile section of Denali Highway will result in greater recreation use and jeapordize sensitive recreation resources currently unprotected. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Recreation demand studies presented in Exhibit E,Volume 8,Chapter 7 of the License Application found no significant recreation use· increase as a result of improving the highway.What are the sensitive recreation resources that are currently unprotected?These should be specified or this contention deleted in the FliIS. The development of recreation resources represents a significant component of current and future economy of the Mat-Su Borough and the unincorporated borough.The project areas have been identified for multiple-use management in both federal and state/borough land use plans,and recreation is a key component of multiple use in each plan.To abandon recreation development because of possible overuse ~n a region with extensive potential for development is not consistent with either state or Federal policy for this area. 47781 Technical Comment SSC085 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Access Roads COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO;"The more accessible areas might be overused,and the remote wilderness settings degraded." - - LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 6 Page L-3l Section L.2.l.3.l Paragraph 3 of the - ..... ..... - TECHNICAL COMMENT:This comment appears to be largely speculative.No data exist that point to sufficient demand for winter recreation to cause overuse.For much of the winter weather in general,and snow qual ity in particular,is not conducive to skiing.In view of the extent of resources available in the area,the general geographically dispersed nature of winter recreation activities,and the limited amount of winter recreation use now occurring,overuse ana degradation is unlikely.Unless this contention can be factually substantiated it should be deleted from the FEIS. 47761 - ~'-- Technical Comment SSC086 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT _TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,'Impacts,Proposed Project .....LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 6 Page L-32 Sec tion L.2.1.3.2 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Statement that road would be used by project personnel to access hunting and fishing areas. policy regarding use of the access road and area for hunting and fishing by project personnel has not yet been determined.The above statement should be rephrased to reflect this fact. - TECHNICAL COMMENT:The DEIS statement 1.S inaccurate and misleading.The - - - It 1.S anticipated that an acceptable policy will be developed and success- fully implemented after negotiation with all interested parties.Existing rules for project field personnel on the Susitna site do allow for firearms to be.carried,but only for protection from bears.No hunting 1.S allowed from project facilities or supported by project resources.Project personnel are permitted to bank-fish from their camp. 49271 ,- - Technical Comment SSC087 SUSIl'NA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIB.ONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Transmission Lines and Corridors COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:- LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 6 Page L-33 Section L.2.l.4.l Paragraph 7 of the page Transmission lines would be used for access to - - - ,.... remote areas and sensitive environmental areas might be degraded by excessl.ve use. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The proposed transmission line rights-of-way between the damsites and Gold Creek would parallel the proposed access road and rail spur access corridors.Therefore,it is unlikely that the transmission line corridors would increase access in excess of that provided by the road or rail spur. 47791 - ,- Technical Comment SSC088 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Natural Gas Plants LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 6 Page L-39 Section L.2.3.l Paragraph 5 of the page combined-cycle units would have a meaningful effect on contemporary recreation activities in the Beluga and Chuitna River areas. ,~ - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:It ~s unlikely that development of five,200-MW - TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC044. 47821 Technical Comment SSC089 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT _TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Natural Gas Plants -LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 6 Page L-39 Section L.2.3.1 Paragraph 6 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The si ting of two,200 MW combined-cycle units near Kenai and one along Turnagain Arm would have a minimal effect on recreation opportunities and experiences. - - - TECHNICAL 47831 COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC045. LOCATION IN DETS: - - I~ - Technical Comment SSC090 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Coal Plants Vol 6 Page L-39 Section 1.2.3.2 Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Impacts resulting from project facilities, emissions,and construction work TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comments SSC047 and SSC048. 47861 - Technical Comment SSC091 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIROBMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Hydroelectric Alternatives LOCATION IN DElS:Vol 6 Page L-40 Section L.2.3.3 Paragraph 2 to 7 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO: operation,and construction. Recreation impacts of project facilities, - - "'"'" TECHNICAL COMMENT:The DEIS fails to discuss impacts to significant recreation resources related to the al ternative si tes.Those impacts and associated impacts should be described in the FEIS.See Technical Comment SSC065 for a list of significant impacts associated with the alternative sites. For further detail on these resources and impacts,please see Appendix II of this document. 49201 Technical Comment SSC092 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIROBMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Alternatives,Access Roads LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 6 Page L-40 Section L.2.4.1 Paragraph 9 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Recreation potentials associated with the proposed and alternative access routes are indistinguishable. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The statement that recreation potentials associated with the alternative access routes are indistinguishable is not correct.The major portion of land-based recreation lmpacts result from new access;the Proposed Project recreation plan is closely linked to recreation potential associated with the selected access route.Demand figures for recreation could change dramatically if driving distances from population centers are reduced and the road entry were connected to the Parks Highway near Denali State Park. If the "rail-only"access route from Gold Creek were selected,as recommended in the DEIS,open access by the public would essentially be eliminated and recreation opportunity and demand would change significantly. 47931 Technical Comment SSC093 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 6 Page L-41 Section L.2.4.2 Paragraph 7 of the - -- -, page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Acreage comparison of coal-fired scenario to the Proposed Project. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Land requirements for the Proposed Project were stated as 37,000 acres compared to 600 acres required for permanent facilities under the coal-fired scenario.While the 37,000 acreS included the impoundment area,the 600 acres stated for the coal-fired scenario did not incl ude the area mined.This should be added for a more accurate comparison.A more complete analysis would compare the total acreages disturbed,including those for access roads and transmission lines for each project. Please refer to Appendix III of this submittal for more information on acreage compar1sons. Also,the Reference to DEIS Table 4-14 stated 1n the paragraph should be changed to DEIS Table 4-12. 47971 ~. Technical Comment SSC094 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Air Quality ....LOCATION IN DE IS : page Vol 6 Page L-4l Section L.2.4.2 Paragraph 7 of the - ~. - .... COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Comparison of the effects on publ ic recreation opportuni ties of the coal-fired generation scenario to the proposed project. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The widespread impacts on sightseeing and recreation ~n the region resulting from air pollution are not included in the discussibn. This could be a significant impact with the number of coal-fired units proposed.See Technical Comments ALT015 ,ALT020,ALT042,and ALT045 and Appendix III of this document regarding air quality. 47981 Technical Comment SSC095 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Recreation Resources,Impacts,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 6 Page L-4l Section L.2.4.2 Paragraph 8 of the .... ~, I COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Comparison of non~Susitna alternatives TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comments SSC018 and SSC056.For further information,see Appendix II of this document • 47991 Technical Comment SSC096 - ,..., SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT -TECHNICAL COMMENT FOBM TOPIC AREA:Visual Impacts,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS: M.3.3.3 Vol 6 Page M-39 Section M.2.3.3 Page M-68 Section COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Visual impacts of hydrothermal scenario TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC022. - 48781 Technical Comment SSC097 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Impacts,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 6 Page M-43 Section M.3.l.l.2 ,., I , I I COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Discussion of visual impacts TECHNICAL COHMENT:Visual mitigation plans discussed in License Application Exhibit E,Vol.8,Chapter 8,Section 9 discuss methods to lessen the visual impacts of borrow pits.These should be taken into account in Appendix M discussions.(See License Application,Exhibit E,pp.E-8-49,E-B-50,E-B- 54,and E-B-57). 4B831 """'I I i Technical Comment SSC098 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Impacts,Transmission Lines and Corridors LOCATIO.N'IN DEIS:Vol 6 Page M-53 Section M.3.1.4 Paragraph 3 of the page (Figurl:!s M-18 and M-21) j~ COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO: figures Significant v~ews and visual impacts shown on - - """"I I 1 TECHNICAL COMMENT:Existing transmission lines routes (such as the Intertie,Chugach Electric Association lines,and Golden Valley Electric Association lines)that parallel the proposed transmission line should be shown in order to give the reader a better indication of the significance of the visual impact.Visual impacts ~n these locations would only be incremental. Also,Figure M-22 is misleading in that it shows the highly visible aluminum lattice,delta design towers and not the rusting X-framed design that has been proposed by the Applicant. 49731 I~ I I -r, I i Technical Comment SSC099 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIROBMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Resources,Visual Impacts,Alternatives,Coal Plants LOCATION IN JDEIS: page Vol 6 Page M-68 Section 3.3.2 Paragraphs 1 &2 of the ,...., I I '1 i 'I, I, I ...... I I I I 'l 1, COMMENT IN R.EFERENCE TO:Visual impacts of coal-fired plants TECHNICAL COIMMENT:Visual impact of strip mLnl.ng and infrastructure l.n the Healy and particularly the Beluga areas is a significant issue that should be addressed more completely in the FEIS. See Technical Comments SSC047, SSC048, SSC049,and Appendix III of this document. 48751 Technical Comment SSC100 ""i i SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Impacts,Alternatives,Hydroelectric LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 6 Page M-68 Section 3.3.3 Paragraph 3 of the - CO~~NT IN REFERENCE TO:Visual impacts of facilities would be similar to those of Proposed Project. TECHNICAL COJM.MENT:There are several major differences between the impacts of the Proposed Project site and other hydro sites. Several of the alternative sites are considered to have a much higher scen~c value than the Proposed Project and a relatively low capacity to visually absorb facilities.Significant parts of each of the alternative hydro sites wou 1d also be highly visible from one or more major sightseeing corridors: In comparison only part of the access road of the Proposed Project would be visible from the Denail Highway. - - o o o o o Johnson -Alaska Highway,approximately 25 miles parallel. Browne -Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad,approximately 13 and 12 miles parallel. Snow ~Seward Highway,view from 1 to 2 miles away. Ch,akachamna -Merrill Pass air corridor Keletna -the Talkeetna River corridor For futher information,refer to Appendix II of this document. 48761 Technical Comment SSCIOI SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Visual Resources,Alternatives LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 6 Page M-69 Section M.3.4.2 Paragraphs 3-4 of the COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Comparison of al ternative power generation scenarios to the proposed project and significance of visual impacts. - ~, ,~ - TECHNICAL 48921 COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSCOI6. -,, Technical Comment SSC102 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA: LOCATION: Visual Impacts,Transmission Lines and Corridors,Mitigation Vol 6 Page M-71 Section M.4.2 Paragraph 11-12 of the page through tundra areas.Use of vegetation as a visual mitigation measure in COMMENT IN RE:FERENCE TO:Trees and shrubs should be planted at transmission line crossings of roads to block views. these areas would be difficult if not impossible. - - TECRNICAL COMMENT:Certain parts of the transmission line are routed The Power Authori ty _. - .- intends to utilize trees and shrubs as a visual mitigation measure wherever possible or feasible. 48911 Technical Comment SSC103 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Population Projections - ..... - - - ..... LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page N-3 Section N.1.1.2 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Basis for DEIS forecast TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC008. 44131 Technical Comment SSCI04 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM .- TOPIC AREA:Subsistence,Proposed Project - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page N-II Section N.I.I.3 Last paragraph of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The discussion notes the importance of subsistence use and conflicts about the issue of subsistence use. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The discussion about subsistence use contains specific data for locations outside the proposed project area.There is no indication that project area communities are similar to locations where specific data exists. Without demonstrating this similarity ,no generalization about the project area should be made from the data.A general statement is made about the economic importance of subsistence activities for Cantwell residents.No citation ~s given to support this statement.Cantwell would be very di fferent,in its degree of isolation and homogeneity from communities where studies were conducted. Cantwell is less homogenous ethnically and less isolated from land transportation routes than the communities where specific data exist. 44131 Technical Comment SSC105 SUSITNAHYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM -TOPIC AREA:Employment -LOCATION IN DEIS: (Table N-4) Vol 7 Page N-14 Section N.l.l.l Paragraph 3 of the page - - - - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Though Mat-Su Borough statistics show government employment to be important,no comparable data are given for towns within the Mat-Su Borough or important towns in other boroughs. TECHNICAL COMMENT:Research conducted by the Applicant and published in 1984 shows government accounting for 29%of employment in Trapper Creek and 26%in Cantwell.In these two towns government employment accounts for a higher percentage of employment than any other sector.In Talkeetna,government employment ~s less predominant,accounting for 18%of the employment.See FDA (l984b,1984c,1984d)for other employment information for Trapper Creek, Talkeetna,and Cantwell. 44131 Technical Comment SSC106 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Population,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 PagesN-37 and N-38 Section N.2.1.1 COMMENT IN REFERE:NCE TO:The lead-in statement for this section notes that "the principal socioeconomic impacts related to the proposed Susitna project ,...would bee of the ][{inds-c,ommonly called 'boomtown'.e _sudden,rapid growt,h in population in a nLral area,followed by a •••'bust'period." TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC028. 44131 ,~Technical Comment SSC107 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM -TOPIC AREA:Population Projections LOCATION IN DElS:Vol 7 ~age N-40 Section N.2.1.1.2 Paragraph 4 of the page (Table N-13) -COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The FERC Staff's "revised Applicant impact - ".... projections"were based on an assignment of inmigrants to several towns not included 10 the Applicant's projections. TECHNICAL COMMENT:The Applicant submitted a revision of its impact projections to FERC on ApriL 30,1984.The revision included an assigmnent of inmigrants to the towns added to the analysis in the DElS;namely Paxson,Healy and Nenana (FOA 1984a). 44131 "i I Technical Comment SSCI08 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPTC AREA:Imp~lcts,Subsistence,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page N-47 Section N.2.1.1.3 Paragraph 1 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:The Proposed Project's impact on subsistence uses l.n the project area and consequent effects on Native Alaskan culture. TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC009. - - The citation by Justus and Simonetta (1983)does not support the concluding sentence about "increased population and access to the area of the proposed project".The article is neither about the project area nor,except at "level of principle",about Alaskan Natives (Justus and Simonetta,1983). 44131 Technical Comment SSCI09 SU:SITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:Population,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page N-49 Section N.2.I.lo5 Paragraph 7 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:A concern is expressed that job seekers will inmigrate in excess of available jobs.The concern is based on the Trans Alaska Pipeline experience and h~lS important consequences for the level of community services impacts. TECHNICAL 44131 COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC030. ".... - ,.,., Technical Comment SSCllO SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Housing LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page N-50 Section N-2.1.1.6 COMMENT IN RJ~FERENCE TO:Page Missing TECHNICAL COl1MENT:The FEIS should include thi&page. 44131 ~, Technical Comment SSC111 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPICA AREA;Population,Proposed Project LOCATION IN DEIS;Vol 7 Page N-52 Section N.2.1.7 Paragraph 6 of the page (Tables N-18 &N-19) COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO;Inmigrants..."would change the way some communty services are provided and severely stress current capacities.1I TECHNICAL COMMENT:The sensitivity of community service impacts to baseline projections does not receive adequate attention in the DEIS.Depending upon which baseline on,e chooses (see comments SSC008 and SSC028)the timing and hence the planning needs for impacts can vary greatly.The timing is,of course,also sensitive to ch.mges ~n the number of project-induced inmigrants.This sensitivity to variation in baseline and "with-project"numbers and lack of agreement between models about both numJ:>ers points to the importance of an effective monitoring program and a mitigation plan with flexibility to react to monitoring data. 44131 Technical Comment SSCl12 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Work Force,Proposed Project,Population LOCATION IN IDEIS: N.2.3.3.5 Vol 7 Pages N-69 to N-72 Sections N.2.3.3.1 through - - - .... COMMENT IN &EFERENCE TO:Peak construction work forces for each alternative TECHNICAL COMMENT:The projections for numbers of workers during peak construction periods for the five hydroelectric and selected thermal al ternatives do not incl ude workers who would be building transmission lines,major highways,pipelines,towns and other facilities.This construction would be due to either normally required ancillary facilities or to relocation due to inundation.Since some of this ancillary construction would likely be concurrent with the main facility construction, peak work forces are likely to be underestimated for all alternatives. 44131 - ..... Technical CommentSSC1l3 . SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Population Projections LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page N-75 Section N.4 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"The Applicant states that studies are being conducted to:Update baseline and project-induced population projections •••" TECHNICAL COMMENT:The report summarizing this work was completed ~n March,1984 and submitted to FERC on April 30,1984.See FOA (1984a)• 44131 - Technical Comment SSCl14 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources -LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 7 Page 0-3 Section 0.1.1.1 Paragraph 1 of the - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"The cultural resource study areas for the proposed Susitna project •••" TECHNICAL COMMENT:The FEIS should define the "s tudy areas"for the - l I - Proposed Project and distinguish them from the "project area". 45071 Technical Comment 88Cl15 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources - .- - ~I LOCATION IN DE18:Vol 7 Page 0-3 Section 0.1.1.1 Paragraph 1 of the page COMMENT IN RJ:!:FERENCE TO:"Both the quality and quantity of these resources (archeological and historic si,tes)are significant." TECHNICAL COHMENT:The term "s ignificant ll when used is generally understood to mean "eligible for the National Register of Historic Places."No determinations of National Register eligibility have been made for any of the sites in the study area.The text should be rephrased as follows: "Both the quantity and quality of these resources appear significant,and determinations of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places a re be ing prE~pared.II 45101 - Technical Comment SSCl16 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-3 Section 0.1.1.1 Paragraph 1 of the page -COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO: are known in the area •••11 "Currently 423 archeological and historic sites TECHNICAL COMMENT:Previously known sites recorded 1.n the AHRS files and - - sites located by DAM surveys to date total only 245.A site by site listing is provided in Table 5.1 (UAM 1984).FERC staff should review the data and correct the figure or explain the discrepancy. 45001 "'"" .- - Technical Comment SSC1l7 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-3 Section 0.1.1.2.1 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"The tephra sequence permits the relative and absolute dating of a large number of sites •••" TECHNICAL "COMMENT:The tephra sequence provides absolute dating only when a cultural deposit is located directly on top of a tephra l~yer and few (if any)sites in the project area meet this criterion.The text should be revised to drop the words "and absolute." 45051 Technical ·Comtnent SSCl18 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN JDEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-9 Section 0.1.1.4.1 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO: of site significance." '~hese data were fully adequate •••for assessment prepared.The sentence should be rephrased as follows:"These data appear adequate for assessment of site ••••" - .- TECHNICAL COMMENT:Determinations of eligibility have not yet been 45061 - ..... - - - Technical Comment SSCl19 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-9 Section 0.1.1.4.1 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"In 1980-1983,the University of Alaska Museum initiated large-scale survey and preliminary excavation" TECHNICAL COMMENT:The project field program has been limited to survey and test excavation.The federal antiquities permit does not permit "extensive testing,emergency excavation,and/or salvage."The sentence should be rephrased as follows:"In 1980-1983,the University of Alaska Museum initiated large-scale survey and preliminary test excavation." 45031 - ~, Technical Comment SSC120 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 7 Page 0-9 Section 0.1.1.4.1 Paragraph 3 of the nomination t'9 the National Register •••"- COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"•••in order to determine their eligibility for TECHNICAL COMMENT:No formal nominations will be made because formal - determinatipns of eligibility are sufficient for regulatory purposes.The phrase "nom ination to"should be deleted. 45011 - Technical Comment SSC121 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN OEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-9 Sec tion 0.1.1.4.2 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO: presently known •••sites" "The middle and upper Susitna Basin contains 209 ".... .- TECHNICAL COJ~NT:Reports by Dixon et al.0982,1983,1984)are cited as the source of this statement,but the DEIS appears to be at odds with UAM's figure of 245 sites reported to date (UAM 1984).FERC Staff should review the data and correct the figure or explain the discrepancy. Note that the DEIS citations of Dixon et al.(1982,1983,1984)are cited herein as UM1 (1982,1983,1984). 44991 TOPIC AREA: Technical Comment SSC122 ~...~- ..~~.-- SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-10 Section 0.1.1.4.2 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO : "•••142 (68%)(sites)have produced subsurface - I~ material,an unusually high percentage" TECHNICAL COMMENT:The evaluation that this is an unusually high percentage needs to be substantiated.In the absence of supporting data,the Applicant suggests deleting "•••an unusually high pe.rcentage.1I 44981 - ..... i r - - Technical Comment SSC123 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-11 Section 0.1.1.4.2 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:1I •••a surprising number (66)have not produced any surficial remains.1I TECHNICAL CO~WENT:The evaluation that this is a surprising number needs to be substantiated.In the absence of supporting data,the Applicant suggests deleting "•••a surprising number." 44971 Technical Comment SSC124 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-11 Section 0.1.1.4.4 Paragraph 9 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"With one exception (TLM 033)all (sites)were found to be significant •••" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comments SSC1l5 and SSC126. 44961 - - r Technical Comment SSC125 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-12 Section 0.1.1.4.4 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"The surface archeological sites generally lack an adequate stratigraphic context,and are of limited importance.11 TECHNICAL COMMENT:FERC staff should review the tone of this sentence and the rest of the paragraph.It assumes that only subsurface sites with good stratigraphy can be significant,however,many studies have demonstrated how surface sites can yield important data.In particular,see .Lalmadge and Chesler (1977).Significance is assessed In terms of a sitels ability to help solve a specific research question(s)and there are non-chronology related questions which might be addressed with data from the Susitna project. The text should be rephrased as follows:'~he surficial archeological sites generally lack an adequate stratigraphic context and are of limited importance in chronological studies.Poss ible exceptions would include situations 'where surface material overlies the tephra sequence and consequently occupies a better-defined chronological (and,by inference, cultural)unit.These sites could provide some useful information on late prehistoric (specifically Athapaskan)settlement patterns.Some sites can be expected to contribute information important in non-chronological studies.Hc)wever,many sites occur on exposed till and lack diagnostic artifacts relating to specific periods within the record of regional habitation.If such sites are not found to contribute important information in non-chronological studies,these sites will be of little significance.'1 45091 - - Technical Comment SSC126 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0.12 Section 0.1.1.4.4 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:II •••contain large quantities of artifactual and faunal remains,it is likely that many additional sites •••will be assessed as significant." TECHNICAL COMMENT:It ~s true that most of the systematically tested sites have a large quantity of artifactual and faunal material.However,these sites appear to have been selected for systematic testing because reconna~ssance survey yielded a large number of artifacts.Most sites surveyed to date yielded much smaller quantities (in many cases 1 or 2)of artifacts than those subsequently systematically tested.Sites systematically tested to date may therefore be somewhat atypical of the majority of sites in the project area.The sentence should be rephrased as follows:"Given the high proportion of remaining stratified,datable archeological sites,some of which may contain large quantities of ••••" 44951 ,.... - - - ~- ..- Technical Comment SSC127 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources' LOCATION IN DElS:Vol 7 Page 0-12 Section 0.1.1.5.2 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN RJEFERENCE TO:"A total of 69 archeological and historic sites 1.S currently known from this portion (Healy to Fairbanks)of the proposed corridor (nixon et al.1984).II TECHNICAL COiMMENT:Tables 4.5 and 5.1 of Dixon eta!.(1984)(cited herein as UAM 1984)both indicate 22 sites along the Healy-Fairbanks transmission- line corridor. 44941 - Technical Comment SSC128 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources .... .- ;~ LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-12 Section 0.1.1.5.2 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Historic and Prehistoric Sites FAI 206,HEA 005, HEA 129 TECHNICAL COIMMENT:The FEIS should specify the source(s)of information on these sites.HEA 005 is the Dry Creek site and listed in the National Register.FERC staff should also state how REA 005 and the other sites relate to the transmission line corridor • 44931 - - - - Technical Comment SSC129 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Transmission Lines and Corridors LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-12 Sec tion 0.1.1.5.2 Paragraph 6 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Sites are distributed throughout the proposed project area •••" TECHNICAL COj~ENT:The EElS should specify the number of sites known within the corridor as opposed to those along the Intertie.Also,it should note the type and comparability of data between the two areas. 44921 - - Technical Comment SSC130 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources - LOCATION IN DElS:Vol 7 Page 0-13 Section 0.1.1.5.2 Paragrapn 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Thirty •••sites are currently known •••(Dixon et al.,1984)" TECHNICAL COMMENT:Dixon et al.(1984)(cited herein as DAM 1984)notes - - only 9 sites on the Willow-to-Anchorage segment of the transmission line. See Tables 4.5 and 5.1. 44911 -- - - - - - Technical Comment SSCl31 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-13 Section 0.1.1.5.3 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"•••several sites (e.g.Dry Creek)that already have provided important information •••The Carlo Creek site •••represents another •••" TECHNICAL COMMENT:The text appears to imply that the Dry Creek and Carlo Creek sites are in the Proposed Project area.FERC Staff should review the data to verify their location.If the sites are not in the project area, these two sentences should be rephrased to show that significant sites are known in the study area and specify their distance from the Proposed Project area. 44901 Technical Comment SSC132 ..... SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ....DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-13 Section 0.1.2.1.1 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Different number of sites impacted by 100 ft. change of reservoir level. TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC042. - - - Also,the proposed Watana reservoir level is El.2185,while Watana I is El. 2100.This represents an 85 ft reduction in reservoir level,not 100 ft as stated in the DEIS.(Refer to the DEIS Summary,Vol 1 page xxiii paragraph 4 of the page). 44811 Technical Comment SSC133 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources - - - - LOCATION IN OEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-13 Section 0.1.2.1.1 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:.IIThree sites (TLM 026,123,196)contain subsurface material that mayor may not be related to human occupation" TECHNICAL COMMENT:The National Park Service publication "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation"(NPS 1982)notes that "A property for which no human associations can be established,such as a paleontological site,is not eligible."The FEIS should add the following statement:"If these sites prove to be unrelated to human occupation,they will be dropped from the inventory." 44881 Technical Comment SSC134 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:CuLtural Resources - - - ,~ LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-13 Section 0.1.2.1.1 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"•••five (sites)appear to be lacking in subsurface remains,and seem unlikely to be significant." TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC125. 44891 .- - Technical Comment SSC135 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Access Roads COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:flThese sites are typically lacking in strati- graphic context and are of limited importance." TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC014. 44851 ,~ Technical Comment SSC136 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Access Roads,Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DElS:Vol 7 Page 0-14 Section 0.1.2.2.2 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"•••the terrain covered by the route u thought to have less potential for significant sites •••" TECHNICAL COMMENT:The License Application,Exhibit E.VoL 9,Chap.10,p. .....E-lO-46 is cited •A more detailed description is needed to clarify and .... - .... support this statement • 44861 ..... ..... Technical Comment SSC137 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Access Roads LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-14 Section 0.1.2.2.3 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"•••they are mostly surface sites of limited importance.If TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC125 • 44841 .~ - Technical Comment SSC138 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNI CAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-14 Section 0.1.2.4 Paragraph 8 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Borrow site H is adjacent to the Fog Creek site (T1M 030),which has been assessed as significant." TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC1l5 • 44821 Technical Comment SSC139 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources ..... LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-14 Section 0.1.2.4 Paragraph 9 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"One site (TLM 097)has already been assessed as significant." TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC115 • 44831 -- - Technical Comment SSC140 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM -TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources - - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-15 Section 0.1.3.2.1 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:lithe area seems unlikely to possess many significant sites." TECHNICAL COMMENT:This sentence seems to partially contradict the previous -sentence:"A site-specific survey would be necessary to fully assess - - - - existing cultural resources."FERC staff should explain the basis for concluding that the area seems unlikely to possess many significant sites. 44801 - - - ..... - ..... - - Technical Comment SSC14l SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-16 Section 0.1.3.2.3 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Evaluation of archeological potential and impacts of the coal-fired generation scenario. TECHNICAL COMMENT:In its assessment of archeological resources,the DEIS simply notes that a survey would be necessary to assess cultural resources. However.the desc-ription of existing knowledge of the area would seem to indicate that it is highly likely that a survey would find numerous sites. In addition the nature of the known sites suggests that new ones are likely to be potentially eligible for the National Register.The sentence should be rephrased to note both of these facts • 44791 - - Technical Connnent SSC142 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Impacts,Mitigation,Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-17 Section 0.2.1.1.1 Paragraph 1 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:fl •••most impacts would be mitigated by investigationll should be rephrased as follows:-TECHNICAL COMMENT:Avoidance may be possible at many sites.The sentence "•••most impacts would be mitigated by - ,4lIM - avoidance or scientific data recovery." 44781 - ,.... Technical Comment SSC143 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:CuI tural Resources - - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-17 Section 0.2.1.1.1 Paragraph 1 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:II •••the mitigation process would likely make a substantial positive contribution •••in the realm of prehistoric cultural chronology •••" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC002. 44771 - - - - - -- Technical Comment SSC144 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Impacts,Cultural Resources,Watana LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-17 Section 0.2.1.1.1 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"As indicated in Table O-I,eight archeological sites would be directly impacted,and six archeological sites would be indirectly impacted" TECHNICAL COMMENT:Table 0-1 does not indicate which sites would be impacted by Watana construction.Table 5.1 of UAM (1984)lists 13,not 14 sites as being impacted.Table 0-1 also does not show the sites identified in individual impact areas.Attached are copies of this table,as well as Tables 0-2,0-3,and 0-4,which have been annotated to show site occurrence in impact areas.No'te that TLM 130 should be shown as indirectly impacted. FERC staff should check the tables and summary numbers and correct them or explain the reason for discrepancy. 44761 I"-0-18 SSC144 .F""Tiele 0-1.Expected ".Impacts and Recolllllended Hit i gat Ion: -::""Watana Oeveldpment -.Recolllllended AHRSt 1 Ho.Type Significance Impact Mitigation R rUt 015 0 Archeological Indirect ,~S.'TLH 016 we.Archeological Significant Oirect Investigation '-' R TUt 017 We.Archeological Oi rect-~.TUt 018 We.Archeological Si gnit i cant Oi rect [!'lves t igat;on--R.TUt 021 Pil:f'Archeological Potential Avoidance R rUt 025 0 Archeological Potential Avoidance-~TLK 026 ~Arctleological Indirect R.TUt 028 0 ArCheological Potential Avoidance ~TLK 031 0 Archeological Po te.nt fa I Avoidance ,{I!!iffIII$Il"~TUt 032 0 Archeological Potential Avoidance S'Tl11 033 ~Archeological Not Significant Direct None p,Tl11 036 0 Archeological Potential Avoidance ~R TUt 037 0 Archeological Potential Avoidance S TUt 038 0 Archeological Significant Indirect Investigation oS TUt 039 W~Archeol og;ca I Signi ficant Di rect lAves t i gat i on-S TUt 040 ~(Archeological Significant Direct Investigation .$-TUt 042 'vJ ({Archeological Significant Indirect Invu t i gat ion-S TUt 043~"ArCheological Significant Oi rect Investigation R _. n.M 044 0 Archeot og i ca I Potential Avoidance ~TUt 045 0 Archeological Potential Avoidance-S TUt 046 0 Archeological Signifi cant Potenti a 1 Avoidance ~TUt 047 0 Archeological Potent ia 1 'Avoidance S TUt 048 Wc....--Archeological'Significant Direct Investigation R TUt 049 0 ArCheological Potential Avoidance .s TUt 050 \J~Archeological Significant Direct Investigation-~TUt 051 yJe..Archeological AvoidanceIndirect R.Tl11·052 0 Archeological Potentia 1 Avoidance Q.TUt 053 c Archeological Potential Avoidance-. Po Tt.M 058 't!...A Archeological Direct ~n.M 059 ""lit Archee 1og ica 1 Signi ficant Direct Invest i gat ion ""'~R TUt 060 1(..8 Arcneological Direct @.TUt 061 III~Archeologic..l Direct oS TUt 062 Wjl Archeological Significant Direct Invest igat ion-TUt 063 WII.R.Archeological Direct R TUt 064 iJft Arcneological Indirect 1"""S 11.""065 i.J ..Archeological Significant Direct Investigation R TLH 066 "Archeological Potential Avoidanci ~TUt 069 0 Archeologie..l Significant Potential Avoidance ~R TLM 071 h"J Historic:Significant Ind1rtc:t Preservltion p..TLH 072 Wit Archeol09 i cll Direct - 0-20 SSC144 TAb 1,O-l.(Contfnue4) '\ Reco....nd.d AHRSt l NO.Type Significance r~.Ct Mitigation R.TU1 152 a Archeo logica J Potential Avoidance R n.M 154 0 Archeological Potential Avoidance R TU4 159 a Archeo log.ica 1 Potential Avoidance,.TU4 160 ~Archeological Indirect ~TUt 164 ...,c.Archeological Indirect P.TU4 165 wc.Archeological Direct R.n."160 we Archeo logica I Direct .....R TUt 167 wG ArCheological Direct ~TU4 169 .....~Arcneological Direct R.TU4 110 0 Archeological Potential Avoidance ~TU4 171 ~Archeological Oi rect R TUt 172 we..ArCheological Dh-.ct R TLK 173 1M'~.Archeological Direct.- R TU4 174 ~ArCheological Direct P-.TOM 175 "'"R Archeological Direct R TUt 117 wR,Archeological Direct...,."- 'S)TUt 180 we Archeological Significant Indirect Investigation R TU4 181 0 ArCheological Potential Avoidance .-R TU1 182 W ft.!R'A J"Archeological Direct R TU4 183 0 Archeological Pot.ntial Avoidance.. S,TIJf 184 "'~Archeo logical Significant Direct Investigation.....--R TUt 18S 0 Archeological Potential Avoidance R TUt 186 ~.-.\1:Archeal ogi cal Potent i al Avoidance R ....,-TU4 187 ~14'!Arc:healogical ....Potential AvoidanCe R TLM 188 Arcfteological Potential A . \B-F vOldance p,.TU4 189 0 Archeo 1O9i ca1 Potential Avoidance fl.TUt 190 0 Archeological Potential Avoidance R.TU4 191 0 Arch.ological Potential Avoidance I"""R TIJf 192 -....c.Archeological Indirect (t.TUt 193 0 Archeological Potential Avoidance "TL1't 194 ....11,Archeological Direct R rUt 195 0 Archeological Potential Avoidance R TUt 196 W f{Paleontologicall Oi rect Archtological[?] r-t\TUt191 0 Archeological Potential Avoidance R 'rUt 198 <:)Archeological Potential Avoidance p,.nJ4 199 ~'t Archeological Direct,.... Q,.TUt 200 1oV~Archeologicil Direct. /\,TLM 204 ~Historic Direct-1\TUt 206 ~Archeological Direct Il.TLM 207 ~Archeologfcil Indi rect.. S i1.l4 215 ""..Archeologiell Signific:ant Direct Investigat ion-R -i"LM 218 0 Archeo 1O9i ell Oirect R 104 21'"0 Ar:cheo ~091 CI.I •Potent111 Av01dlnc. 0-Z2 hole 0-3.Expected [~acts an<l~colllHnded MH igaUon: ACt:ess Routes. SSC144 AHRSt 1 Ho.Type Significance Recolllftended Hitigation Archeolog!CAI Archeologic:al Arcneologic:al ArcheologicAl Archeological Arc:neo I ogi cal Archeological Archeological ArCheologicAl ArCheologicAl Archeo 1ogi ca I Archeological Archeo)ogi cal ArCheological Archeo 10gica.l Archeo 1og ka 1 ..... ..... ..... - Oenal;Highway to Watan. P TLH 098 RA·L RTLM 099 R.~.L. r..TLM 116 A p./A.".:r. (\TLM 117 A "/~A·I R TLH 153 IIRejA.'l R TU4 15S All. ~n....168 A~ Il..HEA 114 RA.L Q.HEA 176 ~A-l (l.·HEA 180 1\rc. p,HEA 181 M.e./A~ RHEA 182 Art.i ..,,. P.HEA 183 RA·L R HEA 184 RA·!.. a HEA 185 RA-t.. P..HEA 211 AP.B '>Watana to Oev;1 Canyon ~TLH l01.Af<.~At"cheological ';l TLH 103 ARS/RA·q ArCheological ".-TLM 106 AK6 Archeolog;cal 1',TLH 101 A~0 Archeological I<TU1 108 AF\.&Archeo I 09 i cil p.TU1 109 /tfo6/AR Archeo 10giC&1 R TLH 110 AfH!;AI?ArcheologicAl P.TLH III M6!AR:Archeolog;eal Ii.TLM 112,.~-1/AR Archeological ~TLM 113 p.,.e/AR.ArCheological '" .Potent i.l Potential Potential Indirect. Oi rect- Indirect Indirect Potential Potential Indirect Direct- Direct" Potenti.t Potentia 1 Potential Direct- Potential Oi rect· Direct- Direct- Direct· Oi rect· Direct'" 01,.ect- Potential Direct· Ayo;dance Avoidance Avoidancf Avoidance Avoidance Avoidance Avoidance Avoidance Avoidance Avoidance - WaUna·to ..Oey f 1 Canyon (continued) Archeolog1c~1 Arch.olog;e..1 Histor;c Direct· Potential Potential Potent;a I AvoidanCf Avoidance Avoidance - t l 'AHRS·Alask.Hi storie Resources Survey. fa "."Identifies.site th.t is located in ..proposed access route borrow sit•. -- - - - - - Technical Comment SSC145 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-17 Section 0.2.1.1.1 Paragraph 2 of the page (Table 0-1) COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Column bead "Significance" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSCl15. Column heading should be changed to "Potential for National Register Eligibility"or similar heading. The same comment applies to Table 0-2 and Table 0-3. 44701 Technical Comment SSC146 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Impacts,Cultural Resources - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Pages 0-17 Section 0.2.1.1.1 Paragraph 2 of the page (Table 0-1) COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Entries under column heading "Impact" :~ ~, ~. -- TECHNICAL COMMENT:All impacts should be classified as direct or indirect, and references to potential impacts should be deleted.The DEIS notes (p. 0-17)that "for legal purposes [potential impacts]may be considered as indirect impacts .... This comment also applies to Tables 0-2 and 0-3. 45111 .~ ..... .- Technical Comment SSC147 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL.COMMENT FORK TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-17 Section 0.2.1.1.1 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Nineteen sites •••all but one have been assessed as significant.1I TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC115 and SSC126 • 44741 Technical Comment SSC148 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I....TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources ..... - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-17 Section 0.2.1.1.1 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:1I •••undoubtedly,additional significant sites will be identified,judging by the high proportion of subsurface localities with rich inventories.1I TECHNICAL COMMENT:Of the 59 archeological and historic sites identified in the DEIS as being impacted,it is noted that 19 have been systematically tested and a high proportion yielded large quantities of artifacts.The conclusion that the remaining sites will also have large artifact inventories may not be justified.The systematic testing program has given priority to those sites where reconnaissance survey yielded large numbers of artifacts,and systematic testing was generally not done at those sites which yielded few artifacts during reconnaissance survey.The sentence should be rephrased as follows:"Nineteen of these sites have been systematically tested,and all but one have been assessed as significant; undoubtedly additional significant sites will be identified " 44751 - .... Technical Comment SSC149 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts,Mitigation LOCATION IN DEIS:-Vol 7 Page 0-17 Section 0.2.1.1.2 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"•••some damage due to vandalism seems possible"•••"(a monitoring program •••)appears to be an adequate mitigative measure." TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSCOOZ. 45081 .... Technical Comment SSC150 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA~CuI tural Resources,Impac ts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-17 Section 0.2.1.1.2 Paragraph 6 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Since precise assessment of potential impacts 1.S impossible,the number of sites placed in this category 1.S relatively-subjective.Fifty-three archeologi_cal sites are current ly incl uded in the potential impacts list-IT impac ts 1.S impos sible is correc t •..... TECHNICAL COMMENT:The statement that prec1.se assessment of potential Therefore,specific numbers of sites ..... ..- should be eliminated,as should all mention of "potential"impacts.A generic evaluation of other "indirect"impacts (e.g.induced development) should be substituted • 44721 - - - - Technical Comment SSC151 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-17 Section 0.2.1.1.2 Paragraph.6 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Three of these sites •••have been determined to be significant ll TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical .Comments SSC1l5 and SSC126. 44731 - - - - - - - - Technical Comment SSC152 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN OEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-21 Section 0.2.1.2.1 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Three of their (sites)have been systematically tested,and all were identified as significant" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comments SSC1l5 and SSC126. 44711 - - """ - - - - Technical Comment SSC153 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources Impacts)Access Roads LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-21 Section 0.2.1.3.1 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:II •••si tes •••would be subject.••to indirect impacts due to greatly increased access.1I TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSCOOZ. 44691 - - -- .- - - i~, - - ...... Technical Comment SSC154 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-21 Section 0.2.1.31 Paragraph 5 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"•••it appears unlikely that many,if any,of these sites will be assessed as significant,due to their largely surficial character" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC125. 44681 .... Technical Comment SSC155 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECH~ICAt COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts -LOCATION IN DEIS: page Vol 7 Page 0-21 Section 0.2.1.3.1 Paragraph 6 of the ..... - - ..... .... - COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"•••sites would be subject to potential impact due to increased access" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC146 • 44671 - ..... - - - - - Technical Comment SSC156 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIROBMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources t Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-23 Section 0.2.1.3.1 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Any of the 16 sites described above not investigated during construction phase mitigation would be exposed to potential impacts due to increased access" TECHNICAL COMMENT:This sentence should be rephrased as follows:nAny of the 16 sites described above not included 1n data recovery under the project mitigation plan might be expose~to indirect impacts due to increased access ••.•II See Technical Comment SSC002. 44641 - - - Technical Comment 88157 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts,Proposed Project ""'", .- - - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-23 Section 0.2.1.3.2 Paragraph 4 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Any sites •••not thoroughly excavated as part of the construction phase mitigation process would be exposed to potential impacts due to increased exposed to potential impacts due to increased access to the area." TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comments SSC146 and SSC159 • 44651 Technical Comment SSC158 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ......TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-23 Section 0.2.1.4.1 Paragraph 6 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Only TLM 018 has been assessed for significance (with positive resu1ts)IJ TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC1l5. 44631 - Technical Comment SSC159 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL llIPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Impacts,Mitigation,Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-23 Section 0~2.1.4.1 Paragraph 7 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Any sites not thoroughly excavated •••would continue to be exposed to potential impacts due to increased access ll TECHNICAL COMMENT:The DEIS should avoid implying that complete excavation of impacted sites is necessary.Whether or not complete evacuation is warranted at a particular site depends upon the research questions the site is being used to address.The sentence should be rephrased as follows: IIAny significant sites not included in data recovery under the project mitigation plan might be exposed to indirect impacts from increased access. An alternate form of mitigation may be necessary to detect impacts and provide for mitigation at such sites.1t See Technical Comment SSC003. 44621 Technical Comment SSC160 -~ .... SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIROIiMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ....TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Impacts,Mitigation,Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-24 Section 0.2.1.4.2 Paragraph 1 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Any sites not thoroughly excavated •••" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC159. - ..... 44611 ..... ,~ ..... Technical Comment SSC16l SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cutural Resources.Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-24 Section 0.2.1.4.2 Paragraph 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"•••sites would be subject •••to potential impact. due to increased access" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comments SSC003 • 44601 - l Technical Comment SSC162 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-24 Section 0.2.1.4.3 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN RE:FERENCE TO:"Any sites not thoroughly excavated •••" TECHNICAL CO~~NT:See Technical Comment SSC159. 44591 - Technical Commment SSC163 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Impacts,Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-25 Section 0.2.2.1.1 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:Impact evaluation TECHNICAL COMMENT:Because the distinction made between indirect and - - ..., I l potential impacts is unclear,this discussion ~s somewhat difficult to follow.If "'indirect"impact is assumed to mean subject to erosion impacts (as described by UAi'1 1984:4-1)and one assumes that available elevations for si tes arE~correct,then only two to four of the sites (as opposed to 12) would be impacted by the proposed development.The remainder are 40 feet above.the maximum crest height of the dam (before subsidence),and are 65 feet above the normal maximum pool.For the Watana I alternative all 12 sites would be above the normal maximum pool.These sites would be subjected to only indirect impacts associated with increased access and the potential for vandalism.Whether vandalism is a legitimate impact concern requiring mitigative measure is subject to question (see Technical Comment SSC002).FERC staff should consider these comments and rephrase the conclusion accordingly • 44581 ~, I~ -I - - ..... !""1 !I i . I ..., I Technical Comment SSC164 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRORMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-25 Section 0.2.2.1.1 Paragraph 3 of the page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Three •••sites •••have been assessed as significant" TECHNICAL COHMENT:See Technical Comment SSCl15. 44561 ,~ - - - - - .., ! 1 Technical Comment SSC165 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFTENVIRONKENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Access Roads LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-25 Section 0.2.2.2.1 Paragraph 7 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Few,if any,of the sites found to date in this proposed corridor (chiefly surficial archeological localities)appear likely to be assessl~d as significant" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC125. 44541 .- -- - Technical Comment SSC166 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:.Impacts,Cultural Resources,Access Roads LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-25 Section 0.2.2.2.1 Paragraph 7 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"•••s ites •••would be subject to direct,indirect and potential" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC146. 44551 .... - -. .... - - Technical Comment SSCl67 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Access Roads LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-25 Section 0.2.2.2.3 Paragraph 9 of page COMMENT IN RE:FERENCE TO:liThe sites •••(chiefly surficiaL ••)contain few, if any,significant localities 11 TECHNICAL Cm!lMENT:See Comment SSCI25. 44511 Technical Comment SSC168 .- SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ,-TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts,Access Roads LOCATION IN OEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-25 Section 0.2.2.2.3 Paragraph 9 of page COMMENT IN RE:FERENCE TO:.....resources •••would be exposed to direct, indirect and potential impacts" TECHNICAL COMMENT:See Technical Comment SSC146. 44521 - Technical Comment SSC169 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources',Impacts,Transmission Lines and Corridors LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-25 Section 0.2.2.3 Paragraph 10 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"•••sites within .25 mi (0.4 km)of the centerline would be at least partially impacted during the construction phase by increased access •••" TE CHiUCAL COMMENT:Construction is likely to result ~n very limited increased access to the area.In addition,the sites in these areas are unlikely to be very attractive to potential vandals.Therefore,the FEIS - I~ should drop the sentence,IIArcheological and historic sites within .25 mile (0.4 km)•••by increased access to the area."Alternatively,FERC Staff should clarify the basis for expecting any impacts to archeological sites during the contruction phase by increased access,as well as the basis for the .25 mi figure.See Technical Comment SSC002. 44501 '~ ..- Technical Comment SSC170 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources,Impacts,Transmission Lines and Corridors ,..... - LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-26 Section 0.2.2.4 Paragraph 1 of page COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO:"Alternative 3 would impact nx sites •••while No. 4 would impa(~t three sites •••These sites appear to be largely surficial, and seem unlikely to be significant.1I TECHNICAL COl1MENT:Final design,siting,and construction methods often are flexible enough to allow avoidance of cultural resources sites.The para- graph should be rephrased as follows:"Alternative No.3 may impact s~x ""while N().4 may impact-•••Alternative No.10 may impact one .•. Additional survey will surely reveal more sites in impact areas,some of which will likely be determined to be significant.Final design,as well as siting and construction methods,may allow avoidance of significant sites." 44491 - Technical Comment SSC171 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL COMMENT FORM TOPIC AREA:Cultural Resources LOCATION IN DEIS:Vol 7 Page 0-26 Section 0.2.2.4 Paragraph 5 of page COMMENT IN RE:FERENCE TO:"At least:one site has already been termed significant.III TECHNICAL CO~lMENT:See Technical Comment SSC1l5.· 44471 """' BIBLIOGRAPHY For Alaska Power Authority Comments on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Draft Environmental Impact Statement of May 1984 This BibliograRJty is organized according to the five categories of the Technical Comments.Within each category,the references are listed alphabetically by author.For brevity,the following acronyms are used ~n the citations.j - .,... Acronym Acres ADF&G ADNR AEIDC AlEE AK ALUC APA ASL Battelle BLM BP CaE DCED DOE EBASCO EPA FERC 28052 840820 Affiliation Acres American,Inc. Alaska Department of Fish ~nd Game Alaska Department of Natural Resources 'Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center American Institute of Electrical Engineers State of Alaska (General) Alaska Land Use Council Alaska Power Authority Alaska State Legislature Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Bureau of Land Management British Petroleum Corps of Engineers Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development U.S.Department of Energy Ebasco Services,Inc. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ,~ - ,.- - ,-. - ~, - ..... Acronym FNSB FOA HE lEA .IEEE ISER NOAA NPS O&GCC PND R&M SHGA SHP TES UAM USBR .USDASCS USGS 28052 840820 Affi liation Fairbanks -North Star Borough Frank Orth and Associates Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture International Energy Agency Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,Inc • Institute of Social and Economic Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Park Service Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Peratrovich,Nottingham &D~age,Inc. R&M Associates Sherman H.Clark Associates Susitna Hydroelectric Project Terrestrial Environmental Specialists University of Alaska -Museum u.s.Bureau of Reclamation u.s.Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service U.s.Geological Survey - - -- - - TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES Citation ADNR 1984.Tanana Basin Area Plan.Fish and Wildlife Element and Wildlife Resources Narratives (Background Report).ADNR and USDASCS. ADNR and USDASCS 1984.Susitna Area Plan.Summary of the Public Review Draft.June 1984. APA 1983.SHP-Application for Major Project to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.Filed February 1983,Revised July 1983. APA 1984a.Responses to Department of the Interior Comments on License Application.Volumes I and 2. February IS,1984. APA 1984b.Letter from J.Ferguson to D.LeFebvre,ADNR. May 30,1984. Ballard,W.B.,J.S.Whitman,N.G.Tankersley,L.D. Aumiller,and P.Hessing 1983.SHP-Phase II Progress Report,Big Game Studies,Vol.III,Moose-Upstream. ADF&G. Ballard,W.B.,C.L.Gardner,J.H.Westlund,and J.R. Dau 1982.SHP-Phase I Final Report,Big Game Studies, Vol.III,Moose-Upstream.ADF&G.119 pp. Bechtel Civil and Minerals,Inc.1983.Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project.Interim Feasibility Assessment Report. Claget,G.1984.Personal Communications,Snow Supervisor,Soil Conservation Service.Anchorage,AK. Cook Inlet Region,Inc.,and Placer Amax Inc.1981.Coal to Methanol Feasibility Study.Beluga Methanol Project. Final Report.Vol.IV.Environmental. 28052 840820 Technical Comment Numbers TRR002 TRR016 TRR048 TRROOS TRROIO TRR027 TRR04l TRR049 TRR067 TRR098 TRROSI TRR048 TRR003 TRR021 TRR022 TRR003 TRR022 TRROlS TRR019 TRR076 TRR034 - I~ - ..... ..... I~ TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES (cant.) Citation Elliott,C.L.1984.Wildlife Food Habits and Habitat Use on Revegetated Strip Mine Land in Alaska.PhD Dissertation,Univ.of Alaska,Fairbanks.174 pp. Kessel,B.,S.O.MacDonald,D.A.Gibson,B.A.Cooper, and B.A.Anderson.1982.SHP-Phase I Final Report, Birds and Non-Game Mammals.Univ.Alaska Museum. Fairbanks,AK. Mill~r,S.D.,and D.C.McAllister 1982.SHP-Phase I Final Report,Big Game Studies,Vol.VI.,Black Bear and Brown Bear.ADF&G. Miller,S.D.1983.SHP-Phase II Progress Report,Big Game Studies,Vol.VI,Black Bear and Brown Bear.ADF&G Miller,S.D.1984.SHP-Annual Report,Big Game Studies, Vol.VI,Black Bear and Brown Bear.ADF&G,April 1984. Modafferi,R.D •.1983.SHP-Phase II Progress Report,Big Game Studies,Vol.II,Moose-Downstream.ADF&G,April 1983. Money,D.1984.Personal Communication,Endangered Species Biologist,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service • Anchorage,AK. Municipality of Anchorage 1980.Anchorage Coastal Resource Atlas.Vol.1.The Anchorage Bowl.Planning Dept.Physical Planning Div.December 1980. 28052 840820 Technical Comment Numbers TRR035 TRR010 TRR054 TRR054 TRR005 TRR007 TRR027 TRR053 TRR054 TRR079 TRR023 TRR024 TRR002 TRR013 ... - - - TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES (cont.) Citation Pitcher,K.W.1982.SHP-Phase I Final Report,Big Game Studies,Vol.IV,Caribou.ADF&G,March 1982. Pitcher,K.W.1983 -SHP-Phase II Progress Report,Big Game Studies,Vol.IV,Caribou.ADF&G,April 1983. Pitcher,K.W.1984.SHP-1983 Annual Report,Big Game Studies,Vol.IV-Caribou.ADF&G,April 1984. R&M 1981.SHP-Task 3,Hydrology,Ice Observations 1980- 81.August 198.1. R&M 1982.SHP-Task 3 -Hydrology,Processed Climatic Data.Volumes 1 through 8,December 1982. Robus,M.1984.Personal Communication,Habitat Biologist,ADF&G.Fairbanks,AK. Roseneau,D.G.,C.E.Tull,and R.W.Nelson 1981. Protection Strategies for Peregrine Falcons and Other Raptors Along the Planned Northwest Alaskan Gas Pipe- line Route.Final Report,Volumes I and II.LGL Alaska Ecological Research Associates,Inc.June 1981. Tankersley,N.G.1984.SHP-Final Report,Big Game Studies,Vol.VIII,Dall Sheep.ADF&G,April 1984. White,C.M.1974.Survey of the Peregrine Falcon and Other Raptors in the Proposed Susitna River Reservoir Impoundment Areas.Unpub.Interim Report,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.Anchorage,July 1974. 28052 840820 Technical Comment Numbers TRR068 TRR068 TRR004 TRR068 TRR019 TRROI6 TRROIO TRR026 TRROIO - "'"" r .-, - - - TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES (cont.) Citation Windler,G.1984.Personal Communication with Geophysical Institute,University of Alaska,Fairbanks, AK. Wise,J.1984.Personal Communication,State Climatologist,AEIDC,University of Alaska,Anchorage. Wolff,J.D.and J.C.Zasada 1979.Moose Habitat and River Floodplain and Yukon-Tanana Upland.Proc.North American Moose Conf. Workshop 15:213-244. 28052 840820 Technical Comment Numbers TRR019 TRR019 TRR020 TRR024 -~ FI ! - ~- SOCIAL SCIENCE Citation Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).December 2,1980. ALUC 1983.The Denali National Scenic Highway Study. ADNR 1981.Susitna Basin Planning Background Report. Scenic Resources Along the Parks Highway.1981. ADNR and USDASCS 1982.Tanana Basin Area Plan Land Use Atlas.1982. ADNR and USDASCS 1983a.Tanana Basin Area Plan. Recreation Element.October 1983. ADNR and USDASCS 1983b.Tanana Basin Area Plan Mineral Element.August 1983. ADNR and USDASCS 1983c.Tanana Basin Area Plan Agriculture Element.August 1983. ADNR and USDASCS 1983d.Tanana Basin Area Plan Forestry Element.August 1983. ADNR and USDASCS 1983e.Tanana Basin Area Plan Settlement Elem~nt.August 1983. ADNR and USDASCS 1983f.Tanana Basin Area Plan Fish & Wildlife Element.August 1983. ADNR and USDASCS 1984.Susitna Area Plan.Summary or the Public Review Draft.June 1984. 28052 840820 Technical Comment Numbers SSC082 SSC082 SSC018 SSC019 SSC018 SSC072 SSC018 SSC072 SSC019 SSC072 SSC072 SSC072 SSC072 SSC072 SSC072 - SOCIAL SCIENCE (cont.) .....,, - - Citation ADNR et al.1984.Susitna Area Plant Agency Review Draft t February 1984. BLM 1980.BUt Land Use Plan for Southcentral Alaska. Summary Report.U.S.Dept.of Interior.Anchorage t AK. Sept.1980. FNSB 1984.Fairbanks North Star Borough Draft Comprehensive Plan -Side 1 and 2;Maps.January 1984. FOA 1984a.Socioeconomic Impact Projections -.Car Transportation Scenario t 1984. FOA 1984b.SHP-Trapper Creek Household Survey Report, 1984. FOA 1984c.SHP-Talkeetna Household S~rvey Report t 1984. FOA 1984d.SHP-Cantwell Household Survey Report t 1984. ISER 1983a.MAP Model Regional Base Case Projections, 1980-2010.For Use In OCS Lease Sale 87 (Diapir Field) Impact Analysis.Prepared for Minerals Management Service t Alaska OCS Office.Anchorage.February 1983. ISER 1983b.SHP -Man-In-The-Arctic Program (MAP) Technical Documentation Report,July 1983. 28052 840820 Technical Comment Numbers SSC006 SSC018 SSC074 SSC075 SSC082 SSC074 SSC082 SSC072 SSC029 SSC071 SSCI07 SSC1l3 SSCl05 SSCI05 SSCI05 SSC008 SSC008 "'"...---......-,-......---......-----~------------~~-----------r__----- - I"'" -I r - SOCIAL SCIENCE (cont.) Citation Justus and Simonetta 1983.Social Pollution:Impact Mitigation and Compensation Schemes and the Indian Interest,in:Alaska Symposium on the Social,Economic and Cultural Impacts of Natural Resources Development. pp.216-226.Anchorage,AK.August 25-27,1983. Mountain West Research,Inc.1981.Electric Transmission Line Effects on Land Values.A Critical Review of the Literature.Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration.Billings,Montana.December 1981. NPS 1982.How to apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.Washington,D.C.,June 1982. Talmadge,V.and O.Chesler 1977.The Importance of Small,Surface,and Dis turbed Sites as Sources of Significant Archeological Data.Interagency Archeo logical Services,Office of Archeology and Historical Preservation,NPS Washington,D.C.1977. UAM 1982.SHP - A Preliminary Cultural Resources Survey in the Upper Susitna River Valley,Final Report. UAM 1983.SHP-1982 Cultural Resources Survey.Final Report.March 1983. UAM 1984.SHP -1983 Field Season,Cultural Resources Investigation,Vol.1.,Final Report.January 1984. 28052 840820 Technical Comment Numbers SSC108 SSC032 SSC133 SSC125 SSC121 SSC012 SSC037 SSC1l6 SSC127 SSC130 SSC144 SSC163 """---------·--------------------""'--------------------.......1,-------