Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA423\Y Prepared by; [i] SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TASK 12-PUBLIC AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION LJli&IY }UtSC.A oepf OF fl!l( ... 23~R~k Nd~ AI ... M1 .. 1 .. SUBTASK 12.03 AGENCY CONSUL TAT ION MARCH 1982 "'-----ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ ____. /'""' - - - .- .- - - Prepared by: [ii] SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TASK 12-PUBLIC AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION SUBTASK 12.03 AGENCY CONSULTATION MARCH1982 U.S. De:part:moot of the Interior .. ARLIS- Alaska Resources Library & Information ServiCe Anchorage, Alaska L...------ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ __, .... -I -' ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUS ITNA HYDROELECTRI CPROJECT AGENCY CONSULTATION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 -ORGANIZATION OF CONSULTATION PROGRAM . • . • • • . . • • . • .. • • • • • • . • • • • • 1-1 1.1-Formal Consultation ..................................... 1-1 1.2 -Informal Consultation vi a the Steering Committee . .. . . .. • 1-3 1.3-Authorities Contacted ........•.................•........ 1-3 1.4-Correspondence ...•...............•..................•... 1-3 TABLES APPENDIX A -AGENCIES CONTACTED FOR INFORMATION DURING PREPARATION OF THE SUSITNA ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ~"""' APPENDIX B-1 -FORMAL AGENCY COORDINATION CORRESPONDENCE - - - APPENDIX B-2 -FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION REVIEW GROUP CORRESPQNbENCE APPENDIX B-3 -STEERING COMMITTEE CORRE:SPONDENCE APPENDIX B-4 .:. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE ARLIS . Alaska Resources Llbrary & fnJonnatJon Servtces A.ncbma&e. Alaska - AGENCY CONSULTATION REPORT ....., LIST OF TABLES r ~· r /'"'"' I I r- 1 - Number Title 1.1 Formal Agency Coordination List (Original) 1.2 1.3 Original List of Reports and Groups to Which Reports Were/ Were To Be Sent Original List of Agencies and Reports Received (To Be Received) 1.4 Formal Agency Coordination Expanded List 1.5 Expanded List of Reports and Groups to Which Reports Were/ Were To Be Sent 1.6 Reports, Data Sent, and Purpose 1.7 Members of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee 1.8 Dates and Purposes of Steering Committee Meetings with the Power Authority and/or Its Consultants 1.9 Agencies Invited and Those Which Declined To Be on the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group i .. - r 1-, -! r - AGENCY CONSULTATION REPORT This report describes the various processes uti 1 i zed and committees estab 1 i shed to provide agency input into the studies and discussions associated with the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. This agency consultation and resulting agency input was requested and provided on both an informal and formal basis as described below. For a discussion of general public participation in the project, refer to Appendix D of the Feasibility Report. In addition to this agency consultation· described, a large number of agencies were contacted for information during the preparation of the environmental report. The list of these agencies is included as Appendix A. 1 -ORGANIZATION OF CONSULTATION PROGRAM Consultation with the regulatory agencies was conducted on both a formal and in- formal basis as described below. Formal consultation was conducted with the agencies as required by the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Com- mission (FERC) and was done primarily vi a correspondence. Informal consultation was done primarily via numerous meetings and was conducted to provide an infor- mation flow between the Alaska Power Authority (APA), its consultants, and the agencies to insure agency input into project planning and decisions making. 1.1 -Formal Consultation (a) Regu1atorz Requirements The FERC regulations pertaining to applications for license under Part I of the Federal Power Act require in 18 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, Section 4.41, that applicants for 1 icenses consult with local, state, and federal natural resource agencies prior to filing of their license application. Accord- ingly~ the Alaska Power Authority (Power Authority} formulated a plan to con su 1 t with these agencies. The process utilized by the Power Authority was based upon circulation of reports on the various aspects of the projects to the agencies and a written request for agency comments. The reports circulated were interim reports in specific study areas (fisheries, wildlife, etc.) as discussed below, as well as planning decis1on reports {access road, transmission line corridors, etc.}. In addition, prior to initiation of project studies, the Plan of Study and revisions were circulated. Finally, results of the fish and wildlife mitigation efforts were circulated under this formal program via meetings and correspondence with the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group. (b) Organization The organization and implementation of the Formal Agency Coordination Pro- gram has been -a dynamic process modified because of agency input. The I: original organization is explained below, followed by an explanation of the ~ revised organization. {i) Original Organization Agency Groups Subject areas for coordination were selected based upon those re- quired by the FERC regulations. These were water quality and use; fish, wildlife, and botanical; historical and archaeological; recreation; aesthetics; and land use. State, federal, and local agencies having jurisdiction over resources in each of these sub- ject areas were then p 1 aced in the appropriate group of agencies which would receive reports concerning these subjects. A general category was also added to include agency involvement with policy decisions. Table 1.1 lists the agencies originally included in each of these groups. -Reports Circulated A list of the reports and the groups to which they were sent ap- pears in Table 1.2. Because of overlapping jurisdictions (one agency present in more than one group), several agencies received reports on different subjects. Table 1.3 lists by agency the reports received. {ii) Revised Organization Initial circulation of these reports resulted in feedback from the agencies concerning the organization of the formal agency coordin- ation program. Following several meetings between the Power Authority and the agencies, the program \'las revised. The revisions included: An expansion of the number of groups; An expansion of the number of agencies within each group; and - A decrease in the number of reports for which formal comments were requested and, instead, simply providing reports for information as backup documents to reports on which comments were requested. Table 1.4 lists the revised subject groups and the agencies within each group. Table 1.5 lists the reports to be received by each group, and Table 1.6 reports date circulated and purpose (informa- tion or comment). This revised program exceeds the consultation required by FERC but was implemented to insure that all agencies received adequate information. 1-2 - i ·~ j I .I -I - I""' i - r r - (c) Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group Throughout the Susitna Hydroelectric Project studies, technical mitigation p 1 anni ng has been conducted by the Power Authority and its consultants to reduce impacts to fish and wildlife recources. To insure agency input into this process, a Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group was established. The purpose of this group was to review fish and wildlife mitigation options presented to them and provide comments on priority and practicality of their opt ions. Agencies invited to be on this committee and those who accepted are 1 i sted in Tab 1 e 1. 9. 1.2 -Informal Consultation vi a the Steer·i ng Committee The Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee was established in 1980 as a mechanism to insure agency interaction in project progress and decision making. The first meeting was held in July 1980 and meetings continue to date. Originally envisioned as a formal process, it was decided the committee would function as an informal body with official agency comment addressed vi a the Forma 1 Agency Coordination Program. The committee consists of representatives of state and federal agencies as listed in Table 1.7. Table 1.8 lists the dates of meetings between the Power Authority and the Steering Committee and the purpose of these meetings. 1.3 -Authorities Contacted Appendix A of this report lists individuals from federal, state, and local agencies as well as other institutions and organizations who were contacted regarding the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Program. These individuals were consulted between October 1, 1979, and January 15, 1982. Arranged by environmental report section, the names listed include: (a) Those contacts made by TES and/or TES subcontractors for input re 1 ated specifically to that report section; (b) Those contacts made by TES and/or TES subcontractors, the information from which, while pertinent to a different envjronmental report section, was also applicable to the section in question; and (c) Contacts made byTES, TES subcontractors, Acres, or the Power Authority applicable to the Susitna Environmental studies in general. The nature of these contacts range from requests for data to inquiries concern- ing the environmental studies procedures. These lists are not intended to in- clude those contacts made with other members of the Environmental Studies Team, although some project personnel are listed because of the capacity in which they were consulted. 1.4 -Correspondence r-Appendix B contains correspondence with the resource agencies that has occurred during the course of the study. This correspondence appears in chronological order and is divided into four sections: l-3 r I 1 -Formal Agency Coordination Correspondence; -Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group Correspondence; -Steering Committee Correspondence; and -Miscellaneous Correspondence. 1-4 I~ l!lll!i, -J <' '""' ' - r r ' TABLE 1.1: FORMAL AGENCY COORDINATION LIST (ORIGINAL) Water Quality and Use Group Mr. John Katz Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 Colonel lee Nunn District Engineer Alaska District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Mr. John Spencer Regional Administrator Region X u.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Group Mr. Robert McVey Direc~or, Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Mr. Ernest W. Mueller Commissioner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Pouch 0 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Keith Schreiner Regional Director, Region 7 U.S. fish and Wildlife Services 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 cc: Mr. Alan Carson Division of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 cc: Judy Swartz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Stop 443 Region X EPA 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 cc: Mr. Ron Morris Director Anchorage Field Office National Marine Fisheries Service 701 C Street, Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Mr. Ronald 0. Skoog cc: Mr. Thomas Trent State of Alaska Commissioner State of Alaska Department of fish and Game Support Building Juneau, Alaska 99801 Department of fish and Game 2207 Shepard Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 I i TABLE 1.1 (Cont'd) Historical and Archeological Group Mr. John E. Cook Acting Regional Director Alaska Office National Park Service 540 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Ms. Lee McAnerney Department of Community and Regional Affairs Pouch B Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. Robert Shaw State Historic Preservation Officer Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks 619 Warehouse Avenue, Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Recreation Group Mr. John E. Cook Acting Regional Director Alaska Office National Park Service 540 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. John Katz Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. Lee Wyatt Planning Director Matanuska-Susitna Borough Box B Palmer, Alaska 99645 Aesthetics and Land Use Group Mr. Roy Huhndorf President Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated P.O. Drawer 4N Anchorage, Alaska 99509 Mr. John Katz Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 cc: Mr. Larry Wright National Park Service 1 011 East Tudor Road Suite 297 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 cc: Mr. Alan Carson Division of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 cc: Mr. Larry Wright National Park Service 1011 East Tudor Road Suite 297 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 cc: Mr. Alan Carson Division of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 cc: Mr. Alan Carson Division of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 -' -5 -. -I - r r r ' - -' TABLE 1.1 (Cont'd) Aesthetics and Land Use Group (cont'd) Mr • John Rego Bureau of Land Management Anchorage District Office 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 General Ms. Wendy 1'4olt Office of Coastal Management Division of Policy Development and Planning Pouch AP Juneau, Alaska 99811 I i TABLE 1.2: ORIGINAL LIST Of REPORTS AND GROUPS TO WHICH REPORTS WERE/WERE TO BE SENT Report Plan of Study and Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report 1980 Annual Reports Fish Ecology Big Game Birds and Non-Game Mammals Furbearers Plant Ecology Land Use Socioeconomics Cultural Resources Recreation Instream Flow Study Plan Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy Feasibility Report 1981 Final Phase I Reports FWB = Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical ALU = Aesthetics, Land Use HA = Historic and Archaeological R = Recreation WQ = Water Quality G = General Group A11 A11 - A11 FWB FWB FWB FWB FWB ALU HA HA R WQ, FWB, G A11 FWB A11 A11 - - - - - - r -I r r TABLE 1.3: ORIGINAL LIST OF AGENCIES AND REPORTS RECEIVED (TO BE RECEIVED) Agency Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of · Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Report Plan of Study Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report Instream Flow Study Plan 1980 Socioeconomic Annual Report 1980 Cultural Resources Annual Report 1980 land Use Annual Report 1980 Recreation Annual Report Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy Feasibility Report Final Phase I Reports Plan of Study and Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report lnstream Flow Study Plan 1980 Fish Ecology Annual Report 1980 Big Game Annual Report 1980 Birds and Non-Game Mammals .'\nnual Report 1980 furbearers Report 1980 Plant Ecology Report Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report Fish and W.ildli fe Mitigation Policy Feasibility Report Final Subtask Reports Plan of Study Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report Instream Flow Study Plan 1980 Fish Ecology Annual Report 1980 Big Game Annual Report 1980 Birds and Non.-Game Mammals Annual Report 1980 Furbearers Report 1980 Plant Ecology Report Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy Feasibility Report Final Subtask Report Plan of Study Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report 1980 Socioeconomic Annual Report 1980 Cultural Resources Annual Report Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report Feasibility Report final Subtask Reports TABLE 1.3 (Cont'd) Agency Division of Policy Development and Planning Office of Coastal Management Mantanuska-Susitna Borough Cook Inlet Region, Inc. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Marine Fisheries Service Report Plan of Study Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report Instream Flow Study Report Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report Feasibility Report Final Subtask Reports Plan of Study Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report 1980 Recreation Annual Report Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report Feasibility Report Final Phase I Reports Plan of Study Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report 1980 Land Use Annual Report Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report Feasibility Report Final Phase I Reports Plan of Study Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report Instream Flow Study Plan Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report Feasibility Report 1981 Final Phase I Reports Plan of Study Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report Instream Flow Study Plan Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report Feasibility Report 1981 Final Phase I Reports Plan of Study Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report Instream Flow Study Report 1980 Fish Ecology Annual Report 1980 Big Game Annual Report 1980 Birds and Non-Game Mammals Annual Report 1980 Furbearer Report 1980 Plant Ecology Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy Feasibility Report 1981 Final Phase 1 Reports - -· - - - -' ' !"'"' I r - TABLE 1.3 (Cont'd) Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service U.S. Bureau of Land Management Report Plan of Study Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report Instream Flow Study Plan 1980 Fish Ecoloyy Annual Report 1980 Big Game Annual Report 1980 Birds and Non-Game Mammals Annual Report 1980 Furbearer Report 1980 Plant Ecology Report Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy Feasibility Report 1981 Final Phase I Reports Plan of Study Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report Instream Flow Study Plan 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report 1980 Socioeconomic Annual Report 1980 Cultural Resources Annual Report 1980 Recreation Annual Report Transmission Line Carr idor Screening Report Feasibility Report 1981 Final Phase I Reports Plan of Study Plan of Study Revisions Development Selection Report Instream Flow Study Report 1980 Annual Environmental Summary Report 1980 Land Use Annual Report Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report Feasibility Report 1981 Final Phase 1 Reports TABLE 1.4: AGENCY COORDINATION EXPANDED LIST Water Quality and Use Group Mr. Max Brewer * Office of the Director Special Assistant for Alaska U.S. Geological Survey 218 East Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. John Cook ** Acting Regional Director Alaska Region National Park Service 540 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. John Katz Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. Robert McVey * Director, Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Mr. Ernest W. Mueller * Commissioner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Pouch 0 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Colonel Lee Nunn District Engineer Alaska District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Hr. John Rego Bureau of Land Management Anchorage District Office 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Mr. Keith Schreiner * Regional Director, Region 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Ronald D. Skoog * Commissioner State of Alaska Department of Fish & Game Support Building Juneau, Alaska 99801 cc: Mr. larry Wright National Park Service 1011 East Tudor Road Suite 297 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 cc: Mr. Alan Carson cc: cc: Division of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Natural Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Mr. Ron Mlrris Director Anchorage Field Office National Marine Fisheries Service 701 C Street, Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Mr. Bob Martin Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 437 East Street, 2nd Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 cc: Mr. lenny Carin U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Alaska Ecological Service 733 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 cc: Mr. Thomas Trent State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2207 Spenard Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 * Added at the suggestion of the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee. **Added as a result of specific agency request. - """"' """" - ~ I"''"> r ' - - - - r I TABLE 1.4 (Cont'd) t~r. John R. Spencer Regional Administrator Region X U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 cc: Ms. Judy Swartz u.s. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Stop 443 Region X EPA 1200 South 6th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Group Mr. Max Brewer * Office of the Director Special Assistant for Alaska U.S. Geological Survey 218 East Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. John Katz Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. Robert McVey Director, Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Mr. Ernest W. Mueller Commissioner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Pouch 0 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. John Rego * Bureau of LandManagement Anchorage District Office 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Mr. Keith Schreiner Regional Director, Region 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 cc: Mr. Alan Carson Division of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Natural Pouch 7005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 cc: Mr. Ron Morris Director Anchorage Field Office National Marine Fisheries Service 701 C Street, Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 cc: Mr. Bob Martin Alaska Department of Environment a! Conservation 437 East Street, 2nd Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 cc: Mr. Robert Bowker U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Alaska Ecological Service 733 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Ronald 0. Skoog c c: Mr. Thomas Trent State of Alaska Commissioner State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Support Building Juneau, Alaska 99801 Department of Fish and Game 2207 Spenard Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 * Added at the suggestion of the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee. I! TABLE 1.4 (Cont'd) Mr. John Spencer * Regional Administrator cc: Ms. Judy Swartz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Stop 443 Region X EPA 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Historic and Archaeological Group Mr. John Cook Acting Regional Director Alaska Region National Park Service 540 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Ms. Lee McAnerney Department of Community and Regional Affairs Pouch B Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr . John Rego * Bureau of Land Management Anchorage District Office 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Mr. Robert Shaw State Historic Preservation Officer Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks 619 Warehouse Avenue, Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 cc: Mr. Larry Wright National Park Service 1011 East Tudor Road Suite 297 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 cc: Mr. Alan Carson Division of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Mr. Ronald 0. Skoog * cc: Mr. Thomas Trent State of Alaska Commissioner State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Support Building Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Lee Wyatt** Planning Director Matanuska-Susitna Borough Box 8 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Department of Fish and Game 2207 Spenard Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Recreation Group Mr. John Cook Acting Regional Director Alaska Region National Park Service 540 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 cc: Mr. Larry Wright National Park Service 1011 East Tudor Road Suite 297 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 * Added at the suggestion of the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee. **Added as a result of specific agency request. - - - - - J - r - ,... f I I;' -I TABLE 1.4 (Cont'd) ~1r. John Katz Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. Robert McVey * Director, Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Mr. Keith Schreiner * Regional Director, Region 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 cc: Mr. Alan Carson Division of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 cc: Mr. Ron Morris Director Anchorage Field Office National Marine Fisheries Service 701 C Street, Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Mr. Ronald 0. Skoog * cc: Mr. Thomas Trent State of Alaska Commissioner State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Support Building Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Lee Wyatt Planning Director Matanuska-Susitna Borough Box B Palmer, Alaska 99645 Department of Fish and Game 2207 Spenard Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Aesthetics and Land Use Group Mr. John Cook ** Acting Regional Director Alaska Region National Park Service 540 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Roy Huhndorf President Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated P.O. Drawer 4N Anchorage, Alaska 99509 Mr. John Katz Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. John Rego Bureau of Land Management Anchorage District Office 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 cc: Mr. Larry Wright National Park Service 1011 East Tudor Road Suite 297 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 cc: Mr. Alan Carson Division of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 * Added at the suggestion of the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee. **Added as the result of specific agency request. TABLE 1.4 (Cont'd) Mr. Keith Schreiner * Regional Director, Region 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Mr. Ronald 0. Skoog * cc: Mr. Thomas Trent State of Alaska Commissioner State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Support Building Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Lee Wyatt** Planning Director Matanuska-Susitna Borough Box B Palmer, Alaska 99645 Department of Fish and Game 2207 Spenard Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Socioeconomic Group* Director of Planning Fairbanks North Star Borough 520 5th Avenue P.O. Box 1267 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Mr. Roy Huhndorf President Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated P.O. Drawer 4N Anchorage, Alaska 99509 Mr. John Katz Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 Ms. Lee McAnerney Department of Community and Regional Affairs Pouch B Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. Michael Meehan Director, Planning Department Municipality of Anchorage Pouch 6-650 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 cc: Mr. Max Dolchak Executive Director Cook Inlet Native Association 670 Firewood Lane Anchorage, Alaska 99502 cc: Mr. Alan Carson Divis ion of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Mr. Ronald 0. Skoog * cc: Mr. Thomas Trent State of Alaska Commissioner State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Support Building Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Herb Smelcer, President General Manager AHTNA Corporation Drawer G Copper Center, Alaska 99573 Department of Fish and Game 2207 Spenard Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 * Added at the suggestion of the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee. **Added as a result of specific agency request. -' ~I ~, - 111'1!\ I - - - TABLE 1.4 (Cont'd) Mr. Lee Wyatt Planning Director Matanuska-Susitna Borough Box B Palmer, Alaska 99645 Geological and.Soils Group * Mr. Max Brewer Office of the Director Special Assistant for Alaska U.S. Geological Survey 218 East Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. John Katz Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. David Haas State-Federal Assistance Coordinator State of Alaska Office of the Governor General Division of Policy Development and Planning Pouch AW Juneau, Alaska 99811 Ms. Wendy Walt Office of Coastal Management Division of Policy Development and Planning Pouch AP Juneau, Alaska 99811 cc: Mr. Alan Carson Division of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Natural Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 * Added at the suggestion of the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee. I I TABLE 1. 5: EXPANDED LIST OF REPORTS AND GROUPS TO WHICH REPORTS WERE/WERE TO BE SENT REPORT GROUP* Instream Flow Study Plan Draft Fishery Mitigation Plan Draft Wildlife Mitigation Plan Final Phase I Reports: (a) Fish Ecology (b) Wildlife Ecology (c) Plant Ecology (d) Birds and Non-Game Mammals (e) Furbearers (f) Land Use (g) Socioeconomics (h) Cultural Resources ( i) Recreation Land Status Report Interim Report on Seismic Studies Final Report on Seismic Studies Geotechnical Exploration Report on 19BO Studies Geotechnical Exploration Report on 19B1 Studies Water Quality Report Water Use Report River Morphology Sociocultural Report Environmental Evaluation of Access Plans Engineering Evaluation of Access Plans *ALU FWB HA wa R SE GS G = Aesthetics, Land Use =Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical = Historic, Archaeological = Water Quality = Recreation = Socioeconomic = Geology and Soils = General R, ALU WQ, FWB, R, ALU WQ, FWB, R, ALU WQ, FWB, R WQ, FWB, R FWB, ALU FWB, R FWB, R, SE ALL FWB, R, ALU, SE, G HA, SE R R, ALU, SE, GS GS GS GS GS WQ, FWB, R, ALU ~Q, FWB, R, ALU, SE WQ, FWB, R, ALU, GS FWB, HA, R, ALU, SE WQ, FWB, HA, R, ALU, SE, GS WQ, FWB, HA, R, ALU, SE, GS Note: These reports and groups were added to those listed in Table 1.2. Groups refer to those listed in Table 1.4. - - """' I - - TABLE 1.6: REPORTS, DATE SENT, AND PURPOSE ~· PRIOR TO DOCUMENT 03/15/82 03/15/82 04/01/82 04/15/82 04/30/82 PURPOSE* Plan of Study X FC r""' Plan of Study -Revision 1 X FC 1980 Summary Environmental Report X I i ' 1980 Annual Environmental Reports: (a) Fish Ecology X I (b) Plant Ecology X I ,.... (c) Big Game, Birds, and Non-Game X I Mammals, Furbearers (d) Land Use X I (e) Socioeconomics X I 1""" (f) Cultural Resources X I ! Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report X FC Development Selection Report X FC !""' Initial Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy X FC (Revised Mitigation Policy) X FC Instream Flow Study X FC Feasibility Report X FC """" Draft Fishery Mitigation Plan X FC Draft Wildlife Mitigation Plan X FC Phase I Environmental Reports: (a) Fish Ecology -ADF&G X I (b) Wildlife Ecology -ADf&G X I I""" (c) Plant Ecology X I (d) Bird and Non-Game Mammals X I (e) Furbearers X I (f) Land Use X I ,.. (g) Socioeconomics X I (h) Cultural Resources X I (i) Recreation X FC Land Status Report X I !""" Interim Report on Seismic Studies X I final Report on Seismic Studies X I Geotechnical Exploration Report on 1980 Studies X I Geotechnical Exploration Report ~ 1981 Studies X I Water Quality Report X I Water Use Report X I River Morphology Report X I ,_. Sociocultural Report X I Environmental Evaluation of Access Plans X I Access Route Selection Report X I *FC = formal Comments Requested I = Provided for Information Only - r l TABLE 1.7: MEMBERS Of THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE State Agencies Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Commerce Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Other federal Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geology Survey National Park Service National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Bureau of land Management Environmental Protection Agency Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center Note: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Division of Policy Development and Planning and Matanuska-Susitna Borough were invited but declined to sit on the Steering Committee. - - , I ' I ,..,, i i 1 ; - TABLE 1.8: DATES AND PURPOSE OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS WITH APA AND/OR ITS CONSULTANTS DATE June 1 2 , 1980 July 17, 1980 November 5, 1980 Apri113, 1981 October 20, 1981 December 2, 1981 January 20, 1982 PURPOSE Objective of Committee and Introduction to Project Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and State License Process, Instream Flow Studies Evaluation of Alternatives to Susitna Alternatives, Access Road Evaluation, and Comments on Environmental Studies Access Road Evaluation Explanation of Agency Comment Requests from APA Environmental Studies and Concerns, Fisheries Mitigation I i State. Agencies TABLE 1.9: AGENCIES INVITED AND THOSE WHICH DECLINED TO BE ON THE FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION REVIEW GROUP Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Natural Resources Federal Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Bureau of Land Management Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Geological Survey u.S. Army Corps of Engineers Status Agreed Agreed Agreed Agreed Agreed Agreed Declined Declined -i - - r"· I f APPENDIX A AGENCIES CONTACTED FOR INFORMATION DURING PREPARATION OF THE SUSITNA ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS .f""\ \ !""" I I ··!"""> ! APPENDIX A AGENCIES CONTACTED FOR INFORMATION DURING PREPARATION OF THE SUSITNA ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS The following list names individuals frorn federal, state, and local agencies as well as other institutions and organizations who were contacted regarding the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies Program. These individuals were consulted between October 1, 1979, and January 15, 1982. Arranged by environmental report section as they appeared in Volume 2 of the Feasibility Study, the names listed include: (1) Those contacts made byTES and/or TES subcontractors for input related specifically to that report sectiori; (2) Those contacts made byTES and/or TES subcontractors, the information from which, while pertinent to a different environmental report section, was also applicable to the section in question; and (3) Contacts made byTES, TES subcontractors, Acres, or the Alaska Power Authority applicable to the Susitna Environmental Studies in general. The nature of these contacts ranges from requests for data to inquiries con- cerning the environmental studies procedures. These lists are not intended to include those contacts made with other members of the Environmental Studies Team, although some project personnel are 1 i sted because of the capacity in which they were consulted. - ·- Report on Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources FEDERAL AGENCIES United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service . -Lola Britton: File Manager Forest Service, Institute of Northern Forestry -Joan Foote: Biologist . -Fred Larson: Research Forester -Vic VanBa11enberghe: Wildlife Biologist -Leslie Viereck! Principal Plant Ecologist Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experimental Station -Robert Ethi nat on: Director Soil Conservation Service -Weymeth Long: Director of State Office -Sterling Powell: Physical Engineer, Water Resource Specialist United States Department of Commerce National t4arine Fisheries Service -Robert McVey: Director -Ronald Morris: Supervisor -Bradley Smith: Fishery Biologist United States Department of Defense Army Cold Region Research Environmental Laboratory -Jerry Brown: Chief, Environmental Research Branch Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District -Loran Baxter: Civil Engineer -Richard Borcetti: Biologist, Permit Processing -Phillip Brna: Biologist . -James Caruth: Chief of Regulatory Functions -Jack Ferri se: Civi 1 Engineering Technician Compliance Investigator -Col. Lee Nunn: District Engineer -Lt. Col. J. Perkins: Deputy District Engineer United States Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration -Fredrick Chiei: Deputy Regional Representative -Robert Cross: Administrator -Donald Shira: Chief of Planning Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Division of Licensed Projects -Ronald Corso: Director -Paul Carrier: Engineer -Donald Clarke: Staff Counsel -Thomas Dewit: Landscape Architect -Quentin Eds.on: Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch -Julian Flint: Supervisor, Engineering Project Analysis Branch -Peter Foote: Fishery Biologist -Donald Giampaoli: Department Director I I -Mark Robinson: -Dean Shumway: -Gerald Wilson: Environmental Biologist Chief, Conservation Section Chief, Project Analysis United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management -Patrick Beckley: Chief, Branch of Lands and Minerals -Louis Carufel: Fisheries Biologist -Ann Dawe -Art Hosterman: Chief, Branch of Biologica1 Resources -Paula Krebs: Remote Sensing Specialist Steve Leskosky: Environmental Planner -John Rego: ·Geo 1 og i st -Mike Scott: Fisheries Biologist Gary Seitz: Environmental Coordinator -Page Spencer: Remote Sensing Specialist -Steve Talbot: Ecologist -Dick Tindall: Anchorage District Manager Bureau of Mines -Bob Ward: Chief, Environmental Planning Staff Fish and Wildlife Service -Mike Amaral: Endangered Species Biologist -Skip Ambrose: Endangered Species Biologist -Bruce Apple: Fisheries Biologist -Dale Arhart: Staff Biologist -Keith Baya: Assistant Director for the Environment -Robert Bowker: Field Supervisor, Western Alaska Ecological Services Unit -Carl Burger: Research Fisheries Biologist, Advisor, Radio Telemetry Project -Bruce Conant: Wildlife Biologist/Pilot -Lenny Corrin: Fish and Wildlife Projects Coordinator -Dirk Derksen: Waterfowl Biologist Gregory Konkel: Habitat Evaluation Coordinator -Donald McKay: Wildlife Biologist -Dennis Money: Endangered Species Coordinator -John Morrison: Supervisor, Biological Services Program -Mel Munson: Program Supervisor. Land and Water Program -A. Palmisana: Research Chemist -Wayne Regelin: Research Biologist -Mel Schamberger: Habitat Evaluation Procedures Group Leader, Biological Services Program -Keith Schreiner: Region Seven Director -Gary Stackhouse: Fish and Wildlife Biologist 9 Federal Projects/Technicial Assistance Coordinator -Mike Thompson: Fisheries Biologist -John Trapp: Marine Bird Management Project Leader -Dave Waangard: Research Fisheries Biologist - -Richard Wilmot: Fisheries Research Project Leader Geological Survey -Derrill Cowing: Hydrologist -Gary Hickman: Area Director -Robert Lamke: Chief, Hydrology Section -Bob Madison: Hydrologist. Water Quality Specialist Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service -William Welch: Supervising Outdoor Recreation Planner -j \ __ .I ~~ I \ ~ ' r Nation a 1 Park Service -Brailey Breedlove: Landscape Architect -Terry Carlstrom: Chief of Planning and Design -Ross Cavenaugh: Fisheries Biologist -Carl Stoddard: Park Ranger United States Environmental Protection Agency -John Spencer: Region X Administrator Environmental Evaluation Branch -Judi Schwartz: Environmental Protection Specialist Environmental Impact Statement Review Section -Elizabeth Corbyn: Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch -Dan Sternborn: Team Leader STATE AGENCIES Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development -Charles Webber: Cammi ssi oner Alaska Power Authority -Bruce Bedard: Inspector, Native Liaison -David Wozniak: Project Engineer Divi sian of Energy and Power Development -Heinz Noonan: Economist Alaska Department of Community ·and Regional Affairs -Lee McAnerney: Commissioner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation .. Ernst Mue 11 er: Commissioner -Robert Flint: Region II Program Coordinator -Rikki Fowler: Ecologist -Robert Martin: Regional Supervisor -David Sturdevant: Management and Technical Assistant Ecologist -Dan Wilkerson: Special Projects Planner -Steve Zrake: Environmental Field Officer Alaska Department of Fish and Game -Ronald Skoog: Commissioner Division of Boards -Robert Larson: Biologist~ Division Director Division of Commercial Fisheries -Dennis Haanpaa: Assistant Regional Supervisor -Alan Kingsbury: Regional Research Supervisor Divi sian of Game -Paul Arneson: Biologist -Gregory Bos: Game Biologist IV -Bruce Cambell: Waterfowl Biologist -Jack Oidrickson: Game Biologist -Sterling Eide: Regional Supervisor -David Johnson: Game B i a 1 ogi st -Herbert Melchior:. Game Biologists III -Lee Mi 11 er: Fish and Game Tecnni ci an V -Sterling Miller: Game Biologist III -Suzanne Miller: Statistician. Biometrician III -Kenneth Pitcher: Game Biologist -Karl Schneider: Research Coordinator -Charles Schwartz: Biologist II -Jerome Sexton: Game Biologist II -Dan Timm: Game Biologist III, Chief Waterfowl -Elroy Young:· Game Biologist III Division of Habitat Protection -Richard Logan: Chief -Thomas Arminski: Regional Land Specialist -Dimitri Bader: Lands Coodi nator, Habitat Bi ol ogi st -Phil Brna: Habitat Biologist II -Richard Cannon: Habitat Biologist III -John Clark: Assistant Chief· -Devany Lehner-Welch: Habitat Biologist II -Don McKay: Habitat Biologist III ~ Marguerite Paine: Habitat Biologist II -Frances VanBallenberghe: Habitat Biologist III -Carl Yanagawa: Regional Supervisor Division of Sport Fisheries -Kevin Delaney: Fishery Biologist II -Christopher Estes: Fishery Biologist III, Susitna Aquatic Studies -Larry Heckart: Fishery Biologist IV -Michael Mills:. Senior Fisheries Biometrician III -Thomas Trent: Regional Supervisor, Susitna Aquatic Studies Coordinator. Vice-Chairman of Susitna Steering Committee -Kyle Watson: Clerk IV, Susitna Hydroelectric Aquatic Studies Staff Roster Subsistence Division -Ronald Stanek: Resource Specialist II A1 aska Department of Natura 1 Resources -Robert LeResche: Commissioner Division of Forest Land and Water -Ted Smith: Director -Mary Lou Harle: Water Management Officer Division of Lands -Dean Brown: Southcentral District lands Officer -Michael Franger: Special Projects Officer Division of Minerals and Energy -G1en Harrison: Director Division of Parks -Jack Wiles: Chief Division of Research and Development -Linda Arndt: Land Management Officer -Christopher Beck: Planner III -Al Carson: Deputy Director -lloyd Egg an: Assist ant Analyst II Divison of Water Resources -Brent Petrie: Chief -Richard Stern: Historian, Research and Planning Alaska Department of Revenue -Linda Lockridge: Records and Licensing Supervisor, Fish and Game Licensing Division -Hazel Nowlin: Administrative Assistant, Administration Services ..... ' ~, ~\ l r- 1 I \ t j r -' Alaska Department of Public Safety Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection -Col. Robert Stickles: Director -Wayne Fleek: Region III Commander -Lt. Rod Mills: Administrative Officer -Lt. Col. Tetz 1 aff: Deputy Director A 1 ask a Department of Transportation -Jay Bergstrand: Transportation Planner IV -Cathy Derickson: Transportation Planner -Reed Gibby: Transportation Planner · Brock University ~nstitute of Urban and Environmental Studies, St. Cathari nes, Ontario, Canada -Fikret Berkes: Director Canadian Territorial Agencies Northwest Territories Fish and Game Branch, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories -Bruce Stevenson: Research Co-ordinator Office of the Governor Division of Policy Development and Planning -Frances Ulmer: Director University of Alaska -Rose ann Dunsmore: Graduate Student -Tony Gharret: Professor Agricultural Experiment Station -Willi am Mitche 11: Head Agronomist Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center -Mr. Becker: Climatologist -Chuck Evans: Research Associate, Wildlife BiDlogist -Richard Hensel: Game Biologist -William Wilson: Fisheries Biologist Geophysical ·Institute -Ken Dean: Remote Sensing Geologist -Ian Hutchison: Professor of Physics -T. Osterkamp: Professor of Physics Museum -David Murray: Her5ari urn Curator LOCAL AGENCIES Matanuska-Susitna Borough Borough Office -Lee Wyatt: Acting Borough Manager, Planning Director OTHER INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS Institutions and Organizations Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington -Lester E. Ebechardt: Terrestrial Ecology Section Chick a loon Vi 11 age -Jess Landsman: President Colorado State University Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology -Gustav Swanson: Professor and Department Head Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association -Floyd Heimback: Director -Thomas Mears: Biologist -Thomas Wa Jker: Economist Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated -Agnes Brown: Executive -Lynda Hays: Shareholder and Community Relations Coordinator -Robert Rude: Senior Vice-President -John Youngblood: Executive Director Fairbanks Environmental Center -Jeff Weltzin: Energy Coordinator HDR Sciences, Santa Barbara, California -Ken Reed Hal mes and Narver -James Pederson: Susitna Project Manager Idaho Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit -Dudley Reiser: Fisheries Biologist, Private Consultant Keua1 Village -James Shoalwolfer: President Kni katnu Incorporated -Paul Theadore: Chief L.G.L. Alaska, Incorporated -David Roseneau: Biologist National Museum Canada Museum of Natural Hi story -George Argus: Associate Curator, Vascular Plant Section Ninilchik Native Assodation, Incorporated -Arno 1 d Orhdh off: Chief Ni ni 1 chi k Vi 1.1 age -Arnold Orhdhoff: President Norsk Hydro, Sweden -Iver Hagen: Public Relations Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota -Al Sargeant: Wildlife Research Biologist Sagehen Creek Field Station, California -Wayne Spencer: Biologist -William Zielinski: Biologist Sa1amatoff Native Association, Incorporated ~Andy Johnson: President Seldovia Native Association, Incorporated -James Segura: Chief Susitna Power Now -E. Dischner: Executive Director Tyonek Native Corporation -Agnes Brown: President United Fishermen of Alaska -Rodger Painter: Executive Director University of Cal gary, Alberta, Canada -Dr. Stephen Herrero: Faculty of Experimental Design and Department of Biology University of Montana School of Forestry -Dr. Charles Jonkel: Director, Northern Border Grizzly Bear Project - r University of Uppsala, Sweden -Dr. Hugo Sjors: Professor of Ecological Botany Individuals -Ron Long: Trapper -Mary Kay McDonald: Trapper Cleo McMahon: Pilot, Hunter in Upper Susitna Basin -Don Newman: Trapper -Dorothy Palzin: Deshka Resident -Carol Resnick: Tsusena Creek Resident -Philip Roullier: Indian River Resident -Robert Scheufele: Talkeetna Resident -Leroy Shank: Trapper -Robert Smith: Tsusena Creek Resident ~ Roger Smith: Trapper -Glen Wingkte: Trapper Report on Historic and Archeological Resources FEDERAL AGENCIES United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service -Sterling Powell: Physical Engineer, Water Resource Specialist United States Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District -Col. lee Nunn: District Engineer -Lt. Col. J. Perkins: Deputy District Engineer United States Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration -Fredrick Chiei: Deputy Regional Representative -Robert Cross: Administrator -Donald Shira: Chief of Planning Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Division of Licensed Projects -Ronald Corso: Director -Paul Carrier: Engineer -Donald Clarke: Staff Counsel -Thomas Dewit:· Landscape Architect -Quentin Edson: Chief~ Environmental Analysis Branch Julian Flint: Supervisor, Engineering Project Analysis Branch -Peter Foote: Fishery Biologist -Donald Giampaoli: Department Director -Mark Robinson: Environmental Biologist -Dean Shumway: Chief, Conservation Section -Gerald Wilson: Chief, Project Analysis United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management -Mike Brown: Historian -Louis Carufel: Fisheries Biologist -Art Hosterman: Chief, Branch of Biological Resources -Ray Leicht: Archeologist -Steve Lesko sky: Environmental Planner -John Rego: Geologist -Gary Seitz: Environmental Coordinator Bureau of Mines -Michael Brown: Chemist -Bob Ward: Chief, Environmental Planning Staff Fish and Wildlife Service -Dale Arhart: Staff Biologist Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service -Janet McCabe: Regional Director -Charles McKinney: Consulting· Archeologist -Gail Russell: Interagency Services Division -William We1ch: Supervising Outdoor Recreation Planner -Larry Wright: Review Section Chief, Federal Projects - ; ,?' /""'>. I I ) r I '{~ r ,..... ! I National Park Service -Brailey Breedlove: Landscape Architect John Cook: Regional Director Gail Russell: Staff, Interagency Service Division Carl Stoddard: Park Ranger Howard Wagner: Associate Director of Professional Services United States Environmental Protection Agency Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Statement Review Section -Elizabeth Corbyn: Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch STATE AGENCIES Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development -Charles Webber: Commissioner Alaska Power Authority -Bruce Bedard: Inspector, Native Liaison Division of Energy and Power Development -Heinz Noonan: Economist Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs -Lee McAnerney: Commissioner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation -Robert Flint: Region II Program Coordinator -David Sturdevant: Management and Techni ca 1 Assistant Ecologist -Dan Wilkerson: Special Projects Planner Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fisheries -Michael Mills: Senior Fisheries Biometrician III -Thomas Trent: Regional Supervisor, Susitna Aquatic Studies Coordinator, Vice-Chairman of Susitna Steering Committee Alaska Department of Natural Resources -Robert LeResche: Commissioner Division of Forest·Land and Water -Mary Lou Harle: Water Management Officer Division of Lands -MichJ:l Franger: Special Projects Officer Divisic~ of Parks -Chip Dennerlein: Director -Jack Wiles: Chief -William Hanable: State Preservation Officer -Doug Reger: State Archeologist -Robert Shaw: State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Research and Development -Linda Arndt: Land Management Officer -Al Carson: Deputy Director Office of the Governor Division of Policy Development and Planning -Frances Ulmer: Director University of Alaska Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center -William Wilson: Fisheries Biologist OTHER INSTITUTIONS. ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS Institutions and Organizations Cook Inlet Region~ Incorporated -Lynda Hays: Shareholder and Community Relations Coordinator -Robert Rude: Senior Vice-President Fairbanks Environmental Center -Jeff Weltzin: Energy Coordinator Land Field Services~ Incorporated -P. J. Sullivan: Representative Susitna Power Now -E. Dischner: Executive Director Individuals -Glenn Bacon: Consulting Archeologist A I r : Y; Report on Socioeconomic Impacts FEDERAL AGENCIES United States Department of Agriculture Economics~ Statistics, and Cooperative Services -Paul Fuglestad: Agricultural Economist~ Natural Resource Economics Division Farmers Home Administration -Delon Brown: Chief Researcher Soil Conservation Service -John 0' Neil: Coordinator -Sterling Powell: Physical Engineer, Water Resource Specialist United States Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District -Col. Lee Nunn: District Engineer -Lt. Col. J. Perkins: Deputy District Engineer Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District -Ruth Love: Sociologist United States Department of Education -Lee Hays: Facilities Planner United States Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration -Fredrick Chiei: Deputy Regional Representative -Robert Cross: Administrator -Donald Shira: Chief of Planning Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Division of Licensed Projects -Ronald Corso: Director -Paul Carrier: Engineer -Donald Clarke: Staff Counsel -Thomas Dewit: Landscape Architect -Quentin Edson: Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch -Julian Flint: Supervisor, Engineering Project Analysis Branch -Peter Foote: Fishery Biologist -Donald Giampaoli: Department Director -Mark Robinson: Environmental Biologist -Dean Shumway: Chief, Conservation Section -Gerald Wilson: Chief, Project Analysis United States Department of Housing and Urban Oevel opment -E. Robinson: Area Economist United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management -Louis Carufel: Fisheries Biologist -Gary Henn i gh: Socioeconomic Speci a 1 i st -Art Hosterman: Chief, Branch of Biological Resources -John Rego: Geologist -Gary Seitz: Environmental Coordinator -Charles Smythe: Socioeconomics Specialist Bureau of Mines -Bob Ward: Chief, Environmental Planning Staff Fish and Wildlife Service -Bruce Apple: Fisheries Biologist ~ Dale Arhart: Staff Biologist Geological Survey -Robert Lamke: Chief. Hydrology Section National Park Service -Brailey Breedlove: Landscape Architect -Joanne Gidlund: Public Affairs United States Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration, The Alaska Railroad -Fred Hoefler: Traffic Officer United States Environmental Protection Agency Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Statement Review Section -Elizabeth Corbyn: Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch STATE AGENCIES A 1 ask a Department of Commerce and Economic Deve 1 opment -Charles Webber: Commissioner A1 ask a Power Authority -Bruce Bedard: Inspector, Native Liaison -Nancy Blunck: Coordinator Divfsi on of Energy and Power Development -Heinz Noonan: Economist -David Reume: Economist Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs -Lee McAnerney: Commissioner -Edward Busch: Senior P 1 anner -Lemar Cotton: Planner II I -Sylvia Spearon: Assistant Planner -Richard Spitler: Planner -Mark Stephens: Planner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation -Jim Allen: Sanitarian -Robert Flint: Region II Program Coordinator -Rob.ert Martin: Regional Supervisor -D~n Wilkerson: Special Projects Planner -Steve Zrake: Environmental Field Officer A 1 ask a Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries -Dennis Haanpaa: Assistant Regional Supervisor Division of Game Gregory Bos: Game Bi ol ogi st IV -Sterling Eide: Regional Supervisor -Lee Miller: Fish and Game Technician V -Sterling Miller: Game Biologist III -Jerome Sexton: Game Bi o 1 ogi st I I -Dan Timm: Game Biologist III~ Chief Waterfowl ·""' 'i ,- 1 Division of Sport Fisheries -Christopher Estes: Fishery Biologist III~ Susitna Aquatic Studies -Larry Heckart: Fishery Biologist IV ... Michael Mills: Senior Fisheries Biometrician III -Thomas Trent: Regional Supervisor, Susitna Aquatic Studies Coordinator. Vice-Chairman of Susitna Steering Committee Subsistence Division -Ronald Stanek: Resource Specialist II Alaska Department of Labor Administrative Services -Neil Fried: Labor Economist -Greg Huff: Labor Economist Division of Research and Analysis -Chuck Caldwell: Chief -Rod Brown: Supervisor of Research, Administration Services -Cal Dauel: Labor Economist -Neil Fried: Labor Economist -Steve Harrison: Labor Economist -Chris Miller: Labor Economist -Sally Sadler: Labor Economist -Dave Swanson: State Demographer -James Wi 1 son: Labor Econorni st Alaska Department of Natural Resources -Robert LeResche: Commissioner Division of Lands -Mi~hael Franger: Special Projects Officer -Robert Loeffler: Associat~ Lands Planner Division of Parks -Jack Wiles: Chief Division of Pipeline Surveillance -Elstun Lauesen: Socioeconomic Officer Division of Research and Development -Linda Arndt: Land Management Officer -Al Carson: Deputy Director -Carol Larsen: Public Information Officer -Robert Loeffler: Associate Planner -Steve Reeves: Chief, Land and Resources Planning Section Alaska Department of Revenue -Linda Lockridge: Records and Licensing Supervisor, Fish and Game Licensing Division -Hazel N.owlin: Administrative Assistant, Administration Services -Wi 11 i am Yankee: Economist II Alaska Department of Public Safety Division of Public Safety -Michael Dekreon, State Trooper -Lt. Rhodes: State Trooper, Deputy Commander Detachment B Division of Fire Protection -Dave Taylor: Fire Protection Engineer Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection -Co1. Robert Stickles: Director -Wayne Fleek: ·Region II I Commander -Ms. Lobb: Clerk -Lt. Rod Mills: Administrative Officer -Lt. Col. Tetzlaff: Deputy Director Alaska Department of Transportation -Jay Bergstrand: Transportation Planner IV Cathy Derickson: Transportation Planner Reed Gibby: Transportation Planner William Humphrey: Transportation Planner I Richard Quiroz: District Environmental Coordinator Eugene Weiler: Traffic Data Supervisor Alaska State Housing Authority -Wi 11 i am Foster: Admi ni strat ive Officer Glennallen State Trooper Post -Robert Cockrell: 1st Sergeant House Power Alternatives Study Committee -Hugh Malone: Committee Co-Chairman, District 13 Office of the Governor Division of Policy Development and Planning -Frances Ulmer: Director University of Alaska -Lydia Selkreg: Professor of Resource Economics and Planning Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center -Barbara Sokolov: Senior Research Analyst, Library Science -William Wilson: Fisheries Biologist Institute of Social and Economic Research -Lee Gorsuch: Director -Scvtt Goldsmith: Assistant Professor of Economics -Lee Huskey: Associ ate Professor of Economics Urban Observatory , -Richard Ender: Assistant Professor of Public Administration LOCAL AGENCIES City of Glennallen -Sheldon Spector: Magistrate City of Houston, Alaska -Elsie 0 1 Brien: City Clerk City of Palmer -David Sou1ak: City Manager City of wa::. I 11 a -Earling Nelson: City Clerk Copper River School District -Dr. Krinke: Superintendent Fairbanks North Star Borough -Philip Berrian: Planning Director Community Information Center -Karen Fox: Research Analyst 1!1!1111 I - ~' I I ,i ,., ' - r I r (""' I Matanuska-Susitna Borough Land Management Department -Steve Van Sant: Borough Assessor, Division of Land Assessment/Director of Land Management Planning Department, Borough Office -Rick Feller: Planner -Claud Oxford: Engineer -Vern Roberts: Finance Director -Rodney Schull ing: Planning Director -Alan Tesche: In-house Authority -Lee Wyatt: Acting Borough Manager, Planning Director Schoo 1 Di strict -Mr. Monty Hotchkiss: Business Manager -Kenneth Kramer: Superintendent Municipality of Anchorage -Charles Becker: Economic Development Director -Shawn Hemme: Assist ant P 1 anner -Michael Meehan: Director of Planning -Bruce Silva: Demographer -Barbara Withers: Regional Economist Valdez Police Department -Police Officer OTHER. INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND IND_IVIDUALS Institutions and Organizations Ahtna, Inc. -Lee Adler: Director A 1 ask a Ho spit a 1 -Head Nurse Alaska Miners• Associati.on Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington Jeff King: Senior Research Engineer -Michael Scott: Senior Research Engineer -Ward Swift: Economist Ben Marsh and Associates -Nancy Cole: Assistant Property Manager Chickaloon Village -Jess Landsman: President Cornmun i ty Council Center Federation of Corrmun ity Schoo 1 s -t>1ary Amouak: Representative -Margaret Wolfe: Representative Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association -Floyd Heimback: Director -Thomas Mears: Biologist Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated -Agnes Brown: Executive -Lynda Hays: Shareholder and Conmunity Re 1 at ions Coordinator -Robert Rude: Senior Vice-President -Marge Sargerser: Land Manager -John Youngblood: Executive Director Copper River Housing Authority -Thea $melcher: Housing Director Copper River Native Association -Billy Peters: Health Director Copper Va 11 ey Electric Association -Daniel Tegeler: Office Manager Copper Valley Views -Reporter Darbyshire and Associates - Ralph Darbyshire: President Doyon Corporation -Doug Williams: Land Planner Fairbanks Borough Community Information Center -Karen Fox: Research Analyst Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce -Robert Dempsey: Chairman, Economic and Development Committee Fairbanks Environmental Center -Jeff Weltzin: Energy Coordinator Fairbanks Town and Village Association for Development, Inc. -Art Patterson: Planner Fairbanks Visitor and Convention Bureau -Karla Zervos: Executive Director Frank Moo1in and Associates, Incorporated -Mike Finnegan: Project Control Manager Guide License Review Board High Lake Lodge -John Wilson: Resident Manager Ho 1 mes and Narver -Karl Hansen: Project Engineer -James Pederson: Susitna Project Manager Insurance Service Organization, San Fransisco, California -Gary Morse: Customer Service Representative Keual Vi 11 age -James Shoalwolfer: President· Knikatnu Incorporated -Paul Theadore: Chief Matanuska £1 ectri c Assocati on, Incorporated -Bud Goodyear: Pl1bl ic Information Officer -Ken Ritchey: Manager, Engineering Services Matanuska Telephone Association -Graham Ro 1 stad: Chief Engineer -Donald Taylor: Traffic and Equipment Engineer Ninilchik Native Association, Incorporated -Arno 1 d Orhdhoff: Chief Ninilchik Village -Arnold Orhdhoff: President Norsk Hydro, Sweden -Iver Hagen: Public Relations Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company -Susan Fisson: Director, Socioeconomic Analysis -Virginia Manna: Research Analyst Overall Economic Development Program, Incorporated -Russell Cotton: Project Development Coordinator -Dona 1 d Lyon: Executive Director - ~I -. f -I -i - - Pa 1 mer Ch a'Tlber of Commerce P a 1 mer F i re H a 11 -Daniel Contini: Fire Chief Palmer Valley Hospital -Valerie Blakeman·: Administrative Secretary -Ann Demmings: Nurse -Rae-Ann Hickling: Consultant . Public Power Supply System, Richland, Washington -Alice Lee: Coordinator Puget Sound Power and Light Company -Terry Galbraith: Public Relations Officer Quebec Hydro Center, Quebec, Ontario -Mr. Savignac: Counsel R. W. Beck and Associates. Seattle, Washington -Richard Flemming: Principal Scientist -Ron Melnifokk: Socioeconomic Coordinator Sa 1 amatoff Native Association, Incorporated -Andy Johnson: President Seldovia Native Association, Incorporated -James Segura: Chief Stephen Braund and Associates -Stephen Braund: President Susitna Power Now -E. Dischner: Executive Director Trapper Creek Community Council -David Porter: Member -Gail Robinson: Member Tri-Va11ey Realty -Lois Dow: Associate Tyonek Native Corporation -Agnes Brown: President -Nurse Valdez Community Hospital -Nurse Va 1 dez Vanguard -Reporter Yukon Wildlife Branch -Ralph Archibald: Biologist Individuals -Harold Larson: Agent for Alaska Railroad at Gold Creek, Trapper -Bradford Tuck: Economic Consultant · -Wi 11 i am Workman: Socioeconomic Consultant Report on Recreational Resources FEDERAL AGENCIES United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service~ Institute of Northern Forestry -James Tellerico: Landscape Architect United States Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service ~ Bradley Smith: Fishery Biologist United States Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District -Loran Baxter: Civil Engineer -Col. Lee Nunn: District Engineer -Lt. Col. J. Perkins: Deputy District Engineer United States Department of Energy A 1 ask a Power Admi ni strati on ·Fredrick Chiei: Deputy Regional Representative -Robert Cross: Administrator -Donald Shira: Chief of Planning ~ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Division of Licensed Projects -Ronald Corso: Director -Paul Carrier: Engineer -Donald Clarke: Staff Counsel -Thomas Dewit: Landscape Architect -Quentin Edson: Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch -Julian Flint: Supervisor, Engineering Project Analysis Branch -Peter Foote: Fishery Biologist -Donald Giampaoli: Department Director -Mark Robinson: Environmental Biologist -Dean Shumway: Chief, Conservation Section -Gerald Wilson: -Chief, Project Analysis United States Department of Housing and Urban Development -Debra Pevlear: Neighbor Volunteer and Consumer Protection Official United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management -Lee Barkow: Planner, Easement Identification Branch -Patrick Beckley: Chief, Branch of Lands and Minerals -Stanley Bronczyk: Chief, Easement Identification Branch -Louis Carufel: Fisheries Biologist -William Gabriell: Leader, Special Studies Group -Art Hosterman: Chief~ Branch of Biological Resources -Peter Jerome: Landscape Architect -John Rego: Geologist -Gary Seitz: Environmental Coordinator - '~ r -J. - -i -Dick Tindall: Anchorage District Manager ~Richard Tobin: Recreationa1 Planner Bureau of Mines -Michael Brown: Chemist -Bob Ward: Chief, Environmental Planning Staff Fish and Wildlife Service -Bruce Apple: Fisheries Biologist -Dale Arhart: Staff Biologist -Keith Baya: Assistant Director for the Environment -Dona1d McKay: Wild1ife Biologist -Gary Stackhouse: Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Federal Projects/Technicial Assistance Coordinator Geo 1 ogi ca 1 Survey -Robert Lamke: Chief, Hydrology Section Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service -Janet McCabe: Regional Director -Wi 11 i am We 1 ch: Supervising Outdoor Recreation Planner -Larry Wright: Review Section Chief, Federal Projects National Park Service . -Brailey Breedlove: Landscape Architect -Terry Carlstrom: Chief of Planning and Design -Ross Cavenaugh: Fisheries Biologist -John Cook: Regional Director -Carl Stoddard: Park Ranger -Howard Wagner: Associate Director of Professional Services United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Impact Statement Review Section -Elizabeth Corbyn: Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch STATE AGENCIES Alaska Department of Administration Division of General Services and Supplies -Bill Ower: Contracting Officer Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Deve 1 opment -Charles Webber: Commissioner Alaska Power Authority -Bruce Bedard: Inspector, Native Liaison Division of Energy and Power Deve 1 opment -Heinz Noonan: Economist Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs -Lee McAnerney: Commissioner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation -Ernst Mueller: Commissioner -Robert Flint: Region II Program Coordinator - R ikki Fowler: Eco 1 ogi st -Robert Martin: Regi anal Supervisor -David Sturdevant: Management and Technical Assistant Eco 1 ogi st -Dan Wilkerson: Special Projects Planner -Steve Zrake: Environmental Field Officer A 1 ask. a Department of Fish and Game Division of Game -Dan Timm: Game Biologist III, Chief Waterfowl Division of Habitat Protection -Phil Brna: Habitat Biologist II -Carl Yanagawa: Regional Supervisor Division of Sport Fisheries -Michael Mills: Senior Fisheries Biometrician III -Thomas Trent: Regional Supervisor. Susitna Aquatic Studies Coordinator, Vice-Chairman of Susitna Steering Committee A 1 ask a Department of Natural Resources -Robert LeResche: Commissioner Division of Forest Land and Water -Ted Smith: Director -Mary Lou Harle: Water Management Officer -Raymond Mann: Land Management Officer II -Debbie Robertson: Land Management Officer II Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey -Roy Merritt: Geologist Division of Lands -Frank. Mielke: Chief -Jim Fichione: Land Management Officer -Michael Franger: Special Projects Officer -Joe Joiner: Land Management Officer Division of Minerals and Energy -Glen Harrison: Director Division of Parks -Jack Wiles: Chief -Ronald Crenshaw: State Park Planner -Liza Holzapp1e: Park Planner -Al Miner: Student Intern -Doug Reger: State Archeologist -Sandy Rabinowitz: Park Planner -Robert Shaw: State Historic Preservation Officer -Larry Snarsky: District Manager -Vicky Sung: Park Planner -Larry Wilde: District Manager Division of Research and Development -Linda Arndt: Land Management Officer -Wi 11 i am Beatty: Planning Supervisor, Land Resources -Christopher Beck: Planner III -Al Carson: Deputy Director -Randy Cowart: Planner V -Ronald Swanson: Land Management Officer, Policy Research Land Entitlement Unit Division of Transportation and Public Facilities -Joh-n Mi 11 er Alaska Department of Public Safety Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection -Col. Robert Stickles: Director -Wayne F1 eel<: Region I II Commander -Lt. Rod Mills: Administrative Officer -Lt. Col. Tetzlaff: Deputy Director _j _J - - - r I r I r l r - r I""" I L Alaska Department of Transportation -Jay Bergstrand: Transportation Planner IV -Cathy Derickson: Transportation Planner -Reed Gibby: Transportation Planner Office of the Governor Division of Policy Development and Planning -Frances Ulmer: Director -David Allison: Policy and Planning Specialist University of Alaska Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center -Chuck Evans: Research Associate, Wildlife Biologist -William Wilson: Fisheries Biologist LOCAL AGENCIES City of Houston, Alaska -Elsie O'Brien: City Clerk City of Palmer -David Soul ak: City Manager Fairbanks North Star Borough -Paula Twelker: Planner II Matanuska-Susitna Borough Borough Office -Rick Feller: Planner -Rodney Schulling: Planning Director -Lee Wyatt: Acting Borough r~anager, Planning Director ~ OTHER INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS r r r I I l Institutions and Organizations Ahtna, Inc. -Robert Goldberg: Attorney -Douglas MacArthur: Special Projects D-irector Chickaloon Village -Jess Landsman: President Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated -Agnes Brown: Executive -Lynda Hays: Shareholder and Community Relations Coordinator -Robert Rude: Senior Vice-President -John Youngblood: Executive Director Fairbanks Environmental Center -Jeff Weltzin: Energy Coordinator Keual Village -James Shoalwolfer: President Knikatnu Incorporated -Paul Theadore: Chief Knik Cancers and Kayakers -Bruce Stanford: Member Land Field Services, Incorporated -P. J. Sullivan: Representative Ninilchik Native Association, Incorporated -Arnold Orhdhoff: Chief Ninilchik Village -Arnold Orhdhoff: President Norsk Hydro, Sweden -Iver Hagen: Public Relations Salamatoff Native Association, Incorporated -Andy Johnson: President Seldovia Native Association, Incorporated -James Segura: Chief Susitna Power Now -E. Dischner: Executive Director Tyonek Native Corporation -Agnes Brown: President Individuals -Bob Brown: Owner of Bob's Service Unlimited - OII!!IJ I l 11!'11; i - - ., .J - - r r -! I I r ! 1""1 ! I ..... I I Report on Aesthetic Resources FEDERAL AGENCIES United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service -Sterling Powell: Physical. Engineer, Water Resource Specialist United States Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service -Ronald Morris: Supervisor -Bradley Smith: Fishery Biologist United States Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District -Col. Lee Nunn: District Engineer -Lt. Col. J. Perkins: Deputy District Engineer United States Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration -Fredrick Chiei: Deputy Regional Representative -Robert Cross: Administrator • Donald Shira: Chief of Planning Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Division of Licensed Projects -Ronald Corso: Director -Paul Carrier: Engineer -Donald Clarke: Staff Counsel -Thomas Dewit: Landscape Architect -Quentin Edson: Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch -Julian Flint: Supervisor, Engineering Project Analysis.Branch -Peter Foote: Fishery Biologist -Donald Giampaoli: Department Director -Mark Robinson: Envirtinmental Biologist -Dean Shumway: Chief, Conservation Section -Gerald Wilson: Chief, Project Analysis United States Department of Housing and Urban Development -Debra Pevlear: Neighbor Volunteer and Consumer Protection Official United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Lee Barkow: Plann~r. Easement Identification Branch -Patrick Beckley: Chief, Branch of Lands and Minerals -Stanley Bronczyk: Chief, Easement Identification Branch -Louis Carufel: Fisheries Biologist -Art Hosterman: Chief, Branch of Biological Resources -Peter Jerome: Landscape Architect John Rego: Geologist -Gary Seitz: Environmental Coordinator -Richard Tobin: Recreational Planner Bureau of Mines -Bob Ward: Chief, Environmental Planning Staff Fish and Wildlife Service -Dale Arhart: Staff Biologist National Park Service -Brailey Breedlove: Landscape Architect -Terry Carlstrom: Chief of Planning and Design -Ross Cavenaugh: Fisheries Bi ol ogi st -Howard Wagner: Associate Director of Professional Services United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Impact Statement Review Section -Elizabeth. Corbyn: Chief~ Environmental Evaluation Branch STATE AGENCIES Alaska Department of Administration Division of General Services and Supplies -Bill Ower: Contracting Officer Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic -Charles Webber: Commissioner Division of Energy and Power Development -Heinz Noonan: Economist Alaska Department of -Lee McAnerney: -Edward Busch: -Lemar Cotton: Community and Regional Commissioner Senior Planner P1 anner Il I Development Affairs Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation -Ernst Mueller: Commissioner Robert Flint: Region II Program Coordinator Rikki Fowler: Eeologist David Sturdevant: Management and Technical Assistant Ecologist Dan Wilkerson: Special Projects Planner Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Habitat Protection -Carl Yanagawa: Regional Supervisor Division of Sport Fisheries -Thomas Trent: Regional Supervisor~ Susitna Aquatic Studies Coordinator, Vice-Chairman of Susitna Steering Committee Alaska Department of Natural Resources -John Katz: Cornmi ss i oner -Robert LeResche: Commissioner Division of Forest Land and Water -Raymond Mann: Land Management Officer I I -Debbie Robertson: Land Management Officer II Division of Lands -Michael Franger: Special Projects Officer -Joe Joiner: Land Management Officer Division of Parks -Jack Wiles: Chief -Ronald Crenshaw: State Park Planner -Liza Holzapple: Park Planner -I -' - -· I I - .... Divi sian of Research and Development -Linda Arndt: Land Management Officer -William Beatty: Planning Supervisor, Land Resources -Al Carson: Deputy Director -Randy Cowart: Planner V -Ronald Swanson: Land Management Officer, Policy Research land Entitlement Unit Alaska Department of Public Safety Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection -Col. Robert Stickles: Director -Wayne Fleek: Region I II Commander -Lt. Rod Mills: Administrative Officer Alaska Department of Transportation -Jay Bergstrand: Transportation Planner IV Office of the Governor Division of Policy Development and Planning -Frances Ulmer: Director -David Allison: Policy and Planning Specialist University of Alaska Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center -Chuck Evans: Research Associate, Wildlife Biologist -William Wilson: ·Fisheries Biologist LOCAL AGENCIES City of Houston Alaska -Elsie O'Brien: City Clerk City of Palmer -David Soulak: City Manager Matanuska-Susitna Borough Borough Office -Rick Feller: Planner -Claud Oxford: Engineer -Rodney Schu11ing: Planning Director -Lee Wyatt: Acting Borough Manager, Planning Director r OTHER INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS Inst ituti ens and Organizations ,....., I Ahtna, Inc. -Robert Goldberg: Attorney -Douglas MacArthur: Special Projects Director Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated -Lynda Hays: Shareholder and Community Relations Coordinator -Robert Rude: Senior Vice-President Fairbanks Environmental Center -Jeff Weltzin: Energy Coordinator Land Field Services, Incorporated -P. J. Sullivan: Representative Norsk Hydro, Sweden -Iver Hagen: Public Relations Susitna Power Now -E. Dischner: Executive Di~ector ~ I - - - r -I -r I Report on Land Use FEDERAL AGENCIES United States Department of Agriculture Economics~ Statistics~ and Cooperative Services -Paul Fuglestad: Agricultural Economist, Natural Resource Economics Division Soil Conservation Service -Sterling Powel1: Physical Engineer, Water Resource Specialist United States Department of Defense Air Force -Major Fred Haas: Blair Lakes Range Officer, Deputy Director of Operations and Training Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District -Loran Baxter: Civil Engineer -Jeanne Bradley: Constructfon Inspector -Col. Lee Nunn: District Engineer -Lt. Col. J. Perkins: Deputy District Engineer United States Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration -Fredrick Chief: Deputy.Regional Representative -Robert Cross: Administrator -Donald Shira: Chief of Planning Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Division of Licensed Projects -Ronald Corso: Director -Paul Carrier: Engineer -Donald Clarke: Staff Counsel -Thomas Dewit; Landscape Architect -Quentin Edson: Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch -Julian Flint: Supervisor, Engineering Project Analysis Branch -Peter Foote: Fishery Biologist -Donald Giampaoli: Department Director -Mark Robinson: Environmental Biologist -Dean Shumway: Chief, Conservation Section -Gerala Wilson: Chief, Project Analysis United States Department of Housing and Urban Development -Debra Pevlear: Neighbor Volunteer and Consumer Protection Official United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management -Lee Barkow: Planner, Easement Identification Branch -Patrick Beckley: Chief, Branch of Lands and Minerals -Stanley Bronczyk: Chief, Easement Identification Branch -Mike Brown: Historian -Louis Carufel: Fisheries Biologist -William Gabriell: Leader, Special Studies Group -Art Hosterman~ Chief~ Branch of Bi ol ogi cal Resources -Steve Leskosky: Environmental Planner -John Rego: Geologist -Gary Seitz: Environmental Coordinator -Tom Taylor: Cartographer, National Mapping Division -Dick Tindall: Anchorage District Manager Bureau of Mines -Michael Brown: Chemist -Bob Ward: Chief. Environmental Planning Staff Fish and Wildlife Service -Bruce Apple: Fisheries Biologist -Dale Arhart: Staff Biologist -Keith Baya: Assistant Director for the Environment -Donald McKay: Wildlife Biologist -Gary Stackhouse: Fish and Wildlife Biologist. Federal Projects/Technicial Assistance Coordinator Geological Survey -Raymond George: Acting District Chief, Water Resources Division -Robe-rt Lamke: Chief, Hydro 1 ogy Section Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service -Larry Wright: Review Section Chief. Federal Projects National Park Service -Brailey Breedlove: Landscape Architect -Terry Carlstrom: Chief of Planning and Design -Ross Cavenaugh: Fisheries Biologist -Carl Stoddard: Park Ranger -Howard Wagner: Associate Director of Professional Services United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Impact Statement Review Section -Elizabeth Corbyn: Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch STATE AGENCIES Alaska Department of Administration Division of General Services and Supplies -Bill Ower: Contracting Officer Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development -Charles Webber: Commissioner Alaska Power Authority -Bruce Bedard: Inspector, Native Liaison Division of Energy and Power Development -Heinz Noon an: Economist Alaska Department of -Lee McAnerney: -Edward Busch: -Lemar Cotton: Community and Regional Commissioner Senior Planner Planner II I Affairs Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation -Ernst Mueller: Commissioner -Robert Flint: Region II Program Coordinator -Rikki Fowler: Ecologist -Robert Martin: Regional Supervisor -I I j ~I - I . ·i -.I - r- ' r r l ' -' ' -David Sturdevant: Management and Technical Assistant Ecologist -Dan Wilkerson: Special Projects Planner -Steve Zrake: Environmental Field Officer Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Game -Karl Schneider: Research Coordinator Division of Habitat Protection -Thomas Arminski: Regional Land Specialist -Phil Brna: Habitat Biologist II -Carl Yanagawa: Regional Supervisor Division of Sport Fisheries -Thomas Trent: Regional Supervisor, Susitna Aquatic Studies Coordinator, Vice-Chairman of Susitna Steering Committee Alaska Department of Natural Resources -John Katz: Commissioner -Robert LeResche: Commissioner Division of Forest Land and Water -Ted Smith: Director -Mary Lou Harle: Water Management Officer -Raymond Mann: Land Management Officer II -Debbie Robertson: Land Management Officer II Division of Lands -Frank Mielke: Chief -Dean Brown: Southcentral District Lands Officer -Jim Fichione: Land Management Officer -Michael Franger: Special Projects Officer -Joe Joiner: Land Management Officer Division of Minerals and Energy -Glen Harrison: Director Division cf Parks -Jack Wiles: Chief -Ronald Crenshaw: State Park Planner -Liza Holzapple: Park Planner -Al Miner: Student Intern -Doug Reger: State Archeologist -Robert Shaw: State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Research and Development -Linda Arndt: Land Management Officer -Wi 11 i am Beatty: Planning Supervisor, Land Resources -Christopher Beck: Planner III -Al Carson: Deputy Director -Randy Cowart: Planner V -Dale Sterling: Historian -Ronald Swanson:· Land Management Officer, Policy Research Land Entitlement Unit Division of Transportation and Public Facilities -John Miller Alaska Department of Public Safety Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection -Col. Robert Stickles: Director -Wayne Fleek: Region I II Commander -Lt. Rod Mills: Administrative Officer -Lt. Col. Tetzlaff: Deputy Director Alaska Department of Transportation -Jay Bergstrand: Transportation Planner IV -Cathy Derickson: Transportation Planner -Reed Gibby: Transportation Planner Office of the Governor Division of Policy Development and Planning -Frances Ulmer: Director -David Allison: Policy and Planning Specialist University of Alaska Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center -Chuck Evans: Research Associ ate, Wildlife Bi ol ogi st -William Wilson: Fisheries Biologist Geophysical Institute -Ken Dean: Remote Sensing Geologist -Ian Hutchison: Professor of Physics Geology Department -Steve Hardy: Geologist Museum -Robert Thorson: Geologist LOCAL AGENCIES City of Houston, Alaska -Elsie O'Brien: City Clerk City of Palmer -David Soul ak: City Manager City of Wasi 11 a -Earling Nelson: City Clerk Fairbanks North Star Borough -Paula Twelker: Planner II Matanuska-Susitna Borough Borough Office -Rick Feller: Planner -Claud Oxford: Engineer -Rodney Schull i ng: PT anni ng Director -Lee Wyatt: Acting Borough Manager, Planning Director School District -Mr. Hotchkiss: Business Manager -Kenneth Kramer: Superintendent OTHER INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS Institutions and Organizations Ahtna, Inc. -Lee Adler: Director -Robert Goldberg: Attorney -Douglas MacArthur: Special Projects Director ~ I ~ I j ~ \ ' ,.... I i. l ' I ,.,.. ' ! -Chuck McMahon: Pilot~ Hunter, Trapper, Fisherman in Upper Susitna Basin -Cleo McMahon: Pilot~ Hunter in Upper Susitna Basin -Tom Mercer: President of Denali Wilderness Treks, Bush Pilot, Dog Musher -James Moran: Pilot~ Partner in Tsusena Lake Lodge -Mrs. Ken Oldham: Co-owner of High Lake Lodge, Guide, Bush Pilot, Author -Sutch Potterville: Sportfish Biologist in Upper Susitna Basin -Andy Runyon: Pilot~ Hunter -Roberta Sheldon: Partner in Sheldon Air Service~ Talkeetna Resident -Judy Simco: ·Hunter, Trapper -Kathy Sullivan: Owner of Genet Expeditions -Minnie Swanda: Widow of Master Guide, Talkeetna Resident -Jake Tansy: Native Hunter and Trapper .. Bob Toby: Game Biologist, Hunter -Lee and Helen Tolefson: Subsistence Trappers/Hunters, Talkeetna Residents -Mrs. Oscar Vogel: Hunter, Trapper, Stephan Lake Resident, Widow of Master Guide -Jeff Weltzin: Devil Canyon Backpacker -Ed Wick: Talkeetna Resident Chickaloon ViJ 1 age -Jess Landsman: President Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association -Floyd Heimback: Director Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated -Agnes Brown: Executive -Lynda Hays: Shareholder and Community Relations Coordinator -Robert Rude: Senior Vice-President -Marge Sargerser: Land Manager -John Youngblood: Executive Director Fairbanks Envi ronmenta 1 Center -Jeff We1tzin: Energy Coordinator Holmes and Narver -James Pederson: Sus itna Project Manager Keual Village -James Shoalwolfer: President Knikatnu Incorporated -Paul Theadore: Chief Mahay•s Riverboat Service -William Carrera: Guide Ninilchik Native Association, Incorporated -Arnold Orhdhoff: Chief Ninilchik Village -Arnold Orhdhoff: President Norsk Hydro, Sweden -Iver Hagen: Public Relations Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company -·Susan Fisson: Director, Socioeconomic Analysis Palmer Valley Hospital -Valerie Blakeman: Administrative Secretary -Rae-Ann Hickling: Consultant Sal amatoff Native Association, Incorporated -Andy Johnson: President Seldovia Native Association, Incorporated -James Segura: Chief Susitna Power Now -E. Dischner: Executive Director Tyonek Native Corporation -Agnes Brown: President Individua 1 s -Warren Ballard: Game Biologist, Hunter -Dennis Brown: President Akland Air Service -Verna and Carrol Close: Owners of Talkeetna Roadhouse -Mike Fisher: Pilot, Talkeetna Resident -Jim and Vonnie Grimes: Pilots, Owners of Adventures Unlimited Lodge -Pete Haggland: President of Alaska Central Air, Pilot -Paul Hall and: Owner-Manager of Evergreen Lodge, Boater Cliff Hudson: Owner/Pil at of Hudson • s Air Taxi. Ta 1 keetna Resident -John Ireland: Alaskan Sourdough. Murder Lake Resident -Dave Johnson: Manager, Oenal i State Park· -Dorothy Jones: President of Talkeetna Historical Society~ Representative- elect of Mat-Su Borough Assembly -Frenchy Lamoureux: Hunter, Trapper, Wife and Mother of Big Game Guides -Don Lee: Manager Stephan Lake Lodge, Pilot - 1'111'11 -' r r r \ ' APPENDIX 8~1 FORMAL AGENCY COORDINATION CORRESPONDENCE r n l r 1 I""': ) I - rT 1.' \' ' Al Carson State of Alaska UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water Resources Division 733 W. Fourth Ave., Suite 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 July 27, 1981 Department of Natural Resources 323 E. Fourth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Carson: RECEIVED .!UL 3 J 1981 ALASKA POW!::: .~.:..::-:-iOkiTY I have reviewed the Draft Development Selection Report for the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project as requested in the APA transmittal of June 18, 1981. The review was limited to the evaluation process used by Acres, the relative impacts of several alternative development plans of Susttna hydroelectric resources, and the conclusion that the Watana- Devil Canyon plan is the preferred basin alternative. There were no problems involved in understanding the selection process used by Acres and there were enough data and inform~tion presented to compare the final candidate lalternative) plans. The relative impae:ts of the candidates were presented in an understandable and credible manner. Although enly a qualitative evaluation of impacts is presented (pending reports of on-going studies}, a reasonable conclusion is that the Watana- Deyil Canyon plan is the preferred candidate for Susitna hydroelectric development. \ cc: David 0. Wozniak, Project Engineer, APA, Anchorage, AK I ( United States Departmept of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IN REPLY REfER TO: 1201-03a ALASKA STATE OFFICE 334 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 250 An.:horagc, Alaska 99501 AUG 5 1901 RECEIVED /\UG ? 1981 N..ASKA POWER AUTHORITY Mr. David D. Wozniak Susitna Hydro Project Engineer Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear David: In response to your request I have reviewed the Draft Devel- opment Selection Report for the Susitna Project. Based upon the information presented in the report, I would judge the evaluation process to be satisfactory. However, I would not want to recommend or otherwise comment on a preferred basin alternative prior to the completion of ongoing studies which will further quantify the anticipated environmental impacts. I assume the final report will reflect a more precise com- parison of environmental impacts for the dam sites under consideration. · An additional item of interest which should perhaps be included in the final report is a comparison of the expected life of the project for each alternative dam site considering the effect of silt accumulation in the reservoirs. Thank you for the opportunity to review the report. The above comments are my own and should not be interpreted as representing the official position of the National Park Service. Sincerely, J \\_ '. wL 1-ifcwJ {) Y) (_' ) If 'v\,_ Larry . Wright · Outdoo Recreation Planner Save Energy and You Serve A me rica! ' i ~ ' ~ L=;JHJ; ;i~:H~ ~~;! I !"""'~. r .~;,.:..:;...~--,.~.,/ 1' b ~~~~...;,.nr. Ster 1 ng R. Os orne r=r-=~~.:;::..,+r..,.-ttn1 ttd States Department of the , eological Survey ~~~~Z4onservation Division ~~~~~~~-.0. Gox 2967 ~rr-~~~--~orti3tirl, Oregon 972GB Interior September 4, 1981 P5700.11.87 T.1129 SusHna Hy·Jrce1ectric Project Reoorts Hr-::::.:~=-----ihis is in rcferznc2 to your lc-:ter dated A:Jc!.:st 11. ~-~e \·:ill be pleased 1:--1~~..,.,...,.--~o aC:J your office to 't~H: :::ailir:c list for 11 Rc.;t;-'crt". ur Client) t:1-: ;_1askc 0c:·:er .t.utr.crit~/, reruire~ that \·.'e ur.cert~ke on 1-1'!~"""=---t-:...-~ H~:....-_;_;..,.._4·heir behalf both fcr:-:-.1 ar:J i:~~-:-GI'i·al cnordination •:Ji::.r· all fec..~cral and 1--!0....,_-----<~ta te aQ-=i·n::i ~s ti·:a:~ i 12;';;; ~ C:i \~c.cJc i ntE:res t in the: SL!S it! ta cro,i ~ct. This ~~=--_,f course is .:::i~c fJ. r~:r:•t)ir2ne:J~t a-:-the FERC: Lic2r:sin"' rrocr:ss. As part 1:--1~----...:.Jf this ;;recess ~''e 0re conrdinatinr; Hith yc-ur !·nct·,o~~:::·~e offio: throuah l---rl'l7"f'~;::z:::;;;__-H: r •. K.c>~:srt D. LaP:l-.e ~ 1.·iL0 h:ts c. i rt:: ~·-.iy ~~c"i v~d ~nc: .c:J:-; ::~:nteu on v~ ri ous docuffients as t~1cy· i 1il ve.-~1e~n rro.Juced. 1-1:-------Hy co:~y cf this letter I •::ill r'?r.t.:·~st r:r. :::avid ~~oz:-:i:!: of the Alaska ,..--------:.t· m:.;er Authority to add j!cur office to th.~ r;~ai1in~ list for ap:.:rcrriate +=----~reject rt:ports anc nE~·;slcttc.rs. r ! i ,.., I i ! I JDL/jmh xc: D. Wozniak (APA} --- J. G. Harnock,__.......-- %y, Jo~n D. Lawrence Project i~«naqe) .. Mr. Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner ._;;;··<.--~ • ~ ' ., -· RECEIVED r !OV 1 3 1981 ~ovemoer 9, 1961 P5700.06 Araska Dept. of Fish & Game Sport Fish/Susitna Hydro State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Mr. Skoog: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Development Selection Report As you know, Acres .American Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska Power Authority to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission {FERC) 1 icense application for the Susitna Hydro- electric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the app.lication is in June of 1982. Federal law and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the FERC application be prepared in consultation with Federal and State agen- cies having managerial authority over certain project aspects. This coor- dination must be documented in the license application. A great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff levels by dir- ect participation in studies or oy participation in committees and task groups. This input,. however, has been primarily by staff and may_ not nec- essarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason~ we are conduct- ing a parallel formal coordination process by requesting agency comments on '"key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This parallel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time, we request that the Department of Fish and Game review the attached Report, "Development Selection Report .. , particu1arly in the areas impacting on the "fish and game resources. ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Consu:;::~g Engineers The Libo;-•!y Ban1< Building_ Main at Court Sulfalo N~.-. York 1~202 ;::"'-•--r p• --·~.c~ ·-,. .. _.-_...___._.-=-~------------------- - r ( 'I -' ) i n i I Geve1opment Se1ection Report -2 ~ovember 9, 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible develo~ent for all interests. A response within thirty days of receipts waul d be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your comments to: Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 JDL/MMG:jgk cc: Eric Yould, Alaska Power Authority Very truly yours, Z&-~vn ~.-<VI d4/ .fohn D. Lawrence Project Manager Mr. Thomas Trent, Department of Fish & Game ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED .. .. WILLETT WI TTl: BERRY HAYOEN LAMB LAWRENCE SINCLAIR VANOERBUFIGH p ,...... ........., CARLSON F.FIET.Z JEX LOWFIEcY SINGH HUSTEAO BOVE CHASE / r -=?:~-.f 1 .,. 7"'\ · .... ,. I ! . -· -- Mr. John Rego Bureau of Land t1anagement 701-C Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Rego: .··• November 9, 1981 P5700. 11.75 T.1258 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Transmission Corridor Report As you know:~~ Acres Amer~can, Incorpor-ated is under contract to the Al ask·a Power Authority to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application for the Susitna Hydro- electric Projecta The scheduled date for submission of the application is in June of 1982. Federal 1 aw and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the FERC application be prepared in consul tat ion with Federal and State agen- cies having managerial authority over certain project aspects. This coor- dination must be documented in the license application •. A great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff 1 evels by dir- ect participation in studies or by participation in committees and task groups. This input, however, has been primarily by staff and may not nec- essarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason, we are conduct- ing a parallel formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments on key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time, we request that the Bureau of Land f"'!anagement review the attached Report, "Transmission line Corridor Screening Closeout .Report", particularly in the areas of aesthetics, land use, and land management. ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ... ·~ . ..1 • • ....... . j •.. • '· -. J ' I ... n ' I f i l. I ,.,... I~ , f1 > I \ I ' c I n , I n ; i \ i !, I i' I .. Development Selection Report -2 November 9 ~ 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible development for all i·nterests. A response within thirty days of receipts would be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your comments to: JUL/MMG:jgk Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4tn Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 · Very truly yours, fiJ,1 ) oVI~ t/Lveb: ._4,AJ John 0. La'wrence tT · ~reject Manager cc: Eric Yould, Alaska Power Authority / ·. ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ,. .; -" ~ # . WILLETT WITTE BEARY HAYDEN LAMB LAWRENCE SINCLAIR f")-#'1\·· .. ~;-:a ;3\:. ;·j:.·~ i ~~::-~; Mr. Keith Schreiner l R u 1 egional Director, Region 7 .S. Fish and Wildlife Serv:ice 011 E. Tudor Road A nchorage~ Alaska 99503 November 9, 1981 P5700. 11.71 T.l268 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Transmission Corridor Report VANOERBURGH D ear Mr. Schreiner: :(~ CARLSON FRETZ JEX LOWREY SINGH HUSTEAD BOVE CHASE' __./ ->-:~~ _,.- A s you know, Acres American, Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska ower Authority to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Federal Energy egulatory Commission (FERC) license application for the Susitna Hydro- lectric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the application is n June of 1982. p R e i F F c d ederal law and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the ERC application be prepared in consultation with Federal and State agen- ies having managerial authority over certain project aspects. This coor- ination must be documented in the license application. A great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff levels by dir- ct participation in studies or by participatio.n in committees and task roups. This input, however, has been primarily by staff and may not nec- ssarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason, we are conduct- ng a parallel formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments e g e i on key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time, we request that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service review the attached Report, "Transmission Line Corridor Screening Closeout Report", particularly in the areas impacting on the fish and wildlife resources. ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ]. ,~'(: ~· ... J ; .. ':~-~[:: '._, ~ . I ' \ ( ]' n l I I , l i ~ I I ' ' ' I ""l' I n ·, I : .1 n t I -i I \ I l . ,..,., ( ! ' I j I {j ' I i I ( i ; Development Selection Report -2 November 9, 1981 . . Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible development for all interests. A response within thirty days of receipts would be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your comments to: JDL/NfviG:jgk Mr. Eric Yould~ Executive Director· Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Very truly yours, ;Ct~ctf!fj J/;u..:lx _..4AV John D. Lawrence I'~ . Project Manager cc:·Eric You1d, Alaska Power Authority(~------- ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED c· r.. ·. :-~";::_,--;1:~11 ~~ ~------, i I ' I I --~--.. -.211 I t " " t I . :-. ; : ~ ~ . . ,.,-...... : ... , .~ ~. -· ·-.. ------ Mr. Robert Shaw State Historic Preservation Officer Alaska Department of r~atural Resources Division of Parks 619 Warehouse Avenue, Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Nr. Shaw: November 9, 1981 P5700·. 11.74 T.l263 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Transmission Corridor Report As you. know, Acres American, Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska Power Authority to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application for the Susitna Hydro- electric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the application is in June of 1982. Federal 1aw and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the FERC application be prepared in consultation with Federal and State agen- cies having managerial authority over certain project aspects. This coor:... dination must be documented in the license application. A great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff levels by dir- ect participation in studies or by participation in committees and task groups. This input, however, has been primarily by staff and may not nec- essarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason, we are conduct- ing a parallel formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments on key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. ~ At this tirne, we request that the State Historic Preservation Officer review the attached Report, 11 Transmission Line Corridor Screening Close.out Report 11 , part.icular1y in the areas impacting on cultural resources. ~ ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED c ... :: J!: . .; ;::, .. ···': •. - Ti;•, ' :: ·:, :·, ."·· :• .. 'J.;" ,. . ·~ • I '!. fl.: •. ·.· . .. ' .. ·, : . ;_ "" :. : ::,: ·: - ______ fl!"·· -... : . .. I. -.• ~ • . • .. . ' - :"""[' I i ( ( I - r"""' . ~- ! ( ! Development Selection Report -2 November 9, 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning· the best possible development for all interests. A response within thirty days of receipts waul d be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your· comments to: JDL/MMG:jgk ·Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director· Alaska Power Authority 333 \>lest 4th Avenue Anchorage~ Alaska 99501 Very truly yours, /Jnu!J.Iu; tfuctu John D. lawrence Project Manager cc: Eric Yould, Alaska Power Authority ) ,L~ Mr. Alan Carson~ Alaska Department of Natural Resources/ · // .· ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ..., ....! .-" ... WIL.L.ETT WITTE BERRY HAYOEN L.AMB l.AWRENCE SINCT...AIR ' . ---------- lA . 1"1. 1'1 ,, U' " John Katz aska Department of Natural Resources uch M neau~ Alaska 99811 November 9. 1!:181 P5700. 11.74 T.l260 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Transmission Corridor Report VANOERBURG!-l{ ar f-1r. Katz: k !'-- CARLSON FRETZ JEX LOWREY SINGH HUSTEAO aove CHASE --·/ / / _,. ~ -'? ll f" .~:l ... lfl . I"" • t- ,.· . u e you know~ Acres American~ Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska · wer Authority to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Federal Energy gul atory Commission (FERC) 1 icense application for the Susitna Hydro- ectric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the application is June of 1982. deral law and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the RC application be prepared in consu1tation with Federal and State agen- es having managerial authority over certain project aspects._ This coer- nation must be documented in the license application. .... ~. great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff levels by dir- t participation in studies or by participation in committees and task oups. This input, however~ has been primarily by staff and may not nec- sarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason, we are conduct- g a parallel formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments ::l t!~ ;r II key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time, we request that the Department of Natural Resources review the ~ i .... i attached Report, "Transmission Line Corridor Screening Closeout Reportn, - particularly in the areas of water quality and use, aesthetics and land use~ ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED . ;:.;: -.f:· . ' ' : ~ .. ; . . ··-': · ... ·._-· ... · . • :. • ·. . I -· ' ,411!'!1, ., ,- - - <""'r> i i ...., ,, I £': t :"'--" !:.' ! n ~~ I • I I. ' ~ r-1': r , \'! ,. i I L I' ti' i. I . , Development Selection Report - 2 November 9, 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible development for all interests. A response within thirty days of receipts would be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your comments to: JDL/f'.1HG: j gk Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Very truly yours, J;.,-.,utft~t t/ud: · .Jj.fft/ John 0. Lawrence 1 Project Manager cc: Eric Yould, Alaska Power Authority :-J /:. Mr. A 1 an Carson, A 1 ask a Department of Natura 1 Resource/ ,:::z...:. ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED .. .. Wtl-I.ETT WlTTE BERRY HAYDEN l.AMB LAWRENCE SINCLAIR VANDERBURGH _..., ~ r'--·· CARLSON FRETZ JEx· LOWREY SINGH HUSTEAO BO'«E CHASE / •' .-:-7. d~· .r. Mr. John E. Cook Regional Director November g_ 1981 P5700.11.91 T .1261 Alaska Office ·"""' National Park Service 540 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 ·~ Susitna Hydroelectric Project Transmission Corridor Report ,-, Dear Mr. Cook: As you know, Acres American, Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska Pm.,er Authority to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Feder a 1 Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application for the Susitna Hydro-· · ~ electric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the application is in June of 1982. ~ -· Federal law and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the FERC application he prepared in consultation with Federal and State agen- cies having managerial authority over certain project aspects. This coor- dination must be documented in the license application. A great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff levels by dir- ect participation in studies or by participation in committees and task groups. This input, however, has been primarily by staff and may not nec- essarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason, we are conduct- ing a parallel formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments on key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time, we request that the National Park Service review the attached Report, 11 Transmission Line Corridor Screening Closeout Report 11 ; particularly in the areas of history and archeology, and recreation. ~1 ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ,. -'· r I 0 ,...., ,, )' \_,_ Development Selection Report - 2 November 9, 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible development for all interests. A response within thirty days of receipts would be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your comments to: · f.1r. Eric. Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 JO(.JMMG:'j gk Very truly yours~ ;OoJO Vlu;-f/u.LTv John ·o. Lawrence Project Manager cc:. Eric Yould, Alaska Power Authority ~ Mr. Larry Wright, National Park Service 1 · · ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ... ,, WILl.ETT WITTE BERRY HAYDEN LAMB LAWR.ENCE SINCLAIR VANDER BURGH ..... ..-. '-' r-- CARL:.SON FRETZ JEX LOWREY SINGH HUSTEAD seve CHASE ~~ Region a 1 Administrator Region X U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 South Avenue Seattle~ WA 98101 Dear Sirs: November 9~ 1981 P5700. 11. 91 T.l267 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Transmission Corridor Report. As you know, Acres ftrneri can~ Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska - -. J Power Authority to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Feder a 1 Energy -'t Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application for the Susitna Hydro- electric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the application is in June of 1982. Federal law and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the FERC application be prepared in consultation with Federal and State agen- cies having managerial authority over certain project aspects. This coor- dination must be documented in the license application. A great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff levels· by dir- ect participation in studies or by participation in committees and task groups. This input, however, has been primarily by staff and may not nec- essarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason, we are conduct- ing a parallel formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments on key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there wi 11 be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time, we request that the Environmental Protection Agency review the ~ attached Report, 11 Transmission Line Corridor Screening Closeout Report 11 , particularly in the areas impacting on land, water, or air quality. -' ACRES AMERICAN fNCORPORATED T·· ... : - -\ i. ,, I I , . Development Selection Report - 2 November 9 ~ 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible development for all interests. A response within thirty _days of receipts would be greatly appreciated. Please send a.copy of your comments to: JDL/MMG:jgk Mr. Eric Youl d, Executive Director Alaska Pow~r Authority · 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Very truly yours, }J.e> IJ'ffiAj f!/tA/if~ John 0. Lawrence Project Manager cc: Eric Yould, Alaska Po~er Authority . /~ Judy Swartz, U.S. Env1ronmental Protect1on Agency_/- ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED WILLETT WITTE BEARY HAYDEN LAMB LAWRENCE SINCLAIR VANOE~SURGH rJ 1----, CARLSON FRET% JEX LOWREY SINGH HUSTEAO aove CHASE _/ '-' __./;/ /_ -· - November 9. JqRl -, Mr. Lee McAnerney State Archeologist Department of Regional Affa:irs Pouch B Juneau, Alaska 99811 P5700.ll.92 T.1262 Susitna Hydroelectric Project ~, Transmission Corridor Report Dear f.1r. McAnerney: -~ As you know, Acres American, Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska Power Authority to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Federal Energy ~ Regulatory Commission {FERC) license application for the Susitna Hydro- electric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the application is in June of 1982. federal law and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the FERC application be prepared in consultation with Federal and State agen-~~ cies having managerial authority over certain project aspects. This coor- dination must be doct.rnented in the license application. -A great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff levels by dir- ect participation in studies or by participation in committees and task groups. This input, however, has been primarily by staff and may not nec- essarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason, we are conduct-~ ing a parallel formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments on key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This par-~ allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time, we request that the Department of Regional Affairs review the ""'"'1; attached Report, 11 Tr ansmiss ion Line Corridor Screening Closeout Report", particularly in the area of history and archeology. ~I ACRES AMERfCAN INCORPORATED . " -! I r I c. ! ; Development Selection Report - 2 November 9, 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible development for all interests. A response within thirty days of receipts would be greatly appreciated. ·Please send a copy of your comments to: JDL/HMG :j gk Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power·Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, ·Alaska 99501 Very truly yours, J[J~1 c'fiLt t!iu~ John D. Lawrence Project Manager 1""' cc: Eric Yould, Alaska Power Authority c../:.__--;-- ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED , I ' ! : ; ·. . ' : , ' Wtt.L.ETT WITTE BERRY HAYDEN l..AMB I..AWRE;NCE SINCLAIR . I I , "'':. '·: :1 ~~~ J I ! I . -----., r. Rooert McVey irector, Alaska Region ational Marine Fisheries OAA .0. Box 1668 uneau, Alaska 99802 Service November Q_ 1981 P5700.11.92 1.1266 i ' j VANDERSURGH Susitna Hydroelectric Project Transmission Corridor Report -~ "l -..1 ..__. CARLSON FRETZ JEX LOWREY SINGH HUSTEiAD BOVE CHASE - ~ / :;~ . .-:/"' £.r (' ! i ear Mr. ·Me Vey: s you know, Acres ftmerican, Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska ower Authority to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Federal Energy egul atory Commission (FERC) license application for the Susitna Hydro- lectric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the application is n June of 1982. ederal law and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the ERC application be prepared in consultation with Federal and State agen- ies having managerial authority over certain project aspects. This coor- ination must be documented in the license application. great deal of coordination has taken p1 ace at agency staff l eve 1 s by dir- ct participation in studies or by participation in committees and task roups. This input, however, has been primarily by staff and may not nec- ssarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason, we are conduct- ng a parallel formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments on key study outputs. The plan of study was the first do~ument coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time, we request that the National Marine Fisheries Service review the attached Report, .. Transmission Line Corridor Screening Closeout Report", ~ 1 ] ~ jJ - ·particularly in the areas, impacting on the marine resources. ,., ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED • J ; ~ ~: : • . ·: ":. •. ! ~-. ~! • ~ •• 1 r r-,· !, . t ~ \; ; Development Selection Report - 2 November 9, 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible development for all interests. A response within thirty days of receipts would be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your comments to: Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue . Anchorage, Alaska 99501 JDL/MMG:jgk cc: Eric Yould, Alaska Power Authority Very truly yo~rs, AJO'IJ~-'f Nt/)_-tu John D. lawrence Project Manager Mr. Ron Morris, National t4arine Fisheries .• ACRES AMERICAN iNCORPORATED . ,ce .R "'· oL lee Nunn istrict Engineer IJ . S. Army Carps of Engineers nchorage District .0. Box 7002 nchorage, Alaska 99510 November 9, 1981 P5700.11.73 T.l269 \sURGH Susitna Hydroelectric Project Transmission Corridor Report ! 'N ' Jo I L I ) i I I I . :-c.r : ~I ear Col. Nunn: 1'1. s you know, Acres Prnerican, Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska ower Authority to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Federal Energy egulatory Commission (FERC) license application for the Susitna Hydro- lectric Project. Tne scheduled date for submission of the application is n June of 1982 . "' . r- n ederal law and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the ERC application be prepared in consult at ion with Federal and State agen- tes having managerial authority over certain project aspects. This coor- ination must be documented in the license application. ;::I great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff levels by dir- ct participation in studies or by participation in committees and task roups. This input, however, has been primarily by staff and may not nec- ssarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason, we are conduct- a h, . lOg a para1lel formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments on key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year~ there will be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time~ we request that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review the attached Report, ''Transmission Line Corridor Screening Closeout Report'\ particularly in the areas impacting on land and water quality. ACRES AMERICAN JNCORPORATED <.. · .. ·· 1 l: -;. • • • ~~ . • • • . ... ! ( ... · "· ~ _, '·. ) "" i ,in ~0 ., ~ ~1,/l ~~ ,..., :::s ._co !-., :::s ;II) II) , "' ~ ~ I r"". ' r . I ' ~' ! . ' i ( ' ' ' ' uevelopment Selection Report - 2 November 9~ 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible development for all interests. A response within thirty days of receipts would be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your comments to: Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th. Avenue Anchorage~ Alaska 99501 JOL/MMG: j gk cc: Eric Yould, Alaska Power Authority ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Very truly yours, / . :1~ , . ·11 ic !;'t til l / ' • j"'.J{ )t /. ~ 1 ~ ... l,£.t,. John D. lawrence Project Manager i" :; H !-' .:· , WlLLE1'T WITTE BEARY ·HAYDEN LAMS LA-WRENCE SINCLAIR .. ·-----·· . -. November 9~ 1981 P5700.11.92 T.1264 I ( r. Ernest W. Mueller ommissioner laska Department of Environmental Conservation uneau, Alaska 99801 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Transmission Corridor Report VANOERBURGHI ear Mr. Mueller: · 1-. - CARLSON FRETZ JE'X LOWREY SINGH H-USTEAD savE CHASE // ,_ / ..... / . I J s you know, Acres American., Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska ower Authority to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Federal Energy egulatory Commission (FERC} license application for the Susitna Hydro- lectric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the application is n June of 1982. ederal law and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the ERC application be prepared in consultation with Federal and State agen- ies having managerial authority ov.er certain project aspects. This coor- ination must be documented in the license application. great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff levels by dir- ct participation in studies or by participation in committees and task roups. This input, however, has been primarily by staff and may not nec- ssarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason, we are conduct- ng a parallel formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments n key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time, we request that the Department of Environmental Conservation '~ ~ I J review the attached Report, .. Transmission Line Corridor Screening Closeout ~ keport11 ., particularly in the areas impacting on the air, land~ and water ~ quality. ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED :· ..•.• !: .-l~~ ..... --·~~ :.· ~-:: ::• -· .• ;J .·•· ; • .. Y:·· •:_~ ~~· !" .... : .... ; •• •4 .... • • • ..,. ~ ... • 1-. . / r- 1 ··: l ((""', I I 1~ i t \ 'I ~- - ... - Development Selection Report - 2 Nov e.rnb er 9 ~ 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to ~ont~nue planning the best possible development for all interests. A .response within thirty days of receipts would be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your comments to: JOL/NMG:jgk. Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue ·Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Very truly yours, · .. jJ'?u Yl'j !!lud£ · . ~tv John D. Lawrence --r Project Manager cL!----cc: Eric Yould, Alaska Power Authority Mr. Bob Martin, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservatio/) .. ~. : ~ ... . · ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Wll.L.ETT WITTE BEARY HAYDEN l.AMB l.AWAENCE $1NCL.AIA VANDERBURGH ' i-1 r . r-' 1"-.J CARLSON FRETZ .!EX L.OWREY I SINGH HUSTEAD sove I CHASE-"- / ...!, .---·;?·/ . - Hr. Tom Barnes Office of Coastal Management Division of Policy Development & Planning Pouch AP Juneau, Alaska 99811 Uear Mr. 'Barnes: November 9. 1981 P5700.11.92 T.l257 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Transmission Corridor Report As you know, Acres American~ Incorporated is und-er contract to the Alaska Power Authority to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application for the Susitna Hydro- electric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the application is in June of l982. Federal 1 aw and FERC regulations requir_e that the reports supporting the FERC application be prepared in consultation with Federal and State agen- cies having managerial authority over certain project aspects~ This coor- dination must be documented in the license application. ~I A great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff levels by dir-~ ect participation in studies or by participation in committees and task groups. This input, however~ has been primarily by staff and may not nee-"""""~' essarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason, we are conduct- ing a parallel formal coordination process~ by requesting agency comments on key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinatea ~ in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time, we request that the Office of Coastal Management review the attached Report, "Transmission Line Corridor Screening Closeout Report 11 , particularly in the areas affecting coastal management. ACRES Ar~r1ERICAN INCORPORATED ... ... t, . -· . ;.. . ·-.· ...... ), r i $ - <!"""' I I i '~·· ~ I' '· Developnent Selection Report - 2 November 9, 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible development for a11 interests. A response within thirty · days· of receipts would be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your comments to: JDL/f-.'!MG:jgk Mr. Eric You1d, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Very truly yours, · · i£1tJO tjj;,,.t · ti!Lvic j\i l ~ John D. Lawrence "' Project Manager cc: Eric Yould; Alaska Power Authority ·~ ~ Mr. Ernest W. Mueller Conmissioner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Juneau, Alaska 99801 November 19, 1981 P5700.11.92 Sus itna Hydroe 1 ectri c Project .Aii\. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy Uear Mr. Mue 11 er: As you know, Acres American, Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska Power Authority (APA) to conduct a feas ibi 1 ity study and prepare a Federal Energy Regulatory Corrmission {FERC) license application for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the application is in June of 1982. Federal law and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the FERC application be prepared in consultation with Federal and State agen- cies having managerial authority over certain project aspects. This coor- dination must be documented in the license application. A great aeal of coordination has taken place at agency staff levels by dir- ect participation in studies or by participation in committees and task groups. This input, however, has been primarily by staff and may not nec- essarily reflect the views of the agency~ For this reason, 1Ne are conduct- ing a parallel formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments on key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time, we request that the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation review the attached Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Pol icy, which has been developed by APA, the resource agencies and Terrestrial En vi ronmenta 1 Speci a 1 is ts. ACRES AMERJCAN INCORPORATED .., .I .4 r-: I -. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation_ Policy Page 2 November 19, 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible development for all interests. A response within thirty days of receipts waul d be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your ,-... · comments to me and to: ! ·r-. r L .. -I t Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority JDL/MMG:jgk En c. 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 cc: Bob Martin (letter only) ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Very truly yours, ~ J)\ /.,.,_ ~ /.1'-1 b John D. Lawrence . Project Manager ( W ill . . Mr. Robert McVey Director, Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. McVey: November 19, 19~1 P5700.11.91 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy As you know~ Acres American:, Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska Power Authority (APA) to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the application is in June of 1982. Federal law and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the FERC application be prepared in consultation with Federal and State agen-. cies having managerial authority over certain project aspects. This coor- dination must be documented in the license application. A great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff levels by dir- ect participation in studies or by participation in committees and task groups. This input, however~ has been primarily by staff and may not nec- essarily reflect the views of the agencyv For this reason, we are conduct- ing a parallel formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments on key study outputs. The p 1 an of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time~ we request that the National Marine Fisheries Service review the attached Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy, which has been developed by APA, the resource agencies and Terrestri a1 Environmental Speci a 1 i sts. ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ~ ·" Lit ~rty s~ "'k Buil::.rg r:.a.n a1 Ce:url ~ :·I ~. I ; J ~I .~ I r I r r ~ l I' ~· I ( ,.,.,., I ,•. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy Page 2 November 19, 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible development for all interests. A response within thirty days of receipts would be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your comments to me and to: Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority JOL/MivJG:jgk En c. 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 cc: Ron Morris (letter only) ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Very truly yours, ~ ]), 1.--<r~/.-M-b John D. Lawrence Project Manager Mr. Keith Schreiner Regional Director, Region 7 U.S~ Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Schreiner: • November 19, 1981 P5700 . .11.91 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy As you know~ Acres American, Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska Power Authority (APA) to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the application is in June of 1982. Federal law and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the FEHC application be prepared in consultation with Federal and State agen- cies having managerial authority over certain project aspects. This coor- dination must be documented in the 1 icense application. A great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff 1 evel s by dir- ect participation in studies or by participation in committees and task groups. This input~ however, has been primarily oy staff and may not nec- essarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason, we are conduct- ing a para11e1 formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments on key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time, we request that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service review the attached Fish and Wildlife 1-titi gati on Pol icy, which has been developed by APA, the resource agencies and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists. ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Eu~~a!o. r:<:.-. York 14202 II. • 1 1 , ... 1-•·. •• ~ , /'~ I ~· ; - +""" - A r ~ ,i ,r ' i Fi~h and Wildlife Mitigation Policy Page 2 -= November 19, 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible development for all interests. A response within thirty . days of receipts would be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your comments to me and to; JDL/MMG:j gk Enc. Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Very truly yours, John D. Lawrence Project Manager ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Mr. Ronald Skoog Conmissioner State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Juneau, Alaska 99801 November 19, 1981 P5700.11.92 -i I Susitna Hydroelectric Project ~ Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy Dear Mr. Skoog: ~ As you knows Acres Jlmeri cans Incorporated is under contract to the Alaska Power Authority (APA) to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a Federal Energy Regulatory Corrmission (FERC) license application for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The scheduled date for submission of the application is in June of 1982. Federal law and FERC regulations require that the reports supporting the FERC application be prepared in consultation with Federal and State agen- cies having managerial authority over certain project aspects. This coor- dination must be documented in the license application. A great deal of coordination has taken place at agency staff levels by dir- ect participation in studies or by participation in committees and task groups. This i npot, however, has been primarily by staff and may not nee- essarily reflect the views of the agency. For this reason, we are conduct- ing a parallel formal coordination process, by requesting agency comments on key study outputs. The plan of study was the first document coordinated in this manner. Over the next year, there will be several more. This par- allel process will affect the other coordination activities of the study. At this time, we request that the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game review the attached Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Pol icy, which has been developed by APA, the resource agencies and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists. ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ~·, .· ~""""' I l ' ,.... i r Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy Page 2 November 19~ 1981 Your prompt attention to this matter will enable us to continue planning the best possible development for all interests. A response within thirty days of receipts would be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy of your comments to me and to: Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Dire·ctor Alaska Power Authority JDL/MMG:jgk En c. 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 cc: Tom Trent (letter only) ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Very truly yours, ~ J). !, .. ~ /.;ffr;, John D. Lawrence Project Manager WILLETT WITTE ! BERRY I') .. .....-'1 Ill\{ 'I -1.~ ~ / l_!~q_ v' ~~-,.A-, LAMS I LAWRENCE l.S.I~R y 'f"ANI GH -r......-- -K CARLSON FR.ETZ JEX LOWREY SINGH I v I~ ~ ' l/ ~ HU~ aove CHASE I--,__ ~ 11~~ Mr. David Haas Office of the Governor November 24~~ 1981 P5700.11.92 T.1297 ~Division of Policy Development and Planning Pouch AW Juneau, AK 99811 Dear Mr. Haas: ~r/ Susitna HYdroelectric Project Formal Agency Coordfnat1on As discussed yesterday. I am enc1os1ng a list· of all people within state and federal agencies to whom we are sending Susitna Hydroelectric Project Reports. The list is keyed to explain who gets which reports. We are attempting to insure that each agency has the opportunity to review reports dealing with resources or issues for which it has jurisdiction. If I can be of further help, please let me know. Sincerely, ~awren~ Project Manager JDl:d1p Enclosure xc: Alaska Power Authority ~I SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT REPORTS CIRCULATED FOR FORMAL AGENCY COORDINATION r ' I , ~ l NI.MJER KEY LWIL.l.ETT ....f VITTE i ERRY -;1 Plan of Study 1 -f"' ' 1980 Envi ronmenta 1 SUIIIIIary Report 2 -( iAYOEN !LAMB 1980 Fish Eco 1 ogy Annua 1 Report 3 J..L.AWRENCE 1 iiNCL.AI R iJ. fANDERBURGH ·, ~R~ON 1980 Plant Ecology Annual Report -4 1980 Big Game Annual Report 5 1980 Furbearer Annual Report 6 I FRETZ.·. ~ex · !; OWREY J INGH I 1980 Birds and Non-Game Manrna1 Annual Report 7 1980 Land Use Annual Report 8 • ~r ~~-! .HUSTEAO LBOVE 1980 Socioeconomic Annual Report 9 1980 Cultural Resources Annual Report 10 Transmission Line Cocridor Screening Report 11 CHASE 1. ~ Development Selection Report 12 1981 Final Subtask Report 13 Draft Feasibility Report 14 ( .' '· Regional Administrator Region X U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 South Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 · Col . Lee Nunn District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Anchorage District P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Ala~ka 99510 Mr. Keith Schreiner Regional Director, Region 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchor age, A 1 ask a 99503 Mr. Robert McVey Director, Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA P~O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Mr. John E. Cook Regional Director Alaska Office National Park Service 540 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. John Rego Bureau of Land Management 701-C Street Anchorage, Alaska 9950 Mr. Larry Wright National Park Service 1011 E. Tudor Road, Suite 297 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Ms. Judy Schwarz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ma i1 Stop 443 Region X EPA 1200 South 6th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Mr. Ron Morris Director, Anchorage Field Office National Marine Fisheries Service 701 C Street Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Reports sent/to be sent 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 11,. 12~ 13, 14 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13~ 14 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 " .l J! ,-., . \ - -I !"""' t""' I Mr. Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Ernest W. Mueller Convnissioner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Lee Wyatt Planning Director Matanuska-Susitna Barough Box B Palmer, Alaska 99811 Mr. Tom Barnes Office of Coastal Management Division of Policy Development & Planning Pouch AP Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. Roy Huhndorf Cook Inlet Region Corporation P .0. Drawer 4N Anchor age, A 1 ask a 99509 Mr. Thomas Trent State of Alaska Department of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Mr. Bob Martin Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 437 E. Street, 2nd Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Alan Carson Alaska Department of Natural Resources 323 East 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska . 99501 Ms. Lee McAnerney Commissioner Department of Community & Regional Affairs Pouch B Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. Robert Shaw State Historic Preservation Officer Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks 619 Warehouse Avenue, Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. John Katz Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 Reports 'Sent/to be sent 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 1r 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 WIL.L.ETT WITTE BERRY _L ,'.\, ~~{:u.-1' L.AMB : t..AWRENCE •' SINCL.AIR •• VANOERBU~GH ~ [, ,j : CARL.SON i FFIE'TZ · I JEX I L.OWREV I SINGH -...,. l'"w _f_ HUSTEAD save '·]( .11. """'"'r-= .1 J(.( p ~ ............ ./ CHASE 'i ~,c Mr. Tom Trent A1 aska Department of Fish and Game 2207 Spenard Road Anchorage, AK 99503 November 25, 1981 P5700.11.92 Te lJQl Dear Mr. Trent: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Report Review As you discussed with Michael Grubb on November 24, 1981, I am enclosing the following Sus1tna Hydroelectric Reports which were also sent to Mr. Skoog for ADF&G review and convnent: l. 1980 Environmental SWIIIlary Report 2. 1980 Big Game Annual Report 3. 1980 Fish Ecology Annual Report 4. 1980 Plant Ecology Annual Report 5. 1980 Furbearer Annual Report 6. 1980 Bird and Non-Game Annual Report As you suggested we will in the future send reports both to Mr. Skoog and directly to you. MMG:dlp xc: E. Yould/APA R. Skoog/ADF&G Enclosures Sincerely, John D. Lawrence Project Manager _) JAY S. HAMMOND, Governor """'· ' OFFJICB OJF TEtE GOV8RN'OR DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING GOVERNMENTAL COORD!NA TION UNrT ' December 2, 1981 Mr. John D. Lawrence Project Manager, Susitna Hydroelectric Project Acres American Incorporated The Liberty Bank Building, Main at Court Buffalo, New York 14202 Dear Mr. lawrence: POUCH AW (MS-0165} JUNEAU, ALASKA 99871 PHONE: f907) 465-3562 RECEIVED DEC 7 1981 ( This letter should clarify a telephone conversation we had on November 23, 1981 ~! and the role of this office in reviewing subsequent materials relating to the 1. , Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Our office recently received copies of correspondence addressed to To~ Barnes, formerly of the Alaska Office of Coastal Management (OCM). We conduct Alaska ----------~Co_astal Management Program {ACMP) consistency reviews for OCM as well as unified ate responses on many major projects •. Thus, OCM notified us of this correspond- ce. In this regard, we•d first like to inform you that Ms. Wendy Wolf has placed Tom Barnes at OCM and will handle any future reviews of the Susitna oposal for OCM. ALASKA POWER ruTHORITY _j_ USJTNA FILE "P5700 P .r .J/.9? Sg U~="'''"'c NO for future reviews, we would like to receive a mailing list of all agencies P -d;/5-q ·c ntacted and a copy of the particular report. We waul d 1 ike to do an i nforma- 1 : ·anal review of the feasibility study when it is available. We would expect .z['lj .] g I t at an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would also be prepared for this 12 ~ ~ jar project and that we would conduct an ACMP consistency review of it. If :~~~~. § I, _~d u do prepare such an EIS, we would like to coordinate the mailing of such ~ -~~cument with you to simplify our review procedures. We would, of course, like ,-1'.-~?-·:~ :____! know if there won • t be an EIS. . I ·/f -· . .. -rr· c -~~) :---p ·-li ~~ ! f~:c,.G. } :~ .0: I i -~-::?!\!;·-~ .;; ~-;-; --:-r----_, : i J p 3 f ,_,,, 1---:_l~li?GHl/ ease advise us if you can clarify any of the review process and if you ve any questions. _ ·• Sincerely, ilu~ /v'. /J~v> David W. Haas State-Federal Assistance Coordinator -g· -._!_~2-I_E,~ f SNT !~j -. Dt•J L l ~ !=h: ~~ 1----" : Eric Youl d, APA -j"·---r __ l : r I :-~~~~-- ;-,-I -~-.. -1 -c ~~--- WII..LETT WITTE BERRY HAYDEN t.AMB LAWRENCE SINCLAIR ·bJ· ·.·":, >.'..;. ~· I --' ·-.. _ ~ .. ;:-r ---... -'~ -. • M r. Ernest W. Mueller ommissioner c 1\ "\ J laska Department of Environmental Conservation uneau, Alaska 99801 - December 4, 1981 P5700.11.92 T.l325 VANDER BURGH ,..... (~ CARLSON FRETZ JEX LOWREY SINGH HUSTEAD BOVE CHASE· ///.--- ~ -...-t:/(~ ~ r- .} ~ I' ~ n ear Mr. ·Mue l1 er: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Transmittal Form nclosed· is a document transmittal form which should have accompanied our ackage dated November 10 containing copies of the Development Selection eport and its appendices. The document transmittal form is part of a ewly-implemented procedure at Acres which is intended to verify the arrival f documents shipped via various carriers and thus alleviate as quickly as ossible any problems which may arise due to documents being misplaced uring transit. f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to calL Sincerely yours, ~Yn~c€-L-- ~John D. Lawrence Project Manager JEM/jh Enclosures cc: Mr. Bob Martin f.;l. /? Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Co..,~uH.ng E.,gineers r~e liberty ean'-Building. M;.•n at Ct!url =-~~~aio Nc .. ·• York i4202 ~I ..., :1.' l .11 ~' ,.l:YIL.l..ETT -i IITTE r-'·1 EI'I:RY -;r '--. .• AYDEN LAMB .I..L._AWAENCE ~ 'INCLAIR J, ANDERBURGH '=f ·. -; ...:ARLSON I FRETZ ,./o.I,EX p OWREV _\_ INGH ::!HUSTEAD 1 eave ~· I CHASE ~--~ r-i ~ /.0 ~_/.,'/ / r r ' Mr. Lee Wyatt Planning Director Matanuska-Susitna Barough Box B Palmer, Alaska 99645 Dear Mr. Wyatt: ---~-- December 4, 1981 P5700,11.92 T .1330 Sus itna Hydroelectric Project Document Transmittal Form Enclosed is a document transmittal form which should have accompanied our package dated November 10 containing copies.of the Development Selection Report and its appendices. The document transmittal form is part of a newly-implemented procedure at Acres which is intended to verify the arrival of documents shipped via various carriers and thus alleviate as quickly as possible any problems which may arise due to documents being misplaced during trans it. If you have any quest ions, please do not hesitate to call. JEM/jh Enclosures ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Ccnsu•tir.g El'lg.neers Tt:e Liber:y 9a"k BuJd:n; l.~a·l'l a1 Cour! ;!u~'a!o. r-:e:• Yorl. H202 Sincerely yours, ~e.Yn~ ~John D. Lawrence Project Manager· Wll.LETT WITTE BERRY HAYDEN LAMB LAWRENCE SINCLAIR ~ ~ N 1 ' r. Robert McVey irector, Alaska Region ational Marine Fisheries Service OAA .0. Box 1668 uneau, Alaska 99802 December 4, 1981 P570D.11.91 T .. 1323 VANOERBURGH ,...-r -~- CARLSON FRETZ JEX LOWREY SINGH ! HUSTEAD I BOVE I I CHASE ', 1 I / ...;;.;. ,/ (- ear Mr. McVey: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Transmittal Form nclosed is a document transmittal form which should have accompanied our ackage dated November 10 containing copies of the Development Selection eport and its appendices. The document transmittal form is part of a ewly-implemented procedure at Acres which is intended to verify the arrival f documents shipped via various carriers and thus alleviate as quickly as ossible any problems which may arise due to documents being misplaced uring transit. f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. JEM/jh Enclosures cc: Mr. Ron Morris, Director (,;1 h Sincerely yours, ~<;o;J~e-R. -r John D. Lawrence Project Manager Anchorage Field Office National Marine Fisheries Service. ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED n.e Llb!:rty e2nk Buildmg r.la:n at Court - j __ _} ,,-, · .. J , j - .... I '" WILLETT J..:NlTTE _, ,&RAY -' r H' ;AVOEN 1-i' .. AMB LAWRENCE ~r·r-r~ ) I · . i i, :,,- j .,J n i.l..._ ..... ~ , .,, e ~1 r. John E. Cook gional Director aska Office ~a 4 n tional Park Service 0 West Fifth Avenue chorage, Alaska 99501 December 4, 1981 P5700. ll • 91 T. 1328 ~INCLAIR ~· (ANOERBURGM· t~LOON FRETZ IJEX _,._OWREY -{ iNGH I r-~ F\, lUSTEAD aove l r -i -·, .;HASE I -r --': ,/ .d -z_ ./',., ~' - re rn '=a Jje b !r II j..U _rl 1 ar Mr. Cook: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Transmittal Form closed is a document transmittal form which should have accompanied our ckage dated November 10 containing copies of the Development Selection port and its appendices. The document transmittal form is part of a w1y-implemented procedure at Acres which is intended to verify the arrival documents shipped via various carriers and thus alleviate as quickly as ssible any problems which may arise due to documents being misplaced ring trans it. you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, 9C~~ ~John D. Lawrence Project Manager JEM/jh Enclosures cc: Mr. Larry Wright National Park Service I ~~ -~ I I ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED WILL.ETT WITTE BERRY HAYDEN LAMB LAWRENCE SINCLAIR , Regional Administrator egion X R u 1 s .S. Environmental Protection Agency 200 South Avenue eattle, WA 98101 December 4, 1981 ?5700. 11.91 T.l320 VANDERBUFIGH ,_ ('• CARLSON FRETZ. JEX t..OWREY ' SINGH I ·, I HUSTEAD I BOVE I ' CHASE --- p ear Sirs: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Transmittal Form K nclosed is a document transmittal form which should have accompanied our ackage dated November 10 containing copies of the Development Selection eport and its appendices. The document transmittal form is part of a ewly-implemented procedure at Acres which is intended to verify the arrival f documents shipped via various carriers and thus alleviate as quickly as ossible any problems which may arise due to documents being misplaced II' .., D1 -1 uri n g transit. f you have any questions~ please do not hesitate to call. JEM/jh Enclosures cc: Ms. Judy Swartz Sincerely yours, ~~~ P. John D. Lawrence Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Cc.nsul!in'g Engineers The Libe:rry Bank Bui!c·ng. ~.~am at Court Bu"'<'O New Yor~ 1~202 , ' .··~· . .-,. : ,.~ j J , j ,"""! " I WIL.L.ETT r-r"WITTE r::: · SE~RY 1 I I R,....,. HAYDEN ti..AMS I L.AWRENCE 'I . \ - • r. Ronald 0. Skoog ommissioner laska Department of Fish and Game uneau, Alaska 99801 December 4, 1981 P5700. 11.70 T. 1324 [f'NCL.AIR VANOERSURGH ~/ r· j CARLSON !FRETZ I JEX :[.LOWREY SINGH ,. I ,....! I L HUSTEAD [SOVE I l[ iJ tCHASE I [p-I_ n ... r \ t r . ' C"; .. {I _.I f ~ t [ l ear Mr. Skoog: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Transmittal Form nclosed is a document transmittal form which should have accompanied our ackage dated November 10 containing copies of the Development Selection eport and its appendices. The document transmittal form is part of a ewly-implemented procedure at Acres which is intended to verify the arrival f documents shipped via various carriers and thus alleviate as quickly as ossible any problems which may arise due to documents being misplaced uring transit. f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, YLW?~ ~John D. Lawrence Project Manager aEM/jh Enclosures I ) ,, ') cc: Mr. Thomas Trent J -. • l State of Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED -• :-. • ... .:: ~ -. : .... _ :~ -: ~ ~ ·_. F WILLETT WITTE BERRY HAYDEN LAMB LAWRENCE SINCLAIR VANOERSURGH r-.r r-!.,_ CARLSON FRETZ JEX L.OWR.EY SINGH HUSTEAD BOVE CHASE /•/ (!... --/ ----1! ..... /. ~ L._j' f -t ... :~ i : . -: . : : j._a.....,.LioiiM-:..;,...1 ' Mr. Keith Schreiner Regional Director, Region 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Schreiner: December 4, 1981 P5700. 11 • 71 T.1322 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Transmittal Form Enclosed is a document transmittal form which should have accompanied our package dated November 10 containing copies of the Development Selection · Report and its appendices. The document transmittal form is part of a newly-implemented procedure at Acres which is intended to verify the arrival of documents shipped via various carriers and thus alleviate as quickly as possible any problems which may arise due to documents being misplaced during trans it. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. JEM/jh Enclosures ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Sincerely yours, ~~~~ tf»'-John 0. Lawrence Project Manager - I""!\ \ r I I WILLETT -!""'WITTE 1 · '3E.RRY "'l· I I _j HAYDEN -ll LAM9 I LAWRENCE ,} ... " f r~ .... ,._ ,_~~~ ' Mr. John Katz ~ j laska Department of Natura 1 Resources ouch M uneau, Alaska 99811 December 4, 1981 P5700. 11.74 T. 1329 ANDER BURGH ~NCLAIR ~ALSON I FRETZ IJEX !"':""LOWREY t SINGH· L , I ~r l t • HUSTEAD JBOVE I .''' ., !CHASE I lr~~ rt , ~ I(.,.' .._ ~ ---C/ r .... ear Mr. Katz: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Transmittal Form nclosed is a document transmittal form which should have accompanied our ackage dated November 10 containing copies of the Development Selection eport and its appendices. The document transmittal form is part of a ewly-implemented procedure at Acres which is intended to verify the arrival f documents shipped via various carriers and thus alleviate as quickly as ossible any problems which may arise due to documents being misplaced uring transit. · f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. JEM/jh Enclosures J"i cc: Mr. Alan Carson '~\·1 Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Sincerely yours, ~·~&-e__ ~· John D. Lawrence Project Manager Wll.l..ETT WITTE BEARY - HAYDEN I..AMB l..AWAENCE SINC1.AIR L_·_.J ------... ' , ,.1 r. Robert Shaw ) 'l tate H-istoric Preservation Officer l ask a Department of Natural Resources ivision of Parks 19 Warehouse Avenue~ Suite 210 nchorage~ Alaska 99501 ill December 4, 1981 P5700. 11.74 T. 1326 VANDER BURGH -r -l. CA.Al.SON FRETZ JEX LOWREY SINGH HUSTEAD BOVE CHASE / ,.' :. ' ""//.--({/ h, ear Mr. Shaw: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Transmittal Form nclosed is a document transmittal form which should have accompanied our ackage dated November 10 containing copies of the Development Selection eport and its append ices. The document transmittal form is part of a ewly-implemented procedure at Acres which is intended to verify the arrival f documents shipped via various carriers and thus alleviate as quickly as ossible any problems which may arise due to documents being misplaced uring trans it. f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. JEM/jh I")..\\ Enclosures cc: Mr. Alan Carson Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Sincerely yours, ~77JC6'L£-~ ~John D. Lawrence Project Manager - ,_w l 1-·.-12 , ,j - ., ..... i r I WILLETT ..!.WITTE ~ ,BERRY . I J ~ HAYDEN r, LAMB I LAWRENCE ~INCLAIR : , Mr. John Rego B 7 A ureau of Land Management 01-C Street nchorage, Alaska 99501 December 4, 1981 P5700,11.75 T. 1331 ·+ VANDERBURGH Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Transmittal Form :-!{; R CARLSON 1'FRETZ IJEX ~OWREY NGH I .J. 8 HUSTEAD 1'sove I i:HASE I ..,.1.. ~ /-;,,; .-/ !""" I I r l l""" I I ~ ear Mr. Rego: ,... nclosed is a document transmittal form which should have accompanied our ackage dated November 10 containing copies of the Development Selection eport and its append ices. The document transmittal form is part of a ewly-impl emented procedure at Acres which is intended to verify the arr iva 1 f documents shipped via various carriers and thus alleviate as quickly as ass ible any problems which may arise due to documents being misplaced p R' II D n, fl uring transit. f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. JEM/jh Enclosures ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Consult,n; ·Eng.necers Tt;e Liberty eank Bui!ci.ng. l!.ain at Court a ... _·~ a to_ Ne\·; Yorfl 1.:202 Sincerely yours, t1C"77JSI3~ r-John D. Lawrence Project Manager WILLETT WITTE BEARY HAYDEN LAMS LAWRENCE SINCLAIR VANDER BURGH ~ .. ·.~-----1 -'·:..;a ~;--... ------1 · .. l.soN ., '~;.;,.H __ ---1 1-----1 ~~ . .__, -·---~· ~~~ .·:::'1li'~ . .-=eA':"":o~--; '~;--...; '~:u. '*•··-----t ' .. ''!111-------l ·! . ·'.'l ·-------1 . _...-;.':" _.~---/" ;~/. L--__ j , Cal. Lee Nunn District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Eng i n·eer s Anchorage District P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Col . Nunn: ·December 4, 1981 P5700. 11 . 73 T. 1321 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Transmittal Form Enclosed is a document transmittal form which should have accompanied our package dated November 10 containing copies of the Development Se1ection Report and its append ices. The document transmittal form is part of a newly-implemented procedure at Acres which is intended to verify the arrival of documents shipped via various carriers and thus alleviate as quickly as possible any problems which may arise due to documents being misplaced during transit. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call . JEM/jh Enclosures ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Consu'itmg Engineers The Liberty Bank 6uildll>g. Main at Court Buffalo. New York 14202 Telepho.,e 716-BS:i-i525 Telex 91-6423 ACRES SUF Sincerely yours, ~· 7:JJ~.a.£- ~John D. Lawrence Project Manager - , .~ , . 'j , J "'"! ! r l [:: WILL.ETT WITTe BERRY I .. I, HAYDEN I L.AMB r L-AWRENCE SINCLAIR ~r 1f ~i 0 hu , . Tom Barnes fice of Coastal Management vision of Policy Development & Planning X AP neau, Alaska 99811 December 4, 1981 ?5700.11.91 T. 1332 I VANOERBURGH I r( ' [ '• CARLSON I FRETZ r· JEX LOWREY SINGH I I 1 HUSTEAD I sovE r 'l CHASE l [: / /v':' EJ .,..&"'(/ r \ r- 1 r r i l r i e n 1 a Je e ( f 0 I.U 14= ar Mr. Barnes: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Transmittal Form closed is a document transmittal form which should have accompanied our ckage dated November 10 containing copies of the Development Selection port and its appendices. The document transmittal form is part of a wly-implemented procedure at Acres which is intended to verify the arrival documents shipped via various carriers and thus alleviate as quickly as ssible any problems which may arise due to documents being misplaced ring transit. you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, 9C-·~ pz... John D. lawrence Project Manager JEM/jh Enclosures ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED c~~.s~!J ·~;~Eng :r.eers JAYS. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR ~ DEPARTMEIWT OF N&nJRAL RESOIJRCES 619 WAREHOUSE DR., SUITE 210 111'111 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 .. (. \O.J11 LH DIVISION OF PARKS PHONE: 214-467< ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY RECEIVED . SUSITNA ~ F; .,·oo DEC 14 1981 ACRES AmtJIJliiut m~UHf'ORATED '------~:.....~~~~~~~~ .. , ,,..,. . " •r : .;:\. c:;.j~ ......... ~ 1~\.i -:'1 December 4, 1981 P:~l;;t) Re: 1130-13 John D •. Lawrence Project Manager Acres American, Inc. The Liberty Bank Building, Main at Court Buffalo, New York 14202 Dear Mr. Lawrence: ~ ~ J ___ ..} ~ We have reviewed the 1980 reports by the University of Alaska Museum de Tiflg -s NT- with the cultural resources of the Susitna Hydroelectric project area. Th ~ report documents the survey activities conducted during 1980 which adeq * accomplish the tasks outlined in the proposed work plan. The sampling designed on the basis of geomorphic features and known use areas seems surpassed our expectations of site incidence in the area. The report s that the first level inventory was very competently conducted and recor The second year activities as outlined in the procedures manual was acco plished in the 1981 field season according to information gained throug verbal communication with the principle archaeological investigators. understand that the field research strategy was changed slightly from th~·!--1...,...:=--\ expected due to information gained during 1980. These changes appear tOUJ.aJL.e.---.:.-~..; more directly addressed problems which surfaced during the course of analysis of the 1980 data. A final review of the 1981 results and reports will have to await receipt of that document. We feel that the steps taken thus far in the cultural resource management of the project have been excellent and one of the few instances of adequate lead time. We would like to make the observation that the work thus far is only preliminary to the work yet needed for the Susitna Hydroelectric project. Reconnaissance and testing of yet to be examined areas should continue. The clearances of specific areas of disturbance provided as additional survey by the Museum should indicate the continued need for clearances of ancillary projects which could affect cultural resources. Also, a formal mitigation plan for those sites to be affected by the project must be formulated. Once definite decisions on the route of access to the project area from existing road systems are made, those access routes and material sites must be examined for conflicts and needs for mitigation. Issuance of a permit by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should and probably will include provisions specifying under federal law the need for such protection. - ~ .. ;~ - - - -( John D. Lawrence December 4, 1981 Page 2 - If you have any questions regarding our comments contained here, please call us. We look forward to receiving the report on 1981 field work. Sincerely, Chip Dennelein Director By: ll . Shaw ~ Preservation Officer cc: Dr. E. James Dixon Curator of Archaeology University of Alaska Museum University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 W. 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 DR:clk October 6)1981 Mr.Eric P.Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 3334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage)Alaska 99501 Dear Mr.Yould: , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMEF=lCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Natior:.:::.:Ib.::'ine Fisheries Service P.O.Eo::::1668 Juneau~Alasr~99802 RECEIVEO OCT 15 1981 AlASKA POW~At)IW}~lf",. - Involvement of this agency with efforts by others to explore the potential for hydroelectric development on the Susitna River dates back to 1973.In 1974)we had contracted Environaid for a study titled "A Hydrologic Reconnaissance of the Susitna River Below Devil IS Canyon") and more recently we have been a participant on the Susitna Steering Committee. We appreciate the opportunity presented in your letter of September 25,1981 to extend our participation by becoming a member on the Susitna Fisheries Mitigation Task Force,Review Committee.I have directed Brad Smith of our Environmental Assessment Division (EAD})Anchorage Field Office to· represent National Marine Fisheries Service (~MFS)on this important com- mittee.Mr.Smith will fully participate on the Review Committee and be res pons ible for d ra ft i ng the recommended N!"lFS I pos it ion. Please continue to send official correspondence through our Regional Office.Delays in NMFS response time associated with our routing of your materials to and from the Anchorage EAD Field Office could be reduced if you would provide a courtesy copy of correspondence dir- ectly to Mr.Smith. Should you have further questions regarding Mr.Smith1s involvement) please contact Ron Morris,the supervisor of the Anchorage EAD Field Office: Bradl ey K.Smith and Ronald J.Morri s National Marine Fisheries Service Federal Building &U.S.Court House 701 C Street,Box 43 Anchorage,Alaska 99513 Phone:(907)271-5006 Sincerely) )Jl.0~V'N-V---at '\',(Robert W.tkVey Director)Alaska Region I I REPLY TO ATTENTION OF': NPAEN-PL-EN DEPARTMc..NT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT.CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O.BOX 7002 ANCHORAGE.ALASKA 99510 1 3 OCT \98\ QC120 1981 - Mr.Eric P.Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage,Alaska 99501 Dear M~ul-d: This is in response to your letter of 25 September 1981 concerning Corps of Engineers participation in the Upper Susitna River Basin Fisheries Mitigation Review Committee. Unfortunately,the continued funding and manpower constraints under which we must operate make it necessary for me to decline your invitation.However,we will provide the reviews required for the issuance of per~its under our regulatory program. If I can be of further assistance,please contact me directly.If further details are desired by your staff,contact can be made with Mr.Harlan Moore, Chief,Engineering Division at 752-5135. 2"Z?~-""----- LEE R.NUNN Colonel.Corps of Engineers District Engineer JA Y S.HAMMOND,GOYERNOR / SUBPORT BUILDING JUNEAU,ALASKA 99801 DEPART)IE'T OF FISH :\~D GA .1IE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER October 23,1981 Mr.Eric P.You1d Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage,Alaska 99501 Dear Mr.You1d: Thank you for your invitation to place a member of my staff on the committee being established to review mitigatory recommendations for the Susitna Hydroelectric project.I have designated Mr.Carl Yanagawa, Regional Supervisor for the Habitat Division,to sit as our represent- ative on the review committee. -l I anticipate that Mr.Yanagawa will work closely with the other members of the committee,and with Tom Trent and Karl Schneider,to develop sound policy recommendations for Su-Hydro. Mr.Yanagawa's office is in the Fish and Game building at 333 Raspberry Road and he can be reached at 267-2138. Sincerely, - 1 .Ronald O.Skoog -+d"t Commissioner J---(907)465-4100 -I u.s. REPLY TO /S 443....TTN Of:M· .~I.'. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 it E CE I V E 0 Orr ..., """"..- AlASM pnl'ILR~..Il,;AUT11"';'7•LII.\' Eric P.Yould,Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 534 West 5th Avenue Anchorage,Alaska 99501 DearMr~~ RECEIVED OCT 3 n 1531 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)accepts your invitation to participate on the Review Committee for the Fisheries Mitigation Task Force on the hydroelectric development of the Upper Susitna River Basin. EPA generally relies on the state and Federal fish and wildlife agencies for the technical input and evaluation on such task forces.However,I feel that we may be able to provide as a member of the Review Committee, a different perspective which may help your efforts.Because of our limited resources both in staff and travel money,our participation will have to be somewhat limited. I have designated Ms.Judi Schwarz as our formal contact for the activi- ties of this Review Corrmittee.Ms.Schwarz is in the Environmental Evaluation Branch in our Seattle Office and has had primary contact with the Susitna project through our EIS review responsibilities.She can be reached at (206)442-1285.I have also asked Jim Sweeney,Director of our Alaska Operations Offi~e to provide support in this effort because of his proximity and knowledge of the unique Alaska conditions.His tele- phone number in Anchorage is (907)271-5083. We look forward to actively participating on this Review Committee.Any information you can send us on the activities of the wildlife mitigation task force would be appreciated. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to become actively involved in this important development. c c:Jim Sweeney ,P-- ; i .," ",I....._. December 1,1981 -' OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 11.Y S.HAMMOND.GOVERNOR POUCHM JUNEAU,ALASKA 99811 PHONE:(9 a7)4 65 - 2 40 0 ""'"! I t i J~ - ..r--, lO·J9LH Mr.Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage,AK 99501 Dear Eric: This letter is in response to your September 28,1981 letter offering an opportunity for DNR participation on the mitigation review committee for the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Al Carson of the Division of Research and Development will be our representative for the committee.He can be reached by phone at 276-2653. Thanks for providing us with the opportunity to participate in this important endeavor. Sincerely, ~z Commissioner cc:"Reed Stoops ---ALASliA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE·ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 RECEIVED DEC 14 1981 December 9,1981 -Phone:(907)277·764-' (907)276·0001 ACktl)I\ltl.c.nlli#\ft llttiUltl'UttATED Mr.Keith Schreiner Regional Director,Region 7 U.S.Fish &Wildlife Service 1011 E.Tudor Road Anchorage,Alaska 99503 Dear Mr.Schreiner: '- A member of your staff advises me you did not receive my letter of September 25,1981,inviting your participation to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project mitigation Review Group.Let me hasten to repeat the invitation. - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSfTNA FILE P5700 ./1 SE(JUENCE NO. ;=;c:?/~ Integral to our study of the potential effects of hydroelectric development of the Upper Susitna River Basin is the formulation of fisheries mitigation plans.To that goal,a Fisheries !-1itigation Task Force,in two parts,is being formed.One part will be a core group of the principal investigators.Their task will be to identify and address impacts,and develop appropriate mitigation plans. A Second group will act as a review committee commenting on the efforts of the core group. You are invited to be a member of the Revi.ew Committee. If you agree,your role would be to work in concert with other concerned agencies to assess the adequacy of the impact predictions and associated mitigative planning.In addition to reaping the benefits of your expertise,your participation would also fulfill key consultation requirements outlined in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)regulations and in the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. A similar structure was established early this year for wildlife mitigation.An early objective will be to reorganize into one-common review committee for mitigation, overviewing separate core groups for fisheries and wildlife. You might consider this when you appoint your organizational representative. - - ,-" r i \i r r Dear I am enclosing for your review the following reports prepared by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project: 1.Fi na 1 Draft Report ,Adult Anadramous Fi sheri es Proj ect 2.Resident and Juvenile Anadramous Fish Investigations on the Lower Susi tna Ri vet 3.Aquatic Habitat Investigations. These reports are provided for your information only;they are not part of our formal Agency Coordination Program.Comments are not requested but will certainly be accepted. Sincerely, !1 I ._------_.-.__.._- r"1r.A1 Carson Division of Research &Development Department of Natural Resources 323 East Fourth Avenue Anchorage,Alaska 99501 -. Mr.Gary Stackhouse U.~.Fish &Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage,Alaska 99502-------~M2r..::..:..:..C~a:-:r;.;lRyT:a~n~a~g:-:a~w~a~.::..=..~=--------------------------J~- Regional Supervisor for Habitat Division Al ask a Department of Fish &Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchor age,A1 ask a 99502 Ms.JUdl Schwarz Environmental Evaluation Branch U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101 ~ i - - December 18,1981 P5700.11.91 T.1355 Ms.Janet McCabe Area Di rector u.S.Geo 109i ca 1 Survey 1011 E.Tudor Suite 297 Anchorage,AK 99501 Dear Ms.McCabe:Susitna Hydroelectric Proj~ct Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group In September of thi s year the Al aska Power Authority (APA)invited you or a member of your staff to participate in a Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.To date,APA has received no response. The first Review Group meeting is to be held January 20,1982,at 10:·00 a.m. at the offices of APA.Please inform APA if you will be attending this meeting and if you wish to participate in future mitigation planning efforts. If so,we will ·send material for your review prior to this meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, t ' ."",I . MG:adh cc:APA ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Kevin Young Environmental Coordinator Mr.Carl Yanagawa Regional Supervisor for Habitat Division Alaska Department of Fish &Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage,Alaska 99502 Dear Mr.Yanagawa: December 18,1981 P5700.11.92 T1360 ...'- --I 1 - As a member of the group establ ished to review fish and wildl ife mitigation recommendations on the Susitna Hydroelectric Project,I request your atten- dance at a meeting on January 20,1982,at 10:00 a.m.,in the office of the Alaska Power Authority.In the first week of January,I will forward for -your review,a prel iminary outl ioe of project operations,impact issues,and mitigation options as prepared by our design teem and the fish and wildlife mitigation technical core groups.I would appreciate receiving by January 30,1982,any written comme.nts you may have regarding our approach,results,- or evaluations to date. Following the preparation of the Feasibility Report,which will contain more detailed information on project operations and our evaluation of these oper- ations,.an opportunity will be provided for you to perform a more thorough review. If you have any questions relating to this meeting or the proposed functions of the review group,please contact Mr.Dave Wozniak of APA or myself at 716-853-7525. Sincerely, Kevin Young Susitna Environmental Coordinator MG/jk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Consulting Engineers The Liberty Bank Building.1.lam at Court Sulfa/o.Ne':.Yor""14202 J.' Telex S1·6~23 ACR.~S S\JF Ot~er Offices:CC!..:""It'a,r.lD·P,:~sbwgh.PA:Rarei;)!".NC;Was~jr.gl0n.DC ~. - December 18,1981 P5700.11.91 T1361 - Ms.Judi Schwarz Environment a1 Eva 1 uat ion Br anch U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101 Dear Ms.Schwarz: As a member of the group established to review fish and wildlife mitigation recommendations on the Susitna Hydroelectric Project,I request your atten- dance at a meeting on January 20,1982~at 10:00 a.m.~in the office of the Al aska Power Authority.In the first week of January~I will forward for your review,a prel iminary outl ine of project operations~impact issues~and mitigation options as prepared by our design team and the fish and wildlife mitigation technical core groups.I would appreciate receiving by January 30~1982,any written comments you may have regard ing our approach,results, or evaluations to date. Following the preparat ion of the Feasibil ity Report,which will contain more detailed information on project operations and our evaluation of these oper- ations~an opportunity will be provided for you to perform a more thorough review.. If you have any questions relating to this meeting or the proposed functions of the review group,please contact Mr.Dave Wozniak of APA or myself at 716-853-7525. Sincerely~ f.eVI ....Y<.>w"".;//"1& Kevin Young Susitna Environmental Coordinator MG/jk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Consulting Engineers The Liber::;S<ln~aUjJ~lng ~.~a;n al Court Bul!alo.Ne....Yor~H202 Tele;>hone 71e·El53·7:'25 Te!ex 91 ·E~:<3 ,t..CRES aUF Other O'Lees:Colu:r.t.ia.r.~O:P,tls!;urgJ'l.PA·Raleigh.NC Washir.~lon.DC Mr.Bradley Smith Environmental Assessment Division National Marine Fisheries Service Federal Building &U.S.Court House 701 C Street,Box 43 Anchorage,Alaska 99513 Dear Mr.Smith: December 18,1981 P5700.11.92 T1363 - As a member of the group establ ished to review fish and wildl ife mitigation recommendations on the Susit.na Hydroelectric Project,I request your atten- dance at a meeting on January 20,1982,at 10:00 a.m.,in the office of the Alaska Power Authority.In the first week of January,I will forward for your review,a preliminary outline of project operations,impact issues,and mitigation options as prepared by our design team and the fish and wildlife mitigation technical core groups.I would appreciate receiving by January 30,1982,any written comments you may have regarding our approach,results, or evaluations to date.- Following the preparation of the Feasibility Report,which will contain more detailed information on project operations and our evaluation of these oper-.~ ations,an opportunity will be provided for you to perform a more thorough review. If you have any questions relating to this meeting or the.proposed functions of the review group,please contact Mr.Dave Wozniak of APA or myself at 716-853-7525. Sincerely, j:::e v '"1.y".I "'J I /"1 b Kevin Young Susitna Environmental Coordinator MG/jk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Con~ullmg Engineers The Lib(;rly Bank SuiJa,r.g.Il.ain at COLlrt Telex 91·6':22 ACRES aUF ) - ..... ,t .... December 18~1981 P5700 .11.91 T1364 Mr.Al Carson Division of Research &Development Department of Natural Resources 323 East Fourth Avenue Anchorage~Al aska 99501 Dear Mr.Carson: As a member of the groupestabl ished to review fish and wildl ife mitigation recommendations on the Susitna Hydroelectric Project,I request your atten- dance at a meet ing on January 20,1982~at 10:00 a.m.,in the office of the Alaska Power Authority.In the first week of January~I will forward for your review,a prel iminary outl ine of project operations,impact issues,and mitigation options as prepared by our design team and the fish and wildlife mitigat ion techn i cal core groups.I woul d apprec i ate recei v ing by January 30,1982,any written comments you may have regarding our approach,results, or eval uat ions to date. Following the preparation of the Feasibility Report,which will contain more detailed information on project operations and our evaluation of these oper- at ions,an opportunity wi 11 be prov ided for you to perform a more thorough review. If you have any questions relating to this meeting or the proposed functions of the review group,please contact Mr.Dave Wozniak of -APA or myself at 716-853-7525 . Sincerely~ Kevin Young Susitna Environmental Coordinator MG/jk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Cons~I1:"~E:og,r.eers T!1.:Lfberly e~~;.;e:",~!jn""9 r.~ain at Court. euf~alo.'.JewYor~'~202 December 18,1981 P5700.11.91 T1359 Mr.Michael Scott District Fisheries Biologist U.S.Bureau of Land Management 4700 East 72nd Street Anchorage,Alaska 99507 Dear Mt.Scott: As a member of the group establ ished :~o review fish and wildl ife mit igation recommendations on the Susitna Hydroelectric Project,I request your atten- dance at a meeting on January 20,1982,at 10:00 a.m.,in the office of the Al aska Power Authority.In the first week of January,I will forward for your review,a preliminary outline of project operations,impact issues,and mitigation options as prepared by our design team and the fish and wildlife mitigation technical core groups.I would appreciate receiving by January 30,1982,any written comments you may have regarding our approach,results, or evaluations to date. Following the preparation of the Feasibility Report,which will contain more detailed information on project operations and our evaluation of these oper- ations,an opportunity will be provided for you to perform a more thorough review. If you have any questions relating to this meeting or the proposed functions of the review group,please contact Mr.Dave Wozniak of APA or myself at 716-853-7525. Sincerely, Kevin Young Susitna Environmental Coordinator MG/jk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Con~Ulhng Engineers The Liberty eanl<BUilding ~J.ajn al Court 8u~falo.r,ew Yor~1~202 - Telex 91'6~23 ACRES BUr - II""'! I December 18,1981 P5700.11.91 T1362 Mr.Gary Stackhouse U.S.Fish &Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage,Alaska 99502 Dear Mr.Stackhouse: As a member of the group establ ished to review fish and wildl ife mitigation recommendations on the Susitna Hydroelectric Project,I request your atten- dance at a meet ing on January 20,1982,at 10:00 a.m.,in the office of the Alaska Power Authority.In the first week of January,I will forward for your review,a prel iminary outl ine of project operations,impact issues,and mitigation options as prepared.by our design team and the fish and wildlife mitigation technical core groups.I would appreciate receiving by January 30,1982,any written comments you may have regarding our approach,results, or evaluations to date. Following the preparation of the Feasibility Report,which will contain more deta i1 ed informat i on on project operat ions and our eva 1 uat ion of these oper- ations,an opportunity will be provided for you to perform a more thorough review. If you have any questions relating to this meeting or the proposed functions of the review group,please contact Mr.Dave Wozniak of APA or myself at 716-853-7525. Sincerely, {::z V I -..It-,.,.1J 1/"1 .(;, Kevi n Young Susitna Environmental Coordinator MG/jk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Cons\Jlt,ng Engineers The Liberly Bank Builclng.t.1ain at CCiurt eu'~alo.New YOfk"H202 Te!ephone 716·653·7525 Te'ex 91·6~23 ACRES eUF ro .......,..t"'."_"~"r ....L .........·.....An c·••,.~.,........0"C"_I ..:_...~,,...-"r...~"";.........,..,,,,,,,nr Busitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group Meetin?, January 7.1982 P5700.".70 T.1395 Mr.Carl Yanagawa Regional Supervisor for Habitat Division Alaska Department of Fish &Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage ..Alaska 99502 Dear Hr.Yanagawa: Enclosed for your review: 1)Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife f1it1gat1on Policy. 2)Draft Analysis of Hildl1fe i'1itiqation Options. 3)Draft Analysis of Fisheries Mitigation Options. These documents will be d1scus~ed at the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group Meeting to be beld at 9:00 a.m.(note change of time from letter of Decembar 13,lS81)on January ZQ,1932 at the office of the Alaska Power Authority,334 West 5th AvenUE.Anchorag~I hope you will be able to attend the meeting'. S'fncerely yours t Kevin R.Young Susitna Environmental Coordinator MHG/jmh Enclosures - - .., I - ""lI I -~ " --RECEIVED I DEC l 4 1981 - 1D S.. I' a WIE I $1J&¥[ @W W~§J$~~ I M.Ja.A POWER .A.!.Irne~ .IZl e. 4ll+ AYEioHJE __ - ~~---· DEP..~RTME~iT OF NATVBAL 11£SOIJRCES /XVfS1Q'IOF RESEARCH&IJE.'tiEl.OVENT ('. ~ember 9, 1981 Eric Yould~ Ex~~ive Director Alaska ~r Authority 333 west 4th Avet~ue, Suite 31 Anchonge, AA 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: . Several state and federal agencies. in recent weeks have beEn asked to·· formally reviev and proYide ~ts on several doc:uraents relating to the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Although the Susitna Hydro~ electric Steering Caanittee 1s an organization that is designed to pro- vi.de info.rma.l advice and CQDi!eflt on matters pertaining to the Susitna Hyljroelectric Project, JDOSt nf the steering ctzmittee members receiveii the formal agency response ~t that was sent to t.r.e agency directors ami c0ii1llissior.ers by Acres. lt is primarily because of that fact that the steering coamittee feels that it is appropriate and necessary to send ALASKA Po ER a letter to you at this time with respect to the Alaska Power Authority's AU<HoRt~ re--quest for formal agency coorcfir,ation and review on elements o:f the Susit:na SUS11:N.A H,ydroelei:tric Power Project. FILE PJJOO JAs a result of concerns exj>ressed t;y ~rs of the stwring <;Qil!Olittee, we · convened a !Sei.!ting on Oece:lber 2. 1981 of the steering CC~RRittee w1 th EQUENCE ~-;_;Robert Mchn and Dave Wozniak of the Alaska Power Authority att...onding. ; d/8::> , fAt this steering cCI!lnittee ~ting, ;se were provided with our first gH~se ' ' of how the Alaska Power Authority intends to conduct ti".;e fon:;al consultation ':i and coordination required for this proje<:t. The formal coordination process that is proposed in t."le August 12:., 1981 At=res doc~~nt to Eric Yould. subject~ ~susitna Hydroelectric Project Formal Coordination Plan•~ is conceptually ·1 ~z.w J-fappropriate but incomplete and deficient. The following are proble:Ja areas · --1 in the proposed fon:-al coordination plan as described above: SNT l \ 1.. The formal coordination pian as proposal by Acre-s has not been formally or informa11y discussed and reviewed with the agencies from which the P~r Authority requires responses. This is pro· bably th€ rr-~st significant obje-ction we have Yith the approach of Acres. The contractor sent letters to heads of state and federal age,rcies requesting specific ~~ts on detailed studies and reports associated with the Susitr~ Hydroelectric Project without having a COR~lete understanding of the responsibi1ities and concerns of agencies. 2. Se;.~ of the re;x>rts 'foihic..h agencies will be requested to fol"n2Ily respond to will not be prec~-te-d by the reJevant data and study findings f:"'CC )thich the s~ry report and forca.1 agency coar.ents should be based. An obvfous e.xa..r:;p1e is tr~ revi~ of the 1981 draft annual re?Qrts is required 2 months after the draft feas1- bil ity report reYiew. _ - - -.. - - - - - - - - - - -.. 1- l - -c- 1 i- 1 -~ i j 1- - - ~ 3. The proposed formal ccordination plan, as described in the AIJ9ust 12, 1981, doctarent fraa Acres to APA does not accurately describe all the parties and agencies who should receive certa.fn doc\IE!\ts. The steering cta~ittee feels tt-.at the formal COOS"lltation process should proceed in a racre coordinated and organized fashion in order to avoid unnecessary c:cns~ caused by the problems we r~Ave fdentified abaft. ie offer·'tfle following suggestions and ccmnents: l. we recaiEf.!nd that the APA, as soon as possible, convene a formal meeting w'ith agencies to establish the schedule and the prcc.ess for formal coordinition for this project. In light ef the proposal to have a ooaplete draft feasibility plan avai1ab1e on March 15, 1982, we urge that the Power Authority convene this D5!eting and get this ara.tter sorted out with the agencies before January 1, 1982. z. The formal coordination list that will te used ft>r this project needs to be reviewed and approved by ager.cy representatives to ensure that it is ca;plete and cor::prehensive. Attached to this letter please find a series of additions to the 8/12/81 Acres list. 3. R.e'iiew of the proposed F .E.R.C. regulations in volr.se 46 number 219 of the Federal Register dated 11/23/Sl identified a list of infonua- tion categories to be include<! in Exhibit E. etcparinq these re- qufn;g,ents to the 9/12/81 proposed coordination pian, ..e find the followir~ agency review categories missing: i) SocioecG:'KSic s~~ies ii} Alterr~tive dEsigns, locations and energy sources Hi} Geological and soils studies We agree wi~~ the APA epproach of requesting early for~l re~i~ ar~ comroents on policy related doet.Eients that are re~uired in o-rder ~ put the project proposal together. For e~le, the re-qw=st for review of the fish and wi1d- 1ife mitigation policy before the specific mitigation proposal for the project is sul:rnitted to agencies for revi~ and cCGiilE!nt. In sumr.ary. the me:nbers of the steering cc::nittef! found u'le proposed fonr.a1 coordination plan to be revealing and useful to better u~rstand how ag-encies ~111 have to respond in order to meet the needs of APA. •e are particularly encourage<i t!) s~ that t.rze instreas1 fl<itr~ study plan is p1armed to be available for review and c~t by agencies in Oecerber of 1981~ Since this is such a critical el~nt of the Susitra Study P1an, this deserves attention and re- sponse f~ the agencies as soon as possible • • _) -" - c-_ .. - -- t.- ..I J lhe steering cca1ittee hopes that you wilT find the-'"~ caanents and~­ tions useful anci constructive ar.d is anxious to continue to. provide infon=al review and advice ta the Power AutbCJrity. .J Sincerely yours, ru~ Al Carson, Chainean SiJsitna Hydroeleetric Steering Coa!littee AC:db cc: Steering Cc&rit"...ee Reed Stoops Quentin Edson, Director, Division of Environmental Anaiysis, F.E.R.C. A .. Starker leopold • ' ... -' ..J .I - ... ! ... .. I ' ..J l • ..J - ' ... ..1 ' ..1 .. - • -- ,. ··-(.· - t.- . 12/9/81 Reccanended additions to the 8/12/81 agency coordination list for Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Welter Qualfty and Use Alaska DKR, OF & 6 • DEC· . u.s. Anror~ Corps of Engineers • EPA, HPS • F & WS~ GS • BLM,lttfS AEIDC Fish, Wfldlife and Botanical ?_ Alaska Of & G . • DEC • DtCR U.S. F & WS, GS· " ~S~ EPA • BLM AEIOC Historical arid Archeological Alaska ONR {SHPO), Of & G • OCRA U.S.. NPS • BUt AEIOC Recreation Alaska DHR, Of & G U.S. NPS • F & WS, r~S Mat-Su BOrough AEIDC Aesthetics and Land Use Alaska ONR, OF & G U.S. BLM, F & WS, NPS CIRI AEIOC General OPOP., OOf, Governor's Office ' ~ , .... ~ ,r Mr. David Haas WIL.L.ETT .. WITTE .. BERRY \ r ,.. ,., t ~CIM'f" f/"'--S. LAMB l ,, L.AWRENCE' -ta iff 1v a te-Federal Assistance Coord1nat6r te of Alaska ce of the Governor sion of Policy Development d Planning lout hAW 17~ ,_ au, Alaska 99811 December 9, 1981 P5700.11.92 T.1338 SINCL.AI_B 11Aar Mr. Haas: Sus1tna HYdroelectric Project H .o.. (~·' ·~t-:l-)c.: Fonnal Agency Coordination lt. '' /_ ~ CA-RLSON / _, s FRETZ JEX ) L.OWREY SINGH ~./'I/ I ~"'IV l q HUSTEAD BOVE .. ) w111 hopefully address the issues raised in your letter of December 2, • We will send future correspondence to Ms. Wendy Wolf at the Alaska Office of Coastal Management. Thank you for notifying us of change in personnel. We will send you copies of all future reports issued formally for agency review. MY letter to you of November 24. 1981 listed all recipients and the reports they w111 receive. This formal agency review process we are conducting is for several purposes. Although we have had many meetings with agency personnel, we .... ... - .... - - - .,.j .... .... CHASE .,.j have been informed their views do not necessarily represent those of their agencies. To insure concerns of the agencies are addressed and incorporated, , l 1. h -~ ~ ./V..,. where possible, into project planning and to receive agency input on the studies, we have implemented this formal process whereby project reports are sent to agency Commissioners and/or Directors. In addition, the Federal Energy Regulator,y Commission requires documentation of agency input \ into project planning and mitigation. 4) The Feasibility Report will be issued by the Alaska Power Authority (APA). By copy of this letter, I will request you be placed on the distribution 11st. 5) The Environmental Impact Statement for this project will be prepared and issued by the Federal !gengy Regulatory Commission, on the basis of a license application to be submitted by APA, should a decision be made to do so by the state. If you wish to coordinate mailing of this document, I suggest you contact Mr. Quentin Edson, Chief of the Environmental Division in Washington, D.C. - IIIII - IIIII - - - :., . -r ( .. - - -c. Mr. David Haas December 9, 1981 page 2 I hope this clarifies matters. If.Y.you have further questions, please call. MMGJJmh cc: E. Yould, APA Sincerely, ~ John D. Lawrence Project Manager c· •• ..• I ' I U. S. E N V I R 0 N M E N T A l P R 0 T E C T I 0 N A G E N C Y ~~,1EO S7".ot1': . ~IS' REGION X ~ ....... < fili..A "G ~~~ ~ (!) ~ "(" 1-~ 0~ 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 RECEIVE_D DEC 2 8 1981 ACRES Alili.tUiiiifi I:~GDRrDRAifn -4( PRO"t~v"'"' REPlY TO M/S 443 ATTN OF: DEC 2 11981 John D. Lawrence Acres American, Incorporated The Liberty Bank Building Main at Court Buffalo, New York 14202 SUBJECT: Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Summary Annual Environmental Report-1980 and Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report Dear Mr. Lawrence: Thank you for sending us the above reports for our review. We have also received the Development Selection Report and will be forwarding our comments to you on that report before the end of December. ALASKA PowER We appreciate the extensive coordination effort and the opportunity to AUTHORITY • • SUSITNA rev1ew and comment on Sus1tna reports as they are prepared. I further --------1 appreciate your attempts to ensure that the views of the Agency are FILE P5700 adequately reflected in this process. While we have been coordinating · with the Susitna Interagency Steering Committee, our budget restrictions SEQUE~CE NO. have limited our active participation more than I would like. In this F. ..J..J/1 regard, it would be extremely helpful to us if you could provide us an , I. !overview of your consultation plan and the schedule for future reviews. !z ~ ~ ~This will better enable us to give you timely comprehensive comments on ig ~ != ~;:; the various segments of the study, with the overa11 project perspective 'U :n "" • • d 1 -z : o-... 1 n m1 n I .... -~ -• I ~c:..v I EPA is particularly interested in information on wetland mapping, water Ll-' 1.:.:..::._ quality and water quantity modeling and project alternatives. The 1980 ~~-~-~ Environmental Report appropriately points out the interrelationships and t JVG importance of these areas to wildlife survival and downstream fish 1 -~" --ecology. ~owever, i~ does not cover EPA's areas _of interest directly. -j-p 5 We waul d 11 ke to rev1ew the reports on these subJects when they are ~~~flf--avail able. ----·--· MRV L=J""HRC I f-1--1 '--~-: I - - IIIII - - IIIII - IIIII - - IIIII IIIII - IIIII IIIII - - - - - i - - - -c - _) 2 We support the emphasis in the Environmental Report and related studies on identifying ways to minimize the environmental impacts of the Susitna project. In particular, selection of the access route and type of access is an issue with long term environmental consequences which offers many opportunities for minimizing impacts. EPA supports the concept of minimizing impacts by use of a single corridor for both access and trans- mis.sion needs, as pointed out in Doth the Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report and the Environmental Report. We encourage you to incorporate these kinds of suggestions from agencies and the Steering Committee into the project selection, construction and operation plans. Such commitments will certainly positively influence reviews of any FERC license application. We have some concerns with the conclusions about the Centr.al Study area in the Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report. There appear to be different opinions on the environmental consequences of selecting Corri- dor 1 versus Corridor 14. We feel that additional areas should be included in future studies of the central corridor, to provide a broader data base from which such conclusions can be drawn. More specifically, in this area, Corridor One (ABCD), which roughly follows the south side of the Susitna River, is the recommended corridor based on Acre•s techni- cal, economic and environmental criteria. Corridor 14 (AJCD) follows the. same route as Corridor 1 from Gold Creek to Devils Canyon, but crosses to the north side of the Susitna River for the section from Devils Canyon to the Watana dam site. Corridor 14 has technical and economic ratings as high as Corridor 1, but was not recommended because of environmental and land use conflicts in segment CJ. On solely environmental grounds, it appears that an access route similar to Corridor 14 is preferred to Corridor 1 by Doth Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Incorporated (Environmental Report page 73 and 82) and the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee (letter from Al Carson, Chairman, to ·Eric Yould, dated November 5, 1981.) Therefore, the areas of the central corridor to be further studied should include the north side of the river between Devils Canyon and the Watana dam site to encompass segment CJA as well as segment CBA. One reason for the different conclusions regarding the environmentally preferable route between Devils Canyon and the Watana Dam site may be the Environmental Report•s and the Steering Committee•s identification of the most environmentally sensitive areas, which then have the highest priori- ty to be avoided. It may be desirable to use a similqr approach during the more detailed route selection studies, especially in areas where wetlands must be crossed. Identifying and then avoiding primary and secondary impacts to the most valuable wetland habitats should be an important part of the more detailed studies of all three transmission study areas. c 3 We appreciate the opportunity to review this report. Please contact me or Judi Scpwarz, of my staff, if you would like to discuss our comments. We can be~eached at (206) 442-1266 and (206) 442-1096, respectively. Eric Yould, Alaska·Power Authority Al Carson, Department of Natural Resources - - - - .... - - -.. .. - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - __ ) ~¥&¥~ @~ &~&~rK\& DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Eric: _) RECEIVeD JAYS. HAM~ ~~R¥%} ~SKA POWER AUTHORITY POUCH 0 -JUNEAU 19111 December 21, 1981 The Department of Environmental Conservation has been contacted by Acres American requesting formal coordination and review on five Susitna Hydroelectric Project documents. These requests were received in October and November, 1981. There apparently is some confusion as to what exactly was being requested. In his letter of November 16, 1981, Mr. John D. Lawrence of Acres clarified the situation and extended the review period to 45 days. On December 2, 1981, the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee met with Mr. Dave Wozniak of your staff. Dave presented-the Acres coordina- tion plan. This document, plus Dave Wozniak's briefing, provided a clearer understanding of what we must do to be responsive to the needs of APA for the Susitna project. As noted by the steering committee's letter to you on December 9, 1981, there are several problem areas with the formal coordination process outlined by Acres. We are particularly concerned that DEC was not inclutled in the water quality and use group. Since DEC sets State Water Quality Standards and regulates water quality throughout Alaska, I feel our inclusion on the water quality review group is necessary. Review of the coordination plan leads me to recommend that it would be useful for APA and the appropriate agencies to design a single continuing process for review and comment on the Susitna Hydro- electric Project. Since we are dealing with a State-sponsored project, I believe it is appropriate and timely that the State agencies and APA also determine the funding and personnel needed for these efforts. Our contacts for this matter are Bob Martin or Steve Zrake of our Anchorage Regional Office. They can be reached by phone at 274-2533. Commissioner __ ) ----..., _ '-' ..L I i~ u United States Department of the Interior l FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1011 E. TUDOR ~D. RECEIVED] IN REPLY REFER TO: WAES - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 276-3800 DEC 21 1981 ] J - 7-~ • Eric Yould ACRES 11. •••...... .,;~ .i 4 iuuuairORATED r ~ · --.J E1 • D" t -,1 ~ xecutJ. ve ~rec or -· !J ,_] 1-Ah.ask.a Power Authority i-~ li l9.fo31!h:;.:~~ !~::: 99501 -15 DEC l~~1 - : ~.. ~ j ~Drar Mr. Yould: i.·=:: ~o';::;; ... ~-= ! __ ~ _, -Tpe u.s. Fish and Wild~ife Service (FW~) has been contacted by A~res American ! !7 ·-l Jt ...... n~garding formal coordJ.nation of certaJ.n aspects of the feasibilJ. ty study for ~---.[/_Y-~ile Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application for the _. r----i~r1 sitna Hydroelectric Project. To date four document packets have been sub- ~ _:_ · -:--m tted to us for formal review. These are the 1980 Environmental Studies ~--:---·1_1---..Abnual Reports, Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report, Development 1---~ -~. J sklection Report, and the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy. . ~. ,, L I 1-------- 1 1 ! Initially, some confusion arose over these requests. In his letter of ~-~--r.~·\l~bvember 16, 1981, Mr. John D. Lawrence (Acres) identified the sources of !-:-.--·. --~--dmfusion, explained which documents were to be reviewed and extended the ~--.---~-1 cbmment period to 45 days. While we appreciate this clarification, we feel a J-~bre formal and explicit plan for formal coordination of the Susitna Project -~hst be developed. Mr. David D. Wozniak of your staff addressed the Susitna ,.._ ., -_~:__liydroelectric Steering Committee on this subject at their meeting of _ --i---~ _ ____pecember 2, 1981, and presented th7 coordination plan developed by Acres :~·~ -~f?-/J1..1etter of August 12, 1981, from John D. Lawrence to Eric Yould). 1 ! • _ /~Mr. Wozniak's briefing was very beneficial to our understanding of this pro- ----c~ss; however, we feel it is important that the Alaska Po~er Authority (APA) understand the position of the FWS on this issue. The FERC regulations (Federal Register Vol. 46, No. 219, November 13, 1981) require a FERC license application to document coordination with federal resource agenci~s in the Exhibit E. These agencies must be afforded a minimum of 60 days for review and comment. As such we disagree with the 45-day comment period suggested by your contractor. Additionally, there are several deficiencies within the - ..,; ... - ... - Acres coordination plan which concern us; the first of these being the fact _, that no formal discussion as to this coordination has occurred. Thus,the contractor arbitrarily decides which documents are of concern to a particular /JJSr~· agency, and what level of coordination will take place. Formal contact should- (~ work to insure that all agency concerns and consultations are met so as to JJJL comply with the intentions of the FERC regulations. With the exception of [1;1~~~ certain policy statements (e.g. Mitigation), the Acres plan calls for formal _, ~~. (~ ~agency input before necessary background reports and data are available. An ~~)/ obvious example of this is found in the formal coordination plan-product list ;Qe/ hie - - - ,.. -· - - - - - - - - - - - (attached to the aforementioned letter dated August 12, 1981) ~here the Draft Feasibility Report ~ill be released for agency revie~ t~o months prior to release of the 1981 Annual Reports. It is unrealistic to assume that m2aningful comment can be generated in the absence of such information. We believe a meeting should be arranged by your office to define the objec- tives of the required coordination and to develop a plan suitable to both the APA and the federal resource agencies. In the interim ~e ~il attempt to respond in a timely manner to all appropriate project documents, but ~ill ~ithhold comment on those documents which must be supported or clarified by the results of other studies. Sincerely, Actirn! ~2!.::0£~ cc: FWS/ROES, WAES Quentin Edson, Director, Div. of Env. Analysis, FERC NMFS, EPA, NPS, BLM, USGS, ADEC, ADF&G Carson/ADNR Lawrence/Acres American _) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NationaZ Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, ALaska 99802 December 23 , 1981 Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director Alaska. Power Authority. 333· W. 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: .REC~lVI:D DEC 3 11981 tu:ASKA P9WS1 AUTH0RJ1Y The·National Marine Fisheries Service has been contacted by ACRES American regarding formal coordination of certain aspects of the feasibility study for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis- sion (FERC) 'license application of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. To date four (4) documents have been submitted to us - - - - -.. for formal review. These are the 1980 Annual Reports, Transmission - Line Corridor Screening Report, Development Selection Report and the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy. Initially, some confusion arose over these requests. In his letter of November 16, 1981, Mr. John D. Lawrence (ACRES) identified the sources of confusion, explained which documents were to be reviewed and extended the comment period to 45 days. While we appreciate this clarification, we feel a more formal and explicit pl~n for formal coordination of the Susitna Project must be developed. Mr. David Wozniak of your staff addressed the - -- Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee on this subject at their meeting of December 2, 1981, and presented the coordination plan developed by ACRES (letter of August 12, 1981, from John D. Lawrence• to Eric Yould}: Mr. Wozniak's briefing was very beneficial to our understanding of this process, however we feel it is important that the Alaska Power Authority understands the position of the -NMFS on this issue. The PERC regulations require a FERC license application to document coordination with concerned federal agencies under Exhibit E. Agencies must be afforded a minimum of 60 days -for review and comment. 18 CFR §4.4l(f) (46 FR 55926, 55937; November 13, 1981}. We interpret this requirement to apply to each document submitted to us for consultation, including in particular the drafts of Exhibit E and the license application itself. Moreover, we expect that while there may be documents which can be reviewed by us in less than 60 days, there are very likely going to be instances where we will need more time than that in order to perform a thorough review. One reason we expect to be accorded longer than 60 days for consultation in some instances, is that formal agency input is often to be solicited before necessary background reports and - - - -. ~'• . ' ;;; r. ,, . . · \. ~"!-.. .... ~ \ -.:. ~. I ••• ~>' - - - - - ._ - - - - - - - - - - _) 2 data are available. An obvious example of this is found in the formal coordination plan-product list, where the Draft Feasibility Report will be released for agency review two months prior to ·· release of the 1981 Annual Reports. It is unrealistic to assume that meaningful comment can be generated in the absence of such information. We are also concerned about another apparent deficiency in the proposed coordination plan. The decisions as to how coordination is to proceed are left to the contractor, who has discretion to decide which documents are of concern to a particular agency, and what level of coordination will take place. This approach has the potential for having the concerns of some agencies overlooked, and we would urge ·that the contractor make a special effort to insure that the consultations are as inclusive as possible. We believe a.meeting should be arranged by your office to define the objectives of the required coordination and to develop a plan suitable to both the APA and the federal resource agencies. In the interim we will attempt to respond in a timely manner to all appropriate project documents, but will withhold comment on those documents which must be supported or clarified by the results of other studies. c·· -r:-) ...... Ci C'.J' '"'-· N - L7619{ARo-P) Mr. Eric Yould, Executive A1aska Power f~thor1ty 33~ W. fifth Avenue Ar~horage, Alaska 9?.SQ1 De!r Mr. Yculd: Director ·-· -:;_ L---,:._,_ .:.---· RECEIVED JAN 0 4 1982 ... ACR .. .; ·•~'-···~;•j• !n~urtrORATED ..., 8 0 DEC 1987 ..,; ALASKA .. WEI AUTHORITY SUSIT'i'JA --- FILE P.,..i'OC SEQUENI '~ N -c9 d/(11 f.,/ z! :i I ~ 'I QIC: C: In response to a HcvEUlber 16, 1931 letter frc-m tht: J'\cr~s American lnc. P ~~~: ~ l :-:ar,ager, Hr. John D. La\trcnce, we have the followin-g ccnnaents concerning ~ :~-_:_ Susitn.~ project rep.orts. The reports reviewed include: 19SO Environment l!_l_~c __ Su:~1ary Report {V~y 19Bl)i Transnission Lfne Corridor S~reening Report (S pt~~.- 1?:J1}; and the Developr;;c-nt ~lection Report (October 19dl). I ; :r-.o, -ljQ'-·-- Provision for cultural resource ider.tificat1or: and maoa~Jtrnent appe:ars to t·~:;: -b,v .. --- arpropriate and ad~quate. f,lso. it would appear that recrr:mtior. is be1ng --~_:1 ;~d- ad~qudtcly a.:!dressed bv the o1ann1 nry process. ------:·:- J · · I PG ' to be very ad.:ouate. This a~ency does net recor.r.cnd a. particular basin p wQr s '1 r, l c~!Vttlopr:.-errt plan. Eot~~ver~ we do note on pa~e D-26 that the tunnel schffi~ 1js,-o\~ .-~-­ recogniz<;c t;y th~ report as be1n~ enviro~enta11y surericr, aild 'r.=ould prc::fet1ve 1rv,·R"·r- oany of the resuurc~ values curr~nt1y assoc1~ted with the Devil Canyon. rii'H-Rc, 1- -~- It ~ould be helr.ful to ttm reildcr 1f an index could be 1nclu.1ed with each 1-1-1--...-:- nport cr per:1ap$ rrcpared s~r;,arate1y for the entir!! series of project re:!ct!ts.l t ~-;~ look fcr'rlard to th-e op;Jortun1ty to r~v1-::w scbs~quent prc,jcct re;:orts. ___,_! __ ~~-_._ audition to t•cfr.g 1t~ciudt:d 1n th.: historical an<: archeological, ~nd recrt: n \ SrOIJj:S id~l~t.1fi€J fer fan·~l COOrdinatiOn 2 thiS ~·~~ncy Should perhil!)S alS f"' Fl~~,!­ inc1udt.:c \dthin the water quslh.y and us;?~ zesthetics and 1and use srouns ~as fie-·--- ~r(! bte:rt:st~c in project relctcc recreation 1:~:~;t~cts Uiat w1i1 occur ~ithin an<! ..., l:f:ycnd the: project bnur.dar.'l. Sh.c:;rdy~ ... '! r;/ Douglas G. C""arnoc~ ... ~ ACting;:(:~ i<A1d D1r<:·ctor c:.. ·1 · · r· i .. •• J\ .-;~r.a .-.e:"I Oo~ ~ ~ -.c c:'l ..-s.. cc: ..,. ~ .:o·,;. D. Lin;r.:~;c::. ;t.cre$ k·•.:r1c.::r. 1.-.c •• ~a-J liberty Gank ~uildit~g. ~uffttlo, :-:a: Yv rl.: it.~'.)? - - G .. ,...,.~~,· .. ·.-'-·' JA fi ~~;;0~~--~:t;RNIJ~I j ~·\~ 0 l\ 1 ~'-' -/ / -"' . ~?- •• l'\ \ tS.Rt~ Mfi.R'\~hi• h ......... . ~lT&lT[ @~ &~&~~~ - - - DEP.-\RT~It:~T OF FISII_-\,1) G.-\nl-: December 30, 1981 Mr. John D. Lawrence Project Manager Acres American, Inc. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER The Liberty Bank Building, Main at Court Buffalo, New York 14202 Dear Mr. Lawrence: P.O. BOX 3-2000 JUNEAU, f:LAS/fA 99802 PHONE: ~ 907) 465-41 DO )l,·' (~ The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the 11 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy 11 dated November 1981 and has several comments to offer. The Department is drafting a mitigation policy approval we ---____ . int~d to use for all hydroelectric projects throughout the State. We -' ALAsKA Po~p~re1~iate your effort but feel our parallel effort is the alternative we select '' AurHo~1 tb ta e. In the interim, however, I have provided comments to your document SUSI_~_r:i-fla.:t.... an be used to improve your policy as drafted. -;J FILE P5700 I ~_gji.Milri c Comments J :---=--\ -~CQ!Jj;'['r:-fHJ ; -lt--~~.,).:.:v~~-~~Section 1 -Introduction ~0 ~~~ ~-l ; ;' 1n thi~ section which reads as follows, we recommend inclusion of the ,.., , r' ,; "" underl1 ned phrase. tJ I~···.. .',! -~ l <1~!-:-;-.~~.-;-=-I·A ma~date of the ~laska Power Authority (APA) charter is to develop _ 1 _J __ -..... · ;_ ·. · 'Supp 1 1 es of e 1 ectn ca 1 energy to ~eet the present and future needs of the I ~1 I ptate of Alaska. APA also recogn12es the value of our natural resources .-:---·.-::-:--~nd accepts the responsibility of insuring that the development of any new -;-· - 0 -projects is as compatible as possible with the fish and wildlife resources -~.~-~,,...~., · nd he habitat that sustains them) of the State and that the overall -[----~~~' cts of any such projects wi 11 be beneficia 1 to the State as a whole . .,...,..., 1 _ . ... iin this regard APA has prepared a Fisheries and Wildlife ~1itigation Pol icy __ . "for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project as contained herein.11 -=1=> ··-~-~ 1Comment: The primary goal of mitigation is to avoid, minimize, rectify, 1 1 1 :. : . :reduce or compensate for impacts on fish and wildlife habitats. ,-.. '---i - 1 -.. 2.---Section 2 -Legal t~andates -~=! ·:~In thi~ section which reads as follows, we suggest inclusion of the . _l_r~; ... .,:._,: ...,_· _ unJerl1 ned phrase: .. I : : (.2" ~:.,__ -• j-~--· --11 ~r -,-~--·-; ' I ]Afii£1-i -~ .. , .• l J • I . - Mr. John D. Lawrence -2-December 30, 1981 - "There are numerous state arid federal laws and regulations that ~ specifically require mitigation planning. The mitigation policy and plans contained within this document are designed to comply with the collective and specific intent of these legal mandates. Following are the major laws .. or regulations that require the consideration (and eventual implementation) of mitigation efforts." Comment: Consideration of mitigation is not an end in itself, the implementation of mitigation is the eventual goal and obligation which the APA must meet under the terms of State and Federal law and regulation. - -3. Section 2 -Protection of Fish and Game 4. In the first paragraph, first sentence, that reads as follows, we suggest .. the underlined phrase be inserted: The Alaska state laws pertaining to the disturbance of streams important to_. anadromous fish address the need to reduce (or prevent) impacts on fish and game that may result from such action. Comment: Avoidance as well as minimization of impacts is also of concern to AOF&G. Section 2 -Federa 1 Energy Regula tory Commission, 2nd paragraph We suggest the paragraph include a statement which indicates measures of mitigation as well as facilities for mitigation be described. To describe only facilities suggests that only engineering solutions for mitigation are considered. It will be necessary to describe any measures for mitigation that may involve, for example, in-kind replacement of habitat or avoidance of impact alternatives. Comment:·· For this statement to be an accurate portrayal of FERC regulation, this addition is suggested. .. .. -.. ... 5. Section -3.3 Implementation of the Mitigation Plan In the first paragraph of this section, it is stated that, "Prior to implementing the plan; an agreement will be reached as to the most efficient manner in which to execute the plan." Comment: It should be stated with whom this· agreement is to be reached. Perhaps suggestions can be worked out with the Su Hydro Steering Co~mittee . Also it is stated in the second paragraph of this section, "Realizing that a mitigation monitoring team will be necessary to insure the proper and successful execution of the mitigation plan, part of the plan will detail the structure and responsibilities of such a monitoring body." Comment: APA should be aware that this monitoring body or its functions will not supersede individual agency mandates. .. - ... .. ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. John D. Lawrence -3-December 30, 1981 6. Section 3.4 Modification of the Mitigation Plan In the second paragraph of this section which reads as follows, we suggest the insertion of the underlined phrases: 11 The mitigation plan will be sufficiently flexible so that if data secured during the monitoring of fish and wildlife populations and habitats indicate that the mitigation effort should be modified, the mitigation plan can be adjusted accordingly. This may involve an increased effort where impacts failed to materialize as predicted. Any modifications to the mitigation plan proposed by the monitoring team will not be implemented without consultation (and approval of) appropriate state and federal agencies and approval of APA. The need for continuing this monitoring will be reviewed periodically. The monitoring program will be terminated when the need for further mitigation is considered unnecessary.11 Comment: APA approval alone does not supersede the mandates of state and federal agencies to assure that mitigation to be performed is prudent and feasible and in concert with what is known about project impacts. 7. Section 4 -Approach to Developing the Fish and Wildlife Plans The third paragraph of this section reads as follows: 11 Following the identification of impact issues, the Core Group will agree upon a logical order of priority for addressing the impact issues. This will include ranking resriurces in order of their importance. The ranking will take into consideration a variety of factors such as ecological value, consumptive value, and nonconsumptive value. Other factors may be considered in the ranking if deemed necessary. The impact issues will also be considered in regard to the confidence associated with the impact prediction. In other words, those resources that will most certainly be impacted will be given priority over impact issues where there is less confidence in the impacts actually occurring. The result of this dual prioritization will be the application of mitigation planning efforts in a logical and effective manner. The results of the prioritization process will be sent to appropriate state and federal resource agencies for review and comment.11 Comment: The Department of Fish and Game does not consider what appears to be a subjective r·anking of resources in their 11 0rder of importance 11 to be a satisfactory approach to addressing impact issues. There is no substitute for a factual assessment of data voids, studies to fill these voids, and a rational approach to impact assessment based on factual evidence. Ranking as suggested here only supports this Oepartment 1 S long-time conviction that adequate information to make reasonable impact analysis and mitigation plan development cannot be done in the time frame established for the FERC license application by the Legislature and APA. The fifth paragraph of this section states: 'i· _ ... ~·-· ... Mr. John D. Lawrence -4-December 30, 1981 .. "Mitigation for each impact issue wi 11 be considered according to the types~ and sequence identified by the CEQ (Figure 2). If a proposed form of mitigation is technically infeasible, only partially effective, or in conflict with other project objectives, the evaluation will proceed to the next form. All options considered will be evaluated and documented. The ..., result of this process will be an identification and evaluation of feasible mitigation options for each impact issue and a description of residual impacts. 11 .,. .., Comment: The statement in the second sentence of this paragraph, 11 0r in conflict with other project objectives, .. indicates equal consideration of fish and wildlife values would not be given in the mitigation planning effort conducted by Acres American, Terrestrial Environmental Services and APA. It is doubtful that any fish and wildlife impact issue would not be in conflict with APA's primary objective to construct the Su Hydro Project, .. and automatically mitigation alternatives would generally fall into the compensatory realm of mitigation defined in Section 3.5. This Department will closely examine the products of the impact evaluation and mitigation planning effort to be sure equal consideration is given to fish and wildlife resource values and that summary and arbitrary dismissal of feasible mitigation alternatives which may be in conflict with 11 project objectives .. is not the primary factor in arriving at a mitigation plan. Paragraph 7 of this section states: "Additional items that may be addressed by the Core Group include an identification of organizations qualified to execute the mitigation plan and recommendations concerning the staffing, funding and responsibilities of the mitigation monitoring team ... ... .. -.. Comment: The Core Group may make its recommendations, but agencies such as • this Oep~rtment with a direct responsibility for the management of fish and wildlife resources will in accord with its resource management and protection responsibilities, make its own recommendations to define staffing or funding levels and responsibilities for the mitigation monitoring team. It is our view that APA and its subcontractors do not have oversight on mitigation alternatives or means of implementation. Mitigation and the final approval of its acceptability lies with this Department and other resource agencies with similar mandates. It will be the obligation of APA to implement mitigation plans in accord with the approval of these agencies. In addition, it appears that the "mitigation review group .. is responsible for "informal agency review and comment 11 on the proposed mitigation options. This informal review is "considered by APA and the Core Group prior to the preparation of ... mitigation plans." However, the option being reviewed (informally) by the mitigation review group are those developed by the Core group in Step 2. This needs to be clarified. In paragraph 8 of this section it states: ... .. - ... ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ', Mr. John D. Lawrence -5-December 30, 1981 11 During the implementation of the plan, which will include both the construction and operation phases of the project until further mitigation is deemed unnecessary, the mitigation monitoring team will review the work and evaluate the effectiveness of the plan (Step 5). To accomplish this goal, the monitoring team will have the responsibility of assuring that the agreed upon plan is properly executed by the designated organizations. The team will be provided with the results of ongoing monitoring efforts. This will enable the team to determine in which cases the mitigation plan is effective, where it has proven to be less than effective, and also in which cases the predicted impact did not materialize and the proposed mitigation efforts are unnecessary. The monitoring team will submit regularly scheduled reports concerning the mitigation effort, and where appropriate, propose modifications to the plan.11 • Comment: It should be resolved now as to who pays for the participation by agencies in the mitigation monitoring team. The APA should state its commitment to funding participation by agency team members or mitigation study groups. General Comments 1. This Department does not believe adequate opportunity will be afforded the natural resource agencies to evaluate or review mitigation plans due to the accelerated nature of APA's schedule. 2. To date, for example, the Fisheries Mitigation Task Force Review Group has not been afforded an opportunity to assess ongoing impact assessment and mitigation plans being developed by Terrestrial Environmental Services. Also, the Department has relayed to the APA on numerous occasions our concern that a more extended period of fisheries studies needs to be performed before adequate impact analysis is made and thence feasible mitigation alternatives developed. A section outlining the membership and relationships of the Mitigation Task Force, and Core Group will need to be included. I am interested in obtaining a copy of a plan that clearly sets out the schedules for formal review of specific products by appropriate agencies in -order that this Department can adequately respond in a timely and responsible manner to APA. -If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, ~~-Skoog -J' mmlSSloner United States Department of the Interior RECEJVEb IN REPLY REFER TO: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1011 E. TUDOR RD. JAN 12 1982- .WAES ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 276-3800 ACRES AiiiJUCAM wcaarar ·am c Mr. Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 W. 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: 3 0 DEC 198t This letter responds to a request by John Lawrence of Acres American that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) review the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy for the Susitna Hydroelectric Feasibility Study. The request was made by letter dated November 19, 1981. Our review of the Alaska Power Authority's · (APA) Policy Statement has been undertaken in light of the FWS Mitigation Policy (Federal Register Vol. 46, No. 15, January 23, 1981). We have enclosed a copy of our Mitigation Policy and havepreviously transferred a copy to your subcontractor, Terrestrial Enviromental Specialists, Inc. (see enclosed letter dated 4 June 1981). By maximizing consistency between the two policy -----------ftatements, avoidance of policy disagreements between the APA and the TivS can ~SKA POWER e accomplished. Long-term benefits would accrue throughout the process UTHORtTY • 1 d . h d . f j . . . . . . . 1 d d . f . ~USJTNA nc u 1ng w en an 1 pro ect m1t1gat1on mon1tor1ng 1s 1n p ace an mo 1 1ca- , ions to ongoing mitigation could be evaluated under one policy. ILE P5700 ~ II riefly, the Service's mitigation policy reflects the goal that the most 2UENCE NO important fish and wildlife resources should receive the greatest level of F. ',.:;$ ' i tigation when the environment of a particular area is changed. The Floi'S • policy divides the mitigation planning process into three components: (1) i= !/) 5 ~resource category determinations; (2) impact assessment; and (3) mitigation recommendations. By creating four resource categories, the FWS can vary the degree of mitigation it recommends according to the value and scarcity of the 1---1 habitat at risk. u C·ri Our resource category, " •.• determinations will contain a technical rationale consistent with the designation criteria. The rationale will: (1) outline the reasons why the evaluation species were selected; (2) discuss the value of the habitats to the evaluation species; and (3) discuss and contrast the relative scarcity of the fish and wildlife resource on a national and ~---4ecoregion section basis." (F.R. Vol. 46, No. 15, p. 7658). Special con- ----llioi'RV -'-i- HRC sideration would be given to notable, " ... aquatic and terrestrial sites including legally designated or set-aside areas such as sanctuaries, fish and wildlife management areas, hatcheries, and refuges, and other aquatic sites such as floodplains, wetlands, mudflats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, riffles and pools, and springs and seeps." (F.R. Vol. 46, No. 15, pp. 7658-7659). In the aforementioned sites, the mitigation goal to which the ~ ---4 Service would strive for is either no loss of existing habitat value (Resource Category 1) or no net loss of in-kind habitat value (Resource Category 2). --(FILE ... .. ... -- - - ..., ... ... ... ... , - - - - - - - - - - -c - - - - - - - - - - ·Mr. Eric Yould Page 2 The Service intends to recommend mitigation where a biological change constitutes an adverse impact. Our evaluation of project impacts and recommended mitigation would be based, to the extent applicable, on the Service's Habitat Evaluation Procedures and Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Both of these methodologies have been suggested to APA and its consultants on several occasions. It should be recognized that streamlining the mitigation process can be accomplished by conformance between the Service's and an applicant's impact assessment techniques. The larger the proposal, the greater the potential savings in time. This idea was a principal behind the formulation of our mitigation policy and adoption of official evaluation procedures. In accordance with our mitigation policy, "The Service may recommend support of projects or other proposals when the following criteria are met: (1) they are ecologically sound; (2) the least environmentally damaging reasonable alternative is selected; (3) every reasonable effort is made to avoid or minimize damages or loss of fish and wildlife resources and uses; (4) all important recommended means and measures have been adopted with guaranteed implementation to satisfactorily compensate for unavoidable damage or loss consistent with the appropriate mitigation goal; and (5) for wetlands and shallow water habitats, the proposed activity is clearly water dependent and there is a demonstrated public need." (F.R. Vol. 46, No. 15, p. 7659). Specific comments: 1.0 Introduction: This section should include a discussion of the need to adequately assess the environmental resources of the study area to determine the environmental compatibility of a proposed project and to evaluate mitigation to adequately reduce or avoid negative impacts to environmental resources, including fish and wildlife resources, so that no net loss of habitat value occurs. 2.0 Legal Mandates: It should be recognized that the intent of the specified laws and regulations is that project-related adverse biological impacts be fully mitigated. In addition, that a plan be developed, acceptable to the resource agencies with mandated fish and wildlife management responsi- bilities, and implemented as a component of the proposal. 2.2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): It is the responsibility of the lead federal agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), to fully comply with NEPA. 2.3 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Regulations for, ""Application for License for Major Unconstructed Projects and Major Hodified Projects,·· (F.R. Vol 46, No. 219, November 13, 1981) were adopted December 14, 1981. References in your policy to FERC regulations should reflect this. It should be recognized that within the Exhibit E, "The applicant must provide a report that describes the fish, wildlife, and botanical resources in the vicinity of the proposed project; expected impacts of the project on these resources; and mitigation, enhancement, or protection measures proposed by the applicant. The report must be prepared in consultation with the state agency or agencies with responsibility for these resources, the u.s. Fish and ~ildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service (if the proposed project ~ay affect anadromous, estuarine, or marine fish resources), and any state or federal agency with c Mr. Eric Yould cc: FWS-ROES, WAES Quentin Edson, FERC NMFS, EPA, NPS, BLM, USGS, ADEC, ADF&G Carson/ADNR Lawrence/Acres American ~ Page 5 - - ... .. ... '!Ill - - -- - ... ... -, - - - - - - ( - I • LASKA .l"OWER AUTHORITY I -SUSITN.I. I ~ILE .p·/.~~ ;SEQUENCE NO. ~ / 6,.. £ ~·._?,, s ..J ~ e I ' lz~ ~ (" "': ~ u: . " 1-I l .;; ~ !:: ---------------------------------~- December 31, 1981 Mr. John D. Lawrence Acres American, Inc. 900 Liberty Bank Building Main at Court Buffalo, New York 14202 Dear Mr. Lawrence: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Serviae P.O. Bo:c 1668 Juneau~ Alaska 99802 RECEIVED JAN 0 4 1982 A&RtS A~H.iU&Ati lNC\liWURAiED We have received your letter of November 19, 1981, requesting the comments of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Having reviewed the statement we offer the following comments. The statement adequately reflects the intent of such a mitigation policy and presents an accurate overview of those legal mandates which require mitigation to be considered in designing hydroelectric projects. We have several specific comments dealing with the operation of the proposed mitigation plan, which follow. 3.1 Basic Intent of the Applicant The last paragraph states that this methodology outlines a process for resolving conflict between the Power Authority and resource agencies. We do not feel this has been satisfactorily accomplished within the general policy statement (Sec. 3) and suggest additional effort be made to establish such a conflict resolution methodology. 3.2 Consultation with Natural Resource Agencies & the Public -r: :=j u I !: --.--1- Realizing that Section 4, step 3, development of an acceptable mitigation plan, is to be completed by March 1982, we assume that steps 1 and 2 of the same section are by now substantially completed. Yet, contrary to the second sentence of 3.2, 11 During the early stages of planning, representatives of state and federal agencies will be encouraged to consult with the applicant and the applicants representatives, as members of the Mitigation Task Force.11 , _Li,D~~N . i A'"yn ~ -~.·~·-·--. ICAD I -,_r-zj -j~<~; , - --~-~-:-.a· '.<.1:-~t --~-J Ps --,.--j i,.-pGH =-=~--EN s_: ~-- SNT -1'"--~--- =1--J;:; ~t-· --!~j_= {Jf&'h= .. -1 t/ . !·-~.,,!'" > ,-•.·~···· ' · .••. -:J -........ . -1--·-.• · -I _j~i=l-1-FILE,- we have yet to be contacted regarding the status of this impor- tant element, and the Mitigation Task Force review committee has not met as of this date. 3.3 Implementation of the Mitigation Plan We are pleased to see the plan include provisions for post- construction monitoring of mitigation measur~ and opportunities. ·. ' '4' 1 ...... '-· \ I ; ·. ' \ '' ., :\. j ··~·· •• ·-· .•J '• -~--:; \ The applicant should note, however, that such a provision will be integral to the mitigation plan and the associated costs should· be included with the license application, and not 11 resolved through parties after the mitigation plan is complete." This is supported in the FERC regulations, 4.41 (F)(3)(iv)(D), which require Exhibit E to contain an estimate of the costs of construction, operation, and maintenance of any proposed facilities or imple- mentation of any (mitigation) measures. 3.4 Modification of the Mitigation Plan 4 The last sentence, dealing with termination, should state that termination of any mitigation measure stipulated in the FERC license will require an amendment to that license. Approach to Developing the Fish and Wildlife Mitiqation Plans Paragraph 3, sentence 6. Change 'will' to 'may', as priority will be assigned both by the likelihood of impact and sensitivity of the resource. Paragraph 5, sentence 2. The fact that a form of mitigation is in conf1 i ct with project objectives or only partially effective should not prevent it from further consideration. Such a statement strains the term "reasonable alternatives" and does not comply with the spirit or intent of the National Environmental Policy Act. Paragraph 7. As outlined, no formal agency input into the mitigation plan will occur prior to application to FERC. FERC regulations require Exhibit E to contain a report describing proposed mitigation measures, prepared in consultation with state and federal resource agencies. The process described here falls short of this required consultation. We suggest formal agency review of the draft fisheries and wildlife mitigation plans occur prior to license application. We appreciate this opportunity to comment. Sincer~ly, -~ 1 ~ '· )r~ 9/c;e_;>.·~ . ~-. ,. ~ Robert W. McVey 1 Dire~tor, Alaska Region j / v···· .. - -.. .. Wi .. -- ~ .. '! ...i .,.; Will """ -- ... - - - '( -ALASKA POWER. -UTHORITY USITNA FILE P5700 . }-; c UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 December 31, 1981 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Mr. John D. Lawrence, Project Manager ACRES American Incorporated Consulting Engineers The Liberty Bank Building Main at Court Buffalo, New York 14202 Dear Mr. Lawrence: R ~\-='P' ,,_0 ·-·---C:. I V t:. JAN 0 4 1982 ACR;;..; .m;c.:uii~tu htbUit~ORATED We have received the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental Report prepared by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists (TES). We have limited our review of this series of documents to those concerning the fisheries studies, i.e., the Summary Annual Report and Fish Ecology Annual Report. The presentation of 1980 work done by TES towards assessing the impacts of development and operations of the project on the fishery and proposing measures to minimize or mitigate adverse impacts was reviewed without substantial comment, as much of it was very preliminary. Also, no review was made of the 1980 fish ecology program due to delay in pub- lishing the detailed procedures manual. In addition to the lack of substantial information presented in these reports, we believe the timing of this review request mak~s an in-depth agency review inappropriate. The main benefit derived from this review would have been to allow changes or redirection of efforts to be made in the 1981 field studies. However, as of this date, the 1981 environmental studies have been completed. We look forward to receiving the 1981 Environmental Studies Annual Reports, as these documents should provide the basis for our review of the draft SE~ENCE NO. /--)L:?.:: 1_ 1 Feasibility Report. <=I I ;:! .J j Sincerely, :)-a:: <t ~ ~ -1---r.J') !:: / / i(j~-~-_1 --------~-;?k~ -~ -!~! r;c~ ' . ~o-bert . McVey -~~::f--;J+( Dires;t: r, Alaska Region 1c.o.o1~ \___..-/ ~ J DG Il-l\ -~~1/f =I-=! J P-S I -p ~~~GHi___j j ENS -Tsti-:r-·- -'-1-- 1M RV F 1 DWL --:---~- --1-----~HRCI ,._ e -hv_;_.\ -p:::r..:~:::~-J.-_~-~ . ---jk.:i;..; ---:---~ \f. ·,: ~+-.--:_I/{ ~ ----l-1-t '/A----r---[:_ ~--=. I ·J ) i\1'' ;~ 0/f_/ :':;_~­~.~~. ·• -'="· ,. U. S. E N V I R 0 N M E N T A L P R 0 T E C T I 0 N A G E N C Y ~~\1€.0 St-4J". REGION X ~~~IS' ~ . s u ~~~ z 0 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 ~ ~ '1-J: •• l -1( PR01~c.. REPLY TO M/S 443 ATTN OF: DEC 2 1 1981 John 0. Lawrence Acres American, Incorporated The LiDerty Bank Building Main at Court Buffalo, New York 14202 RECEIVED DEC 2 8 1981 ACRES iuru:itiLiJtt• Vj~JRriJRATE~ ( SUBJECT: Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Summary Annual Environmental Report-1980 and Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report Dear Mr. Lawrence: Thank you for sending us the above reports for our review. We have also received the Development Selection Report and will be forwarding our comments to you on that report before the end of December. ALASKA PowER We appreciate the extensive coordination effort and the opportunity to AUTHORITY • • SUSITNA rev1ew and comment on Sus1tna reports as they are prepared. I further ~ appreciate your attempts to ensure that the views of the Agency are FILE P5790 adequately reflected in this process. While we have been coordinating · .. ,. ·-'/ with the Susitna Interagency Steering Committee, our budget restrictions St:QUEi'\CC: NO. have limited our active participation more than I would like. In this r d.J/1 regar~, it would be extrem~ly helpful to us if you could provide u~ an I ~ · =ioverv1ew of your consultat1on plan and the schedule for future rev1ews. z1:~! ~ 1 1This will better enaole us to give you timely comprehensive comments on ~ . : ~ \: I the ~ari ous segments of the study, with the overall project perspective "'i_;l ~ ~ 1n m1nd. ·=I~::·:_I __ EPA is particularly interested in information on wetland mapping, water 1..:._. ,._.~j __ quality and water quantity modeling and project alternatives. The 1980 I r: ·_r; 1 , Environmental Report appropriately points out the interrelationships and -i~·--:-;I . importance of these areas to wildlife survival and downstream fish -~;1 r, ecology. However, it .does not cover EPA's areas of interest directly. -· ~-J" 5-J We ~oul d 1 ike to review the reports on these subjects when they are -:!rcHI ava1l able. -·-~-----~-::: !1 s -·-·---1--~ : r I -l-1--- ; _ll;,-;~~ \~ ,. --- -·-1----'H",...j -~-~-­~ J>Mt6+ --:~- v / -- - ... - ... .. .. ... .. ., J .... - .J _,j ... -.. - - - - - -( - - - - - - - - 2 We support the empnasis in the Environmental Report and related studies on identifying ways to minimize the environmental impacts of the Susitna project. In particular, selection of the access route and type of access is an issue witn long term environmental consequences wnicn offers many opportunities for minimizing impacts. EPA supports the concept of minimizing impacts oy use of a single corridor for both access and trans- mission needs, as pointed out in ootn the Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report and the Environmental Report. We encourage you to incorporate tnese kinds of suggestions from agencies and the Steering Committee into the project selection, construction and operation plans. Sucn commitments will certainly positively influence reviews of any FERC license application. We have some concerns with the conclusions aoout the Central Study area in the Transmission Line Corridor Screening Report. There appear to be different opinions on the environmental consequences of selecting Corri- dor l versus Corridor 14. We feel that additional areas should be included in future studies of the central corridor, to provide a broader data base from which such conclusions can be drawn. More specifically, in this area, Corridor One (ABCO), which roughly follows the south side of tne Susitna River, is the recommended corridor based on Acre's techni- cal, economic and environmental criteria. Corridor 14 (AJCD) follows the same route as Corridor 1 from Gold Creek to Devils Canyon, out crosses to tne north side of the Susitna River for the section from Devils Canyon to the Watana dam site. Corridor 14 nas tecnnical and economic ratings as high as Corridor 1, but was not recommended because of environmental and land use conflicts in segment CJ. On solely environmental grounds, it appears that an access route similar to Corridor 14 is preferred to Corridor 1 by Doth Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Incorporated (Environmental Report page 73 and 82) and the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee (letter from Al Carson, Chairman, to Eric Yould, dated November 5, 1981.) Therefore, the areas of the central corridor to be further studied should include the north side of the river between Devils Canyon and -the Watana dam site to encompass segment CJA as well as segment CBA. One reason for the different conclusions regarding the environmentally preferable route oetween Devils Canyon and the Watana Dam site may be the Environmental Report's and the Steering Committee's identification of the most environmentally sensitive areas, wnicn then have tne highest priori- ty to be avoided. It may be desirable to use a similar approach during the more detailed route selection studies, especially in areas where wetlands must be crossed. Identifying and then avoiding primary and secondary impacts to the most valuable wetland habitats should be an important part of the more detailed studies of all three transmission study areas. ( 3 We appreciate the opportunity to review this report. Please contact me or Judi Scnwarz, of my staff, if you would like to discuss our comments. at (206) 442-1266 and (206) 442-1096, respectively. Eric Yould, AlasKa Power Authority Al Carson, Department of Natural Resources -- - --- ... - - ... - - - -- - - - - -.. I WILLETT 1-l WITTE 1-BERRY . . I' 1\l'_i LhA //~~ I , _!_ I u -n 1-·' L " ~-r..J..rJd!}. ~~AMB "! _I.J I LAWRENCE ~ 1-';INCLAIR 1-IIANOERBURGH 4= J. ~.-.,'-. I t-::ARLSON _] Ti"RETZ .. jJEX "' . January 4, 1981 P5700. 11.91 T.1390 g1 John R. Spencer anal Administrator s. Environmental Protection Agency on X ~ ~a ea "a ~g ..: 0 Sixth Avenue ttle, Washington 98101 r Mr. Spencer; Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project Formal ABency Coordination _ ·-OWREY _jp k you for your letter of December 21, 1981; your constructive gestions are very much appreciated. I will attempt to respond the issues you raised: _ liNGH -I I-I 1--tUSTEAO lBOVE I - --,.eHASE I r-' t-1--L'. 1.. ...r,{__-( .· / - - 1. I am enclosing a description of our formal agency coordination plan, indicating which agencies will receive which reports. Regarding schedule, EPA will be receiving the following reports on or around the following dates: 2. a} Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Options -January 1982 b) Instream Flow Study Plan -February 1982 c) Susitna Feasibility Study -!~arch 1982 Under separate cover you will be receiving an invitation to attend a meeting in Anchorage on January 21, 1982 explaining our Formal Agency Coordination Program. Wetland mapping has been conducted as part of the study. For your information, I am enclosing the 1980 Plant Ecology SuiTillary Report and a set of vegetation maps. All \'letlands within the proposed impoundment zones (including a one half mile buffer) and \'tithin known borrow area \'Jere mapped, utilizing the new U.S. Fish and Hildlife Service Classification (Cowardin et. al. 1979). C' Mr. John R. Spencer January 4, 1982 page 2 3. · Project alternatives are discussed in the Development Selection Report which you have received and will be disoussed further in the Feasibility Study. 4. Water quality issues and water quantity modeling results will be found in the Feasib1,1ty Study. 5. Following selection of the access route, the transmission line corridor in the central study area has been expanded (as indicated on page 7-4 of the Transmission line Corridor Screening Report) to include a larger area on the north side of the Susitna River. This will result in a single corr4dor being used for both the access route and the transmission line corridor. This was done both to eeduce impacts via access and to avoid the large wetland areas on the south side of the Susitna River. 6. Transmission line routing studies are currently being conducted. Wetlands is a parameter in the selection process. I think you can appreciate, however, it will not be possible to avoid all wetlands in the area, simply because there are so many. Again, thank yod for your comments. If you have further questions, please let me know. ~1MG/jh cc: E. Yould, APA Sincerely yours, ~· John D. lawrence Project Manager - - - ... j ., J •• .,J j ; -' , 1 ... 'f .J ) J ... ... ... - .... -· - - - ...,.. ..... - - - .. _ - ..... ...... ~! r L. ~~" Mr. Ernest W. Mueller Co11111issioner January 8~ 1982 P5700.11.92 T1415 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Mr. Mueller: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Formal Agency Coordination Program As you are aware, Acres American has, on behalf of the Alaska Power Authority, instituted a Formal Agency Coordination Program for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. This program has apparently resulted in some confusion among various agencies as to its intent and scope. To resolve this, a meeting has been arranged for 10:00 a.m. on January 21, 1982~ at the office of the Alaska Power Authority, 334 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage. The purpose of this meeting will be to explain the rationale, intent, scope, and regulatory requirements for this program. If you feel you could benefit from this meeting, your attendance is welcome. MMG/jgk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED C.,-:,n.~ut~~""'1 E:v:;.nee~s i· '.; L~::~".!'!f' e~!".~ 2:.;·:; .. I'J ·: ~. :'": r-:t c. ~"t 8-;:":-s>:>. ~:t::. Y'J:"' ..,.:;:.2 ~ --_<•:r ·.:::~e 7 ~~~:;.:,"".~.:.--:_.:_,-~ "7 • .. : • .;.• ~ .. • .:~.;: -. ;...::;;r::; £;:;F c ... Sincerely yours, John D. Lawrence Project Manager . .. , .... ,.. "1'-' __ .._.. [] ' ' . Mr. Robert Shaw State Historic Preservation Officer Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks 619 Warehouse Avenue, Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Shaw: January 8, 1982 P5700 .11. 92 T1420 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Formal Agency Coordination Program As you are aware, Acres American has, on behalf of the Alaska Power Authority, instituted a Formal Agency Coordination Program for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. This program has apparently resulted in some confusion among various agencies as to its intent and scope. Tp resolve this, a meeting has been arranged for 10:00 a.m. on January 21, 1982, at the office of the Alaska Power Authority, 334 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage. The purpose of this meeting will be to explain the rationale, intent, scope, and regulatory requirements for this program. If you feel you could benefit from this meeting, your attendance is welcome. MMG/jgk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Cc:,n-su:::r.:; Er:J ..... ~ers 7· ~~::::~~..-~:r::-: e·,J·~--_; ~~r; · ·.""" ;:.;t c...-.t..r-t ~.~''"' 'J i~'"':. Y0~ ... ~-!;r.;2 :(:·:.·~·r·• .. -;·;;.~ 7'_2~ r~:·•_., -.~.;..::?; .·.( ;::: -~::: _: r .. ~, ·' ·~~ .... ~-::~ ;.;. . -.. ....: .. ::;· Sincerely yours, John D. Lawrence Project Manager - ... .. ... -.. - - .. - ., - .... ..., - ... - - - - - - ....... - - ..... - ' ...... - ~ ..... - - ,. r~ --F-' .-· ~ ; . ! . ~ Mr. Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner January 8, 1982 P5700 .11. 70 Tl414 State of Alaska Department Juneau~ Alaska 99801 of Fish and Game Dear Mr. Skoog: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Formal Agency Coordination Program As you are aware, Acres American has, on behalf of the Alaska Power Authority, instituted a Formal Agency Coordination Program for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. This program has apparently resulted in some confusion among various agencies as to its intent and scope. To resolve this, a meeting has been arranged for 10:00 a.m. on January 21, 1982, at the office of the Alaska Power Authority, 334 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage. The purpose of this meeting will be to explain the rationale, intent, scope, and regulatory requirements for this program. If you feel you could benefit from this. meeting, your attendance is welcome. MMG/jgk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED CO:"''SYl~i"''g E--.;;.'1te!'S. T~e :..~t:::~t:,· ~.:· !\ 5v'·: ..... ,.., ·.~":.<!"! ~t C·:q.;rt ~u!fQ,O. r-:(-:. ·~··~·~ ~.:-2'J2 ; ~:··-·:)~.;:,.;-;~ :~:-.:..--~ /.·~ T•_ '·:.--(.o:~-6..:2'"· ;.":__ ::r_,:. bGF .-·: ,·. Sincerely yours, John D. Lawrence Project Manager fDl . . I • .. ~.. l Mr. Robert McVey Director, Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. McVey: January 8, 1982 P5700.11.91 Tl411 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Formal Agency Coordination Program As you are aware, Acres American has, on behalf of the Alaska Power Authority, instituted a Formal Agency Coordination Program for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. This program has apparently resulted in some confusion among various agencies as to its intent and scope. To resolve this, a meeting has been arranged for 10:00 a.m. on January 21, 1982, at the office of the Alaska Power Authority, 334 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage. The purpose of this meeting will be to explain the rationale, intent, scope, and regula tory requirements for this program. If you feel you could benefit from this meeting, your attendance is welcome. MMG/jgk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED C::;"'~w-:~·"""g Er:gtneers r~·:-e Litr:r:y e:;r,:.; ~t.nf~_!.ng_ ~.~a'n 2t C:-...:n 8:...'4'a:., NP:J Y0r~ i~~·o2 :-~f,.:-;:.r.c-~ t~r:;-2::"J.~:::2: T._~::.:~. -::~-.;: . .;~."~ : ..... _~::::; 2LiF ~~: p. :· ~: • -::· . -.. -~ Sincerely yours, John D. Lawrence Project Manager -:)c .. - -.. ... .. - ... - ..,j • - ., ... till! ... - ... - - - " ....... - 11:;:-L - - ..... - r r ,.. ,,., - ,, .... L. ~--.. Mr. Keith Schreiner Regional Director, Region 7 u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service lOll E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Schreiner: January 8, 1982 P5700 .ll. 71 Tl410 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Formal Agency Coordination Program As you are aware, Acres American has, on behalf of the Alaska Power Authority, instituted a Formal Agency Coordination Program for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. This program has apparently resulted in some confusion among various agencies as to its intent and scope. To resolve this, a meeting has been arranged for 10:00 a.m. on January 21, 1982, at the office of the Alaska Power Authority, 334 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage. The purpose of this meeting will be to explain the rationale, intent, scope, and regulatory requirements for this program. If you feel you could benefit from this meeting, your attendance is welcome. MMG/jgk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Cwr.:::_..:• ~-; E;~; ·-~~-·s -~~ L~~!:'~ .. ~.::.;-;.. S·J· -~ '· r'! ;:t C-~urt 3u~!~.l~":l r-:;:.: .. Yt;· ... • .!2 .. 2 r ...... : ·...:; .... ..-_:: ; ~ r: -~ ~ --= -;-._.·:A. _ _.;.c..:c;, . .:..c~.::s b:.~F ·-: (;'' .-.· ,-.. . . .. :-· ....... -. ,:..;.,.-.. ·.---.. ·_;:· ·.~ . Sincerely yours, John D. Lawrence Project Manager o•t. r .. , --... ~ ~1 l ! Co 1 • Lee Nunn District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Anchorage District P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Col.. Nunn: January 8, 1982 P5700.11 Tl409 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Formal Agency Coordination Program As you are aware, Acres American has, on behalf of the Alaska Power Authority, instituted a Formal Agency Coordination Program for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. This program has apparently resulted in some confusion among various agencies as to its intent and scope. To resolve this, a meeting has been arranged for 10:00 a.m. on January 21, 1982, at the office of the Alaska Power Authority, 334 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage. The purpose of this meeting will be to explain the rationale, intent, scope, and regulatory requirements for this program. If you feel you could benefit from this meeting, your attendance is welcome. MMG/jgk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ::,:::.:.:·::-g Er.g~nr::~·s ~..,'= _:b(:rtf Bon~ 9udc.:.~:; ·.~-::. n Gt Cc:...rt 3:.;;":;;:o r~r::: Yor<{ ~.:CG2 ~t:~':r;.:-i~e ~~-;.:.~~3-~~..:. T·~·\:'--r~_L..:_..::2~-ACHES. ELJF r·:;,. ·":. ':r' ;.•,...,! ••:.· ··:· ,;,. __ ::-;! ~,.-, .• -•• Sincerely yours, John D. Lawrence Project Manager --- - - ... ... .,. - -· .,.; - ~ - - .... ... • • - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - ...... EJ . . . . . Regional Administrator Region X January 8, 1982 P5700.11.91 T1408 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 South Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Dear Sirs: As you are aware, Acres Authority, instituted a Hydroelectric Project. confusion among various Susitna Hydroelectric Project Formal Agency Coordination Program American has, on behalf of the Alaska Power Formal Agency Coordination Program for the Susitna This program has apparently resulted in some agencies as to its intent and scope. To resolve this, a meeting has been arranged for 10:00 a.m. on January 21, 1982, at the office of the Alaska Power Authority, 334 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage. The purpose of this meeting will be to explain the rationale, intent, scope, and regulatory requirements for this program. If you feel you could benefit from this meeting, your attendance is welcome. MMG/jgk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED C::·~ _t;·~·-; Er.g neers -:..·:::"~r~; SCJ1k 8u.L· ··.g ·::_:,r :":! c:~_:! :;...;··; 1 .J : ~(';:. Y":'~< :.1''12 : .... ;)r~_ ... r: i~t.-~;_,.,:.;: .·; r ...... ·.~·, ~~ ... ::-:· ?·~~::.:::: ~~F r .•. ~'""''·._._ c~ ·~ . -. ;· ... _,, Sincerely yours, ,/-/ •.. John D. Lawrence Project Manager - ' \ \ I : Mr. John Rego Bureau of Land Management 701-C Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Rego: January 8, 1982 P5700.11.75 Tl413 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Formal Agency Coordination Program - - - --.. As you are aware, Acres Authority, instituted a Hydroelectric Project. confusion among various .American has, on behalf of the Alaska Power Formal Agency Coordination Program for the Susitna - This program has apparently resulted in some agencies as to its intent and scope. To resolve this, a meeting has been arranged for 10:00 a.m. on January 21, 1982, at the office of the Alaska Power Authority, 334 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage. The purpose of this meeting will be to explain the rationale, intent, scope, and regulatory requirements for this program. - ... If you feel you could benefit from this meeting, your attendance is welcome. -- MMG/jgk ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED c :.-· <4 :.-·; =· ~· ... _ .. ,; ~ ···~ .... ·:,.r·:: ~~ .. ~ =:;. . ·; •• C,·.-·! . .. . , . . _: ~ :; ·-. 't •.• ._ . • • . ~ ~;.' '. '· ~ ...... ~, ' .. -··. ·~·- Sincerely yours, John D. Lawrence Project Manager ,.. ..... _- ... :-:~'ili;. -~:·7·];;;·<~ - - - - - - - - - c --. . -. -. -~ .C-Jilt. .~-a;n .ww.& L 1 __ . . t L-.5.¥ ·.---~~-=--- -·---------------- - - U.S. ~'"£:0 sr~ ...) .,~ ~· ~ ~..r. :s l..,;.ll 0 ~~~ 7.. I \!) ~ ~ 1-0~ ~-i ... ~ l. PR01~C. !~~y J?, M/S 443 4 FEB 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 Kevin R. Young Acres American Incorporated The Liberty Bank Building Main at Court Buffalo, NY 14202 AGENCY REC::i'/'E.~ FEB 8 lS8Z ACRES AMOOW UlCURPOMHi Subject: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy and Draft Analyses of Mitigation Options · Dear Mr. Young: Al POWER Thank you for sending us copies of the above papers for our review. From conversations with Mike Grubb, of your staff, we understand that Acres American has decided that further work is necessary on the mitigation options papers before agency comments will be solicited. Therefore, this letter will·address EPA's comments on the mitigation policy paper only • . IORITY -31TNA F'. ~ P5700 . I I. qJ; - ~ lPS _,_-jiP(; H -~- _,_ 1 ENS ' SHT OWL In general, we believe that the overall mitigation approach is good. In particular, the ~se of the CEQ definition of mitigation encourages the most satisfactory types of mitigation to be considered first. This is reflected in Figure 2, Option Analysis. The establishment of a long-term monitoring plan and acknowledgment that the mitigation plan will be changed if necessary is also commendable. We do have some concerns about implementation of this policy, especially over the next year while the mitigation plan for the FERC license appli- cation is still being developed. Some issues and mitigation measures must be incorporated into the preliminary engineering and design stages of the projects and, from our review of the Acres American reports, we are aware that this is being done. One good example is spillway design to avoid nitrogen supersaturation. However, there are a great many other issues where the agencies and the public do not have sufficient information yet on the impacts to judge either how much mitigation will be needed or what sort of mitigation might be successful. For example, EPA will not have any pre-and post-project water quality data unti 1 the feasibility study is circulated (letter from John D. Lawrence to John R. Spencer, January 4, 1982.) Development of an option analysis which reflects the possible suc- cessful mitigation measures for the entire range of potential impacts, including the worst case, appears to be a useful step at this time. Ho1·1ever, the agencies and the public may have difficulty evaluating the l__; . ' adequacy of a mitigation plan until more impact information is available. EPA would have been faced with this situation in reviewing the fishery mitigation plan if Acres American had wanted our comments at this time. We have one other suggestion for your consideration. Because of the location and magnitude of the impacts, new mitigation methods or methods new to this region of Alaska may eventually be identified. Because it will be several years before the mitigation plan is finalized, it may be possible to test the feasibility of some of these ideas before mitigation itself must start. Such an approach may have long-term environmental and economic benefits. Some additional minor comments are presented in the attachment. We look forward to reviewing the option papers. If you would like to dis- cuss our corrments, Judi Schwarz of the Environmental Evaluation Branch may be contacted for more information. She can be reached at {206) 442-1096. Sincerely, ~t .. l oq1J :O~eal, Director Environmental Services Division ··'<': cc: A1 Carson, DNR Dave Wozniak, APA -~ to ..... ,., - - - - - - - - h;.~ - - .... ··.<4 - ~ - ..,.I ... .I ..., - -- ... .... - - ... .. ... ( ··- - - -- I ( '\ / Susitna Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy Attachment FERC Regulations For your infonnation, FERC published the new regulations on license applications on November 13, 1981. The section of fish and wildlife mitigation can be found at 46 FR 55938. FERC has made some wording changes, but the substance is essentially unchanged. Definitions The policy statement refers to a Mitigation Task Force, a Mitigation Review Group, and a Core Group of the Mitigation Task Force. The com- position and method of selection of each group should be described • ..-' r rrr~ ~ . h,.. i ~ .. ~ r.~ ! ~ . f:. .. ·1·.: d~ ''"' • .;bo;i....f Colonel Lee R. Nunn Department of the Army Alaska District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, AK 99510 February 19, 1982 P5700.11.92 Tl519 Dear Colonel Nunn: Susitna Hydroelectric Project ·Plant Ecolagy·Report· Thank you for your letter of February 1 regarding your review of the ... ... ... - - ... ... following reports: Environmental Summary Annual Report -1980, Development • Selection Report, and Transmission Line Corridor Screening Close Out Report. As a result of your comment concerning wetlands, I am enclosing for your • information a copy of the 1980 Plant Ecology Report which more specifically addresses the wetlands issue. Also enclosed is a copy of the vegetation and wetlands maps which are referred to in the+r report. ~ +A~ Thank you again for your letter. MG:ccv Enclosures cc: E. Yould -APA ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ': -·-·:: ... ~· -; =~.;; --:-::":, -~ ~~~--~t,· e~ .... J; r: .... ·:: .. -; ·.~:; r-.:1! ~I' ... n =~··::·-: r.':·:. v-:,; .... ·~::::::- -~ r:-:·. ,.~ ;·-:.-~:.-:.:-~~~:. ~(·~;: .. <?~-.:.:~~ . .:.c;=..:s auF ~erely, John Lawrence Project Manager -:.··~-~c..~· c.~:~ c:· ... -: J ".'D F.:~:.:~,~~ P..:. ~a~·:: :;:--c_~~_.c. ·.·:a:.. .... '"'.::c ... , DC - ... ... ... - - - - - -- - i7 i-~ I fv I ~ .....;: ! ~ '-- ,, -- -- -- - - ... WILLETT ITTE ::RRY .... A.YOEN LAMB ' r n • Gary O'Neal, Director vfronmental Services Division February 23, 1982 P5700. 11. 91 T.1526 ~ ~-. ~ -· .... - NCLAIR l . S. Environmental Protection Agency gfon X ANDER BURGI-( e - Yi)v ~ c,..., ,.-vh h v -"RLSON FRETZ JEX )WREY NGH p ;...! ,_~ J...L"'\ -.JSTEAO BOVE -CHASE / 1- I' 00 Sixth Avenue ~ attle, Washington 98101 a r Mr. 0 I rtea 1 : L.~' Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife HitfQation Policy .h F i ank you for your letter of February 4, 1982 regarding the Susitna sh and \~ildlife Nitigation Policy. r~ tlhl wfll be discussing Hitfgation further in early liarch meetings with e Core and Review Groups and attempting to focus in on the major pact issues and define further studies necessary to develop adequate tigation. You will be invited to this meeting. inl r, 1 T cJC ank you again for your comments. ~'!MG/jh cc: E. Yould, APA J. Spencer, EPA Sincet;eJ_y, &--- John D. lawrence Project ~anager February 23, 1982 P5700. 11. 91 T.l424 ~ r ._ .. ~-·-.~#-,_ - WILLE"TT WI TIE BERRY II HAYDEN LAMB Z, LAWRENCE SINCLAIR Mr. Robert W. McVey r 11 ~ a1 .I I Ul , ei ' I ctor, Alaska Region nal Marine Fisheries Service Box 1668 u, Alaska 99802 Mr. McVey: . . Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy nk you for your December 31, 1981 response to our request for VANDERBURGK or nts on the Susitna Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy. I have need to your comments in the order in which they were presented. "'~ t. f:.-roc."f, - •1 • · Basic Intent of the Applicant CARLSON FRETZ JEX l Ul LOWREY tpJ SINGH . ij ('~ /1 ,.,....;~v!JY pproach to resolving fish and wildlife mitigation conflicts between nd the.resource agencies is outlined in Step 3, Section 4, of the ation Policy. As stated, it basically involves revie\'! and coli'"ltent e F1 sh and Wildlife Hitfgation Review Group representing the 1 '/,~ _ STEAD BOVE CHASE r'P~ .I rl a gE -1= I . ,) 4 ... "";:;( n ::>1 hf, rce agencies. In addition, although not specifically stated r policy, any draft mitigation plans will be submitted to resource ies for fonnal corrment and review prior to the submission of a license application. Our policy w111 be modified to include this. Consultation with Natural Resource Aqencies and the Public on 4, Step 3, Development of an Acceptable mtigation Plan, \•:ill e completed by r·~arch of 1982. Ho"'ever, mitiqation options \'rill sessed and preferred options to~ether with their technical f~axi.­ bility and potential effectiveness will be presented in the March 1982 Feasibility Report. The first meeting of the Mitigation Review Group will occur in March.l982. An invitation will be sent to Bradley Smith as a represen!ative of your agency. This meeting will provide the resource agencies with an opportunity to discuss, \llith the f.iitigation Core Groups, the various mitigation options presently being considered. The details of a draft mitigation plan will be completed subsequent to the Feasibility Report and prior to the FERC license application. 3.4 -Modification of the Mitiqation Plan We agree that the termination of any mitigation measure stipulated in the FERC license .,.,auld require FERC approval. In regards to the mon- itoring program, we anticipate that the FERC license will allow for - - - - 1 .. j J J J , .. ~ .J , J - - - - -... - - - - - - .... - - - Mr. Robert W. McVey February 23~ 1982 page 2 the termination of the monitoring program when the need for further mitigation is considered unnecessary. We have modified the policy to state termination would be subject to FERC approval. 4.4 -Approach to Developing the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plans Paragraph 3~ sentence 6~ refers to the functioning of the Mitigation Core Group which will be concentrating its efforts towards resources most likely to be impacted. · Paragraph 5, sentence 2. This sentence is contained under Step 2 en- titled "Option Analysis Procedure". The intent of this procedure is to consider each impact issue and to review all practicable mitigation options within the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act. If a mitigation option that avoids an impact is identified which is technically feasible, effective, and not in conflict with any other project objectives, the need to address other alternatives was not considered necessary. The intent of sentence 2, paragraph 5, was to state that if such an option does not exist, we will proceed to evaluate other options. 11 All options considered will be evaluated and documented. The result of this process will be an identification and evaluation of feasible mitigation options for each impact issue and a description of residual impacts." The selection of which options are to be further considered in the de- velopment of an acceptable mitigation plan is addressed under Step 3. Paragraph 7. Mitigation options will be forwarded to the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group allowing for agency review and cormnent. In addition~ our mitigation policy will be modified to reflect our intent to have the draft mitigation plan formally reviewed by agencies prior to application to FERC. I appreciate your comments and trust our response satisfies the concern you have expressed. KRY/jmh ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Sincerely, ~~~~ John D. Lawrence Project Manager .... WILLETT WITTE BERRY \.1 r:. .,.., ...... ~ " .... ~ ,. --... HAYDEN LAMB rll Ronald 0. Skoog issioner February 23, 1982 P5700.11.92 T. 1527 .t ';" .. .;., C... LAWRENCE J: • ka Department of Fish and Game Box 3-2000 -A:t '1.. t: SINCLAIR VANDERBURG~ Ul au, Alaska 99802 / X 6.o'wl£, V"f o: r,1r.-Skoog: Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project Corrments on F1 sh and Wi.l dl1 fe -P~ CARLSON FRETZ JEX LOWREY SINGH ..~STEAO BOVE CHASE L r-:c 1.1~ rr Jn ri flO. [e . ., ur ~ ust -' . t-11tigation Pol icy · Hr. Skoog: ppreciate receiving your corm1ents on the "Susitna Hydroelectric ect Fish and Wildlife t·11t1gation Policy" dated December 30, 1981. ddition to addressing your comments in our revised edition of the cy, I have elected to respond directly to the concerns you have ed. My comments are organized in the order presented in your mber 30 letter. Section 1 -Introduction definition of fish and wildlife resources included the habitat which ains them but for clarification we will include the phrase "and the tat that sustains them" as you recommended. Comment: We accept the CEQ definition and priority sequence for mitigation. 2. Section 2 -Legal ~~ndates We accept that the implementation of mitigation is the eventual goal and will include the phrase ''and eventual implementation" as you reconncnded. -Comment: APA is committed to implement appropriate mitigation plans. -3. Section 2-Protection· of Fish and Game To broaden the perxpective of the first sentence 1n the first paragraph we will substitute the word mitigate for reduce. The definition of mitigate in this context being avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or - - - - - ... ... - - ... ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Ronald 0. Skoog compensate for impacts. February 23, 1982 page 2 Comment: Avoidance of impacts will be the first mitigation option explored. 4. Section 2-Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2nd·paragraph We will add the phrase "measures and" in the last line of this paragraph. Comment: This addition meets your request. 5. Section 3.3 -Implementation of the Mitigation Plan It is our intent to reach an agreement~ through FERC, with those resource agencies having the mandate to approve the mitigation plan and the implementation specific agencies have not been stated since it is not considered appropriate for APA to define other agencies mandates. -It is also considered inappropriate to discuss such agreements through an informal group such as the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee. Comment: APA accepts that the proposed monitory body or its function would not supersede individual agency mandate. In fact such.monitoring may be conducted through agencies fulfilling their mandates. 6. Section 3.4 -Modification of the Mitigation Plan APA intends to work with the appropriate state and federal agencies during implementation of the plan, including any modifications. The Federal -. Energy Regulatory Commission must approve any modification to mitigation stipulation in the license. It is anticipated FERC would not approve these modifications without first consulti~g with the appropriate agencies. - - - - - - - Comment: It was not intended to imply APA approval superseded the mandate of state and federal agencies. 7. Section 4 -Approach to Developing Fish and Wildlife Plans Third paragraph: The intent of the ranking of resources is 11 0rder of importance was to direct mitigation efforts towards those resources where, even without an extensive data base, it is predicted the greatest impacts would occur. As an example, the concentration of the fisheries mitigation efforts has been towards the anadromous fisheries between Talkeetna and Devil Canyon, as this is an important reserve and there is higher potential for impact in this section than further downstream. ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED .. Mr. Ronald 0. Skoog February 23, 1982 page 3 Comment: The delay in the license application will permit a more detailed mitigation plan to be developed. Fifth paragraph: Comment: The intent of this procedure is to consider each impact issue and to review all practicable mitigation options within the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act. If a mitigation option that avoids an impact is identified which is technically feasible, effective and not in conflict with any other project objective, the need to address other alternatives was not considered necessary. The intent of sentence 2, paragraph 5 was to state that if such an option does not exist, we will pro- ceed to evaluate other options. No mitigation options will be arbitrarily dismissed. As stated in the policy, "All options will be evaluated and documented.11 The policy will be revised to make this clear. Paragraph Seven: Comment: FERC requires APA to prepare a mitigation plan prepared in consultation with appropriate resource agencies. This plan will be based on recommendations from the core groups and review and comment from the agencies via the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group and the formal agency review process. Subsequent to the FERC filing, the plans will be reviewed by FERC and other agencies and an acceptable plan finalized. It is not APA 1 s intent that the mitigation planning be in conflict in any way with the management and protection responsibility of any agencies. Paragraph Eight: Comment: The Susitna project is being prepared by a state agency. As such, it wou 1 d be premature to commit funding for· i nvo 1 vement of other agencies at this time. General Comments 1. The three month delay in the license application will permit agency review and input to the mitigation plan. 2. The Policy will be revised to include a description of purpose of the core and review groups. You w.ill be receiving a letter with the Feasibility Report outlining what reports will be sent to your department. ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED - - ..i ... - IIIII - - - ... ., IIIII ., ... ~ ... - ... - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Ronald 0. Skoog February 23, 1982 page 4 We very much appreciate your comments on the policy and hope my responses are satisfactory. If you have any questions, please call. MMG/jh ACRES AMERICAN. INCORPORATED :jJ.:Sinc~Jely yours, / / /..'% ? /~~....--:7-z__.--~-~hn D. Lawrence Project Manager I I I .. WILLETT WITTE BERRY I ' M " .. -.... ~AYDEN u LAMB l, '-'-t:AWRENCE " SINCLAIR ' VANDER BURGH n, ..,., K. To,)tJI-. . "' f">, ,..,,. \1.~-~ CARLSON T' FRETZ JEX '-\I LOWREY ~- SINGH ~, l -; .iTEAO' ~~ -tsOVE 1 <. ~()0\1<.¥ f-J I CHASE • Melvin A. Honson t1ng Assistant Regional Director S. Fish and H1ldlffe Service 11 E. Tudor Road chorage, Alaska 99503 ar Mr. Manson: February 24, 1982 P5700.11.71 T.l528 Susitna Hydroelectric Project :; ~-. v" Fish and H1ldl1fe ~1itioation Policy ank you for your letter of December 30, 1981, co~enting on the Fish d Wildlife· Mitigation Policy for the Susitna Hydroelectric Feasibility udy. We appreciated receiving a copy of the F&HS f·1itigation Policy d your explanation of it. will attempt to aespond to each of your comments, numbered as in ur letter. 0 Introduction: This section was purposefully kept short so that the policy would not be overbearing. He do not feel it necessary to discuss the issues you mentioned, as they are covered in detail in the Feasibility Report. At the suggestion of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, we have added the phrase "~ristl and \•Jildlife resources of the state". 2.0 Legal Mandate: - , _ ____.. The entire policy and particularly sections 3 and 4 explain that APA intends to develop and impler.~nt a mitigation plan in coordination with the agencies \'lith mandated fish and wildlife mitigation responsibilities. · 2.2 National Environmental Policy Act: Since FERC is a federal a9ency, they are covered by the staeement "Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible~. .. - ... · ....... -- ... ... .... ... .. - .... .... ... ... WJI• ... ... - IIIIi - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Melvin A. Monson February 24, 1982 page 2 2.3 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The policy will reflect the fact these regulations were adopted. Exhibit E will be prepared as described in the regulations. 2.4 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Reference to FERC has been incorporated. 3.1 Basic Intent of the Applicant The statement 11 The FERC will resolve any disputes which APA and the agencies cannot resolve .. has been added. 3.2 Consultation with Natural Resource Agencies and the Public 3.3 A section explaining the mechanism for coordination with the agencies has been added to the beginning of the policy. The agencies will be involved in the plan both prior and subsequent to FERC filing. Implementation of the Mitigation Plan The implementation of the mitigation plan is recognized by APA to be its responsibility. 3.4 Modification of the Mitigation Plan Paragraph 2 It is recognized any modification to or termination of the mitigation efforts would be subject to FERC approval. It is assumed FERC would consult with the agencies during this process. 4.0 Approach to Developing the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan Paragraph 3 The intent of this paragraph was to direct mitigation efforts towards those resources where, even without an extensive data base, it is predicted the greatest impacts would occur. As an example, the concentration of the fisheries mitigation efforts has been towards the anadromous fisheries between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna, as this is an important resource and there is a higher potential for impact in this section than further downstream. Paragraph 5 The intent of this procedure is to consider each impact issue and to review all practicable mitigation options within the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act. If a mitigation option is identified that avoids an impact, is technically feasible, effective and not in conflict with any other project objectives, the need to address other alternatives was not considered necessary. The ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED .. Mr. Melvin A. Monson February 24, 1982 page 3 intent of sentence 2, paragraph 5 was to state that if such an option does not exist, we will proceed to evaluate other options. As stated in the policy, "All options will be evaluated and docu- mented ... The policy will be revised to make this clear. Paragraph 7 This paragraph has been expanded to include the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group involvement in the plan's development. Paragraph 9 Your statement has been incorporated. Paragraph 10 We agree with your statement. The FERC must approve any modification to mitigation stipulations in the license. It is anticipated FERC would not approve the modifications without first consulting with the appropriate agencies. Thank you again for your time. If you have any questions regarding my responses, feel free to contact me. MMG/jmh cc: E. Yould, APA K. Schreiner ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Sincerely yours, q;;/ u:~~ ~~D. Lawrence · Project Manager .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ..J - ..J ... ..J .J .... ..l ..J ... ..... - - - - - - - - - - - ..... - - - w )1,1, »/ uL!du ~,-~r"'"""' .. •' £ i...---~·--· Mr. Douglas G. Warnock Assistant Regional Director Alaska Region National Park Service 540 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Warnock: ~1arch 1, 1982 P5700.11 T. 1425 Susitna Hydroelectric Project I thank you for your December 30, 1981 response to our request for review and comment on Susitna project reports forwarded to your agency. I am pleased that you are satisfied to date with our cultural resource identification and management, recreation planning and Development Selection evaluation process. In regards to the review of subsequent reports we are receptive to including your agency in the water quality and use, aesthetics and land use groups if you consider this information beneficial in performing your formal review of project related recreation impacts. We are entlosing the 1980 Land Use Annual Report. KRY I jmh Enclosure xc: Eric Yould, APA ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ,. -; ::~~ ·:.:e-~s -:-. t;;. ·:::_•:: =~-!.-E. .... ·; .. 2 •. ~ .• -:· ~·: ::. ...... ;: ·!·,_.:.. .. £ ~ t; ~D7~rely yours, £ /2vv~t-A---z~--;'~ (,_A. .ioh~o. Lawrence Project Manager ..: :.£. ._.. -~ f·· -·:..:::.. :; ..JF ~ Ms. Lee McAnerney Department of Community and Regional Affairs Pouch B Juneau, Alaska 98111 Dear Ms. McAnerney: February 25, 1982 P5700 .11. 92 T .1533 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Agency Coordination Meetings As an agency representative of the Historical and Archeological Group r~v1ewing the Susftna Hydroelectric Project you are invited to a meeting on the morning of ~arch 15, 1982 in the offices of Acres American Inc., 1577 "Cn Street, Suite 305, Anchorage, Alaska. The purpose of this meeting w111 be to review the results of the Phase I archeological studies, assess mitigation options and discuss future study programs. If you have any questions relatfng to these meetings, please contact Mr. Vern Smith of Acres 1 at (907) 276-4888. KRY/1jr Sincerely, John D. Lawrence Project t4anager .., - .., -.. ... .... ... .. ... IIIII ... ... .., .., ... .... .... - - - - - - - - - - r~r. !'.oy Huhndorf Pre;;ident Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated P .0. Crawer 4R Anchorage, Alaska 99509 Dear Mr. Huhndorf: re~ru!ry 25, 1922 P5700 .11.50 T .1537 Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project A~ency Coordination ~eet1ngs As a member of the Aesthetics and Land Use Group reviewing the Susitna Hydroelectric Project you are 1nv1ted to a meeting on tha afternoon of ~~arch 15, !932 1n the offices of Acres Arnerfcan Inc •• 1577 8 C" Street. Sufte 305, Anchorage, Alaska. The purpose of this neet1ng w111 be to discuss the results of the Phase I studies and to review the alt~rnative and proposed recreation plans. If you have any questions relating to these ~eetfngs, please contact Nr. Vern Smfth of Acres at (907) 276-4388. KRY/ljr Sincerely, John D. Lawrence Project ~~ana ger Mr. ~efth Schreiner Regional Director. Region 7 U.S. rtsh and ~!fldlffe Service lOll E, Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Oear Kr. Schreiner: February 25, 19?2 ?5700 .11. 71 ' T .1537 Susftna Hydroelectric Project Agency Coordination Meet1nos ~i a rnanbcr of the A~tthatfcs/Land Use and ?.~cr~atfon Croups revf~~ing the Susftna ~ydroelectric ?roject you are invited to a m!etinq on the afternoon of ~arch 151 1932 in the offices of Acres Am~rfcan Inc., 1577 "CM Street, Suit! 305, Anchoraae, Alaska. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the results of the Phase I stuc1es and to review the alternative and pro- posed recreation plans. If you h~ve any questions relating to these meetings, please contact nr. Vern Smith of Acres at {907) 276-4888. KRY/ljr Sincerely, John D. LaHrence Project ~<:lnager .... .. ... .... .. ,., ... ..I .. .... - flllll .., ,., ... .. - .... - ..._ - - - - - - - - ..... - - - - - - Mr. Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner State of Alaska Department of Ffsh and Game Subpart Building Juneau, Alaska 99801 February 25, 1982 P5700.ll.92 T .1531 Dear Mr. Skoog: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Agency Coordination Meeting~. As an agency representative of the Historical and Archeological Group reviewing the Susftna Hydroelectric Project you are invited to a meeting on the morning of March 15, 1982 fn the offices of Acres American Inc., 1577 "C" Street, Suite 305, Anchorage. Alaska. The purpose of this meeting will be to review the results of the Phase I archeological studies, assess mitigation options and discuss future study programs. As a member of the Recreation and Aesthetics/Land Use Groups you are also invited to a meeting at the same location on the afternoon of March 15, 1982 to discuss the results of the Phase I studies and to review the alternative and proposed recreation plans. · If you have any questions relating to these meetings, please contact Mr. Vern Smith of Acres at (907} 276-4888. KRY/ljr cc: Mr. Thomas Trent State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2207 Spenard Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Sincerely, John 0. Lawrence Project Manager ~,r. Robert McVey Director, Alaska Region Plat1ona1 l".arine Fisheries Service NOM P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 February 25, 1982 PS 700.11.92 T .1535 Dear Mr. McVey: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Agency Coordination Meetings ~ -- As a representative of the Recreation Group revfewfng the Susitna Hydro- electric Project you are invited to a meeting on the afternoon of f-1arch 15, 19S2 in the offices of Acres American Inc., 1577 "C• Street, Suite 305, Anchorage, Alaska. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the results of the Phase I studies and to review the alt2rnative and proposed recreation plans. If you have any questions relating to these meetings, please contact ~1r. Vern Smith of Acres at (907) 276-4888. KRY/ljr cc: Mr. Ron ~orris Sincerely, John D. Lawrence Project Manager Director. Anchorage Field Office ~lat1ona1 Marine Fisheries Service 701 "C 11 Street Box 43 Anchorage~ Alaska 99513 ...i - IIIII --- IIIII ., ... ., ., .... ., ...; - ..., ..., - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. John E. Cook Acting Regional Director Ala5.k& Offfce National Park Service 540 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Cook: February 25, 1982 P5700 .11. 92 T .1532 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Aqency Coordination Meetings As an agency representative of the Historical and Archeological Group reviewing the Susftna Hydroelectric Project you are fnvfted to a meeting on the morning of March 15, 1982 in the offices of Acres ~~erican Inc., 1577 "c• Street, Suite 305, Anchorage, Alaska. The purpose of this meeting will be to review the results of the Phase I archeological studies, assess mitf~ation optfons and discuss future study programs. As a member of the Recreation and Aesthetics/Land Use Groups you are also invited to a meeting at the same location on the afternoon of P4rch 15, 19822 to discuss the results of the Phase I studies and to review the alternative and proposed recreation plans. If you have any questions relatfn9 to these meetings, please contact Mr. Vern Smith of Acres at (907) 276-4888. KRY/ljr cc: Mr. Larry Hright Nation a 1 Park Service lOll E. Tudor Road, Suite 297 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Sincerely, John D. La\'/rence Project Manager l~;»i-J [ 1'1~ r" t-;; :_; ~ , i:~!. L~r . '· . L~ ~~t..., Mr. Al Carson Division of Research & Development Department of Natural Resources 323 East Fourth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Carson: - February 26, 1982 P5700.11. 74 T. 1539 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation As discussed through Vern Smith of our Anchorage office, meetings to re- view fish and wildlife mitigation efforts are scheduled for March 11 and 12, 1982 in the offices of Acres American, 1577 C Street, Suite 305, Anchorage, Alaska. As these meetings are expected to be in the form of technical workshops, a complete day on each of the topics of fish and wildlife is considered necessary. Proposed agendas are enclosed. I will also forward, within the week, updated information packets addressing fish and wildlife im- pact issues and mitigation options. As fisheries issues are being discussed on a separate day from wildlife issues, please feel free to have different technical personnel attend each of the meetings if you consider it appropriate. As we consider these meetings to be an important component in improving the coordination between your agency and our fish and wildlife mitigation core groups, your attendance is encouraged. If you have any questions relating to these meetings please contact my- self or Vern Smith (907-276-4888). Sincerely, Kevin Young Environmental Coordinator KRY:dlp Enclosures ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED c~-·.c;!!•ng E~g·r.ee·s Tr....: :..:::~r:J 8~"\k !: ... i'::.~g :.~a~ ::t ':l)ur! E...:":-.~j. ~;0·:: Vc·•. ~.:2:-2 -~::::---~~':;';e.::; .. --:~;. i£-·(;, ~"-·:.!~:; ;.cF-::s e.vF ~.·~ ,._. G·H ::.E:s cc·_-: a r:::> ::-.··:.:.. _,j .... ;..,~ ?a:-:·;:"'1 :~: ·::c.-; ... ~~~:.~ DC ... ... ... .. --- - - ... --- .., .., .,; -- - - - .... - - - - - - - - - ~1r. Ty :::; 11 i plane State ~istoric Preservation Off1cer Alask~ Oepartw~nt of Natural Resources Division of Parks 619 ~arehouse Avenue, Suite 210 Anchorage. Alaska 99501 ~~rch 2, 1982 ;'~700.11.92 T.1534 Dear Hr. Shaw: Sus1tna Hydroelectric ?reject Aoency Cc~rdinat1on f~etin~s As an agency representative of the Historical and Archeological Group reviewing the Susitna HyJroelectric Project you are invited to a meeting on the mon1ing of r~arch 15, 1982 in the offices of Acres .A~merican Inc. • 1577 aC" Street~ Suite 305~ Anchorage~ AlAska. The nurnose of this meeting ~ill be to review the results of the Phase I archeolo1ical studi~s. assess r.:itiqaticn option~ and discuss futu~ study nrcor,lr..s. If you have any questions relating to these reetinos~ r1ea~~ contact Mr. Vern Smith of ~ere~ ~t (907) 276-l~~u. KRV:dlp cc: rr. ,'\liln Cnr~on Sincerely, John D. Li'!'.Jrence Project filana11Ar Divisicn of nes~arch ; lr~elo~mcnt De~artn~Cnt of r;atur:tl Re50;JrCCS Pouc!'l 7-:105 Anchcra~e, Alaska 9~511 3JN30NOdS3~~0J d00~9 M3IA3~ NOI1~9I1IW 3~IlOliM ON~ HSI~ 2-8 XION3dd~ - - - - - - - i ' -I " -' r. . ., l -; - ._; .. , f SUSITNA WILDLIFE MITIGATION TASK FORCE NOTES OF MEETING January 30, 1981 Anchorage, Alaska Compiled by: Edward T. Reed Wildlife Ecology Group Leader Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. The meeting was commenced at 9:00 a.m. i -I· Mr. Reed presented a brief out1ine (attached) describing the _organization and functioning of the task force. At the request of Mr. Carson, the word "procedures" {Purpose of the Task Force, Item #1) was changed to "options". - \._ \, ' . ( ~ ) ~ r ' i .• I f r fc J ~ . ": :·;~~: ,i'2:, : ~~ c'~~;c}r0"P: ~· }_ ; \,L,;' ~ ~-:<:· • _ ::; • : .;''7: , _ . _ '.< , ~ ,. -~Pi -.· ... ""'-~- . • i ~ .. -2- ~o dual role of Mr. Schneider as a representative of AOF&G was :cussed by Sc~neider,_ Trent, Reed, Lucid, Carson, and Wozniak. A concensus was reached that Mr. Schneider's participation in the core group was appropriate due to his technical participation on the $usitna Study Team as leader of the big game studies. All official responses from ADF&G as a participant in the review group will be handled by Mr. rrent, who will consult with Mr. Schneider on technical matters. This arrangement was satisfactory to the meeting participants. I There were no comments concerning information on the outline pertaining to the Role of the Core Group, the Role of the Review Group, or the Role of the Task Force Coordinator. i 1 Mr. Carson raised the issue of whether or not members of the review 1 group should be required to prepare a written discussion of concerns, 1-issues and policy statements. Mr. Carson felt that it was the ! . responsibility of TES to prepare such material for review and comment '' by the review group. Following discussion of this issue, it was agreed · that the Task Force Coordinator would draft a policy statement • incorporating agency concerns and submit it to the review group for , comment. It was suggested that agency concerns could be better t identified through personal interviews with representatives of each ~ agency. TES and Acres will consider this approach. ~ • "( ! Mr. Wozniak questioned whether or not all appropriate agencies were J included in the mitigation task force. The involvement of the U.S. ~ Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the j National Marine Fisheries Service were raised. TES and Acres will keep t these agencies in mind as the task force proceeds, althou9h Mr. Reed 1 indicated that the participation of these agencies may be either i premature at this point in time, or be more appropriately included in 1 the fisheries mitigation effort. Mr. Wozniak also raised the question f of involvement by special interest groups. Mr. Reed and Dr. lucid I responded that the concerns of special interest groups were more J appropriately coordinated through the Power Authority's public i participation program. TES will prepare a list of agencies and/or i groups that may be considered for consultation in the future if f pertinent issues concerning such groups develop. t I I i It was discussed, and generally agreed upon, that there are limitations to the level of detail of mitigation planning that can be performed within the Phase I time frame. Dr. lucid, Mr. Reed, and Mr. McMullen pointed out, nevertheless, that to comply with FERC regulations, the . 1 icense application must represent a commitment on the part of the 1 applicant and that identification of "options" may not be sufficient. l ~ .., J J .J _, .., \ .... ... l ( .J t. - ) c " _.., -r ' -j I ;_IJ ( 7 ( ( ~-I ~ ' I -, r - I --~ --; I -.. -- -,~ ; ~--"-_,......._.-: .. -.-- .-.::.:,._--.)~·· -• taS decided that individual review group members will address all ~espondence to the APA, with a copy being sent directly to Mr. Reed, -;. ~ti 11 back-channel a copy to Mr. Young at Acres. Mr. Wozniak 1rized the Task Force Coordinator (Mr. Reed) to represent the core --?UP and correspond directly with members of the review group. ·Mr.· ~~requested written confirmation of this authorization from Mr. {!:-;ng. ~1r: Young indicated that Acres would provide the requested · ~;cumentat 1on. -I ! Following discuss ion, it was agreed that Mr. Reed would reevaluate the j ;chedule outlined on the handout. Mr. Carson requested that a meeting i-ce held following preparation of a pol icy statement and review by the f review group members. f ·-~. Stackhouse indicated that the USFWS had recently (within the past week) published a statement of mitigation policy in the Federal Register. Mr. Reed thanked Mr. Stackhouse for this information and -indicated that the pol icy statement would be reviewed at the earliest possible date. -~ followin~ discussion it was decided that the core group should first prepare a mitigation policy, and following review, proceed with the preparation of a mitigat1on plan. ---·: Stackhouse stated that cost effectiveness of mitigation plans is an ;-.. nportant concern of the USFWS. i r 1. l L t f r i ~ t E I i.- ' i:- i ._ ; l~ The question was raised by Or. Lucid as to whether the applicant had any responsibility to enhance a resource, as opposed to avoidance of impacts or compensation. It was agreed that TES, in its mitigation planning, would "identify enhancement opportunities" and stop there. The subject of compensation of impact on one species (e.g. moose) by enhancement of another (e.g. salmon) was mentioned. No agreement was reached on the validity of this concept. The question of whether or not the review group should have a chairman was raised. Mr. Reed expressed concern that some details may be lost if one person was responsible for compiling and possibly summarizing agency comments. Mr. Carson also advised against the appointment of a chairman at this time. For the present time, the idea of a review group chairman was dropped; Mr. Reed requested that a list be prepared with the name~ mailing address, and phone number of all review group members. This list was completed and is attached. The meeting was~ adjourned at approximately 11:15 a.m. b.}_§~ ... _,;¥Z:_;f7 ... • ~ ..,.s ' ;;_< 4-.. ce _xz cw --- . ~ , .,.. . , e:£1::: =<:~~·;,~3~~;~l~:: :,:~ ~ ~ · ~'?S' :_ -......,...,~_,. ., . J f i ( ,, I! ) 1 c 1"" f ! II i j f ,. II ' . ' l/ J ' I -l": I ! -;i I . ] -• ~f ' l • ~~ 1 • i ~ -I ~l ~ i • 2f ~ ~ ~ ; ; ., I ;.. -... 1 -~i "'v..-:-t: ko• ·~ - j -! ··:. .. -.' . ./.; .. , .. -· , •. ~.' ... -"_ .. ~ i f~ ~ .... "' -;r~·~-·-....... PARTICIPANT Edward Reed Joseph McMullen Vincent Lucid Robert Krogseng Richard Taber Jay t·1cKendr i ck 'Ni 11 i am Co 11 ins Brina Kessel Steven McDonald Ph i 1 i p G i p son Karl Schneider Thomas Trent Kevin Young David Wozniak Bruce Bedard Alan Carson Mike Sec tt Gary Stackhouse Bruce App ie \, SUSITNA WILDLIFE ~HTIGATION TASK FORCE MEETING OF JANUARY 30, 1981 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA LIST OF PARTICIPANTS REPRESENTING Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, University of Alaska University of Alaska University of Alaska University of Alaska University of Alaska Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Fish and Game Acres American, Inc. Alaska Power Authority Alaska Power Authority Alaska Department of Natural Resources United States Bureau of Land Management United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. .. .... ... _, 1 .J _, - ..,; ., .. ( l ) .. ~ -r I :..., :-I l ~ t~ l =r: I ' \ ~.:r • -,J ' -.. - -.... - • .• f ... --~ { ./ -l. • I -/ J.-:.~1 Err E s L r t a RECEIVF=D J UN 1 7 tSB1 ~ ... .__ .. • -.,._ ---.Jf ,... • "-I f~:~\::nVfrOnmEn La 'c?/;:;.;:;.:=.:-~· ~ • [ • .!.. • ~-'Sh-PECla lSLS~ InC. --==~:.--~~ •J fLO.\ 9CX 388 PHOENIX. N.Y. \3135 (J!SI695·72Z8 - ~ - A tSKA POWER I MEMO tUTHORITY -SUSITNA f .E P57QO • 1,. ac -~QUENCE NO. r lu 1/' a ~~ lct: !O. ai ~ t- Ill 0 ..J < t: z TO Members of the Susitna Wild~ife Mitigation Task Force FROM: Edward T. Reed, Task For~e Coordinator ~- DATE: June 16, 1981; 218.683 RE: Comments concerning the preliminary policy outline. Enclosed please find another copy of the preliminary outline for the wildlife mitigation policy statement. I have inserted review comments that have been received todate. The comments have been plac~d immediately following the appropriate item. In the case of those comments that pertain to an entire section, they follow the last item of each section. In most cases, comments have been transcribed verbatum, although some comments had to be extracted from the correspondence and minor editorial changes were made. It should be noted that this was a detailed outline and some of the comments would have been unnecessary if a fleshed out text version was available for review. It was impossible to totally explain all of the j~~ deta~ls and ramifications of each item within the context of an ~~ outl1ne. Please review the comments made by other task force members and be prepared to discuss possible adjustments to the policy statement. As noted in my memo of May 8, 1981, the next meeting of the mitigation ~8LE 1 Jtask force will be held at 9:00a.m. on Monday, June 29th, in the Acres Anchorage Office. Hopefully a final version of the pol1cy statement can be agreed upon during that meeting and we can move forward with a discussion of how best to develop a mitigation plan based upon the policy statement. - '1 " ~ I !i II L 1 -BACKGROUND 1.1 -The Need WILDLIFE MITIGATION A STATEMENT OF POLICY PRELIMINARY OUTLINE Included will be a general discussion of the value of the environment and why it is necessary to reduce or avoi~ negative impacts while still permitting reasonable energy development. Comment USF&WS: This section should include a discussion of the need to adequately assess the environmental resources of the study to determine the compatibility of the proposed project and evaluate mitigation to adequately reduce or avoid negative area to . impacts to environmental resources, including fish and wildlife resources, so that no net loss of habitat value occurs. 1.2 -Legal Mandates The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulations, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act will be discussed, as well as a consideration of the role of state and federal natural resource agencies whose task it is to protect and manage wildlife resources. 1.3 -Definition of Mitigation This will be the 5 part NEPA definition. ... .. ... _, ,. ..l .. ' J ... ~ .. .., wli .. .,J ... - - ... - - - -,' ' \ ... :-- - - - - - ,.._ - 2 -GEHERAL ?OLICIES TO BE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPLICANT 2.1 -Basic Intent of the Applicant (a) The goal of the applicant is to strive, within the bounds of feasibility and reasonable costs, to minimize the negative impacts of the Susitna Project and compensate for unavoidable losses of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Comment USF&WS: The~ of the applicant should be to develop a plan to fully mitigate unavoidable impacts which would result from the construction and operation of the project with full compensation for unavoidable losses to fish and wildlife resources. (b) Comment USF&WS: The success of the mitigation effort will be considered the difference between impacts without mitigation and impacts with mitigation. A "no net loss of habitat value" will serve as the benchmark for measuring both the success of the mitigation effort and project impacts. Success of the mitigation effort should be assessed through comparison of habitat value of the study area with the project, including the mitigation plan, vs. without the project, over the project life. No net loss of habitat value, as determined by pre-and post-project studies is the goal. Acceptable habitat evaluation procedures (such as the Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Evaluation Procedures and Instream Flow Methodology) should be used to accomplish this goal. McMullen: "No net loss of habitat value" looks good, but it must be decided how to assess habitat value. Also, are with and/or without project scenarios going to be considered? Gipson: Good statement. (c) The applicant will provide assurances that the agreed upon mitigation plan will be a stipulated part of the construction and operation plans of the project and will be executed by either the applicant or any other organization charged with managing the project. Comment USF&WS: The mitigation plan should be developed by the applicant, in coordination with the state and federal resource agencies. The plan, as agreed upon by the coordinating agencies, should be submitted by the applicant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Corrmission (FERC) as a component of the application to be incorporated into the license. 2.2 -Input From Agencies and the Public (a) The applicant will provide opportunities for the review and evaluation of concerns and recommendations presented by the public as well as by federal and state agencies. Comment USF&WS: Additional review and evaluation of the project will be provided through formal agencies comments in response to state and/or federally administered licensing and permitting programs. (b) Agency comments and recommendations will be provided by those members of the Mitigation Task Force that represent agencies, while the concerns of the public and special interest groups will be coordinated through other means. .. .. ... ~ J - - ... .. .. ... ... -- - .. - ---.. - - - .... ·- Corrrnent Gipson: You mcy wish to _spell out how input will be obtained from the public and how to weight the recommendations from individuals, interest groups, and governmental agencies. McMullen: One of the comments at the Steering Committee meeting was that the agency representatives in many instances cannot "officially" represent their agency. 2.3 -Avoidance and Reduction of Impacts (a) During the feasibility studies (prior to FERC license submittal) and the subsequent preparation of preliminary ~-engineering specifications (following FERC license submittal), the applicant will take into consideration, and where practical {both from the standpoint of actual feasibility as well as cost), incorporate recommendations to avoid and/or reduce negative impacts on wildlife resources. ,_ ~l ""' .... : - Comment USF&WS: The project, including mitigation found to be acceptable to the state and federal resource agencies, should be evaluated in regard to reasonable cost; not with and without the mitigation plan. The total cost of mitigation then becomes part of the total project cost. (b) Also considered under this policy will be operation stipulations that can be implemented to reduce negative impacts on the wildlife resource. Recommendations for operation stipulations will be provided to the design engineer during both the feasibility studies and the preliminary engineering phase as appropriate • ~ Comment USF&WS: Construction and operating stipulations to reduce negative impacts to fish and wildlife resources should be evaluated during the feasibility studies. Stipulations found acceptable by the coordinating agencies should be incorporated into the mitigation plan submitted as part of the license application. 2.4 -Compensation for Unavoidable Losses of Wildlife Resources (a) Where biologically feasible and cost effective management techniques are available, the applicant will institute management efforts to compensate for unavoidable impacts. Comment USF&WS: Compensation for unavoidable losses to fish aod wildlife resources should be in accordance with a plan developed by the applicant, in coordination with state and federal resource agencies. The plan, found acceptable to the coordinating agencies should be submitted to FERC for incorporation into the project license. The compensation plan, a component of the overall mitigation plan, should be the result of a habitat evaluation, utilizing a procedure judged acceptable to the state and federal agencies with primary responsibility for fish and wildlife resources. (b) Where possible, compensation will be of an in-kind nature. Comment USF&WS: This applies to both wildlife species as well as habitats. In-kind compensation where "possible"; should be mutually ' determined by the applicant and the coordinating state and federal agencies, prior to licensing. .. .. .. .,J "" .. ... .,.; .. ... -- ... - •fill .., - .., - ... -- - ... "..: - - .... ~ 2.5 -Geog;aphic :CJverage of the Wildlife Mitigation Policy (a) In res:~cd to both impact avoidance and compensation, the mitigat~:on policy will address all wildlife species utilizinag the impoundment zone and other project related -' Comment USF&WS: areas (ee.g., borrow sites), as well as the riparian zone downstre=am to Talkeetna • Determination of the extent of impacts attributable to the project needs to be ac:complished. Formulation of a mitigation plan cannot proceed until the extent of the impacts, both direct and indirect, has been identified. McMullen: If key or target species are used to evaluate habitat values then this may requ~re rewording. Gipson: What treatment will be given to access roads, power line rights- ~f-way, and pcssible buffer zones around the impoundments? (b) Downstre~m from Talkeetna to Cook Inlet the primary mitigation effort will be directed towards any impacts that might occur in regard to riparian habitats. Comment USF&WS: The mitigation effort should be directed at reducing impacts where they are identified, addressing all primary and secondary impact areas, for all project features . Taber: It seems probable that 100% mitigation above the dam will not be feasible, so mitigation below the dam may be one of the next best choices. If a broad view of what "below the dam" consists of is maintained, then more mitigation options will be available than if the view is narrow. 2.6 -Establishment of Priorities (a) Although all wildlife species will be considered (including big game species, non-game species, and furbearers), it will be necessary to identify the "key" or "target" species and establish some order of priority in regard to the development of a mitigation plan. Comment McMu11 en: If key or target species are used to evaluate habitat values then this may require rewording. {b) In order to prepare a mitigation plan that can be Comment Gipson: successfully implemented while at the same time placing mitigation efforts in perspective, certain wildlife species and/or habitats will be given priority in mitigation planning based on: 1) importance of the species/habitat both to Alaskan residents and the ecosystem; (2) availability of practical mitigation measures; (3) species with special status, such as threatened or endangered; (4) estimated costs required to execute mitigation measures. This list of criteria is not organized in any priority order. Possibly something should be added to indicate that some ecological criteria will be used to establish priorities, in addi~ion to human values. For example, those species that contribute significantly to total energy flow through the system (small mammals and nesting birds) and/or those species that make up the bulk of animal biomass (again small mammals) should be considered important. McMullen: These criteria could be easily expanded to be utilized in the generation of relative value indicies. ..J .. ...i .,j ~ .... ... ,J ... ... - - - - ... - _, - ... ....... ,_? .... --7"" ... ~>:;-. ~ ..... _ ..... _. - - - ...... - - - ( - - -· - - - ' l ~- --.---~--- USF&WS: (pertains to 2.6 in general) Since all wildlife species are to be considered, ''key" species should be chosen so that they represent particular segments {guilds) of the community. Species which provide guild representation and are also conside~ed "important" by the resource agencies and/or public should be given priority. Species which are federally listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed for listing, must be handled separately in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The practicality of the mitigation plan developed, in regard to the concerns of the applicant and coordinating agencies, would be demonstrated through its acceptability to these agencies. 2.7-Impact-Related Versus Non-Impact-Related Lands (a) (b) To the greatest extent possible, mitigation measures will be implemented on or immediately adjacent to the area where the impact takes place. Where this is not possible, priority will be given first to suitable areas as close as possible to the area of impact. (c) As a last resort, areas totally removed from the impact area will be considered for mitigation efforts. Comment (pertains to 2.7 in general) USF&WS: Statements apply to both direct and indirect impacts. Schneider: In sections 2.7 and 2.8, you emphasize mitigation close to the impact area even to the point of enhancement of a different species rather than move to a more distant area. The problem is in definition of such terms as "reasonable proximity". Users of wildlife are fairly mobile and tend to greatly favor one species over another. This, combined with practical considerations, might make it difficult to stick with the policy. \ I ha\.en't given this a great deal of thought, but an alternate appr~~=h might be to direct mitigation measures at the animal pop~-===ion or subpopulation impacted when this is clearly feas-7zle. When :=Tie feasibility of this approach is in doubt, perhaps miti~~ion measures should be directed at user groups. A series of aT~:rnate mitigation masures could be drawn up and submitted for pUJblic review. The pc~nt is that the public might agree with your policy, but disac~:e with your plan when they see what it means in reality. -Why nc= recognize that the issue is complex and subjective from the s~rt? 2.8 -In-Ki~d Compensation Versus Availability of Areas Suitable For Mitic3tion (a) In the event that suitable areas for in-kind compensation for a particular species/habitat do not exist within reasonable proximity to the impact area, the first priority will be to compensate for such loss by enhancement of a different species and/or habitat that is close to the impact area. (b) If compensation by means of a different species proves impractical or unacceptable, in-kind compensation in areas totally removed from the impact area will be considered. Comment (pertains to 2.8 in general) Schneider: See comment under 2.7. - - - ... ~ ., - " .... .. ... ... --.. ... ... .. ... t ' ..il - ..... ""::.; - ·- - .._.. '- - \,_ 2.9 -land Ownership (a) Interviews will be conducted with private owners as well as pertinent state and federal agencies to preliminarily identify land use policies or ownership that may act as constraints on mitigation efforts. (b) Where no land use constraints have been identified, the analysis of mitigation alternatives will proceed based on biological factors. (c) Following review by agencies and private landowners for compatibility with land use policies, the mitigation plan will then be reassessed and adjusted as necessary in order to insure that proposed actions can be legally and practically executed. Where mitigation opportunities exist, the applicant will work closely with land management agencies to insure the successful implementation of the plan. 2.10 -Restoration of Disturbed Areas Comment USF&WS: The applicant will consider various options (e.g. regrading and revegetation, permitting natural invasion and succession, etc.) in the reclamation of areas that will be disturbed by project activities such as borrow areas and construction camps. Restoration of disturbed areas should be in accordance with a plan developed by the applicant, in coordination with the state and federal resource agencies. The plan, found acceptable to the coordinating agencies should be submitted to FERC for incorporation into the project license. L McKendrick: I would emphasize that the revegetation, etc., of borrow areas be coordinated with land use policies of owners. Also, considering such areas as prospective browse production sites may be feasible, if there is any soil available after excavation. They may be considered potential sites to compensate for browse losses in the impoundment areas. Heavy grass seeding will probably retard natural succession of browse species. We really need to examine some of the myriads of highway and seismic disturbances to see if we can identify successional sequences and bypasses and develop some reasonable scheme in habitat formation for this region. 2.11 -Nuisance Animals Comment USF&WS: In order to avoid altering the natural behavior of animals resident to the project area, rules designed to prevent, or reduce nuisance animal problems will be established. Procedures will also be formulated to relocate problem animals. A plan, found acceptable to the coordination agencies, should be developed and submitted to FERC for incorporation into the project license. Schneider: Relocation is generally a poor policy as animals usually return or cause problems in other areas. Animals can be captured only under permits issues by the Commissioner of Fish and Game. He will set policy on this issues, not APA. Gipson: Other possibilities may be: 1) strict garbage control and disposal, 2) fencing of semi-permanent camps, 3) education programs for workers to prevent feeding and harassing wild animals in order to reduce impacts and conflicts with people. .... - ... ... .. 'e'l .... • ... - ... - .,1 IIIIi ~ - - - - - ..,._ - - ..... _( ..... ..... - '- - - L ~ 2.12 -Access (a) Since the potential impact of increased human access on wildlife is a major concern, measures will be considered and the most appropriate ones implemented to reduce impacts on wildlife as a result of improved access. (b) This will include access policies during both the construction and operation phases of .the project. Comment (pertains to 2.12 in general) USF&WS: \ A plan~ found acceptable to the coordinating agencies, should be developed and submitted to FERC for incorporation into the project lic~nse. 2.13 -Hunting (a) Acknowledging that sport hunting is an important component of the Alaskan lifestyle and economy, it will be incorporated as a major component in mitigation planning . (b) Hunting rules and/or recommendations to insure the safety of project personnel and_the public will be considered . (c) For obvious reasons, any policy determination concerning hunting must be integrated with access policy and the applicant will consider both access and hunting policy in a coordinated manner. Comment (pertains to 2.13 in general) USF&WS: This section should be expanded to include other forms of wildlife recreation as well, e.g., bird watching, photography. A plan, found acceptable to the coordinating agencies, should be developed and submitted to FERC for incorporation into the project license. Gipson: I would like for you to include trapping and fishing in this section if you feel they are appropriate for inclusion. Schneider: · Replace "sport hunting" with "hunting and trapping". Many Alaskans would interpret your wording to exclude subsistence hunting. This issue is both difficult to define and highly emotional. There is no need to raise it here. Obviously, we want to preserve all legal hunting and trapping options. Any hunting rules or policies other than those instituted by an employer on their employees are the responsibility of the Board of Game. APA can make recommendations as can any group or individual, but it is up to the Board of Game to examine all factors and set regulations for dealing with pro~lems. IIIIi ...1 IIIIi - • .,.J ... ..t Reed: • ( It may be that this section is not appropriate at all for i ' inclusion with a wildlife mitigation policy effort and may be better sui}ed for prime consideration under the recreation planning portion of the Susitna study effort; although coordination between recreation planners and the wildlife mitigation group is certainly necessary. 2.14 -Responsibility For Implementation of the Mitigation Plan Comment USF&WS: (a) Prior to the initiation of construction an agreement will be reached for determining responsibility for implementation of the mitigation plan. Responsibility for implementation of the mitigation plan rests with the applicant. Any agreements entered into by the applicant for the delegation of direct implementation authority for the mitigation plan would need to include stipulations to prevent deviation from the accepted plan. .... .. ,.J - IIIJ) - - - ...., - - .__ - ....... - - - - ...... - - ...... t ..... Reed: Due to wording there is some confusion between 2.14 (a) and 2.1 (c). The intent of the wording in 2.1 (c) was to indicate that the applicant (APA) was ultimately responsible for seeing that the mitigation plan is executed as agreed upon. The purpose of 2.14 (c) was not to indicate that any organization other than the applicant would have ultimate responsibility, but to indicate that an agreement would have to be reached as to exactly who (ADF&G, USF&WS, TES, etc.) would actually execute the plan. A rewording, or further explanation is needed to prevent a misunderstanding between these two items. {b) Realizing that a mitigation monitoring team will be necessary to insure the proper and successful execution of the mitigation plan, part of the plan will detail the structure and responsibilities of such a monitoring body. Comment USF&WS: The mitigation monitoring team should include representatives of the applicant, FERC, and the state and federal agencies with designated responsibility for fish and wildlife resources. The financing, composition, and plan of study should be agreed to by the prospective participants during the formulation of the mitigation plan as a component of the mitigation plan to be submitted to FERC for incorporation into the license. 2.15 -Modification of the Mitigation Plan (a) As part of the mitigation plan a monitoring program will be established, the purpose of which will be to monitor wildlife populations during the construction and operation of the project in order to determine the effectiveness of the plan as well as to identify problems that were not anticipated during the initial preparation of the plan. ( ( -----·--------....... ---~~ Comment USF&WS: See comments above (2.14.b). Gipson: This section, 2.15 (a) is good. (b) The mitigation plan will be sufficiently flexible so that if adequate data secured during the monitoring of wildlife populations indicate that the mitigation effort should be modified, the mitigation plan can be adjusted accordingly; this may involve an increased effort in some areas where the original plan has proven ineffective, as well as a reduction in some cases where impacts failed to materialize as predicted. Comment USF&WS: Any modification to .the mitigation plan should be coordinated with, and agreeable to, the state and federal agencies with designated responsibility for fish and wildlife resources. General Comments McKendrick: Bill Collins and I both received and read the Preliminary Outline. Generally, it appears acceptable and comprehensive. Wozniak: We have no comments relative to the version of the Mitigation Policy outline transmitted to us by Ed Reed's memo of May 8, 1981. (Note: The APA did review an earlier version and provided suggestions and comments that were incorporated into this review version). Gipson: This is a well written outline. You may want a section treating use of 4-wheel drive vehicles and snow machines. Wlli - ..,; - • ... ... .... -.. -- .,.; .. - Jill ,.; - ...., .. • - - - - - - - - \o- - USF&WS: We appreciate the opportunity to review the preliminary outline "Wildlife Mitigation: A Statement of Policy". We have done so in light of the Fish and Wildlife Service•s Mitigation Policy (copy attached) and have provided comments which are consistent with that policy. \, ( (_ :rerrestrial ~nvironmental RECE1VED JUt 2 7 i90'\ ... -.-·Specialists, inc. ~.C. I BOX 318 PHOENIX. N.Y. 13131 (3151591•7121 - - - MEMO - TO: Members of the Susitria Wildlife Mitigation Task Force -FROM: Edward T. Reed, Task Force Coordinator DATE: July 24, 1981; 218.730 ... RE: Meeting notes - Enclosed please find a copy of the notes of the June 29, 1981 meeting of the wildlife mitigation task force. I have compiled these notes based on my interpretation of the comments made during the meeting. If you feel that I missed any major items or misunderstood certain statements please ... let me know and I will prepare a revised version of the notes. I am now moving forward with the preparation of a draft policy statement anr.~-sK_A_P_o_wE-R~­ development of a decision making methodology. You will be receivi g AUTHOHITY copies of these as they are completed. SUSITNA . ·,.; '\'":; ;,. ,.. . ' < ,-. . ~ ·..-' .. • ! (, (.· --- Fll~-~0 ,_. SEQUE;'\JC~ ·;J:-i- ' I . . I I Z ~ tn I ..J l 0 I 11:: 0: i <!: ;::12 f-1~!-~ .~ 6 ~ I -, ""O'CWj:=-----1 .. ~­-j--i- ,-J! c A :; i' ,. II li:lJo-::;; ~; . ,.¥ .... ~t~~ ~' l ~:·~-~~ lf -· ----· -j _l E:l.l' I I .... =:_j s ;. ~-~ -'~-~-~:'·~: =-1 ' M ~'/I . -. r=-~--'--1 -'~!_/' -[./A'Y'". Jfra · _:::t . .., < -!-~+/' ·1,1-( I ~:J-;--,' --f- - - r SUSITNA WILDLIFE MITIGATION TASK FORCE NOTES OF MEETING June 29, 1981 Anchorage, Alaska Compiled by: Edward T. Reed Wildlife Ecology Group Leader Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. The meeting was commenced at 9:00 a.m. A list of participants is attached. Mr. Reed gave a brief introduction and description of ·..mat had taken place since the last meeting. He then asked if the participants would like to make any general comments concerning the policy outline prior to beginning a detailed discussion of the items contained within the outline. Mr. Wozniak requested that the purpose of the meeting be to move towards a finalized statement as the next product. ~ Mr. Trent stated that although the policy addressed federal regulations, ~-~ '~~-~ there are state regulations concerning mitigation in draft form, and the mitigation effort should stand prepared to include the intent and approach presented in those state regulations. He also indicated that the state regulations would use the five basic forms of mitigation as defined by NEPA, but will go further in stressing the priority of the forms. He indicated that the new regulations would be incorporated under Title 16 law. Mr. Trent also suggested that a matrix type approach be developed to be used in reviewing the various forms of mitigation that might be used on the Susitna Project. . -l, -". ;; ... .) . ,. 'f ,...._..,., ~- -2- Mr. Trent said that for the purpose of developing mitigation policy it would be advisable to involve the personnel responsible for the fisheries mitigation effort. Mr. Schneider agreed that the policy statements for both fish and wildlife should be basically the same. Mr. Wozniak also indicated that this would be preferable. Mr. Wozniak then requested that Mr. Reed take the appropriate steps to obtain the involvement of the fisheries group. Mr. Reed agreed to contact the appropriate fisheries personnel and request that they accelerate the ~ establishment of a fisheries mitigation task force and be provided with information pertaining to the policy statement currently being prepared by the wildlife task force. A discussion took place concerning the level of mitigation planning that . . would be available for inclusion with the FERC license application versus what will have to follow during Phase II. Mr. Wozniak warned that Phase II should not serve as a convenient excuse for not having critical portions of the application prepared for the projected submittal date. Mr. Carson indicated that a commitment to the process that would be used throughout the mitigation effort should be an important item for the application. Since the discussion indicated that ·it a minimum~ it will be possible to have prepared a policy statement, Jn approach to mitigation, and an outline of the olan~ Mr. Reed asked representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if that level of ~ffort would satisfy their review needs as stipulated under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Mr. Stackhouse replied that in the absence of a complete, detailed mitigation plan~ they (USF&WS) would not be able to make a final recommendation. Mr. Schneider ~uggested that the next step should be the development of a process, or methodology, to be used in making mitigation decisions. This suggestion was received favorably by the other participants. In reviewing the meeting to this point, Mr. Reed and Mr. Wozniak agreed that the next steps should be to expand the outline to a draft policy statement, prepare a decision making methodology, and develop an outline of the plan. ... ... - ... IIIIi - ... - ... ... - - - - - - - - ... ·- -- - - ..... - i "~-- -3- At this point it was agreed to review the policy outline, item by itemt commenting on the information and determining which items are appropriate for a policy statement and which items might be more suitable for inclusion in other sectio~~ The following notes are organized by items co.rrespondinQ'tO".the outline. '-......_ L1 -Mr. Trent indicated that there is a need to study the resources and for the APA to commit to mitigation. He suggested substituting .. "mitigate" for "reduce or avoid." 1.2 -Mr. Trent reiterated the need to take into consideration state ·policies and regulations. Mr. Carson suggested consideration of the DNR Instream Flow Bill and the Coastal Zone Management Group. 1.3 -Mr. Trent suggested that the remaining items discuss mitigation collectively rather than identifying only certain forms of mitigation. 2.1 (a) -Mr. Trent said that a compromise position is needed somewhere between the phrases "agreeable to all agencies" and "feasible and reasonable." Mr. Carson suqaested removinQ the phrase "feasible and -~ --. --· - reasonable." Mr. Trent suggested using a phrase such ast "to strive to _ mitigate the negative impacts." Mr. Schneider mentioned that rea 1 ity should be kept in mind when defining the intent. · (b) -Mr. Wozniak indicated that there was no problem with this item but felt that it should be removed from the policy statement and incorporated at a diff~rent point in the mitigation plan. Mr. Carson agreed. (c) -Mr. Wozniak indicated that this item would be part of the license and indicated that an associated goal would be to reach an agreement between the resource agencies and the applicant. '~ , ,._, ·- A- -·~ ~- -4- 2.2 -Mr. Carson discussed the roles of the APA and the resource agencies as they pertain to public input. The possibility of agency personnel being available at public workshops to present the position of their respective agencies was discussed. Mr. Wozniak liked the idea of agency personnel being available during public meetings. 2.3 (a) -Mr. Carson reiterated a previously expressed concern about the wording of this· item. Mr. Wozniak remarked that the agencies and the ,. APA are polarized in regard to this item. Following discussion it was agreed that what is needed is a rewording that will provide the agencies with stronger assurances~ while at the same time not totally committing the APA. (b) -It was agreed that this item is too specific for a policy statement and might be more appropriately incorporated into a "methodology .. section. 2.4 -Mr. Trent suggested that the forms of mitigation be combined under a more general category. It was agreed that this section should be removed from the policy statement and placed elsewhere. 2.5 -Mr. Stackhouse expressed interest in how the coverage would be defined. It was agreed that this section may also be more appropriately covered in a subsequent portion of the mitigation plan. 2.6 thru 2.13 -It was agreed that these sections would also be more appropriately addressed in other portions of the mitigation plan. 2.14-Mr. Wozniak indicated that the APA is in agreement with this item and has no problem with the wording. Mr. Carson felt that 2.14(b) should be reworded to include the ~rd "funding .. and suggested the following wording," ... part of the plan will detail the structure, funding, and responsibilities •.• " Mr. Wozniak felt that this may be a problem at this time and indicated that funding arrangements are an itemthat would have to be negotiated at a later date. Mr. Wozniak also felt that is was a good idea for the agencies to provide a commitment to cooperate in this effort. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / ! ,~ ·- . ~ ----. ~---,. ~ ......... -5- 2.15 -Mr. Wozniak stated that the APA is in agreement with this item and has no problem with the wording. Mr. Carson expressed the opinion that the mitigation effort was going well and he was pleased with the approach being taken so far·. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:30 a.m. PARTICIPANT Edward Reed leonard Carin Gary Stackhouse David Wozniak Brina Kessel Thomas Trent Joseph McMullen Karl Schneider Ph i1 i p Gipson Alan Carson Robert Krogseng Jay McKendrick SUSITNA WILDLIFE MITIGATION TASK FORCE MEETING OF JUNE 29~ 1981 ANCHORAGE~ ALASKA LIST OF PARTICIPANTS REPRESENTING Terrestrial Environmental Specialists~ Inc. United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Power Authority TES/University·of Alaska Alask\a Department of Fish and Game Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. Alaska Department of Fish and Game TES/University of Alaska Alaska Department of Natural Resources Terrestrial Environmental Specialists~ Inc. TES/University of Alaska - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .... - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. Jud1 Schwan Environmental Evaluation Sranch January 7, 1982 P5700. 11.91 T.1396 u.s. Env1ron~ental PRotection Agency Region X lZOO Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Ms. Schwarz: Enclosed for your revi&~tt: Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project Fish and W1ldl1fe M1t1gat1on Review Group >~et1ng 1) Susitna Hydrc£:1ectric Project F1sh and ~~i1dl1fe nit1ga-t1on Pelky. 2) D1t1ft Analysis of !~1idl1fe tiitigat1on Options. 3) Draft Annlys1s of Fisheries r~1t1gat1cn Options. These documents will be disr.uss~d at the Fish and ~1ld11fe M1tioat1on Review Group ~eet1ng to t~ t•::::d ::t ~:00 a.n. (not~ chan~e of tiY..~ freD letter of December lS, lS~l) c:·, .:'::nu~ry ZO, 1982 at the office of t:-,c Alaska Power Authority. 3.3·~ ~:c::;t. Eth Avenue, Anchorage. I hope ycu will be able to attend th! neetin~. Sincerely your!, Kevin R. Young Susitna Environmental Ccord1n~tor Mf-~G/jmh Enclosures ---------------... .,....... ..... ..-:.~. :Z:S!!&!!UL. :::::Z:._ .. S -~ .,.,..,... ,-.__~-ad t!r. Gary Stackhouse u.s. Fish and ~11dlife Service lOll East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Dear Mr. Stackhouse: Enclosed for your review: -~ January 7. 1982 P5700.11. 71 T.1394 Susftna Hydroelectric Project Fish and ~1ldlife Mitigation Review Group Meeting 1) Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife t·~1t1gation Policy. 2) Draft Analysis of l!ildlife f11tigation Options. 3) Draft Analysis of Fisheries f·\itigation Options. These docurr.ents \'till be discussed at the Fish and rfildlffe mtfgatfon Review Group f·~ect1ng to be held at S:CO a.m. (note chan']e of tim~ from ictter of Decen:~ct~ 1ft 1981) on January 28. 1~82 at the office of the P.ia~:-.:a Poi'ier Author1 ty, 334 t!est 5th Avenue, Anchorage. I hope you will be able to attend the w~etfng. Sincerely yours, Kevin R. Young Susitna Environmental Coordinator Mf-!G/jmh Enclosures - - -.. .. ...., ... .. .. ... - ... -- ... ... .. ... ... --··---·-__:_~ -~~---------· ~'L--=---_-_"_..-:~mr-~-.--~-...:::.=s:::=-~ ---·* ss -------~,---------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - _l ~r. ~1chael Scott District F1sh~r1es Biologist U.S. 3ureau of land }~nagenent 4700 East 72nd Street Anchor~~et Alaska 99507 Dear Mr. Scott: Enclosed for your review: J~nuary 7. 1982 P5700.11.75 T. 1393 SusitnA Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife M1t1'lat1on Review Grou~ Meetin~ - 1) Susitna H.:tr:!roelectric Proj~ct Fish and ~!11dl H"c t~it1r:5:1on Po1 icy. 2) Or~ft Aiialysis of H1ldl1fc n1t10ation 0pt1on~. 3} Draft Analysis of Fisheries Hit1qa.t1on Ortions. These docurr.ents w111 b~ d1SCI!!:$1;;G et the Fish and Wildlife ~~1":1~"<"ti,n Revic'~ ""rou~'~ Pant1" nn to ~-..,. l-.ol .j "'t \'": · r•r• " r. fnot" C'-l"r.ae Of t1r'"' ~ .. ,..,..., .. , .-, .... .._,.,.,.. \_! 0 • • ,·__. • .,. • _. L;"'"" lie_. • (.I. _ • -~ ,.J -' • , • \ -:1 _. 1 •· . t_ , I U. i -. , ( of Dccec-.ber Hl, l?Bl) on January 20, 19S2 at the effie~ of tb~ r-1"~;:1 Pm·:er Authority, 334 \-:est 5th Avenue, Anchorage. I hope you will be able to attend tht: r;'!Cetin~J. Sincerely yourst Kevin R. Younq Sus1tna Env1ronr.cntal Ccordin~tor ~~G/jmh Enclosures -=-------""""'~·~--=--"-~·-----~-~-.,.... . '"':;-·' -~ ............... ..,.....,_..,..~~~~----------------· Mr. Bradley ~ith January 7, 19g~ P5700.1l.91 T.1392 Environmental Assess~nt Division National ~arine Fisheries Service Federal Building & U.S. Court Bouse 701 "en Street, Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Dear Mr. Smith: Enclosed for your rev1ew: Susitna ~:ydroe1ectr1c Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation r.cview Grou£_ f.!eetinq 1) Susitna lly~roclectr1c Project Fish and F1ld11fc r~it1~at1cn Policy. Z) Draft f\nalys1s of ~:ildlife t:itfgl!t1on Options. 3) Draft Analysis of Fisheries t·4it1r,ation Options. These docu~ent~ will be discus~cd ?.t the Fi~&: and \.'11c11fc i,~1tir,=<1on ~:.:vie~·! (;roup r.1eetfng to be h~ld at CJ:OC a.:::. (~ote chan')e of ti::':e fro:"'. k:t.tti'" of Dece!"l'ber lfl, 1981) on Jar.uzry 20! 1982 nt the office of the ~laskJ Power Authority, 334 Hest 5th Avenue, Anchorage. I hop~ you w111 be able to attend the meeting. Sincerely yours, Kevin R. Youn11 Sus1tna Environm.::ntal Coordinator ~iG/jmh Eoclosures ... .. - ... .,; ... -- ..I ... .. - _. - - - -.. - _ :z::::z::-"'1"51&::: w "'::.· ·:: n , ·: ... -,. ~~--.~ · ---~· ---z-<·-·" ·---·-·-:-:==--zsw: 'SZt"F: _........_ ___ ~ - - - - - - - - ...-; - - - ·- - - - Mr. A 1 Carson Division of Research & Development Department of Natural Resources 323 East Fourth Avenue Anchorage. Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Carson: Enclosed for your review: January 7, 1982 P5700.11.74 T.1391 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Group Meeting 1) Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project Fish and ~ildlife Mitigation Policy. 2) Draft Analysis of ~·Ii1d11fe H1t1gat1on Options. 3) Draft Analysis of Fisheries Mitigation Options. These docur:1ents will be discussc;d at the Fish and Wildlife f~itigation Review Group Heeting to be held at 9:CJ a.~. (note change of time from let~cr of December 18. 1931) on January 2C, l~~Z at the offfce of the Alaska Power Authority, 334 V:est 5th Avenue, Anchorage. I hope you will be able to attend the meeting. Sincerely yours. l~:vi n R. Young Susitna Environmental Coordinator MHG/jmh Enclosures .. :~:,~~\:. c i Ms Judi Schwarz Environmental Evaluation Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washingtoh 98101 · Dear Ms. Schwarz: February 26, 1982 P5700.11.92 T.l544 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation ' '· As discussed through Vern Smith of our Anchorage office, meetings to re- view fish and wildlife mitigation efforts are scheduled for March 11 and 12, 1982 in the offices of Acres American, 1577 C Street, Suite 305, Anchorage, Alaska. As these meetings are expected to be in the form of technical workshops, a complete day on each of the topics of fish and wildlife is considered necessary. Proposed agendas are enclosed. I will also forward, within the week, updated information packets addressing fish and wildlife im- pact issues and mitigation options. As fisheries issues are being discussed on a separate day from wildlife issues, please feel free to have different technical personnel attend each of the meetings if you consider it appropriate. As we consider these meetings to be an important component in improving the coordination between your agency and our fish and wildlife mitigation core groups, your attendance is encouraged. · If you have any questions relating to these meetings please contact my- self or Vern Smith (907-276-4888). 'Sincerely, Kevin Young Environmental Coordinator KRY:dlp Enclosures """ .. ... ..., .. .... ... - t!" ... --- ..I - ... -- - - - -· -" - - - .. _ - -- - -- - - ,_ qeqr~ Huli!O . ... . • ..C:'-':\-~- Mr. Al Carson Division of Research & Development Department of Natural Resources 323 East Fourth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Carson: - February 26, 1982 P5700.11.74 T. 1539 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation As discussed through Vern Smith of our Anchorage office, -meetings to re- view fish and wildlife mitigation efforts are scheduled for March 11 and 12, 1982 in the offices of Acres American, 1577 C Street, Suite 305, Anchorage, Alaska. As these meetings are expected to be in the form of technical workshops, a complete day on each of the topics of fish and wildlife is considered necessary. Proposed agendas are enclosed. I will also forward, within the week, updated information packets addressing fish and wildlife im- pact issues and mitigation options. As fisheries issues are being discussed on a separate day from wildlife issues, please feel free to have different technical personnel attend each of the meetings if you consider it appropriate. As we consider these meetings to be an important component in improving the coordination between your agency and our fish and wildlife mitigation core groups, your attendance is encouraged. If you have any questions relating to these meetings please contact my- self or Vern Smith (907-276-4888). Sincerely, Kevin Young Erivironmental Coordinator KRY:dlp Enclosures ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED C-:--~-~!,,~~ Er.g·~.ee·s it...: :..::::.-:.:r:; B~,;.;, 2 ... 1'::.~g :.~.1·n :::t C:·ur! ::_-":;·~. ~-.-~·:; Yc·~-~..:?~-2 --=~~~--=-'"''= r~c-:::~--:-2: 7~'.:: .... 9·-r:~~: MCRES CU~ (j· .. ~·· o•: . .:.&s. Cc .... -.:::a r.::J ; .:·:.:-... rgr. P~ ?aLc:1gh ~-~;: '.'.'as~··ng:o:: DC Mr. Michael Scott District Fisheries Ciologist U.S. Bureau of Land Management 4700 East 72nd Street Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Dear Mr. Scott: February 26, 1982 P5700. 11.75 T. 1541 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation As discussed through Vern Smith of our Anchorage office, meetings to re- view fish and wildlife mitigation efforts are scheduled for March 11 and 12, 1982 in the offices of Acres American, 1577 C Street, Suite 305, Anchorage, Alaska. As these meetings are expected to be in the form of technical workshops, a complete day on each of the topics of fish and wildlife is considered necessary. Proposed agendas are enclosed. I will also forward, within the week, updated information packets addressing fish and wildlife im- pact issues and mitigation options. As fisheries issues are being discussed?on ~ separate day from wildlife issues, please feel free to have different technical personnel attend each of the meetings if you consider it appropriate. As we consider these meetings to be an important component in improving the coordination between your agency and our fish and wildlife mitigation core groups, your attendance is encouraged. If yo~ have any questions relating to these meetings please contact my- self or Vern Smith (907-276-4888). Sincerely, Kevin Young Environmental Coordinator KRY:dlp Enclosures -- - ~ .., - .... ..tti 11!111 - - .., ... -' - -- ._; - - ~ - - - - - - - - Mr. Carl Yanagawa February 26, 1982 P5700. 11. 70 T. 1543 Regional Supervisor for Habitat Division Alaska Department of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Dear Mr. Yanagawa: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife-Mitigation As discussed through Vern Smith of our Anchorage office, meetings to re- view fish and wildlife mitigation efforts are scheduled for March 11 and 12~ 1982 in the offices of Acres American, 1577 C Street, Suite 305, Anchorage, Alaska. As these meetings are expected to be in the form of technical workshops, a complete day on each of the topics of fish and wildlife is considered necessary. Proposed agendas are enclosed. I will also forward, within the week, updated information packets addressing fish and wildlife im- pact issues and mitigation options. As fisheries issues are being discussed on a separate day from wildlife issues, please feel free to have different technical personnel attend each of the meetings if you consider it appropriate. As we consider these meetings to be an important component in improving the coordination between your agency and our fish and wildlife mitigation core groups, your attendance is encouraged. If you have any questions relating to these meetings please contact my- self or Vern Smith (907-276-4888). Sincerely, Kevin Young Environmental Coordinator KRY:dlp Enclosures Mr. Gary Stackhouse U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service lOll East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Dear Mr. Stackhouse: February 26, 1982 P5700.11.71 T. 1542 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation As discussed through Vern Smith of our Anchorage office, meetings to re- view fish and wildlife mitigation efforts are scheduled for March 11 and 12, 1982 in the offices of Acres American, 1577 C Street, Suite 305, Anchorage, Alaska. As these meetings are expected to be in the form of technical workshops, a complete day on each of the topics of fish and wildlife is considered necessary. Proposed agendas are enclosed. I will also forward, within the week, updated information packets addressing fish and wildlife im- pact issues and mitigation options. As fisheries issues are being discussed on a separate day from wildlife issues, please feel free to have different technical personnel attend each of the meetings if you consider it appropriate. ·As we consider these meetings to be an important component in improving the coordination between your agency and our fish and wildlife mitigation core groups, your attendance is encouraged. If you have any questions relating to these meetings please contact my- self or Vern Smith (907-276-4888). • Sincerely, Kevin Young Environmental Coordinator KRY:dlp Enclosures ... - ... '!IIIIi .... ... - ..,; ... -- - wJ ... - .,; - - - - - ... : - - - ,_ ..... Mr. Bradley Smith Environmental Assessment Division National Marine Fisheries Service Federal Building & U.S. Court House 701 C Street, Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Dear Mr. Smith: February 26, 1982 . P5700.11.91 T. 1540 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation As discussed through Vern Smith of our Anchorage office, meetings to re- view fish and wildlife mitigation efforts are scheduled for March 11 and 12, 1982 in the offices of Acres American, 1577 C Street, Suite 305, Anchorage, Alaska. As these meetings are expected to be in the form of technical workshops, a complete day on each of the topics of fish and wildlife is considered necessary. Proposed agendas are enclosed. I will also forward, within the week, updated information packets addressing fish and wildlife im- pact issues and mitigation options. As fisheries issues are being discussed on a separate day from wildlife issues, please feel free to have different technical personnel attend each of the meetings if you consider it appropriate. As we consider these meetings to be an important component in improving the coordination between your agency and our fish and wildlife mitigation core groups, your attendance is encouraged. If you have any questions relating to these meetings please contact my- self or Vern Smith (907-276~4888). Sincerely, Kevin Young Environmental Coordinator KRY:dlp Enclosures l I i-1r. Al Car5on ~arch ?. , 1 ~82 P5700. 11.74 T .15C1 1.1i v·i siun of ?t~SI~::rd: .~ OevelO!"\ff!ent :;qn :--!7'le;,t of :{a tura l Resources Pouch 7-0CS Ar.choraqe, Alaska 9?501 Dear Mr. Carson: Sus1tna Hvdroelectr1c Project Fish and ~11dl1fe Mitigation Rev1 ~\'1 Group t1.eet1 ng rnclosed for your 1nfo~t1on a~: 1. The Susit~a Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife M1t1gat1on Policy {P.evised) 2. Wildlife H1t1qat1on Cpt1ons {Revised} 3. Fisheries ~ti~~t1on Options (~evised) Please rev1c\·J these c!ocum~nts pr1~r to the meeting of the F1sh and N1ld11fe ~·~1til':~t1C!l Reviet~ Grou~·on ~4arch lJ, 1932 at 8:30aM i~ th~ Jf~1ccs of Acres American, 1577 c Street~ .A.nchoratje. I,Je will discuss the Policy and Wildlife ~•1tiga­ t1on Options on the 10th and the Fisheries mtigat1or. Op- tic-us on tlle 11th, as referred to in t!1e invitation l~tter of February 26, 1932. Thank yolJ very much. KRY:dlp Enclosures Sincerely~ Kevin Y"auntJ Sus1tna Environmental Coordinator .. - """ ~ ...; .J IIIIi ... ~ .. 1 .. .. ... .. - ... ..., Ifill - ..... - - ...... .._ - - - ..... •j Mr. Sradley Smith ,...arch 2. 1982 P5700. 11 • 91 ' T.1549 Environmental Assessment D1v1sfon ltational fA.arine Fisheries Service Federal Building & U.S. Court House 701 c Street. Box 43 Anchorage. Alaska 99513 Dear Mr. Smith: Susftna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitfg~tion Review Group Meeting Enclosed for your information are: 1. The Susftna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife ~11t1gatfon Policy {Revised) 2. lt!flc!lffe ~11ifgation Options (Revised) 3. Fisheries Mftfgatfon Options (Revised) Please review these documents prior to the meeting of the Fish and Wi1dlifc ~litit)ation Review Group on ~Jarch 10, 1922 at e: 30 am 1 n the offices of Acres !l.mericnn. 1 577 C ~treet. Anchorage. ~fe Hill discuss the Policy and Wildlife t~itiaa­ tion Options en the lOth and the Fisheries !~t1qaticn Op- tions on the 11th, as referred to fn th(' 1nv1tation 1ettP.r of Fet~Jary 25, 1~32. Thank you very r-:uc~. KRY:dlp Enclosures Sincerely, K~v1n Ycun'] Susitna Envirn~ner.ta1 Coordinator ,..._ :.tr. ~11chae1 Scott 01strict Fisheries Biologist U.S. Bureau of Land Management 4700 East 72nd Street Anchorage, Ala!ka 99507 Dear Mr. Scott: March 2, 1932 P5700.11.75 T .1550 Susitna Hydroelectric Project F1sh and Wildlife Mitigation Rev1~ Group Meet1n~ Enclosed for your information are: 1. The Sus1tna Hydroelectric Pro.ject Fish and Wildlife M1t1gat1on Policy {Revised) 2. 1~!1ldlife ~1t1qat1on Options (~ev1sed) 3. Fisheries M1t1gat1on Options {Revised} Please rr.v1e~ these documents prior to the ~etinq of the Fish and Wildlife ''itigation Revie\'1 Group on March 10, 1982 at 8:30 am in the offices of Acres AMerican, 1577 C Street, AnchoraQe. We will di~cuss the Policy and Wildlife t~1tf~a­ tion Options on the lOt~ and the Fisheri~s P.itiqntion o~­ t1ons on the llth, as referred to in the invitation letter of February 26, 19BZ. Thank you vP.ry MUch. KP.Y: dl p Enclosures Sincerely, ~~vin Your:~ S:; $ i t11J E :~vi r')!v·::e~ ta 1 Coorcinator . ,~ ... ... ... .. - . .,.i .... .. --.. .,., .., -- ... - .., - ~ - - - ...... - ~ - "" .,_ ...... - Mr. C!rl Yanagawa March 2, 1982 P5700. 11. 70 T.1552 Regional Supervisor for Habitat D1v1s1on Alaska Deoartment of Ffsh ~ Game 133 Raspberry Road Anchorage. Alaska 99502 Dear Mr. Yanagawa: Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project Fish and W11dlffe Mitigation Review Group ~~eting Enc1osec for your 1nfo~tion ~re: 1. The Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Po11cy (Revised) 2. Wildlife r-11t1q~t1cn 0!')t1ons (Revised} 3. Fisheries Mitigation Options (Revised) Please revie\1 these.' docul"1er.ts prior to the meetir.:1 of the Fish and liild11fto i~1tiqnt1on Rev1~<~ Ciroup on ~~rch H\ P::l2 at 3: 31) ai:': in the offi c~s o~ Acr:!s Ji.~ri can. 1577 C Street. Anchorage. We \·rill discus~ the l'o11cy and Hi1dl1fs ~it1(71'!­ t1on Options on th~ 10th !~d t~~ Fisheri~s Mitigation n~­ ticns on the llth, as rcferr2n to in th2 1nv1tation l~tt~r of February 25, 19B2. Th~nk you vc·ry rr:Jc:h. KRY:dlp Enclosures Sincerely. Kevin Yo~nl~"~ Sus1tna En vi ronr.en1:a i Coordi r.at.Jr r ail a.raa an Iii ----~-==:--------------------------------------- Ms. Judi Schwarz March 2,-1982 P5700.11.92 T.15~3 Environmental Evaluation Branch ~~'li1 Stop 443 u.s. Environmental Protection Agency Re!]iOn X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Ms. Schwarz: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review GrouE ~~etinq Enclosed for your 1nfcrmation arc: 1. The Susitna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy (Revised) 2. H1ldlife Mitigat1cm Options {~ev1sed) 3. Fisheries Hitigntion Ortior.s (Pev1s~d) Pl~ase revi~·1 the$e dc-c•Jr.tents prior to the me4?t1nq of th;: Fish and ~H1d11fe M1tirJ~t1on Pevie~;J Grouo on H1r~h D. 1~:j2 at 3:30 am in t~e office! of . .o.cres ~~.,~rice.n, 1577 C Str."'~t, Anchorage. He ~ill discuss the Policy and Vil~life ~1ti~~­ t1on Options on the lOth and the Fisheries M1tiq~tion On- tions on the 11th, as referred to it~ trr·.= ir.vitat i.:n 1 ett~r of February 25. l?B2. Thank you very much. K~Y=dlp Enclosures Sincerely, Kevin Y0:.m., Susitn~ Enviro~~Pntal Coordina-+:or I 4 ... .... .. -.. -.I ... - - ~ - ~ - .,; • ""' - ., - ' ....... ....,_ - - - - - - ..... "' - - - - - '·• Mr. Gary Stackhouse U.S. Fish & ~1fld11fe Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Dear Mr. Stackhouse: ~.arch 2. 19eZ P5700. 11.71 T .1551 Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Review Grou~ Meet1nq Enclosed for your information are: 1. The Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project F1sh and Wildlife Mitigation Policy (Revised) 2. Wildlife Mitigation Options {Revised) 3. Fisheries }litigation Options (Revised) Please review these documents prior to the meetin~ of the Fish and ~lildlife M1t1ryat1on Review Group on ~~rch 10, 1982 at 8:30 a~ in the offices of Acres Ar~erican~ 1577 C Street, Anchorage. ~e ~ill discuss the Policv and Wildlife Miti~a­ tion Oot1ons on the lOth and the Fisheries ~iti~ation Or- tions on the 11th, as referred to in the invitation lette~ of February 26, 1g3~. Thank you very much • KRY:dlp Enclosures Sincerely. Y.evin Y~ur; Susitna Envi rt:'m-,c:rtal CoordinJtor I ~ SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION REVIEW. GROUP MEETING March 10, 1982 Held at the Offices of Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage Attendees: See attached list. The meeting followed the attached agenda. The revised Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Policy was discussed. Agreement was reached on all areas where further revisions were suggested. The policy will be modified and circulated to the review group members by April 15, 1982. Ed Reed and Karl Schneider presented the results of the wildlife baseline studies and impacts prediction. Attendees were provided with the sections of the Feasibility Report addressing these issues. General mitigation options were discussed. HEP was not dismissed but questioned as to its validity to big game species in Alaska. It was agreed some kind of habitat evaluation, in addition to population studies would have to be conducted. TES has developed a habitat analysis method (used on the access road studies) and this may be modified and used. The question of land set aside was also discussed but no decision reached. Ed Reed suggested, for discussion purposes, the option of APA funding a permanent research station in the Upper Susitna Basin. It was agreed this was an option but should be considered only if other options (avoid, reduce, etc.) fail, i.e. it would be used on out-of-kind compensation. Studies for Phase II to quantify impacts and for mitigation planning were reviewed with Attachment A forming the basis for discussion. The BLM burn in the Alphabet Hills may not proceed dur to lack of burn plan being written and possible requirement for an archaeological clearance. APA may contact BLM to determine how a go decision could be reached. • • ... - -- "''t ... - .., ,..) ""' .. ... -- -- - ------------------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------ - ------------------------------------ -----------------------"§.77· ?':~on ?T??'di'FF;f?W (! ~-, ---- <) f _L. rv:·-,~ r> h/ -, 1'\J --:g C?f ----- s ;;:7_ ~---/-;;? _.-- ----~-------------------~---,-f-J-r-cd;;;:t-v---------,_~---r.-rr-v-~xv ~(/ 1 -- _-!J_p_;;:;_l 0? -----pr-1"?-#'71/,/7/6/( ~) ~..J:i"sNi:i;)-33L -s~f?oS5fj-'n?r:rpNVJ..-----~a·T:JT3wvq-JrrltJkJ ___ - -------------- 5 /'f) ;i g () sc-")~~n Cf CJ-t"\ J ~ · JnT.;-c~---~ ·_"?sYio"'\->t""?·uJ s 7 -ks~cv-_ ~'-\J ~ ...... ~~T --- ----------------.--(}J ') g -~o-:>5' o({~[lJ-------_ ---s.;;~L .!:f?i?s:9o?;t __ ror------- YAC?jj(?_d' ruocz --- ~ ~ 3V-_ -~~--os-"'i\J--Y\1 ______ - -S-=:1\i\J fJ-Hl\ ws CS:\!252) ---------- ------------------------------------------ ~.r("/:Z-#1,/ f'F':~"-'-Y_iJ'-:1 J,./ -e:gfe-rjr__,_-------------- d I" ,. I CJ ""'"'I (\ a;i ? I/ pI I ""\ ,.. ... J, ~ ~l.J - Issue No. 6 8 9 20 Wtldltfe Affected Upper basin moose Brown bear Wolf Upstream furbearers ans bfg game except Oall sheep. r r ' f r { ATTACHMENT A Sus Hna liydroe lectric Project Wildlife Mitigation ___ l!igh Priority Issues Impact Habitat loss Spring foraging habitat loss. llabitat loss. Food base reduction. Increased human activity from access road and construction camps. Mitigation Options Compensation via habitat management; burning, crushing, logging. land set aside. Out-of-kind. land set aside. Maintain food base. land set aside. Oo nothing. Construction period: Prohibit public access, prohibit worker off-site activity, restrict traffic. Post-construction period: Restrict public access, prohibit ATV traffic, monitor wildlife populations. Studies Under Consideration for 4/82 Through 6/83 To Quantify Impacts Drowse availability, productivity, and utili- zation, winter census of impoundment zone. Spring census of impound- ment zone. Census of salmon feeding bears, Oev t1 Canyon to Talkeetna. Territory mapping of packs in immediate project area. For Mitigation Planning Assessment of OlM expert- menta 1 burn. ldenti fy downstream and upstream areas for habitat manage- ment. Issue No. Wildlife Affected 2 Pine marten. 3 Cliff-nesting raptors. 4 Bald eagle. 7 Black bear. 11 Caribou. 12 Oownstre~u beaver. 13 Downstream moose. r { Susitna llydroelectric Project Wildlife Mitigation Hedium Priority Issues Impact t·11tlgatlon Options llabita t 1 oss. Out-of-kind for other furbearers. land set aside. Nesting habitat loss. Recreation planning, clearing operation scheduling, air traffic restrictions, artificial nest platforms. Feeding habitat loss, Preservation of tall nesting habitat loss. trees, artificial nest platfonus, reservoir stocking. Habitat loss. Out-of-kind to moose, out-of-kind to other species, land set aside. t11 gratory route Monitor movements, Interference. protect new calving grounds. Reduction In slough Operation. habitat. Habitat alteration via llabitat manipulation. change In plant succession, reduction in winter browse. Studies U~der Consideration for 4L82 Through 6L83 To Quail! if1'Jilll!il<:t~ For Mitigation Planning Population estimate. Downstream survey. Population estimate of Impoundment zone; census of salmon feeding bears, Dev 11 Canyon to Talkeetna. Continued monitoring of movements. Downstream habitat utilization surveys. WInter surveys of down-Identify areas appropriate stream populations. for habitat manipulation. Wildlife Mitigation Medium Priortty Issues {cont} Issue No. 15 17 22 23 Wildlife Affected Caribou. Furbearers, birds, and sma 11 man•na 1 s, big game except Oall sheep. Upper basin wildlife. Big game, raptors, swans. ·r Impact Watana clearing - migration interference. llabi tat loss due to access roads, borrow areas, construction camps. Unauthorized fires. Air traffic disturbance. Mitigation Options Clearing schedule, uncut travel lanes. Camp design, restoration and revegetation, ne~t boxes. Worker education, fire fighting facilities. Altitudnal restrictions, seasonal restrictions. Stud les Under Consideration for 4/82 Through 6/83 To Quantify Impacts For Mitigation Planning ffiue No. Wildlife Affected Mink and river otter. 5 forest and riverine bird and sma 11 manuna 1 s. 10 Dall sheep. 14 Upstream big game. 16 Red fox, wolf, black bear, brown bear. 18 Upstream big game except Dall sheep. 19 Moose and caribou. 21 Red fox. and wolf. r Susitna Hydroelectrid Project Wildlife Mitigation Impact llabitat loss. llabitat loss. Partial inundation of mineral lick. Disturbance from clearing operations. Illegal feeding and improper garbaoe disposal. llabttat loss from borrow areas. Vehicle collision. Rabies introduction, feral dog packs. Low Priority Issues Mitigation Options Out-of-kind, stocking of reservoir. land set aside. Monitor use, replace lick. Schedule of clearing operations. Worker education, camp design. Restoration and re- vegation. Worker education, road design (pullouts), temporal driving restrictions. Prohibition of dogs, regulation of dogs. r Studies Under Consideration for 4/82 Through 6/83 To Quantify Impacts for Mitigation Planning 3JN30NOdS3~~0J 3311IWWOJ 9NI~331S E-8 XION3dd\t - - - - - - - ... ~ j - - - - - - - -1-\LI-I~M t'Ui'ltK 1-\U I tiUKi I l ~ June 3, 1980 The Honorable lee McAnerney Corrmissioner Department of Community and Regional Affairs Pouch B Juneau, Alaska 99811 Dear Commissioner McAnerney: The Alaska Power Authority through its consultant, Acres American Incorporated, is in the early stages of a 30-month feasibility study of the proposed Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project. Because of the magnitude of this study, effective interagency coordination will be best accomplished through formation of a Sus1tna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. The function of this committee would be to prov1de_coord1nated exchanges of information between the Alaska Power Authority and interested resource management agencies. Through this exchange, the concerns of all agencies involved would be identified early and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays in the progress of the feasi- bility study, application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct, and Environmental Impact Statement review. As proposed, the Steering Committee would be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibi11t1es pertaining to the Susitna Hydro- electric Feasibility Studies and/or the project's environmental consequences. ~·Je therefore invite your agency's participation. · The committee would provide for interagency coordination through joint rev1e~l of project related materials and development of more informed and uniform positions representing all resource interests. tJe believe this will provide a more efficient process of information exchange. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Revimi and comment on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; 2. Insure that the biological and related environmental studies, their timing, and technical adequacy are planned, implemented, and conducted to provide the quantitative and qualitative data necessary to: (a) assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and (b) provide the basis for mitigation and compensation of resource 1osses which will result from the project; -~- { "\ ! J l I I \' I ., .·· ... F ~~ -,.1f.~ -~~ - ··comnissioner ·Lee f~CAne~J.~ June 3, l98f\ Page Two 3. Provide a forum for continued project revis'il of all aspects of the studies, for a timely exchange of information, and for reconmendat1on of study redirection. should the accomplishment of spec1f1c objectives be in jeopardy; ,· 4. · ~1on1to~ compliance of the studies with all state and federal laws~ regulationsn Executives Orders, and mandates as they apply to fish a~nd wildlife resources; .and 5. Provide unified agency commer&ts from the corrrn1ttee to the Po~1er Auth!Grityo Should your agency elect to .pG\rt1c1pate 1n the conmfttee, we recormnend that your representative have a technical background enabling him to comnent on the adequacy and approach of ongoing and future feasibility studies. and be able to speak-knowledgeably on the policies and procedures of your agency with respect to the review of tha Federal Energy Regulatory Cormrfssion 11cense application for the project and the subsequent Environmental Statement (ES). The first Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee_ meeting will be held at the Alaska Power Authority, 333 West 4th Avenue~ Suite 31. Anchorage, Alaska on June 12th at 9:00 AM. Attached is a sheet tolith a description of the agenda for this first meeting. Your attendance 1s encouraged. Attachment: as noted Sincerely, EY.1e P. You1d Executive Director ·-----::::::::- ; - - ~1r. Harry Hu 1 sing District Chief e Department of the Interior U. S. Geological Survey ALASKA PO\o/ER AUTHORITY e June 3, 1980 -Water Resources Division 218 "£11 Street - - - - - - - - - Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Hulsing: The Alaska Power Authority through its consultant, Acres American Incorporated, is in the early stages of a 30-month feasibility study of the proposed Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project. Because of the magnitude of this study, effective interagency coordination will be best accomplished through formation of a Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. The function of this committee would be to provide coordinated exchanges of information between the Alaska Power Authority and interested resource management agencies. Through this exchange, the concerns of all agencies involved would be identified early and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays in the progress of the feasi- bility study, application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct, and Environmental Impact Statement review. As proposed, the Steering Committee would be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Susftna Hydro- electric Feasibility Studies and/or the project's environmental consequences. We therefore invite your agency•s participation. The committee would provide for interagency coordination through joint reviev of project related materials and development of more informed and uniform positions representing all resource interests. We believe this will provide a more efficient process of information exchange. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Review and comment on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; 2. Insure that the biological and related environmental studies, their timing, and technical adequacy are planned, implemented, and conducted to provide the quantitative and qualitative data necessary to: (a) assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and (b) provide the basis for mitigation and compensation of resource losses which will result from the project; /,,· /~ ',,;::" ··-) / ," ,_..., .· i ? /: / \ \ , .. I \'"_) (~;' I "-----../ .:1ft': fiarry lftilsing June 3, 1980 Page Two 3. Provide a. forum for continued project review of ali aspects of the studies. for a timely exchange of information, and for recommendation of study redirection, should the accomplishment of specific objectives be in jeor"lrdy; 4~ ·Monitor compliance of the studies with all state and federal 1aws, regulations., Executives Orders, and mandates as they apply to fish and wildlife resources; and , 5. Provide unified agency conmtents from the corrm1ttee to the Power AuthOt'itY- " . Should your ag~ncy elect to participate in the comnittee, we recontnend that. your representative have a technical background enabling him to conment on the adequacy and a(Jproach of ongoing and future feasibility studies, and be able .to speak knowledgeably on the policies and procedures of your agency with respect to the revie\'1 of the Federal Energy Regu1atory Conm1ss1on license application for the project and the subsequent Environmental Statew~nt (ES). . The first Susftna Hydroe1ectr1c Steering Cotmlittee meeting w111 be he1d at the Alaska Power Authority, 333 West 4th Avenue? 5u1te 31, Anchorage, Alaska on June 12th at 9:00 Ar~. Attached is a sheet~ with a descfltption of the agenda. for this first meeting. Your attendance 1s encouraged. Attachment: __ .. as noted _· Sincerely, Eric P .. You1d Executive Director - - - - - - - ~· ........ .) .. ...... .) - - - - - - - - 41t ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 4lf Colonel Lee R. Nunn U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Post Office Box 7003 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Colonel Nunn: June 3, 1980 The Alaska Power Authority through its consultant, Acres American Incorporated, is in the early stages of a 30-month feasibility study of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Because of the magnitude of this study, effective interagency coordination will be best accomplished through forr~tion of a Susftna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. The function of this committee would be to provide coordinated exchanges of info~~tfon bet~een the Alaska Power Authority and interested resource management agencies. Through this exchange, the concerns of all agencies involved would be identified ear1y and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays in the progress of the feasi- bility study, application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct, and Environmental Impact Statement review . As proposed, the Steering Committee would be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Susitna Hydro- electric Feasibility Studies and/or the project•s environmental consequences. We therefore invite your agency's participation. The committee would provide for interagency coordination through joint review of project related materials and development of more informed and uniform positions representing all resource interests. We believe this will provide a more efficient process of information exchange. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Review and comment on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; 2. Insure that the biological and related environmental studies, their timing, and technical adequacy are planned, implemented, and conducted to provide the quantitative and qualitative data necessary to: (a) assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and (b) provide the basis for mitigation and compensation of resource losses which will result from the project; ,· /----........... -~ ,;~ / / ' . I / ;_ ( -t::;) '·., .__,) ----------------------------~---------------·---------------------·---~--··--·-- Colonel Lee R. Numi June 3, 1980 P·age Two 3. Provide a forum for continued project revie\'1 of a11 aspects of the studies. for a timely exchange of information, and for reconunendation of study redirection, should the accomplishment of specific objectives be in jeopardy; 4. ~tonitor compliance of the studies with all state and federal laws t regulatit "S, Executives Orders, and mandates as they apply to fish and wildlife resources; and 5. Provide unified agency conments from the committee to the Power Authority. Should your agency elect to participate 1n the committee, we recorrmend that your representative have a technical background enabling him to comment on the adequacy and approach of ongoing and future feasibility studies, and be able to speak knowledgeablY on the policies and procedures of your agency with respect to the revia1 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Comm1.ss1on license application for the project and the subsequent Environmental Statement {ES). -· The first Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Corranittee meeting ~1111 be held at the Alaska Power Authority, 333 vlest 4th Avenue, Suite 31, Anchorage, Alaska on June 12th at 9:00 AM. Attached is a sheet with a description of the agenda for this first meeting.. Your attendance is encouraged. -Attachment: as noted Sincerely~ Eri _,.. ·.p -.\1---'! d .._ • lUU I Executive Director - - - - - --., j - - - - - - - .... e r·1r. Bob Bowker U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 733 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear l~r. Bowker: ,·,.._,,.....,,.._,\ • v .• ,_l\ ,,-._;, .. ~v ...... ~ 1 e June 3, 1980 The Alaska Power Authority through 1ts consult~nt, Acres American Incorporated, is 1n the early stages of a 30-month feasib11ity study of the proposed Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project. 13ecause of the magnitude of this study, effective interagency coordination will be best accomplished through fo1~tion of a Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. The function of this committee vrould be to provide coordinated exchanges of information between the Alaska Pm:er Authority and interested resource management agencies. Through this exchange, the concerns of ali agencies involved would be identified early and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays in the progress of the feasi- bility study. application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct, and Environmental Impact Staten~nt review. As p~·oposed, the Steering Corrrn1ttee ,,·tould be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Susitna Hydro- electric Feasibility Studies and/or the project,s environmental consequences. 'rie therefore invite your agency's participation. The committee \'Jou1d provide for interagency coordination through joint revie~ of project related materials and development of more informed and uniform posit1ons representing all resource interests. We believe this will provide a IIlOre efficient process of information exchange. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Revie\'1 and co11100nt on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; 2. Insure that the biological and related environmental studies. their t1m1ng, and technical adequacy are planned, implemented, and conducted to provide the quantitative and qualitative data necessary to: (a) assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and (b) prov1de the basis for mitigation and compensation of resource losses which will result from the project; .. i i ?!")/ 7 J cJ //I ·~ r _I_., J.· "-<::. j. j.f£• . ;:· I ~.· .f . --·· ~ -. ----Page Two 0 e 3. Provide a forum for cont1nued project reviet~ of all aspects of the studies, for a timely exchange of information, and for recommendation of study redirection, should the accomplishment of spec1f1c objectives be in jeopardy; 4. Mon1tor comp11ance of the studies with all state and federal laws, regulations, Executives Orders, and mandates as they apply to fish and wildlife resources; and 5. Provide unified agency comments from the committee to the Power Authority. Should your agency elect to participate 1n the corrm1ttee, we recommend that your representative have a technical background enabling h1m to corrrnent on the adequacy and approach of ongoing and future feas1b111ty studies, and be able to speak know1edgeab1y on the policies and procedures of your agency v;ith respect to the rev1e\v of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license application for the project and the subsequent Env1ron~~nta1 Statement (ES). The first Susitna Hydroe1ectr1c Steering Committee meeting w111 be held at the Alaska Po·der Authority, 333 Hest 4th Avenue, Suite 31, Anchorage. Alaska on June 12th at 9:00 AM. Attached 1s a sheet with a description of the agenda for this first meeting. Your attendance is encouraged. AttZlchment: a5 noted ·~.- S1ncerely, Eric P. Yould Executive D1rector ~~-::~j!:;-·;@t·-??tM&aaiiit?ii&WWWE iiiiRf, ... - IIIII ... .., ... ... ..; .., .... - .... .. ..... - .. .... - - - - - - - - -~. - - - - ..... 1-\r. John Rego Energy Specialist - Bureau of Land Hanagement 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Dear Hr. Rego: i\Lil;:.i\1-<. t'vi'iu\ A\.J I hUi\1 I ( e June 3, 1980 The Alaska Power Authority through 1ts consultant, Acres American Incorporated, is 1n the early stages of a 30-month feas1b111ty study of the proposed Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project. Because of the magnitude of this study, effective interagency coordination w111 be best accomp11shed through for[nation of a Sus1tna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. The function of this committee would be to provide coordinated exchanges of information between the Alaska Power Authority and 1nterested resource management agencies. Through this exchange, the concerns of a11 agencies 1nvo1ved l'tould be identified early and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays in the progress of the feasi- bi1ity study. application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct~ .and Envil·onmenta1 Impact Statement revie'lt. As proposed, the Steering Committee \·tould be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Susitna Hydro- e1ectric Feasibility Studies and/or the project 1 S environmental consequences. ~le therefore invite your agency's participation. The co:nmittee ~-Jou1d provide for interagency coordination through joint revie'.i of project related materials and development of more ·informed and uniform positions representing all resource interests. We believe this will provide a mm~e efficient process of informution exchange. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Review and comment on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; ., '-· Insure that the bio1og1ca1 and related environmental studies, their timing, and technical adequacy are planned, implemented, and conducted to provide the quantitative and qua11tat1ve data necessary to: (a) assess the pot2ntia 1 impacts to fish and ~oli ld1 He resources. and (b) provide the basis for mitigation and compensat1on of resource losses which w111 result from the project; r) __ , /-.3 / / . .. > •·:;d@-~ .IJ:·L~·"'""'UUM:&Si&ii-!1!! J {~- -. ' . . . ··~. ; I"B9C 1\'10 3. Provide a forum for continued project review of all aspacts of the studies, for a t1mely exchange of information, and for recommendation of study redirection, should the accomplishment of sp~cific objectives be 1 n jeopardy; 4. r1onitor compliance of the studies with all state and federal laws. regulations, Exacutives Orders, and mandates as they apply to f1sh and wildl1fe resources; and 5. Prov1 de unified agency ccm:nents from the committ~e to the Pov1er Authority. Should your agency elect to participate in the committee. \1e rccomnend that your representative have a technical background enab11ng h1m to comment on the adequacy and approach of ongoing and future feas1bi11ty studies, and be able to speak knowledgeably on the policies and procedures of your agency with respect to the rev1ew of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license application for the project and the subsequent Env1ronmental Statement (ES). The first Sus1tna Hydroelectric Steering Conm1ttee meeting \-t11l be held nt the Alaska Power Authority, 333 West 4th Avenue, Su1te 31, Anchornge, A1aska on June 12th at 9:00 A/'·1. Attached is a sheet \'lith a descr1pt1on of the agenda for tt11s first meeting. Your attendance is Gncouraged. Attachment: as noted Sincerely, Eric P. Yould Executive D1rector ... ... ... - - - ---- ~ - - - - - - ...... , - - .. c::: - - - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ·It The Honorable Robert E. LeResche Commissioner Department of Natural Resources Pouch !-1 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Dear Commissioner LeResche: ;- June 3, 1980 The Alaska Power Authority through its consultant, Acres American Incorporated, is in the early stages of a 30-rnonth feasibility study of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Because of the magnitude of this study, effective interagency coordination will be best accomplished through formation of a Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. The function of this conunittee would be to provide coordinated exchanges of information between the Alaska Power Authority and interested resource management agencies. Through this exchange, the concerns of all agencies involved would be identified early and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays in the progress of the feasi- bility study, application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct, and Environmental Impact Statement review • As proposed, the Steering Committee would be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Sus1tna Hydro- electric Feasibility Studies and/or the project's environmental consequences. He therefore invite your agency•s participation. The committee would provide for interagency coordination through joint revie'rl of project related materials and development of more informed and uniform positions representing all resource interests. We believe this will provide a more efficient process of information exchange. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Review and comment on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; 2. Insure that the biological and related environmental studies, their timing, and technical adequacy are planned~ implemented, and conducted to provide the quantitative and qualitative data necessary to: (a) assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and (b) provide the basis for mitigation and compensation of resource losses which will result from the project; ..... __..--~, .-/' ( ~ ', '~--. ? / \ _;, , I '\ I "----'/ comniss1oher Robert E. LeResche June 3~ 1980 Page Two 3. Provide a forum for continued project revie\t of all aspects of the studies, for a timely exchange of information, and for recommendation of study redirection. should the accomplishment of specific objectives be in jeopardy; 4. Monitor comPliance of the studies with a11 state and -Federal 1awsJ regulations~, Executives Orders, and mandates as they apply to fish and wildlife resources; and 5. Provide unified agency comments from the committee to the Power Authority. Should your agency elect to participate 1f.l th.e corrmittee, we recomnend that your representative have a technical background enabling hitn to comnent on the adequacy and approach of ongoing and future feasibility studies, and be able to speak knm!l1edgeab1y on the policies and procedures of your agency \'lith respect to the re:view of the Federal Energy Regulatory Comm1ss10., license application for the project and the subsequent Env1ronmenta1 Statew~nt (ES)_ The first Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee meeting w111 be held at the Alaska Power Authority. 333 West 4th Avenue~ Suite 31~ Anehorag~!' Alaska on June 12th at 9:00 AM. Attached is a ~heet with a description of the agenda for this first m~eting. Your attendance is encouraged. Attachment: as noted cc: A1 Carson Sincerely, Eric P. Yould Executive Director > '1.1 ' > .,__·>I._'\ •"-.." I Mrs. Frances A. Ulmer _... ' ,, June 3, 1980 _,_.,.-- -~--~~~-·-----~ -.. - -· - - - - - ....... - - - ..... r~irs. Frances A. Ulmer Director Division of Policy Development and Planning Office of the Governor Pouch AD Juneau, Alaska 99811 Dear Hrs. Ulmer: June 3, 1900 The Alaska Power Authority through 1ts consultant, Acres American Incorporated, is in the early stages of a 30-month feasibility study of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Because of the magnitude of this study, effective interagency coordination will be best accomplished through for~ation of a Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. The function of this committee would be to provide coordinated exchanges of information bet\'1een the A 1 aska Power Author1 ty and 1 nterested resource management agencies. Through this exchange, the concerns of all agencies involved would be identified early and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays in the progress of the feasi- bility study, application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct, and Environmental Impact Statement review. As proposed, the Steering Committee would be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Susitna Hydro- electric Feasibility Studies and/or the project•s environmental consequences. We therefore invite your agency•s participation. The conr.1ittee would provide for interagency coordination through joint review of project related materials and development of more informed and uniform positions representing all resource interests. He be11eve this will provide a nrore efficient process of information exchange. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Review and comment on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; 2. Insure that the biological and related environmental studies, their timing, and technical adequacy are planned, implemented, and conducted to provide the quantitative and qualitative data necessary to: (a) assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources~ and (b) provide the basis for mitigation and compensation of resource losses which will result from the project; .. ,1 / -::::=:::-"""' -(\ \ I 7 i ~ Mrs. Frances A. Ulmer~ June 3, 1980 w ?,age Two - ~3. Provide a forum for continued project revicH of a11 aspects of the studies, for a timely exchange of information, and for recommendation of study redirection, should the accomplishment of specific object1ves be in jeopardy; 4. f·1onitor compliance of the studies Nith all state and federal laws, regulations, Executives Ot·ders, and mandates as they apply to fish and wildlife resources; and 5. Provide unified agency comments from the committee to the Power Authority. Should your agency elect to participate 1n the committee, we recommend that your representative have a technical background enabling him to comment on the adequacy and approach of ongoing and future feasibility studies, and be able to speak knowledgeably on the policies and procedures of your agency with respect to the review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license application for the project and the subsequent Environmental Statement (ES). The first Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee meeting will be held at the A1aska Power Authority, 333 Uest 4th Avenue, Suite 31, Anchorage, Alaska on June 12th at 9:00 .~·1. Attached 1s a sheet with a description of the agenda for this first meet1ng. Your attendance 1s encouraged. Attachment: as noted cc: Office of Coasta 1 f·1anagement Sincerely, Eric P. You1d Executive Director .. ... .... .. - ... .,., - ... - .... .. - -- .,., ., - .,....-~ - - ..... ..... ..... - - - -..- - - - 41t ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY e June 3, 1980 The Honorablr Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner Department of Fish and Game Subpart Building Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Commissioner Skoog: The Alaska Power Authority through its consultant, Acres American Incorporated, is in the early stages of a 30-month feasibility study of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Oecause of the magnitude of this study, effective interagency coordination will be best accomplished through formation of a Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. The function of this committee would be to provide coordinated exchanges of information between the Alaska Power Authority and interested resource management agencies. Through this exchange, the concerns of all agencies involved would be identified early and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays in the progress of the feasi- bility study, application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct, and Environmental Impact Statement review. As proposed, the Steering Co~~fttee would be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Susitna Hydro- electric Feasibility Studies and/or the project's environmental consequences. We therefore invite your agency's participation. The committee would provide for interagency coordination through joint review of project related materials and development of more informed and uniform positions representing all resource interests. He believe this ~·Jill provide a more efficient process of information exchange •. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Review and comment on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; 2. Insure that the biological and related environmental studies, their timing, and technical adequacy are planned, implemented, and conducted to provide the quantitative and qualitative data necessary to: (a) assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and (b) provide the basis for mitigation and compensation of resource losses which will result from the project; 1/je nonorab! e i\una 'i t1 0. Skoog _ June 3t 1980 page T~'IO 3. Pro vi de a forum for continued project revi e\'1 of a 11 aspects of the studies, for a timely exchange of 1nfonnat1on, 4nd for recmrnnendation of study redirection. should the accompl'tshment of specific object1ves be in jeopardy; ., 4. ~1onitor compliance of the studies \'lith all state and federal laws, regulations, Executives Orders, and mandates as they apply to fish and wildlife resources; and 5. Provide unified agency conrnents from the committee to the Po\'ler Authority. Should your agency elect to participate in the comn1ttee, we reconmend that your representative have a technical background enabling him to conment on the adequacy and approach of ongoing and future feasibility studies, and be able to speak knowledgeably on the policies and procedures of your agency w1th respect to the review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 11cense app1ication for the project and the subsequent Environmental Statement (ES). ·rhe first Sus1tna Hydroelectric Steering Committee meeting '11ill be held at the Alaska Power Authority, 333 \iest 4th Avenue, Suite 31, Anchorage, Alaska on June 12th at 9:00 AM.. Attat:hed is a sheet with a description of the agenda for this first meeting. Your attendance is encouraged. c Attacnment: as noted cc: Tom Trent CONCUR: RA~1 (7.._ TJH .. /J:f)z_, 7 DWB ...AL.£ l.) ' Sincerely, Eric P .. Yould Executive Director - "' ...... ..._. ...... - .... - - - - "- - ~1r. Lee A. Wyatt Planning Director ~!atanuska-Susitna Borough Box B Palmer, Alaska 99645 Dear Mr. ~Iyatt: ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY e June 3~ 1980 The Alaska Power Authority through its consultant, Acres American Incorporated, is in the early stages of a 30-month feasibility study of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Because of the magnitude of this study, effective interagency coordination will be best accomplished through fonnation of a Susftna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. The function of this committee would be to provide coordinated exchanges of information between the Alaska Power Authority and interested resource management agencies. Through this exchange, the concerns of all agencies involved would be identified early and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays in the progress of the feasi- bility study, application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct, and Environmental Impact Statement review. As proposed, the Steering Committee would be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Sus1tna Hydro- electric Feasibility Studies and/or the project's environmental consequences. He therefore invite your agency's participation • The committee would provide for interagency coordination through joint review of pra.·~ct related materials and development of more informed and uniform posit·ions representing all resource interests. We believe this ~'1111 provide a more efficient process of information exchange. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Review and comment on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; 2. Insure that the biological and related environmental studies, their timing, and technical adequacy are planned, implemented, and conducted to provide the quantitative and qualitative data necessary to: (a) assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and (b) provide the basis for mitigation and compensation of resource losses which will result from the project; .,/ ·fitr.. Lee A. 1-lyatt June 3, 1980 Page T\"lO 3. Provide a forum for continued project review ·of all aspects of the studies, for a timely exchange of information, and for recotm'~ndation of study redirection, should the accomplishment of specifi~ objectives ba fn jeopardy; 4. rionitor compliance of the studies \•J1th all state and federal la\IIS, regulations, Executives Orders, and mandates as they apply to fish and wildlife resources; and 5. Provide unified agency cements frorn the committee to the Power Authority. Should your agency elect to participate in the committee, we rt1c.omm~nd that your representative have a technical background enabling h1m to comment on the adequacy and approach of ongoing and future feasibility studies, and be able to speak knowledgeably on the policies and procedures of your agency \'lith respect to the reviell/ of the Federal Energy Regulatory Conrnission license application for the project and the subsequent Environmental Statement (ES} .. The first Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Comn1ttee meeting will be held at the Alaska Power Authority, 333 Hest 4th Avenue, Suite 31, Anchorage, Alaska on June 12th at 9:00 AM. Attach~d is a sheet with a description of the agenda frr ':his first meeting.. Your attendance is encouraged. Attachment: as noted Sincerely. Eric P. Yould Executive Director ---~ . .::· - ...... - - - - ..... fl.Lf\~M 1-'Uvlt.K AU l rilm.l i i e - June 3, 1980 The Honorable Ernst W. Mueller Colmlissfoner Department of Environmental Conservation Pouch 0 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Dear Commissioner Mueller: The Alaska Power Authority through its consultant, Acres American Incorporated, is in the early stages of a 30-month feasfb11fty study of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project4 Because of the magnitude of this study, effec~ive interagency coordination will be best accomplished through formation of u Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee4 The function of this committee would be to provide coordinated exchanges of information between the Alaska Power Authority and interested resource management agencies. Through this exchange, the concerns of all agencies involved would be identified early and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays in the progress of the feasi- bility study, application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct, and Environmental Impact Statement review. As proposed, the Steering Committee would be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Susitna Hydro- electr-ic Feasibility Studies and/or the project's environmental consequences. ~-Je therefore invite your agency's participation • The committee would provide for interagency coordination through joint revie~1 of project related materials and development of more informed and uniform positions representing all resource interests. We believe this will provide a more efficient process of information exchange. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Review and c~~ent on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; 2. Insure that the biological and related environmental studies~ their timing, and technical adequacy are planned, implemented, and conducted -. to provide the quantitative and qualitative data necessary to: - - - - (a) assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and (b) provide the basis for mitigation and compensation of resource losses wh1ch will result from the project; 'f/he Hono~able Ernst W. Mueller ·June 3, 1980 Page T\'/o 3. Provide a forum for continued project reviel~ of all asoects of the studies, for a timely exchange of information~ nnd for'reconmendation of study re~ir"ection~ shou1d the accomplishmant of specific objectives be in jeopardy; 4. Nonitor compliance of the studies with all state and federal laws~ regulations, Executives Orders, and mandates as they apply to fish and \'li 1 d1 ife resources; and 5. Provide unified agency comments from the committee to tho Power Authority. Should your agency elect to participate in the committee, vte recommend that your representative have a technical background enabling him to corm1ent on the adequacy and .approach of ongoing and future feasibility studies, and be able to speak knowledgeably on the policies and procedures of your agency vlith respect to the review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license application for the project and the subsequent Enviromr.ental Statement (ES). The first Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee meeting ~1111 be held at the Alaska Power Authority. 323 !J~~t .;l;j, nvt:nue, ~u11:e 31, Anchorage, Alaska on June 12th at 9:00 ~~-Attached is a sheet \·J1th a description of the agenda for this first sr.seting. Your attendance is encouraged. Attachment: as noted cc: Dave Sturdevant Sincerely, Eric P. Yould Executive Director - ~ - ...... - - -· - - - - - ~ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ~ Mr. Rona 1 d r·torri s National Marine Fishery Service 701 11 C" Street Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Dear Mr. f·1orri s : June 3, 1980 The Alaska Power Authority through its consultant, Acres American Incorporated, is fn the early stages of a 30-month feasibility study of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Because of the magnitude of this study. effective interagency coordination will be best accomplished through formation of a Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. The function of this committee would be to provide coordinated exchanges of information between the Alaska Power Authority and interested resource management agencies. Through this exchange, the concerns of all agencies involved would be identified early and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays in the progress of the feasi- bility study, application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct, and Environmental Impact Statement revieN. As proposed, the Steering Committee would be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Susitna Hydro- electric Feasibility Studies and/or the project's environw~ntal consequences. lie therefore invite your agency's participation. The committee would provide for interagency coordination through joint review of project related materials and development of more informed and uniform positions representing all resource interests. We believe this \<'1111 provide a more efficient process of information exchange. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Revi e~<~ and co1m1ent on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; 2. Insure that the biological and related environmental studies, their timing, and technical adequacy are planned, implemented, and conducted to provide the quantitative and qualitative data necessary to: (a) assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and (b) provide the basis for mitigation and compensation of resource losses which will result from the project; if• .Rona 1 d ~1orr1 s june 3 , 1980 page T~to 3. Provide a forum for continued project revie\'f of a11 aspects of the studies, for a timely exchange of information, and fo~ recommendZtt1on nf study redirection, should the accomplishment of specif1<:object1ves be in jeopardy; 4. t-tonitor compliance of the studies \'lith all state and federal laws~ regulations, Executives Orders, and mandates as they apply to fish and \vi1d1 ife resources; and 5. Provide unified agency com'Tlents from the committee to the Power Authority. Sh-ould your agency elect to participate in the committee, \'Ie recommend that your representative have a technical background enabling him to comment on the adequacy and approach of ongoing and future feasibility studies, and be able to speak kno\vledgeab1y on the policies and procedures of your agency \'lith respect to the revie\'1 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Corrrn1ssion license application for the project and the subsequent Environmental Statement {ES)1! The first Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Comnittee meetingw111 be held at the Alaska Power Authority, 333 Hest 4th Avenue, Suite 31, Anchorage" Alaska on June 12th at 9:00 Ar,1. Attaehed is a sheet \~ith a description of the agenda for this first meeting. Your attendance 1s encouraged. Attachment-: as noted Sincerely~ Eric P. Yould Execut·t ve Oi rector 1.,,·. wi1v·c I ..... , ·.-·-,~ _ _Ju _____ _J.J.'-_. ..... . ~ ( . e ALASKA POWER .. AUTHORITY -···=-- .... - - - - ....... - - - - - Mr. Dave Hickok, Director Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center University of Alaska 707 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear t1r. Hickok: ,June 3, 1980 The Alaska Power Authority through its consultant, Acres American Incorporated. is 1n the early stages of a 30-month feasibility study of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Because of the magnitude of this studys effective interagency coordination will be best accomplished through formation of a Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. The function of this committee would be to provide coordinated exchanges of information beu~een the Alaska Power Authority and interested resource management agencies. Through this exchange, the concerns of all agencies involved \'tOuld be identified early and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays in the progress of the feasi- bility study, application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct, and Environmental Impact Statement reviffi~. As proposed, the Steering Committee would be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Susitna Hydro- electric Feasibility Studies and/or the project•s environmental consequences. He therefore invite your agency•s participation. The committee would provide for interagency coordination through joint review of project related materials and development of more informed and uniform positions representing all resource interests. ~!e believe this wi11 provide a more efficient process of information exchange. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Review and comment on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; 2. Insure that the biological and related environmental studies, their timing, and technical adequacy are planned, implemented, and conducted to provide the quantitative and qualitative data necessary to: (a) assess the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and (b) provide the basis for mitigation and compensation of resource losses which will result from the project; ,•w. t.la'!'e n re:;.'O~ June 3, 1930 Page T\'IO 3. Provide a forum for continued project review of al1 aspects of the studies, for a timely exchange of information, and for recommendation of study redirection, should the accomplishment of specific objectives be in jeopardy; 4. Monitor compliance of the studies with al1 state and federal laws, regulations, Executives Orders. and mandates as they apply to fish and wildlife resources; and 5. Provide unified agencr comments from the committee to the Power Authority .. Should your agency elect to part1c1pata 1n the conmittee, we recommend that your representative have a techn1<:a1 background enabling him to comment on the adequacy and approach of ongoing and future feas1b111ty studies, and be able to speak-knowledgeably on the pol1c1as and procedures of your agency \·lith respect to the revie1 of the federal Energy Regulatory Comn1ssion license application far the project and the subsequant Environmental Statement {ES). The first Sus1tna Hydroelectric Steering Committee meeting \11111 be held at the Alaska PO\tJer Authority, 333 t~est 4th Avenue. Suite 31. Anchorage, Alaska on Jum 12th at 9:00 AM. Attached is a sheet with n description of the agenda for this first meeting. Your attendance is encouraged. p, ttachment: as noted Sincerely, Eric P. Vou1d Executive Director -----~-----_.__._...--,. The c~~ittee would provide for interagency coordinati on throu gh joint r eview of project r elated materials and development of more informed and uniform po sitions representing all resource interests .We believe this will provide a mo re efficient process of informati on p.xchange. As propo sed. the Steering Committee HOuld be compose d of repres entatives of r esource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Susitna Hyd ro- ele ct ric Feasibility Studies and/or the project's environment al conseque nces. We t herefore inv ite your a ~~ncyls partici pati on. Th e Alaska Pow er Authority th roug h its consultant.Acres Ame ri can Incorporated.is i n the early stages of a 3D-month feasibil ity study of t he pr op osed Susi t na Hy droelectric Project .Because of t he ma gnitude of this s tudy.effective interagency coordination will be best accomplished thro ugh forr.4 t ion of a Susitna Hyd roelectric Steering Committee.The function of t his cOQmit tee woul d be to provide coordinated exch~nges of inforoation between the Alaska Power Authority and interested r esource ma nageme nt agencies. Th rough t his exchan ge.the concerns of all agencies involved would b~i dentified earl y and hope fully prevent unnecessary delays in thp.progress of the fe~si­ bil ity s tudy.application for t he Federal Ener gy Regulatory C o~ission license to con struct.and Environmental Impact Statement r~view. J une 4 .1980 throughout each phase of the assess t he po tential i mpacts t o fi sh and wildl ife r escurces.and provide th e basis for mitigation and compensat ion of resource l osses which will result from the pro fect; (a) (b ) Review and comment on study approaches planni ng process; Proposed objectives for this committee are to : (nsure that the biological and related environmental studies.their ti ming.and technical adequacy are planned. i mplemented.and conduc ted to provide the qua nt itative and qua li tative data necessar y to : 1. 2. Dear Sir : Director En viro nmental Pro tection Ag ency U.S.O epa r~nt of Ener gy Alas~a Ope rations Offi ce 70 1 -c-Street Anchor age .Alaska 99 513 ...Environmen i a:i .Ji.ro~t.L-:------I _"...I>-- •-,,-.,.ALAS KA POWER AUTHOR ITY ! I ( L I i I I I I I I ! I I I I ;t.-·ordliC:n ~a 1 Pro c~ct1 on Agency IJ/le 4, 1980 lage Two 3. Provide a forum for continued project revieN of a11 aspects of the studies. for a timely exchange of information, and for recormnendation of study redirection, should the accomplishment of specif1e objectives b~ in jeopardy; 4.. ~1onitor compliance of the studies Nith all state and federal laws, regulations~ Executives Orders~ and mandates as they apply to fish and vii 1dli fe resources; and 5.. Provide unified agency comments from the committee to the Power Authority. Should your agency elect to participate 1n the comnittee. we recorrmend that your representatiVP have a technical background enabling h1m to conment on the adequacy ;lr~ appr'-lch of ongoing and future feasibility studies, and be able to speak knowledg~'bly on the policies and procedures of your agency with respect to the rev1e\t~ of +he Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1 icense app1 ication for the project and t••~ ~ubsequent Environmental Statement (ES),. The first Susitna Hydroe1ectric Stee..-ing Committee meeting will be hel'd at the Alaska Power Authority, 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31, Anchorage. Alaska on June 12th at 9:00 Af·1. Attached is a sheet with a description of _ the agenda for this first meeting. Your attendance 1s encouraged .. Attachment: as noted Sincerely, Eric P. You1d Executi~e Director ..... ~ ~ ! ' - I""" ! r - ,..-.. r Area Director Heritage Con$ervation & Recreation Service Department of the Interior 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Dear Sir: ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY June 4, 1980 The Alaska Power Authority through 1ts consultant, Acres American Incorporated~ is in the early stages of a 30-month feasibility study of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Because of the magnitude of this study, effective interagency coordination \'lill be best accomplished through formation of a Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. The function of this committee would be to provide coordinated exchanges of information be't't~een the Alaska PO\"'er Authorf ty and interested resource management agencies. Through this exchange. the concerns of all agencies involved would be identified early and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays 1n the progress of the feasi- bility study~ application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct, and Environmental Impact Statement review. As proposed. the Steering Cotmn1ttce would be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Susitna Hydro- e1ectric Feasibility Studies and/or the project 1 s environmental consequences. ~Je therefore invite your agency's participation. The committee would provide for interagency coordination through joint review of project related materials and development of more 1nfonned and uniform positions representing al1 resource interests. He believe this will provide a more efficient process of information exchange. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Revi e~-v and comment on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; 2. Insure that the biological and related environmental studies, their timing, and technical adequacy are planned, implemented, and conducted to provide the quantitative and qualitative data necessary to: (a) ass~ss the potential impacts to fish and t<dld1ife resources, and (b) provide the basis for mitigation and compensation of resource losses which will result from the project; ···r·/)\rea Oi rector / .-June 4, 1980 Page Two _./' (·--} \__; • 3. Provide a forum for continued project review of all aspects of the studies, for a timely exchange of information, and for recommendation of study redirection, should the accomplishment of specific objectives be in jeopardy; 4. Monitor compliance of the studies with all state and federal laws, regulations, Executives Orders, and mandates as they apply to ffsh and wildlife resources; and ~. Provide unified agency comments from the committee to the Power Authority. Should your agency elect to participate in the committee, we recommend that your representative have a technical background enabling him to comment on the adequacy and approach of ongoing and future feasibility studies, and be able to speak knowledgeably on the policies and procedures of your agency with respect to the review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license application for the project and the subsequent Environmental Statement (ES}. The first Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee meeting will be held at the Alaska Power Authority. 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31, Anchorage, Alaska on June 12th at 9:00 AM. Attached is a shegt with a description of the agenda for this first meeting. Your attendance is encouraged. r ... ttachment: as noted Sincerely, Eric P. Yculd Executive Diractor - IIIII .... .... - - - .., ... ... ... - - ...; - -.J .. - - - - REPLY "0 ATTENTnJN OF: -e DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 7002 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510 NPADE 1 2 J \.! :! 1980 Eric Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 W. 4th Ave., Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: RECEIVED \ ;'• ~.\ ' \ ',' '. . 6 ...... ,...,. '. , ~ · !\J 1. _: -u·, ~- J.JASKA POWER AUTHORITY I refer to your invitation to participate in the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee expressed in your 3 June 1980 letter. At the present time we are unable to participate in the committee due to severe funding and personpower constraints. I envision that the committee, to properly perform its objective, will in fact have to delve in detail into many complex engineering and environmental concerns. This would require a considerable effort of a senior staff member with possible advisory action by others in the District. Should funds and personpower become available at a later time we will reconsider your kind offer. However, we will continue to provide the necessary reviews required for the issuance of permits under our regulatory program. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. If further details are desired by your staff, Mr. Harlan Moore, Chief, Engineering Division, can be contacted at 752-5135. Lt Colonel, Corps of Engineers Acting District Engineer '· d r :1 r TH\E: DATE: 9:00 Ai·1 '1!1!'!!\ ..., • • \L.\SiiA P0\\'1-:1{ ,\l'TBOIOTY SUSIHlA HYDRO STECRii:G COi·\1-\lTf!E i-:l:Tli:;c; June 12, 1980 PL/IC[: Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 1\GENDA: 1. A discussion and outlining of the purpose and objectives of the Susitna Hydro Steering Conm1ittec. 3. ·i . A review by Acres An1erican of the procedural aspects of the FERC license application, the ES review processes, and their perspectives on the procedural mileposts for this project. A discussion of the proposed FERC license a~plication and ES review process by the Steering Committ12e and an assessr:11:nt of the ugencies vie•..;s and mandates to review and co1;ment upon tt1e rroposcd project. A revie\v of the S.usitna Hydro fcusibility lusks by ,\crc~s ;\r:1crican with discussion of FERC's possible requirements for study, technical standards, and land or environmental study subJects l'lhich must be er.1pha sized. 5. A discussion by the Steering Conm1ittce of the cross study task or interdisciplinary aspects of the Susitna llyJro feasibility studies. 6. Steering Comnittee discussion of a proposed agenda for the July meeting involving representatives of FERC. ·:·~,.··~ - ... - - ... .. - - - - - - .... ... - - - - - ... s :i _ _L_ -· \' · .... .., -=>-::tcr.-e 5 '"".::/ s I' ~:~L S rr -:l S V'\ ~ I 't ... ·. ' .... .'\ --///.? ·o 5?Fu?·'l-' ' L.-:' -.. ~-·. ' ' .l.-?~~ '/r~/~~// /? --/ r.· : ' ·"'7),· .· !f.../,'1 ... ' . ' l l .... - - - e t4r. Ron Corso Federal Energy Regulntory Commfss1on 400 1st Street, H.V. \Jush1ngton, 0. C. 20427 Dear Mr. Corso: - June 13. 1980 Pursuant to prev1ous d1scuss1on 1;1ith Hr. Quinton Edson. we request FERC presence 1n Anchorage to discuss various 1icensing aspects of the Sus1tna Hydroelectdc Project. Th1s v1s1t could be 1n conjunct1on with your staff's plans for vfs1ting the. Tyee lake site. The need for the meet1ng fs evfdenced by the strong ur~1ng for such a sess1on by the state and federal agencies who hnve an interest in the project. It 1s the consensus of all involved that a face-to-face meeting w1th FERC is needed at th1s early stage of the study process to insure that proper work effort 1s planned especially 1n the env1ronmenta1 and fisheries programs. The ~eeting ~111 constitute the second convening of the Susitna Interagency Stecr1ng Cor.mt1ttee. Acres American wi11 be represented and prepared to discuss the f1sher1es and 1n-stream flow study programs 1n deta1l. In our opinion, the t 11:11 ng for a ~::eet i ng ~Hh your staff 1 s 1dea 1. \ic wuld 1H.e to plan on a two-day sess1on either before or after your st~ff's v1s1t to Tyee lake. ~e a~ait your response and recommended meeting dates. ~e w111 ndjust to your scheduie. Th~nk you for your cont1nued assistance 1n gu1ding us at this early but cr1t1ca1 stage of project plann1ng. Sincerely, FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Robert f\. 14ohn Director of Eng1neer1ng cc: John Lawrence Concur: EPY ---T J~·1 t .. --- ···' ' . ... - .... ... .. - ... -.. ... -.. - - ... - JAY S.HAMMOND,Governor .-- --'- June 17.1980 •~~[~~~(W ~ OFFICII!OF TAil 60VIlR:'i'OR DIVISION O f POLlCY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING Mr .Er ic P.Yo uld Execut ive Direc tor Al aska Power .uthor t ty 333 We st 4th Avenue,Suite 31 Anc horage.Alaska 9950 1 Dear M r .::\~~Ul d :..' !, •/ POUC H A D JUN EA U,A LA SKA 99 8 " PHONE :465 ·35/2 f-'RECEIVED ?)111JUN 2 0 19 80 WSf..A poWER AUTHORI TY I, Th ank you fo r t he not i fic ati on re gardi ng t he f orm a tion of a Susi tna Hydro el ect ri c Steering Comm i t t ee . As you kn ow Divi si on of Po li cy Devel opmen t a nd Planni ng (DPDP)has an i nteres t in t he many fa cets and imp l ica ti ons of a pr ojec t l ike t he proposed Susi t na Hydroele ct ric Proj ect. I apprecia te t he oppo rtu nity to be i nvolv ed wi th the re source ma nageme nt conce r ns t hr ou gh pa rtici pa tion on t he Stee ring Com mit tee . As t he Off ic e of Co as ta l Ma nagem ent (OCM) has the most j i r ect re s our ce manaqera ent re sponsibil iti es within OPDP .lam r equ est i ng ocr-I be t hi s ag ency 's r epresentat ive on t he St ee r i ng Com mittee. I bel i eve OCM wi l l be able t o keep you i nf ormed abou t the cas t a 1 managem e nt consistency proce ss a nd how it mi ght effect th e Susi t na Proj ect .Murr ay Wa lsh ,Co or dinat or of OC M and Bi l l Ross ,De put y Co or di nator,wi l l be th e c ontact persons fo r OCM/DPOP.As t elephoned t o you r office on J une 10, 1980 , no one wa s able t o attend th e f i rst meeti ng of th e Ste eri ng Comm i t t ee but I as k th at you keep OeM i nfo rm ed of any s ubsequ ent meet i ngs . Thank you for your i nvi tati on t o DPO P t o be d member of t he St ee r ing Comm t ttee. Si nc[re1r . e ,M, Fran Ulm er Di rector c c;Mur ray ~a l s h ,OCM -.~ • Mr. Lee A. Wyatt Planning Dieector Matanuska-Susitna Borough Box B Plarner~ Alaska 99645 Dear Mr. Wyatt: • July 7, 1980 The A 1 ask a Power Authority, acting on beha l f of the resource management agencies, would lfke to inform you of the second Susitna Hydro Steering Committee meeting. At the request of the various agencies, we have rr.a/" arrange:ll"tents for representatives of the Federa 1 Energy Regulatory ~ommission to be present at the meeting 1n order to answer technical questions. The subject of the first day of thfs two day session w11l consist of a discussion of the general technical aspects of the FERC and state licensing process whereas the second day w111 specifically address the Susitna fisheries and fn-stream flm'l studies programs. In additfon to the above topics. an election of a committee chairman wiH take place (please be thinking of prospective candidates for nomination}. and the guidelines for the committee 1 s organization will be established. The first days session of the second Susitna Hydro Steering Committee meeting will be held at the ACC Lucy Cuddy Center on July 17th at 3:00 a.m. The second day•s session will be held at the Federal eui1ding, Room C-105 on July 18th at B:30 a.m. Attached is a sheet w1th a description of the meeting agenda. Your participation is encouraged. Attachment Concur: EPY TJM~ RA~1--r,- ~ Sincerely. Erie P. Youl d Execut1ve D1rector Additional identical letters sent to the following people (see attached 1ist): / (n!')?):;77.761\\ (:IOl)2(6·2715 "l\I~J.\Slil\1~~)\,rnSUi l\~J'I'Dn~pn~~ri'l{,;/ j .... Jf' ~w£sr .""AVE"U,.SUITE )1 -J' july J,lC)HO '"'"'Mr.Ronald Morris National Harlnc Fis!ll'I"Y SCl'vice 70'\"e"Street Anchorage,Alaska 99513 Dc~r Mr.Morris: The i\laska flowC'!"!\uthority,ileting on [JVhdl;01 th:i'(";Ol~!'U: mana Semcllt agencies,"lOuld like to inform you :If \h0.sr.conc:')lISitl~a Hvdro Steering Committee meeting.i\t the rcqu,·,~~t.of the vd'ious c\(Jcnci(::::, ''"'~hc.ve made arrangements for representatives l)f thc:iede;",l![I;c:r'gy Eegulatory Commission to be present tit the mecl.ir\(]in oreler to (lnj"lp'r technical Questions.The subject of the first.dt"of this l\'i()day s es s ~()n vii lie 0 n sis t 0 f a.dis cvss ion 0 f t h1::9 r.ncr il 1 tr.ch 11 i C (~!1 J S P f:C t s 0 f the FERC and state licensing process wherells th(~sQcond Oi\j I"lill specifiCr111y addre5s the Su~itnd f~sher~es and in-stream flOl'i studies progl'illris. In addition to the above topics,an election of a committee chilirr:io:.;f\ will t a k e pIa ce (p 1 e ase bet h ink i n9 0 f pro s pee ti vee c1 ndid J t e 5 for"no ID ina t ion), and the guidelines for t:le committee's organization will be est.ablished. ,:110'-, The first days session of.,the second Susitna dyc1ro Steering Committee: meet~ng ~ill be held at the~ACC Lucy Cuddy Center on July l7tllat 8:00 a.m. The secorid day1s session w11t/~e held at the Feder"l building,Room (.·105 on July 18th at 8:30 a.m.'·',Attached is'a sheet ".lith :)desci1ptioil of thf: meeting~~enda.Your particfp5tion is encouraged. Sincerely, L\~~~ Er fer.Yo l:1d EY.ecutivp.Director I\t tachment r • Hr. Ron Corso Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 400 1st Street. N.W. ~lashington, 0 .C. 20427 July a. 1980 To follow up on the discussions which have transpired over the last few weeks between members of your staff, Acres American Incorporated, and the Alaska Power Authority, we have attached a copy of the agenda for the July 17th and 18th meeting of the Susftna Hydro Steering Committee. It is our understanding that Mark Robinson and Dean Shumttay of your staff will be available for th1s meeting, and Hill be able to discuss those aspects of the licensing process that relate to their area of expertice. They need not attend the a:oo a.m. to 9:30 a.m. session on the first day and need not stay for the full duration of the second day. ~e understand that Acres is arranging a field trip to the Susitna River for them on July 16th. ~!e hope that the attached agenda meets with your app·rova l and look for\':ard to seeing f.lark and Dean in Anchorage later this month. Attachment Cpmcur EPU{ TJM_J __ Sincerely. -! Robert A. r,~ohri Oirector of Engineering ... - - - - - - - - - ___. - - - - - - - - • • ..\B,..\SiiA I•OWER AlT'I'IIOI{ITl' MEMO TO: John Lawrence Project Manager DATE: July 8, 1980 FROM: John, Acres American Incorporated The Liberty Bank Building Main at Court Buffa 1 o, New York / 14202 I I . ~ ~ Donald W. Baxter, 1 P.E. ~ Project Engineer -' · Alaska Power Authqri~·~ /_ 333 West 4th Aventie, : u Yt~ Anchorage, Alas-kal-· 5~ · SUBJECT: Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Attached for your information is a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Ronald Morris of the National Marine Fisheries Service announcing the second Susitna f~dro Steering Committee meeting. Identical letters were sent to the following agencies: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, (Bob Bowker) Department of Fish & Game (The Honorable Ronald 0. Skoog, Commissioner) Bureau of Land Management, (John Rego, Energy Specialist) U.S. Geological Survey, (Harry Hulsing, District Chief) U.S. Heritage Conservation & Recreation Services, (Bill Welch) Corps of Engineers, (Colonel LeeR. Nunn) Environmental Protection Agency, (Director) Department of Natural Resources, (The Honorable Robert E. LeResche, Commissioner) Department of Environmental Conservation, (The Honorable Ernst W. Mueller, Commissioner) Office of Costal Management, DPDP, (Murray Walsh, Coordinator) Department of Community and Regional Affairs, (The Honorable lee McAnerney, Commissioner) University of Alaska/Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, (Dave Hickok, Director) Matanuska Susitna Borough, (Lee Wyatt, Planning Director) Division of Economic Enterprise, (Dick Eakins, Direc~or) This entire effort has been coordinated with members of your staff, the FERC, and us. The public has been invited to attend the first day's session and a copy of the associated newspaper advertisement is also attached. ·(:.' i:• s r. r 1' / I " " AL.:\SiiA PO\VI~U .\(T'J'IIOI~I'I'l' We feel optimistic that as a result of this meeting many of the questions that have arisen among the various resource management agencies will be answered. Hopefully a clearer definition of the course of action to be taken with respect to the in-stream flow studies program will also be obtained. cc: Jim Gill John Hayden Kevin Young ... ... .... .. - - ... -.. ... .. - -.. - - - - .... -· - ·_1 -1~ -~1 'i ...,. - - - - - - - - ,, .. .,.. > .., l s t Da v Date: Time: a e -.\1."\Sii.\ PO\l'ED~ Al:TUOHITl' SUSITNA·HYDRO STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING July 17, 1980 8:00 J.m. Place: ACC Lucy Cuddy Center 2nd Oa y Date: Time: July 18, 1080 8:30 a .rn. PlacQ: r c d e r a l i1 u i 1 d i n g , R o om C - l 0 5 I;G[ llOA 1st Day Topics ~:00 a.m. -9:30a.m. o Election of a committee chairman o Discussion of the committee's organization o Any other items of concern 9:30a.m. -5:00p.m. o General technical overview of FERC licensing process o Discussion of general technical license requirements for hyroelectric projects (both FERC and State) a Discussion of Susitna specific technical license requirements (both FERC and State) Zr1J Gay Topics 8:30a.m. -5:00p.m. a Potential changes in Susitna River hydrology due to hydroelectric development o Details of hydrology-water quality monitoring program a Details of the ADF~G fisheries program o Development of fisheries impact predictions and mitigation plan o 1·1odifications incorporated into the study program in order to accomodate the in-stream flow studies e Discussion of details on in-stream flow studies ~-­~ -~-"- e 411) SUSITNA HYDRO STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING July 17th & 18th, 1980 Al Carson Bob Lamke Bill Hilson Bil1 Welch Pat Beckley John Rego Bob Bowker Rickki Fowler Gary Stackhouse Lee Wyatt Jim Sweeney Heinz Noonan Dave Sturdevant Dick Eakins 1•1urray Walsh larry Kimba 11 PERSONS NOTIFIED OF THE MEETING Department of Natural Resources U.S.G.S. -W.R.D. AEIDC-University of Alaska Heritage Conservation & Rec. BLM BLM U.S. Fish & Wildlife Environmental Conservation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mat-Su Borough Environmental Protection Agency (US) Energy & Power Development Environmental Conservation Div. of Economic Enterprise (send twix via 277-1936) Office of Coastal Management Comm. & R~g. Affairs (Div. of Comm. Plann1ng; 279-5577 271-4138 279-4523 277-1666 344-9661 B44-9661 271-4575 274-5527 276-3800 745-4801 271-5083 276-0508 465-2636 465-2018 465-3540 279-8636 ... ... ... .... .... ... ... .... ... ... - - ... ... - - - - - J ' ~ ...,_ : ! . . , \ \ r i --1 1 -._; '--: l ~-1 .:) '__) ,) '·....,'' ; -' : . t \ • J ~ •_.../ I I )'. \ ' ~; -.. .I --2 ~ i l. _l } ~ ' \ ---•, ' - 900S-·\t2 -<.,"~~t)~ '"'-0~-~--'S'b\o :r\1 ">4 "'"'~' ws ~~~a 2. n '! 0 3 'f:) J \ ol::. 1 )\I'IV-"5 ~ \~\)\,~~ 1':-'1~\} 't'~'~'\"''14.- ~C.l ~ , ,,b -I; h[· \ \ . \ c3oa~ Jl(~ o( -.f\ "< fO..Sbb ·~\jb)U\j i , ~~ ~ ~~rr~ St:~ LLsS-hL t' ~~ . :It}~~--~ CJi' j.,~~ £<f..<Z-I ~_5o -~/r~ I \ ,. . " ·.' ' . r?4tf /'f~ .1 \?W"'tf ~ l_ 2: . b¥'1!1 L.,..,>I?W 'il8bb" ~bt 1 ~N~s- ( n.iff9 I ¥\r.ll.' t.e'2f I ~'4-\(~ '"f+t">OS J L '2 .. fS-hL t' 'V') ("') O:J ~ l( .'7..1 :. ---.._,_·\~~·~ ... ' ..... ·, . i -- .....-; .. ......... ), . : ......_ - 0 ~f'nnd ~ ~vrti"V..IJ) C) f. f:J '--59 h t ~"'0 t'\ ~ ~ s ,..,., "'(J r-+~ '-'!> ~ l.( > · f Jro c · ,..--r,::~.~r-.'/(' :JX f/ .-J.(t/ .J. '/Yl; rrL , ;..-/v fll ·-u /'7• r· ... ~... . ' .~ / .. ..:::.... . ; ._ ... I 1 ..... ,_./.:,...--;~ .. -:-/'/;-/ / ~_ .. c~., .... .3 1,~")::> _., ~51'(") I 1'9. - ·s \"'~ ( 7J tt ) l? ) ---"r' "? ~-A" .. tr ,,. ....... ., ~~ -4 lr\o'tA.. .-.. :J ....... .I - J "'..(~ ...... "·~-/(' .. .J '.'·f'"' fl - - - - - -: -· - .... -_r::csL-rss (9JL) ,... ).. /V I' Q1b'::jdf'E_ .JJ -:r.!la..t s. .L. '1,.. ~ ...LV' f'l/ ww OQb JU'ns ,., (Y/C"?, "l: ;;JI f'l b' fl.. )d .. "tt:?> e1 7 ... ::;, r' o I' d.. · cr r-J 17 5 .s'J:I '2.100{1 -1 -e ~.L.?;:,~~ J.' !.\.!:a 'tti ( :J :Jf\1 'JJ'IJ(1 ") • G:_ f"HI l - - - ~ Mme e LJ?'~ g/7~ !?of; /~?~;/~e t<' i l L ~ LAC.. 't' UO..'"'-J b 0 ''"' (1\ c. \<',c\ ---;;;:::._ ~s f\J C C{ r s~ """'- 0 '-~; . , ,__\ -' .. I ~ 1 • ~ 1 '\ _ .----.r -(~ ~ }\! - - - - - - - Dat.r<. s~~ .A/ ' .... --/ ~-...:.,.. ----;v_..,_. {)c~..,.. ' _, . I __., I -~ '\ :[ N\""",K R.o~t.I\.S.a,) Dt2iP•• L . 2£~ \_);,.:ed~ Zob K!foc.seJJc. C._:;c.0~ y ,5-r Ji-r:;-If ho l--'SC-- -g_!t:; W L {/J A }1-1-i ·t;':K~-p s \"\ \\~ ~j" '1?0 (.) II~~ /_ --:::·_.· ! -/1 .. ··.r"/-· --I . j I ll'\ ~f._.~/\10 fY'A IV LOYQM kkr L.; ~-=.._ ·. \,, ...,.. \.' _;.:. '\ '--i.... •'-: i~~l ···----- 4 ~;,1-,7/?7 /Bb (!IV-CJ;V/-e~ Q1"\~ hCJ :: :;::> ..... /.::7.0 // /7/ /7 -_.-(. :/._. 11 ~::-:rj) ( L\,.S F \A.).:;, ,;.~-r-G tJN~ ·~I -. -. -' •\" c..__ .... : I ' I ·,~ 'I •. _/' ~ ADEC .AA-J: fEI?.L F6!Zc_ Te:S TE5 us FtJS \E"j 1--, M V"S QSLm -/~~'h.~ \ /, I /! I /':' -/ ;-·? <' • ' ( . /I. ·' ;' /' . /' , {_A_ (_)! A ~/Cf-5S1/ 4br--L636 (7 ~~) 853-75JS" 202/"37f.D-90f.(: :;J..Ol.-:5719-J 90S bq5"-7 Z--Z-0 ?>i'i ;.g'"~-::· .:=·==-="1--~ J.7C.-SOS7' cl'J&,-39CO &!:s1 I &5 -~--t5(13 '2-i l-soot; 3-iY 9to(o' ;2~/ -'+2-q.+ j ,.. ' -·) -v' ,, ,',., / / ~ :" (. -- A_c:~G"S A!Yl~Rt(;:JN :1/0-4~88 ,--Cer~. ol &:J;nr?~Y> 7.~.&-~<1-b'~ j, -, ·"-1 , , -. c_. 1 c' , , \ \ Ct ._ ) __ I i..::.' · l 'l '-t-4- i'c~:''-·--~<.~_-.:_,,.,n,er...:.c, Ucu\-:'Jtr..>l'r't,_,,,l~-J{P"-, ......... \·)· D<..\.\:'.!,Jpr·•1c-t.d--"') 70 -C._..,S-C·~C~ fill,-_______ !i!III!IIPIIIII! __ !JII!!!IIl_ Rll!ll!!!!~!ll!lllllll------------.;_------,_ 2nd Day Date: Time: e e ALASiiA POWER AUTIIORITY SUS ITNA HYDRO STEERING C0~1MITTEE r1EETTNG July 18, 1980 8:30 AM Place: Federal Building, Room C-105 AGENDA 2nd Day Topics 8:30a.m. -5:00 p.m. • Potential changes in Susitna River hydrology due to hydroelectric development • Details of hydrology -water quality monitoring program • Details of the ADF&G fisheries program • Development of fisheries impact predictions and mitigation plan t Modifications incorporated into the study program in order to accomodate the in-stream flow studies • Discussion of details on in-stream flow studies .. .... - ... - ... .. wi .. ... - - - - - - ... - -- ~;(,~~w, .. ,~~· -"--~------_;]t t-'" ~-'--- ~ ~;---.. ~-~-~~. -~- ............ --~ ... ~-;.~;c: :../ C_..-~ , ,.J •• i / Cj~#­ t}NO "J'dl=t:i. ~~3=:1 ?t!-7-d -... I l ! L'l :; c:r I Y'IPtT//~?/ l.-7J?-TOI?/)j •/')7 tt-T/'?-1 ~:;,_ \· _; ·--:· : / ' ,. • /-' /(---f V "-I ~ I ' --·. _-\ - ' J f!Yr1A/ ~ 2£:.7~7od 1-LL\ UJS Cl\!~'23. ~-., \..ui 'v..i ~ ) :ycu XJ 7 q c..?.;J ' v .... ~?/· --:··.-~ ___ ~; ~~~--~1/ ~: 08/?1/L- .;;W"-7 '"'~0fJ <?1"71 Ovt.5//r-- W' _) --------- ..., I l l l "'"" ' l l l l J l l . l ...., l l l l l l l ""'-- U.S. ENYIR&MENTAL PROTECTION AeeNCY REPLY TO ATTN OF: Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority ALASKA OPERATIONS OFFICE Room E535, Federal Building 701 C Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 16 JUL i980 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: RECE:{.VeQ· JUL 1 .. 1980 ~ Al.ASKA POWER AUTHo~ The Alaska Operations Office has scheduled a retreat with the Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation staff and will be unable to have an individual from our staff attend the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee meeting. We are very interested in the project and sorry we are unable to attend. Please notify our office of the next scheduled meeting and send, if available, the minutes of the July 17 and 18 sessions. ) - Mr. W. James Sweeney, Director U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Room E535, Federal Building 701 "C" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear ~1r. S\'leeny: July 28, 1980 Thank you for your letter regarding the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee meeting of July 17 and 18. I am sorry to hear you ~Jere unable to attend as it was a very informative meeting. The Steering Committee has, as a result of the meeting. evol'led into an organization independent of the Power Authority and acting in a review and advisory capacity to the Power Authority. It is now run wholly by the various State and Federal agencies. Al Carson of the Alaska Department of natural Resources has taken the responsibility of chairman for the cor.~ittee and Tom Trent of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is acting as his assistant. I will see to 1t that your agency is retained on the mailing 1 ist for the committee. Unfortunately, no meeting minutes r:ere taken although a tape recording is ava11able at the Power i\uthority. I appreciate your continued interest in the committee and encourage your participation at future meetings. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Attention: Eric Yould RECEPIEQ ,·. •: .: '\'WQ • • . ~~ ~-~. •. 1 • ) l..; /.J..ASKA POWl:::! AUIHORlTY! August 21 , 1980 P5700 .11 T.375 Dear Eric: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Distribution of TES Procedures Manuals Enclosed please find copies of the TES Procedure Manuals as requested by yourselves and the Susitna Steering Committee. A distribution list is attached. Since Mr. Al Carson, Chairman of the Steering Committee is out of town until August 27, the distribution list for the committee is based on the key contact list as supplied by Don Baxter on July 18, 1980. Please advise if any changes are made in distribution. KY:pg Enclosures Sincerely, \' J. D. Lawrence Project Manager - ... ... - - - - - - • • • • • DISTRIBUTION: Copies of all procedure manuals to: APA -E. Yould, R. Mohn USF&W -Don McKay DEC -Dave Sturdevant ADF&G -Tom Trent ADNR -Al Carson BLM -John Rego AEIDC -Chuck Evans Copies of Fisheries Manual: NMFS -81 ad Smith Copies of Manuals for Subtasks 7.05, 7.06, 7.07 & 7.08: HCRS -Larry Wright ~--_,_ ----r---~---------~--•• ~ --~---~ MEMORA"DUM • State of Alaska TO: FROM: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT SUSITNA HYDRO ELECTRIC STEERING COMMITTEE }ffiMBERS (See Distribution List) DATE. FILE NO TELEPHONE NO -·· --. ' ,..... ~ h. l:: G r.; I V L [)SUBJECT Steering Committee Chairman TI1e purpose of this letter is two-fold: September 4, 1980 279-5577 Summary of 7/17 and 18 Meetings and Review of Procedures Manuals 1. To summarize the major points discussed in the July 17 & 18 meeting of the Susitna Hydro Electric Steering Committee. 2. To transmit to you copies of the Acres American contractor's field manuals which describe in detail how they will conduct studies during the 1980 and 1981 field season. The first item of business on July 17 was discussions and decisions leading to the appointment of a chairman. Those in attendance agreed that Al Carson, Department of Natural Resources, would serve as chairman of the Steering Committee with Tom Trent, Department of Fish and Game, serving as Assistant Chairman. There were two representatives from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Mr. Dean Shumway and Mark Robinson. A considerable amount of time was spent by Messrs. Shumway and Robertson explaining the role of FERC in the proposed Susitna Hydro Electric Project. The rest of the morning meeting was devoted to contractor briefings about the studies included under Task VII (environmental studies) for the Susitna plan of study. Two significant items were identified by this review. First, it was obvious from the comments from the agency representatives, contractors, and subcontractors present that the agencies were unable to provide a detailed critique of the plan of study. This is because the widely circulated plan of study did not have adequate detail regarding methodology, approach, or scope of the proposed studies to enable the reviewer to make reasoned or useful comments on these matters. Acres American and their subcontractors stated that this level of detail would be found in their yet to be published field manuals which describe in detail the work that the contractors will be doing in the 1980 and 1981 field seasons. The Steering Committee members will be provided with copies of these field manuals for their review when they are available. The significance of this is that the studies that are being accomplished under the Susitna plan of study for the field year of 1980 are being carried out without benefit of review, comments, or approval by the various state and federal agencies. Second, was a concern regarding how the socio-economic studies being conducted under the Susitna plan of study related to the fish 02 ·00 1 A( Rev.! 0/19) .. - - - .. • • • ;'P"«<ii"T lj e . Susitna Hydro. __ ctr~c ... 2 • ,_,September 4, 1980 and game impact concerns identified by agency representatives. It was agreed that the Steering Committee will meet with the socio economic consultants to learn how these studies relate. The meeting on July 18 was devoted exclusively to reviewing in detail and discussing the studies that are necessary in the FERC filing concerning fisheries, hydrology, and instrearn flow. The most significant issue which appeared from these discussions was the need to insure that mitigation for fish, wildlife and other environmental values are integrated into the project designs, etc. rather than being an add-on or appendage at a later date. The second purpose of this letter concerns review of the field manuals. Accompanying to this letter you will find copies of the field manuals to be used by the Acres American subcontractors for carrying out various studies as discussed in a general way within the Susitna plan of study documents. Please carefully review these manuals giving proper emphasis to those studies which are included within your field of expertise and your agency's authority and responsibility. The intent is to have alL the Steering Committee members review these manuals and forward your review comments to me. I will then synthesize these comments into a draft letter from the Steering Committee to APA. Then we will meet to review and finalize the letter. For the sake of convenience and saving time in synthesizing comments, please place your comments and concerns within the appropriate framework as discussed here: The review of the field manuals is intended to detail problems or concerns within the following six areas: 1. Hhat is the appropriateness and utility of the studies, i.e., do the studies attempt to answer the questions that need answering in light of the proposed Susitna Dam? 2. The scope of the studies, i.e., is the methodology approach and techniques properly formulated to provide valid and germane answer(s) which will apply directly to the proposed Susitna Dam? 3. The study approach and methodology, i.e., does the approach and methodology discussed in the manuals result in findings and recommendations which are or will be scientifically valid? 4. H01.; do the subtasks of the studies "hang together" to give a comprehensive picture of the impact of the project? 5. llow do the various disciplines (e.g., fisheries, seismology, engineering, recreation) study findings and recommendations affect the other disciplines? The answer to this question 1vill identify the hierarchy of values that will be attached to various components of the project when the "trade offs" decisions are made. --"-,·, ~/ ·-~ ... Susitna Hydro f,l,_ectric • ... 3 September 4, 1980 • 6. wnat other issues and concerns did you discover while reviewing these manuals that need the attention of the Steering Committee? Please provide me your writ ten reviet.; comments no later than close of business, Friday, September 26, 1980. If you have questions, comments or revisions on the matters discussed in this letter, please contact me at 279-5577. cc: E. Yould, APA Distribution List Don McKay U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 733 W. 4th, Suite 101 Anchorage, AK 99501 Tom Trent Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99502 Al Carson Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources 323 E. 4th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 John Rego Bureau of Land Management Anchorage Di~trict Office 4700 E. 72nd ·Avenue Anchorage, AK 99502 Bob Lamke U.S. Geological Survey \~ater Resources 733 West 4th Avenue, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 99501 Bill Wilson or Chuck Evans Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (U of AK) 707 "A" Street Anchorage, AK 99501 • • • • II • • I Susitna Hydro 4t)ctric ~ Dave Sturdevant 4 Department of Environmental Conservation Pouch "O" Juneau, AK 99811 Larry Wright or Bill Welch Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service lOll East Tudor Road, Suite 297 Anchorage, AK 99503 Brad Smith or Ron Morris National Harine Fisheries Service 701 "C" Street, Box 43 Anchorage, AK 99513 41teptember 4, 1980 ' --...... . '~ --·-:~,;:_~~-. .. ~ -:-::-;;_ .... • .. "LASKA PrnER AIJrHORITY Susitna Hydro Steering Ccmnittee c/o Al Cars en Alaska Depart:rielt of I~atuml Resources 323 East 4th Avenue .Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Al: -- Septedber 3, 1980 Last~ we fm:warded to you for distrl.but:ioo. to the Susit::na Hydro St:erring Coo.nrl..ttee. copies of the ernr.irOI'li!E'ltal procedures nmruals applicable to POS Task 7, as prepared by Terrestrial&~ Specialists. Inc. (TES) . These manuals should answer many of the questions relating to the details of our Plan of Study. tore ~d appreciate it if yOJJ: ca:mittee would review and camBlt en these manuals at its earliest convenience. He will then prepm:e written responses to in..y canrents re- ceived. If in follcw.ing dds process there are still outstanding questions that require detailed teclxrlcal responses, ~·Je ~·till be pleased to have the appropriate prir.clpal investigators make a presentation to your camrl.ttee. T.E.S. wishes to maintain positi~ c.ootrol aver t.lwse m:muals, and \,;c ~ul.d like to faci 1 i tate that wish. The attache!d forms mip,ht be use- ful to you tcMards that goal. . Trusting this procedure rooets with your approval. FOR 'lliE EXEaJITVE DIBECTClt cc: J. Lawrence J. Gill Enclosures: As stated IJJ:et CDNCUR: EPY· ) ~\~ TJM: v/ 00: Sincerely, Robert A. Hohn Director of F.ngir.eerlng - ... .... -- ... - -- ... ... .. - --.. - - .,; ,. - - - - - ~-.·~)' ;_~1:·;·6~.~-, ,_ -~.:.·~·· :!!'- .:~:~ . i · .. SUBTASK 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.10 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.12 7.14 -e, ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY RECORD OF RECEIPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURE MANUALS COPIES ASSIGNED TO ------- TITLE Socioeconomic Ana 1 ys is ........................... . Cultural Resources Investigation ................. . Land Use Analysis ................................ . Recreation Planning .............................. . Fish Ecology-Impact Assessment and Mitigation ... Wildlife Ecology-Furbearers .................... . Wildlife Ecology-Big Game Impact Assessment and Mitigation ................................... . Wildlife Ecology-Birds and Non-Game Mammals ..... Plant Ecology .................... -...... ·. ·. · · · · · · Access Road Analysis ............................. . COPY # - - - - - - J-COPY .... SUSITNA STEERING COMMITTEE ~ Record Of Distribution Of Environmental Procedure Manuals SUB-COPY K TITLE " RECIPIENT TASK TITLE il -. -~ -. IT JS sacra- ECONOMIC ANALYSIS )6 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVEST!- GATIONS J7 LAND USE ANALYSIS JS RECREATION PLANNING .0 Fi~:-i i:COL- OG"y !i4P:;CT ASSESSMeNT :\NO M!TIGATIOII PLA;1N ING ;o !l. 113 /4- I ;c, /<7 ;_j_ 21 2? 9 /0 /Z /4- ;') L~ 1'7 18 11 /0 Jl IZ.. 1<1- ~~ 1'7 ;'f i 21 lzz !0 !Z. 13 14 ;)"' /~ 17 1/B 12~ I /I I /Z, i /3 14 I i /)! ' I /d ' I co . .c·_.: .. · ;?(",,) (~ ,.,..~~. ~A··1A.A•'0'~·~j ! I 7.11 YJILDLI FE ECOLOGY -FURBEARERS 7.11 WILDLIFE ECOLOGY - BIG GAME IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITI- GATTON PLANNING I 7 .11 WILDLIFE ECOLOGY - l I -I BIRDS AND NON-GAME MAMMALS 7.12 PLANT ECOLOGY 7.14 ,JCCESS ROAD MIAL '!3 :s I J / ;z n 14- ;) !& !9 z; zz q !0 ;2.- /3 ;r' /~ I? 18 Ji /I I /Z I . ~~I t7 l~r I ~~~/I 13 ;4- /) !C. 17 i ;1 z; ! lz3 I ! )(J i ,24 :/r! ~ " ' I -1 I 12 "!.-t i -z. ~ I ' l z·?--' ; ,: <:' ' ,.2G I ;~~/;.~,:.:-t::· ,_.j:.< > .,.4.7~' RECIPIENT - - ~ ,._ - .....- ...... - ....... ._. ! l """''r.,ll '1 'l j i1 \ .,J :, I .0 ' , i i :> I j -:1 .. , j •· I _: ~.) .. l~~}J l ... ;·0; ~. '\ :' . ; .-·" n ~ c; C.:: IV ED October 23, 1980 OCT 30 1980 'J.j.ASKA PCWE.:<. A0iHORITY Susitna Hydroelectric Project Meeting with Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee Dear Member of the Susitna Steering Committee: A meeting has been arranged for the afternoon of November 5, 1980 where we will have an opportunity to discuss some of the preliminary aspects of our planning studies. To promote as productive a meeting as possible, I have enclosed information we have developed to date. As this information is in a preliminary form I expect that some inconsistency exists. However, I feel your input can be best utilized at this early stage when concerns and recommendations can be easily incorporated. I encourage your constructive criticism and would appreciate it if you would jot your ideas down on the enclosed forms prior to our meeting. I look forNard to seeing you on November 5. Sincerely, /1/: ~ :./, /) fi ·";n_... ---:· < -:::.::._~0 . //-~c:::-"~ Kevin YoungC 0 Environmental Coordinator ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ,-:: . .;n3ur;1ng ::1.;pr.eers -...,e _!:Jerty 3ank au~la,r<;. \ia.1n .;;: Court 3u;:a!o Ne~.v ~crk 1.!2 1J2 ~~~e:J~c~e ?:-:5·353-7525 T -:-~B:< 3 ·~ --3.:.23 ~.CMES 3UF e ~u~u~ @~ m~m~~m UEI•.\UT~IENT 01• ~ATIJH.~I. UJ<:Sf)(Jilf:Es DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ~ovember 21, 1980 Eric Yould nr:C~IVED -I /A r i HAIIIIOIID. GOYflltOI 323 E. 4TH A VENUE ANOtORAGE, ALASKA 99501 2 79-5577 Executive Director Alaska Power Authority ; \OV 2 i;, 1980 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: AU.':.::i'' PC'N".:..: r-. .J • .-. ...., .. lTY The purpose of thls letter is to provide you with the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee review comments regarding the procedures manuals which d~scrlbe the Task 7 studies being done under the contract between APA and Acres American. As you know the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee is composed of representatives from state and federal agencies and the University of Alaska. Function of this committee is to provide co~rdinated exchanges of information between APA and the interested resource management agencies. The Steering Committee met with representatives from Acres American and its subcontractors on July 17 and 18, 1980. The purpose of thls meeting was to review the environmental studies portion of the contract with Acres American and their subcontractors. It soon became apparent that the subcontractors were unable to provide the Steering Committee members with an adequate level of detail concerning the scope and methodology which would be used to carry these studies out. The Acres American representative stated that the level of detail that we were looking for would be found in their yet to be published procedures manuals. We agreed that it would be appropriate for Acres American to provide copies of these procedures manuals to members of the Steering Committee for their review and comments. The following procedures manuals were provided by Acres American for our review: Subtask 7.05 Socioeconomic Analysis Subtask 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigation Suhtask 7.07 Land Use Analysis Subtask 7.08 Recreation Planning - - """' - ....- • - -\", .. ... - - - • ~ - ., - - ~ / 1/ / - - ._ - - - - - - - - - Eric Yould • 2 Nc .. mber 21, 1980 Subtask 7.10 Fish Ecology Impact Assessment and Mitigation Planning Subtask 7.11 Wildlife Ecology (Big Game Impact Assessment and Mitigation Planning, Fur Bearers, and Birds and Non-Game Mammals) Subtask 7.12 Plant Ecology Subtask 7.14 Access Road Analysis The following agencies were provided copies of the procedures manuals and have responded with review comments: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, National Marine Fishery Service, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. The following is a synthesis of the comments from these agencies. Appended to this letter are copies of the written comments which were received from those agencies identified above. SUBTASK 7.05 SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS Review of the procedures manuals indicates that this study may not address the indirect but highly significant impact of construction and operation of the project on residents living in the region. The boom that occurred during the construction of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline (TAPS) gives us an insight into the sorts of impacts that may be expected. For example, traffic congestion, strip development of small communities, stores out of necessary goods and materials because of accelerated demand by construction. In order that the socioeconomic impact studies may be more comprehensive and address these sorts of impacts we make the following seven recommendations: 1. 2. 3. 4. Local and regional recreational facilities and opportunities should be assessed to determine the ability of those facilities to handle additional users in light of increased demand. The study should address the probability of additional industrialization of the region as a result of power from the project. Then the study needs to assess the impacts and socioecomomic implications of industrialization scenarios that would be driven by this project. The study should address the cost and availability of products and services. This should also address the inflationary impacts that are usually associated with a boom type cyclical expansion such as construction of a project of this magnitude may cause. The study should address the cultural opportunities and how they may be affected in both positive and negative ways by the proposed project. ·1·,··· ~;;;L !~· .. ,, v ···~~ -I \ Eric Yould tJ 3 N~mber 21, 1980 5. 6. 7. The study needs to address the implications of the project on a composition of the people who live in the region. An obvious first step would be to establish baseline survey data in the preconstruction era so that we know what the population composition is in this area before construction begins. An assessment of the changes in the sociopolitical structure of the region that could be expected result from the change in the economy as a result of construction an operation and subsequent developments that would be driven by this project. The analysis does not address the impacts of.the project on users of fish and wildlife resources. I refer you here specifically to memos included in the Department of Fish and Game review submittal which indicate that Acres and others deemed it inappropriate for the Department of Fish and Game to carry these studies out. However, in our review of all the studies identified above we find that neither Acres American nor any of other of the sub- contractors have included this important issue in their plan of work. The scope of the analysis does not include any work designed to mitigate the project impacts on fish and wildlife. SUBTASK 7.06 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION Although this study was not formatted or laid out in a way similar to the others the review comments indicate that the approach in the scope and methodology proposed is appropriate and sufficient for the task at hand. SUBTASK 7.07 LAND USE ANALYSIS The following comments were made: l. 2. 3. The scope of the land use analysis needs to be expanded so that the downstream impacts all the way to salt water are adequately addressed. As an example of a downstream impact which is not included but needs to be addressed is the issue of navigability on the Susitna River below the proposed dam. There is no apparent linkage or coordination between the land use analysis and the socioeconomic and recreational studies. APA should seriously reconsider the decision that has been made to delay future lan~ use analysis. The contractors state that data from other disciplines may be needed to "fine tune" this study. However, we can assume most of these values or issues and get on with one of the most critical studies that could provide data to be used in making the decision as to whether Susitna should be built or not. It is recommended that APA consider the use of scenarios to describe future land use with and without the project. - - ... ,.., .. ... - - - IIIII - .,; - - ... ... - - - ·-? "' -. _/ ~~ ...... - - - ...... - - ....... - Eric Yould ,, 4 NJilmber 21, 1980 A recommended way to begin addressing downstream impacts is to become informed about the work currently being done in this area by local, state, and federal agencies. This will help to eliminate any duplication of work. Once APA is aware of what studies agencies have done the APA contractors can be tasked to synthesize the existing studies and complete only additional studies needed to complete the scenarios. SUBTASK 7.08 RECREATION PLANNING 1. 2. Scope of the recreation planning appears to be incomplete. The total thrust of the study appears to focus on recreational opportunities in the impoundment area with the obvious underlying assumption that Susitna Dam will be built. What is absent is any sort of assessment of the proposed project impacts on existing recreation navigation and land use in the river valley above, within, and below the proposed project. There is no question that we have to carefully plan for reservoir recreation development assuming there is a project. It is also obvious that the compelling need that needs to be met today is a valid and accurate determination of existing recreational values so that this decision can be factored into the ultimate decision as to whether Susitna should be built or not. An equally important result would be identification of those values for mitigation which will be required if the project is built. This study needs to include a documentation of the flowing water resources and uses that would be impacted by the project • 3. This study needs to document the existing upstream uses of Susitna. SUBTASK 7.10 FISH ECOLOGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT &~D MITIGATION PLANNING 1. 2. 3. It is acknowledged that none of the reviewers had a comprehensive picture of how this task will be carried out. The reason is the Department of Fish and Game will be actually doing much of this work as a subcontractor to Acres American and has not had the staff or the resources necessary to put together its procedures manual for this facet of the work. The comments given below should be qualified with acknowledgement of this fact. The contractors need to broaden their scope of mitigation concepts tha are included in the studies. There are other options available for mitigation planning above and beyond what is included ln the procedures manual as it is now written. I refer you to the detailed comments made by ADF&G. We recommend that an assessment of effectiveness of mitigation used on other projects to reduce impacts also be studied before we determine what sorts of mitigation techniques will be applied to the proposed Susitna project. The reason for recommending this is to enhance the probability that the mitigation we apply to the Susitna project will be successful. .. ~~· I I ' .. , Eric Youfd \. 5 N~mber 21, 1980 4. Table 2 should be amended to identify the issue of the effect of the project on rearing, fish passage and egg incubation in the Susitna River from its mouth upstream to the proposed dam site. s. 6. 7. The mitigation alternatives should include a cost benefit analysis in phase 2. There is a lack of adequate participation by resource management agencies in the impact assessment or mitigation planning as proposed in this procedures manual. The water quality subtask within this study needs further review regarding the extent of data required and details about timing of the data collection. SUBTASK 7.11 WILDLIFE ECOLOGY A. Big Game Assessment and Mitigation Planning 1. 2. This study does not describe the methodology that will be used for assessing impacts to be mitigated. The procedures manual discussion of formation of a mitigation team and a series of meetings and conferences as a methodology is inadequate. The scope of mitigation concepts needs to be broadened in this study. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) defines mitigation in five different ways: a. Avoiding impact all together by not taking a certain action of parts ~f an action. b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. c. Rectifiying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the effected environment. d. Reducing or limiting the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources for environments. Since the Sustina project will be subject to an environmental impact statement the Alaska Power Authority should assure that the contractors preparing the application adequately address all aspects of mitigation in order that the submittal will be adequate for the E.I.S. ------·-·--·------~------- -- ... - - ... .. ..... IIIII .., .. - """ ~ • .... - - ... - - - - ...,., - .: ~·~ ~ ,, /I ""''" . . ~ - Eric You'd \ .•. 6 No~mber 21, 1980 B. Wildlife Ecology -Fur Bearers 1. Scope of these studies needs to be extended to salt water. 2. 3. 4. The reason is the proposed Susitna hydropower project will have impacts all the way to salt water. This manual does not acknowledge the need for mitigation for these living resources. It is recommended that the procedures manual be revised to reflect the need for mitigation for fur bearers. The manual describes surveys which will be done only in the winter. The seasonality of this approach will result in certain data biases and lack of data for the intervening months. The studies state that radio collaring of animals will be done. How will the radio collar data be used? C. Wildlife Ecology -Birds and Non-game Mammals 1. The scope of these studies needs to extend to salt water. 2. The procedures manual falls to acknowledge the need for mitigation of birds and non-game animals. It is recommended that the procedures manuals be revised to reflect this need. General comments on wildlife ecology procedures manuals. There is a compelling need to integrate the wildlife and the plant ecology studies so that the end results are meaningful and useful to the decisions which will be made. Each of these study elements should apply appropriate quantitative methodologies to evaluate animal habitats. The methodology used may depend on the characteristics of the species or group of species they are dealing with. Whatever method is adopted, it must be biologically justifiable and provide a relative estimate of the habitat value per area unit for the study area. SUBTASK 7.12 PLANT ECOLOGY l. The scope of these studies needs to be expanded from the dam site all the way to salt water. The reason for this is that construction and operation of the dam will impact vegetation to that extent. 2. There needs to be a high level of integration and coordination between the plant ecology, hydrology, and the wildlife impact assessment studies. This is because a great part of the wildlife impact mitigation will be based on vegetation. -~r /.! /- /' --- /' / --, Eric Yould 'II 7 N~mber 21, 1980 3. The definition of wetlands used for classifying habitats should be compatible with data already collected in the Susltna Basin by the cooperative study underway with DNR, ADF&G, and SCS. We recommend that the classification system developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and described in "Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States" (FWS/OBS79/31) be considered as the wetland classification for these studies. SUBTASK 7.14 ACCESS ROAD ANALYSIS l. 2. 3. The analysis of alternatives does not indicate whether stream crossings will be reviewed to determine extent of icing and adverse environmental impact as a result of crossing these streams. Stream crossing and structures should be designed to avoid creating icing and erosion problems. This analysis should include assessing the effects of an increase in fishing due to newly opened road access as part of its scope of work. There is an obvious linkage between access roads for this project and land use/ fish and wild life studies. Review of the manuals does not indicate that the appropriate process or mechanism is in place to see that this occurs. GENERAL COMMENTS It is the consensus of the Steering Committee that each study task procedures manual should include two maps: 1. 2. A map that delineates the boundaries of the specific study tasks described in the respective manual. A second map delineating the overall study area, ie from the mouth of the Susitna River to the Denali Highway. SUMMARY In conclusion, the above comments should be considered as summary comments designed to flag the most significant and compelling issues which require correction or rectification in order to assure that the procedures and approaches used in the studies will yield the answers necessary to make the most informed and best decision regarding the proposed Susitna project. The Steering Committee members believe the most compelling need is for a well-conceived process to improve the linkage and coordination of the various studies. This is particularly true in several of these studies where one element is dependent upon findings of other studies. An example is the need for fisheries impact mitigation to be built upon the assessment of the existing fishery resources and the instream flow/hydrology studies. The recognition of the sequential nature of this process is lacking in the procedures manuals reviewed. - - - - ... - - - - - ""' - - ..., ..... - - - - - - - - ....... i. ~ ~ ~; ~l ~~ ---~ ~, ··t _J f_J.~ .;l -._J ;.~ \·~ ·~·gt!i ···lw 'f·>·wl .. e·• , . ., ------...... Eric Yould e 8 Niltmber 21, 1980 l~e also would like to emphasize the importance of the relationship between the ultimate design of the procedural manuals and a particular study product; that product being identification of and development of mitigation measures for the human and natural resources being studied. We have recommended several times above that mitigation be added or broadened in scope on a resource by resource basis. This concern is based on our collective experience in assessing the adequacy of the mitigative features of countless environmental statements; they are often very weak in this critical area. As the mitigation efforts may be a key to assessing the feasibility of this project and a key to the success of the environmental statement that may follow, we urge you to integrate "mitigation" into all systems designed to assess human and natural resource impacts. Sincerely, OJ~ Al Carson Chairman Susitna Hydro Steering Committee cc: Steering Committee Members Reed Stoops ~---... MEMORAN~UM Statl of Alaska DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TO SUSITNA HYDRO ELECTRIC STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS (See Distribution List) DATE: October 29, 1980 FILE NO QL TELEPHONE NO: FROM AL CARSON suBJECT November 5, 1980 Meeting Steering Committee Chairman There will be a meeting of the Steering Committee at 8:30A.M. on Wednesday, November 5, 1980 at the University of Alaska Anchorage Campus Center Executive Conference Room. The Campus Center is located approximately 3 blocks east of the corner of 36th Avenue and Lake Otis off Providence. Attached is a sketch showing the location of the conference room on the lower level. The purpose of this meeting is: (1) To finalize Steering Committee review comments on the procedures manuals used by ACRES and their contractors. (2) To comment upon ACRES approach to identification of power alternatives in the railbelt. Attached please find a packet of information for your review before the meeting. (3) To identify any other tasks or actions that the members of the steering committee wish. The 8:30 A.M. to Noon session will be devoted to items 1 and 3. The 1:00 to 5:00 P.M. session will address item 2. Please give this meeting your highest priority for 11/5/80. Your partic- ipation is vital if our effort is to be successful. DISTRIBUTION LIST Don McKay U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service 733 W. 4th Ave., Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Tom Trent AK Dept. of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 John Rego Bureau of Land Management Anchorage District Office 4700 E. 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99502 02·00 1 A( Rev.l 0/79) il..;:..;...:l'/L.:D OCT 30 1980 f~l<A POWER AUinUklfY 1/ - - - - - - - - - -- ... - - - - - - - -SUSITNA HYDRO ELECTRIC STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS DISTRIBUTION LIST CONTINUED Bob Lamke U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources 733 W. 4th Ave., Suite 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Bill Wilson or Chuck Evans Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (U of A) 707 "A" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dave Sturdevant Dept. of Environmental Conservation Pouch "0" Juneau, Alas~a 99811 Larry Wright or Bill Welch Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service 1011 E. Tudor Road, Suite 297 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Brad Smith or Ron 'Morris National Marine Fisheries Service 701 "C" Street, Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Attachments bee: R. Stoops -R&D D. Wozniak -A.P.A. e October 29, 1980 Page 2 r 0 :E !'T"1 ::0 r ,..., < r1i r "'f.,. :;:j E - I !' :: "' z. • -rr-u ~ 0 L Fl~ :IJl!I[J ...J1 2 ,., ~ <:> :: c > > 'Z. 1\ > i - - - -. .,.. ¥'' m=rrn=r .... , .............. -_ ......... _.;,_.. ··. ,_;_ ... . ·~-~.:·~:~[::}'~?.;}~ ~:-_:f?~:· :~:;:., ~::~.: ' . ·. -·· ~-·.~:·~~:<c.:~~;:-~~-~~~··~ .. ' : -. ··-· · .... .: ... ~-~ ~~:];f!/:·~~~-;~:;.~_Z;~i~:~li.::: :. r,••, '. ·.. . .. · . .. ~ .. ·. . ' : ... _. .. :-.. '. ~ .. :-. . . . . .. .... ' . -::::-~::' .. :'·~·;.~·· .. -~~~--· ... : .. ~--~ ··-: :-.:~. _., ', ....... :-~ .... · .. :~ ~, 1) M(J~ 9-1-.::f{}/;1 ---!..V .:;! (/ t -y ~.::/(] 1/ /Ice i/ ~dv ; r r :=n-/ -.... ._--v \ I L lSS-bL' ) hSO-n.)_,£ J c::?E -JrL& ;f,sv-}/JF -zj ?!. -(_ L-c H/) L -9 ( Z:. ~ ~<p.*-qt.~ :> oas -J t ""2. _', L _c, I~ -I l \.' 199 f, -lrj, ~ .JJ?b-* ,, ,,,,_t~ f 'l ~ CJ?. -59h ~~~-S~S/} g [Jp-JLZ r~ ~ ubf~o rytM(S{{ ~ ~-- """"0 s-.} ~ J ) \:} ~-~ 8 (;J-:Jr/dQJ..~)~'l:j;) ......u>'J~7?'ry' ~"" ;, -· ; v C> --'7/?J{/.Y ;?_) I ~f:j/ ([yf/(dfl >~/ 7 t>J /) J.. c ~ ~ (!_ ;;;y1r1"'Z.oM q <J1t-.VC . . /.-'..-/C./ .. ' ~/U}I I /·" ... -·. I;.-;; A~r;r.;;e -L-Vd f1'12/'3_L5"t;>t ?)flf( ~""-0 1\_1 \.A.&-I \ JH9.'Yr1 )iVY7 f ~ ry·~p..n?-f S on i?([ v~ h ~ o g 1 s f I( ~·w."""~J ~'"'~+& 0-.1\~ ht/ . .............. -~~<----.... ... ---..... ~ ....... "-~·'...; . -·· ,·· .. ·.. -: ........ . -~.::_.-·"'·~.:~.·.:·· ':. ~-......... ~~f~~~~-;¥~~~- .... , .... ,. -- - - • •• •• --+ C- ,r li . ' . . -. I . .·t :. , I ----=··;.!:,_ ~.o...l..iior..J ---------. I . I ., ~T?:"..., t j·• ,.J .J I ~· .. ' ·, '>\ , .. ,-4., =~ • I ,ii''·J:i ;;'! I •·J•~· : .• ..:·; Mr. Al Carson Chairman, Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Department of Natural Resources 619 Warehouse Drive Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 November 14, 1980 P5700.11.74 T.546 Dear Al: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee Review of Potential Hydroelectric Development Sites Thank you for the opportunity of meeting with the Steering Committee on November 5, 1980. I personally found it disappointing that my objective of establishing a workshop atmosphere where the members of_ the Steering Committee could have a positive input into our selection of candidate hydro sites did not materialize. However, I realize that our objectives for this comoonent of the Susitna studies may not have been adequately explained. ·In this regard I have attached a further explanation of our objectives as prepared by Robert Mohn of APA. I have accepted your suggestion that the most efficient means of obtaining input from the Steering Committee is to 1) identify in-house the short list of candidate sites we propose for further study; 2) present this list to the Steering Committee for review and comment, and 3) incorporate these comments into our final selection and review. Presented on Table 1 is our short list of candidate sites proposed for further study. As mentioned on November 5 it is essential for planning purposes to retain 4-6 sites within each of the size categories listed. These sites were selected from the list presented on Table 2. Table 2 represents sites that have passed through our rough economic and environmental screening. Although I realize that the Steering Committee disagreed with our rough screening criteria it is my opinion that using this criteria allowed us to eliminate the least environmentally acceptable schemes. .~.·:~·1~5 .u~:Ct=:~C/'\~-~ ~: .,-:C::L=-·".::-' .. -::J • ~· ·~ ,., •• : •. J =": ·• . r "'! ' .-. • ....., • • • ~ • •: ~:... ~· •.· ·---~·::...:---.. , .. , ":::..."1 : .. : -) .... ... - .... -' - 11111111 ... ... ... IIIII - IIIII ... - ... IIIII ... - .·. - - - - - - -(- - - ...... Mr. Al Carson Chairman, Susitna Hydro Steering Committee November 14, 1980 page 2 I would appreciate receiving the Steering Committee's review and comments on the sites presented in Table 1. If for any reason you find that any of these sites are totally unacceptable, I request that you recommend a replacement of similar size from the sites listed in Table 2. This replacement is essential so that we can retain 4-6 candidate sites in each size category. Information relating to location and design para- meteNfor each site was included in the information packets distributed prior to our November 5 meeting. Trusting this approach meets with your approval. KRY/jmh Attachments .·,c.~:.:.;~~ .. ~~;-_:: .... ! ··;""";~.,?(~:-:..-\ .·..:.: Coordinator ' •' . (. TO: FROM: ALASKA POWER 1\.UTJIORITY Susitna Steering Committee Members -~/ Robert A. Mohn tvro/ Director of Engineer(ng Alaska Power Authority MEMORANDUM DATE: SUBJECT: November 25, 1980 Environmental screening of hydroelectric sites There has been some measure of frustration and disappointment on all sides associated with the attempt by Acres American to solicit input from the Steering Committee at the committee's last meeting. It seems to me that an important factor in the lack of success may stem from misunderstanding or uncertainty about this exercise in relation to an 11 alternatives study 11 • As you probably remember, the original Acres plan of study (POS) called for a study of alternatives to Susitna as the primary element of Task 1. Information about alternatives was to be developed, a screening mechanism was to be employed to narrow the range of acceptable options, and the Susitna project was to be compared against the preferred alternative. This work was to be conducted in parallel with the detailed studies of the Susitna project, and its goal was to formulate several optimized 11 Without Susitna 11 plans. In other words, Task 1 was meant to be a thorough search for a plan that would be preferable to Susitna development. · The Power Authority requested supplemental funding to adequately fund Task 1 after some early criticism of the funding level and study scope. The requested $1.3 million was appropriated but with the caveat that the alternatives study would be performed by someone other than Acres. The Governor•s 4-person policy review committee (Ulmer, Lehr, Quinlan and Conway) selected Battelle to do the work. The elimination of Task 1 from our study plan left a significant hole. This was the case because information that was to be developed in Task 1 was critical to the formulation of the preferred Susitna basin development plan and to the economic evaluation of the Susitna plan. River basin planners cannot formulate an optimal Susitna plan without knowing what the remainder of the Railbelt power system components are likely to be, and the economic analysts cannot evaluate benefits and costs without having a ''without Susitna 11 plan to compare to. So, the Power Authority and Acres responded to the termination of Task 1 by augmenting the design development work in Task 6~ This permitted .the Susitna study to stay on track by incorporating that portion of Task 1 needed for Susitna plan formulation. The objective of this work is not to formulate an optimal set of alternatives; that is being done by Battelle. Instead the purpose is to gather information about likely components of a future Railbelt power system as a frame of reference for Susttna project formulation. ... .. - .... .... - - .... -.. - - - - - - - - - - -r ..__ - - - - - - - .... - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM TO: Susitna Steering Committee Members DATE: November 25, 1980 It is in this gathering of information about likely system components and in establishing the frame of reference that your assistance has been sought. To reiterate, the exercise is in support of Susitna project formulation; it is not meant to replace the Battelle alternatives study or be the final word on alter- natives. ,_ John D. lawrence Project Manager Acres American, Inc. • 900 Liberty Bank Building Main at Court Buffalo, New York 14202 Attn: Mr. Kevin Young Dear Kevin: • ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY November 25, 1980 Reference is made to your letter of November 14, 1980 to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee about hydro sites. \·le concur with your approach of corresponding directly ~'lith Mr. Carson. He will both distribute the listing and collate any findings thereto. Mr. Mohn prepared the additional explanation of the task 6.32-6.36 objectives and it was forwarded to the Steering Conunfttee with your letter. I am attaching a copy of that explanation to your files. If Mr. Carson chooses to respond directly to you it would be appreciated if you would provide us with copies of his responses. Attachments: As stated cc: J. Gi 11 Sincerely, David Wozniak Project Engineer CONCUR: RN1 -~~~1~~~J181iiiifli"iiiiiWJk...s•~·-·II!I!W!I!!!IIiiii!IA!in!EWilll1I!IIICBCIWII _____ c:.,. ________________ _ .. .. - ... - ... ... ... ... -- ... ... ... - - .... -I - - - - - - - - - - ~ ----,' "'' ALASKA Pm~ER AUTHORITY ·t ' \ t-k. Al Carson State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources 323 E. 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Al: t' ~ t ttovember 26, 1980 Thank you for your efforts in pulling together the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee review of the Task 7 Procedures Hanuals. I have fonnally forwarded ~he comments to Acres Americans Inc., with instructions to act prompt- ly on the h~CO!Tillendations. I anticipate the vast ma.jority will be considered by the end of the year, with the remainder addressed shortly thereafter. I am planning on giving a report on their disposition at the next convening of the committee, which I am assuming will be 1n February, 1981. Once again, thanks to you and your committee members. FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR cc: Don HcKay U. S. Fish & Hildl ife Service 733 H. 4th Ave., Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Tom Trent Alaska Department of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 John Rego Bureau of Land fr1anagement Anchorage District Office 4700 E. 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Bob Lamk.e U. S. Geological SurJey Hater Resources 733 W. 4th Ave.7 Suite 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Bill Wilson or Chuck Evans Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (U of A} 707 '1 A" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 S1ncere1yt David Hozniak Project Engineer CONCUR RM-1 /: / " ,(>. {_ Mr. Al Carson November 26, 1980 Page 2 Dave Sturdevant • Departme~t of Environmental Conservation Pouch "0 11 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Larry Wright or Bill Nelch Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service 1011 E. Tudor Road, Suite 297 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Brad Smith or non Horri s National Marine Fisheries Studies 701 "C" Street, Box 43 Anchorage~ Alaska 99513 • .. - - IIIII - ... .. IIIII ... ..., - ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -· - - -. 't ~7 - -~ Hr. John Lawrence Attn: Kevin Young Acres ~merican, Inc. • 900 liberty Bank Building Main @ Court Buffalo, New York 14202 Dear Kevin: ALASKA. POWER AUTHORITY • rlovernber 26' 1980 Attached is the finished version of the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Com- mittee findings to the Task 7 Procedures Manuals. A ~rork1ng draft was presented to us during the November 5, 1980 meeting; this version incorporates comrnents made at that meeting. AS you \-till see, it differs from that \10rking draft fn minor detail only. Also attached are agency source documents, resources previously un- available to us. As I surrrnarized to the Steering Corrmittee at the flovcmber 5 meeting, the Power Authority considers the majority of the comments to be reasonable~ help- ful. and worthy of immediate incorporation. He accordingly solicit your posi- tive approach to accommodation of the Steering committee comments and recommend- ations. I suggest we very quickly address the acceptable recommendations and then move on to focus our energies on those that require deta11ed evaluation. To insure we are in agreenEnt, I suggest you advise us on a point by point basis those comments you recommend accepting, with narrative as to method of incorporation. In separate correspondence. advise us of those comments for which you have reservations, and your recommendations thereto. In view of the fact that we have been privy to the Steering Committee thinking since early November. you should be able to do this \·tell befors the Christmas Holidays. Such a timetable Hill hopefully facilitate early resolution of all the comments in time for a report to the Steering Commit- tee at their next convening. FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Attachment: As noted Sincerely, Oavi d ~lozn1 ak Project Engineer cc: J. HaydeL. Acres Buffalo w/o attachment J. Gill~ Acres, Anchorage, w/o attachment CONCUR RAM A. Carson, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, w/o attachment r~ark Robinson, FERC, 825 N. Capitol" St., NE, Washington, D. C. 20426 MFR: Next convening tentatively scheduled for Februrary, 1981. -I ( .. -...--. ~ ---' ---t.-" ! ·-'.- _; :J'U ~ G . -;::' \ r.::: : il!- ;. ,_ :I~ :, .. I i \':::../ ;_j r· r ·--.-tin (J , l ! • \ ; ~ ..... ...i J '; / ' '!. I j \' ' ' I j\ i ~: ' : : : ·-~ ·, · ... •. : , · "'·. I 1J \ i -~ ' • . ..• I .... ·. I I. ' \ \ I ...., I U ~ ~:..,; Ll .::j 'J w !..J u I I JAY .t HAIIIIDIID, 'l!Y£11101 I .. -I i t DEP.\.IlT~IENT ot· .NATUR."I .. Rt:SOURCES j 323 E. 4TH A VENUE DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT j ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 .. December 11, 1980 Don McKay U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service 733 W. 4th Ave., Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. McKay: 279-5577 ... .... - - - .. Enclosed please find a 11/14/80 letter from Kevin Young of Acres American concerning review of potential hydroelectric sites. You will recall that we discussed this with Mr. Young during our afternoon session on November 5, 1980. There is also a memorandum from Robert Mohn of the Alaska Power Authfr~t~~h~R . describes why A.P.A. has contracted ACRES to do this task. A:..:rnoR:rv ·,r-~ SUSITNA '. · Please review the documents as explained in Mr. Young's letter and ~~~~ P5?~ ; your comments to me either in writing or by phone by December 31, 19180. ..·1\.74 .... ;-j ------------.. .. i l Sincerely, ~~ Al Carson, Chairman Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Enclosures cc: Eric Yould -A.P.A. Kevin Young -ACRES ; :..~;h·!_i;?.;;::l: uo. ' ; .. -~~ ---~--·---...--• ;' ~-'··:~ ! t3 ! t t' ',._ .. I -I -· '-·~· ;, ~ l ~ ~ ~ :::; i3 I z r . . ! -·-·-'-·: I i i:H·".'·/i-· . :-:r.;.:~ ~~;_.--::;:: . :---:~~~-~f.., ! :l(c: ~: · .' : ;·1 t 1 {·, !-·."'c ·; ,· .:-: ~·-r ,/ .--~-~ L?:/L:.. 1 --~IYv- .---·. : :·.:_~-·~·-.~ _J. / . ---·, 3 . . ·:' ~~ ___ ? / ( • '5•,;.....;-"!"j· ::: . -: -· ..• ~ ~.....!..!_;, .. . ::: ~l T l l -~!~'-_::;_~'. :_! -~ I !".-!~VI-1- ·-;-:-H-F~cj·-: :=l'ICc.f:~.t<X i t',lf{- :_~4~~s~1!'11'7. I I ~.--=-:-; ,--. -~(17-. I I ; /;' .-·-:-~-' ; ! 1 I I • ----.;:;-~· :·.ci-;:--l,r: ,:-·/ . r71: . ._._ J/ ! - - -( - - - - - - - ~ ' ..: i - "' --·~ ....., -.-,., ,.~ ~ .. ~ ~ ',.;. I/ It\ I ' '· ' ·,-\ I .j' --. ,-; . ; ·_ '. j (""'\ \ ... •• --...J -...._ ,_. ·,_;., w u I I I JAYS. HAMMOIIO, GOY£11101 DEP~,RT~tENT o•· NATURAl .. R .. :SOURCES I I ' I I DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVEL~MENT / December 11, 1980 Tom Trent AK Department of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Dear Mr. Trent: 323 E. 4TH A VENUE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 279-5577 Enclosed please find a 11/14/80 letter from Kevin Young of Acres American concerning review of potential hydroelectric sites. You will recall that we discussed this with Mr. Young during our afternoon session on November 5, 1980. There is also a memorandum from Robert Mohn of the Alaska Power Authority which describes why A.P.A. has contracted ACRES to do this task. Please review the documents as explained in Mr. Young's letter and forward your comments to me either in writing or by phone by December 31, 1980. Sincerely, m~ Al Carson, Chairman Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Enclosures cc: Eric Yould -A.P.A. Kevin Young -ACRES .,; I r c ----,... ~ ..., ; . :I I \ .. : : !1 . -; :I\ '\ , ~ ,.. ' ' I ' ---·-,__ :·_: ·,_l i.J\.. DEP..\.IlT~IENT o•· NATURAl .. a•:SOURCES DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT December 11, 1980 John Rego Bureau of Land Management Anchorage District Office 4700 E. 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Dear Mr. Rego: l . I I I JAY .t HAIIMDitD, SDVCIItDI 1 I I i l / 323 E. 4TH A VENUE f ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 279-5577 Enclosed please find a 11/14/80 letter from Kevin Young of Acres American concerning review of potential hydroelectric sites. You will recall that we discussed this with Mr. Young during our afternoon session on November 5, 1980. There is also a memorandum from Robert Mohn of the Alaska Power Authority which describes why A.P.A. has contracted ACRES to do this task. Please review the documents as explained in Mr. Young's letter and forward your comments to me either in writing or by phone by December 31, 1980. Sincerely, Gil~ Al Carson, Chairman Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Enclosures cc: Eric Yould -A.P.A. Kevin Young -ACRES ... ... - ... ... - ... ... .... - - - ... .., ... - .... - - j/ - - -c - - - - - - - - --~-!""""! -_; 'I ; I \ ' .:·i~ ! ~~ \ !J ~Lu UEP~'RT~IENT o•· NATURAl~ RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT December 11, 1980 Bob Lamke U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources 733 W. 4th Ave., Suite 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Lamke: I I I JAY .S. HAIIIIOIIO, GOY£11101 I 323 E. 4TH A VENUE I ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 279-5577 Enclosed please find a 11/14/80 letter from Kevin Young of Acres American concerning review of potential hydroelectric sites. You will recall that we discussed this with Mr. Young during our afternoon session on November 5, 1980. There is also a memorandum from Robert Mohn of the Alaska Power Authority which describes why A.P.A. has contracted ACRES to do this task. Please review the documents as explained in Mr. Young's letter and forward your comments to me either in writing or by phone by December 31, 1980. Sincerely, Gl~ Al Carson, Chairman Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Enclosures cc: Eric Yould -A.P.A. Kevin Young -ACRES ( .._.: ~ - .. ~'7 .. -, __; ·/: }l\ \ 1 , •. ·A i~\ : : \ '. ! ,....,, ·, _. ~ uw •.4 DEJ•.tJlT~IENT Ot' NATURAl .. RESOURCES I l I I ! I l I JAYS. HAMIIOIID, S0'(£11101 DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT' / 323 E. 4TH A VENUE ANCHORAG£., ALASKA 99501 December 11~ 1980 Bill Wilson or Chuck Evans Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (U of A) 707 11 A11 Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Messrs. Wilson & Evans: J 279-5577 Enclosed please find a 11/14/80 letter from Kevin Young of Acres American concerning review of potential hydroelectric sites. You will recall that we discussed this with Mr. Young during our afternoon session on November 5, 1980. There is also a memorandum from Robert Mohn of the Alaska Power Authority which describes why A.P.A. has contracted ACRES to do this task. Please review the documents as explained in Mr. Young's letter and forward your comments to me either in writing or by phone by December 31, 1980. Sincerely, ())~ Al Carson, Chairman Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Enclosures cc: Eric Yould -A.P.A. Kevin Young -ACRES ... ... .. atl .. .. .. .. -- ... - -- ~ -.. - - - - - - -( - - - - - - :~ ... -\ ~--.t,· !-.:.\ ~\ :-;\ J·j\ .. : .. : ~-: ' ··--w ·...,....; w ! i I I JAY .t HAMM0/10, &O'fCI/tOI l ; ltEP.~RT~IENT o•· .NATURAl .. RESOURCES / DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT / December 11, 1980 Dave Sturdevant Department of Environmental Conservation Pouch non Juneau, Alaska 99811 Dear Mr. Sturdevant: 323 E. 4TH A VENUE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99507 279-5577 Enclosed please find a 11/14/80 letter from Kevin Young of Acres American concerning review of potential hydroelectric sites. You will recall that we discussed this with Mr. Young during our afternoon session on November 5, 1980. There is also a memorandum from Robert Mohn of the Alaska Power Authority which describes why A.P.A. has contracted ACRES to do this task. Please review the documents as explained in Mr. Young's letter and forward your comments to me either in writing or by phone by December 31, 1980. Sincerely, OJ~ Al Carson, Chairman Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Enclosures cc: Eric Yould -A.P.A. Kevin Young -ACRES c· .---.-,......._-n n i\ ....-r"'I"'9Q . ;..":l c::-:J n ....... --1 r' :' ,.., ' ; " \ : : ,1, \ r \-~ : v(· ~ ·, . ~ -; f : ' \ ; I L. . ! ~ : I ' I :'. \ I I I. • ' . . ' ,, u~ 1 j \ ~; ! ...,; ': ; 1 ~ ~ i I..J l i' ! J 1 \.\ l 1\,\ ,_J \ \0 u-u u Lb ~:::v u LnJ t.= Lr\J \:}) u u u-u DEJ•.\UT~IENT o•· ~ATURAI .. Rt:SOURCES DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT December 11, 1980 Larry Wright or Bill Welch Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service 1011 E. Tudor Road, Suite 297 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Messrs. Wright & Welch: I f I JAY 1 HAMMOND, GD'ICIItOI I I I 323 E. 4TH AVENUE ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 279-5577 Enclosed please find a 11/14/80 letter from Kevin Young of Acres American concerning review of potential hydroelectric sites. You will recall that we discussed this with Mr. Young during our afternoon session on November 5, 1980. There is also a memorandum from Robert Mohn of the Alaska Power Authority which describes why A.P.A. has contracted ACRES to do this task. Please review the documents as explained in Mr. Young•s letter and forward your comments to me either in writing or by phone by December 31, 1980. Sincerely, 01~ Al Carson, Chairman Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Enclosures cc: Eric Yould-A.P.A. Kevin Young -ACRES .., - - ... .., ... - ... .... - ... -.. ... -.. - - - - - - - -C. - - - - ' . -;;,::, c:-;:J /A\ c:-;:: p ~ ! I ' ! I . . . -~ ' ! I I {1 I ; ! ~ r9 U /rJ U l.S C'-~--:::: • ' ~ i 1 I 1: ;! ·~ ~ i i I -' '~0 u r1 n ~~ ,~ ~ /7 :; /.~\ !i !'\ i\ :i·( (;\\ tn' u'\' \ :: f I\ I '• ··-, ·_: '., j' .. ' ·, l I..._." \ j \ -u lbLJ\j 0 u ui.ru / J f JAr S. HAIIMOIID, GDYCIIIOI I.DEI~'IlT~IENT 014 NATURAl~ a•:sOURCES I 323 E. 4TH AVENUE DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT December 11, 1980 Brad Smith or Ron Morris National Marine Fisheries Service 701 "C" Street, Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Dear Messrs. Smith & Morris: I ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 279-5577 Enclosed please find a 11/14/80 letter from Kevin Young of Acres American concerning review of potential hydroelectric sites. You will recall that we discussed this with Mr. Young during our afternoon session on November 5, 1980. There is also a memorandum from Robert Mohn of the Alaska Power Authority which describes why A.P.A. has contracted ACRES to do this task. Please review the documents as explained in Mr. Young•s letter and forward your comments to me either in writing or by phone by December 31, 1980. Sincerely, ~~ Al Carson, Chairman Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Enclosures cc: Eric Yould -A.P.A. Kevin Young -ACRES .. .. (_ 'r( i --~ i _,.:.~; •• ..li. _ _;_,._~ --------. -, '1F'~"' I I' J .• ~ :j ~ !' j :·;i~~'l·{--11' . --.,. ,, . :.,~:-.1 Mr. Al Carson . ' Chairman, Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Department of Natural Resources 619 Warehouse Drive Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 November 14, 1980 P5700. 11.74 T.546 Dear Al: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee Review of Potential Hydroelectric Development Sites Thank you for the opportunity of meeting with the Steering Committee on November 5, 1980. I personally found it disappointing that my objective of establishing a workshop atmosphere where the members of_ the Steering Committee could have a positive input into our selection of candidate hydro sites did not materialize. However, I realize that our objectives for this component of the Susitna studies may not have been adequately explained. In this regard I have attached a further explanation of our objectives as prepared by Robert Mohn of APA. I have accepted your suggestion that the most efficient means of obtaining input from the Steering Committee is to 1) identify in-house the short list of candidate sites we propose for further study; 2) present this list to the Steering Committee for review and comment, and 3) incorporate these comments into our final selection and review. Presented on Table 1 is our short list of candidate sites proposed for further study. As mentioned on November 5 it is essential for planning purposes to retain 4-6 sites within each of the size categories listed. These sites were selected from the list presented on Table 2. Table 2 represents sites that have passed through our r.ough economic and environmental screening. Although I realize that the Steering Committee disagreed with our rough screening criteria it is my opinion that using this criteria allowed us to eliminate the least environmentally acceptable schemes. ~ ·-.·:: ,·\ ::.s . , ... Ct-: IC _:,~! : .' . ,--:;: ;:: ~=· · .. ~· ~~ .·::; ·: ._·_: ·: t~ -.:-! :; :... •r: ''"' . .._.-, ~ . •: -_·:. .... "" ........ ·-=··= -.. ... - - - - - - .,.; - - - - - - - -- .. ·. ..,_~ .... t ....... - - - - - Mr. Al Carson Chairman~ Susitna Hydro Steering Committee November 14, 1980 page 2 I would appreciate receiving the Steering Committee•s review and comments on the sites presented in Table 1. If for any reason you find that any of these sites are totally unacceptable~ I request that you recommend a replacement of similar size from the sites listed in Table 2. This replacement is essential so that we can retain 4-6 candidate sites in each size category. Information relating to location and design para- meteNfor each site was included in the information packets distributed prior to our November 5 meeting. Trusting this approach meets with your approval. KRY/jmh Attachments . \'-·~ ....;.~ . ' ... ..:.:· .·-~: .. : . ·-: ... ,;rJ· . .:;~ ... ,· ~: Coordinator , / / . ' .. - Tab 1 e I Candidate Sites for Future Study ..... Size <25 MW 25-100 MW >lQQ MW - Tustumena Snow Chakachamna Allison Creek Hicks Johnson Silver Lake Cache Browne r Strandline Lake Keetna Land ....... -Talkeetna-2 Tokichitna Lower Chulitna - ....... - - . . .. - ...... Table 2 Sites Passing Rough Screening Size <25 MW 25-lOO·MW >100 MW Strandl i ne L. Whiskers Snow Lane -Lower Beluga Coal Kenai Lower Tokichitna Lower Lake Cr. Chulitna Gerstle Yentna Allison Cr. Ohio Tanana R. Cathedral Bluffs (~ Grant Lake Lower Chulitna Bruskasna Johnson McClure Bay Cache Kanti shna R. Browne ..... Upper Nellie Juan Greenstone Upper Beluga Tazilna Power Creek Talkeetna 2 Coffee Kenai Lake -Silver Lake Granite Gorge Gul kana R. Chakachamna Solomon Gulch Keetna Klutina -Tustumena Sheep Creek Bradley Lake Skwentna Hick's Site ...... Talachulitna Lowe - - - ...... 0-~-0,. - - ,._ ~ - - - - - - - ...... - ~ . -_;.t· ,;· ·;·r· r··i'. .... l"" ·-. ·' • . . ~~ ·..'!t;.l ' •• -. '.,. p!~ ~ t :), . . '·. . .· .. ,...,_ ,. ·1--.,,,.!1 ~. 'Jl'tf ,, ·' ,'-'~~f:*-lh:O:";' 't · ··••t"l.Fc >"'''"": !<'AlASKA POWER AUTHORITY-~ ttti) -~-:~n :'' ·''' r~•.1.l . v .... • I ' ~ ;;..,. ... ·. ·~ Robert E. LeResche, Comm1ss1oner Alaska Department of Natural Resources P.!uch·M (Mafl Stop 1000) Juneau, Alaska 99811 Dear Comm1ss1oner LeResche: January 2, 1981 · ;~ •• 1.:,Your organization has been cooperating extensively with the Power Author1ty in assess1ng:the potential effects of hydroelectr1c development of the Upper Su- s1tna River ;B.asin.-:.Several different vehicles have been used; meetings, corres-: pofldence, ·at\d Su"51 tna Hydroelectric Project Steering Camlittee act1viti es. We feel that the results reflect close consultat1on and coordination between our or- ganizations. As the study has progressed, more and more items requir1ng consultation have emerged, and the future w111 requ1re a still higher level of involvement. This anticipated level of activity. plus the fact that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Fish and W11dl1fe Coord1nation Act require documentation of such consultations. suggests 1t fs now appropriate to be more formal in our ex- changes. Accordingly. we advance this suggested procedure to you for your concur- rence and/or suggestions for modification. ~ In general, we propose a two step process. The first step will consist of consultation with the Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee. That body ~ill perform evaluations and structure recommendations. The Power Authority w111 consider these recommendations and formulate a position. Upon completion of these actions, the results w~ll be processed through your agency for formal con- currence. This represents a sl1ght expans1on of the original concept under which the Steer1ng Committee was structured; the Committee was to act primar11y as an ad- visory bo~' to the study team while ~econdar11y facilitating agency involvement 1n the study effort. Member agencies were to be represented by senior staffers of skills appropriate to the matters under consideration. This was considered to be advantageous as it would facilitate responsiveness by virtue of being relatively independent of procedural impediments, while still reflect1ng to a substantial de- gree the agency v1ewpo1nt. This proposal hopefully preserves those advantages within an expanded role by permitt1ng attainment of interagency concensus with a relatively low level of in- put and a h1gh degree of flex1bi11ty. It also permits the various agencies to tailor their part1c1pat1on to the spec1f1c needs. Finally, the second step of re- ferral of Steering Committee de11berat1ons for formal agency concurrence meets regu- latory and statutory requirements. ~ ... .,..\ -~: . I -~ ~-.. .... ~ .... .,. ,. ' ~ .. ·1· .. )....,._, l ~~' . . ' ' -~:u:u;4j!!T;!~~; .. '1 • : . ___ ;, , -~ .. , : . _ . . e· ... ~1~~-~··. ,-.;:..,';., l ·~''. •. . . ~it~;.~,:....f-ll;:~-<:·~----~, ... ~=' . ' ' ' . . =~·;..;.;? • ''"~ii~'''"""~~i·.:;t~,_ . .. . > ; ' .' \. • • • j~;tf~o/t~ .. ~~·~:;~J.c~ . :i ·~·· ~ ~ ' .,. ·;~''H",t:t,~·-""'"\ol"\•t,.\·,1;~-~ • •il '•r ; a~~.: .. =~?i'.:i':):}~.\: ..;!~ ••• :~~~~~~~ii:: ,_ . ' ' ' < .. ,: .. ::,~:.:;·:::~. rran:_ces 'A. · U.l100r i pi rector · ,::;·.c::~ ~--·:::-"'otf1ce'.·of, the·· Governor : " . ' ;:::<~.~::<~?·;:.;~:~:·oivfsH)n ~of ·t>oH cy De vel oprrent and Planning · .,~~:_,··(._::.;i:Poucn~'~J\0 '(IQ·n ;' sto{>' of64} 't' . -~/·-·,._':~£Juneau· ·Arnska:,-.-:998lr· ·. · . . . , . .. .:,::;. ::.;~~:..-:,;~ ': .. ·.: '~ ·;' ·.; • ~: •. . . •. ~ ;f : . I' ·;i;: e ... January 2, 1981 - ... ... ,(~ · '···-oear' Fran· .. · '· · 1' ' · : ·• i~ ' _:,,>}~~!'::..~f.t.~"t~~;.~::• ·'·:, .. ·; .. ..:; ,._ : ·: :-~:::<. ....... . . . . .... ·-~··' · ·· ~~~~.-·~.{~·.:~:rne~Pmrer. )\Uth0r1ty.1S<sttidy1ng and assessing the potential effects of hydro-: : -::eH~ctr1c·~evelopmeritilf the:'Upper'Sus1th4 River Gas1n. Acccmp11shment of that : -.:. -''til'sk:'~'riecessftiti!i·::consuftbl1on :and coordination with var1ous Federal, State and 1'!- ·-., --~· .. cal::~pl-ganfiat1oos·,:.incluCi1o9 ymirs •. · ·-· . ~ .. -:.~;i1t~~r;t::: ~:-:;.\.>/.· ::;;-;: :\~:·;~ >::.:::::~·~u~~~ ~ft < .. : .. ,c' ·. . · . . ~ -~~.··; ~'?:;':+''!l?As: the.:.stUd,y";~astprog~sse<ftrarire ar\q_, more items requiring consul tat1 on ha~ _/·'·~emerged,·'and;:tfle:~Jutui'i!w111'requ1re:i.st1l1 h1gher level of 1nvo1vement. This:··: ::~:·antldpated/1·&-ver~:·ot!~'i:t) ~rtY. iP,1~i ~li~ . .'fa~t that tho federa 1 Ener9y Regulatory · ·: . <Commission> {FERC}."and .·the, fish and--Wildlife Coord1 nation Act require docume-ntat1tW -•-'of.'~uch·:consul'titfPris;.'suggests;~.H is now appropriate to establiSh a formal pro- · .. :cedure for'our d)ritacts~ ~~.\Accordinglh 'we· advance the following plan to you for· . , .. your:·con.~ul'T,ence .. ~iid/9r: sugges1;~ons. for~ mod1f1cat1on. . · · ·--:: · . ' ;_·.·: . .:::,: :~~· :~~<·;~''f;·\ ~: i;'i~~t: 1' r; ·H~ Ur~· >;i:, ;i 1 l~l\:;-; : · . -~ · . , In gener~l .:;· w.e. :P.roMStJl. tW,t)i.~tept P,~e$s. The f1 rst step w111 cons 1st of<:", c.onsu1tat1oo .w1t~. [l~~:>~!fS~.tri~,;~~t~l~~J~ Project S~ering Ccmn1ttee. That. i), '.' .. >~ody ~111 ~.r1.9.~:!'1~W.~.~19~~:,~P~i~t~ur!.:econmen9~tion~. The Power Autho.r1tY~.·: · .~· -. -:~will ~onsfder ~.~he!!''\re~·~~t~~n.t:a"'9Jrprmo1ate a pos1t1on. Upon c~letion: .~~ "·:4 ., ·. ··. ·these act 1 ons ~ ,ithei resu1 ts ;;~1 11 ;: bi ~ p~ssed through the mppropr1 ate organ1 zat19n~ • ' , ~·· ·for'·forma 1·:!conci.tr+enee~···,: .~ li ~;: ·: · .. · i .. , .. ·: ~ -.··.:..:~ .. ''." .:,: ... :: :.~·;~~ .,·: ~->~:: ;·,: 'i.; ' ' .. ·· ..... '1 req~st )'()ur.'written: concur+~nee \11th th1s proposal J or. if you have other ' . .t~ghts" on .. t~' ~tter., ... ~;),.e ahx1ou~ :~ ~xplore them with you. - •: c ) f I i' . ' , ?I:. i ·it;~ ~.: ' ! 1 .. -. ·~~-·· · S1nce'N!ly ~-. , /', {, ---. ~ --) ( I d l ------~ ~ ' I -·~·\ E r1 c P . You 1 d ' Executive 01rector ' ~~ ,.···' .. _ .. ,... ~~ • ., I ,. . . ' cc: · B111· Welch. U •. S. HCRS:~· · · .. Larry ·wr1gh~~ ·o., ·s~ -HeRs : Jim Thomson, U.S. H~'Rs. . . ~ . . -~ ~~ ' ; Sent to: Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Alaska Department of Commerce &·Economic Development Office of the Governor, Division of Policy Development and Planning Matanuska-Susitna Borough · Environmental Protection ~gency, Region 10 Alaska· District, Corps of Engineers . U. S. Geological Survey ·:·.:··,. At t~_ch!lle n t . # 2 ~- . ~;':;!~~:- ;· t ~ ;._ . ~. :.·' .. (. ,.. . . ~ .. ~:l~~:-... : ·;.:::~.{ '. ~;,.:: .. :~ ., .~ !> ··:; t• ;_ ""• ...,,·1/·· .. ! ' g· - ... .-·CONCUR: . -·:. ow -RAM. EPY', ' ..... ... - .-. - - Agency ADC&RA ADC&ED DPOP EPA COE USGS MAT-SU -AOF&G ADEC AONR NMFS -BLM HCRS --·usFWS '- - - ....- Attachment #3 ..... . : ~l; .:._/ e:.- ~ : : : !-: AI.~ASiiA J•O\VER AIT1'1101{11,Y RESPONSE SUMt·1ARY Respond? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Comment Abstain Concur Suggest A-95 Procedures Concur w/option preserved Does not wish to participa Concur Concur Concur Concur, w/option preserved Concur, w/option preserved Concur Concur, w/option preserved ·t ft'' ... :: ••• ._,~·.:: United States Department of the Interior - FISH AND WI LDLII:E StR V ICL Western Alaska Ecological Services 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite !01 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 RSCEIVo.., IN REPLY REFER TO: ( 9 0 7) 2 71-4 57 5 .' ;~ N 1 9 19 i ...t, ALASKA POWER AUTHOR! Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 W. 4th, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Me Yould: .1 € t f ... U~81 ( .-;.J t_) \ The U.S. Fish and \.Jildlife Service (FWS) has received your letter of 2 January 1981 proposing that the agencies comprising the Susitna Hydro- electric Steering Committee provide fonnal concurrence to positions developed by the Alaska Power Authority (APA) in response to committee recommendations. We concur with your proposal. However, in the event that we disagree with APA's position, we reserve the option of providing a fonnal response indicating what is required for HJS concurrence. Sincerely, ;{J-/~~- Field Supervisor cc: AOES - IIIIi .. .... -..' .. ... - ... ... - - .. .... ... - - - - - - - - $¥m¥~ 2lill~ ~~~~~u~-~~ JAY S. HAMMOND, CoYernot DEPT. OF COMMUNITY & REGION.t\.L AFFAIRS / POUCH 8 I OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER I JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811 PHONE: (907} 465-47-00 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear~~ld: JanuaDJ 20, 1981 RECEIVED Jf\N261981 ).JASKA POWER AUTHORITY Thank you for your letter of January 2 regarding hydroelectric developnent of the upper Susitna River Basin. I have no additional ccrcments on this project at this tirre. I do wish the Alaska Power Authority much success in the Susit.11a Hydroelectric Project and all other projects APA is involved with. Please accepts my regrets -I always seem to have conflicts at APA meetings. Sincerely, ~ Lee McAnerney Comnissioner J 08-H2LH ~U&U~ ~'@if &~&~~&:) Ut:t• :\ RT.'t1 •:~'f 0 ... ('O,.~U t:Dt(··: ~\ 1-:('0~0lllt..' IU·:\' .. :I..OI•!'ti<:NT JAY S, HAMMOND. GO'IERIIOR OFFICE Of rHE COIIJI/SSJONER I JUNEAU, A LASKA 99811 Phone: 465-2500 Mr.. Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority January 21, 1981 RECEIVED '.1.N 2? 1981 ALA.SK,\ PO'l/Li; ;\U [}-10t!ITY 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Eric: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 2 requesting a response from me on your proposed procedures for consulta- tion. Please be advised that I concur with the two step process presented in your letter to me. CRW/mh3/20 / Sincerety, I / (. i '. " >' ~ .-vC< · ·-------· . Ch~rles R. W~bber Commissioner ... ... ... - ... ... ... ... .... ... ... - - ... ... \1111111 - ... - - - - - - - - - -' -' / / --~· ... ' ..... , ~~: ~ -;.~ . ·. ~~_:._:: - I I i /' . r· ... ,. :"-.":; '';'~ /" ·" _./ 'II ~If'~ ;r r-e rTI!l 1 r-e r~ r1 w ~ 1~( i.\\ ~ u t;J u l1 lliJ lf ~ lb /)~\ \~) [j \\ I ' I JAYS. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR IH~I':\Il'r:Ut-::~T 01·' 1:1SII ,\"U (~.\ lU: ! OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER I SUBPORT BUILDING ' JUNEAU. ALASKA 99801 January 22, 1981 Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: p.ECEIVE.D ~ ,-· G \ \:..0 I. l9 ~l ;;..AS:<.;.. ?0\'i-;' ;.J :r-\ORIT'f The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has considered your January 2 proposal for an agency consultation process by th~ Altiska Power Authority (APA) through the Susitna Hydro S teer:ing Comrni t tr~e. The process for evaluation and recommendation by stnff of this 2gency, and the form~l agency concurrence action of APA's developed p0sition is acceptable to this Department. I suggest APA work further with the Stccrinr, Committc.:c to f lnalizc the details of the implementation of your propos~d coordination/consultation process at their next meeting. The Steerir.g Committee should be able to do much in the future to eliminate dupJtcation of coordination and consultation effort, on both our parts, for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. SincGi,~ Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner (907) 465-4100 cc: A. Carson UNITED STATES -· ;:::'.} DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water Resources Division 733 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Eric: January 26, 1981 I -·· .. We concur with the two-step process of interagency consultation and coordination in studying the potential effects of the proposed hydro- power ~evelopment of the upper Susitna River basin outlined in your letter of January 2, 1981. The Water 'Resources Division has no regulatory functions, so formal concurrence with your agencies actions is not within our field of authority. However, we can assist in advisory capacities. The Geologic Division expertise may also be available for consultation. The Conservation Division is the only Geological Survey division with regulatory authority and they have a section that handles hydropower developments. Sincerely yours, ) ) : /. // fl. / / f ·r( -·-. /'....___ __ .· ·t· ~J '/' ';··-~ . ;"'~---I . / ;.--'-/'/ . ·/ Ra mond S. Georae Acting District~Chief ... .. • • • .... -. -· / / /' ., .... ,. ;_ ;-.• ,,, ;ti(JY ' ;_::f·· --\ ::;:.· . ..J '" .,..,_~ lttrQ· • .,. .. U niied States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Anchorage District Office 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 2920 ' ~ -~. ;rt-O;j! (OI~l~~ t-1r. Eric Yould Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Ave., Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Dear Mr. Yould: JAN 3 0 1981 llt.:C~IVED f'; 21981 /\:..<\SKA PO'/.'~:: ·~ ::-.:~::: fY This is in reply to your letter dated Janu;1ry :2, l9Sl, questioning the official nature of the suggestions given during meAtings with the Su.sitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee. All statements made at these meetings witl1 the Steering Committee are at a working level and arc not to be construed ns nLM's official stn11d or policy. All official Bureau policy and positions conct~r11i.ng thP Susi.tn;l Project will originate from this office in writing '.vith my si?>,nnturc or th(~ signa- tur0 of an acting District Manager. ~reJ~ Richard W. Tindall District Manager .· --:~-~~~~r ·.· . ~; . : ... ~ ; : ~ ,,:DEPARTMENT OF THE Ah:,VfY REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: NPAEN-PL-EN Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. SOX 7002 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510 RECEIVED FEB L;l9Sl t.JJ>..SKA POWER NJIHCRIT'f 333 West 4th Avenue Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Y'c:.. Dear ~~uld: Tl1is is in resp:>nse to your letter of 2 .January 1981 concerning consultation with the Corps of Engineers on your study of the Upper Susitna River Basin. FE 8 0 G 1981 As stated in our letter to you of 12 June 1980, 1ve are unable to participate in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee because of funding and manpower constraints, and we vJill only be able to conduct the necessary reviews required for the issuance of permits under our regulatory program. I vJOuld suggest that the seeping process prescribed in the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (see 40 CFR 1501.7) be initiated. This process, which would involve the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), would help to define the scope of issues to be addressed and to identify the sig1ificant issues to be analyzed in depth in tile Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 1he Corps could participate in the seeping process and, possibly, become a cooperating agency with FERC in the preparation of the EIS. If further details are desired by your staff, Mr. Harlan Moore, Chief, Engineering Division, can be contacted at 752-5135. Sincerely, £_. LEE R. NUNN Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer - ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... - ... - ... - - - - ... l. -'~fd States Department ofr:-_~t-'Ie Interior --.;,'t:i:-1.01 ~17, ,_, HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE --~1-. !i - - - ' ., jl ALASKA AREA OFFICE 1011 E. Tudor, Suite 297 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 IN REPLY REFER TO: A800 1201-03a RP Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: Tde.(907) 277-16()6 FEB 4 1991 REC~IVED 1 C 3 6 1981 ALP.SY:A PCV/:R /;IJTHOR!TY i.Je concur witb your recommendation of January 2, 1981, concerning the expanded role of tbe Susistna Hydroelectic Project Steering Committee. However, we would remind you that we also ll;lVe '-1 separe1te coordination ~md review function ,1ssociatcd t-Jith the 1 iccnsc appl ic<1tion Exhihi t R. Thank you for the opportunity to consider and comment on the proposal. Sincerely, /-:' I I 1 I -/I I ( / Ct t:-f j~net McCabe RegionAl Director U.S. E t~::·.~:'o N MENTAL P R 0 T E C TIc,:-: i : < G EN C Y ~~;~~;.; ':~··:1 "''~~o sr,.,., ..:>"" ~.J> i ~ ~ s~~ ~ '( -:;. ~ «'1--.p '""~L PRO't.G REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE R E. c ~E!Airti 0: ' w A s H I N G T 0 N 9 8 1 0 1 r· I= ',\ .;·) 1 (I 0\ \ .... _, ~~ ll. REPLY TO • ATTN Of: M/ s 443 'h':J·,·:x.: .. rov·: .... ~ ,.-·"·--'!<:f't FEB 0 5 1981 Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4 Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Aiaska 9950i Suoject: Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project Coordination ~rocedures Dear Mr. Youlo: Tnank you for your letter proposing a two-step process tor the coordina- tion required under the Federal Energy Kegulatory Commission regu1at1ons and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. We basically concur with your proposals. However, we may have further comments on the issues dealt with in this coordination process once more intormation on each subject is available and the comoined etfects of tne project become more visible. lt is our understanding that so far the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee has worked on the procedures manuai for the 1981 f1eld studies and is now in the process of starting up a subcommittee to deal with possible mitigation for w1ld!ife impacts. Other issues, 1ncluding possible mitigation for fisheries impacts, are to be deait with iater when more information on the resources to be affected w1ll oe available. We would like to be kept informed of both the steering comm1ttee and subcommittee meet1ngs and agendas so that we can participate more actively when items affecting tPA's areas of responsibiiity or expertise wil 1 be considered. For now, most of our involvement will have to De by letter ana tetepnone due to personnel and travel constra1nts. With1n our limitations, we will try to be as responsive and nelpfui as possibie. ~PA's coordinator for this project wil 1 continue to be Judi Schwarz, of my staff. She can be reached at (2u6) 442-12B5. We look forward to working with you in the future. It we can De of assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely yours, a~~w:tt t&dr El1zaoeth Corbyn, Cnief Environmental Evaluation ~ranch - ... ... ... ... ... ... .. - - - - ... - - - - - - .- / l _// ~·· - - - - --~ ~(·•'""''~ ·riJ· ._, ;, ~. 'r#Yj '"-4ltrl 0!. f'T;, :: . "".! ..... L• <.. !~'"', Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 Wes+ 4th Ave. Suite 31 Anchorag~, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: ~ U.S. DEPARTMEIV. --~~ COMMERCE National Oceanic .., . .J Atmospheric Administration Nationa[ Marine Fisheries Service P. 0. Box Z668~ Juneau 1 Alaska 99802 lll:CL:IVED I_·; l () 1981 ;,~ .. \~::.-.. r-:-;.·~:_. ·: ··-;;.~! r'( We have received your letter of January 2, 1981, regarding the involvement of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the planning and study of the proposed Susitna River Hydroelectric Project. We recognize the need for a "higher level of involvement" on the part of our agency, not only due to certain procedural requirements but the fact that the proposal has reached a more advanced stage of study. To this end we have been participating as a member of the Steering Committee since July. 1980. We feel this involvement affords us the opportunity to evaluate project studies and provide any input we may feel is necessary. Regardless of our status with the Steering Committee, we feel formal agency concurrence with all policy matters and deliberations should be obtained and therefore, agree with the process you have suggested. Sincerely~/,) , , ~, ~c ' z· ,~[L J ---.--~ -/. /~ ~- Robe t W. McVey ~ Dir,tor, Alaska fle9ion ~ I / .. •· t: !' L. ~ i. I IIi :. ~ ~ :, ~: F~ I I I bt : ~ ~ ,, .,-. , ... : f . ._ : .~:~. L:::· -~ I I ' ' I i ...... H·· ·:~~: . -_:·l!:.:~;:~: · ;:~;;:~ ·: :::; j]i{::::-~fi~~~0Ilill~illilli. T~IiW;~~~~~l.:~~~i±!ci1;}~;;r~s~ .. ·;:_::·:·_·-~;~:2~2 :;;,: ~~-c: -·: ~:::~:::~:~: :~~~~~~1,~t1W! 01·A3l.H . ·-~ .· ·! e ~--' 1 ~~~ 16\ II rc rrr rc ~ n ~ ~ n \ N I JAY s. H~ONO, GovomO< .. ~ U ~ U l_S ~ U i;;j l1 fl-t1 ~--lf\. J~\ I ' J I I OFFICE OF TilE GOVERNOR DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING POUCH AD JUNEAU. ALASKA 99811 PHONE: 465·3573 February 19, 1981 ~1r. Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West Fourth Avenue Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Eric: l . -C '._ I \' ~ D FEB 26 1981 J'.,LA.S':'J'-'fQ\'Y-·· •·~, .. ~,,iiY On January 3, you sent a letter referring to consultation and coordination with various federal, State and local organizations in the study and assess- ment of potential effects of hydroelectric development in the Upper Susitna River Basin. Your letter requested my concurrence with your plan or suggestions for its improvement. Frankly Eric, the paragraph in your letter that describes your plan is somewhat brief and general, making concurrence rather difficult at this time. I agree, however, that the study being undertaken is one that should have a very high level of involvement by interested State and federal agencies as well as potentially affected local communities. I suggest that a more detailed description of the workings of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee be provided. What may also be appropriate is the use of your public participation staff to serve a state government coordination as well as a public involvement function. The staff could document and disseminate the proceedings of the steering committee to a wider governmental audience. Such communication could occur prior to formal Authority position formulation and smooth the process of required formal concurrence with such positions. As for meaningful involvement of State and federal agencies in your assessment, I am enclosing a copy of Administrative Order No. 55, describing the Major Project Review (MPR) process. This process might be appropriate for the Steering Committee. The process described can be used by any unit of State government and is designed to ensure that appropriate State agencies are involved in analyses from the outset and that each assessment is highly issue oriented. The technique can be used to involve federal agencies and the public as well. ..I .... ... - - ... ... ... ... IIIII ... - - - - - - ... .~·;/ •'!'!· -~ •. ·~· . ....... . :_- / ' - - - - Mr. Eric Yould e -2-e February 19, 1981 The MPR questions can be modified as needed and a schedule can be prepared that indicates points at which cooperators are to tie in to the process. We generally include a public review draft in the time line for an analysis. We have also found that it is essential to the success of the MPR process for the lead unit to be able to sufficiently detach itself from its own project goals and objectives to administer the analysis in a neutral and objective fashion. One solution is, of course, to have the analysis administered by a separate agency. Eric, I hope that at least some of these ideas are useful tci you. From your letter, we are not too certain as to what involvement process you had in mind. Please let me know if we can be of any assistance. Sincerely, Frances A. Ulmer Enclosure '- Sta.-cc: of Alask.a -~~=~nistrative Order No.: ss-e ... S;.;bject: State ~lajor ?rojec;; ?.e·.•ie·-· ?recess L1~ce::-the au-cho:ity of Art. III, Seccio::s l c.;:d 2L; o£ trJe J..lasLa Co::sti-_, :ution, and AS 44.19.880, and given ;::"le need fer-ti.r:Jr-ly, consistent, and thorough evaluation of proposed ~ajor pro ects or ac~ivities, I order that tt follouing revie~ process be inst tuted: - l. Certain projects, because of thei:-sta;:e·-·ide oT regional significancE ' \.:ill be designated byrne as ;:;;ajar p-zojects subjec'C to a l:.C.jcr ?roject.i Revie'-' . 2. ;), ' t.;, ~· . c.ny state agency to \.."hich I assig!i tne lead res?onsibili-cy for conducting a >:ajor Project Rev:!.e·~· st-,all ;ne?are 2.r:c subwit to oe the infor.:.a-.:io:~ co~tained on t;1e ?roject .!.,:ic.l;·sis Su:::::-Jar:·· S!-leet ( . .:..ttachment ;..) · .. :ithin 10 6ays of t·r,e .:ssig~ei'l't. By the assigned date, the lec.6 agency s~all :renare and subsit to me a preli~i~ary ?rojec~ Analvsis ~~ic~ add~~~ses :he evaluation factors S?ecified by ~e (At:ach~en: 3). r~~e~iately upon receipt cf :he :re:~~~~ar~ ::-:-o i e c;: .~. T: 2. l \ • s :. s 1 tne Division of ?olicy DeveloJ~ent a~~ Planning (,J?:)?) Office of -che: GO\'ernor, sha.2..l fo:-._·c.!'C i::fo:-=c.~io::2..l cc;:.:.es Lo ecc;; cf:e::::ed or i!ite.reste.d gO\lE.':":-LIIer:~al c~e.~c;·. =:: L·:-je c.ss2..~::~::c. Ccl.es c.cc~. c.gency s~all sub~i: to D?D? its revie~ and cc~5ent. During the period of agency reviev cf the preli2inary ?ro~ect Analvsis, the Public ?oru~ or D?J?, in consu:i2tlon vith t~e lead shc:ll conduct one or cere ?ublic ~ee:in~s in t . ."'1e c:.ffected ... - ... IIIII - ... c:genc:y, area(s) for -che pu ryose on the project . -. . . ... . o:c rece::.v::.ng ?UCl::.c cc:::t:Jer.ts ' ,... ..... I • or c:ctions. By the assigned date, D?D? shc.ll 5 ' '~ ... ,.-, i ~ ..... ........ -~ in '-":':itins to t:r;e iead agency, c. su!:.:nar;:. of the revie·~· zlong ·~·ith :-eco;:;::enda<:ior:s for the final Pro~ect Analvsis. 3;-. the .:ssigned date, che leac agency, i;-; co~jl.!nc"C.io:-. ·~-i'C.h D?D?, shall prepare a7'ld subrr.it to r:~a, ir: ·-7iti"-g a:1d verbc.}ly, a final version of the ?roiect .-L.nal,·sis. Tne ?ro"1ec-c .:.,T'1ah'sis si-,all include ... ... - dissenting \'ie\..'S, recc::::::e<lcc.tio;-:s :or fur-c·ne:: acc.ion znd, · .. ··nere - " c. appropriate specific ~onciitions or ;:;i;:ig.:-cic~ measures necessary for state approval of :he project or ac-cion. No desig~aced ~ajor projecc or c.c:~c~ ~:ll completion of the process described above, ~aiver of necessity has been obcained ~roD be ap?roved ~ricr to the u 11 less 2. ? r : c r · ... -:itt e :1 D~. 9. Tr.e revie·-· S?ecifieci i:~ c.r1is crc:er .c':.;:l~ ~E: coorcin.:ote~ ·-·it'n proce- dures contained in AS '6.:5, ~nvirc~~e~l.2l ?roc~ciure Cocrdinc.tion Act, and ot~er sta-ce revie~ p:oce~sE:s, c.s z~?l:cable. -l- - - - ... - -z-- - - - - - - - - - - - . - - I - ! .; /:!~ / I / I ~I / ,.~: .... • . ' .~. t t c c ·~. ~; e: n: .-. • -S ~::.::-..: :-y She u S T .L:T::: ~-~!_j 0 ~ ?? O.J:: C T .!~,· _:_:_ ·~· S ~ ~ .... ?:oiect Title -Desc:i<;tion 3rie:f· description of ~~cl~di~£ loc.:tion of scope, nc.ture, and ?r-oject, esc.i:::c.tec ob~e:::ives s::c:rt c~JC o£ p!"ojecr. c c::-, ::J ~ e t ion o :-c. c. t 1 en ,._.. C.cte, e.sti-.:c.ted cost of project, stc.c.e in-ceres;: ir: projecc:. St.:te Action Recuested/Recuired :r:::-::-.::.ts sougrH, ·oy agency; resou:-ces necessa.:-y; p~·:>lic f2cilities co~S'Lruc'Led; r.line:al or other rights, co:or.:c.c:.s, le2ses, etc. . Lec.d ;..;£enc:· :a be Leaci ~gency responsibility, inclu~ing de~i~~a:ed ~e:sc~ :es?~nsi~le for ?:eject A~c.lysis. ~~e~cv ?c.rticicatic~ ., .. ., .... O:~e: c.gencies and indivi~uals assi&ne~ to t~e ~:o~ect analysis e~fort .... anc tnelr resoonsibilities. ?rcpcsec cc~t:act~al ~sslstance. ~sti~ate6 Cc~~letion Dates ... ~--li-i~-~)' nrnJ"ect t--lvsis ( ;-y~ ,. .:., 1::: -~··-oJ.C..., "' .. ._.. otiC:. .; --,_,C..-_. ~ .... ,.....,_ ~ . ' ~.:o\•e:no::-s c:ssJ..gr-e;en ) ~ce:~c'' -nd "\.!"lie "Pev'e"-' ( ~-··~ • • =: • _. C:. ~ • ....., --o'l. J... --I.... C..'-: :-C:7. -;) __ .,,,..,.,, ___ ,, p,..o'cc-_i-,2.· • _ t: ~ ...:.. J ~-- ' 1 C. • _-... • • _;; ._ L -J Sl.!~~arv Report ( ~avs . ---' Agency and ?~blic Reviel :: :-c::: ?i.:-,c.l ?:-oject .~.~alysis ( 6c:ys I! C:: Su::.;:2.7:y ~-~o--) J\C.-J.. t... .... .... ... .... .. - - - V)l .. ~ 1- 0 ,_, u oO c 0 ,_, ••J :l •IJ / .d ·-· u llJ 0 1-- ·1 .. <J~ ~ ... J u .,- ··: l) .:: (.) u ld ... ,'c,'"' ' .-- •U c 0 VI l- (j) 0. ru ,_, t-:-) •<J (_) L 1\1 U. '" UJ I .. c: ·u UJ 1-' •U >. .. UJ c (\} C.H lU _() ·a ::1 0 ::;: Vl OJ 01 c IU .c u ~J IU .. c:: ·--...:;.. ""'--~ ' . ;;;~ _,_, u <U . .., 0 L ()_ OJ .f: ,_, .,_ 0 (\) .,_ llJ .. c .jJ L llJ -· 0 ..... Ul U) r: tU 1U Vl .:-:'. tU u, _c •U 0 .. ''( ll) .• J c c 0 tiJ .,-·u _,_, •,--•\.J Vl I- OJ QJ I-0 .. 0 .iJ c ·o <U c L IU ~- ::1 c u 0 .,.... 1-_,_, 0 u ,,_ :J 1- <IJ .f..J t=: Vl 0 c u 0 c u } 0 ·1-l "1.:.1 (1) ·1-J u l]J 0. )( UJ VI (I) LJI ·= <\) .t:: u L..: LJ ,_, •U ,- :J 0 .. 0 CL YJ c nl ~J c: CIJ , .. _;., 0 n .. E: UJ OJ .. c _, J UJ L 1\J .iJ •U .c: N ..... _,_, u OJ .,, 0 1- 0 .. w .C.: _,_, '= 0 !.. .. ,,_ _,_, r- ::1 Vl Ill 1.... J >-. J) ·o ()J Cl .. ~J u u 0 tU _{) 0 ,_, u llJ _,_, u lll (.1_ )( l}J (\) I. Ill U) JJ 0 .,, '1- 0 c 0 .j.J !.... 0 n. 0 1.... 0 .. -IJ flj .c :c otJ J ..... Ul c flJ .::.L VI Ill "'-( .jJ c llJ I- I- ::1 u ) J >--, -1-' ,- Ill t:..: n VI ,,, til VI Ul _L) (_) .,--, \lJ VI dl .L: ·I·J ,._ () VI u ·t·J '" 1- Qj -1-' u •tJ \- Ill .. C: u OJ .. C .jJ tll 1- ll.J -1-' Ill .C --- .t:l ('· -~ t CIJ .tJ (._)) c:: 0 ,-- (~ <I! -1 J I 1-' I. () .c: vi >, 1 .. Cl L.J I Ill I' •U u ll) c.: 0 .. ,..... -IJ •U t) ::J u u 0 .- UJ > UJ .,- _\t. VI J r-· >) ... .... ,-- n Ill ,_, VI l) r: 0 1._ CJ L! UJ c :.-) L l)l c: u 0 .j.l I)) ,_, ::J .. 0 1- -1_, c 0 u jJ u OJ .. -, 0 L I)_ UJ .c -I.J VI OJ 0 (~ {q J -J..i ,-.. ::J V) Qj J_ 0 _,_, -u Ql ·I J u L]J n. )( UJ <II 1- nJ tfl I I l) Ill t, .. ~ I ·- UJ ()) u I- D .. r· c (JJ 1-' I 01 c: 0 ,- 1- 0 _,_, 1- 0 .. c: vi ~J •<J .. c =~ ('· -1-1 u Ul .. , 0 1.... ()_ (\) .. c .j.l I~ 0 I-.,_ Ill .C _,_, _,_, u 1]1 11-.,_ ·0 Tl ~-1 () 5: _c L) .L-.: ::,: ,_. V1 /( UJ VI _:..~ u 0 ,- .. 0 ·a IU 0 I- llJ ·IJ IU ~­ ·1-' V) ··-c: c: ·o Jl) -1--' •d .c :.:c , .. J 1'-· ·I-' u UJ ·r) 0 I- D .. ICJ .,_ 0 >, ·I-' .. 0 ··- V) IU Ill ,,_ u .,- I~ 0 c 0 u (\) J 0 c QJ f() .-,........ UJ :.:.: > -1--' c :J f:: t' L..J J 1- 0 .... ~~, _,_j r-.,- 0 •U ,-- IU "' >, ,. >U :J cr I] I _c.: ·IJ c ·a OJ .. ,J u UJ 0.. )< Ul OJ 1-- IU VI OJ 01 c Ill ..c. u .,J Ill .c ('-. VI OJ •r-,_, LJ IU 'I- 1- 0 V) (\1 LJ ::..-- ~­ Ill Vl VI -u 0 0 01 r- IO _,_, c Ill r= c 1- l\J .- 0 01 L 0 ,,_ ·cr c: Ill I~ liJ -a J >, _,_, .J.-1 Ill o<J Ill L.'l Ill .,, Ill I' I_) <!> r:\ ;...: <J) 1•1 t:: u IJ -,_, l: 0 u ("J\ c VI :-, () .c c:: ··- Vl Ill LJ> c IU .. c (..) liJ ~­ ..:( '"' <'-· ,-.... >-, _,_, .,..... ,-- IU ;:J u· tll u -r- 1- n.. J I]) .,..J tl.J 1- -u c IU ·I J r: :-.) n r:: ttl LJI (\) ·u IIJ ·I J Ll (jJ (\. >( UJ OJ ~­ •U 1./1 Ill U> c IU ..L: u c 0 ·1--' f\) ,-- :J 0.. 0 0 .. r- •U u 0 -jJ 1\J .. C: I'') _,_, •U :J (\. 0 D .. lJJ L -c I'· VI IJ c "J 1 .. lJI 1: l:..: 't'J UJ ·-· u <II (L ~_;; '1-- (_) l./1 u IJ VI .,- ~­ UJ ·I··' u o<) I- I\) .L: u tlJ C.H c "' . ..:.-: LJ .,_ 0_ ~· .jJ u ,-.,_ c 0 u ll! ,-- , ..... , 1-' "' I)) ., \.. CJ Ill :~J .u ·1-1 l·..: Ill u II·- l-:-. (n VI Ill VI :J H) u 0 ·1-' ·o !II .,.J u Ill 0. :.< (I) VI Ill t_J\ c IU .c: u ('· Tl !.II .,.) u Ul CJ_ ;,( (]) V1 c: u 1-' •U I)_ ~) ( J l) 0 •ll ·= 0 ·I-) ·u ,,, .,,) I~ 1.) I-··- ·I> c: l]l IC: Ill lJ /\) 0 .. VI .,.- ·u V) Vl c: ttJ r- 0. QJ V) ;J ""1."1 .:_: "' ,~. Vl f • IU ll1 .JJ )' .n .,. t: ''-' u til 1/) .\i c:: •\l f ) .l.: ·= l_J til '" 1:0: 1"02 Ill 01 01 f\J c: c: -r- ltj .fJ E '" I- -'-UJ ~-' c.: ): QJ o en t_ 1 01 '" :i c 1\l tlJ u > 0 Q1 L. Ql 1-'~ 'lJ ., :J u o-c H 1\J Q c \1 ·r-·o ::l 1- ::l 0 ,. ~::,:~oc . ::~ 1 til .c .,J ·n I- "' :c t) _,_, <If "l."J <II iJ •'-' 1-' lf) ·u r. •V .u L} 0 ...... ·•-' c UJ 1:: ·1-' r: IU lf) u J) : l ~- lf) ..... •ll ..c: :.-c tO I f'-· ~J u Q1 ''I 0 1- 0.. ·o UJ V) 0 0.. 0 L 0... ·-....... 1 1\l u lf) lt_ "-- 1 OJ ·1-' •tJ .tJ V1 '•-- 0 til u L. •t.J ,- "' _I) ·I·' Ill ..:.: <II .C ·I-.) c: () UJ IU ..c ·I-' u Ul .,-) 0 I- D. Ul .c ·•-' ·u :::1 ~ _;.. ·1--' u Ul '1- '1- UJ ·1-' IU . .c --'- ('-· lll 1:; ·1-' 1- (IJ :::- 0 vl (JJ :J c: uJ :::- UJ ' ~ Vl :::J lf) 1- UJ >- VI OJ 1--- ::J IJ u r: UJ 0. >< ()/ .- 1\) u 0 .- u r: ''-' 1 .c.: • .JJ .. - '> I f'-• ·u v1 <II 01 ·J-1 •r rl.l LJ ··-u V1 0 .£1 V) :J VI lll <U .C: 1/l () Ul :"J IJI ·u 'I·· VI 0 .f. I :J ·I J v' r: Ul Ul 1-' IJ :,( 1LJ OJ ·1-' Vl tlJ .c .,J +J u Vl ·.- ()_ ·1-' 1:0 •'-' 1--- 0 ·..c: "J. 0 .jJ Vl .,-u ,,_ .- f). X l'· UJ ~..J LJ IU OJ L ··> UJ 0 .c t_ _,_. 0. <JI Ill I-.c ..:( ·1-' 0-1 ) 1 c 0 -I-' IU 1'-l ·I-' ::::1 (IJ u L :J () v'l tll n: 1/l I'~ .,- ·I--' c: IU .... 0 r:l. >, L .,J VI :.1 ·u L: Ill () 1. . .. , 0 vl 01 l. c 0 tiJ _.. 1\J .c ·1-' u (\J .,-·) 0 I- Ll. Ill .L: ~J ........ .-··->- ·1-' 1..1 QJ ··-,,_ OJ ·1-' 1\) _t~ -~~ 1/l I- OJ ;- OJ 1- L ·.- c.: I·' .-::J lf) <II L 1-' t.l Ul .• -J I) I. 1.1. '" _l· ~ ·I J ::..:: ('-· vi tll :::1 1\) > UJ u L :::1 0 VI UJ L I- ll) .C:. ·I-' 0 1. 0 I C'· ul ·1-' c UJ EJ-·• ··-E 0 u UJ u :J 0 v. (lJ L 1 L Ill .c ·I> ~­ () 1/l r: 0 ·I·' ,,, ::-' r 1. 0 0. (lJ 'I- ·o ·,·--. _;.. '\':) c: 1\) ...c: VI ·r- '1- ·1-' u (lJ '1- '1-.. , ~-' u OJ ... , 0 L Cl. (!) .c ·1-' r-.,... _.,: ('-.J (]J -P 1\J c c. E !... 01 ·I-' I (Jl r. 0 I. (_) E L OJ ,J I ·IJ ~­ () .C VI tll .D Ul ·I-' u llJ '1-.,_ UJ OJ U'l QJ .c. ~J ........ .,- :,: f'-• ·1-' 11..1 ·1-' .,- .0 rt.J ...c: 1 1\.J ()) 0. E 1\J ~j ,_ 0 lt .. I'-• VI <II u . 1- :J 0 V) Ill 1-- OJ u c.: ([I ·1-' V) VI .[) :J 1/l ·1-' u (!) ,,_ 'I- I\) .JJ u llJ ''I 0 1.... ()_ Ul ...c: +-' ,-- :!:. (•') ls .. 0 r:: 0 .,_ .. 1\J u 0 Vl ·u t/l ill u Ul Cl. Lll .,_ 0 VI Vl () lf) c 1.... UJ ·I-' ·I-' t\J o_ c:: 0 .jJ tU }.... 01 E c lll OJ 01 r:: 1\J .C u ,~. ·o UJ ·I-' u (]I 0. )0: <U "' OJ 01 c:: 10 ..c: u >~ ~J ..0 1\J .,- •\) :>- 1\J I 1- <'!''' ,.- •r- :;.: ·n Ill r:: I,_ OJ ·u ::, .- HI u .,_ lJ ljl r: •. VI 1.... 0 ·o lll .• J ll) c 01 VI (JJ ·o -1-' u OJ 'I-.,_ ILl -1-' u QJ .,, 0 L 0.. (II .c .tJ ··-=~ -:J· J ('-• VI .tl <II l- oU u c IIJ u VI 1- 0 ,-·- •d 1- 0 ...... .,.J <U Ill L u UJ 1.... ·o IIJ ... c lll 1.... Ul ··-· rtJ :::,: u ··-t_ 0 ·1-' 1/l .c.: I > -I J <U :1 0 ,........ .u ·I·' .-: Ill r= 1: u ,, ., - l: ,,, c 1'~ t:: 0 L ·.- > c: (].I Ul .c ·I J c 0 ·I-' u OJ .,-, t) n. "' .C I·' '•-· 0 VI ·1-' u Ill '1- '1- \]I ·o '" ··-· 1\J o.· u ·.- -1 J c: 1\J Ul .J" ..... (II ~- 1\l ·1-' Ill ..1.-: f'-· '" u 1\l .--:.) n. 0 [l. Ill .l= 4-' 1,_ 0 >, ·1-' QJ .,_ 0\) VI L 0 .c: ·I J <lJ til ..c 1. u .- ,.- ··- IU > l. :I VI tJI (_: ., - I. d I J t: I) l: •II ,J I "' I: r: u l ~ c: OJ 1.. 0 'I· lll c l) Ul > 0 l. Cl. til .c: ·I J UJ l- It) .,.) •tJ .c l'-1 I f'-• 0 L .jJ c: 0 u ::, ·1-' ........ ttJ ::l o· ·u c ttJ I I N ... , ~\~ '.t .. /: i •' 1.· 'Joes tJ project involve techno1og~c" c.'"'"~ c---""-·· _,,, 1 r ... ":::n .... ::: 1, 7~nc.r:cic.l, or economic fc·c~crs ~·hl'c'n 'nc"\'E c:· h~lc'n ~c~~~c.e r: urc----· . . I. • ' -\.; '; ' -u 1 I ;:: 1 ·-::. I jj ";: y Q r I i 5 f, 2. To what extent is the existing dc.tc. b2se 2aecu2te to answer the c.bove questions? j~ r".rP ~hpro_ E.X7P-,nc"1 -~·::.c-TorS (e G r·""l'on-·1 ~ ~ "" . . l) , -•-•-I <..: • ._;., ICL. C Ul Jn~oEinC."C.iOI\c which fig~re prominently in the success o~ fc.ilure of the project? 1. Are there econo~ically feasible c.nd soci211y c.cceptc.ble alternatives for accomplishing ~ne cbjec:~ves of the project? 2. ~hc.t wsu1d be the i~olicc.tions 07 nc~-c.~J~DV21 of t~e project? l Is the proposed project or c.cticn cc:7i~c.~·~ole v:~th lc:::c.l c.n0 s2te p1c.ns or policies? 2. 'n1hc.t permits, licenses and/or gove.rnment:..l (stc.te, locc.i c.nd./or federc.l) epprovc.ls are necessary? 3. What 1s the timetable for vc.rious st~ges of the project? flexible is this schedule? 4. ~hat mitigation measures or stip~1~tions cEn b~ ide~tified to minimize the conf1~cts or probl~~s iden~~fi~d above? -3- . n rE~rn rn 1 r~.c.! ~ ~"~. t~ u t ~ n e ~ ft~;tE~u; ·c:..;_:_;..- Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Suite 31- Anchoragt, Alaska 99501 Attention: Dave Wozniak (?~ -:......- nLC~lVCD MAR ? 1931 ;,v::;::r., ro·., ..;,; "J .. ·.~,mY February 24, 1981 P5700. 11 T. 730 Dear Dave: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee Comments Enclosed is Acres response to the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee comments. Please review and identify if further clarification is required. We are presently in the process of reviewing potential program modifications. Areas under consideration include: - a lower Susitna Boater User/Navigation Survey -estuary studies -advancement of Phase II socioeconomic studies -Lower Susitna vegetation, moose, furbearer studies -recreation components of Subtask 7.05, 7.07, 7.08, 7.10, 7.11 and 7.14 -sociocultural studies We will submit our recommendations with support documentation in the near future. KRY /l j r Enclosure ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ,, ,., •· :1t; t::).; · :.•e: s .[ (·<:, ::.· f•;("'' ·~·\· ,'!,. ··, ·! ( ; . ; ~' ': :. ' ' ".!'.; r:: .l:! Sincerely, ,/ / /,/ ''' /(, /'j 7, ''. ,( Vl..-"1.. / .( /~: . . .. c John D. La\·lrence Project Manager ~ '/ .. ... ... ... ..; '1111111 .. ... - - ... .. .... ...., - - ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.... - - ...... .... f~. ~~.;.~~ ;· In response to the Susitna Hydro Steerinq Committee's review of the TES pro- cedure manuals we submit the following: Introduction We appreciate the time and effort expended by all the members of the Steering Committee in their review of our procedure manuals. In general our responses are (!"irected towards each of the specific comments as presented in the sythesis prepared by t·1r. Al Carson. Comments presented in the introduction and conclusion are addressed first As appropriate our response to some comments are combined to present a clarification reqarding subtask interactions. General Comments 1 ) In defense of our subcontractors it was not our understandino that the purpose of July 17, 1980 meeting was to review the environme~tal studies but rather to compare the requirements of FERC to other federal and state government permitting agencies. In this context an overview of our environmental progra~ was presented. We concur that in some of the more controversial areas i.e. socioeconomics, adequate study details were not avai1ab1e. The offer was then extended, and agreed to by the Steering Co1nmittee, that procedure manuals be made available for review. 2) As the Steering Committee have stated "the most compelling need is for a well-conceived process to improve linkage and coordination of the various studies." \·Je concur that this is essentiol and have expended consideJ'able effort in this direction. Some misunderstanding rnay have precipitated from the review of the procedure manuals as these manuals were prepared as practical subtask-specific documents designed for (1) exchange of prr)()ram design details (2) control of adherence to the study program (3) and assurance of continuity in the event of changes in project per- sonne 1. Our coordination efforts will concentrate on the following areas: 1) interaction among study participants 2) informal interaction with government agencies to acqujre insight into concerns and general policies 3) formal interaction with government agencies to allow input and review of study design, development selection, project desiqn and mitigation planning · 4) interaction with the public in the form of information supply and input into the decision making rrocess Documentation of coordination to date will be included in the environmental annual reports to be available in April 1981. In addition we have requested TES to prepare an outline of their coordination process which will be supple- lnented by Acres and supplied to the Steering Committee for review if desired. 1 ··7 *'·--WW~~.o.~.;wi&&ll• wai ..... ¥!71~~ .. -..... --··------ ~ -... : ':.:_~ .;_";.· 3) An area of primary concern appears to be the extent of effort directed towards studying the Lower Susitna Basin between Talkeetna and Cook Inlet during the Phase I period. Our approach to date as outlined under Subtask 3.10 of our POS is "to estimate the flow regime, sediment regime and morphological characteristics of the lower Susitna River under natural conditions and (prepare) a preliminary determination of morphological imracts which could result from flow regulation and sediment trapping at the Susitna Project." "A preliminary evaluation of the potential morphological changes, and impact on the river characteristics due to flow regulation will be made during the early part of 1981. If considered necessary at this stage, an expanded field data collection and study rrogram aimed at evaluating impacts in more detail will be developed in conjunction with the DNR and presented for consideration to APA." It is our opinion that the results of this study are necessary before the merits of any detailed downstream studies can be fully assessed. It is obvious that we require a more comprehensive understandin~ of the resource agencies concerns, the reasons for these concerns and the study approach they would like us to adopt. To facilitate this TES during the month of March 1981 will contact the respective agencies directly, to discuss these and any other concerns that ~ay exist. 2 ... ... ... .... ..., ... ... - - ... - - ... ... - """ ... - - - ;;::-- .... - - - - - - - - - - ...... ... ...:..:....:-- 7.05 Socioeconomic Although major projects like the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline provide justification for the need of adequate preproject soicoeconomic analysis, care r1ust be taken in making direct comparison as to the types of impacts associated with a large centralized project such as Susitna vs a transie~t type construction associated with a pipeline. Susitna should produce a relatively self contained, controlled, centralized work camp established for a 10-15 year period. For this reason a first step in our socioeconomic program, through a review of other similar type projects, is to identify the most probable types of impacts to be antic- ipated. Our studies will then concentrate on these areas of most probable impact . We have, however, for some time been considering the need to advance some of the Phase II socioeconomic studies into Phase I. The extent of changes in scope and timing of our studies will be discussed in more detail with the Steering Comr:1ittee and FERC followinq their review of these responses. To present a clarification as to the comprehensiveness of our socioeconomic prcgram a listing of categories and variables being incorporated into our socioeconomic profiles is attached (Exhibit 1). This listin9 is refered to in our response to the seven Steering Committee comments. Comment 1: Local and regional recreational facilities and opportunities should be assessed to determine the ability of those facilities to handle additional users in light of increased demand. Resronse: Recreational facilities will be addressed on two fronts within the context of the Socioeconomic Analysis during Phase I. ~ark Package 2 entails development of a detailed socioeconomic profile, the methodology for 1vhich is described on pages 7-10 in the Procedures i,1anual. " ... The profiles will include ... public facilities, availability, ad e q u a cy , an d c o s t. . . " . T h i s i n c 1 u de s pub 1 i c r e c rea t i on fa c i 1 it i e s . To the extent applicable in Phase I, this analysis will address the ''ability of those facilities" at local and regional levels to handle additional users" as suggested by t:;e Steering Committee. .1\dditiCJally, we have become aware of a special study currently undentay by Mat-~u Borough, the results of which will be considered as an aid in our analysis. Recreational categories and variables to be investigated are sho1vn in Section VIIlExhibit I. Comment 2: The study should address the probability of additional industrialization of the region as a result of power from the project. Then the study needs to assess the impacts and socioeconomic implications of indus- trialization scenarios that would be driven by this project. 3 ...... ~ ;~ '-<t .. .:· Response: In our evaluation of the economic base we will be developing a profile oft~-major basic industry components. (Exhibit I section V) We will review potential incentives for industrial develop~ent created by stable energy availability and assess the socioeconomic implications of having these incentives materialize. Comment 3: The study should address the cost and availability of products and services. This should also address the inflationary i~pacts that are usually associated with a boom type cyclical expansion such as con- struction of a project of this magnitude may cause. Response: The availability of products will be addressed under the headings of wholesale trade, retail trade, services etc. as indicated in Exhibit I section V. The cost and relationship of cost to income will be addressed through our assessment of the Consumer Price Index, income and employment patterns (Exhibit I section VI). Comment 4: The study should address the cultural opportunities and how they may be affected in both positive and negative ways by the proposed project. Response: Our present study addresses cultural opportunities under the categories of: 1) Community organizations, social interaction, entertainment etc. (Exhibit I section II) 2) Public services -parks, recreation, libraries, education. (Exhibit I section IV) 3) Recreation -Exhibit I section IV) - .. ... ~ - - ... - - - - - -We do appreciate, hmvever, through your comments and comments from the general public that cultural aspects, especially at the local level, are not being fully addressed. \.Je are preparing the details of a program to respond to this and .- will present it to the Steering Committee an outline of our scooe as soon as it is available. Comment 5: The study needs to address the implications of the project on a com- position of the people who live in the region. An obvious first step would be to establish baseline survey data in the preconstruction era so that we know what the population composition is in this area before construction begins. 4 -.. - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - >.;::- - -:--; .,._~ Response: As stated in the procedure manual, a purpose of Phase I socioeconomic studies is to "identify and describe the existing socioeconomic conditions and to determine which are most likely to be impacted by the Susitna Hydroelectric Project". Sections I and II of Exhibit I identify the categories for which secondary data on the composition of the people who live in the region will be collected. The adequacy of this data base will be reviewed prior to making any decisions regarding program modi- fications. Comr.1ent 6: An assessment of the changes in the sociopolitical structure of the region that could be expected (to) result from the change in the economy as a result of construction ... (and) operation and subsequent developments that would be driven by this project. Response: Our study efforts are directed towards an assessment of the socioeconomic changes that could result from the project. In this context we will be assessing impacts on local govern~ent services, revenues and expenditures. In our opinion, however, an assessment as to changes in the sociopolitical structure of the region resulting from these socioeconomic changes would be very speculative, not cost effective and beyond the requirements for a license application. Comment 7: (a) The analysis does not address the impacts of the project on users of fish and wildlife resources. (b) I refer you here specifically to memos included in the Department of Fish ~d Game review submittal which indicate that Acres and others deemed it inappropriate for the Department of Fish and Ga~e to carry these studies out. (c) However, in our review of all the studies identified above we find that neither Acres American nor any of other of (sic) the subcontractors have included this important issue in their plan of work. (d) The scope of the analysis does not include any work designed to mitigate the project impacts on fish and wildlife. Response: (1) Due to the sequential nature of our studies the analysis of the impacts of the project on users of fish and wildlife resources cannot be accom- plished until the impacts on the resources themselves have been identified. As indicated in the procedure manual, work packages 8 and 9 dealing with these topics \'li 11 be performed in detail during Phase I I. (2) We did deem it inappropriate that ADF&G, cr any other permitting agency conduct the impact assessment and mitigation planning components of our study. To do otherwise would have compromised the legitimacy of agency objectivity during license review. However under all the components of our study we intend to provide a format for review and consideration of all potential concerns from appropriate State and Federal agencies 5 Ala. (3) Refer to response 1. .... \:.;~:) .. (4) Fish and wildlife mitigation is not considered as a socioeconomic com-~ ponent of our study but is addressed in detail under Subtasks 7:10 and 7:11 as indicated in the procedure manuals. Subtask 7.06 CulturaJ Resources Investigation Comment: Although this study was not formatted or laid out in a way similar to the others the review comments indicate that the approach in the scope and methodology proposed is appropriate and sufficient for the task at hand. Response: No comment. Subtask 7.07 Land Use Analysis Corrment 1: (a) The scope of the land use analysis needs to be expanded so that the downstream impacts all the way to salt water are adequately addressed. (b) As an example of a downstream impact which is not included but needs to be addressed is the issue of navigability on the Susitna River below the --- ... .... ~ ... proposed dam. _. Response: (a) As stated in our procedure manual our study area for land use is con- centrated in the Upper Susitna Basin and extends downstream as far as Gold Creek. In our opinion the majority of land use impacts directly related to a Susitna development will occur in this area. Certain land use components outside this study area are being addressed as part of our socioeconomic, fisheries and wildlife studies. (b) As you are aware concern has been raised regarding recreational navigation, and riverine based recreational/land use activities in the section of the river between Talkeetna and Cook Inlet. We are in the process of assessing these concerns and foresee the possibility as an extension to our fisheries and hydrology studies a program to identify: 1) access to the river by water, air and land and 2) movement within the river itself. Any such study would provide input into the land use, recreation, socioeconomic and fish/wildlife resource utilization components of our study. The details ___ of any such ' program modification W"nl be submitted to the Steering committee for review as soon as available. Comment 2: There is no apparent linkage or coordination between the land use analys1s and the socioeconomic and recreational studies. 6 ... ... - ~ - - - - - - - - ...... - - ..... ~ . ' ·~~ Response: There is a definite linkage and coordination between land use, socio- economic, recreation, hydrology, and fish and wildlife components of our study. Although this coordination exists at the study team level it is bvious that a lack of communication does exist between the study team and the resource agencies. Throughout the remainder of the Susitna studies we will be exerting considerable effort to bridge this gap and will be soliciting your advice on means of establishing efficient avenues of communication. Comment 3: APA should seriously reconsider the decision that has been made to delay future land use analysis. The contractors state that data from other disciplines may be needed to "fine tune" this study. However, we can assume most of these values or issues and get on with one of the most critical studies that could provide data to be usect in making the decision as to v1hether Susitna should be built or not. It is recommended that APA consider the use of scenarios to describe future land use with an<i h'ithout the project. A recommended way to begin addressing dovm- stream impacts is to become informed about the work currently being done in this area by local, state, and federal agencies. This will help to eliminate any duplication of work. Once APA is aware of what studies agencies have done the APA contractors can be tasked to synethesize the existing studies and complete only additional studies needed to comolete the scenarios. · Response: We accept the Steering Committee's recommendation that we review and synthesize the information available from existing studies being con- ducted by local, state and federal agencies. This has been accomplished to some extent by our socioeconomic, land use and recreation consultants however, we will ensure, through additional contact, that all available information has been acquired. Once obtained vJe will assess the applica- bility of these studies to the Susitna Project, incorporate the infor- mation into our studies as appropriate and determine if additional studies during Phase II are required. We do, however, identify the need for a recognition of the differences in objectives and scope between a Susitna Project Environmental Assess- ment study and studies conducted by agencies under their mandate of over a 11 Sus itna Basin Resource i'~anagement. Subtask 7.08 Recreation Planning Comments: 1. Scope of the recreation planning appears to be incomplete. The total thrust of the study appears to focus on recreational opportunities in the impoundment area with the obvious underlying assumption that Susitna 7 .... '----> .... ' .J '.::...;.' Dam will be built. What is absent is any sort of assessment of the proposed project impacts on existing recreation navigation and land use in the river valley above, within, and below the proposed project. There is no question that we have to carefully plan for reservoir rec- reation development assuming there is a project. It is also obvious that the compelling need that needs to be met today is a valid and accurate determination of existing recreational values so that this .. 'IIIIi ...t decision can be factored into the ultimate decision as to whether Susitna should be built or not. An equally import~nt result would be identification _. of those values for mitigation which will be required if the project is built. 2. This study needs to include a documentation of the flowing water resources and uses that would be impacted by the project. 3. This study needs to document the existing upstream uses of Susitna. Response: We have made a clear distinction between 1) FERC requirements for the development of a recreation plan within the project boundaries and 2) an overall assessment of recreation resources and impacts on these resources. Subtask 7:08 responds directly to FERC requirements and is directed towards a reservoir recreation plan that would be i~plemented if a Susitna development is approved. Thus the study focus is on recreational opportunities in the impoundment and surrounding area and does assume that the plan would only be implemented if the Susitna dam is built. T f .. ~~t·.. ~~d h . he assessment o ex1st1ngt'/eC'reation resources" an t. e 1mpacts upon them are addressed under appropriate subtasks, specifically 7:07 - Land Use Analysis and 7:05 Socioeconomic. Subtask 7:10 Fish Ecology Impact Assessment and Mitigation Planning Conment 1: It is acknowledged that none of the reviewers had a comprehensive picture of how this task will be carried out. The reason is the Department of Fish and Game will be actually doing much of this work as a subcontractor to Acres American and has not had tl1e staff or the resources necessary to put together its procedures manual for this facet of the work. The comments given below should be qualified with ac- knowlAdgment of this fact. Res pen se: ADF&G have made substantial progress in their fisheries data collection program. The present emphasis is to establish the basis of their program and to implement the field studies. Following this, detililed procedure manuals will be prepared and should be available for Steering Committee review by April 1981. 8 IIIIi - .., - ... - .... - - ... - ... - - - - - .._.. - - ..... - - ..-. .~ ·2~· '~;t:.' Comment 2: The contractors need to broaden their scope of mitigation concepts that are included in the studies. There are other options available for mitigation planning above and beyond what is included in the Procedures Manual as it is now written. I refer you to the detailed comments made by ADF&G. Response: We view mitigation planning as a dynamic process and are prepared to consider any additional options available. As a means of obtaining agency· input and review we plan to establish a fisheries mitigation task force similar to that organized under Subtask 7. 11 . Comment 3: We recommend that an assessment of effectiveness of mitigation used on other projects to reduce impacts also be studied before we deter- mine what sorts of mitigation techniques will be applied to the proposed Susitna project. The reason for recommending this is to enhance the probability that the mitigation we apply to the Susitna project will be successful. Response: The intent of our review and evaluation of mitigation measures used on other projects is to assess their effectiveness and to determine their applicability to the Susitna Project. Comment 4: Table 2 should be amended to identify the issue of the effect of the project on rearing, fish passage and egg incubation in the Susitna River from its mouth upstream to the proposed dam site. Response: It is our intent to address these issues and Table 2 will be ammended accordingly. Comment 5: The mi~igation alternatives should include a cost benefit analysis in Phase li. Response: The costs associated with recommended mitigation 1·1ill be identified in Phase I with actual cost-benefit analysis considered in Phase II. 9 --'-.:..__.._,.• '< ~. ~ -Comment 6: There is a lack of adequate participation by resource management agencies -' in the impact assessment or mitigation planning as proposed in this Procedures Manual. Response: See response to comment 2. Comment 7: The water quality subtask within this study needs further review regarding the extent of data required and details about timing of the data collection. Response: R&M Consultants has prepared a Procedures Manual for the water quality program. Review of this document may provide the required details about timing and data collection. Subtask 7.11 Wildlife Ecology A. Big Game Assessment and Mitigation Planning Comment 1: This study does not describe the methodology that will be used for assessing impacts to be mitigated. The Procedures Manual discussion of formation of a mitigation team and a series of ~eetings and conferences as a methodology is inadequate. Response: The methodology for impact assessment and mitigation was not developed in detail because it was believed that a more effective program could be prepared following the collection of data in 1980. Rather than develop more than a general approach, it was considered to be preferable first to gain an understanding of the relative population levels of various species and also identify critical habitat types. In this manner a detailed approach to impact assessment and mitigation will be prepared based on at least a preliminary understanding of the wild- life/habitat realtionships operative in the project area. The Procedures Manual will be amended as soon as approach details are finalized. , 10 t" --:: ... --.·~--... ---... -........ .,_.~ -~---~· .. v ---~-~·' . -·--·· ..t - .... ... .... - - - -.. - ""' - - ., .., - - - - - ..... ·- - -- - ._. ·- ....... .. l: :..; . ~ Comment 2: The scope of mitigation concepts needs to be broadened in this study. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) defines mitigation in five different ways: a. Avoiding impact all together by not taking a certain action ... (or) Darts of an action. b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the rlegree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the ... (affected) environment. d. Reducing or limiting the impact over time by preservation and main- tenance operations during the life of the action. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources ... (or) environments. Since the Susitna project will be subject to an environmental impact statement the Alaska Power Authority should assure that the contractors preparing the application adequately address all aspects of mitigation in order that the submittal will be adequate for the E.I.S. Response: B. To date we have concentrated our mitigation efforts on approaches a) and b) (avoiding or minimizing impacts) through providing environmental input into development selection and preliminary desig~. This approach will be expanded to include approaches c, d and e following development selection. l~ildlife Ecolog,z-Furbearers Comment 1: Scope of these studies needs to be extended to salt water. The reason is the proposed Susitna hydropower project will have imr.acts all the way to salt water. Response: The scope of the furbearer studies that concern aquatic furbearers (e.g. muskrats, beaver, and river otters) have already been extended on a limited basis downstream to the Delta Islands. At the present time there does not appear to be justification for extendin0 the study effort any further downstream. Should the results of Phase I indicate that further extension is in order, it will be proposed for Phase II. Comment 2: This manual does not acknowledge the need for mitigation for these living resources. It is recommended that the Procedures Manual be revised to reflect the need for mitigation for furbearers. 11 .-. '~ Response: Although mitigation was not mentioned in the Procedures Manual, it will certainly be addressed in the furbearer studies. In order to strengthen the interdisciplinary coordination concerning mitigation, the Principal Investigator of the furbearer studies has been added to the mitigation task force as described in the Big Game Procedures Manual. Comment 3: The manual describes surveys which will be done only in the winter. The seasonality of this approach will result in certain data biases and lack of data for the intervening months. Response: As indicated on page 12 of the Furbearer Procedures Manual, field activities will be conducted throughout the year and are not restricted to the winter months. Some of the survey activities that are being conducted during the non-winter months include locating fox dens, collecting furbearer scats, and monitoring of radio-collared animals. Comrnent 4: The studies state that radio collaring of animals will be done. How will the radio collar data be used: Response: Radio telemetry data will be used to determine the home range size of key furbearers. This information, in conjunction with the vegetation maps, will enable the generation of an estimate of how many animals the area can normally support. The radio telemetry data are also being used to determine seasonal distribution and habitat utilization of key furbearers. Note Concerning Furbearer Procedures Manual: Since it was impossible, prior to the initiation of these studies, to est blish soecitlc techniques that would be highly effective in sampling the furbearers, ~any of the techniques outlined in the Procedures Manual have been modified following the first field season. An amend- ment to the furbearer manual 1vill be produced in spring, 1981, and will reflect the refined approach that is now being used. C. \~ildlife Ecology-Birds and Non-game Mammals Comment 1: The scope of these studies needs to extend to salt water. 12 ... ... ... - ... - ... - ... ... - IIIIi• - .... - - ... ..., - ..._, - - - ....... - - - ""' - ..... ....,_. ;;· ---~ Response: At the present time, bird and non-game mammal studies are being conducted as far downstream as Sherman. With the exception of a bald eagle nest survey, there are no studies planned for this discipline downstream of Talkeetna. Insufficient data exist to support the conclusion that major terr~strial impacts will take place downstream from Talkeetna. At the present time, the expenditure of funds to study birds and non-game mamnals in this area does not appear warranted. Should the results of the Phase I hydrology studies indicate that major changes in terrestrial habitat are likely to occur, an intensive Phase II program will be imple- mented. Comment 2: The Procedures Manual fails to acknowledge the need for mitigation of birds and non-game animals. It is recommended that the Procedures Manuals be revised to reflect this need. Response: Although mitigation was not mentioned in the Procedures Manual, it will certainly be addressed in the birds and non-game mammal studies. In order to strengthen the interdisciplinary coordination concerning mitigationi the Principal Investigator for bird and non-game mammal studies has been added to the mitigation task force as described in the Big Game Procedures Manual . General Comments on ~iildlife Ecolog..Lf!ocedures i·1anuals Comment: There is a compelling need to integrate the wildlife and the plant ecology studies so that the end results are meaningful and useful to the decisions which will be made. Each of these study elements should apply appropriate quantitative methodologies to evaluate animal habitats. The methodology used may depend on the characteristics of the species or group of species they are dealing with. Whatever method is adopted, it must be biologically justifiable and provide a relative estimate of the habitat value per area unit for the study area. Response: The assessment of impacts will be based to a very large degree on project-related disturbance of wildlife habitat. Although the inter- relationships between the plant ecology studies and the various wildlife studies were not emphasized in the Procedures Manuals, there has been, and will continue to be, a highly coordinated effort between Subtasks 7.11 and 7.12 . 13 ,..... ·~~..::;... Subtask 7.12 Plant Ecology Comment 1: ... .,<:,! .. ~; .. The scope of these studies needs to be expanded from the dam site all the way to salt water. The reason for this is that construction and operation of the dam will impact vegetation to that extent. Response: Under Phase I, the present intent is to extend certain of the plant ecology studies downstream to Delta Islands. The degree and extent of impact downstream, especially below Delta Islands, has not as yet been defined. The impact downstream will depend, to a considerable degree, on the facility design and hydrological information which is not currently available or not finalized. For this reason, it was initially decided that it would be best to wait until the extent of hydrologic impact is known below the Delta Islands, before specific vegetation studies are performed for this region. If studies are warranted below Delta Islands, then they would be proposed for Phase II. Comment 2: There needs to be a high level of integration and coordination between the plant ecology, hydrology, and the wildlife impact assessment studies. This is because a great part of the wildlife impact mitigation will be based on vegetation. Response: We agree that a high level of integration and coordination between the plant ecology, hydrology, and the wildlife impact assessment studies is needed. The need for this integration and coordination is stated in several places in the Plant Ecology Procedures Manual. There is a major section entitled "Input Required From Other Sources" in v;hich subsections entitled "Hydrology" and "Wildlife Information" are included. The need for coordination among disciplines is also stated in several of the Wildlife Procedures Manuals and was discussed in detail under the response to the general comments under Subtask 7.11 Wildlife Ecology. In summary, we believe that the need for coordination has been recognized from the outset. We feel that we have fulfilled this need to date and plan to continue to do so throughout the study. Comment 3: The definition of wetlands used for classifying habitats should be compatible with data already collected in the Susitna Basin by the cooperative study underway with DNR, ADF&G, and SCS. We recommend that the classification system developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and described in "Classification of Wetlands and Deeo Water Service Habitats of the United States" (FWS/OBS79/31) be considered as the wetland classification for these studies. 14 -- .... - - - - - -.. - - ... .. - ... - ..... - - - ..... - - - ..... - l~,- ..... ........ ;-· : ~.:.--ii~;J Response: The classification system developed by the USF&WS for wetlands and deepwater habitats will be used for the wetlands mapping effort. There has been some coordination with the SCS concerning wetlands and there are p~ ns for additional coordination with ADF&G and DNR. Subtask 7.14 Access Road Analysis Comment 1: The analysis of alternativei does not indicate whether stream crossings will be reviewed to determine extent of icing and adverse environmental impact as a result of crossing these streams. Stream crossing and structures should be designed to avoid creating icing and erosion problems. Response: Stream crossings are an important part of the access route environmental analysis and will definitely be considered in routing and later in impact and mitigation planning for the selected route. Included in impact assessment and mitigation planning will be analysis of designs to avoid potential ice dam problems during break-up, and associated erosion problems. Consideration will also be given to minimizing erosion problems. Consideration will also be given to minimizing impacts associated with actual construction of bridge facilities and culverts, i.e. habitat disturbance and erosion potential . Comment 2: This analysis should include assessing the effects of an increase in fishing due to newly opened road access as part of its scope of work. Response: The analysis will include assessing the effects of an increase in fishing due to newly opened road access. The potential impacts on the fish community and habitat from a biological standpoint will be addressed under Subtask 7. 10, Fish Ecology Studies, and the recreational impacts or conditions resulting from increased access to this area will be handled under Subtask 7.07, Land Use Analysis. In like manner, other environmental subtasks (e.g. vegetation, cultural resources, wildlife) wiil deal with increased access as it affects these specific disciplines. Comment 3: There is an obvious linkage between access roads for this project and land use/fish and wildlife studies. Review of the manuals does not indicate that the appropriate process or mechanism is in place to see that this occurs . 15 ...-.. ~ '-;~_;;: · .. : ~ ~~ / Response: Subtask 7.14 (Access Road Environmental Analysis) is essentially a coordination subtask for this specific project component since it has obviously far-reaching impacts. The Procedures Manual states that the actual analysis is to be done by Principal Investigators within each environmental subtask. A major coordination effort was felt to be necessary due to the interplay of roles between APA, Acres, R&M, TES, AOF&G ·nd the various environmental subcontractors. To this end, correspondence exchange and maps and information exchange has occurred since April,· 1980. In November, a meeting was held in Anchorage at which time representatives of APA, Acres, R&~1, TES, ADF&G, and other environmental subcontractors discussed various alternative routes. Information exchange continues on a daily basis, and will continue through route selection and preparation of the FERC application. General Comments Comment: It is the consensus of tte Steering Committee that each study task Procedures Manual should include two maps: 1. A map that delineates the boundaries Jf the specific study tasks described in the respective manual. 2. A second map delineating the overall study area, i.e., from the mouth of the Susitna River to the Denali Highway. Response: 1. Maps of specific study areas would certainly be useful. In several subtasks, part of the work performed during the first year was a determination of the appropriate study area. Such maps are thus planned for the 1980 Annual Reports and will be incorporated into the respective Procedures Manuals with the next required amendment to each manual. 2. A composite map showing the relationship of specific study areas will be presented in our summary annual report. 16 ... -.. ... 111111 - .... ·""" - ... ... ... ., • - - - ..... - ·r~·· ' - - - - - .... - -- - '~~ : ~· :'-:;.( ~:; ~:~::· ~ ~-~.: ~ ~~ .~ ~ ;: ~:: --'-'' ·-·--~~­'·. ,,. - -::.. [. ,... '-. ·,~_;/ I. POPUL.!iTION A. Population levels 8. l. His.torical 2. Present 3. Projected 4. Component of Change (births, deaths, in-out migration) Ethnicity, Culture, Religion C. Population Distribution (city, borough, state) by: 1: Age 2. Sex 3. Race 4. Occupation (general) 5. Education a . Ret i red , 1v age , s a l a r y b. Sector, activity c. Employment D. Population Density C' '-. ramily/Household Characteristics Extent 2·. Marital Status 3. Migration patterns a. mobility/stability b. point of origin c. out/in migration 4. Length of Residence a. in house b. in community c. in state 5. Place of work (com~uting distance) F. Attitudes Toward Chance/Economic DRvelooment J . G. Projections Each of these categories and variables will be addressed to the extent that data and information allow and to the extent that they are relevant for the purposes of this analysis. Jr / . I s . I l !. -~Jl!SIUG ~ ..... \~ ':.;.· -A. Historical Info {growth rate) 6. Type -l. Sinole familv -"' 2 . Mu 1t i -f ami 1 y 3. Mobile nome -4. Recreation Facilities 5. Trcnsient Facilities ,, -* Variables to be considered for above a. number of units -b. quality c. cost/prices d. vacancy rate - c. Vacancy Rate ..., D. Status l. Renting -2. Buying 3. Own 4. Other .... r: .... Land availability ..... F. Zoning/Building Regulations (&patterns) .,J G. Financial Climate (incentives/disincentives) ..; H. Real Estate Activity 1. Sales 2. Construction .. 3. Plans ,.,_ I. P.;jections - - _, - - ... ,.., .• , .,..:f.\.·· y. ? .• Cf.' : ... r, ·. , ., j \'. - - - - - - - - - - e e ?UBLlC S::?.\'IC~S & GO\'ER:;:·iEJiT R::\'C:r;u: A. Government Structure/Oraanization 1. Towns - 2. Cities 3. Boroughs B. Government Services 1. Water Supply and Treatment 2. Waste Water Treatment 3. Solid Waste Disposal 4. Police Protection Legal System (courts, retention facilities) 6. Fire Protection 7. Health Care (including Social Services) 8. Parks and Recreation 9. Libraries 10. Education (day care, vocational, others) 11·. Public Transportation 12: Roads and Highway System 13. Telephone Service/Communication 14. Electric Power Service * Variables to be considered for above a. Service area b. Usage fi~gures c. Deployment patterns (distances/response times) d. Capacity figures e. Condition/quality f. Relevant standards g. Occurrence rates h. Plans for expansion i. Government expenditures C. Tax Base and Revenues 1. Taxes a. persnnal i. rates ii. base b. industry i . rates i i . base c. Sales i. rates ii. hase d. other -- - - - - - ,.. ,.. - - ,.. ,.. - - - (~4~JPd2J 5u~MO~~oq) +qap +uawu~a~o8 · ·£ saJ~nos anuaAa~ ~a4+0 ·z ."'l .J / . /,/, /~- - - - - e e \'. :~:.:~c.:-:IC s..:.SE A. General Description (History and Area Trends) 8. Total Work Force C. Emp 1 oyment r~u 1 tip l i er D. Output Multiplier E. Major Basic Industry Description l. Construction ? 1-". . ~· ·11n1ng 3. Agriculture 4~ Timber and re1ated products 5. Manufacturing 6. Fishery 7. Oil and gas 8. Transportation i. Ra i 1 ii. Air iii. Motor transport i v. t<lar in~ 9. Public Utilities l 0 . C orrrn u n i .cat i on s ll. \~holesale trade 12. Retail trade 13. Finance, insurance, real estate 14. Services 15. Public Administration (Federal, State, Local) 16. Tourism * Variables to be considered for above a. history b. statistics (present sales, prod. , etc.) c. employment 1. labor force 2. percent of total work force 3. payroll 4. average wage rate d. resource base (land use) e. service area f. usage figures g. capacity h. condition/quality i. product value j. ~arketing patterns k. relative to state and U.S. 1. future out1ook - - - - - - - -- - - - SUO .L Sn lJUOJ • J .. - , ' . ' ~. . .. J e ... '"''"" -,--.-·.~-.. ,, ' & • ) :-:._,· ........ r-.r..:;;~.,:ur..l.!!'!!"l . ._ .=Dor 1 ncome A. Historical Labor Changes B. [;np 1 oy.nent l. Present Profile (e~plo~ent by sector) a. absolute b. pE:rcentage 2. t1ultip1iers a. bcsic industry to b. export trade sector c. services 3. Length of work week 4. Seasona 1 i ty C. Occupational Staffing Patterns by l. Sector/Industry 2. Ethnicity 3. Sex 4. Unemployment 5. Percentaae of work force 6. Wages (selected occupations) D. Working Conditions and Absenteeism E. Union Presence F. Unemplo~ent for Area 1. Age 2. Sex 3. Race G. Income l. History 2 . Per Cap i t a I n come a. General b. Sex c. Ethnicity 3. Source a. Wages/sa1aries b. Social Security 4. Subsistence income (moderate standard of living) 5. Consumer Price Index (CPT) H. Projections ·v'":V ,7;. ,, #' ~ I " ; J l •• LA.:;G USE e e A. Historical/General .. 8. Land Tenure (ownership) -c. Existing 1. Forestry 2. Aoricu1ture 3. Hining 4. Timber - 5. Native Lands 6. Federal - 7. State 8. Parks -9. Oil and Gas 10. Unexp l cited Natura 1 Resources 11. Industry/Co~ercial 12. Urban - 13. Rural 14. Residential 15. Military 16. Transportation .. *Variables to be considered for above - a. acres b. value -c. ownership d. management plans e. historical trends f. percentage of total - -D. Population Density -E. Land Use Plans and Control 1. Public 2. Private -3; t1un i c i p a 1 it i es 4. Borough -5. Flood plains r: Projections I • - - - - - ·Tlir'-' r. - - -i \'~;I. ;.~ :~.~~~.1 I CN e A. Utilizing Fish & Wildlife ?.esources 1. Sport Fishery a. All species 2. Wildlife a. Caribou b. Moose c. Black Bear d. 6 rown Bear e. Mountain Goats f. Sheep g. Wolverine i. Waterfowl, Birds j. Other Furbearers • * Variables to be considered for above 1. Historical 2. Present a. area (acres and location) b. effort (visitor days/# of visitors) - c. Success (harvest) d. Resident (pt. of origin/% of total) e. Non-Resident (gen. geo. pt. of origin/ %of total) f. Species (stats relative to State) g. Subsistence (personal consumption/ business) h. Trophy i. Management Plans i. Reaulations ii. Re~enues (tota1/•elative to state/flow of money) iii. Enforcement (ways/numbers/capacity) 8. Not Related to Fish & Wild1ife Reserves 1. Water Sports (canoe, kayak, rafting) a. Historical b. Area 1. effort 2. resident/non-resident pt. of or1g1n 2. Land Sports (hiking, picnicing, climbing) a. Historical b. Area 1. effort 2. resident/non-resident pt. of origin C. Other -=:-::::::::~::: , __ ,, ___________ _ - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - • (#) SJaUMQ pu~l ·~ ($/#) SJaUMQ a6p01 "[ ($/#) SJ012Jado PPl .J~'!/ ·z (S/#) sap~n~ ·t ssau~sne pa+etac ( • • 1"0-·, • ~ ~ T I ~u ,.Ji .:,;. •" -~t i,; 1. "'~ . . . . ;/ I / ,,,, ...... ~ jy~. ,, ~·. ,. - - - - - - - - - ··"~~~'t w· ... -;; ~~~~rG\&~ I ot:PT. oF I~N\'IUON~It:NTt\1., coNst:n\';\TION / JAYS. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR . ./ ~,U~U[ @~ I POUCH 0 -JUNEAU 91811 I March 2, 1981 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: , ... r'. ~- I • J:;>·· , .. J ..... ~) .~. \ .'.t :~ \ ','{ Your letter of January 2, 1981 proposes to expand the function of the Susitna Steering Committee from that of an advisory body to the study team to one of performing evaluations and structuring recommendations. I am happy to offer the resources of this agency to serve in that capacity to a reasonable extent. It is not clear to us, however, precisely what may constitute "items requiring consultation," as the only substantive matters to come before the Steering Committee have been review of the field procedures manuals regarding Task 7 of the Plan of Study, and review of the preliminary screening of poten~ial hydro sites. Apparently, a more direct link with the Power Authority is anticipated, rather than simply with the study team, since your letter indicates that Steering Committee recommendations will be considered by the Power Authority. We will look forward to additional information, at an appropriate time, concerning matters that may be brought before the Steering Committee, and the action requested of the committee. Bob Martin will be the representative of this agency to the Steering Committee as of this date. Bob is the new supervisor of ADEC's Southcentral Regional Office. Bob will receive whatever support he needs from Dave Stu~devant, who has been our representative in the past a9d-who will~ntinue as Bob's alternate. r \ -~--\ ~--u cuk------- 1.. 1....-A_..... --t-. v /E~i..--MtYeller Commissioner cc: Deena Henkins, EQM Bob Martin, SCRO , e ~¥&¥[ @~ &~&\~~& JAY S. HAMMOIIO, GOr£11101 J)EJ•,.\UT~IENT o•· ~ATIJRAI. lli<:SOUilf~ES ., l \ 01 VISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT March 24, 1981 Eric Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: 323 E. 4TH A VENUE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 279-5577 r...:.J..:.I J..:_O .. ··') 0 . 19°1 :, . ·.~ ·~, \ .'-. ~ 0 J.J.J..S'f..A PO'I'{r;.R AUH-\OR\T'l The purpose of this letter is to call to your attention the lack of response from Alaska Power Authority (A.P.A.) to detailed review comments that the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee made on the Susitna Hydro Project plans of study. These comments and recommendations were transmitted in a letter dated November 21, 1980. I request a response from A.P.A. which identifies when the Steering Committee will have an opportunity to review the modifications that will be made in studies to meet the concerns that were raised in our November 21, 1980 letter. With the 1981 field season beginning very soon, changes in the plans of study will have to be accomplished quickly. Sincerely yours, OJ~ Al Carson, Chairman Susitna Hydro Steering Committee cc: Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Members R.E. LeResche Reed Stoops - - IIIII ... - ... - - - ..I ... - - - - - - - - • j, ·, - - .... - - - - - - - ~·. - -..:- ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY · ... · Hr. Al Carson Chairman, Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Alaska Department of Hatural Resources 323 East 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Carson: t-1arch 25. 1981 I regret that it has taken so long to react to the Steering Coomittee's suggestions on improving the Susitna hydroelectric project environmental plan of study. It took a number of months for Acres and its subcontractors to de- ve1op and transmit their set of responses and plan of action. The Power Authority received that transmittal on March 2, 1981. We have not been able .!.' -·~ to make any final decisions on scope changes, however, for h~ reasons. First~ Acres has not yet provided the program modification suggestions in any detail of scope or cost. Secondly, the Power Authority has had to \r~aft for other program components (such as Tasks 4 and 5) to be evaluated for necessary scope changes. It 1s only in revi~ing the entire first year program that we can identify a~s for improvement~ assess their cost impact~ evaluate their re1a- tive merit and established priorities among the myriad comp~ting needs. The Power Authority wi 11 have prepared 1 ts set of recommended scope changes and resultant supplementary budget request by Aprfl 3, 1981. It remains to be seen whether all, none or a portion of the supplemental funds will be forthcom- ing. I have requested previously that you organize a Ste~ring Committee meeting for eiti1er April 13. 14, or 15. At this meet1ngJ we w111 present our proposed program modifications~ which I trust you will find go a tong way toward satisfy- ing the Committee's concerns. In preparation for that meeting, I have attached a copy of the Acres response to the Steering Committee comments. The detailed re- co~T~ndaticns~ while not contained in the attachment. will be presented at the Steering Committee meeting. FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR .1\ttachinent: As stated cc: Susftna Hydro Steering COfml1ttee Hembers with attachment Sincerely. Robert A. ~iohn Director of Engineering lit , ,. .... ~: o::· . ~~&¥~ @W ·&~&~l~r~APR 6 i981 t ·. · .. ·; ,"".,.,·"'-,., \ .;', ,•. ,.._.,,..· ... JAr .t HAIIIIOIID. GOYfliiOI ..... U.IH•AUT!\1 ENT cu: .NATIJil.-\14 llt:SOIJ llC~f:S AlASK:A POWal AUTHORilY SUSITNA FILE P5700 J-f • Lt: '? SEQUENCE NO., F I { I 7~' k z'<_i . ·~ r::l ~ 0 .,. --~ ~ c-..... ...., ~ < -~ i 0 ~ ·I \/)J_~_G iBJB IJKL :~~~- ! ~:PB 1 -~---' :c:RI I -f--- :H&N -- FIAA APA wee TES -I-"&M -"'OF&G 7 f-aurr.-"'7 ·;;;( . -ccx.. ' DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ·:--:. 323 E. 4TH A VENUE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 279-5577 - March 26, 1981 ~-.---~ ... Eric Yould Rf::C~IVED - ·u:) 2 -.. 1981 .. !. ... ·" . ..... Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th, Suite 31 Anchorage, AK 99501 />J..}SY-A POW~R AUiHORITY Dear Mr. Yould: The purpose of this letter is to transmit to you the findings and recommendations of the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee in response to APA's request for input and recommendations on the selection of an access road to the Susitna Hydro Dam sites. On March 6, 1981, Alaska Power Authority staff, contractors and subcontractors provided several agency representatives with a briefing and a request for comments in order to make a determination for surface access to the dam sites. It was requested that our comments be provided to APA by March 23, 1981. As a result of comments and concerns expressed by agency representatives at the March 6 meeting, I agreed to convene the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee in order to identify and coordinate the concerns of those agency representatives regarding access to the Susitna Hydro sites. The Susitna Hydro Steering Committee met on Friday, March 20, 1981. We spent the afternoon discussing various issues and concerns surrounding access to the dam sites with the subcontractors to Acres American. As a result of these discussions and review of the pertinent documents, ·report studies, etc., the Susitna Hydro S,teering Committee makes the following comments and recommendations: 1. The Steering Committee representatives recommend coordination between the decision about access road routes and transmission line routes. Until this issue was raised by a Steering Committee member at the March 20 meeting there had been little discussion. The documents reviewed indicate that this was not a criterion for establishing potential access routes. 2. There needs to be a systematic decision-making process explicitly laid out for determining an access route for the Susitna dams. This decision-making process should be straight forward so that agency participants can understand and effectively participate in establishing proposed access routes. There needs to be a broad range of criteria established for determining the acceptability or nonacceptibility of various route alternatives. Information provided by Acres and their subcontractors to date indicates that - .... .. ~ .... .. -- - - - - - -· - - -( - - - - Eric Yould 2 March 26, 1981 3. 4. s. the criteria used to determine access_roads were eight in number and are roadway and railroad technical design parameters exclusively. It is the recommendation of the Steering Committee members that there are numerous other criteria which are critical and need consideration along with the technical road and railroad design parameters. I would refer you to an attached document entitled "Suitability for Raul Roads" to give you an example of a more comprehensive lists of criteria that need to be incorporated in any decision with respect to access to the dam sites. There needs to be a clearer explanation and understanding of the decisions regarding the timing of building access roads vs. FERC approval for the project. We were advised by subcontractors that the timing depends on which access mode and route is determined. The time of construction and design of these routes varies from one to three years. The agencies on the Steering Committee need to have a better understanding of how these facts and assumptions interrelate to each other in order to make informed recommendations to APA. There are numerous specific decisions that will be required regardless of which access mode and route is ultimately determined the most appropriate. The location and development of these facilities could significantly affect the preference and recommendations from agencies. For example, identification of gravel sites, spoil sites, stream crossings, construction camp service and maintenance facilities will be needed. The members of the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee unanimously felv that it was important and necessary for APA to provide an understanding of how these decisions will be made and how a quality control system will be in effect to ensure that tasks are accomplished in accordance with approvals and designs. The Susitna Hydro Steering Committee members in reviewing the March 6 and 20 meetings and discussing with subcontractors have determined that data gathering planned for this summer should be carried out on several access routes in order to make the final decision as to which one is most acceptable. To make a determination on a specific route with the lack of data/information that we are currently dealing with and then send researchers and data gatherers into the field this summer to gather site specific data on only one route is of questionable utility and logic. The primary reason why this is questionable is because unless comparable data on several of the prime routes is provided, the agencies will be unable to provide comments as to which route is most acceptable. In summary, we see the gathering and analysis of data on several proposed routes as the rational basis for making a determination as to which access route should be ultimately chosen. In summary, the Steering Committee wishes to ~phasize that it is willing and anxious to work cooperatively and expeditiously with APA in identifying and res'olving the numerous questions which need to be :'< ~--~: -~~:. :; ; ~ :. ::·~r~::L=·-= ~ .. ,. r: ' !<\ ') ;J '· .. .. .. ...... __ _ )E±;;:~:: r. .. :" ! ~ ~ L. ____ _ :.: ... . . .. ·l ~~ c ·1 ·,, i~ ii b .1 ..; ·~ .>.L,_ __ _ .. ~!i. :: ::::~ . . ~~!~:·~~ ~ fo r; ;I ~~ ~~ ~ i! ~~ !.!-:.,.. -- . /!}}f,',' :::!!/i " .. ,. r ~ :,..t ,. .. · .. -i -:':'~ . :; : = .. : ~-~ J: ·- f ~ r,.,~--- ·<·· ·-~·::~~~~·:1:i· ; . ~ ...,; : .. ·: Eric Yould 3 March 26, 1981 answered in order to make rational decisions with respect to access to Susitna Hydro sites. Once you and your staff have had an opportunity to review this letter, I would appreciate an opportunity to sit down and discuss the specifics of these comments in further detail. Sincerely yours, m Al Carson, Chairman Susitna Hydro Steering Committee cc: Susitna Hydro Steering Committee Members R. E. LeResche Reed Stoops - .... .... ... .... ... ... ... ... ..J .... - ... ., - - .... - - L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 ..... -,·· ·.-( .. : :) <;.;-' "'~'" 1\.LASii.A _PO\VER 1\UTIJt)RI'l,Y 333 WEST 4th AVENUE· SUITE 31 ·ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-2715 ,1\pri l 8, 1981 i-1r. A 1 Carson Alaska Department of Natural Resources 323 E. 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear A 1: This letter is addressed to you in your capacity as Chairman of the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. I want to provide the Committee with some in- formation, and solicit Committee approval of a recommendation. To recap some past events and discussions last year, a reassessment of the Steering Committee role was performed. A proposal to slightly alter the Commit- tee charter emerged from that reassessment and was sent to a number of resource management agencies. Due to differences between the agencies, an abbreviated version was sent to some. Copies of both letters are attached. Of 14 agencies contacted, 12 answered, 4 basically agreed with the proposal, 5 agreed with emphasis on the option to formally comment separately from the Steering Committee route, one posed an alternative, and t~·/0 in essence abstained. From this, I conclude acceptability of the proposal to slightly alter the Steering Committee role. Now, to close the loop, I would like to ask the Committee proper to move to incorporate the change. I would appreciate it if you would include this subject as an agenda item for the Apri 1 13, 1981 Committee meeting. FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 15 Attachments: 1. APA Letters (2) 2. Response Summary Sheet 3. Response Letters (12) ,aJ}dj 'oavid D. Wozniak Project Engineer cc: Phil Hoover, Acres-Columbia w/attachments 1. AGENDA Susitna Hydro Steering Co::unittee }1eeting April 13, 1981 Response to November 1980 Steering Committee comments on Task 7 studies; APA, Acres, and subcontractors. 2. Response to March 26, 1981 Steering Committee comments to APA on access roads; APA, Acres, and subcontractors. 3. Role of Steering Committee; APA and committee members. 4. Alternative power study and Steering Committee; committee members. 5. Other items; committee members. • • • • • - - - - - - - - - - -·· ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ... t·1r. Bi 11 Law1 "nee Anchorage Operations Office Environmental Protection Agency 710 C Street Anchorage~ Alaska 99510 Dear Mr. Lawrence: April 15, 1981 Attached is a mid-point report on Susitna Hydroelectric Project. It is forwarded for your infOrmation in respo"se to your earlier expression of in- terest w1th1n the context of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Comrn1ttee. I have asked Mr. Allan Carson. the Chainnan of that coomfttee~ to forward meeting minutes to you and to ensure that you are advised of scheduled meetings .. FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Attachment: As noted cc: Allan Carson w/o attachment '\ \ } Sfncerely, David o~ Hozn1ak Project Engineer CONCUR: DW RAM -) TO: FROM: -:~::: :·~ -_ __;_) ALASKA POlVER AUTUORITY MEMORANDUM For the Record \ DATE: May 1, 1981 David D. Wozniak~ SUBJECT: Steering Committee Mailings 5~( On April 23, 1981, copies of the APA mid-~e~ report and the Plan of Study were hand carried to USGS and AEIDC. Copies of the mid-year report were earlier mailed to other members of the Steering Committee. With this action, all member of the Steering Committee either possess or have access to both documents. ..I ... .. .... ... - .,.; .. wi .. ..,; - - - - - - - - - - - ..... - - - - - -· - - - - ...... ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Mr. Gary Stackhouse U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1101 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Gary: April 15, 1931 Attached is a copy of our report to the legislature as promised by rne earlier this week. I am also sending a copy to Bruce Apple. Bruce tells me he has a copy of the Plan of Study. Since these are an endangered species. I would appreciate it if you would share his copy as you structure your shopping list of areas of concern. FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Attach!!!ent: As noted Sincerely, David 0. Wozniak Pro.ject Engineer CONCUR: ow RAM ··.! -~ ' . ·,;·· ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ! ;_~f} Hs. Judy Schwartz Environmental Evaluation Branch Hail Stop 443. Region 10. EPA 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Ms. Schwartz: Apr11 15 , 1981 Attached is a mid-point report on Susitna Hydroelectric Project. It is forwarded for your 1nfonnat1on fn ·response to your earli~r expression of in- terest within the context of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering CO!ml1ttee .. I have asked Mr. Allan Carson, the Chairman of that committee, to forward ~eting minutes to you and to ensure that you are advised of scheduled meetings. FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Attachment: As noted cc: Allan Carson w/o attachment Sincerely. David o. Wozniak Project Engineer ... - - -.. IIIII! wl --- wi -CONCUR· ow RAM - - - .. .,; - - I WILLETT NITTE -LAMB ~ ~AYPE.N-Y II SfBERRY _:1 --'") t.; (__~V.• = ~ ..... I I 1 ~ (.' HJJ, .r-1 ~ I& GILL /vfcJj< lc/ rLOWREY w~ETZ __...,~ ~ ·~ -I HUSTEAD t-1 BOVE f- T 1 CHASE 1- [ . .,.: I '- ---;t.; i/' ·- - - - Mr. Al carson, Chairman usitn& Hydro Steering Com1ttee .laska Department of Natural Resources ,23 East 4th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99502 May 4, 1981 P5700.11.74 T.871 Dear Mr. Carson: Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project Access Road Studies acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 26, 1981, to Eric culd, APA. Pl'esently, I am 1n the process of reviewing your COJR- ments and recoanendat1ons. I appreciate the Steering Colllnittee•s illinqness to work cooperatively with APA in identifying and resolving the numerous questions relating to access roads and other spects of the Sus1tna studies. ·e are presently developing a systematic decision-making process that can be utilized for access road selection and for other major decisions that will be made as part of the Sus1tna studies. The decision has been mde to obtain air photos on all three major access corridors, thus, eliminating the necessity of an ·arly decision fer a preferred corridor. Our decision as to which corridor or corridors will receive detailed stuQy will not be made until we complete our evaluation of overall objectives, selection criteria, and data base. The Steering Committee will be given the opportunity to review our selection process and recommendations prior to us making a final decision. Trus t1 ng th1 s meets with your approva 1. Sincerely, Kevin R. Young KRY:db ~ ..... ~ :.r J; ~~ ~U&U[ @~ &~&~~& JAr i HAMMOND, GOV!IIIOI Utit•~\llT!UENT CU-' ~."-TIJR..:\1 .. R•:sotJil(~f:S DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 323 E. 4TH A VENUE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 279-5577 May 8, 1981 nECEIVED i lf',•/ 1 ·.: 1981 .. " , I r' Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority /.J.ASKA POWER AUTHORIW 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Eric: The Susitna Hydro Steering Committee has reviewed the Alaska Power Authority's March 1981 Mid Report to Governor Hammond and the Alaska Legislature. Specific comments from the Steering Committe members regarding this report are provided below. In general, however, the Committee was disappointed that APA did not permit our review of this report prior to its circulation, as several members have discovered factual errors in several locations in the text, and most have reservations about conclusions reached by APA regarding environmental feasibility. Dave Wozniak has assured me that, in the future, the Steering Committee will be included as reviewers of all APA documents of this nature on the Susitna Project,. and in particular I have been assured that the Steering Committee members will be provided an opportunity to comment upon the draft of the final feasibility report to the Governor and Legislature scheduled for March, 1982. The following are specific comments on the 1981 Mid Report: 1. There appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding on the part of the External Review Panel (and perhaps others associated with this project) regarding both the scope and the completion date for the feasibility studies. The feasibility studies currently underway will not, as we understand it, terminate in mid-1982 when the Application for License is filed with FERC (assuming the decision is made to file). Feasibility studies will in fact continue for several more years in order to gather sufficient environmental or other information with which a reasoned decision can finally be made whether or not to construct (FERC staff alone will require a great deal more information than will be available in 1982 with which they can prepare a draft environmental impact statement). The March 20, 1981 letter signed by five members of the External Review Panel refers to " ... feasibility studies ..• completion in April, 1982" and " ..• present studies, supplemented by appropriate additional investigations, to their 1982 completion date." While "Phase I" may end in 1982, "Phase ...t ., .. - j J j J 1 I ., j 1 i ..i - 'Iliff - - - .... -- - - - : -~ ·7 . - - - - - - - - Eric Yould 2. 2 Ma· ., 1981 ~:~,' .. ...;,.....- II" will continue for several more years, as we perceive it. We suggest you make this point clear both with the External Review Panel and with the Governor and Legislature. We also suggest that, via your public participation activities, the public be fully and accurately informed about the length of time required to (a) determine whether or not to apply for a FERC license, (b) finally determine project feasibility, and (c) obtain a FERC license and actually begin construction. The Steering Committee is of the opinion that the report is too much of a "sales document" rather than a balanced assessment of what is known to date regarding Susitna feasibility. For example, it is stated on page 7-6 "whether positive or negative the overall change in the Cook Inlet salmon fishery will probably be slight." Recognizing the paucity of supporting data the committee feels this conclusion, and others like it in the Environmental Implications chapter, are premature. 3. Individual Steering Committee members have found technical errors in various places in this report. Rather than enumerate these detailed comments at this time, you may expect comments from individual Steering Committee members or their agencies in the near future. Finally, I have been informed that the External Review Panel plans to convene in Alaska in the near future. I request an opportunity for the Steering Committee to meet with the Panel, perhaps when they are briefed on this year's field studies. Also, in order to keep members of this External Review Panel appraised of future Steering Committee concerns and technical comments on the Susitna studies, we feel it appropriate to circulate to Panel members letters, memoranda, etc. generated from the Steering Committee. We believe the Panel members would benefit from Steering Committee comments, particularly since they might not otherwise have an opportunity to gain insights into state and federal agency scientific/technical, regulatory, and public interest concerns. I hope you find these comments constructive. We will provide Mr. Wozniak a detailed outline of steering committee interests and concerns regarding the Plan of Study at our May 28 meeting. Sincerely, ili Al Carson Chairman cc: Dave Wozniak Steering Committee Members ~ e ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Mr. Al Carson Cha1rnmn Sus1 tna Hydroelectric Steering. Coomittee Department of Na tura.l Resources 323· E. 4th Avenue . Anchorage. Alaska 99501 Dear Al: June 2s 1981 '.f.. f - Thank you for your letter dated May a. 1981 concerning the 1981 Mid Report and associated matters. Regretfully, heavy travel coomitments within the office have slowed this response somewhat. Nonetheless, 1t is important tt1at the points raised by your letter be addressed. _, -.. .. .. - .... .. Our current schedule calls for the publishing of a very well developed draft of the final feasibility study report by March 15, 1982. I reaffirm our c~itment to provide this draft to you and fellow members of the Steel 'ng COOJnittee for review~ I think there 1s some confusion. however. • concerning other doctanents to be reviewed. In principle, the Power Authority welcomes the Steering Committee review of our various efforts. Unfortunately, we have not yet agreed as to the 1tem5 worthy of Steering Coomittee review. As I have noted to you on several occasions. we would like to interact with the Committee rather than continue the intermittent. somewhat adversary contacts that have characterized our past discussions. If we are to be truly interactive, your cont~ibut1on to defining the areas - ~ of interaction is essential. to that objective. Jet me repeat my suggestion ~ that the Steering Committee. ~ti1iz1ng the Plan of Study as its guideline, .. identify specific areas and/o~ events and the associated degree of depth with which they wish to be involved. Given a clear understanding of expected areas of interaction, the problem of Steering Coomittee review or nonreview of the Mid Report might not have occurred. Insofar as future project milestones are concerned, the effort currently in progress, Yar1ously callec:L 11 feas1b111ty Study~~ and/or "Phase I", has as major objectives. detennining the technical and economic feasibility of the proposal. and, if feasible, generating the data necessary for a Federal Energy Regulatory Comfss1on {FERC) license application. This step is bounded by a Power Authority contract with Acres American, Incn a contract which terminates in mid-1982. That date ts consistent with a - - ... ... - - ...,. ~ L. L:· \ - 1 1.- - '- - ..... - - - - - page Two e • legislatively mandated Power ~uthority recommendation to the Governor and Legislature by Apr11, 1982 on project continuation or abando~t. The underlying assumption is that sufficient information will be available by that time to make a reasoned and reasonable judgment on whether or not to submit the license application. (Please note that this 1s not a decision to "bu1ld 11 or "not bu1ld 11 , a point I will address further on.) Strictly speaking then, the 11 Feas1bility Study" will 1n fact terminate in mid-1982, by virtue of the contract terminating. If the mid-1982 decision is tO continue with the Susftna Hydroelectric Project proposal, we will enter a period frequently referred to as Phase II. It would be characterized by submittal of the FERC license application, commencement of detailed engineering development, and contin- uance of a substantial amount of 1nvest1gations of the project area, including such subjects as fish resources. By mid-1984, 1t 1s anticipated the license application, as su~lemented and modified bt the contfnuin? investiTations, will be approv • Given FERC approvaland a number o other, esser regulatory approvals), the question of build or not build will then be referred to the State government, where a decision on con- struction will emerge through .the political process. Re<:ent discussions with the EXternal Review Panel suggests that they are very clear on this sequence of events, and th1 s same concept, {although worded slightly differently) was advanced in the Mid Report. Accordingly, I must conclude that both the panel and the publ fc have been fully and accurately infonned about the project flow. Certainly, there was no intent to be anything less than accurate, and intimations to that effect warrant strong objection. I regret your letter arrived too late to accommodate a joint convening of the Steering Com1ttee and th~ External Review Panel. As a partial accom- modation to your request for such a joint convening, please let me note that the meetings of June 3-5,. 1981 are open to the public, and members of the Steering Comtittee are more than welcome to observe the proceedings. (The Committee was made aware of this last week.} We agree brtth your suggestion that the External Review Panel be kept appraised of Steering Committee concerns and technical comments, and have no objection whatsoever to circulating letters, memoranda!J etc., generated by the Steering COiflllittee. However, a review of such material indicates the only data generated by the coa~a1ttee to date are conments to the procedures manuaals, a letter concern 1 ng the access propos a 1 s, and your May 8, 1981 1 etter. F1 na 11 y, with respect to a joint converi.1ng, we are certainly agreeable. I think we need further discussion to 4ef1ne format and attendance; for example, I am not sure that our geotechnical representative would gafn greatly from cooments advanced by the natural sciences C001ilun1ty. Perhaps we will want to focus our efforts on the environmental representative, Dr. Leopold. Further, to be efficient (substantial expense fs involved in bringing the ·. V~ii"'" i>.- Page Three panel members to A1aska and pay1ng their per diem) as \il:'e11 as ·t<t-. ,'i"_t ... 1 run suY'e you ,.,n 1 want to give some thought to the structuring ~~m . content of your fom.al presentations. I would 'l>te1~~ continued dial on this subject. CONCUR: RAt4 EPY Sincerely, David D. Hozn1ak Project r'1anager - ,. ; ~:· ·; - - - - - - - ..... - - - ,_. ·--· ---------~· .. --. 0 f\ ~lT&~[ @W ~~~~~~ JAr S. HAMIIOitO, GOYfflltOI nEt•.\JtT~IENT o•· ~..\TUR.-\1. RJ<:SOIJilf~ES DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT June 5, 1981 Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: 323 E. 4TH A VENUE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 279-55 77 RECEIVED JUN-9 1981 -~l<A POWER AUldORITY The purpose of this letter is to transmit to you a proposed revision in your June 3, 1980 letter stating the role and objectives of the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee. The Steering Committee members feel the following more accurately describes the role and function of the Committee. "The Alaska Power Authority through its consultant, Acres American Incorporated, is carrying out a 30-month feasibility study of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Because of the magnitude of this study, effective interagency coordination will be best accom- plished through formation of a Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee. The function of this committee would be to provide coordinated exchanges of information between the Alaska Power Authority and interested resource management agencies. Through this exchange, the concerns of all agencies involved would be identified early and hopefully prevent unnecessary delays in the progress of these feasibility study, appli- cation for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to construct, and Environmental Impact Statement review. As proposed, the Steering Committee would be composed of representatives of resource agencies with responsibilities pertaining to the Susitna Hydroelectric Feasibility Studies and/or the project's environmental consequences. We therefore invite your agency's participation. The committee would provide for interagency coordination through joint review of project related materials and development of more informed and uniform positions representing all resource interests. We believe this will provide a more efficient process of information exchange. Proposed objectives for this committee are to: 1. Review and comment on study approaches throughout each phase of the planning process; l f / / ! 2. 3. 4. 2 J~ 5, 1981 Provide a forum for continued project review of all aspects of the studies, for a timely exchange of information, and for recom- mendation of study redirection, should the accomplishment of specific objectives be in jeopardy; Comment on compliance of the studies with state and federal laws, regulations, Executives Orders, and mandates as they apply to fish and wildlife resources; and Provide unified steering committee comments to the Power Authority. Should your agency elect to participate in the committtee, we recommend that your representative have a technical background enabling him to comment on the adequacy and approach of ongoing and future feasibility studies, and be able to speak knowledgeably on the policies and procedures of your agency with respect to the review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license application for the project and the subsequent Envirorunental Statement (ES)." If you have comments or suggestions concerning these proposed revisions, please advise. Sincerely, rn~ Al Carson Chairman Susitna Hydro Steering Committee cc: Steering Committee • • • • .. - - • .. • - - - - - .. - - ~ - - ..... - - - - ..,_. - e ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY e June 18, 1981 Dear Susitna Hydro Steering Committee r·1ember: Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Development Selection Report for the pro- posed Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project. The primary purpose of the studies su:rmarized in the report was to formulate the optimal Susitna Basin plan of develo~nt. Acres has concluded that the ~Jatana-Devil Canyon bto-dam plan is the preferred approach for developing the basin's hydroelectric potential. Further, Acres recommends that planning and engineering studies be continued on this b~o-dam development concept. We are soliciting your comments on the evaluation process used by Acres, on their delineation of relative plan impactst and on their conclusion that the Watana-Oevil Canyon plan is the preferred basin alternative. The parts of the report addressing economic comparisons with a thermal plan arc not pertinent to the formulation of an optimal basin plan, and they can be ignored for the time heing. The issue of economic feasibility will be addressed more comprehensively in the draft feasibility report scheduled for Harch 1982 and in the. l3attelle \vork. The Power Authority places a high value on the Steering C~uittee input. Please take the tirr~ to review this very crucial and significant report~ and provide us \'lith your comments. Ideally, there will be a c0tm1ittee oeeting fn July wherein unified committee comments can be formally trans- mitted. However, if a meeting doesn't materialize, cmr.ments by August 3, 1981 are solicited. Enclosure: as noted Sincerely, David D. Wozniak Project Engineer cc: Ward Swift, Battelle {w/attach) Phil Hoover, Acres, Columbia (w/o attachl John Lawrence, Acres. Buffalo (w/o attach) MFR: Same letter sent to attached list :f :· e -AI.~ASiiA t•O\VI~R AU'l'IIOR11.'Y SUSITNA HYDRO STEERING COMMITTEE Bob Lamke U. S. Geological Survey It! a ter Resources 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 271-4138 John Rego Bureau of Land Management Anchorage District Office 4700 E. 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99502 344-9661 Brad Smith National Marine Fisheries Studies 701 "C" Street, Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 271-5006 William J. Wilson Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center, (U of A) 707 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 279-4523 A 1 Carson State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources 323 E. 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 279-5577 Tom Trent Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2207 Spenard Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 274-7583 Larry Wright Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service 1011 E. Tudor Road, Suite 297 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 276-1666 Lenny Carin U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 271-4575 Gary Stackhouse U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service lOll E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99501 276-3800 Bob Martin Department of Environmental Conservation 437 E Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 274-2533 Mr. Bill Lawrence Anchorage Operations Office Environmental Protection Agency 701 C Street Anchorage, Alaska 99513 271-5083 Judy Schwarz Environmental Evaluation Branch Mail Stop 443 Region X, EPA 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 442-1285 """" - - IIIIi .. .. - ... - ..,; wtl - - - ... - - - - -- ·--~ " '.:::" .... - - - .... , - - ~ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Al Carson, Chairman Susitna Hyclro Steering Ccmrnittee Department of Hatura1 Resources Division of Research & Deve1or.mcnt 323 E. 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear A1: June 18, 1981 . (\ The wording of the proposed revision to the S!.!s1tna Hydro Steering Cmrmittee role and objectives advanced in your letter of June 5, 1981 is fine. I would now like to see it formally adopted by the Steering Committee. Sub- sequently. I will "close the 1oop 11 with the various agencies origina11y involved by issuing to them the revised ~rd1ng. On a re 1 a ted 1 ssue, more work needs to be done by the cor.r.~i ttee on 1 ts composition. Not only 1s 1t cumbersome to have a large inactive me~J~rship, that sort of situation has a high potential far errors of ommission and ~arrassment. I again urge a concensus on establishment of an active ~~eobersh1p. plus some accommodation for the fnactive members. (1) Attachelent: A1 Carson letter, June 5, 1981 S1ncerc1y • David 0. Wozniak Project Engineer cc: Ph11 Hoover Acres/Columbia (w/attach) Kevin Young Acres/Buffalo (w/attach) CONCUR: RAM e .... ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY .. :..,:_." Mr. l.iob Lamke U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Lamke: -.. __ . July 28, 1981 It would appear that we w111 not have a formal Sus1tna Hydroelectric Steering Committee meeting prior to August 3, 1981, the target date for your comments on the Development Selection Report (my letter of June 18, 1981, copy attached). Accordingly, I would very much appreciate it if you would send me your comments ~Y August 7. 1981 at the latest. FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Attachment: as noted Sincerely, David D. Wozniak Project Engineer ..! "ff. ~ IIIIi -.. - - wJ "'tJ -.. ... """ ... ... ... .., ... -----.-·--_, -:::: - - .~IEMORANDUM ro: Dave Wozniak Project Engineer Alaska Power Authority 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 State of Alaska DAH. FILE NO TELEPHONE NO. July 29, 1981 02-I-81-ADF&G-7.0 02-V-Acres-1.0 ._FROM: Thomas W. Trent REcEIvED SUBJECI: Review of Draft Development Selection Report -Su Hydro Project -{' - ...... v - - ._. ... - - ...... Aquatic Studies Coordinator Su Hydro Aquatic Studies i\~G ~ 1981 Anchorage "JWKA POWER AUTHORITY I've reviewed the draft Development Selection Report for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and mY comments are as follows: Page 1-4 (g) Ta~k 7 -Environmental Studies Comment: I recommend the words in the last sentence i.e., large game be changed to £i[ game. Page 8-26 Environmental Comparison -2nd paragraph - a statement regarding enhancement potential for anadromous fish and, the statement on page 8- 27 Environmental Comparison, 2nd paragraph. Comment: A general observation addressed to these specific sections, is that development of the environmental comparisons has undoubtedly been a subjective process. The statements made really don't provide any detailing of the hows, whys, and rationale for the conclusions drawn. I believe we can accept a subjective process for evaluating the environmental merits or deficiencies of a particular dam scheme, but it would have been a helpful process for Acres to involve ADF&G, USFWS and others in such an analysis to discuss alternative positive/negative impact possibilities. I think this would have led to a healthy exchange of ideas. The exposure of the fish and wildlife or other resource agencies to the same design or operational schemes laid out to the Acres environmental review team may have led to conclusions which were the same or potentially quite different from the Acres analysis of the situation. To sum up, we can't argue with Acres report since we don't know the background information used to support their rationalizations or the experience of the individuals involved in the report preparation that drew the conclusions on fisheries . cc: S. Zrake -DEC B. Wilson -AEIDC G. Stackhouse -USFWS R. Lamke -USGS A. Carson -ADNR )7 .fl01 I R .. v <;/'7<;1 C· ~ .• ~"'""'"'~' •mormoflon and Dora Center 707 A Street PHONE f907J 279-4523 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA RECEIVED August 4, 1981 :' 1 If"\ C" 1981 . . . .J ..) ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Dave Wozniak Alaska Power Authority 333 W. 4th AVenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Dave: Per your request to the members of the Susitna Steering Committee, I have quickly reviewed the Development Selection Report prepared by Acres. In general I found it logical in approach and complete in re- gards to the relevant factors one should evaluate when reducing multiple options. I have only the following specific comments: 1. 2. The location and environmental effects of developing borrow material sites is not well documented and incorporated into the first part of the report. Enormous qunatities would be required for most of the dams, and the removal, stockpiling, and transport of this material could be a significant factor influencing the decision-making process. Significant efforts are currently being expended in environ- mental study of this region, the results of which are not yet available. Factoring this new knowledge into the decision- making process could have influenced the nature of the final scheme; or is the current environmental study effort geared only toward the effects of the "selected plan (page 9-1)" and not for input to the overall selection process? In general I found the environmental effects of the alternative options addressed very superficially. I hope my comments are of interest. WJW/g cc: Al Carson Sincerely, -L. /' }1(_ ~ L L (' '· ./ ? ,_ ·~ . )/' '-!_>,, William J. Wilson Supervisor, Resource and Science Services Division Senior Research Analyst in Fisheries ~ ,; • ..... .. _, .... - - , ""' - ...; - • ...,. - - ....., IIIII ~~~~[ @W - (J ~ @ ,-... .. \ ' . { ( \ . ' ; i Q\ I I ~ \ ~:. :·: ) : : uJ t..:.::J 1.1 u _ _ .. / l I I I 437 E Street second Floor Anchorage, AK 9950: Ut-:J•T. OiF t:~'\.IUO~~I&-:~1L\.iL 4'0.:'i~fEJ'iq_\·/~Tfla~~~; j I ' P 0. Box 1207 Soldotna. Ata~ka 99669 (907) 262 5210 - - -- ( - - - ~ - - - - - - 'jLH i \'OUTIIC!NIA'/.1 mr;·r•·,.; ;. -...... ' r. _ ~-1 I . r- ;_;,\..1 lSR1 ;::_L,:.;~.:... ,, . ..; .. -·· •• ..: . ~ • .J.~t r; Dave Wozniak Project Engineer Alaska Power Au~hority 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Wozniak: r-: '~ P 0. Box i064 Wasilla. AtasY.a 99687 (907) 375·5038 August 14, 1981 We have reviewed sections 7 and 8 of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Development Selection Report (second draft June 1981). We find that the plan selection methodology used in section 8 meets the objectives of determining an optimum Susitna Basin Development Plan and of making a preliminary assessment of a selected plan by an alternatives comparison. The increased emphasis over previous analyses of the environmental acceptability of the alternatives is good. At this time, this Department does not endorse any particular plan. We would, however, recommend the Steering Committee openly discuss the Watana Dam -Tunnel option because of its reduced environmental and aesthetic impact. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. We appreciate your effort in soliciting Su-Hydro Steering Committee involvement. If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact Steven Zrake of this office. cc: Steve Zrake Dave Studcvant Al Carson -DNR BH/SZ/mn Sincerely, _fi~rlhd::- Bob Hartin Regional Environmental Supervisor . ~ ' I·•·: ~ .. , ( l fi\J ~ v <-v\,H ~~ .,-.,1; .:It-. ~·.-· ... 4' • I•• ·. ~ Cl i ~ .. (d_yf.l~il71C .-.... F- 1 f"'li \ t _. n ' i i n rs n .... ~ 'ii7 rt . -' . ~ I < ~,.. I~~-7 ' i: ' I, i 1: i· ~ .. \; l i~ i .. ~--c. . . ~ . l t I I ! I t i If l ~ r~ i "' I; ;: ; •.. r E· ~~ !....:. I. ''· !. ,._ !' .. ... t ::!.· !=. r ·~ iii: ~-... ~~ ~1 ~~ ]· ~. ~ f! If) ~ i~ I> I l tl 1 i n 'it , ..._ u~ ~ ~ fLit::: ~u f \ • • &' ' ..... -~ 1A1 n u\ ~, ·i ' lu.\ -'\ fi ' • "\ I ' trJbU\1~ u~u-u DEr.uiT...'\IEI\T OF ~&:TIJILU. BESGIJB.£ES (JNI!JiliDN()FRES:£Ai!IDI&~'T .. eabei"' 5. nlil Ml'>; Er-ic 1ta14.,. Executive iHrK.t« Ala$1a t\wu ~icy m 11es.t. fourth Avemae ~" Al.uta 99501 Dear Plr + You.ld: 111-ta•• -=:samt :=£ 4111 AVi:..''fvt ~~g;. ~A#A ~~ tl~ R"E.C t;nt E.D !l~f/'\ .! *r-1\ lV..J-1 \1-..:: ~· -.;.~ ~~~i:V.!t ~ .. ,,.,~.,.., ~ &~-" J'lliltl"-"'\.lo- ,';/ The pu.~e of ttrb 1e-ct-...,-is to t~t. to the Alaska Power Authority {APA} ~ts ~ the Sus'ftr.a ~lectric Steer'iM Caft!ilit~~ (Sl-;St) ccn- c.enrtng m.~s ~ls far access ta the ~-t"''pQsed SuSitr.a. Rivru-d. sit€S- These ~~s are in TeSponse "to information providi!d the snsc !rca two 4CC@:S.S rv~te tseetlngs with MA ~A their-c~tra-ctfirs and tbe ~ts ~red. by /IPA c:ontnctors and distribtrted during tnese ~;tin9s.. At the Octobet 20!! 1981 ~ting APA ~YMUd SHSt: ~ts by ~v--..rer 6, 196l.. T.lti! S.li.SC ;;ppr&ia-tes the fact that APA c-ontinwl:"j det..anoo CQr.S1de.'P<lti¥n and ~...udies ¥f s.ev~~1 i9;e$S roote C?ti~'1<s tu~i:i ~ rather tlwi f0Cll31ng o.-1 a :single ~..~: .. ... .... ... - .., - ., - ...,; -The SiiSC r~iew identified four anus.s of ~rn t.r.at 12rited ~tf"""ii.>~-_ )~~.::i Thu~e four 41'-e: I ,.,._ ~-~ , .1.& '! £..~ 3 ... .6 ~ .. t s~_ s Ti.,.,. A critique of ~~ studies of ~cess rout~ llltrirh prQvic-e for ~·~"E ,.j~ivj,. t--i~n of !'~ ...... ~ i -/, 1 1 .... t.n · -...R:. • t .-.rr. ,.....£- 1 __ ;.., ..... ..,I;,.; Tt.e relatiQ:llShi? between t1j!JJ~ {}f a-~c.es~ n:.ute con=:.truct"}sm .i!ndi~-"Y~ :<:, ;t t:" -~ ... D .. -.11 --• ,..i:"!"..-J" \ I .. ... I .. ; ~ ; J • ~ .5I , ~i!l tn-'!f'""''D" Ji~tHat.cr.t ~\S:Si~i \r'-~! d~pn:>¥4.. t\lf' ~-r·~ -'""' ·z ~ ::S...,; The. re-lationship of access route_ d-::Cision ar.d ~eS of· ~~~s:~ to l1g 2 ~ -· re•ltana.l 1ii.fld use manags:rart pcihc.1es. ,..;: ; , Thf! "iSS.ut.~ resultant from land status ana 1ar.d o.nership th :'1~ .... .,-eed i -""' . lt! , ~ ...,......... pro ... ec ~,. .. - f / I · ·v, :-.. ~ . . ... ... -.tffec:t.&1 t¥ -.ocr~ ~- ~ ~ 'F"':i-i '!' ~~ i ; - The assessment of O]n"idor rnu-"'"~ ~1t...~.at1ves should.~ ~Br.Jati?-1¥ -Je1bh -;:;~:J• the: pot~tial ~cts af be~ sit'T~ anrl ac.ce~s Ui t...~e sites. arid tr~.s~ -~ ~-l -~=--· "'i" frl · t:"' ,. •r> ~.-. ..____,...;..4-· ......h.: 1. ~ • -~•1T +-..:.-l 1., ~=-...t.. c-~­..,,~~lQll I tH-~\.•'1 roo rng.. R\.ve..J;.l 'w\.io l ~i.ii.JJ"S -ucn ~er,e ~ ¥¥0 T or-I,.( -<P•i:· ~· po .... i"" . ..;; in .regaid to these athe3" pr!l,jc-~t access needs ~1d 'be highly des1rab-la f,~!!iF. "·-: "'~1· (:.: ""''" .. • ... .; .. -t i ; "'-"" .... Iu •• ~:!iio111g ._r.w::na... ~c i = ~RI-4 ·,' • ;;o-:..a. i : ·;::;--.. 1;-·TE.s ~ i. ··~-~~ ~-~ , :::~ ~-,,.._. __ ! --- . , r - I .~:c-•. : . ~ \ --~ -.... • 0 .c r- ~ i ' i-. f '- t f·i ,. ,, ~1-­r: r· fi u n--,, r i . !·-tr· ! .....J.• L I . ~-i f~ ( I .. -1· ~ I r ,;- != ~; &" ., .. ~;.:· g:_ i'· t(· H ·- H~oo­¥·; ~ ~! f~ ·' tl lj- n 1-~ J-;~ ~;-... ~ ·~ il i'· n-,1 iJ J' ~~ F-.. •·· ~· f~ t 1!- j: r r- .. rne access prefe~es: ~ressed below pertain tD the ~emrral ioc.tt1oos c;ited. for tbe corridors and ~re based uoo."l the envirot'111efit41 diit.\ :1nd t:Q1'lr.lte sions ccnUined envil"''f''2rtta1 documents ~ for SUbUsk 2. .. 10. Acc~s Road Asses~t. It does I'JI)t. ~t. our -~t o a part.1cu1ar I~ 1 e-\flde corridor~ as presented .. The SHSC ~s wit.'~ the Terrestrial fmril"QPPl!eeltal Specialists~ loc. ~i­ tiQn that 4a:ess via thf! Alaska Ralli"Caf.f to Gold Creek is envif'ORil!Bltaliy pre:- ferabla... bUroad access to at least Devil ynyon lDild alleriate tile need for • s1491ng area a't &114 ~ and the consequent m..tn 4Ctivity~ bnd ~ .. fuel Siiills.-r ~--:4 other ispacts on the Gold ~ &..""ea... we rec.ogn1.zed that • s"bginq ~n!il. at Devil CAnyon would be required in inY ~-The: use: of tiris U"M. as t.~ tenaiAUs cf a. raili'oiirl ~rs to lllilke ~ QTei}t deal of se!'".S.e... AddiUonaH:;. we feel Ulii't the~ sidf; ~e "fnJII ~ld Creek to DevH Caaycn is preferable since • trail clready eJ:ists t!1a e. FniB Devil ~ tc watana. ~ prrler & route on the north side of tile Susi~ fiver... At Ute October 20 .. 1.9ll ~t;1~ ttE SJ& lillS 1aror1101 ;,y ~~r. tlilvtd wozntak ot PPA ta&-e ~ 1!!lel"e lllll) {2) ~itiona.l r.1t1road rcul:.ei110de op-tions (a total of 10:} • If feas1!tle tee ~­ a-ally prefer • n11 liOd2 of access to md vithin tile project site. The Sh'SC ide:nt1fi~ three {3} tnV.1~tai1y sen-si'tive iTeaS that s.houid ~ avoided~ rnose a~: . 1. The rouus frra the Denali Hiqhvay. 2. Tl'E rnu.te -crossir...g the lrAi1an River and t.hroi.i9h wet.larnts t.o the Parls tHg~y7 3? The roo...t+...e e-n t.~ sooth side of the Susit..""-4 River tnlil!i Devils Cdnyon tc the propos.E!d &a tar.a dillm site. ln eva1uat'if19 thr. access f'0'4~ selection proc€'ss u.r..dert4ken by t.~ APA ana tts contr'a~I.Drs,. t."'.e Steering Caimittee questions the validity of the power-on- 1 ine. 1n 1993 ass.~tion/mandat~. Tl·i@ "Ve' ve got to burry up and put in it mad tQ meet the !993 deadlir.el'! ~proac.'I appears~ 1i"tm OJrrenth available reptJ~\-5 ar.d the briefings received by the Susitn.a liydr-~Iectr-ic St.eerin9 Carmi tt.c."".-: e-n OcUiber 20~ 1981 ~ to point "t!..~rd the necessi"ty of a pion~..-rr.,h,"'-d cvnst:J-~...u:ted b£fo.---e d ftRC 1 icense 1s gr~nted, or se1ect1tn1 of an l!p~nmtly env1rormenu11y UR~c-n+~hla ~~-11· ~in~~u ~r---r ~·~A iN~ c-'t'~\r' .... k1~ -P !~f~..J aa~J ! WV4r~a Local utiiities a~ net apprtUichinq c-c.>tstructicn of .1 project the magnitude of S~sitr..a in 1993 as a for~on~ conclusion ar!il are ~kif!z3 cont1ngt:-:r.-ey pl~ns to met projected power r~-d:i~ Gas and coal g~ented p==wer options are bein9 e.x£"~i~-OO~ ln add1 t1cn. ff!asibO i b studies are Cll •• e.nt1v hef~ undertaLcn by the U~S. /;my em,;. of. E.nq ir.eers ar.d t.~ A0A at nt..E-~:'"tlUS~ pnt.entia1 ~dF"..;-alectric generati~1 ~ites. T~ ¥~ttel1P ~ ~1 -t ~ ~'+~; P~.er A1t~~ti¥e Study sr~~Jd provide "lnslaht in1:o addit1o"-1 n A.s SuCh;; Hi! oe!ieve s..i~W• t.'M: lSS.J 'cicadi ir~~ fer-y'O'!tf!r-cn-1 ir:-e f, ~ Su.Sit.rs ~~ no-t: t--e tr...a"t fire and i~erati ve. Thus tJLa: ~~t.SC da~es not be 1 i eve tri€! 1.993 d.e.ad.l i r:=e sttOu 1 d c.ons~-a n tJ~ ov~an decision ~raking proc~s atrd the or-derly pro-gress of various stud es an project feasibility and ardrorEaita 1 im-pacts. Peniiittir.:g citid r£So-rJrce a~e-f'.cie~. \r,\:.Iud11f9 fffiC. sfi-O".Jid be &J=-scted to 1tnk a pioneer r-oa4 to tnc: OveJ""a 11 ;rroj e-c.t * ,, ~:':.. --~-- '" -f;tl . . ' • -tt. ~·r <= G' . ~ ~ • .) ., .,C' f {: '• ,. !• ' \) q .. ! i l t i i l . ~ !.! lj . ' t~ i,.... ... j { u· I• !1 n I; f~ ~ ": r; d f: 1! (:' Pu.b11c at-tess to the d....~ sites and through the Upper Susitrn1 l'a Hey is COiftPl~ and a contruv(•rs1a1 subject anrl -.e believe this issue Sthau1d be 9ivet1 thorough enlua.t1on in the route selection process. Hmf COJ'I~tructioo,..related ..I access is obUined to a ~reat extent de~ines the project·re-1ated wildlife and soc1~i~ i~cts. The APA has bea-n soliciting the views of 1oca1 residents .J (T41keetna. Trapper Creek .. etc.} in reg~rd to the ~ccess que~ticn. The m.ijorit.y of resfdents 'llmnt to minimize i~ct.s t.o both their c('mnllnity an<1 tt.e Upper l Su.sitna VaHey_ The APA has solicited the views of the·state .2r.d federal r-esource J &lgencies. 1t has been the pn?.dOPlinant v1~ of these agencics:r which represent public intere$t~ on a state or national level, that project.-related ~i1dl He impAets should be limited to the gxiiiUR extent practicable. In addition .. the APA has expressed the desire toe:~iurtz~ the option~ for future public access. we· beliaye that these views mesh, K~i:r:ir~Y 1mgact..s and maximi.ting options tor future publiC iCCS.$S can be i1Chi~.Ved t>y J:rljj;iCking,.. to the e..xteftt ?QSSible7 the status quo. for examc>Jc. to provide ful1 public Access through a road systen, fo~loses the iuture-optiQn of maintaining the existing character of the Upper Susitna Valley .. Use of rcl'H as the access mde increases the pet.entia1 for ma.nag~nt and contro 1 of S(lcioecanmt i c and envirorrnentaJ impacts.. ~ h;~i zed nil use provides for the following advanta9es over road ~c~ess: l, ~1nta1ns a ~imum range of future decisiQn options9 2. ProYid~~ fo~ control of work~~ 1mpacts on ioc~l c~Jn1t1e$ and wild- life. .._ ,} .. 4, 5. Oecreeses the pctentia1 of hazar~ous ~~terinl $pi11s due to adverse ~ts~r condition$ and ~ltiple ~andliny~ Disturbance to ~1ldiife adjac~nt to the route c~n be more easily ~;ontro 11 ed .. Di~t access r\ght-of-way ~lat.~ habitat losses can b;! si<)ni ficant1y HmH.cU .. Briefly tr~ land status of the proj~t area has not changed significantly within t.'1e l.:st year.. There al~ several ~pJex pro01B!'.s c.onc.crrdnq Tand status that r~ve t~cn brought to your attention by BL~- ihank ycu fur the Ol)port.uoity tQ -review ar:.d Ceiritrrent on the AcGe~~ Road A~scss.ment doc~-ents.. We look forw~rd to rc.ace1 vi o-~ the final ver.~i.Q.n of these doct:r.ent:i after Nove11ber 15, 198L and anticipate prov1d1rrg addit'iofla1 reco.rn- ~-'€:nrlatfons into th1 s ded s i Ofi-ti1aking proce$s .. s i i'tcere !y 7 f"\ ~ 0-\.J..l \~ ... fl.l Garsonl C.hai'f"i!'.an Susi~~ Hydro~Iectric Steerifi9 Cc~it~~~ ce: o_ Yozn1a~. APA Steerirrq C~nii tt~ ~-'tl-nt:-el·s R. Stoov~ ..,) t .J i j .. J J ' .J I ,.i l J ~ ..., J J ~ .J 7 J .. IIIII - - - - • f:i· t·;., _,.; ~' fi. i,;· ..... :·; ~::-: :~~ --.~ ~i ---l~ e e AGENDA SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC STEERING COMMITTEE Date: December 2, 1981 Time: 1:00 p.m. Place: Alaska Department of Natural Resources Conference Room l. 2. 1:00 -2:30 p.m. S.H.S.C. response to ACRES request for formal agency comments on elements of Susitna hydroelectric proposal. SHSC and D. Wozniak, A.P.A. 2:45 -3:30 p.m. S.H.S.C. response to information request from Birch, Norton, Bittner, and Monroe. SHSC and J. Lowenfels. 3. 3:30-4:00p.m. Other SHSC business. . .,. 1 e e ,/ ~U&U~ @~ ~~~~~~ I JAruwoND.UWIN~ r:.~ DHJ·~\IlT.\IENT o•· NATUR..\1. RI<:SOlJRf:Es I ! :~' ;, . 323 E. 4TH A VENUE ~ DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT I ANCHORfG~;:;1.f'F~ t99501 ~1, .... t .. ~-t:~ -~ ... December 9, 1981 Mr. David Wozniak Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Wozniak; ~ !~:C 11 1~}~·; t '-'·'-J-;~:~::;\ ~1 0VJEf\ i\U j; ;:.,. ; i t The Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee (SHSC) would like to receive additional information from your office regarding the status and progress of the Mitigation Task Force. As you know, preparation of an adequate Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application requires that Exhibit E identify the proposed measures to mitigate impacts or to protect and en- hance the resources. We believe coordination of this vital study item should occur early and on a continuing basis. I am aware that the APA has also recognized this need by creating two Mitigation Task Force core groups composed of principal investigators and a Mitigation Review Committee com- posed of representatives of various concerned agencies. While several mem- bers of the Review Committee sit on the SHSC, they have received no informa- tion on the progress of either core group. Additionally, the Fish and Wild- life Mitigation Policy recently developed by APA for the Susitna Hydroelec- tric Project stresses the need for close coordination. Although no time schedule is established in this mitigation plan, it is obvious that steps 1 and 2 (identification of impacts, ranking of impacts and identification and review of mitigative alternatives) should be substantially completed by now if step 3 (development of an acceptable mitigation plan) is to be achieved by the March 15, 1982 draft feasibility report deadline. Therefore, I am requesting that you provide any applicable information regarding the Mitigation Task Force groups and their progress to date. The minutes from past meetings would be particularly helpful here. As the SHSC is eager to discuss these concerns, I believe a short briefing may be most effective. I will be contacting you to arrange for such a meeting, hopefully during the week of 12/13/81. Sincerely, ru~ Al Carson Chairman, Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee AC:db cc: Steering Committee R. Stoops Quentin Edson, F.E.R.C. IIIII ..; - ..; ..., - - - - .... ..... - - ..., .... - - - - --------------------------~---------· -·- ALASKA POWER AUTJI()RITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276·0001 r-. ~- r ALASKA POWER AUTrtORITY SUS'ITNA r FILE P5700 . II _ 1 3EQUENCE NO. F, d/75" .. I :1~1 ~ ..J > I --o: < ~·.o t---I~ 11) 1-(J. • -..... ~~, 3 ~ ------· I : [" ': .V ·--~--F f VJ •t --=~=/ c~_~J i xt.:. J !_; ·; r-1 ;;(J' -:,~·---'----- 1 J? -: --;I P:; H 1-· ! E::s :·_ I c-• 'T ---~~·~ L I C-1----i- 1 M R'J --,-.-·~-- 1 r·. R~ ----r--1 ~ J ;= !-~1- Mr. Al carson Alaska Depar1::IIent of Natural Resources Research and Develo:prent 555 Cordova Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Al: December 10, 1981 RE:CE:iVED DEC 14 1981 ACn .. .., ........ uuna~ uu;ul(rORATED In late November, 1981 you approached rce with sane concerns relative our on-going effort to solicit formal coordination on various aspects of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. This led to a series of rceetings between ourselves and the Susi tna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee. To broadly summarize those events: 1. Acres Arrerican Incor}X)rated, acting for the Fewer Authority, has ccmmenced circulation for formal coordination certain building blocks of the studies that will form the basis for a project licensing recommendation. 2. In rrost instances the agency heads (addressees of the formal requests for coordination) referred the request to staff for analysis. Alrrost without exception the staff involved also had been serving on the Susi tna Hydroelectric Project Steering Carmittee. largely due to this relationship, the individual agency staff members elected to use the Steering Comnittee structure as a vehicle to discuss their formal coordination conce.r:ns. As a result of multiple interactions between the Steering Cornnittee and the Fewer Authority, a number of issues have been clarified and options for agency response to the Acres request for formal coordination have been identified. The Steering Carmittee has S1.li'Ilt'arized its conce.r:ns as folla.-vs: 1. In same cases, the documentation of field study results is not available coincident with the request for agency comment on aspects of the project. 2. There has been no decision made yet by the Pa.-ver P..uthority, the State legislature and the administration as to whether there will be an application to the FERC for the construction of the project. . ) C. ' Mr. Al Carson December 10, 1081 Page 2 3. Sare of the agencies are concerned al:out responding to bits and pieces of the prq;:osed project without being able to evaluate the ~tire prq:osal. To clarify the Pc:Mer Authority intentions relative the request for fo:r:roal coordination, it is appropriate to look to basic intentions and objectives. The present and proposed FERC regulations clearly encourage pre-application coordination; First, to assure that the project planning process has taken into account policies and guidelines of local, state and federal agencies, and second, to assure that the applicant has solicited agency carrrents and concerns and has atterrpted to address them. Specifically, the proposed FERC regulations (anticipated to be in effect by tirre of license application, July 1, 1982) require a request for formal coordination from agencies, provision of up to of sixty ( 60) days response tirre to those agencies, and - - - -- - inclusion of applicant response to agency formal carrrents in the license .. application. Therefore, one rrajor purpose for the request currently circulating is to canply with FERC regulations. The Pc:Mer Authority is anxious to acccmn::::date agencies and the Steering ~~ttee in the decision process. We have demonstrated this - in the past and wish to continue that policy. Our requests for fo:rma-1 • coordination are very much intended to accarnodate consideration of agency cc::mtEnts in the fonm1lation of the project and in the decision process leading to the Power Authority project licensing recommendation. .. Clearly, our ability to use ccmrents in this fashion is very much a function of when we receive them. . In response to regulatory require.rrents, and to our best judgerrent of when agency cornrent will be rrost productive we :perforce must persist· in our requests for formal coordination. We hasten to add, ha..;ever, - that we willingly accept interim ccmrent, informal carrrcnt, or any other - variant that gets the information to us in a tirrely fashion. Be.:mwhile, we will attenpt to make available pertinent dcx:urrentation of field studies as early as possible so as to assist your review. I hope this StliTTt'a.I'Y assists you and your colleagues in deciding heM to respond to our requests for formal coordination. If other facets to this action emerge, I would welcome an opportunity to further discuss them with you. - - . 1 .. 7?Jtt~~-FOR THE EXECUI'IVE DIFECIOR DaVJ.d D. I·JoznJ.ak f Project Engineer -DI:X'l/blm cc: John Lavrrewnce, Acres Arrerican, Buffalo - - _) ALASKA POWER AUTIIORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 RECEIVED Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 r ' ALASKA 'POWER AUTHORITY SUSlTNA .... FILE P5700 . II ~ ai a: a: t:O 1-L~ ~ U') « 0 . . -- -- -- -- - . - -'= - . Mr. Al Carson Depart::Irent of Natural Resources Division of Research and Developrent 555 Cordova Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Al: DEC 21198i ACRt~ 1\mc.rtnintt linaJKrORATED December 15, 1981 I am in receipt of your letter of December 8, 1981 soliciting (on behalf of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee) additional infonnation concerning the Mitigation Task Force. · I am happy to canply, in part because it affords rre an OpiJOrtunity to correct sorre apparent misconceptions. First, while I have no objection to Steering Ccmnittee participation on our mitigation planning, I am sarewhat surprised. As was made clear early on, mitigation planning (and specifically the Mitigation Task Force Review Group activities) is being don~ within the formal coordination and consultation framework of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and F. E. R. C. Regulations. By contrast, the Steering CamrrQttee has worked vigorously to remain informal commentators to the Sustina Hydroelectric Project pro!JOsal. If the Steering Carrnittee elects to join us in mitigation planning, it should ~ understood that we will t..reat their participation as "formal". That in turn leads to other minor procedural concerns, such as what to do about dua~ ~ representation, etc. Second, you misjudge slightly our timetable on mitigation planning. We are just nCM in the midst of ide.ntification of impacts. Physical constraints have led to this t:i.rretable: Field studies had to be corrpleted and sumna.rized, hydrology data form.Ilated so that pc:wer generation simulation (which leads to water release/stage information) could be done, etc. We have by no rreans fully seeped impact yet, but we are rapidly advancing. ~'lliich leads rre to the key I?Oint; when will an assessrrent be possible? The most comprehensive will appear in the draft feasibility rei?Ort, to be published March 15, 1982. A less canprehensive, but [_ -) ... nonetheless fairly rigorous, assessrrent will be provided to the Review Group when they convene January 20, 1982. I know you are a rrember of . that Review Group. You should be receiving your fonnal invitation very -' soon, if not by now. I suggest Steering Conmittee involvement, if any, be subsequent to that convening. FOR THE EXECUI'IVE DIRECTOR Dr:W/blm cc: John Lawrence, Acres Arrerican (w/cy of carson letter) Quentin Edson, F .E.R.C. I .; ... ... ... ... - .... IIIIi i j i J ~ .J ...i ..J 1 J J J J IIIIi - - - -{ - - - - - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Mr. A 1 Carson State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources 323 E. 5th Avenue Anchorage, Al?ska 99501 Dear Al: December 17, 1981 -' Phone: (907} 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 Just a quick note to advise you we will be meeting with the Cook Inlet Acquaculture Association on January 21, 1982, 5:30p.m. in the Kenai Borough Building. This meeting will also be open to other special interest groups and the public, who will be notified via direct mailing and newspaper notices. We will be discussing the probable impact of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project to the anadromous populations. You might want to pass thi~ information to your colleagues on the Steering Committee. Your, as well as their, attendance would be welcome. FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ODW:mlj cc: R. Mohn, APA N. Blunck, APA J. Lawrence, Acres. s./7rely1 .~ / /~ J.(avid D? Wo;niak Project Manager I I --e I I ~¥&¥~ @W &~~~~& JAY S. NAMMOIID, GDY£11101 ltEJ•~\IlT~IENT 01-' NATlJRAI. lli<:SOIJRf~F.S I Pouch 7-005 ~ ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ~ Dl VISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 276-2653 January 14, 1982 ', r: ?" ... ~: 1 \/ r: o 1 /\f"~ t '~ 1;:~~~2 Dave Wozniak Project Manager r 1 __ '· :',:\ r'c\~:En NJTHORirr Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Dave: Per our earlier discussion, this memo identifies the topics the Steering Committee members believe to be of mutual interest to Dr. Leopold and ourselves. I want to Pmphasize that the Steering Committee members recognize that Dr. Leopold s role on the External Review Panel is oversight in nature. Thus, the Steering Committee members will be leading the discussion on the topics listed below. Our objective is to review what we believe to be the most important Susitna Hydro-related issues in Dr. Leopold's area of interest and expertise. The issues and brief descriptions follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Fish and Wildlife Studies. Discussion of scope, timing and current status in relation to Susitna hydro feasibility decision making schedule. Fish and.Wildlife Mitigation. Current status and summary of miti- gation Review Group meeting of 1/20/82 (I understand that Dr. Leopold will attend 1/20 meeting). Instream Flow Studies. Relationship to mitigation, downstream impact assessments and power generation-related flow regimes. Access to Proposed Dam Sites. Implications of route alternatives and public access on caribou, moose, and waterfowl. External Review Panel's schedule, and products? Committee to continue a level? Role in the Future. \mat are plans, Is it useful for Dr. Leopold and Steering dialogue? If yes, at what frequency and .. .. 9951\1' .... - ... ... IIIII ... ... ... ... ... .., - - - ... - -- - - - - - - - - e Sincerely, eft~ Al Carson, Chairman Susitna Hydro Steering Committee cc: Steering Committee Members Reed Stoops • 2 January 14, 1982 3JN30NOdS3~~0J Sn03N~ll3JSIW P-8 XION3dd~ - - - - - - ..... - - - - - , ~i-.._ ,. . .,~ .~ .,. ( . I \ ... -: ...... ~~~~ ;,, -f:··~· ....... ~~ '{' ;;.~;... -· .... ~ :~, • I .:-:." •• \i-\ ~- RECEIVEO·ocr t 0 1~79 ·~·~ RECE1\ SO ' . ' I... H~. ~--)~\ \L:J~Jl ~ '\~1 •\ '-.,-:;.·~. . ~ ~ ........ '9.' ·.{;.:----/ UNlT~D Sf.A'f£S DEPARTMENT OF THE iNTER tOR FISH A~D WtLDLIF~ SERVICE •::.~ D 2 7 \~j ... =il ...... _. . "'" ,,.,.; i... L ! , I ~ L 1 t I I... - - .... I... ..... - ..... .... - 101 'l (: H,ib()ft if (l ··"~ ... -.,~~!..~~~~r $}~\ j'l,J¥{~ Aur~..Ci;ll! ltH:;Ef't.\' REFElt Yo· ANCHOR A~!:, ALASKA ~SS03 rn.i ~.r. £ri~ P~ Yould n~~cutiv~ Director Ala~~ P~r AuthQr.ity i'07) 276 3BOO ~ 4 SE? 197'9 333 WCJ;t 4th .hvr.mu:~ .s~.Ji.te 31 }~cl~orase. Alaska 995~1 D~r Mr .. Yould.: 'We we~e inf.o't"rned ll:r you-r l~ttllt:' o-f AtiP.\l~t 28. 1979, th~t th93-Alas Po~~ ~thQ~ity (APA) is pr~paring an application for license to Federal Energy Regulatory Ccm~~~ioa (PERC) for tb~ propo~cd nyd electric Pu~er D~eiupment w1th~ th~ Uppe~ SUH~tna R1ver ~ia, Aiaska. The purpt)!Se u£ dll~ let:ter lis tu ;:-oint out federal fi:;h vildlife ~~pon~tbiliti~ and to insur~ adequate conside-ration ot fillh and \r'l.id1.lfe tter.ou~cc: lo~z prevention 7 Tllit.ig~tion~ r.o;'3}lcn~R­ tion~ and enh.ance~ut throughcut the piaun..Lng ad de(:Lfi.un-cak.i.n~ proees!l ~.lWJHlci3tc<1 'tl'f th th~ S!.J~d.tT~ prc,j~ct. Th~ J>t't;l-applic.atio~ pleP.Jll.Cf; pe~1od as8oc1ati!f.i with the propoiSed SWiit:::a HytL · !!lcc:tric Paver DOL'!£!1cp~nt i1; v~ry c:r.it:'ical t;.·m~idr:rri the magn1tud_ of tbe p~ojectt limited !::x.i.rlting data £o.r £i.eh oind vildlife re.$0 ·. ct:~, ;i~d ~urtt of effort required for the filing f,) iJ. 'o;t;.ll"'t<-i)r:c~iv ... · applic.stion for license with PERC. ·m··-aaa·:!.tion, c~prebensive o.-. l.y p).~tminp. ia -reqt.li$:!.tn tn thQ ~n~if\ninn f)f an . n~ • ..-1 .. "' .;.. '"" .... ' • -• ~ en"';l. ... oomt:nt.os.ly ~Hmnn :proji!-c;..,. llnn op,.tm:u ~1~e o;. the pl;:1nn1.ng pe-r .. th~-reby min:hrizing the potential for delay in tbe proce2sin~ of n~c:!:,O;;;ry ~rnrit and lic~ns~ ~~plic~tion~ r.tnd CG'l:l!Plrir-JF. -.;fth Vi'l ~nvi~o~ntal r~i~~ r~quirem~nt~. Fede:c~ s.sencic:l' in'7ol.vc.d in the ~nalyd~ aod/or ~pproval of a nu:-ieder~l ~:t.t~r-~elated project have -cauy r~$puo~ib1l~ti.ee un•Jer various E7;ecutive Orders (EO}? l~,s~ and roliciea t•:t pr~vent •Jnd rrltir,ate i.mp~i;tS to ftsll ~nd "i'i.J.dli fc rr.~:a:n.tr~c:~, ~.; .-,11 ;;~ ~o ~nh~ncc t'hosc: 't'C~Q'.lr~f;\:i. To i:Jnntify nnd imn::-c: n:c:og-ni tion of directivi!e of u!..r'..u~t: i.-:~pot<taoce and r~1e,1ance to the prot~~tiod of fish ~nd ~ildlif~ r~s~urcea, ~ liat th~ follovio~ and includ~ a brief su~ry of ~esures r~quil~~: (1) 'l'1l~ !:;l!:lil sud \-lildl1fe C<.:>ordi.Dat1on Act, draft Uc.!.fom Pro£:'.e:dur€'e for C~)!.!lflli-~m('4?., Hay 18, 1979, st.~ndardif.:+:<et p-ruc~uren ~nd int~ra~emcy rel~t!.o~hi?iJ V.> .tn~•.J.~et "that w1.1dl! f~ ('•Jn8~f"\'fttion j_lj f1J]1y ('!.i".;n~i~~rnd .:;nd wt'!i eh¢d eque11y •J::tth other prc:j.::-ct fe.atur~s in ag~ncy d~·::isicn­ !.nlikin.g ~roc?ea~e by int ~g. ra ti nF. ~u ::'!h C.Qnsid~:tratir.:n'3 i:nto Fl LE l:f..t: tt --= .. --.,----·-----------------··--·-·-............ ····-· .... ·-·· .......... ·-..... -·. ~-· ..... -;:- .-~. ~~ i:~ !~ ~ ~~-ts= <-- i~.=._ ; ~.·- !"~}~ ~t~ ~:~-~­ ~ -~-: J--:~~ ~ ·-'"~ ;:.;.:. ~ ;~:: : ~~:·. ~i~~ =··---·--~ :--:-;:"; P .. ~~~ ·1 . -"'- c n+4 ~r1C.F. LOULQ t'-R~E' ~ proj~ct planning, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) complianc~ proc~duree} finsncial and @conom1c ~na!yses. author~z~tlou doeu~ut~. aud project ~pl~me~t~tion." {2) The t.t:>\Jnc::d.1 o~ ~m:rtro~Trtn1 Qt1nli.t.y' :.o (C~"}) P.cgul3tion~ i.or lmJ:'le:cetltiog the l'roce<iural Prov"i.e.it•na <>f th~ Hational ~ro~~ntil"l Pt:1J iq ~t. (40 CJ!P.., Part:; 1500-lSUB., .July )0, 1979) ~pecifie~ p:uvi~io~ re~uiri~g ~he ~uteg~atlon of the lfEPA p.roce.sa into ~rly pl<JTJ1'1illS,. the int.f;:gr:at'inn of NEPA requirements with other ~nviTQ~nt~l r~vi~ ~nd consultation rtsquir~snt~, ami th~: n.sc of tbe ~.-:opina llrQCGJ;~. (3) Section 404 uf the cle~ Water Act of 1977 and resulting final rules for i~l~ntiltinn of the ~egula~or)• permit prcgr~ of ~he Corp~ of Engiu~r~ (33 CFR. P~rta 32Q-329~ Jnly 19t i977) requ~re~ that a Department of ths Army p~rmit(s) be QDt~i~ed fg~ ccr~,in ~trccture~ or wu~k in ur aff~~tin& w~tr.rs of th~ Unit~d StaLe~. The ~ppl~catiuo(s) for such u pe~it(») ~ill be ~uJect t~ revi~w by wildlife ~gencieSa {4) ~ecut1.ve Ord~I 11990 (~tlend~) -...~~ i_::;,yt)ed ''in order t:u avoid to the c:,;tQnt pn::z;ible th~ long-te!."m and s-h{lrt-terlli ad"Ve~,;e izlpact.!f a.ssoc:lat=ti with the destr.Jction or modi.- f~c~tion o£ wetiaode a~d to avoid direct or ind~rc:ct support of n~ construction in wetl~nd~ ~~&rever th~r~ is ~ pr~~ti~~ble ~lt~rn~t!vet" acd Exeeutiv~ Or~~r 11985 (Flooilpla.t:~.s) ~a::s 1asued ''tQ av«:lid tn t.ha c:xt.ent po~~ible the lo~-term ~nd ~hort-term adverse ~paete associated with the Qct:np.ancy and oodifl.cation of floodplitins itTld to avoid direct ._nd indirect !6u}.)port of floodplain de-ve.Iop- l'~~nt vne~e-... rcr th~re its a practicable slt.;:..rn~tiv~ .. u All .. feQ.er.U a.genc:ies are responsi'hlEt t9 ~o-mply vith thesoe ro• !; in the plariu.log aad .u~cieion•!!>alcing p-:;-Q~::u.;s;. (5) §hi!r,tion 7(c) or the .E.-ld~.cgered SpE-e.i~s Act., 87 ilt11t. 884, as,; ;:r.;cn.ded., requirei:S FEXC to ask th~ SP.-c-r~t~ry qf the: lllter.ior. ac-till& tnrnugh th~: u .. s .. .Fish .-:2nd \iilc111.fe Se.rvic~, vhether ~:-.· liz:st.et.l or propos!?d er.danJ'l~r~..d or tht.c:1tcn~d upecies ~y be present in th~ ~r~~ of the Su~itua Hydro- electric. P~r Project. !! the Pieth .and \,lfld1.ifc S~rvice ;u;:i·o?it;C!!C that nuch species !:lay b~ Pt'C~~tlt in thf! area o! the project, Fi::E.C 1a .r~qu:b:ed b=; S~c;t-i.o1l i (c:) to conduct a .Biologic<~l As!:H•.a~~nt t-o identlly any liate-.i or proposoo enden~et't.td or thrcntcncd sp~c.1ee which areo. li"k~ly to be affect~~ by tn~ ~on~tn1ction prcjeet. TI1~ asse3srr~nt j~ to lm ccm~plcted 'With1o 180 days, unll':las a time ~~xtcn~iou i!s T.:J.ltually agreed Uj)L"~n. - ·---.... ------------·---------_..,__. ___ ,_~--.... ·---··~-.... _ ....... . ·.·:·-· ~~: IIIIJifJ':~: ~ ~~~! .·~.:.ti ... ·~.;;~: ·r" I ~ j ~ I - I... I... I .... ~ .... - - - - - - - .-\. ---- Mr. Brie P. Yould ~J.'IP.~ 3 R"Cl c,:m:~t~~ct for physic~l Ct)li,.;tru~ tion tlBY b~ entet''-=0 i.nt.o and no phy:iical. cooatru~t·h:>n my bcgi.Il unt11 the fiit:llngic~l Aas~ss.me.nt i.I:' t;~leted. lo tn~ ~vr.nt th~ coue1~1ons d~a~ from thr. Biologlca1 .~se~~~n~ ~re that l~~t~J endangert:d or thr~ateoed sr-~cin~; arf.! l.!.k~ly to 0.~ aff~ctcd 'by thee cuuetl:uction projc:c.t 1 FEE.C is rerg.Jired hy Section 7(a) to initi~tc the t!u~aultation pro~c.~~. (n) W~te~ Reaourcas r~~ncilt Pr1~tipl~ ~nd St~ndarrlx !u~ r1s.i'n1n~ Wat~r and lielated l..and K'it:;Ol.Jr::e,; (18 CJ?.R. Part 704, Apr:n l,. 1978) -we.r~ eetah!ishcd for pli!11ll.l.c.g the V-9c:l etf the w~ter and r~lat.l;!d. J.;:nd ~esources :;,f the United St~tes to ach.iev~ objaetivc"~ deten:!ined coop;;r,"ltively, through th~ c~ordin.~~ed ~etiou~ of the red~r~l,. St~tct and local sov~rnr~nt~; private euterpri~a ~d o~g~zations. and individ~a~~4 Th~se priocip)a~ in~lude providing th~ basi~ for pl~nirg of federal ~nd feder~lly a~s~ated·vat~r and lao..! r~eo~rrc@~ progr.ms a11d pro.)~c.ts and f::dar~l licensing ~~tiviti~ as listed in the Stand~rds. Lt iB our understandi~g tb~t you~ ~g~ucy has contr~ctad with three independent ~onstll t~nt fi~ £or ~&ch to ~:IOIV.ttlop .:~ ao1:1preh~~ive plan of StlldY (POS) to io.t:1ud-e biological ~tndieJ; a:ti!iuciated ~1th tnt.: Su~itna project and that from th~ three :tnd~pe.ildent POSts ;.Jnd th~ exietiog Co~8 of F.ngineer~· Plan of S~udyy ~n ultimat~ compre- 11en!51ve f'OS >7111 bs OP.'li.'\T~Q. The i1Ct1ona ilo?C€SSS!'Y t" cv.nply with th~ .sl;>ov~d list~d lawa~ policiea, and F.O'~ dcmon.st~ate the neceasity for clo~~ con~u1tat1oo ~th f6G~r~1 ~d st~te wii&ii£~ a~~ncie~ thr-oughout. project planning, a-nd ~pler..t:nlat.iotl. lt i,; i.:mpef~tive thst coonH n.;~t~d plan:-;ing b;:: 1u1 tlet~:i nC".-"--:f. th .-:11 appruprlate partii?B, ~nd that ~mch pl~Wli~f; includ~ thn convcni:ng nf ~~0?1Dg mBetin?.~ tn include pd~tlcipstion by st~t~ and f~d~r~l wildlif~; :~g<!ncie:l. 'Ih~ purpose of th~ s-cnping r.sE:~tl.ug.s should includ~: Q<;"aloping a c:::..~p.rehensi\l£1 POS ~h1 c::.h i:1,;•..:res full w11dlifP. ;ogency parti(:ipation thnmghout ~ad1 ph~tH! of the. pl~nnina and re,dt:Y proceaaee; de-t€\mi.n'lng ~ .. hu~ at:~~ tho?. f~-•::l9rc1 <tnn !.;ti'tt~ vJ.ldlife ~geocl.es or the :app1 iclint:'! \.till underta'k~ r.nd fl'\"t!r.~cc the required stt1dtc~ i1r..d iuveatlgstions; i.nF,l!ing ~.cl~qu.:lte ~•ld timely funding of thos~ p~rfor'C.to; th(?! ~tuitic:~; and !!~tabll.ehing f!!i.ltll~lJy ;)Cr.Qpt.able tal:}:.et dates for th~ initi:Hluil t!Dd C-O'!l!'Jl~tic::n. of ~t.udit:f:J.. ThE< adh.::rcnce to th~a~ ~u~esti•)nt!~ -.:i11 im;ure that <S:.le·~uat~ infor- .. ~ti-c~ !:~ colle-ct~.d to (<n~b1e the dt:teri:rlnation of project ii'llpactu ,;1nd develop ~~l!:l'.IT'ttJ;; t.o pre,•ent~ m.iti~et~?., .snd .-::cmpcns~ te for fi.sh aud ~ildlifo lo~~en~ ; .......... -~~ ~~a·......-:.~--·-,.~·--~~~ .. :lt-·--······ I-!.;a ·--r~ (..t~A .C-e. :....;.&;; i~4 i~ ~~ l-~ (~ r= ~~ t2 li ~~ ~~ ~ ·~ 2~ s~ ~ fii ~ .~ f--= II ~ m~! ~ . ~ ~ Mf! ·~ r= ~~ ~ ~ tm~ ~~ •!>':-·~~ ~~ ~~ •,.,;"' -~=-~ f.P..::> ~~ .. : t~~ !l~ {.~ ~ ~~~ ~., ~ .,._,_ 1"""-~ ,,..... ~ ; .~-..;.;:: i~ ii j"tn~ II ~~~ F~ ti ll.~ ~~~ , .. -~ ftj !~ ? ~~~.:~ t.~ ! ;::"'>.: -'."'-· j ( • :~r:}!~:·~;:~~-,. :~·· :.~ ., t: I•·A···. ;; ' •. -1. Hr. Eric P. Yould i'e.~e 4 'K~ lonk f:,TV~rd tn wor'kina clos'!'-1: w-1. th yoJJr a~~ncy and oth~rs tnvolv~ in th'i~ ~tlJdY~ .tZnd trust that this lsttEtr l¥111 serv~ as; nutic£: of the tiec~~~lt).' i!C>r early in\'Ulv~t:mt o£ ~nd can~l)lt;lti.lJn ~~th ~ildlife ag~ncies. cc: AOES 9 W~ irF.RC,. lJa;;hinaton ES, ~sbi.ngt-tln OEC 1 Waifb.i.ljgt.on Cf:+ ADF&G. Andlol"age Si, .. !"lCar~ly -?our"' ··; . . ""' i' -4 I ~ /•t i /} ...... / -r: 1 .... -/ I « / --.,. -I I / flv U' -'"'!'--#/-·-..,t' I'll:!-?'? ..., 3 -l -·. A .. .L..-Yn .... 1 ('"A... , ( 1·-(,.l{~'}r ) a_.-~:·0 ,:roamtt! ....,. ... ; l.'r'lc.ciioT .. .--t""-~· -. ~ ·--~-·· ~·· ----v . NMFS1-BL.'i. A.Di~R, Axlc:hores.e ADEC, EPA. SCS, USGS, ~,cnor~R~ i~ p .. -, tf! ~~· . --: -~· {~' t~ ~~ ~~­t! i~ -1 ~ ~: -~· -~~. 1"'-=-'' ~~: ~: j~: )li-~: .... ~ ~~! '' I ~~ ~; '• -i· ::~:~.~: · ~ · :if .. :~~. r~ i~ m.fhi~~ ;.}::t ;i .. :!~:;};.Jr· -:~~In~::~ ~;~:-g! ;~~ r~ :~r;:· · u c; ~{!~ :~:, '"1~! ... .~i.:~! : i;. ···~=~·-(·: i ·r, r~· t· . .. ±. 1., t"(•··'";~:.~ : !:··r~f-;· ~-i· .: ·~ r-~-.. .... .. ... .... , IIIIi - ... IIIIi ... - - - -c - - - - - - - Ill L:~ ~-· . -' .... , . ( ; l· _,,n~-r~ ~-;'~n ~·:. f'...__ '---\•. r:'1i1 -~ I l ;: 11:1~ l-I October 16, 1979 :P5477_lfi Federal Energy Regulatory Conmission Bureau of Power · Division of Licensed Projects 825 North· Capitol Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Attention: Mr. Ronald A. Corso Dear Ron, Deputy Chief, Division of Licensed Projects Susitna Hydroelectric Project I appreciated your call October 10 regarding the September 24 letter from Gary Hickman, Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, to Eric Yould of Alaska Power Authority. Although the State will not make its decision on the Corps· or Acres until November, we have already had some useful "scoping 11 discussions with ADF&G, NMFS, FWS and ADNR. At Eric's request, I am forwarding herewith for your comment, a draft of a proposed response. Please call if you have any suggested changes. JDL:pbf Enclosure ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED c ·'"·' ., '· • ·:•t :; .• 1--~. -~ • -~ :; .:, .. Sincerely, ·} /:.,~·:. I' p . Sohn D. Lawrence Project Manager J -- ( '- Mr. Gary Hickman Area Director United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Mr. Hickman: Susi·tna Hydr.oel ectri c Project Thank you for your letter dated September 24 concerning federal fish and wildlife responsibilities for FERC licensing of the Susitna Project. We wholeheartedly concur that all activities related to licensing of the project require careful planning and coordination with all local, state and federal agencies involved. We also agree that the environmental base- line studies, and the ensuing assessments and development of appropriate investigation, compensation and enhancement measures are of particular concern. We fully intend to address these matters in as comprehensive and thorough a manner as possible either through the Corps of Engineers or our consultants, Acres American Inc. Selection of the Corps or Acres is anticipated in November. Some preliminary seeping meetings have already been initiated on our behalf by Acres American Inc and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists Inc with the Alaska Departments of Fish and Game and Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. We have also been in touch with Ron Corso of the FERC to solicit his views on the approach we should take in obtaining the necessary licenses for the project. It is our understanding that a key factor in the license application will be a valid demonstration to the FERC that all involved agencies have been consulted and that plans for compliance with the appropriate regulations have been agreed. We have every intention of meeting this requirement to the complete satisfaction of FERC. Referring to the list of ·regulations in your letter we have been advised by Mr. Corso as follows: {1) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act: FERC's own regulations will govern for federal licensing of the Susitna Project. {2) CEQ Regulations: FERC's own regulations will govern for federal licensing. (3) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: compliance is necessary. (4) Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands), and Executive Order 11988 {Floodplains): FERC's own regulations are expected to govern in the case of Susitna. (5) Endangered Species Act: compliance is necessary. - ... ... ... ... - ... .... - .... .... ... - -- - - - - - - ..... c - - - - ._. - - ,. - 2 (~) Water Resources Council, Principles and Standards: these only apply for federal projects, and would not apply if the state selects a private consultant to undertake the Susitna Feasibility Study. You should also be aware that we are planning to directly involve the ADF&G, ADNR, and possibly other state and federal agencies in appropriate areas of study. We will gladly keep you informed of progress in all aspects of the study which are subject to your jurisdiction and look for- ward to a close and mutually productive relationship. Sincerely yours, Eric P. Yould Executive Director --··\ ~-:---~:; ~-. c;--~ ,_.~-.: ~ Jl 1 k .... ' I l ~ . ..... ~ I . ~ " ...._, "-• I.___..J 1'\ ;--;:::~ \\ 'i ! ;.; ~/ J r-. r· ,_, ,.-...... I\ il ; I {\(•''.:. I: . · o~ , : ,., , , , I,,\ \,' i U \ ( ' 1 L; \ "\ \ iJ'J t.S ~ ;' -,~ '\::::) (i ,r: , i i ( I·' I .. : r',' ! :.. \ U I, ....... I \.J _ .. ~~ . 1 I ""rtEf\ltCQ ~ r-"' , ~ ~-·1 , ~CJ .~ t: ' : :') ~ ._ ..... ·-- ; ·JAYS. HAMMOND~ GOVERNOR i I ! -D;gp;u~~HE~'T OF ~..:'!i';t"':li~ RESOURCES DIVISION OF PARKS ! 619 Warehouse Dr., Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 ,..~ J -.~ ;'!S- -~'t ~> ~ i · .. t i January 28, 1980 Re: 1121-19 Jim Pedersen CD.J: /h&N 3201 C Street, Suite 201 Anchor~ge; Alaska 99503 Jear Mr. Pcder3~~: ~~@@~[ID RfLD JAN 3 1 1980 .... .. ... - ... ..... -T'~.i-; 1.·:•':':-.'!r is to t .... tm.·.:.::";t>. .;h2. a-~ ":ment reached between yourself and .y .. ::. •7 ~ '-"''3 . r:Ln7, ·:::cr,':t;·,":.t ~ . .::..~ ':: .~ base camp and airstrip near the ··.:l; ~·..t s.-,h.:-: · c~ on ~:,~~ c,, · . ~;-~ Rii.·~r. The base camp location described cis in the.<:';: ~1f u.::0 :n~!,; ··f .::;e ~of Section 27, T32N, llSE, Seward ·< .; ... meridian appears to :;e -..:.~;<;~i.!" of any archaeological or historic sites. _ o-_ We confirmed with Glenn Bacon, who is knowledgeable in the area, that ~ __ . '}.; }r_ • the probability of encountering such sites is low. The proposed ai:t;:~ _ ~ strip is a different matter. It is further from the area Bacon . ;:,c.yUt.r':CC: :. : 1 examined and in a more likely terrain. For that reason we would : ;/:...::::-/ ·. -_// _ recommend an archacoloeicql survey to ~nsure avoiding impacts on s~~hl ~ I ., Dti;st .... T.;: I ... ' sites o 'a:. a:-I ::! • :-0 I ;.. ' ::::_ '-~I Cl) I -~~·~1 0 ~ I -.. --~· .... · ...... ,.. ... ·~- : i vfjJ, :--. i J " r-1--... _j_ / · c ~ ., '-· ·-i' ~ --t./7r,· .!:' (./ 1 • J ") ~ !~i J ·-r-;?S.'.~ -:-1--Y"~. ! 1 JPS(:/ ,..,; r--:-~1 ..._J I I . ~u·~#' ·-.-1-.;;.. i :#'• L , : I 1 ENS · _,_, I ; I iSr/T-_. -. -!-!---!-: j:J'.VL• . . ' .·-::-·-· --~- SJn-: !rely, /? I // "!// , y !r . " . ,. / ~ . --.·-- di / // //~~. '"' /·!·," 1, :'-' '··.·A •. ··;....---·-. 1"~~--,.; ~ ...... ;./, vor .v., ., i>;i 1 1 r,1 ,,1 S. ·Han;:-,l:Jl ':! 3c 't.:, HJ. 31· ·Jri c 2 ¥ •• • ~:~ ;-; i~ .rat i •. -.l1 :_;;: fi.r-er .. .. ==·c .... - / - - Mr. Paul Carrier Division of Licensed Projects .WARNOCK ~~ ~;.: .·-r, -.:~-.-;~ ~;: o:. ... _ \ ,t...,.. i!.. • • \. ... ~· -~.: -_. Februar,y 15, 1980 P5700.~1- il,.~·~ 7 ::BELIUS c!? f1ce of Electric Power Regulation t:!eral·.Energy Regulatory Coomission 5 North Capital Street · - sh1ngton, DC 20426 )BSON '·a f PHILCOX ,__ -9IPPEY rt... JCKER mJRRAY ~s _PECORA ff _ \HADUR 1o t... ~I •,Jne,:" ,__...,. I' If tf r 12 f--1 r t ('0 f-cot !- 1-- I- 1-.. ·' t: I:. II ar Mr. Carrier: Susitna ijYdroelectric Project Study discussed in our meeting on February 11, 1980, enclosed is a copy the Plan of Study for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. It would appreciated if you could pass this copy along to Hr. Springer and • Corso for their infonnation. Any cotm1ents you would have with gard to future licensing considerations w111 be appreciated. ank you for taking time to meet with me. I look forward to ordfnating developr.~nt of the license application with you as the udy progresses. Very truly yours, tPI)~ -l I Hils Philip M. Hoover Staff Engineer J • ~ . /~llt; .. cl. .· ~·CQUENCE Nu l :;;J/? l -cc:~awrence ~ , . i . I . '· -.--;:EI Q) I I -I -_, -"" '1: a: ' ~ . =? ~ li=' ·- - .._ • -1/l - ;.' ~ 1 a 1 ~ • I ' ·--:·-! nrw ~ __ ,_, ~.......-:<, __ : ; J ... ~ r~r· • -J-·_-__ , __ .., . ' , C.A J , I -·---. ·-·~---Iff' ___..: -~~ . -·:-.l:...s -_· -_ . .'. , -,-4---~t -~-16--: , ~PST --~~~----l _JI. I · ENS : --1---l-L-l-1 SNT I l i 0 vV L ,___l-1-----1 ' M F< ··j . r-' ---~ --: __ , '-! RC 1 r--- 1 !--- ----i I ' I J tt >-~· -i l --I I WARNOCK ~. Ron Corso Acting Director, Division of Licensed Projects Office of Electric Power Regulation 825 Marth Capital Street Washington, D.C. 20426 ""-"&"'·-:'-.,.,_,<': •.. - March 11, 1980 PSiCC. // . .g-~ ... ... .. DEBELIUS DE ar Mr. Corso : Susitna Hydroelectric Project 1 HOBSON PHILCOX Tt e· purpose of this letter is to confi~ the meetins scheduled for 9:00 SHIPPEY TUCKER MURRAY PECORA BAHADUR -~./ -~ a. cc mf 'J( n St 01 .. .. II tf "' ._., j;_, ..... .... -~- m. Tuesday. April 8, 1980 at the above FERC office address to discuss the tential 1ic(;nse ap~1ication fer the Sus1tna Hydroelectric prcject; This eting 1s arranged as a result of discussions between ~. Paul Carrier of ur staff and t·1r. Phi 11 p Hoover of Acres. e Sus1tna ~roject team will be represented at the meeting by the study onsor: the Alaska PnwPr Ar~hor1ty and by Acres American Incorporated, the ime contractor for the study. In addition to you and Mr. Carrier, it uld be appreciated if FERC representatives fran the environmental and gal specialities could attend, as well as any others who have c~ents on e subject Plan of Study. r pri;:ary ~:opi c of i;lter~st at the m~cti ng will co FERC s·~aff reac'ti on to e Susit:t.a FOS. Any cor.1r.;.;:~1t!: resulti!li:J fran your revie\1~ reldtive tu vur eparation for a lict:rtsc ap~11cation Si.ll:x:littal, r.i1l be appreciated. In dition, we HOt.:ld also like to discuss the followinq topics: The p1.ans to subr.:it a 11ct:nse dppi ication prior to ~o:nph:tion of certain key iilonitcrin<J st~dies; The extent of study participation by the Alaska Depart!'1ent of Fish and Game and any implications on their potential (future) role Js Jn 1 ntervenot· ~ -The i:~pact on nun-F~~er·al Jeve1:Jjl:l~:lt of the Corp::; of ::i1gine~rs' Congressional authorization fo:--Phas~ I Study of ~In:: Su~~-~ila oro.J..!Ct. The ii.1pJcts of tl1e pendit•'J llt!W r·egul at ions :--eqar·uiuy app1 ications for majm· i)roj ect!;. -The positive .anJ ;legaUve aspects of 1icensing tht: iutlivitlual J:;-oject coo.pon::.:nts separately or collectively (e.!J. sequential license applica- tions for each of t\·10 dar.rs vs. a single project application). Ycur cooperation in providing assistance in this early stage of project dcvelOJ:Jllent is appreciated. ~Jt: look fon'lard to meeting with you and your staff on Apri1 e. Pf':!!/1 s cc: Paul Carri~r. F~RC Cric Yould, APA Very truly yours. John o. Latrrence, P. E. Project :-~imager ... J " J J ... J ' J l j .. ~ - - ..,; ... Blind copies to: J. Hayden, P. Tucker, C. Debelius, E. L. Baum, Project Files .. - - - ( ..... - - - - I J L I I I l r • .. ~_.__._ ~ Mr. Dale Arhart Division of Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Service 18th and C Streets, NW Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Mr. Arhart: March 31, 1980 P5700. 11.71 Susitna Hydroelectric Power Study Meeting with FERC As discussed in our telephone conversation, the subject meeting with FERC will be held at their Washington office on April 8, Room 3401, 941 North Capital Street. Attached is a letter sent to Mr. Ron Corso of FERC confirming the meeting. Thank you for your interest. We hope to see you at the meeting. ... PMH/ls Enclosure / ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Sincerely, : 6.-. I' I II, I (/! .'/ / I 1/ f/,£-"-{ '.~i'-,{'?-.A/1 t-· I I Philip M. Hoover Civil Engineer •· •-: .'rj AWJCA pOWBL AtmiORIT'f SUSITNA Fll 0:: "'5700 /1.1 I --- ' NO. ' I 1-3-_2S z ~ 0 ~I e i= <( c. ~ 1-- ' JGW -:,. ---0-C'N,.-:-0_ !!"\ .......... -..:. ..... ~: / =--···--CAf1 I / JDG I -/ ""T•·r ~\.0Jr\ p·~--l p· .. , J-o-' <f ~" ~ 1: ~ R :i '-1 < 1.' ( -::n -; I I --..-.~-------.... -~.A .. ..._ C~ns_!~-~7 E . .,;:·neers -..._ ~u.rt::f. ALE - S1.:te 323 Tr!! Clarl( 5'-'ilding c:•~,-.:: 1. r.·-,··,ta"d 21c~~ -:--• .::,. :...· ~:: ::~~-s-:·2 ~:_: \·.r::s'"' n~tcn Ltr-e 301-~9-5-5595 r" · r,.... ,,,. [h/' -•,,. p,!~~bur~*'1 PA r.:a·e.ah NC \·:~-;hrnntnn nr. L- c L, .... ·. ~-J ~ r· 1., ... ~: '· Pi : •• , t..C h~H ltl Mr. Ron Corso Acting Director, Division of Licensed Office of Electric Power Regulation 825 North Capital Street Washington, D.C. 20426 Dear Mr. Corso: March 11, 1980 Projects Susitna Hydroelectric Project The purpose of this letter is to confirm the meeting scheduled for 9:00 a.m. Tuesday, April 8, 1980 at the above FERC office address to discuss the potential license application· for the Susitna Hydroelectric project. This meeting is arranged as a result of discussions between r·1r. Paul Carrier of your staff and Mr. Philip Hoover of Acres. The Susitna project team will be represented at the meeting by the study sponsor, the Alaska Power Authority and by Acres American Incorporated, the prime contractor for the study. In addition to you and Mr. Carrier, it would be appreciated if FERC representatives from the environmental and legal specialities could attend, as well as any others who have comments on the subject Plan of Study. Our primary topic of interest at the meeting will be FERC staff reaction to the Susitna POS. Any comments resulting from your review, relative to our preparation for a license application submittal, will be appreciated. In addition, we would also like to discuss the following topics: -The plans to submit a license application prior to completion of certain key monitoring studie~; -The extent of study participation by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and any implications on their potential (future) role as an intervenor, ~ -The impact on non-Federal development of the Corps of Engineers' Congressional authorization for Phase I Study of the Susitna project. -The impacts of the pending new regulations regarding applications for major projects; -The positive and negative aspects of licensing the individual project components separately or co11 ectively (e.g. sequential 1 icense appl ica- tions for each of two dams vs. a single project application). Your cooperation in providing assistance in this early stage of project development is appreciated. We look forward to meeting with you and your staff on April 8. PHH/1 s cc: Paul Carrier, FERC Eric Youl d, M'A ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Consullong Engoneers Suote 329. Th~ Clark Buildong Columboa. P.~;Jrylana 210.:.: Telephone ~01·992-S300 Washongton Lone 301·596·5595 Otner 0 11 ·CC'S eu~f.1tO NY PlfTco .... ,,,,,., PA Q~r,.,,..,.., PI.Jr" ,., ..... ~ ........ --1"'\,... Very truly yours, John D. Lawrence, P.E. Project Manager - - lllil .... .. -.. .... .... -- .... .... -- - .... - - ·-~ . t" -· - - - - Mr • .Jim Gill Acree Aa!r.f.crm, I:ac. 2201 SpeDard Bead Arv:bon1ge, Alaska 99503 Dear Jim: AJ.ASKA PaD. AUIHORI'IY R ~CI:'IIfr--: ~ ":'"·) 1 9 ~oao C I...:. I ~ ~-_ v :_ 1 I , !..; Septe•i er 12~ 1980 -I a attachmg a letter fmm AmR. requesthlg tbey be kept advised of tillY data gatlced relad:ve to nav1gat1.cn use of the SusitDa River and its tdbnt:ades. r.m }'Q1 please alert yocr subcaatractots to this raqueat! We wen] d l:ike to acu•w »date it to tbe rraxtnun extent pcsai- ble. Putther, AJDl bas requesbed a copy of the t1AF prcposal. for a study -rega:r:d1ng DaVigad..cn uses. I uMelstaad it was sd:Jnitted dimctly to YQ1. Can ya.1 please pmv1de a CDPY to Atm. either dimctly cr through us. '1'baDk )Q1. - - - - - FOR '.mE f2ID rrlVE DIRECI'OR l ~: Aim. Letter. Augaat 29. 1980 cc: ~ Iam!ace Sizxmely. Rebert A. 1tim. I · ,-~ ~ •' . C:;Q-;'/rR -\._·-~· ·,-' • c. '( l S ~' .:. 'T '·~ ~ i-----_, 1 F· -' ~-",:no I '--~·" I '---I :3:::c ~ _;_-... .:.. .,)_ i------------- 1 -, r z ..., -:; 1 . ..-.. -~ ~ .:"( !~ ~ i ! < -_? I ' -::: I ?----. --- 1-r.'\.-'"'~~ &~~?~·-:_--:--_____ I· xc.: . I ----__ J ~ . . ~ -. ·-I !(?;)~fz,~ l ; _:::. l 1=@~~ ---1 i i-· ! --- j-___ L· [-i '.1 -~ ---- ~--- ;--~ ------i :-i :---• I ) l~i"'lli"·-j --, I ( ~ . I ~ ..... . ·~ ... J:ti~m Mr. Ronald Corso Director RECElVED APR 1 4 i980 Division of Licensed Projects Office of Electric Power Regulation 825 North Capital Street Washington, D.C. 20426 Apri 1 9, 1980 Dear Ron: Susitna Hydroelectric Power Study Enclosed is an additional copy of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Plan of Study as requested. Speaking for the study team, the cooperation of the FERC Staff in reviewing the POS and discussing pertinent pre-application issues in our meeting of April 8, 1980, is greatly appreciated. PMH:kh bee: E. L. Baum Very truly yours, ~ Philip M. Licensing AL.-1.:: '~A POV!::R r.·_·T~·)RITY c:,·-~--... I ~ <.1:;, I 1\: ,..., -, FILE P570Q:tr Hoover 1 -· ,~ .{ _ Coord in atr!;E~. U L:N~E. f'!G. i ·-,. --/I . ')· s i -, I L :~~, ~ l ~I 1 0 -_' c: ' ,_,_ :-.0 ,_ = -I 1 'fJ ' (.) ::, - <{~~~ 0 - ... ..... - - - - ... -.. IIIIi - -,-,-.---·-. I J c " -' 1=~15~:.-.·~· .. ~----).~-. ./•; 1 1 C. '----r:;t /.:;._. I / _r. \ , ~;~_ri~· ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Consultong Engoneers Suote 329. The Clark Suildong co:umboa. r.~ar>·land 210~4 Telepnone 301-992-5300 \'/asn.ng:on Lone 301-595-5595 Ott'ler ()~·~,.,~ Rt~":l''"' "'v o ............. -• "" ,..,_,_ ... -.. . _', __ '_ JPS ·----~ ' ,L~ lit -,:-, ____ 11 i , -'I , 1_1_:=:1_ s ! . --~ :-:: ·;~~= =-~ _I ,L.·.,L· I ~-: ·. ~-_--i __ j I ~ ;·n ~: v : · ~-:-~--;::·[ -~ ---1 ~-i --'·--i -~-----~--' --.. ---------· --... -'--____ : ---l . . I I ---;=-~-~ ------1 +--' --- /,./ _, - - - -c - - - - - 1·K2LH . . -v- ~~&~[ @~ &~&~~~ DEP,\HT.:t!ENT OF FISU AND Gi\ ll1E May 28, 1980 Rf.G'D MAY 3 0 19a) Mr. James H. Pedersen Project· Manager CIRI/H&N 3201 "C" Street, Suite 201 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Pedersen: f1~ l 0 U f~HSU ALASKA POWER 1 AUTHORITY .L4Y S. HAMMof!o. G~J~iJtlA FILE~ SEOCENCE NO . FG-80-II-12 .df/:2 ~"3 {) <=i I 7Zfi D£0-lc.: f 1 I iWCC !TES 'R&M AOF&G f-A.~ 1/ ._ __ The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Governmental Permit/Plan Review Documentation for the Susitna Hydroelectric Feasibii~ lFIL~ Study Program to address activities of a general concern to this agencY.~·---­ and those which also require approval from this Department in accordance -- with Alaska Statute 16.05.870. Our comments on study activities follow: GENERAL COMMENTS Hunting Activities The Game Division in Region II has expressed a concern about the potential for impact on the wildlife assessment studies by hunting activities in the Watana camp area. The Game Division has stated, "It is evident that a large impact on game and furbearers may be expected in the Susitna drainage study area if persons involved in feasibility studies or in support of such studies are allowed to hunt and trap without restriction. · Such recreation hunting in inself would not necessarily be harmful except insofar as it impacts the wildlife studies being conducted by the Department and the University. Hunting and trapping activities by the large number of people based at Watana camp will result in changes in animal distributions and abundance and would therefore severly bias the results of the wildlife assessment studies. In addition, it is likely that hunters and trappers would take some animals which have been marked or radio-collared at great expense, further impacting the coherence of the studies, especially in the vicinit~ of the camp~ We suggest that · the APA 1mpose a camp restr1ct1on on hunt1ng and trapp1ng by personnel using any of the feasibility study facilities within 15 miles on either side of the Susitna from Gold Creek to the Tyone River." c J~ Pedersen -2-5/28/80 Employees of Acres-American or their subcontractors should also be informed of the regulations contained in SAAC 81.120 General Provisions. The following methods and means of taking game are prohibited: (3) by the use of helicopter or rotocraft in any manner including the transportation either to or from the field of any game or parts of arne, hunters, or huntin ear, or an e ui ment used in the ursuit of game; ... and also subsection 5 by use of an airplance, snoMnachine, motor-driven boat or other mothorized vehicles for the purpose of driving, herding, or molesting game; and that the definition of "taking" includes harrassment by aircraft. Aircraft Traffic APA/Acres should assure that aircraft engaged in point to point travel maintain a minimum elevation of 1,000 feet above ground level, weather conditions permitting. Ed Reed of TES has offered to have the TES employee stationed at Watana Camp complete a log of all· helicopter activities at a lower elevations than this so that foci of disturbance can be related to animal activitiesL All contractors and subcontractors should be required to participate in maintaining this log. Beyond question, the level of helicopter activity which will occur in connection w,ith the feasibility studies will impr;1ct game populations, especially ·carnivores; the objective of these restrictions is to both minimize the impact and document it so that it can be evaluated. Solid Waste ~1anagement We suggest that all garbage generated by the field camps should be incinerated and buried within a strongly fenced enclosure to minimize tts attractiveness to Wildlife, especially bears. REVIEW OF STUDY ACTIVITIES Aerial and Land Surveying p~4-p.8 No comments, recommendations or AS 16.05.870 requirements. Hydrological Studies p.9-p.l2 No comments, recommendations or Title 16 permit requirements. Environmental Studies p.l3 No comments, recommendations, or Title 16 permit requirements. G-eotechnical and Seismological Investigations. It has been indicated that explosives may be used for some tasks in this study program. Use of explosives within one-quarter mile of the Susitna River and its tributaries must be approved by the Department of Fish and Game. Before this approval can be secured, more information showing the approximate location, charge size, and proposed dates of explosive detonations must be provided to this Department. .. ... ... - -.. - - - - ..., .,., - - ... - - - - - - ..... ..,.. '- - - - - .-J. Pedersen -3-5/28/80 In accordance with AS 16.05.870, exploratory drilling and other activities related to this work are subject to the following requirements: 1. There shall be no fuel or petroleum products stored within 100 feet of the Susitna River and its tributaries. 2. All mobile equipment shall be refueled at least 100 feet from the vegetated bankline of the Susitna River or its tributaries. Non- mobile equipment used in the course of drilling over river ice may be refueled on the river ice but extreme care should be taken to avoid spillage of petroleum products. 3. Drill cuttings shall not be disposed in the Susitna River or its tributaries. 4. Sedimentation from core drilling over ice of the Susitna River shall be minimized by casing each drill hole from the riverbed to the ice surface • 5. Discharge water from permeability tests shall not be introduced directly into flowing waters of the Susitna River or its tributaries. 6. Tracked or wheeled vehicles or equipment shall not be operated in the flowing waters of the Susitna River or its tributaries. 7. Each water intake equipment structure must be centered and enclosed in a screened box which must be constructed to prevent fish entrapment, entrainment or injury. Screen mesh may not exceed one-fourth inch. Pursuant to 6AAC 80.010(b), the conditions of this permit are consistent with the standards of tl1e Alaska Coastal Management Program. This letter constitutes a permit issued under the referenced authority, must be retained onsite to be valid and expires December 31, 1981. Please be advised that our approval does not relieve you of the responsibility to to secure other permits, State, Federal or local. You are encouraged to contact the Anchorage Permit Information and Referral Center, 338 Denali Street, Room 1206, telephone 279-024, if you are in doubt about other required permits. Failure to abide by permit stipulations and requirements is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 and/or six months in jail. Sincerely, cc: John Rego -BLM Robert Bo\'1ker -USFWS Kyle Cherry -ADEC Larry Dutton -ADNR RECEIVED J UN 1 G 1930 ALASiiA I•OlVEli{ AU'l,II()I{I'I,Y 333 WEST 4th AVENUE· SUITE 31 ·ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277·7641 ( ...... , Mr. Ron Corso Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 400 1st Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20427 Dear Mr. Corso: (907) 276-2715 June 13, 1980 Pursuant to previous discussion with Mr. Quinton Edson, we request FERC presence in Anchorage to discuss various licensing aspects of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. This visit could be in conjunction with your staff's ·plans for visi~i.ng the Tyee Lake site. . . The n~~d for. the meeting 1 s evidenced by the strong urging for such a session by the,state and federal agencies who have an interest in the project . . ,, .:: .. It:-is the consensus of all,._involved that a face-to-face meeting with FERC is sKAPOWER -rieeded.at.this early stage.of·the study process to insure that proper work urHoRtTY ~ffortds·planned especially in the environmental and fisheries programs. UStTNA J]he meeting. will constitute the second convening of the Susitna Interagency E .p 5700 ~Steering Conuni ~t.ee. Acres. Arneri can wi 11 be represented. and prepared to discuss -._.u___:_t~e;fisheries anq,..in-stream;flow study programs in detail. In our opinion, ... - - - - .. - - - - the:timing for·a::·meetirig.·with your staff is ideal. ' ~ .-o-o?.zi:\' ,/'·: ~~-.:-~(;J'l'·d·::·f·i·k;~:·to pl~:~,;,}~~C~ :two-day session either before or after your I ai. ·( ...JsFaff's··visit.to\Tyee Lake~·:.we. await your response and recommended meeting ':· ..... . ::;d~tes ... We~will,.adjust to your.,schedule.,· . 1-I ... , . :·; ...... ·. .. . . .... ., · ......... ,. . . JL ~ .. ~·-·::·.~·r;;~·llk:~:::;~Jt'i6:r you~. c~'rit·i;J.J·~~---~ssistance in guiding·.us at this early but J~S-~.-S..1it1ca1,st.ag::··o_~,:.~:oject planning., '\ ..... -I .. , . , . , . ,.,. , .: !,·.,.. . . . . ,, '.1 ~r . , .. ,.. .. . ,.. r ·r.-~1 •. ·, I .·: '· • I·,//;,, .. I • ' •I· I; r f ': • ·.,, ::-: ' ·~:-:j --:.'..,. --'' , : ';:•; ~·, · .. '·. 1•11 ,; ·•I~~:"'; ' ,, I ~~ L~~:,! ·-:-~oR rHE'1E:xEcilfr"V'E'.: ·or REcToR .. : ): J '/V.~-! ._· -~ ' .·I . ·.:;:;···.:.;!o',::._·, .. ;--·Sh:·.:· ..... ; ,, ' J.? ':) I ' I . '· .. ·: .. '.!· .. · :"•(!1:,,' " '''·i ):,;~;~~!~=:~ .·. ~ .· :-·:;,;::..(:£S{;_:: ·,. :; ;~_i!ij cJ1L .. Joh,.~, ~·~~.~~~· 1 o··NL I· . ,, ..... ··•··"' II~~~~~--.' ·; .......... . ~~---~-~ t:" ~.el(. ,...,-__::___!~ 'K "'-~· -~-yy·:J' -- : I Sincerely, I /; r/ tf . · .:J. ·.. / . /} 1 ;{,7!~ /(:""~?·;;.~. Robert"A: Mohn D1rect6r of Engineering ,,,., ·,, .. }' :·:!/!''· ........ ;: '" . :~·:::· ·., ''. ... -.. - - ... -·---, ! I ;.N\1<:. != FILE - ~·f--.IJ·.c. I ---r--, __ •• 4""!1n r l WILLETT _I WITTE ': ' LAMB _, ,.., I BERFIY IJ I f..-. ~ / ~ ""'A-n y f ...;z;, l'h:l 1/n'ilil-u•· f I I # // r "'GILL ~F.., ~ :r LOWFIEY / / t: FRETZ ,{: r" "'- : HUSTEAD l BOVE L r CHASE I r I t r· I"""· : Mr. Ina Dean Shul!lfay August 27, 1980 P5700.11.88 • T.386 "--!ral Energy Regulatory Commission North Capital Street 825 OLP 4th Floor Was De a As pro fin pro In to You hintton, D.C. 20426 r Dean: Susitna ~droelectric Project Distribution of Environmental Procedures Manuals part of our Susitna Hydroelectric study program we have prepared cedures manuals for the major environmental subtasks. Enclosed please d a complete set of anuals prepared to date.a As modifications in our cedures occur, you w111 be supplied with revised editions. addition, nine (9) sets of these procedures manuals have been sent the Susitna Steering Comnittee for review. r review and c011111ents on these procedures manuals w6uld be appreciated. Sincerely, KRY/jmh Attachment r. ~~m~~ ®~ ~~~~~~ ltEI~\IIT~IENT o•· ~.,TifH,\14 n•:SOifllf:ES DIVISION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT August 29, 1980 Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 W. Fourth Avenue Suite 31 Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: RECEIVED A!.AS:V\ POW::~ AUTHORITY JAY i HAMIIOIID, GOYEIIIDI 323 E. 4TH A VENUE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 279-5577 At the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee meeting held on July 18, 1980, the navigation user needs study as it relates to instream flow studies was discussed. At that time it came to our attention that personnel from the University of Alaska completed a pro osa uct this work, however, or u getary and project scheduling purposes it has been determined not to conduct this study at this tim~. Staff of TES indicated to my staff that the possibility exists, pending further hydrologic studies and continuing development of instream flow studies, that data on navigation user needs for instream flow purposes may be gathered in the future as the feasibility studies continue. I would like to request that your office and that of Acres, TES, and their subcontractors keep my department abreast of development of data gathered relating to navigation uses on the Susitna River and its tributaries. Additionally we would appreciate receiving a copy of the initial proposal written by the U. of A. staff to conduct such a data gathering effort. This will aid us in the review of any developments in this area of study, which this department believes should be conducted as part of the overall feasibility studies. Sincerely, ill Allan Carson Deputy Director cc: Mary Lu Harle ... - ... ,1 J J J J J , .J 1 ~ - ., ., - - - - - .... - - .... (, - - '- / Mr. Robert Shaw State H1stor1c Preservation Officer State of Alaska ' Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks 619 Warehouse Avenue ~chorage, AK 99501 .. -. Dear Mr. Shaw: / May 4, 1981 P5700.11.74 T.868 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Invest1qat1on In response to your request during our meeting of April 7, 1981, I am forwarding a copy of the Susitna Procedures Manual for the Cultural Resources Investigations. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of the Cultural Resources section from our Plan of Study. I trust this will aid 1n your continued review of our proqram. Any specific questions on this component of our study should be referred to tw. Lewis M. Cutler of Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, RO .sox 388, Phoenix, NY 14135. KY:adh Enclosures ~""' ,~ Yours truly, Ke3in Young Environmental Coordinator 1-.t WIL.L.ETT WITTE BERRY l"r t HI·; "').'H \ ,t: .:2::.]) c. · I 'I'J. 1 1-_....,., .,y 'N ""Ll..iHI! L.AMif I' ....,_, • Mark Robinson deral Energy Regulator.y Commission 0 1st Street, N.W. shington, D.C. 20427 SINCL.AIR -~ ar Hark: ~I VANDER BURGH July 22, 1981 P5700.U.88 T.990 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environmental 1930 Annual Reoorts ~,-~ ,_ ,.~ discussed I am forwarding copies of our Sus1tna 1980 Annual Reports. CARL.SON FRETZ JEX L.OWREY SINGH HUSTEAD BOVE CHASE ./ 1,· .:... "'lh f" c . 1 tk:l JCK L"<l e scope and objectives of the various subtasks under which these reports re prepared are outlined in our Plan of Study which you already have cppy of. · though we are not seeking a fonnal review at this time, any cor:vnents you ve would be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Y/ljr Kevin Young Environmental Coordinator closure .. ,.. . . P. Hoover (AAI) - 0. 14ozni ak (APA). .. ... .. ...,; - - ...,; - ...,; - - ... -- - - - - - - - - - 1~7LH ~¥&V[ @~ &~&~~& I JAyS. HAMMOND. GOVERio'DR I Df~I•:\UT :Uf-~-'T Of' t'ISII :\ 'U (.,\.TiE I 333 RASPBERRY ROAD ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502 September 10, 1981 Jim Gil: Acres American, lnc. 2207 Spenard Road Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Jiz:::.: 344-0541 Our Fairbanks office received a complaint from a moose hunter about disturbance of moose by helicopters north of the Watana Camp during the first week of September. Apparently, helicopters that appeared to be flying point to point were seen to periodically drop down to lower altitudes as though they were looking at animals. He did not identify the helicopters, but there is a fair chance they were from the camp. ~-, I j/, 7 {. . l C:<.-:f 1 _ I t1 / ,.; ;; ) ··~ --2::: .,..~ The same hunter complained about a Cessna 180 which I have determined X to be one of our chartered aircraft that was radiotracking bears. The hunter felt that these activities were causing moose to move to lower elevations into more timbered areas. We have no evidence to support this impression, but it is certainly possible to disrupt animals enough to spoil an expensive hunt. Some conflict with hunters are unavoidable, but we should try to minimize them. We plan to try to avoid flights on popular hunting days such as opening days and major weekends. It would be useful if you would remind helicopter pilots of the problem and request that they maintain sufficient altitude to avoid disturbing animals except when their work or safety dictate otherwise. In particular, they should resist the natural tendency to go take a closer look at animals. Sincerely, ~­./?;/ -"-/" Karl Schneider Game Biologist IV ! x~ ' '· / . I _,....·~/ •• J ":_-.~~. _,.,.,. ,/ ;.. . /1 • Mr. Karl Schneider State of Alaska Department of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Dear Karl: RECEIVED SEF 2 9 1981 September 21, 1981 P5700. 11 . 70 T596A In response to your letter of September 10, 1981, we have re- emphasized to Mr. Granville Couey the necessity for minimum distrubance to wildlife in the areas mentioned, and that the minimum altitudes be maintained by all aircraft. Mr. Couey is fully aware of all restrictions and has reaffirmed ~that the helicopter pilots and other people we charter with are -~lso aware of these conditions. Your point about opening days and major weekends will be fully considered for next year should the same level of helicopter activity take place. Unfortunately, activities were at a rather high level at this time and I'm sure some hunters were unaware of the activities going on in that area. We have asked APA's Public Affairs Office to consider providing information to the public regarding the activity in the area so that guides and hunters would be informed. VTS/ja \. cc .--. Buffalo~ APA -b. Wozniak ,_JQurp~~ I ~~~~~("' /~a~~;-D. Gi-11 Resident Manager ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED IIIII - - -- -- - - 111111 111111 - - - - - - - - - ...... -... ":-..._ hL£ ,.,,-...-~ ... -· ' : './ ~i..-1 ~t:~:. ~ """'0 ,_u ::..s~ Septerr1hcr 29. l:iB.J l\·U .OVI.-11. U·.lTtR 'tO TH( PtiDLIC ;a L.Afifif. trf(D Hl m .. t HfHJtLSl lD AGIJiC1ES A«D OR6ANIZATIOuS On February· -1. ~9fl0i-i'..f'. fric 'Y.Qu1dw Executive Direct.m~ of the Alaska i-'owcr Au Ulor1 t.,\•. prcvared a 'fDNiH"d1 ng le t.tcr-1 nt.n~cJuc:i ng Ute oewHcd f'lan ot· Stud..\' for the Susitn~ t(ydroe Jc.ctrfc Project. He nuted at the ti~ that the. pian did not. purmanently fix· thP. m~nnet'' in whieh the pt-npo&ed work would be ~ceom;Jli'shed ano~expressed hts des.i rN~ Ui~t your as~1s.t.ZJnc~ -wbuld contt--ibute tQ its st.C'cHS~v hiq~ro\"l~ll!!nt • The Pt"'je-ct. 1' e.am has uc..aen he·avi ly engaged during t.ne pa~t ni r.c . m:mth~ in aeccnHJ•Hs-hi.n!J. tJua man.v 'task~ ~nd stlhtas~s \~h~ch together w'i i1 ult.-·hnEtte1y 1 ei:~d tu tc~e bilsis upQn M!hich Uu: S~t.c of Al askil c.nn rr-Jlke iln ---.. 1 nfornu:'{l deci 3i on as 'to whether 1 t. eroil or simulti r~roc.eed with the Sus i L.na . Hydt"''electric Pt"'ject.... Con&troct.ion vf il camp was completed in hsn11 1980 · [; --- DP.iJf' the Watana CilUA" s-1 w... Ficl a crews have nPP.rated-$i nee then f runt: Un: lt<\tana Cafl:Ql b.nu from a number of nt .. her-10C.(l1' .. 1"<ms. ltur•orhmt tnfunr!!!-titm has b~en and continue..'i to b~ collected. W..:-kmm m~t:h nr:Jre now about the geology~ hydro logy, s.c1 Stf.t) logy. environment~ ilnd espP.ci ally about the concerns and i ntcres ts of the pub 1 i c._ -. . Even whil~ the wmi:. h~s progf"tlssc~, Lr-lc Youla•s p-ru~tic d~1res ..... ::"'A PO'.~'::ii h~-.:e been t'eal1zed. A numher of 1n~orumt du;n9es: have been made to the .-,-... -J~.7Y nhn. lh1s vo1unm ductlml!nts the r·evisions an.d briefly de-scribes their · js.;Tr;~ genesis. Om;Q a-gain .. your coreful t-evie111 and ~m~n\.s n"'l•ld he \'('r)f ··· :-, :=~;n rn~ch appreciated. I ~i nee~ ly hopC! ycu wi11 tilkt! the t iln'i! to ~ddt'-eSS -... · -:-~ u.., '1-hem· to; • ,_._7_0\[ -··~ I-... --t-··---· ~ -i E ....: I :~ <t n t: . M~ •· nancy Blunck Pubhc P8.rticip.otion Officer· Alt'-Sk" Power Authority 333 !lest <1-th Avenue~ Suite 31 f,l-ldtot'age. i\1 i1Ska g9.501 ,/ ..._ 3 Z I ...._ ~-~ -· --=--1 On beh~.lf of the enth"'e Project learn, J \'inJ)t. t,o ~xp;~-&;;. Oul~ t\''precft'- . .,---t.'i~n fot· the $trr.mg intet--es.t you fli)Ve cxpr"Cs~·c-tJ to d~t..l!. _ \4ith your ~A.'G·'--as~~"r.1st.ance:r tJ•e txw1s.ed p1an wtli c.ont1nu~ to .b~ i2: dymumc docum=nt. / . Sfncere1y .. ' ;-A _, <.__;_4. Zj ~G :_: ::-~! s -_._j ·; L .. :--~·.-,-r ·_:; __ , ·' r l . ~ ~. ---. I ' ___ j ---,-1 -:-1 __ ,__J ' ___ / _____ _ . - ~ / r .:-t / ---............. ,; ' ,I 'I ~j -_, Jonn n. t.aW:rence .Pr-oj l"C:t. t1antrgcr- ~ .-.. '1 r' ~ -~ _ ••. , t . ~ ~ ·' ~~-- / ' ··' ..... .~ r . • '~ ...- 0 .. ~- c. ( _) NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 6, 1981 PROJECT.NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: DNR, Division of Minerals and Energy Management; 703 W. Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage ATTENDEES: Glenn Harrison, Director; Division of Minerals and Energy Management. J.O. Barnes, R.J. Krogseng, TES SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Mr. Barnes gave a short presentation summarizing the history of the Susitna Project and the role of Acres and TES in the present studies being conducted for the Alaska Power Authority. · Mr. Harrison responded that his divisions main interests involved coal, oil and gas and that he foresaw few problems that ~he Susitna project would cause in his areas of interest. Mr. Harrison felt that the project 11 Sounds good 11 and was well thought out. Mr. Harrison also commented that it would be good, as far as his division was concerned, to have some roads built into the Susitna area. Mr. Harrison stated that he appreciated the meeting and that he would like to be.kept informed on a periodic basis. . ~---=--~--.---:-~·-.--·----=---·--. Prepared .. - - ..,j - ... - ... "' - - - - - ... - - - - - ... - ·- NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 6, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: Alaska Department of Transportation, Aviation Building, Anchorage ATTENDEES: Jay Bergstrand, DOT, Area Planner; J.O. Barnes and R.J. Krogseng, TES SU~~RY OF DISCUSSION: Jeff Barnes outlined the history of the Susitna Project and Acres and TES's role in the present studies. Mr. Bergstrand was familar with the project and had been present at some of the Susitna project meetings. -. c_, Mr. Bergstrand requested a copy_ of the Environmental Annual Reports, and - - -I - he was referred to Nancy Blunck 1 S office at APA. Mr. Bergstrand asked about transmission line high voltage effects~ fish passage problems around the dams; what was planned for disposing of the timber in the impoundment areas, and was burning being considered as a mitigation measure for moose? Mr. Bergstrand was particularly interested in the planning process for Access Roads, Transmission Line routes and transportation corridors. He showed us proposed routes for new roads in the Lower Susitna Basin and we discussed where they would cross the proposed transmission lines. Mr. Bergstrand requested more info~ation regardi~g the~mpact and amount of flying activity during the study and construction periods the Susitna Project would have on the Talkeetna Airport. This information would be used to ascertain if the state would have to provide more services at the Talkeetna airport. ( A lette~ requesting this information was sent to Mr. Brownfield of Acres on April 16, 1981). (,;· Page 2 Mr. Baya inquired about the status of legislatiY.e funding to cover the rest of Phase I studies and the tran~ition period. · Mr. Baya wanted to know if any incremental instream flow work was being done on the Susitna River by the state. Mr. Baya feels that more attention needs to be paid to instream flow impacts, the effects can be far-reaching: He pointed out that the move of the state capitol, urban growth of Anchorage and the Mat-Su, the proposed causeway to Point MacKenzie, all could cause serious impacts and need to be considered in a regional planning effort. · He also pointed out the need to recognize the secondary impacts that a large supply of hydroelectric power would cause. Mr. Baya pointed out that the Fish and Wildlife Service will be asked by the Secretary (of Interior) to respond with comments during the FERC review process • The F&WS also has the requirement to coordinate fish and wildlife view points from the different agencies. Mr. Baya feels that the Susitna project has moved forward too far without funding for Fish and Wildlife Service participation. He would like to have a man assigned full time to the Susitna project to monitor the studies and keep him up to date because in the near future he will . have to ask himself "can I sign off on that?" ... ... .... ... - - .... .... ... ... Mr. Baya feels that the APA needs to find a way to get the F&WS actively involved .... They need money to finance a staff position (approximately $50 -60,000 a man year). Normally when the Corps of Engineers have a project they would give the ... F&WS money every six months through an allocation transfer. Mr. Baya commented that recent cutbacks have caused problems and will probably result in a reduction in staff. In spite of these problems Mr. Baya said "we want to help plan a sound program •••.. we don't want to be obstructionists." " •.. but ~ithout funding for a full time position it will be virtually impossible to completly review the study in a short period of time. Mr. Baya commented that in projects in the Lower 48 states they have found that often they had not looked far enough down the road to be aware of all of the impacts. For instance, along the Mississippi River the State of Mississippi is losing 16 miles of Delta every year, because river channelization is dumping sediments in deep water instead of spreading them over the delta areas. ... ... - - - - - -· - t· - - - - - - _) NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 6, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: DNR Office, 323 East 4th Ave., Anchorage ATTENDEES: Mr. Ted Smith, Director, State Division of Forrest, Land & Water Management, ADNR. Mr. J.O. Barnes, Mr. R.J. Krogseng, TES SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Jeff Barnes outlined the history of the S~sitna Project and TES's role in the studies. Mr. Smith had recently talked to Brent Petrie (now of APA) about the Susitna project and he appreciated the briefing and the concerns shown for his departments interests. Mr. Smith expects to get re-1 ief from the Legislative mandates which he feels are causing many of the problems in the state land disposal program. Mr. Smith feels that the access roads for the Susitna Project will help to open up and provide access for more state disposal lands. Mr. Smith strongly feels that the Alaska Power Authority should file applications for water rights as soon as possible to both reserve the water rights and to help DNR plan. {Alaska has recently adopted a water rights law similar to that of Montana and other Western states). He also would like to see applications from APA designating approximate routes for access roads and transmission lines so they can be included in DNR's planning at the earliest p~ssible date. Prepared by ~~~--,z __ () -) NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 7, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: State Parks Headquarters, 619 Warehouse Avenue, Anchorage ATTENDEES:· Jack Wiles, Robert Shaw, Doug Reger, Alaska State Parks; Kevin Young, Acres; Jeff Barnes, Lew Cutler, R.J. Krogseng, TES. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Mr. Barnes gave a short presentation covering the history of the Susitna Project and the role played by Acres, TES, and other subcontractors in the present study for the Alaska Power Authority. Mr. Shaw and Mr. Reger requested a copy of the Plan of Study and the Archaeology Proc~dures Manual. (Mr. Cutler will go over the Annual Report with Mr. Reger on the 8th of April). Mr. Wiles was concerned that if the State Parks Department would be the manager around the reservoir area, how. big was the area going to be, or would it just be the 200 foot buffer strip. Mr. Reger wanted to know what was~the FERC application. He also wanted to know if the FERC people would consult with·his staff office. He also commented that they hadn't been involved up till now. Mr. Shaw wanted to know what the overall construction schedule would be. Mr. Wiles inquired about the status of the-access road and what the present plans were. It was also established that artifacts that came from native owned ground are usually placed in the University of Alaska Museum to be held in trust for the natives. All attendees agreed that the Susitna Project "sounds good'' and they were satisfied with the planning that had gone into the. studies. - - ... .... ... ... - - - - .... ... - ·- - - - - - - - - -c·-_ - - I.... - - - - ..... NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 7, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: USF&WS, Tudor Road, Anchorage ATTENDEES: Keith Baya, Assistant Area Director F&WS; Kevin Young, Acres; J.O. Barnes and R.J. Krogseng, TES. SU~~RY OF DISCUSSION: Mr. Baya was recently assigned to Alaska so Mr. Barnes's presentation covered the history of the Susitna Project, the role of Acres and TES in performing the studies for the Alaska Power Authority, and an outline of the studies in progress to help bring Mr. Baya up-to-date on the project~ Mr. Baya appreciated the briefing on the project and commented that he would like to see the Susitna River studied all the way down to the esturary to be sure there were no unforeseen problems. He acknowledges that effects on the lower river may be difficult to measure.· He also felt that another question that will arise is "why isn't it like other hydro projects?" Mr. Baya felt that the NEPA decision making process should be followed. Mr. Baya believes that the Sus·itna study is going to be one of the major studies for the next few years. He feels that the Fish and Wildlife Service needs to be involved in these studies and that his people have some expertise, but they need to be on the ground to be able to see -and -s-u~)ervi se the studies~--If_:_--"- they are not included Mr. Baya believes the .. ----FERC coordination may take longer than felt politically wise or timely." Mr. Baya expressed an interest in what studies were planned for the coming year. If there is an early June tour for Starker Leopold, Mr. Keith Baya would.like to be included. Mr. Baya wanted to know.if Habitat ~valuation Procedures (HEP) were being used in the studies. He felt that it may be necessary to do a HEP analysis ·later on. . Mr. Baya inquired about Dr. B. Kessel's Avian and Small Mammal Studies and what was scheduled for the summer field studies. ( .. ( _) Page 3 Mr. Baya also commented on the EIS that will be written on the Beluga Coal fields in the next few months, and how they plan to build a model to help figure out what (data) is driving the system •. They also will be looking at the question of whether it would be better to build a port at Tyonek or ' haul the coal by railroad to Seward. -.. - ..., - ... ... , - .... - '99 ~-.... 1 F.. , ::=; ---~- - -• - - - -. - - - - - - - _) NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 7, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: Department of Community & Regional Affairs, 225 Cordova, Building B, Anchorage ATTENDEES: Ed Busch, Senior Planner; Lamar Cotten, Associate Planner; Kevin Young, Acres; J.O. Barnes and R.J. Krogseng, TES. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Mr. Barnes gave an overview of the history of the Susitna project, Acres and TES's involvement in the present studies and our reason for talking r} to people from their department. - - - - - - ._ Mr. Busch was aware of the steering committee through Al Carson. r~r. Busch's department provides planning·assistance to communities upon request. The Department also has a management program. One of their programs provides coastal zone management for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. This could extend up the Susitna River. Hr. Busch's office has had sporadic involvement with the Susitna project. He was on the review committee on contractor selection and also attended some of the workshops. Mr. Busch voiced some concerns that his office has about planning for the Susitna project. He feels there will be a number of impacts on local governments, and he wanted to know if their concerns had been considered? Mr. Busch believes that the-Matanuska-Susitna Borough will bear the brunt of the impacts (positive and negative) caused by the Susitna project. A major problem will be providing increased services. Mr. Busch wanted to know if the access roads would be kept open after the project was finished and who will maintain them. He also wanted to know, if the railroad is built, has anyone considered the impact to Talkeetna caused by people driving to Talkeetna, parking and taking the train? Mr. Busch.recommended that TES do community profiles on the towns and villages that would receive most of the impact. As a minimum he suggested community profiles on Talkeetna, Cantwell, Paxson and Gold Creek. · A ·comnunity p;o-file is a collection of information with photos and a map of the community. (examples were provided). The profiles have been costing $10-11,000 to produce with the majority of the expenses going for per diem expenses and cartography. c·· PAGE 2 (Northwest Gas Pipeline Company produced some of the examples). Mr. Busch pointed out that if a village is incorporated into a second class city (such as Talkeetna) they are able to have more input in planning and governing themselves. For the smaller villages the State Legislature is the governing body, with the actual planning done by Mr. Busch's department. Wildlife planning is done by the AOF&G,and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough provides the schools. Mr. Busch does not speak for the Borough unless he has been requested to do so. Mr. Busch feels the number of construction workers has been under-estimated, as an example, the Alyeska pipeline was under-estimated. Mr. Busch recommended that a permanent construction camp be built for the project. The temporary camps built for the pipeline are still being used and it would have been cheaper in the long run to build permanent camps. Mr. Busch commented that people from Frank Orth and Associates have talked to personnel in his office. Mr. Busch also pointed out that the only way his office gets involved is when they have been asked to by the community. ~--·-~ ltit:f-C:::=fyff~~reilig:--TTES ... ... ... ~ -- ... 1 .... --- IIIII - - -.. - - - - - - - - _) NOTES OF MEETING_ DATE: April 8, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: Department of Public Safety, Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection, 5700 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage ATTENDEES: Colonel Robert J. Stickles, Director; Lt. Col. Tetzlaff, Capt. Wayne Fleek, Lt. Rod Mills, Department of Public Safety; Kevin Young, Acres; J.O. Barnes and R.J. Krogseng, TES. SUW~RY OF DISCUSSION: Mr. Barnes presented an overview of the history of the Susitna project and the part played by Acres and TES in the present studies being conducted for the Alaska Power Authority. (-... Col. Stickles-requested that his department receive copies of the annual - - - - - - - - - - reports for Fish, Big Game and Access Roads. Col. Stickles asked what effect the dams would have on the flow of the Susitna River below Talkeetna.· He also wanted to know what water temperature changes may occur. He was ve~ interested in the possible effects the project would have on moose and caribou. Col. Stickles also wanted to know how many miles of access roads were planned. Col. Stickles wanted to know what ice effects were expected in the impound- ment area and also the effects expected in the downstream reaches of the river.. He also wanted to know what the construction time table was and when it would start. He needed this information to help plan for the placement of officers. He will probably assign an officer to Chulitna when construction starts. Capt. Fleek asked about the amount of helicopter useage during the studies. He also wanted to know where the transmission line routes would be and if there would be access roads along them. Capt. Fleek wanted to know how many people would .be living near the dams for - maintenance and operation of them. Capt. Fleek wanted to know if the impoundment areas were going to be logged. He also was concerned that i~e shelving might cause caribou crossing problems. Capt. Fleek corrrnented on t~e large number of bear in the area and wanted to know if we had had any bear problems-. He also requested that Fish and Wildlife Protection Division be sent the results of the Mitigation Committee. Their division would like to be in on mitigation planning. c· ) PAGE 2 All agreed that Protection Division's greatest concern would be the access provided· to the area. They wanted to know if a landing strip was going to be built. They would also be interested in getting.permission to store extra gas for their helicopter at Camp Watana later on. Lt. Mills said that they could tell us the number of guides using the area, and he agreed to send Krogseng a list of the guides and their best guess on the number of hunters using the area. -· ~-:---. -· Reported by .. .. _, ... ... ... .. ... ... ... _, .. -.. TES ... - - - ... - - c ..... ~ - -. ( - - NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 8, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: Department of Energy, Federal Building, Anchorage ATTENDEES: Fred Chiei, Deputy Regional Representative; Kevin Young, Acres; J.O. Barnes and R.J. Krogseng, TES. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Mr. Barnes made his presentation covering the history of the Susitna project and the role of Acres and TES in the present studies being conducted for the Alaska Power Authority. Mr. Chiei appreciated being kept informed on the status of the project. Mr. Chiei commented· that his office is an off-shoot of the Secretary•s.office and that he deals primarily with energy'policy•. Mr. Chiei noted that the FERC people operate out of his office when they are in town,.while the FERC engineers operate out of San Francisco. He also commented on the need for energy planning. Mr. Chiei said that his office tries to stay out of the states territory in energy matters, although a lot of things have not surfaced yet. He prefers it to be more of a state project and is happy to see state funding for it. Mr. Chiei commen"t:ed that hydroelectric_ projects_!i.ke th~Susitna PJ_£>j_~ct. release energy like coal, oil and_gas t~at can be shipped elsewhere in the U.S. which helps to distribute the country's energy more evenly. Mr. Chiei said that he doesn't see any problems at this point and periodic reports (like this meeting) would be sufficient. He would also be interested in seeing the development scenario when it is developed. -Mr. Chiei would like to receive information from Acres on the Tidal Power Study. - -Reported by 6, yr -,-r r- 7 .,, - (_, _) NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 8, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: National Park Service, 540 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage ATTENDEES: Howard R. Wagner, Associate Director, Carl Stoddard, Terry Carlstrom, Ross Cavenaugh, National Park Service; Kevin Young, Acres; J.D. Barnes, R.J. Krogseng, TES. SU~~RY OF DISCUSSION: Mr. Barnes outlined the history of the Susitna project and the role Acres and TES have in the present studies being conducted for the Alaska Power Authority. Mr. Cavenaugh asked how the Fish and Wildlife studies fit into the overall planning process. He also asked what was being done about cultural res9urces. Mr.Cavenaugh also wanted to know what effect the project would have on the proposed Denali Scenic highway. Mr. Wagner said that he would be very interested in the transmission line route, especially where it is near the park (Denali). If the route passes through park boundaries, the right-of-way approval may need congressional level approval. They want to keep the transmission line out of the park. . . Mr. Carlstrom wanted to know what range of considerations or options were available. He conrnented that access could be a direct ·problem. The Denali--- National Park is only on the west side of the Parks highway, but the trans- mission line would have a direct impact on the land across the road. He also wanted to be sure that someone was looking at indirect impacts caused by the project. Mr. Wagner also commented that USGS would soon have 1:250,000 scale maps with the.new park boundries marked on them. Reported by: ~;;gpFng , rEs -.. .. .... -- - ~ ... .. .... ~ .... - - - --. - -) - - - (_; ._ - - ,- - - - - NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 8, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: U.S. Anny ~orps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Anchorage ATTENDEES: Lt. Col. Perkins, Deputy District Engineer; Kevin Young, Acres; J.O. Barnes and R.J. Krogseng, TES. SUNMARY OF DISCUSSION: Mr. Barnes briefly covered the role of Acres and TES in the present studies of the Susitna project being performed for the Alaska Power Authority. Lt. Col. Perkins stated that the Corps has no funding for any work on the Susitna project. Lt. Col. Perkins strongly feels that the state should be asking the Corps; What permits will -be required? The state should also inquire about getting one blanket permit for the project. Lt. Col. Perkins wanted to know if we knew what permits would be needed, in particular any section 404 classification of wetlands would be filled in. He recommended that the head of his environmental group be contacted. Lt. Col. Perkins also noted that the access roads will require permits to cross wetlands; also any dredging or filling that is required. Permits will also be required for constructing the transmission lines, especially if access roads are built. Lt. Col. Perkins pointed out that it takes a minimum of 200-220 days to process a permit, and if there are any objections they may have to be resolved in Washington, which will require even more time. ~ (, _) NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 9, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAl 218 LOCATION: NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Federal Building, Anchorage ... - ... AJTENDEES: Ronald Morris, Supervisor, Anchorage Field Office, Brad Smith, • NOAA Fisheries Biologist; J.O. Barnes and R.J. Krogseng, TES. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Mr. Barnes gave a presentation covering the history of the Susitna project and the role of Acres and TES in the present studies being conducted for the Alaska Power Authority. Mr. Morris and Mr. Smith are both members of the Susitna Hydro Steering Committee and they will coordinate their work with the state fisheries people. Mr. Smith will be in contact with Dr. Dana Schmidt of TES concerning the fisheries studies. Mr. Morris asked about dam design features and said that he will be in contact with NOAA engineers in the Oregon office. Mr. Morris said that they appreciated the contact. .., ... ... 'IIIII/I wJ .... ..., ... ... ..,j .., - Reported by ¢: ~· ?r. R. J. frOSsenTEs • .... ... - -... _) NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 9, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 437 E. Street, Anchorage ATTENDEES: Bob Martin, Regional Environmental Supervisor, Steve Zrake, DEC; -Kevin Young, Acres; J.D. Barnes and R.J. Krogseng, TES - - (_, ..... - ..... ~ - - - - - - SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Mr. Barnes outlined the history of the Susitna Project and the role of Acres and TES in the present studies being conducted for the Alaska Power Authority. Mr. Martin asked what impacts or changes were expected on water quality or air quality. He also wanted to know if the studies were long enough to establish a proper baseline ~eriod. Under socioeconomic, Mr. Martin wanted' to know if we had studied power genera- tion needs. He was referred to the ISER study. Mr. Martin wanted to· know if the studies would continue after the FERC applica- tion has been made. Mr. Martin also wanted to know "why the FERC application date was set so soon". As an example, Mr. Martin wanted to know why the decision on the access road had to be made so soon; he wasn't even "comfor- table .. with how the three routes had been selected. He stated that his department would like to keep access down because it would be easier to manage. The Department of Environmental Conservation's interests in the Susitna area are administered out of Mr. Martins Anchorage office. His major point of contact is the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee. DEC's direct regulatory responsibility is waste water, drinking water, and solid waste disposal. DEC also has an interest in instream activities. Mr. Martin recom~ended applying for a variance to build the construction camps to provide for drinking water and waste water and solid waste disposal. Mr. Martin feels that the major impacts of construction activities are going to be the access roads and the locations of construction camps. Mr. Martin said that it may be easier to have just one transportation corridor. As an example, in transportation and handling of fuel~ accidents are bound to happen, like a truck may roll off the road. He feels that it is important to avoid as many critical habitat areas as possible. c· _) Mr. Martin was also interested in the water quality studies. He feels it is very important to get a complete water quality series before road construc- tion starts. He wants to be able to measure construction effects, such as the run off into streams.from road building. Mr. Martin is also interested in the .smaller feeder streams that would be impacted by roads. He feels that 2-3 years .of data from studies would be sufficient. .... ... - ... Mr. Martin expressed a concern about communities along the river disposing ~ of wastes in the Susitna River. Mr. Martin was especially concerned about the fuel transportation and storage ... system and the amount of fuel that would be used in a large project like Susitna. He feels it is necessary to plan to avoid or minimize accidents .... or spills. Mr. Martin commented on the need to maintain ecological integrity through land use and public use planning, and to have a voice in other areas that he can't regulate. He wants to see rational land use development, something that doesn't interfere with habitat. Mr. Martin also wants to see more attention paid to using energy alternatives such as Retherford's recommendation to use electricity to run pipeline pumps instead of using oil or gas. Mr. Martin strongly recommended building a centralized constructiun camp. He also recommended building where the permanent facilities will be located. Mr. Zrake wanted to know if under sociocultural impacts we were looking at ' . individual desires too? He also wanted to know if this would cover the trans- mission line too. Mr. Martin stated that DEC does .not have any studies in progress that affect ., ... - - ...... .. ... . ' Susitna. They are working on a wetlands study with specific Alaska guidelines. .. ... .., ...I - - - ...,_ ... ....... (''·. _, - NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 9, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI-218 LOCATION_: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tudor Road, Anchorage, Ala~ka ATTENDEES: Mel Munson, Chief Ecologi~al Services; Gary Stackhouse, F&WS; Kevin Young, ACRES; J. 0. Barnes and R. J. Krogseng, TES • SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Mr. Barnes outlined the history of the Susitna Project and the role of Acres and TES in the present studies being conducted for the Alaska Power Authority. Mr. Munson asked what ADF&G's role was in the studies. He also wanted to know·what the time frame was for all of the studies and when the EIS came . . into the picture. Mr. Barnes.outlined the FERC process and where the dif- ferent parts fit in. Mr. Munson wanted to know if we had a preliminary permit for the project. He -felt that it was important that the state file soon. - ... ln 1952 Mr. Munson looked at 20 different proposed dams for River,Basin Studies. Devil Canyon and Watana Dams were part of that study. At that time he did not find any salmon in ·the upper Susitna River. Mr. Munson wanted to know if ADF&G was looking at winter moose range in the ( study area. From personal experience in the area, he felt that the south - - - - - facing slopes on the north side of the canyon from half way between Devil Can- yon to Watana were important to the moose population during the winter. Mr. Munson has watched caribou swim the river in many different places in the · Watana area, they appear to get out any place they can get up the canyon wall. Mr. Munson commented that during peak numbers of carioou he has seen 6-8000 caribou on Mt. Watana alone. Also during peak numbers be has watched them crossing the Susitna River where many trying to swim the river would be carried do~m-stream and drown. He has seen hundred$ of dead caribou washed up on shore. Mr. Munson wanted to know.what was planned to mitigate for losses of moose habi- tat. He also .commented that he opposed the Denali Dam because it would flood a highly productivity area. c _) Mr. Munson also wanted to know if we were looking at the area above the Tyone River. Mr. Young outlined the various darn schemes that had been considered and why the Devil Canyon -Watana scheme had been selected. Mr. Munson commented that it was a good choice. Mr. Munson said that one of the things he was interested in was what we were going to do to mitigate for lost moose habitat. He felt that there was a need for habitat development on upper Watana Creek. Mr. Munson also suggested burning, cutting or even sprigging willows as things to consider on Tsusena Creek. Mr. Munson was interested in the mitigation task force and its review group, although he commented that there is not much you can do for caribou. Mr. Stackhouse asked · what the status of the mitigation policy was. He - - - ... .... ... .. - hoped the group would be able to produce a policy for APA. Mr. Stackhouse • also wanted to know what the basis for mitigation would be, was it going to be based on an acre. for an acre or an animal for an animal? .. • Mr Stackhouse also asked about the vegetation analysis that was being per- formed;he was concerned that the studies be of a high enough quality to be able to use HEP (Habitat Evaluation Procedures) on the vegetation studies at a later date. Mr. Stackhouse wanted to know if any hydraulic changes were expected in the river or if any-icing problems were anticipated. He was also concerned about the possibility of ·any vegetation changes. Mr. Stackhouse felt there was a possibility of some problems ·below Devil Can- yon and he wanted to know. if are-reg darn was going to oe put in. Mr. Stackhouse wanted to know what the planned construction periods for the dams were going to oe, and if the Devil Canyon Coffer Dam would oe big enough to serve as a daily re-reg dam.. . ·Mr. Munson asked about the expected water quality for the Susitna River between Devil Canyon and Talkeetna. He commented that it probaoly would have similar conditions to that found in Tazlina Lake. Mr. Munson wated to know if any - ..,; ..J - - - - - - - - - - ..... ..... (: - ~ enhancement of the fisheries was expected, like in Kenai or Skilak Lake. Mr. Munson would like to receive a copy of R&M's Hydrology Report. He was interested in their prediction of.winter ice conditions. Mr. Stackhouse commented that he felt that one of the biggest·problems in the study was the fact that AOF&G hadn't published a procedures manual for the fisheries study yet. He was also concerned that one person from ADF&G wore two hats; he worked on the Susitna project and was also involved in the state permitting process. Mr. Stackhouse was very concerned that APA had not filed a preliminary permit yet. ·He commented that withput the permit the F&WS has no official position to initiate a formal seeping process under their normal NEAPA-FERC procedures. Mr. Munson commented that under standard conditions the state and federal -F&WS work together on Exhibit S. -Mr. Stackhouse pointed out that they need to tie in with the work being done - - on transmission corridors and they also need to work with the Steering Committee. Mr. Stackhouse feels that time is the over-riding factor in the studies. For instance, if a railroad is constructed for the access method, it would cost ~ an extra year. - - - Mr. Munson summed up his comments on a recreational standpoint by pointing out that the reservoirs were not going to be good for fishing; that the Devil Canyon reservoir would provide some recreational boating, but that the main uses for the reservoirs would be to provide access for hunting. I Mr. Stackhouse commented that he would like to see a copy of the instream flow studies. Prepared by_4~~~~~rJ~--- c NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 9, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: AITENDEES: Bureau of Land Management, District Office, Anchorage Art Hosterman, Lou Carufel, Gary Seitz, Bob War?~_John ~ego, BLM; Kevin Young, Acres; J.O. Barnes and R.J. Krogseng, TES SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION - - ... ... Mr. Barnes made a presentation covering the history of the Susitna Project and • the role of Acres and TES in the present studies being conducted for the Alaska Power Authority. He also covered the studies and reports that are - being prepared as part of the study. Mr. Seitz wanted to know if-FERC was responsible for the EIS. He also wanted to know if FERC would be asking BLM for permits or when BUM would get a chance to outline their re~uirements. Mr. Rego wanted to know if FERC would be the lead agency. The present permit is good for three (~) years of studies. .After that construction permits would probably be necessary. Mr. Rego stated that he would like to see all three access routes studied; the Denali route north, the south route to Devil Canyon and the north service road between both dams. He commented that their Mr. Beckley has built a lot of roads and that he ought to take a look at the different routes. Mr. Hosterman wanted to know "what are the biggest problems?" Also, what is the role of the State Fish and Game Department in the studies. He also wanted to know about Cultural Resources and how they were being·taken care of. Mr. Hosterman also asked about Human Resources and the Natives and their interests. Mr. Hosterman wanted to know if induced seismicity caused by the weight of the dam and reservoir was being considered. Also asked the question of how much permafrost was in the area and whether or not it was being studied. The group also felt that public participation in study changes was a good idea. It was also felt that "if you are going to do one right this is the one." Prepared by ,C. .. r· ? R.J. rogs .. .. ... - ..,.; - -- - - .... - - - - - ...... ·- t - - .,._ - f \ - - - -) NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 9, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: Alaska Department of Fish & Game, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage ATTENDEES: Carl Yanagawa, Regional Supervisor, Habitat Protection; Kevin Young, Acres; J.O. Barnes and Robert J. Krogse~g?_}ES SUrWARY OF DISCUSSION: Mr. Barnes gave a short presentation outlining the history of the Susitna project and the role of Acres and TES in the present studies being conducted ' for the Alaska Power Authority. Mr. Yanagawa outlined the state permit system in which Mr. Trent is still the State Coordinator for the Department of Fish and Game for permits, although Mr. Yanagawa issues the permits. Mr. Trent gathers the data and other informa- tion that Mr. Yanagawa uses to issue the permits. The normal procedure is for Mr. Yanagawa to get a consensus from the different departments to help make the final decision . Mr. Yanagawa commented that he is presently short-handed in his department. He has a position number but no funding for it. Mr. Yanagawa had some questions about the access roads. He especially wanted to know when the road was going to be used. He said the Department .of Fish and Game would be prepared to make recommendations and trade off in regards to the access roads, but they did not have any real hang-ups about them. As a result of a decision made in Juneau in March, Mr. Yanagawa will not be a member of the Steering Committee. The policy of the department is that Mr. Trent is the coordinator for ADF&G. The coordinator helps make the departments decisions. Mr. Trent is the only one who can raise official questions on the Susitna project. Drawing from his pipeline experience, Mr. Yanagawa commented that this was the wrong job for a total preservationist, because sometimes you just have to get in and do your best to find the best route or method available and go with that, that not everything will be pertect. He recommended getting in and looking at routes early. Sometimes a problem can be solved by just moving the road 20 feet left or right. ( ... Mr. Yanagawa also feels that you need to keep asking yourself ••;f you spend • another million dollars, how much more information are you going to get .. ? He also feels that it is important to make everyone aware of the assumptions .- that you are making up front. Mr. Yanagawa also feels that you need to pick a starting place, because you cannot wait for all the answers to come in before you start. Also, drawing on his experience in building the pipeline, Mr. Yanagawa recommended forgetting about building a constrcution camp for temporary use and go ahead and design for permanent use, because you will save money in the long run. ""' - -- - ... Prep~red by~{:*?;~~~~---, - .,., .. -- - - - - - - - - - - "'?--c- - - ...... - - - - - -~ NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 10, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI-218 LOCATION: University of Alaska, Arctic Enviromental Information and Data Center, 707 A Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 279 -4523 ATTENDEES: William J. Wilson, Fisheries Biologist AEIDC; Kevin Young, Acres; J. 0. Barnes and R. J. Krogseng, TES. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Mr. Barnes gave a short presentation covering the history of the Susitna Project and the role Acres and TES have in the present study being con- ducted for the Alaska Power Authority. Mr. Wilson was the project Leader for the Terror Lake project on Kodiak Is- land, and he discussed his experience in filing the FERC license application. Mr. Wilson was concerned about the slow start by ADF&G on the fisheries study. He felt that FERC's irmnediate reaction will probably be to reject the application and_ask for more information. He also felt that organizations like nsusitna Now .. should be aware of this and be expecting the request for more information. Mr. Wilson feels that some of the fishery' study tasks will requ~re alot of work, because some drainages in the Susitna basin do not have very much that is known about them • Mr. Wilson also commented that the instream flow studies may be a problem, because there is not much expertise available capable of doing the studies. On the Terror Lake Project Mr. Wilson said that they used joint participation where USGS, F&WS and AEIDC crew members walked the streams together to pick out the study sites, because you can't pick them off from a map. Mr. Wilson feels that you have to know what the project is going to do to the stream flows and that incremental instream flow studies will give you that flexi- bility. Mr. Wilson commented that FERC would like to see an agreement between State and FeDeral agencies over policies and requirements. c. _) As a member of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee, Mr. Wilson is concerned about the lack of information on what is going on. He felt that it took too long to hear back on the Steering Committee•s comments on the procedure manuals, and that Acres should have responded sooner. Mr. Wilson also felt that the Steering Committee .should have seen the access road report earlier. He feels that preliminary information should be made available to the Steering Committee qS soon as possible. Mr. Wilson feels that Acres should publish more data in a "this is what we found .. format and not just "this is what we conclude". .... ..., ..t - .,. ... Mr. Wilson feels that the Steering Committee should be a competent and helpful • . . sounding board for the project. He feels that the Steering Committee can help save steps by pointing out pitfalls and other regulation mandates that need .- to be complied with as part of their advisory capacity. The Steering Committee. cannot play a part in policy decisions, but they can give feedback on what was discussed to both sides. As part of a University of Alaska policy, Mr. Wilson would like to see more knowledge made available to the public. He would also like to see a centra- lized depository or library of information on the project that would make available the procedures manuals, maps, _photos, charts, diagrams, and reports from the project. --.. .. Mr. Wilson is also interested in seeing an informal Steering Committee meeting • at Acres to provide an opportunity to open a dialogue with the Acres engineers. l1lfl(i - Prepared by JC.. "7 ,_ R.J.O'Kro _ ... - - - - -~ - NOTES OF MEETING DATE: April 10, 1981 PROJECT NUMBER: AAI 218 LOCATION: Alaska Division of Natural Resources, 323 East 4th Avenue, Anchorage ATTENDEES: Al Carson, Deputy Director, Division of Research and Development, DNR; Kevin Young, Acres; J.O. Barnes and R.J. Krogseng, TES SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Mr. Barnes summarized the ideas and concerns that had been expressed during the series of meetings with the various agencies. The primary request from those who were also m~mbers of the Steering Committee was the request to get information to the Steering Committee in time for them -~ to review it before the meeting. - - - - ' - - Also high on the list was the desire for a central depository at the library where all of the information would be available to more people. Not everyone was knowledgeable about access roads; more information has to be distributed to get people up to speed. It should also be understood that some areas are incremental, that some minor impacts may work together to cause a major impact. It is also felt that it is important to send out the criteria on objectives that are to be used in making decisions to the Steering Committee members and ask for their comments on the fitness of the criteria. It is also important to get the ground rules set up before a dispute has started in order to avoid tunnel vision or having people argue about different parts of a question. There is still some confusion on how the FERC process works. It also appears necessary to get docketed or to put in a preliminary license application which will also authorize the Fish and Wildlife service to become involved in the study. Mr. ~arson said he would be willing to help reinforce any concerns such as engineering disputes that may arise. c .. Mr. Carson commented that he liked his meeting with APA~ Acres and TES. He felt that it was open and not defensive. He also said that he is willing to start having Steering Committee meetings for discussion of problems, instead of fighting over problems. Mr. Carson would like to see a copy of the Acres and TES monthly progress reports sent to the Steering Committee because it provides an overview of what is happening. Mr. Carson said the Steering Committee would like to know the decision making -.. - - ... time lines. They also would like to know when studies and reports come in. • Mr. Carson said that a criti~al need which he feels needs attention is the need for an understanding of technical, engineering, and socio-economic in- formation, fe.d together in a holistic. approach to the whole problem. He said that we need to inter-mesh ideas before people such as engineers have a vested interest in their design. Mr. Young explained how he works closely with the design engineers to bring ~nvironmental and social concerns into the design at an early stage to try to avoid future problems. Mr. Carson commented on the need to get input from the Steering Committee members before certain design milestones are reached. ... - - - -.. Mr. Carson said he would like to see EIS seeping procedures and activities used .. in solving some of the problems. _, Another suggestion Mr. Carson made was for Acres and TES to touch base with the Steering· Committee with a conceptual type outline. To ask the Steering - Committee members "do you think this wilJ do it?11 "will it achieve our purpose?.. He feels it is important to make sure you are using the right process - before you go out and do all the work. Mr. Carson also commented that enlightened engineers are better to work with than biologists. - - --- -•· ;~::•=,·¥; *' -... ! : ·-m· ~ -.. ... o-c ----s - ; - - - _::- r • j April 9 , 1981 P5700.11.88 T.813 §~:::;;~· Ronald Corso, Director 8 ;~ fvision of Hydroelectric Project Licensing ....... ederal Energy Regulatory Corm~ission vv , tj2S North Capitol St., Hail Stop 208 RB ( r~_k, ·Iashington, DC 20426 p;..,..:-:..-:-.-:-~ar Mr. Corso: Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project FERC License AE£licat1on . ~ " . . ~he purpose of this 1 etter 1 s to conf1 nn the arrangements and agenda for 4rHusTeAo he Susitna project meeting set for 9:00a.m., Tuesday, April 21, 1981, +~-··-t the FERC office. This date and time were established by Mr. Carrier · -f your staff and Mr. Hoover of Acres, in coordination with other Susitna tudy team members and the Alaska Power Authority. The purpose of this t-t--=:-:-:-::-::----i., ... eting is to bring the FERC staff up to date on study progress suring ~~~::=:lthe year since our last meeting, discuss project development selection, n-~ nd address several issues of licensing concern. ..... - - - - I pur proposed fonnat for the meeting is to provide initially about a ..: r I ~me-hour presentation for FERC staff's benefit. This presentation will robably consist of a 30 minute slide display to update FERC staff with the Plan of Study progress to date. followed by a 30 minute review of highlights of activities in 1980 in regard to Susitna Basin development selection, environmental studies and other relevant issues. We hope to provide appropriate hand-outs prior to the latter review. Following this presentation we can answer any staff questions or elaborate on any specific topics. Finally, we would like to discuss several areas of specific concern including: -The politive and negative aspects of licensing each Susitna project component separately versus a single application -The expected form and timing of the new requlations for major unconstructed projects and impacts on the Susitna application -The extent of inclusion of transmission lines in the project application . c Mr. Ronald Corso Bederal Energy REgulatory Commission April 9, 1981 Page 2 -Specific data requirements for support of license application (e.g. access roads, camp facilities, topographic maps, etc.). -The sufficiency of the prelicensing study coordination to date. We expect to have representation of three to four members of the Acres study team and one or two representatives of the Authority. It would be appreciated if you could arrange for appropriate members of the FERC staff to attend. We understand that the meeting ~11 be in the Hydro- power licensing Division Offices at 400 First Street. Should you have any comments or questions regarding the meeting or agenda, please do not hesitate to call. S1ncerel,Y, .A/ ~~ Pr·1H/1s/1jr John D. Lawrence _ _ Project Manager cc: --Mr. Paul Carrier, FERC , ) above address) \, \ L ..---Mr. Eric P. Yould. APA _ --\ \6\~ l I "" ,.,; -.. ~ J J J j J J , J - ... - - - - - - - 1/ry / • Ronald Corso, Oirecaor Apr11 16, 1981 P5700.11.88 T.830 deral Energy Regulatory Commission 0 1st Street, N.H. sh1ngton, D. C. 20427 ar Mr. Corso: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Info~ation Package have pleasure in fon~arding herewith 3 copies of an information ckage for perusal by your staff for our meeting April 21. look fon~ard to an interesting and productive meeting. JOL/jmh Attachment Sincerely, ~ Lattrence Project r~anager ( ~u~u~ ®W ~~~~~~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIV/Siav OF FOREST, UWD AND WATER MANAGEMENT September 24, 1981 John D. Lawrence Project Manager Susitna Hydroelectric Project Acres American Incorporated 900 tiberty Bank Bldg. Main & Court Streets Buffalo, New York 14202 Dear Mr. Lawrence: Ct:JVEO SEP 2 3 '981 JAY .t HAMMOND, GOYIRNOR 323 E. 4TH A VENUE ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 PHONE: (907} 279-5577 ALASKA POWER AUT<lOP.ITY SUSITNA --~-~--1 FlU: P57CO In response to your request for Water Rights Research for Susi.tna River Basin, my staff has completed an extensive search of our computer files of water rights filed in that area. Attached is a township list of the areas searched. A complete listing as of September 21, 1981 is also attached. Computer files are updated monthly, and this search used . ;: ,-·~,' SEQ.LSNCE IW. ,~-1/ )[ ~I' I • • 7:! ~ i s ...J n · c: c::: cr: ~' ~ \ ~ : ~' :J ' = -•-'----1--· -'---~---·_r;;·: ; . ·_: ~-·/ -__ ' __ _\ a file which was last updated on September 10, 1981. More complete information on any of these files is available at our Southcentral District Office located at 323 East Fourth Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, phone (907) 279-5577. We are glad to be of asssitance in this matter. Sincerely, THEODORE G. SMITH, Director )JJ_L~ fl ~£~~~- ! ; . : :. '1 ' i-'~ F ---\ -~· ;j BY: DEAN N. BROWN, Chief i-'f:-~:-··_ -~.-~~ Water Management Se t · ! · Cf'"(_> {Cf';; C lOn ,-,-.· .--·\ __ _ ! ; ; ·' ·. ' i-i-I. PG cT --· t\ ·=:-;.·.!.~F~-=· ' ' -. \ -·--1· -·-! I ~-' I ' ! J.J • ·-'. _,_;. --1-! : \~ ;:: '·/ I ! -:-.. ' ;:-_-·, -- 1 • p ;~ :_. I -'--c_; --~L._Jl_~ ;__ . J : ; ~--\ I~' t"L ' I ' _J/.' J -~~-'~--~~~-i ~~-0 -~-v. . -- : F;!...;. ; I / .. ... ... ... j j 1 J J J 1 .J , .J - ... .. - - - ... - -WATER RIGHTS RESEARCH FOR SUSITNA RIVER BASIN TOWNSHIP LIST For each river named, numbers in first column indicate township north, and numbers in the second column indicate range west, of the Seward ..... meridian, unless otherwise noted . Susitna Fish Creek Montana Kroto-TraEeer 14 7,8 17 5 24 4 20 6 -15 7,8 18 5 25 2,3,4 21 6 16 6,7 17 6,7 Alexander Skwentna Yentna 18 6 17 8 17 18 18 7 19 5,6 18 8 18 18 20 8 . 20 5 19 8,9 19 19,20 21 8-10 ..... 21 4,5 20 19 22 12 22 4,5 Wi 11 ow 21 11-15,19 23 11,12 23 4,5 20 2,3 22 10,11,14-24 12 '13 24 5 19 1,2,4 18 25 13,14 -25 5 26 14 ( 26 5 Kashwitna ~ 27 14,15 ' I 27 5 22 1,2,3,1E 3 18,19 28 14 .... 28 4,5 24 19,20 29 4,5 Sheep Talkeetna 30 3,4 23 3 Little Willow 26 1,2,3,4 .._ 31 2,3 24 2,3 20 4 27 1,2,3,1E 21 3 -Kahi 1 tna Chulitna Tokositna Chulina 22 8 30 5,6 . 29 6 27 4 23 8,9 31 4,5 28 6,7 24 9 32 3,4 ..... 25 9,10 33 2,3 26 10 22S llW F 27 10 21S 10, llW F 28 10 20S lOW F - - - ( RECEIVED NOV 13 1981 ACRES AMffilCiiN JUCORrORA TED ITINERARY FOR TES AGENCY CONTACT MEETINGS (Seco nd Series) Tuesday, 13 October, i981 0900 Division of Natural Resou r ces, Lan ds -Ted Smith~ Minerals- Glenn Harrison 1030 Department of Community and Regio nal Affairs; Ed Busch, Lamar Cotten 1330 Department of Transportation; Jay Bergstrand 1500 National Park Service; Terry Carlstrom, Carl Stoddard Wednesday, 14 October, 1981 0900 State Parks; J ack Wiles, Doug Reger and others 1030 Corps of Engineers; L/C Perki ns AUSKA POWC:il AUTHOiliT Y S U S iTN A FILE P570Q . 11 .3<:> 1330 DPS, Fish & Wildlife Protection; Col. Stickles and others ~· SEQlJ£,1JC ::: ~;o . F d-/t'(; I I I 1500 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Keith Baya, Mel Munson andli ·athe(ls ·-:..: -~ Thursday, 15 October, 1981 0900 Bureau of Land Management; Bob Ward, John Rego and othe rs 1030 Alaska Department of Fish and Game; Carl Yanagawa 1330 NOAA, Marine Fis heries; Ron Morris, Brad Smith 1500 U.S. Department of Energy; Fred Chiei Friday, 16 Octob er, 1981 ., 0 ·::: <: • ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ..: -I ·' I .... j c~c-I p -~ l_l_ £"--! I c; '!I ~--· -, !" .: ' .• -I 0900 1030 1330 1600 I ".i ~~ Arctic Environmental Information and Data Cente r; Bill Wils~--· Alaska D t t E . t 1 C t · B b M t . 1=~~-.u].'/_ ~­epar men nv1ronmen a onserva 1on; o ar 1n _!~,)\~ _ Div ision of Natural Resources; Al Carso n I · =~=~=-Mat-Su Borough Planning Department; Rodn ey Schulling l _j ~· --, ~I L :: j - RECEIV~~D NOV 13 1981 ACRES AMERJ£Afi lf~CORPOilATED ITINERARY FOR TES AGENCY CONTACT MEETINGS {Second Series) Tuesday, 13 October, 1981 0900 Division of Natural Resources, Lands-Ted Smith; MineraJs- Glenn Harrison 1030 Department of Corrrnunity and Regional Affairs; Ed Busch, Lamar Cotten 1330 Department of Transportation; Jay Bergstrand. 1500 National Park Service; Terry Carlstrom, Carl Stoddard -·-----Wednesday, 14 October, 1981 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 0900 State Parks; Jack Wiles, Doug Reger and others SUSlTNA FILE P5700 1030 Corps of Engineers; L/C Perkins . I I. 30 1330 DPS, Fish & Wildlife Protection; Col. Stickles and others, I SEQUS!'lC~ NO. . ;::; r:J-/C'~ t I . 1500 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Keith Baya, Mel Munson andl~i~th~s! , 'i n · c: ~ ;:: ~ < :-: $? ;:: t ~ . t.' =: ~ • -= < !.:' ,;:... = Thursday, 15 October, 1981 ·-· ·--.. ~-· -·· 0900 1030 1330 1500 . ~--·-· Bureau of Land Management; Bob Ward, John Rego and others ' : ~ --...,_: -.. -- ~. ·~ i ' . ·---~ i -l/"t! l h --• ·A~... , -·-:'ll,l ~----·. --·-· ...... '"--l ~ Alaska Department of·Fish and Game; Carl Yanagawa NOAA, Marine Fisheries; Ron Morriss Brad Smith !. ,'") ' • ,--~·-• t n < -:;-.-~ --· • ' * • ; ~-j-, E :·! .--! --·- 1-:-; <! ·i r -. -- t • - U.S,. Department of Energy; Fred Chiei Friday, 16 October, 1981 ~'"-"-1 .-..... , .~~~· -. - it :r·.''-' 0900 1030 1330 1600 ,..._,_ --l ! ' :.1 ~~ '. l . Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center; Bill Wilslfl]-.. ::..--· t-·-. ,· ~ ·~. --- Alaska Department Environmental Conservation; Bob Martin }-~~·~~y_ _: l vi"" I )1 •'\1 ., ' I \-<-·::" I Division of Natural Resources; Al Carson Mat-Su Borough Planning Department; Rodney Schulling 1 -j-; . : ---:1 _! -t'::?./ t_J J ~!LE I