HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa84Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Scoping document 1, Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC project
no. P-14241-000
SuWa 84
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
AEA-identified category, if specified:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Documents
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 84
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
Washington, D.C. : Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of Energy Projects, Division of Hydropower Licensing,
[2012]
Date published:
February 2012
Published for:
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Document type:
Pagination:
3, iii, 38 p.
Related work(s):
Scoping document 2, Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project,
FERC project no. P-14241-000 (SuWa 85)
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Notes:
All reports in the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS-
produced cover page and an ARLIS-assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports
are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna-watana/
- 1 -
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20426
February 23, 2012
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Project No. 14241-000 – Alaska
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
Alaska Energy Authority
Subject: Scoping Document 1 for Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
(No-14241-000).
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is reviewing
the Pre-Application Document (PAD) submitted by Alaska Energy Authority
(AEA) on December 29, 2011, for the licensing of the proposed Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14314-000) (project). The proposed project
would be located in the Matanuska Susitna Borough on the Susitna River at river
mile 184 above the river mouth, approximately halfway between Anchorage and
Fairbanks, Alaska. The small, unincorporated Native village of Cantwell, in the
Denali Borough, is located about 45 air miles west of the proposed project dam,
while Anchorage is approximately 180 air miles generally south of the project
area. The project would occupy federal lands currently administered by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) but selected for potential acquisition by the
State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act, state lands administered by the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and private lands owned by Alaska
Native Corporations and others.
Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as
amended, Commission staff intends to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for the project, which will be used by the Commission to determine whether,
and under what conditions, to issue a license for the project. To support and assist
our environmental review, we are beginning the public scoping process to ensure
that all pertinent issues are identified and analyzed, and that the EIS is thorough
and balanced.
We invite your participation in the scoping process, and are circulating the
attached Scoping Document 1 (SD1) to provide you with information on the
project; to solicit comments and suggestions on our preliminary list of issues and
alternatives to be addressed in the EIS; and to request any studies that would help
provide a framework for collecting pertinent information on the resource areas
under consideration necessary for the Commission to prepare the EIS for the
project.
- 2 -
Commission staff will hold scoping meetings for the project to receive
input on the scope of the EIS. These scoping meetings will be on March 26-29,
2012 at the time and place described below.
DATE TIME PLACE
Monday, March 26, 2012 6pm – 10 pm Loussac Library
3600 Denali Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9am – 2pm Loussac Library
3600 Denali Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Tuesday, March 27, 2012 6pm – 10pm Menard Memorial Sports
Center
1001 S. Mack Drive
Wasilla, AK 99654
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6pm – 10pm Su-Valley Jr/Sr High School
42728 S. Parks Highway
Sunshine, AK 99676
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6pm – 9pm Caribou Café Banquet Room
187 Glenn Highway
Glennallen, AK 99588
Thursday, March 29, 2012 6pm – 10pm Westmark Hotel &
Conference Center
813 Noble Street
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Thursday, March 29, 2012 6pm – 10pm Cantwell Community Hall
Milepost 133.1 on the Denali
Hwy.
Cantwell, AK 99729
All interested agencies, local governments, non-governmental
organizations, Alaska Native entities, and individuals are invited to attend any or
all of the meetings. More information on the scoping meetings is available in the
enclosed SD1.
The SD1 is being distributed to the Commission’s official mailing list (see
section 10 of the attached SD1). If you wish to be added to or removed from the
Commission’s official mailing list, please send your request by email to
efiling@ferc.gov or by mail to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426. All
written or emailed requests must specify your wish to be removed or added to the
mailing list and must clearly identify the following on the first page: Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project No. 14241.
- 3 -
Please review the SD1 and, if you wish to provide comments, follow the
instructions in section 6.0 Request for Information and Studies. If you have any
questions about the SD1, the scoping process, or how Commission staff will
develop the EIS for this project, please contact David Turner at (202) 502-6091 or
David.Turner@ferc.gov. Additional information about the Commission’s
licensing process and the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project may be obtained
from our website, http://www.ferc.gov. The deadline for filing comments is
April 27, 2012. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
Enclosure: Scoping Document
Cc: Mailings List
SCOPING DOCUMENT 1
SUSITNA-WATANA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC PROJECT NO. P-14241-000
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Office of Energy Projects
Division of Hydropower Licensing
Washington, D.C.
February 2012
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
2.0 SCOPING ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Purpose of Scoping ....................................................................................... 3
2.2 Comments, Scoping Meetings, and Site Visit .............................................. 4
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ......................................... 6
3.1 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................. 6
3.2 AEA’s Proposed Action ................................................................................ 6
3.2.1 Project Facilities .................................................................................... 6
3.2.2 Project Operation ................................................................................... 8
3.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ....................................................... 8
3.3 Alternatives to Proposed Action ................................................................. 10
4.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND SITE-SPECIFIC
RESOURCE ISSUES ............................................................................................ 10
4.1 Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................... 10
4.1.1 Resources that could be Cumulatively Affected ................................. 10
4.1.2 Geographic Scope ................................................................................ 10
4.1.3 Temporal Scope ................................................................................... 11
4.2 Project-Specific Resource Issues ................................................................ 11
4.2.1 Geologic and Soils Resources ............................................................. 11
4.2.2 Water Resources .................................................................................. 12
4.2.3 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................... 12
4.2.4 Terrestrial Resources ........................................................................... 14
4.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................... 15
4.2.6 Recreation Resources and Land Use ................................................... 15
4.2.7 Aesthetics............................................................................................. 16
4.2.8 Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 16
4.2.9 Socioeconomic Resources ................................................................... 16
4.2.10 Air Quality ........................................................................................... 17
4.2.11 Developmental Resources ................................................................... 17
5.0 PROPOSED STUDIES ............................................................................... 17
6.0 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND STUDIES ................................. 20
7.0 EIS PREPARATION SCHEDULE ............................................................ 22
8.0 PROPOSED EIS OUTLINE ....................................................................... 24
9.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ............................. 26
10.0 MAILING LIST .......................................................................................... 27
iii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................ 35
APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................ 36
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Susitna-Watana Project Area ................................................................... 2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. AEA’s initial study proposals for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project .................................................................................................................... 17
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC),
under the authority of the Federal Power Act (FPA)1, may issue licenses for terms
ranging from 30 to 50 years for the construction, operation, and maintenance of
non-federal hydroelectric projects. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) filed its
Notice of Intent (NOI) and Pre-Application Document (PAD) for the Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project P-14241-000, on December 29, 2011, and will use
the Commission’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) to develop its license
application.
The proposed project is located in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough on the
Susitna River at river mile 184 above the river mouth, approximately halfway
between Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska (Figure 1). The small, unincorporated
Native village of Cantwell, in the Denali Borough, is located about 45 air miles
west of the proposed project dam, while Anchorage is approximately 180 air miles
generally south of the project area. The project would occupy federal lands
currently administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) but
selected by the State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act, state lands
administered by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and private lands
owned by Alaska Native Corporations and others.
The proposed project would consist of a 700- to 800-foot-high by about
2,700 foot-long, concrete gravity or rock-filled dam that would create an
approximately 39-mile-long reservoir with a surface area of 20,000 acres and
2,400,000 acre-feet of usable storage capacit y. Optimization studies are ongoing,
but the capacity of the project is expected to be between 600 and 800 megawatts
(MW) depending on results of future updates to the Railbelt Integrated Resource
Plan. An approximately 40- to 50-mile-long road and transmission line corridor
would be constructed along one of three alternative routes (i.e., Chulitna, Gold
Creek, or Denali). The project would be operated in a load-following mode such
that firm power is maximized during the critical winter months of November
through April to meet the Railbelt utility load requirements. The estimated annual
generation would be 2,500,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh). A detailed description of
the project is provided in section 3.0.
1 16 U.S.C. §§ 791(a)-825(r)(2006).
2
Figure 1. Susitna-Watana Project Area
3
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)2, the
Commission’s regulations, and other applicable laws require that we
independently evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed project and
reasonable alternatives. Based on the Commission staff's analysis of the issues,
staff will prepare a environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes and
evaluates the probable effects, including an assessment of the cumulative effects,
if any, of the proposed action and alternatives. The EIS preparation will be
supported by a scoping process to ensure identification and analysis of all
pertinent issues.
2.0 SCOPING
Scoping Document 1 (SD1) is intended to advise all participants as to the
proposed scope of the EIS and to seek additional information pertinent to this
analysis. This document contains a brief description of: (1) the scoping process
and schedule for the development of the EIS; (2) the proposed action(s) and
alternatives; (3) preliminary identification of environmental issues and proposed
studies; (4) a request for comments and information; (5) a proposed EIS outline;
and (6) a preliminary list of comprehensive plans that are applicable to the
proposed project.
2.1 Purpose of Scoping
Scoping is the process used to identify issues, concerns, and opportunities
associated with a proposed action. The process, according to NEPA, should be
conducted early in the planning stage of the project. The purposes of the scoping
process are as follows:
invite participation of federal, state, and local resource agencies,
Alaska Native entities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and
the public to identify significant environmental and socioeconomic
issues related to the proposed project;
determine the resource issues, depth of analysis, and significance of
issues to be addressed in the EIS;
identify how the project would or would not contribute to cumulative
impacts in the project area;
2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (Pub. L. 91-190.42
U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975,
Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), Sept. 13, 1982).
4
identify reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that should be
evaluated in the EIS;
solicit, from participants, available information on the resources at
issue, including existing information and study needs; and
determine the resource areas and potential issues that do not require
detailed analysis during review of the project.
2.2 Comments, Scoping Meetings, and Site Visit
During the preparation of the EIS, there will be several opportunities for the
resource agencies, local governments, Alaska Native entities, NGOs, and the
public to provide input. These opportunities occur:
during the public scoping process and study plan meetings, when we
solicit oral and written comments regarding scope of issues and
analysis for the EIS;
in response to the Commission’s notice that the project is ready for
environmental analysis; and
after issuance of the draft EIS when we solicit written comments on the
EIS.
In addition to written comments solicited by this SD1, Commission staff
will hold seven public scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project. A daytime
meeting will focus on concerns of the resource agencies, NGOs, and Indian tribes,
and the evening meetings will focus on receiving input from the public. We invite
all interested agencies, local governments, Alaska Native entities, NGOs, and
individuals to attend one or more of these meetings to assist us in identifying the
scope of environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EIS. The times and
locations of the 2012 scoping meetings are as follows:
DATE TIME PLACE
Monday, March 26, 2012 6pm – 10 pm Loussac Library
3600 Denali Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9am – 2pm Loussac Library
3600 Denali Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Tuesday, March 27, 2012 6pm – 10pm Menard Memorial Sports
5
Center
1001 S. Mack Drive
Wasilla, AK 99654
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6pm – 10pm Su-Valley Jr/Sr High School
42728 S. Parks Highway
Sunshine, AK 99676
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6pm – 9pm Caribou Café Banquet Room
187 Glenn Highway
Glennallen, AK 99588
Thursday, March 29, 2012 6pm – 10pm Westmark Hotel &
Conference Center
813 Noble Street
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Thursday, March 29, 2012 6pm – 10pm Cantwell Community Hall
Milepost 133.1 on the Denali
Hwy.
Cantwell, AK 99729
In order to be able to visit the site in a snow and ice free condition, the
Commission staff previously conducted a site visit with AEA and interested
parties on August 29, 2011.
The scoping meetings will be recorded by a court reporter, and all
statements (verbal and written) will become part of the Commission’s public
record for the project. Before each meeting, all individuals who attend, especially
those who intend to make statements, will be asked to sign in and clearly identify
themselves for the record. Interested parties who choose not to speak or who are
unable to attend any of the scoping meetings may provide written comments and
information to the Commission as described in section 6.0. These meetings are
posted on the Commission’s calendar located on the internet at
www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx, along with other related
information.
Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and
concerns as they pertain to the project. It is advised that participants review the
PAD to prepare for the scoping meetings. A copy of the PAD is available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission’s website (www.ferc.gov), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter docket
number P-14241 to access the documents. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for
TTY, (202) 502-8659. A copy of the PAD is also available for inspection and
reproduction from AEA. Please contact:
6
Emily Ford
Alaska Energy Authority
411 West 4th Avenue, Suite 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
907-771-5955
Eford@aidea.org
Following the scoping meetings and comment period, all issues raised will
be reviewed and decisions will be made about the level of analysis needed to
address the issues. If preliminary analysis shows that any issues presented in this
scoping document have little potential for causing significant effects, the issue(s)
will be identified and the reasons for not providing a more detailed analysis will be
given in the EIS.
If we receive no substantive comments on SD1, then we will not prepare a
Scoping Document 2 (SD2). Otherwise, we will issue SD2 to address any
substantial comments received. The SD2 will be issued for informational
purposes only; no response will be required. The EIS will address
recommendations and input received during the scoping process.
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with NEPA, our environmental analysis will consider the
following alternatives, at a minimum: (1) the no-action alternative; (2) AEA’s
proposed action; and (3) alternatives to the proposed action that may be identified.
3.1 No-Action Alternative
The no-action alternative is license denial. Under the no-action alternative,
the project would not be built and environmental resources in the project area
would not be affected.
3.2 AEA’s Proposed Action
3.2.1 Project Facilities
The proposed project would be located at river mile 184, which is roughly
90 river miles northeast of the community of Talkeetna. The proposed project
would consist of the following: (1) a 700- to 800-foot-high, approximately 2,700-
foot-long, earth embankment, roller compacted concrete or concrete faced rockfill
dam; (2) a 39-mile-long reservoir with a surface area of 20,000 acres and
2,400,000 acre-feet of usable storage capacity at a normal water surface elevation
7
of 2,000 feet mean sea level;3 (3) a powerhouse with a minimum of three
generating units and a total installed capacity of 600 to 800 MW; (4) a 40- to 50-
mile-long road and 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line corridor that would be
constructed along one of three alternative routes (i.e., Chulitna, Gold Creek, or
Denali); and (5) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation would be
2,500,000 GWh.
Access to the project would be via a new road and by air. The access roads
and transmission facilities would be located in the same corridor to the extent
practicable. Three corridors are currently being evaluated: Chulitna, Gold Creek,
and Denali Highway. The Chulitna and Gold Creek Corridors would
accommodate east-west running transmission lines and a road running roughly
parallel to the Susitna River on the north and south sides of the river respectively.
A transmission line and a road from the project in this configuration would extend
between 45 and 50 miles and connect to the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie
Transmission line and the Alaska Railroad near the Chulitna or Gold Creek rail
stops.4 If the Denali Corridor is selected as the preferred access route, a 44-mile-
long road would be constructed from the project north to the existing Denali
Highway.5 The Denali Corridor would also accommodate transmission and road
facilities. The transmission line would continue east along the existing Denali
Highway to connect to the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Transmission lines near
Cantwell. If the Denali corridor were used for road access, railhead facilities
would likely be developed near the Cantwell rail stop. An approximately 8,000-
foot long airstrip, with helicopter pad, would also be permanently constructed at
the project site to accommodate the transport of construction personnel as well as
supplies.
A temporary, fenced construction camp capable of housing and supporting
a peak construction workforce of 1,000 would be constructed at the project site.
The camp is currently proposed to be constructed on the north bank of the Susitna
River near Deadman’s Creek. Deadman’s Creek would provide potable water and
fire protection for the camp and work areas, with a backup system of groundwater
wells. Water supply for the camp would be treated to meet U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and state water quality requirements. A wastewater collection
3 Generation optimization studies may lead to AEA proposing to operate the
project at a normal maximum reservoir elevation of 2,100 feet which would cause
the reservoir to be proportionately longer and have a greater surface area.
4 For both the Chulitna and Gold Creek Corridors alternatives, the new access
roads would end at the railroad and would not connect to an existing public road.
5 The new road would start at milepost 113.7 on the Denali Highway. If needed to
accommodate increased construction traffic, AEA would improve about 20 miles
of the Denali Highway near Cantwell.
8
and treatment system would be constructed to serve the camp. Following
construction, the camp would be removed except for those facilities needed to
support smaller permanent residential and operation and maintenance facilities.
3.2.2 Project Operation
The proposed project will operate in a load-following mode to maximize
firm energy during the critical winter months of November through April. To
meet this objective, the reservoir would be drafted on a daily and seasonal basis.
The reservoir would be drafted annually by an average of about 120 ft. Maximum
annual drawdown could be up to 150 foot occurring once in 50 years. In most
years, the reservoir would reach its lowest levels by mid-May, and would refill by
mid-August.
Downstream flows at the project site are expected to vary on a seasonal,
weekly, and daily basis as dictated by minimum instream flow requirements
(which have yet to be determined) and load requirements of the railbelt utilities.
During the peak winter months, load following would result in discharges over a
24-hour period typically ranging from a low of 3,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to
a high of 10,000 cfs, and average about 6,700 cfs. During the late summer when
the reservoir is full, discharges through the powerhouse may be as high as 14,500
cubic feet per second (at maximum plant output based on a 600 MW project) to
prevent or minimize spill and maximize energy generation.
Minimum instream flow releases to maintain aquatic habitats downstream
have not been determined yet. These flows would be made through either the
powerhouse or low level outlet works. With the project in place, regulated peak
summer flows downstream of Watana dam at Gold Creek would be reduced and
winter flows would be increased in comparison to the natural flow regime.
3.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures
AEA plans to develop measures to protect and enhance environmental
resources affected by construction and operation of the project through the
planned licensing studies and through agency and stakeholder collaboration. AEA
has thus far identified the following measures to protect and enhance
environmental resources of the project area:
Geologic and Soil Resources
Develop a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan to prevent or minimize
adverse effects on water quality of project waters.
9
Water Resources
Develop a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan to
minimize the potential for chemical spills during project construction.
Construct the project with selective withdrawal facilities and operate the
project to meet water temperature targets in the Susitna River
downstream of the project.
Aquatic Resources
None proposed at this time.
Terrestrial Resources
Minimize the project footprint and vegetation impacts.
Dispose of excavated materials within the impoundment area.
Discourage or restrict off-road vehicle use in the project area to
minimize trail propagation and erosion.
Develop a restoration plan with revegetation measures to restore
construction areas.
Avoid wetlands to the maximum extent possible, and rehabilitate
temporary impacts on wetlands to the maximum extent possible
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
There are no federally listed threatened or endangered species or critical
habitats that occur in the project area. The Cook Inlet beluga whale is an
endangered species with designated critical habitat in Upper Cook Inlet, which is
located 184 river miles downstream of the proposed dam site. No specific
measures are proposed for this species at this time.
Aesthetic Resources
Develop a comprehensive Site Restoration and Aesthetics Plan to
minimize adverse effects on the landscape.
Recreation Resources
Develop a Recreation Plan, which will include proposals for new
recreation facilities and measures to manage recreation use and
resources of the project area. Proposed recreation facilities are likely to
include: roads and parking areas, scenic overlooks, directional and
10
informational signage, boat launches, picnic areas, campgrounds, hiking
trails, fishing piers, interpretive exhibits and programming, and a visitor
center.
Cultural Resources
Develop subsistence resource protection, mitigation and enhancement
measures in consultation with the appropriate agencies, Alaska Native
entities, and other interested parties.
Develop a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) to protect
significant cultural resources during project construction and operation.
3.3 Alternatives to Proposed Action
Commission staff will consider and assess all alternative recommendations
for location or other changes to the proposed project, as well as protection,
mitigation, and enhancement measures identified by the Commission, other
agencies, Alaska Native entities, NGOs, and the public.
4.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND SITE-SPECIFIC
RESOURCE ISSUES
4.1 Cumulative Effects
According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for
implementing NEPA (50 C.F.R. 1508.7), a cumulative effect is the effect on the
environment that results from the incremental effect of the action when added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what
agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other land
and water development activities.
4.1.1 Resources that could be Cumulatively Affected
Based on information in the PAD and preliminary staff analysis, we have
not identified any resources that may be cumulatively affected by the proposed
construction and operation of the project because we have not identified any other
past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions that may affect resources in
the basin.
4.1.2 Geographic Scope
11
If any such resources are identified through scoping, the geographic scope
of the analysis would be defined by the physical limits or boundaries of the
proposed action’s effect on the resources. Because the proposed action would
affect the resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary.
For any resources that participants recommend we analyze for cumulative effects,
we are also asking them to recommend the geographic scope that they think is
appropriate.
4.1.3 Temporal Scope
If any such resource is identified through scoping, the temporal scope of
our cumulative effects analysis in the EIS will include a discussion of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and their effects on each
resource that could be cumulatively affected. Based on the potential term of a
license, the temporal scope will look 30 to 50 years into the future, concentrating
on the effect on the resource from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The
historical discussion will, by necessity, be limited to the amount of available
information for each resource area. The quality and quantity of information,
however, diminishes as we analyze resources further away in time from the
present.
4.2 Project-Specific Resource Issues
In this section, we present a preliminary list of environmental issues to be
addressed in the EIS. We identified these issues, which are listed by resource
area, by reviewing the PAD and the Commission’s record for the project. This list
is not intended to be exhaustive or final, but contains those issues raised to date
that could have substantial effects. After the scoping process is completed, we
will review this list and determine the appropriate level of analysis needed to
address each issue in the EIS.
4.2.1 Geologic and Soils Resources
Effects of project construction activities on soil erosion and
sedimentation (e.g., dam and hydropower generation facilities,
transmission lines, access roads, airstrip, construction camp, borrow
areas, disposal areas, staging areas, etc).
Effects of project construction and operation on sediment deposition in
the reservoir, including the rate of sediment deposition and the effect of
sediment deposition on the useful life of the reservoir.
Effects of project operations on soil movement, shoreline erosion,
tributary mouth migration, and shoreline stability within the reservoir
inundation zone.
12
Effects of project operations on sediment transport, streambed material
particle size distribution, and stream morphology in the middle and
lower reaches of the Susitna River.6
Potential seismic effects on the proposed dam and other project
facilities, including related effects on public safety and property
downstream.
4.2.2 Water Resources
Effects of project operation (e.g., minimum instream flow releases;
flood, pulse, and base flow conditions; peaking operations, etc.) on the
existing flow regime of the middle and lower reaches of the Susitna
River, including the timing, magnitude, and duration of flows.
Effects of project operation on ice processes within the reservoir and the
middle and lower reaches of the Susitna River.
Effects of project construction activities on water quality (temperature,
turbidity, total dissolved solids, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, pH,
metals, and chemical/nutrient characteristics) in the Susitna River and
affected tributaries
Effects of reservoir filling and project operations on water quality
(temperature, turbidity, total dissolved solids, suspended solids,
dissolved oxygen, pH, metals, and chemical/nutrient characteristics)
within the reservoir and the middle and lower reaches of the Susitna
River.
Effects of spillway operations on total dissolved gas concentrations in
the middle reach of the Susitna River.
Effects of reservoir inundation on the potential for mercury methylation
and subsequent bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and wildlife.
4.2.3 Aquatic Resources
Reservoir
Effects of reservoir operations (e.g., daily and seasonal fluctuations) on
resident fish migration and habitat in the reservoir and in reservoir
tributaries.
6 The middle reach refers to the mainstem Susitna River from the proposed
dam site at river mile (RM) 184 downstream to the three rivers confluence area at
RM 98. The lower reach refers to the mainstem Susitna River from RM 98
downstream to RM 0 at the confluence with Cook Inlet.
13
Effects of reservoir inundation and permanent change from riverine to
reservoir habitat on aquatic habitat; primary production; and fish and
macroinvertebrate distribution, species composition, and abundance.
Effects of project operations on reservoir fish entrainment and mortality.
Susitna River
Effects of project operation (e.g., daily and seasonal flow fluctuations,
water temperature, etc.) on primary production and macroinvertebrate
species distribution, composition, and abundance in the middle and
lower reach of the Susitna River.
Effects of modification of the existing flow regime on off-channel
habitat (i.e., side channels and sloughs) connectivity with the mainstem
Susitna River throughout the middle and lower reaches, and
corresponding effects on fish access to off-channel habitats.
Effects of changes in streambed material composition and stream
morphology on aquatic habitat in the middle and lower reaches of the
Susitna River (e.g., changes to streambed material particle size
distribution, stream morphology, riparian vegetation characteristics, and
distribution and characteristics of off-channel habitats).
Effects of project operation on fish access to tributary habitats in the
middle and lower reaches of the Susitna River.
Effects of project construction and operation on the recruitment and
deposition of large woody debris within the middle and lower reaches of
the Susitna River.
Effects of project construction and operation on resident and
anadromous fish migrations, including anadromous salmonid access
through Devils Canyon, and any potential measures to minimize adverse
effects (e.g., fish passage).
Effects of modification to the existing flow regime on physical aquatic
habitat availability for spawning and rearing resident and anadromous
fish species in mainstem and off-channel habitats throughout the middle
and lower Susitna River.
Effects of modifications to the existing flow regime, sediment transport,
ice processes, channel morphology, water quality, etc. on anadromous
fish spawning, rearing, and migration habitats (i.e., mainstem and off-
channel) in the middle and lower reach of the Susitna River.
Effects of modifications to the existing flow regime, sediment transport,
ice processes, channel morphology, water quality, etc., on resident fish
species distribution, composition, and abundance in the middle and
lower reaches of the Susitna River.
14
Effects of modifications to water temperatures on the distribution of fish
communities, including the invasive northern pike.
Effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance activities on
the potential for introduction of invasive aquatic macroinvertebrates and
fish species.
4.2.4 Terrestrial Resources
Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation from project construction and
operation on the availability, use, and productivity of wildlife habitats,
including key habitat features such as den sites and mineral licks.7
Effects of the project features (i.e., reservoir, access roads, camp site,
etc.), fluctuating reservoir levels, ice conditions, and new patterns of
human activities on wildlife movement, including any physical and
behavioral blockage and alteration of wildlife movement patterns and
access to important habitats (e.g., moose wintering range, caribou
foraging and calving areas, etc.).
Effects of project-related fluctuating water levels and ice conditions in
the reservoir and downstream river reaches on wildlife mortality rates,
with an emphasis on big game species.
Effects of improved access on levels of human presence and
disturbances, hunting and trapping, vehicular use, and noise, on wildlife
distribution, habitat use, and abundance in the project area.
Effects of vegetation removal, altered hydrologic regimes, and
construction and operation activities on bald and golden eagle roosting,
nesting, rearing, and foraging habitats and forage availability.
Effects of vegetation removal and disturbance associated construction
and operation activities on nesting, rearing, and foraging habitats of
migratory “bird species of concern.”8
7 A major focus of the analysis will be on big game species (moose, caribou,
Dall’s sheep, black and brown bears), game birds (ptarmigan, grouse, etc.), wolf,
furbearers (beaver, marten, river otter, lynx, and red fox), and small game
(snowshoe hare, ptarmigan, and grouse) due to their ecological, management,
recreational, and subsistence values; however, other wildlife (e.g., small
mammals, shorebirds, shorebirds, seabirds, amphibians, etc.) will be examined as
well.
8 As stipulated in the March 30, 2011 Memorandum of Understanding between the
Commission and Interior, migratory bird species of concern in this case will
include: (1) species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as birds of
conservation concern, (2) priority migratory species identified in various bird
conservation plans such Alaska’s Comprehensive Wildlife ConservationPlan, (3)
species or populations of waterfowl of high or moderately continental importance,
15
Effects of the project transmission lines on avian collision and
electrocution.
Effects of inundation and water level fluctuations, construction
activities, changes in solar radiation and temperature moderation, and
erosion and dust deposition on the distribution and composition of
vegetation and wetland communities within and adjacent to the
proposed reservoir, transmission line and access roads, and other project
features.
Effects of project construction and operation activities on the
introduction and spread of new or existing invasive plants on vegetation
communities and wildlife habitats.
Effects of altered hydrologic regimes on wetlands, wetland functions,
riparian vegetation, and riparian succession patterns in the middle and
lower reaches of the Susitna River.
Effects of project construction and operation on rare plant populations.
4.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Effects on the Endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale from any changes in
habitat and prey base at the Susitna River mouth.
4.2.6 Recreation Resources and Land Use
Effects of altered hydrologic regimes and ice cover on timing and extent
of river access and navigation within and downstream of the reservoir.
Effects of project construction and altered hydrologic regimens on
fishing opportunities, including availability of fish, fishing access, and
quality of experience.
Effects of project construction and altered hydrologic regimens on
potential whitewater boating opportunities, including access and quality
of experience.
Effects of the project features (i.e., reservoir and access roads) on
hunting and trapping opportunities and on non-consumptive uses (bird-
watching, hiking, camping, boating, etc.) in the vicinity and downstream
of the project reservoir, including availability of the resource, access,
and quality of experience.
Effects of project construction and operation activities (e.g. noise, dust,
access, recreation activities of construction workers, etc.,) on recreation.
Effects of changes in land use and ownership on public access and
recreation.
and (4) game birds of management concern.
16
Effects of project construction on the eligibility of Brushkana Creek and
the Susitna River for possible future designation as a wild and scenic
river.
Consistency of the project with any applicable land use and
management plans.
4.2.7 Aesthetics
Effects of project construction and operation activities (e.g. equipment
noise, blasting, dust, lighting, etc.,) and the presence and contrast of
project features (dam, transmission lines, construction camp and
permanent village) on aesthetic resources, including scenic resources
and the soundscape.
4.2.8 Cultural Resources
Effects of project construction (e.g., soil disturbing activities);
inundation and reservoir fluctuations; disturbance, looting, or vandalism
from improved site access; and changes in the surrounding historic
landscape on cultural resource sites, including those determined eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Effects of the presence of project facilities and construction, operation,
and maintenance activities and increased human use on traditional
spiritual areas and other traditional uses (Traditional Cultural
Properties) within the Area of Project Effect (APE).
4.2.9 Socioeconomic Resources
Effects of project construction and operation on local and regional
employment and income.
Effects of project construction and operation on tourism in the Susitna
River basin, including commercial opportunities related to fishing,
hunting, boating, guiding and other recreation.
Effects of construction traffic and the construction work force on local
government facilities and services (e.g., health and human services, law
enforcement, emergency services, education, etc) and housing.
Effects of project construction on local and regional transportation
systems (both passenger and freight), including highway, rail and air
transport.
Effects of changes in fish and wildlife populations and their normal
locations and distribution patterns due to project construction and
17
operation on the availability and use (including harvest patterns and
timing) of subsistence resources.
Effects of use and occupancy of project lands on access to subsistence
resources and traditional subsistence activities.
4.2.10 Air Quality
Effects of project construction and operation on air quality in the region.
Effects of project construction and operation on greenhouse gas
emissions.
4.2.11 Developmental Resources
Effects of the proposed project and alternatives, including any
protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures on the economics of
the project.
5.0 PROPOSED STUDIES
AEA has proposed to develop studies to address the resource issues
summarized in Table 1. AEA is actively working with resource groups to develop
these studies and others that may be recommended by the groups. AEA is also
voluntarily working with resource groups to gather data in 2012 before the
Commission’s formal approval of the study plan to help refine study needs. A
formal study plan will be developed based on the Commission’s identification of
issues identified in this SD1 and, as necessary, an SD2.
Table 1. AEA’s initial study proposals for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project (Source: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project PAD).
RESOURCE AREA STUDY
Geology and
Soils/Geomorphology
Geomorphology Study
2012 Geomorphic Study Components:
-Determine Bedload and Suspended Sediment
Load by Size Fraction at Tsusena Creek, Gold
Creek, and Sunshine Gage Stations
-Replicate the 1980s Middle River Aerial
Photography Geomorphic Assessment
-Document the Formation of River Ice
Downstream of Watana Dam
Water Resources Project Operations Flow Routing Model (Hec
ResSim)
18
River Ice Study
Water Quality Impacts Study
2012 Water Quality Study Components:
-Determine the Applicability of the
Temperature Data Collected During the 1980s
Studies and Use of SNTEMP and DYRESM
Temperature Models
Fish and Aquatic Resources Fish Abundance and Distribution Study
Upper River Fish Study
Productivity Study
Instream Flow Study
2012 Fish and Aquatic Study Components:
-Synthesis of Existing Fish Population Data
-Susitna River Salmon Run Apportionment
-Middle River Habitat Utilization Study
-Determination of Chinook Salmon and
Presence above Devils Canyon
-Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Anadromous Prey
and Habitat Analysis
Wildlife Resources Big Game Study
Furbearer Study
Small Game Mammal and Upland Gamebird
Study
Harvest Study for Big Game, Furbearers, Small
Game Mammals, and Upland Gamebirds
Eagle and Raptor Study
Waterbirds, Seabirds, and Waterfowl Study
Landbird and Shorebird Study
Non-Game Species of Conservation Concern
Study
2012 Wildlife Resource Study Components:
-Wildlife Habitat Use and Movement Study
-Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Study
-Past and Current Big Game and Furbearer
Harvest Study
-Eagle Nests and Raptor Nest Study
Botanical Resources Vegetation Mapping Study
Wetland-Riparian Study
Rare Plant Study
Noxious Weed Study
19
2012 Botanical Resources Study Components:
-Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping
-Wetland Mapping
-Riparian Study
Recreational Resources &
Land Use
Recreation and Land Use Studies
2012 Recreation Analyses to be Updated:
-Reasonably foreseeable future recreation
facilities
-Commercial recreation use informal surveys
-Current and future recreation resource supply
and demand of project vicinity
-Projected demand for recreation opportunities
in the project area
Land Use and Management Studies:
-Identification of all relevant comprehensive
plans and land management plans, and a
discussion of the project’s consistency with
each plan.
-Depiction of uses of land and resources
adjacent to the project that clearly delineate the
project boundary and boundaries of public
lands.
2012 Land Use and Management Studies:
-Title and Site Control Research
-GIS Base map updating
Aesthetics Aesthetics Resources Study
2012 Aesthetic Resource Study:
-Inventory BLM VRM designations
-Identify initial key viewing areas and key
viewpoints
Cultural Resources Site Location Data Studies
Site Location Modeling
Cultural Chronology Studies
Historic and Prehistoric Land Use Studies
Traditional Cultural Places/Sacred Sites Studies
Development of Historic Contexts/Evaluation
Criteria
Paleontology Studies
Development of Plans for Unanticipated
Discovery
2012 Cultural Resources Study:
-Pre-field data assessment and information
20
gathering and compilation
Subsistence Resources Collect Information on Current Subsistence
Harvests
Collect Information on Current Subsistence
Harvesters
Develop Subsistence Use Area Maps
Access Subsistence Summary Tabular Data
ANILCA Section 810 Analysis
Traditional Environmental Knowledge (TEK)
Documentation
Research Place Names
2012 Subsistence Resources Studies:
-Collect and analyze existing subsistence
information.
Socioeconomic Resources Quantify Potential Changes in the Size and
Location of the Population
Local Government Structure Studies:
-Update local government baseline to include
Denali Borough
-Update baseline to incorporate MSB
Community Councils
Population, Income, and Housing Study
Public Services and Facilities Study
Water and Wastewater, Solid Waste, Fire
Protection and Police Services Studies
Healthcare, Education and Fiscal Status
Analysis
Electricity and Energy Use Study
Air Quality Air Quality Study
Transportation Resources Road Studies
Rail Study
Aviation Study
6.0 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND STUDIES
We request federal, state, and local resource agencies, Alaska Native
entities, NGOs, and the public to forward to the Commission any information that
will assist us in conducting an accurate and thorough analysis of the project-
specific and cumulative effects of the Susitna-Watana Project. The types of
information requested include, but are not limited to:
21
information, quantitative data, or professional opinions that may help
define the geographical and temporal scope of the analysis (both site-
specific and cumulative effects), and that helps identify significant
environmental issues;
identification of, and information from, any other environmental
document or similar study (previous, on-going, or planned) relevant to
the proposed licensing of the Susitna-Watana Project;
existing information and any quantitative data that would help to
describe the past and present actions and effects of the project and other
developmental activities on environmental and socioeconomic
resources;
information that would help characterize existing environmental
conditions and habitats;
identification of any federal, state, or local resource plans, and any
future project proposals in the affected resource area, such as proposals
to construct or operate recreation areas, water diversions, timber harvest
activities, mining operations, or fish management programs;
documentation that the proposed project would or would not contribute
to cumulative adverse or beneficial effects on any resources.
Documentation can include, but need not be limited to, how the project
would interact with other projects in the area and other developmental
activities; study results; resource management policies; and reports from
federal and state agencies, local agencies, Alaska Native entities, NGOs,
and the public;
documentation of cumulative effects of basin-wide activities, including
the proposed project’s operation, on resources;
documentation that would support a conclusion that the project does or
does not contribute to adverse or beneficial effects on certain resources
and that such effects should therefore either be excluded from further
study or included for further consideration of cumulative effects.
Documentation should include, but need not be limited to: how the
proposed project would interact with other hydropower projects in the
area and other developmental and non-developmental activities; results
from studies; resource management policies; and reports from federal,
state, and local agencies and Alaska Native entities; and
22
study requests by federal and state agencies, local agencies, Alaska
Native entities, NGOs, and the public that would help provide a
framework for collecting pertinent information on the resource areas
under consideration necessary for the Commission to prepare the EIS
for the project.
All requests for studies filed with the Commission must meet the criteria
found in Appendix A: Study Plan Criteria.
The requested information, comments, and study requests should be
submitted in writing to the Commission no later than April 27, 2012. All filings
must clearly identify the following on the first page: Susitna-Watana Project (P-
14241-000). Scoping comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 C.F.R. 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission’s website
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp under the “e-filing” link. Commenters
can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using
the e-Comment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202)
502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven
copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426.
Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.
Any questions concerning the scoping meetings or how to file written
comments with the Commission should be directed to David Turner at (202) 502-
6091 or david.turner@ferc.gov. Additional information about the Commission’s
licensing process and the Susitna-Watana Project may be obtained from the
Commission’s website, www.ferc.gov.
7.0 EIS PREPARATION SCHEDULE
We intend to prepare a draft and final EIS (we show our preliminary
Outline in section 8). The draft EIS will be sent to all persons and entities on the
Commission's service and mailing lists for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project. The EIS will include recommendations for construction and operating
23
procedures, as well as environmental protection, mitigation, and enhancement
measures that should be part of any license issued by the Commission. All
recipients will then have 60 days to review the draft EIS and file written comments
with the Commission. All comments on the draft EIS filed with the Commission
will be considered in preparation of the final EIS.
24
The major milestones, including those for preparing the EIS, are as follows:
Major Milestone Target Date
Scoping Meetings March 2012
Comments on SD1 April 2012
SD 2 (if necessary) June 2012
License Application Filed September 2015
Ready for Environmental Analysis Notice Issued November 2015
Deadline for filing of Comments, Recommendations, and January 2016
Agency Terms and Conditions/Prescriptions
Draft EIS Issued July 2016
Comments on Draft EIS Due August 2016
Deadline for filing of Modified Agency Recommendations October 2016
Final EIS Issued January 2017
If Commission staff determines that there is a need for additional
information or additional studies, the issuance of the Ready for Environmental
Analysis notice could be delayed. If this occurs, all subsequent milestones would
be delayed by the time allowed for AEA to respond to the Commission’s request.
A copy of AEA’s process plan, which has a complete list of licensing milestones
for the project is attached as Appendix B to this SD1.
8.0 PROPOSED EIS OUTLINE
The preliminary outline for the EIS is as follows:
COVER SHEET
FOREWORD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF APPENDICES
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Application
1.2. Purpose of Action, Need for Power
1.3. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
1.3.1. Federal Power Act
1.3.1.1. Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions
25
1.3.1.2. Section 4(e) Conditions
1.3.1.3. Section 10(j) Conditions
1.3.2. Clean Water Act
1.3.3. Coastal Zone Management Act
1.3.4. Endangered Species Act
1.3.5. National Historic Preservation Act
1.3.6. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
1.3.7. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act
1.3.8. Other Regulatory Requirements
1.4. Public Review and Comment
1.4.1. Scoping
1.4.2. Interventions
1.4.3. Comments on the Application
1.4.4. Comments on the Draft EIS
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1. No-action Alternative
2.2. Applicant’s Proposed Action
2.2.1. Proposed Project Facilities
2.2.2. Proposed Project Operation
2.2.3. Proposed Environmental Measures
2.2.4. Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal-Mandatory Conditions
2.3. Staff Alternative
2.4. Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions
2.5. Other Alternatives (as appropriate)
2.6. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
3.1. General Description of the River Basin
3.2. Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis
3.2.1. Geographic Scope
3.2.2. Temporal Scope
3.3. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives
3.3.1. Geologic and Soil Resources
3.3.2. Water Resources
3.3.3. Aquatic Resources
3.3.4. Terrestrial Resources
3.3.5. Threatened and Endangered Species
3.3.6. Recreation and Land Use
3.3.7. Cultural Resources
3.3.8. Aesthetic Resources
3.3.9. Socioeconomics
26
3.3.10. Air Quality
3.4. No-Action Alternative
4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1. Power and Economic Benefits of the Project
4.2. Comparison of Alternatives
4.3. Cost of Environmental Measures
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Comparison of Alternatives
5.2. Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative
5.3. Unavoidable Adverse Effects
5.4. Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
5.5. Consistency with Comprehensive Plans
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS
APPENDICES
A. License Conditions Recommended by Staff
B. Response to Comments on Draft EIS
9.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. section 803(a)(2)(A), requires the
Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal
and state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a
waterway or waterways affected by a project. The staff has preliminarily
identified and reviewed the plans listed below that may be relevant to the Susitna-
Watana Project. Agencies are requested to review this list and inform the
Commission staff of any changes. If there are other comprehensive plans that
should be considered for this list that are not on file with the Commission, or if
there are more recent versions of the plans already listed, they can be filed for
consideration with the Commission according to 18 CFR 2.19 of the
Commission’s regulations. Please follow the instructions for filing a plan at
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/complan.pdf.
The following is a list of comprehensive plans currently on file with the
Commission that may be relevant to the project.
27
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Susitna Flats State Game Refuge, March
1988. Juneau, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 1985.
Susitna Basin area plan. Juneau, Alaska. June 1985. 440 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 1991.
Susitna Basin recreation rivers management plan. Anchorage, Alaska.
August 1991. 181 pp.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1998. Catalog of waters important for
spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fishes. November 1998.
Juneau, Alaska. Six volumes.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1998. Atlas to the catalog of waters
important for spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fishes.
November 1998. Juneau, Alaska. Six volumes.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Alaska's Outdoor Legacy: Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): 2009-2014.
Anchorage, Alaska.
Bureau of Land Management. 1981. South central Alaska water resources study:
Anticipating water and related land resource needs. Anchorage, Alaska.
October 1, 1981. 97 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational
fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
10.0 MAILING LIST
The list below is the Commission’s official mailing list for the Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14241). If you want to receive future
mailings for the Susitna-Watana Project and are not included in the list below,
please send your request by email to efiling@ferc.gov or by mail to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426.
All written and emailed requests to be added to the mailing list must clearly
identify the following on the first page: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project No.
14241-000. You may use the same method if requesting removal from the mailing
lists below.
28
Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to these or other pending
projects. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202)
502-8659.
FERC’s Mailing List for the Susitna-Watana Project No. 14241
Becky Long
Box 320
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Rachel Day
P.O. Box 921
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Robert Gerlach
13666 E 2nd St
P.O. Box 23
Talkeetna, AK 99676
John Strasenburgh
15406 E. Barge Dr.
P.O. Box 766
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Kevin Foster
Mile 230.7 Alaska Railroad
Talkeetna, AK 99676
James Ferguson
P.O. Box 15391
Fritz Creek, AK 99603-6391
Denis Ransy
P.O. Box 344
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Beth Pike
P.O. Box 968
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Frank Yadon
14152 E. Gliska Street
Talkeetna, AK 99676
William FitzGerald
15537 Cummings Road
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Robert Gerlach
13666 E 2nd St
P.O. Box 23
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Paul Roderick, President
Talkeetna Air Taxi
23125 Comsat Rd
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Ruth D. Wood
15406 E. Barge Dr.
Talkeetna, AK 99676
William Post
P.O. Box 271
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Michael Wood
P.O. Box 773
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Joseph Klauder
P.O. Box 396
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Constance Twigg
P.O. Box 266
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Sheryl Salasky
P.O. Box 196
Talkeetna, AK 99676
29
Robert Coleman, President
Susitna Community Co
HC 89 Box 8575
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Sharon Corsaro
Corsaro Creative Coaching
P.O. Box 255
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Louisa Yanes
Alaska Center for the Environment
807 G Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Lissa Hughes
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
830 College Road
Fairbanks, AK 99701
David Theriault, Legislative Director
Alaska Conservation Alliance
810 N St., Ste. 203
Anchorage, AK 99501
Wayne M Dyok, Project Manager Alaska
Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
Brett Swift
American Rivers, Inc., Et Al.
320 SW Stark Street Suite 412
Portland, OR 97204
Sara Fisher-Goad, Project Manager
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
Michael Swiger, Member
Alaska Energy Authority
1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
7th Floor
Washington, DC 20007
Thomas O'Keefe
PNW Stewardship Director
American Whitewater
3537 NE 87th St
Seattle, WA 98115
Harold Shepherd, President
The Center for Water Advocacy
P.O. Box 15332
Fritz Creek, AK 99603
Peg Foster, Secretary
Chase Community Council
P.O. Box 205
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Shawn Stankowitz, President
Trapper Creek Community Council
P.O. Box 13021
Trapper Creek, AK 99683
Bob Shavelson
Cook Inlet Keeper
P.O. Box 3269
Homer, AK 99603-3269
Cliff Earnes
Copper Country Alliance
HC 60 Box 306T
Copper Center, AK 99573
Charlie Loeb, President
Denali Citizens Council
PO Box 78
Denali Park, AK 99755
Jeremy Millen, Executive Director
Friends of Mat-Su
308 East Dahlia St
Palmer, AK 99645
Pat Lavin
National Wildlife Federation
750 W. 2nd Ave., Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
Susan Walker, Marine Resources Specialist
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service,
Alaska Region
P.O. Box 21668
Juneau, AK 99802-1668
Eric Rothwell, Hydrologist
NOAA Fisheries Service
Alaska Region
222 West Seventh Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99513
30
Thomas Meyer, General Counsel
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service,
Alaska Region
P.O. Box 21109
Juneau, AK 99801
Mary B. Goode, Admin. Assistant
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service,
Alaska Region
PO Box 21668
Juneau, AK 99802-1668
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Regional Office
1011 East Tudor MS 331
Anchorage, AK 99503
Office of Solicitor
U.S. Department of Interior
4230 University Dr, Ste. 300
Anchorage, AK 99508
Cassie Thomas
U.S. National Park Service
11081 Glazanof Drive
Room 108
Anchorage, AK 99507
John Darnell
U.S. National Park Service
Alaska Regional Office
240 West 5th Ave., Room 114
Anchorage, AK 99501
Coalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives
1 Main Street
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Joshua Sonkiss
1024 21st Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Sharon Montagnino, Chairperson
Talkeetna Community Council, Inc.
P.O. Box 608
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Ellen Wolf
Talkeetna Defense Fund
P.O. Box 371
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Brad Powell, Forest Supervisor
USDA Forest Service
Tongass National Forest Federal Building
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Karen Kelly, Executive Director
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
830 College Road
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Kathryn Miller
Trout Unlimited
227 SW Pine Street, Suite 200
Portland, OR 97204
Ken Lord, Attorney-Advisor
U.S. Department of Interior
4230 University Dr., Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99508
Tim Bristol
Trout Unlimited
419 6th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
Douglas Mutter
OEPC-Anchorage
1689 C Street, Room 119
Anchorage, AK 99501
31
Kirby Gilbert, Water Resources Planner
Alaska Energy Authority
MWH Americas Inc.
2353 130th Ave N.E., Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98005
Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance (USDOI)
Regional Environmental Office
3601 C St, #1100
Anchorage, AK 9950-5947
Governor of Alaska
Office of the Governor of Alaska
RE: FERC Projects
Office of the Governor of Alaska
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811-0001
Monte D Miller
ADFG Statewide Hydropower Coordinator
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Sport Fish/RTS
333 Raspberry Rd.
Anchorage, AK 99518-1565
John Burke, General Manager
SSRAA
14 Borch Street
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Sharon Montagnino, Chairperson
Talkeetna Community Council, Inc.
P.O. Box 608
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Regulatory Division Chief
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CEPOA-RD
Post Office Box 6898
JBER, Alaska 99506-6898
Frances E Mann, Branch Chief
Conservation Planning
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
605 W. 4th Ave., Room G-61
Anchorage, AK 99501
Michael Buntjer
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
605 West 4th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
Ann Rapport
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
605 West 4th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service,
Alaska Region
222 West Seventh Ave
5th Floor
Anchorage, AK 99513
Corinne Smith
Mat-Su Basin Program Director
The Nature Conservancy of Alaska
715 L Street Suite 100
Anchorage, AK 99501
Teresa Trulock, Lands Forester
USDA Forest Service
P.O. Box 19001
Thorne Bay, AK 99919-0001
Pete Stephan, President
Montana Creek Native Association
3300 C Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
32
Penny Carty, President
Village of Salamatof
P.O. Box 2682
Kenai, AK 99611
Charles G. Anderson, Chairman
Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
2525 C. St., Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99503
Edith Baller, President and Chairperson
Chickaloon-Moose Creek Native
Association
P.O. Box 875046
Wasilla, AK 99674
Anne Thomas, President
Chitina Native Corporation
P.O. Box 3
Chitina, AK 99566
Orie G. Williams, Chair
Doyon, Ltd.
1 Doyon Place, Suite 300
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Kathy Morgan, Chairman of the Board
Toghotthele Corporation
P.O. Box 249
Nenana, AK 99760
Emil J. McCord, Chairman
Tyonek Native Corporation
1689 C Street, Suite 219
Anchorage, AK 99501
Fred S. Elvsaas, Chairman of the Board
Seldovia Native Association, Inc.
P.O. Box Drawer L
Seldovia, AK 99663
President
Kenai Natives Association, Inc
215 Fidalgo Street, Suite 101
Kenai, AK 99611
Michael E. Curry, Chairman and President
Eklutna, Inc.
16515 Centerfield Drive, Suite 201
Eagle River, AK 99577
Gary Oskolkoff, President/CEO
Ninilchik Natives Association, Inc.
15730 Sterling Hwy.
P.O. Box 39130
Ninilchik, AK 99639-0130
Robert Brean, President
Tanacross, Inc.
22808 Green Garden Road
Chugiak, AK 99576
Michelle Anderson, President/CEO
Ahtna, Inc.
P.O. Box 649
Glennallen, AK 99588
Tom Harris, CEO
Knikatnu, Inc.
P.O. Box 872130
Wasilla, AK 99687
Jerry Isaacs, President
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 1st Avenue, Suite 600
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Wilson Justin, Administrator
Cheesh-Na Tribal Council
PO Box 241
Chistochina, AK 99586`
33
Veronica Nicoles, President
Native Village of Cantwell
P.O. Box 94
Cantwell, AK 99729
Jaylene Peterson-Nyren, Executive Director
Kenaitze Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 988
Kenai, AK 99611
JoAnn Polston, President
Healy Lake Village
P.O. Box 74090
Fairbanks, AK 99706
Roy Ewan, President
Gulkana Village Council
Gulkana Village
P.O. Box 254
Gakona, AK 99586- 0254
Darin Gene, President
Gakona Village Council
Native Village of Gakona
P.O. Box 102
Gakona, AK 99585
Ron Mahle, President
Chitina Traditional Village Indian Council
P.O. Box 31
Chitina, AK 99566
Donald Charlie, First Chief
Nenana Native Association
P.O. Box 369
Nenana, AK 99760
C. Nora David, 1st Chief
Mentasta Traditional Council
P.O. Box 6019
Mentasta, AK 99780
Doug Wayne, Chairman
Chickaloon Traditional Village Council
Chickaloon Native Village
P.O. Box 1105
Chickaloon, AK 99674
Frank Standifer, President
Native Village of Tyonek
P.O. Box 82009
Tyonek, AK 99682-0009
Lorraine Titus, President
Northway Village
P.O. Box 516
Northway, AK 99764
Debra Call, President
Knik Tribal Council
Box 871565
Wasilla, AK 99567
Kathrin McConkey , President
Native Village of Kluti-Kaah
P.O Box 68
Copper Center, AK 99573
Donald Adams, President
Native Village of Tetlin
P.O. Box TTL
Tetlin, Ak 99779
Roy Denny, President
Tanacross Village Council
P.O. Box 76009
Tanacross, AK 99776
John Goodlaw, President
Tazlina Village Council
Native Village of Tazlina
P.O. Box 87
Glennallen, AK 99588
34
Crystal Collier, President
Seldovia Village Tribe
Drawer L
Seldovia, AK 99663
Richard “Greg” Encelewski, President
Ninilchik Traditional Council
P.O. Box 39070
Ninilchik, AK 99639
William J. Miller, President
Village of Dot Lake
P.O. Box 2279
Dot Lake, AK 99737
Lee Stephan, President
Eklutna Native Village
26339 Eklutna Village Road
Chugiak, AK 99567
Durelle Smith
Science Partnership Coord.
U.S. Geological Survey
Alaska Science Center
4210 University Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508
35
APPENDIX A
STUDY PLAN CRITERIA
18 CFR Section 5.9(b)
Any information or study request must contain the following:
1. Describe of the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the
information to be obtained;
2. If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the
agencies or Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied;
3. If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest
considerations in regard to the proposed study;
4. Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal,
and the need for additional information;
5. Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect,
and/or cumulative) on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would
inform the development of license requirements;
6. Explain how any proposed study methodology (including and preferred
data collection and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and
a schedule including appropriate filed season(s) and the duration) is consistent
with generally accepted practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate,
considers relevant tribal values and knowledge; and
7. Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable, and why
proposed alternative studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated information
needs.
36
APPENDIX B
PROCESS PLAN AND SCHEDULE
The timeline assumes two years of study, but this is subject to change based
on the outcome of the study development process. Shaded milestones are
unnecessary if there are no study disputes; if due date falls on a weekend or
holiday, the due date is the following business day.
Responsible
Party
Pre-Filing Milestone Date FERC
Regulation
AEA Issue Public Notice for NOI/PAD 12/29/11 5.3(d)(2)
AEA File NOI/PAD with FERC 12/29/11 5.5, 5.6
FERC Tribal Meetings 1/30/12 5.7
FERC Issue Notice of Commencement of
Proceeding and Scoping Document 1
2/27/12 5.8
FERC Scoping Meetings 3/26-29/12 5.8(b)(viii)
All stakeholders PAD/SD1 Comments and Study
Requests Due
4/27/12 5.9
FERC Issue Scoping Document 2 (if needed) 6/11/12 5.1
AEA File Proposed Study Plan (PSP) 6/11/12 5.11(a)
All stakeholders Proposed Study Plan Meeting 7/11/12 5.11(e)
All stakeholders Proposed Study Plan Comments Due 9/10/12 5.12
AEA File Revised Study Plan 10/10/12 5.13(a)
All stakeholders Revised Study Plan Comments Due 10/25/12 5.13(b)
FERC Director's Study Plan Determination 11/9/12 5.13(c)
Mandatory
Conditioning
Agencies only
Any Study Disputes Due 11/29/12 5.14(a)
Dispute Panel Third Dispute Panel Member Selected 12/14/12 5.14(d)
Dispute Panel Dispute Resolution Panel Convenes 12/19/12 5.14(d)(3)
AEA Applicant Comments on Study Disputes
Due
12/24/12 5.14(j)
Dispute Panel Dispute Resolution Panel Technical
Conference
12/29/12 5.14(j)
Dispute Panel Dispute Resolution Panel Findings
Issued
1/18/13 5.14(k)
FERC Director's Study Dispute Determination 2/7/13 5.14(l)
37
AEA First Study Season 2013 5.15(a)
AEA Initial Study Report 11/11/13 5.15(c)(1)
All stakeholders Initial Study Report Meeting 11/26/13 5.15(c)(2)
AEA Initial Study Report Meeting Summary 12/11/13 5.15(c)(3)
All stakeholders Any Disputes/Requests to Amend
Study Plan Due
1/10/14 5.15(c)(4)
All stakeholders Responses to Disputes/Amendment
Requests Due
2/9/14 5.15(c)(5)
FERC Director's Determination on
Disputes/Amendments
3/12/14 5.15(c)(6)
AEA Second Study Season 2014 5.15(a)
AEA Updated Study Report due 11/10/14 5.15(f)
All stakeholders Updated Study Report Meeting 11/25/14 5.15(f)
AEA Updated Study Report Meeting
Summary
12/10/14 5.15(f)
All stakeholders Any Disputes/Requests to Amend
Study Plan Due
1/9/15 5.15(f)
All stakeholders Responses to Disputes/Amendment
Requests Due
2/9/15 5.15(f)
FERC Director's Determination on
Disputes/Amendments
3/11/15 5.15(f)
AEA File Preliminary Licensing Proposal 4/14/15 5.16(a)
All stakeholders Preliminary Licensing Proposal
Comments Due
6/13/15 5.16(e)
AEA File Final License Application9 9/11/15 5.17
AEA Issue Public Notice of License
Application Filing
9/11/15 5.17(d)(2)
FERC Issue Public Notice of License
Application Filing (Tendering Notice)
9/25/15 5.19
FERC Director's Determination on Any
Additional Study Requests and
Notification of Any Deficiencies
10/11/15 5.19(e);
5.20(a)(2)
FERC Issue Public Notice Accepting 11/10/15 5.22
9 The timeline from the filing of the application forward assumes that a complete
application is filed with the Commission and no additional information is required
to process the application.
38
Application and Ready for
Environmental Analysis (REA)
All stakeholders Comments, Interventions, 10(a)
Recommendations Due
1/9/16 5.23(a)
Agencies 10(j) Recommendations; 4(e) Terms
and Conditions; Fishway Prescriptions
Due
1/9/16 5.23(a)
AEA Request 401 Water Quality
Certification, if required
1/9/16 5.23(b)
AEA Reply Comments Due 2/23/16 5.23(a)
FERC Issue Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS)
7/7/16 5.24
All stakeholders Draft EIS Comments Due 8/6/16 5.24(c)
Agencies Modified 4(e) Terms and Conditions
and Modified Fishway Prescriptions
Due
10/5/16 5.24(d)
FWS/NMFS ESA Biological Opinion As Needed 11/19/16 ESA
FERC Issue Final EIS 1/3/17
FERC Issue License Decision 3/4/17 FPA