HomeMy WebLinkAboutBefore the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Application for Preliminary Permit for the Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project 1985TK
1424
.A4
. T36
A~skaPowerAu~orny
APPLICATION FOR
PRELIMINARY PERMIT FOR
THE TAZIMINA RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Project No. 9544-QQQ-Alaska
1985 ~ore the
(jera· Energy
Regulatory Commission October 11, 1985
(' r'
I ..
I
. )
t
I~
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Initial Statement
Exhibit 1 Description of Proposed Project
Exhibit 2 Description of Studies Conducted
and to be Conducted
Exhibit 3 Cost and Financing
Exhibit 4 Project Maps and Features
Appendix A
ABLIS
Alaska Resources I,il\ci'r}.& lnrormatlon Sel'Ylc:es
Libnlf\ Bwklinu. Suite 111
31) f P'ruw;;kiicc Drive
Anchorage, Al< 99508-4614
7
9
10
: 1
,~
I ,
; 1
,W
I,J
I
( )
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PERMIT
Initial Statement
(1) The ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY applies to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission for a preliminary permit for the proposed
Tazimina River Hydroelectric Power project, as described in the
attached exhibits. This application is made in order that the
applicant may secure and maintain priority of application for a
license for the project under Part I of the Federal Power Act while
obtaining the data and performing the acts required to determine
the feasibility of the project and to support an application for a
license.
(2) The location of the proposed project is:
State or territory: Alaska
County:
Nearby town:
Stream or other body of water:
Not part of any county
Newhalen, Iliamna, Nondalton
Tazimina River
(3) The exact name, business address and telephone number of the
applicant are:
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone (907) 276-0001
The exact name and business address of each person authorized to
act as agent for the applicant in this application are:
Robert D. Heath
Executive Director
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone (907) 276-0001
(4) The ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY is a state public corporation of
the STATE OF ALASKA organized under the following laws:
Chapter 83 of Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes. As a State
public corporation, the Alaska Power Authority is claiming
preference under Section 7 (A) of the Federal Power Act.
(5) The proposed term of the requested permit is 36 months.
40/410/1 1
; I
I I IW
I
I
'u I
; I ,w
I
VERIFICATION
STATE OF ALASKA
Third Judicial Division, ss:
SS: Robert D. Heath being first duly sworn deposes and says: That
he is the Executive Director of the Alaska Power Authority,
the Applicant for a preliminary permit, that he has read the
foregoing application and knows the contents thereof; that the
same are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
rJ;~ i
.. ~ubscr;bed and sworn to before this 1 ----
\ \ '. -;::, : .. -.-: -< :
: .... ' i
:-; . .:
' .. -
40/410/2 2
I
W
( )
W
I
i 1 , )
iU
I
,W
I
U I
U
I
U
I
U
I
IU
I .;..
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Applicant has caused its name to be hereunto
signed by Robert D. Heath, the Executive Director of the Alaska
Power Authority and its Corporate Seal to be hereto affixed by
Robert D. Heat~ i~~ecretarythereunto duly authorized this 1 day of' ~N , 1985.
--'
.) .. ----~\".' ,...,
C'
40/410/3
i
C
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
By: ;t;?lPM--
Rbbert D. Heath -
Executive Director and Secretary
3
I
u
u
U
u
I 1
( I
. I ~
I 1
U
§ 44.83.070 § 44.83.080
Article 2. Purpose and Powers.
SecUOD
70. ?utrpoM of the I."thority
80. !'owen 0{ the I."tharity
90. POw.' contraeta and the Aluka Public:
Utilities CommiMioft
SecUOD
92. A"thority (or municil)&liti.. and.
Iltiliti .. to enter into power .. t ..
eontrac:u
Sec. 44..83.070. Purpose of the authority. The purpose of the
authority is to promote. develop and advance the senera! prosperity
and. economic welfare of the people of Alaska by providing a means of
conat:ruc:til1i. acquiring, financing and operating
(l) power projects; and
(2) facilities that recover and use waste energy. (§ 1 ch 278 SLA
1976; am § 5 ch 156 SLA 1978; am § 1 eh 133 SLA 1982)
a...teor. nota&. -Fol"IDII'I,. AS
44.!6.010. Real1.lDbe.rtcl. la 1980.
Elf .. of emend ...... -The 1982
&IDIInd.meDt I\IbIcituted paracnphl (l)
and (2) (or "'poww productl.otl t'.Icillu. lim-
Sec. 44..83.080. Powers of the authority. In fUrtherance alits cor·
porate purposes. the authority has the following powers in addition to
its other poWers:.
(1) to sue and be sued:
(2) to have a seal and alter it at pleasure;
(3) to make and alter bylaW'll for its organization and internal
ma.napment;
(4) to adopt regulations governing the. a:erciH of its corporate
powers;
(5) to acquire, whether by c:onatruction, purchase. gift or lease, and
to improve. equip. operate, and mainta.iD power projecta;
(6) to issue bonds to c:a.rry out any of its corporate pu.rpoees and
powers. including the acquiaition or constr'W:tion of a project to be
owned. or leased.. .. lessor or lessee, by the authority. or by another
pencm, or the acquisition of BDY interest in a project or BDY right to
capacity of a project. the establishment or i:Dcreue of reserves to secure
or to pay the bonds or interest 011 them. and the payment of all other
C08tI or a:peD.IeS of the authority incident to and. necessary or
convenient to carry out its corporate purpoMe and powers;
(7) to sell, lease u llIIOr or I .... , excbange, donate, convey or
enc:umber in BDY manner by mortgage or by c:reation of any other
security interest, real or personal property owned by it, or in which it
has an interest, when, in the judgment of the authority. the action is
in furtherance of ita corporate purposes;
(8) to accept gifts, granta or loans Cram, and enter into contracts or
other tnmsactiona regarding them, with BDy person;
(9) to deposit or invest its funds, subjec:t to agreements with
bondholders:
(10) to enter into contracts with the United States or any person BDd...
subjec:t to the laWI of the United States BDd subjec:t to concurrence of
the legislature, with a foreign COUDtry or its agencies. for the financing,
construction, acquisition, operation and maintenance of all or any part
of a power project, either inside or outside the state, and for the sale or
272
( ~, u
( 1
IU
{ 1
W
!w ,
U
,Q
I
iW
I
i W
§ 44.83.080 STATE GoVERNMENT § 44.83.080
transmission of power from a project or any right to the capacity of it
or for the security of any bonds of the authority issued or to be i.seued
for the project;
(11) to enter into contracts with any person and with the United
States. and. subject to the laWlS of the United States and subject to the
concurrence of the legialature. with a foreign country or its agencies for
the purchase. sale. ucha.nge. transmission, or use of power from a
project. or any right to the capacity of it;
(12) to apply to the appropriate agencies of the state, the United
States· and to a foreign country and any other proper arency for the
permits, licenses. or approvals as may be necessary, and to construct,
maintain and operate power projects in accordance with the licenses or
permits. and to obta.in, hold and use the licenses and permits in the
same manner as any other person or operating unit;
(13) to perform reconnaissance studies. feasibility studies. and engi-
neeriD&' and design with respect to power projects;
(14) to enter into contracts or agreements with respeet to the aer-
c:iae of any of its powers, and do all things necessary or convenient to
cany out its corporate purposes and exercise the powers granted in this
chapter,
(15) to exercise the power of eminent domain in accordance with AS
09.55.240 -09.55.460;
(16) to recommend to the legislature
(A) the issuance of general obligation bonds of the state to finance
the construction of a power project if the authority first determines that
the project c:anDoi be financed by revenue bonda of the authority at
reasonable rates of interest;
(B) the pledp of the credit of the state to guarantee repayment of all
or any portion oirevenue bonds issued to auiat in construction of power
projects;
(C) an appropriation from the reneral Nnd
(i) far debt service on bonds or ather project purposes; or
(ii) to reduce the ~cnmt of debt financiq for the project;
(D) an appropriation to the power project Nnd for a power project;
(E) (BIqJealtld.. I 18 cb 181 SLA 1984.1
(F) development of a project UDder financinc arranpments with
other entities uaiDg leverapd 1 ...... or other financing methods;
(G) an appropriation for a power project acquired or constructed
under the enelV program for Alaaka (AS 44.83.380 -44.83.425). (§ 1
ch 278 SLA 1976; am §f 6 -11 ch 156 SLA 1978; am t§ 16.17 ch 83
SLA 1980; am § 5 ch 118 SLA 1981; am § 16 c:h 161 SLA 1984)
RAmIIor'. DotIItt. -Formerly AS
44.56.080. Renumbenci ia 1980.
Effect o( ameadmeau. -The 1980
amendment inN"" in th. middle o( para.
poaph i 13', "r ... ibility studi •• and eftCi·
neerin, and d_i",." and added parqra"h
(161.
Th. 1981 amendment addM subJlara·
C'I'Qh cOl oC ~ (16l.
Th. 1984 am.ndment repteled para-
poa"h (16)(£1.
273
( l
W
( 1
,l.J
I
r ,
u
u
( )
U
, 1
,W
I
u
u
U
I
'W
I
i \J
§ 44.83.090 § 44.83.090
Sec. +4.83.090. Power contracts and the Alaska Public
UtWtiea Com.m.illsioD. (a) The authority shall, in addition to the other
methods which it may find advantageous, provide a method by which
municipal electric, rural electric, cooperative electric, or private elec
tric utilities and regional electric authorities, or other persons autho
rized by law to engage in the distribution oC electricity may secure a
reasonable share oC the power generated by a project, or any interest
in a project, or for any right to the power and shall sell the power or
cause the power to be sold at the lowest reasonable prices which cover
the full cost of the electricity or services, including capital and
operating coats, debt coverage sa considered. appropriate by the author
ity, and other charges that may be authorized by AS 44.83.010
44.83.425. Except Cor a contract or lease entered. into under AS
44.83.380 -44.83.425, a contract or lease Cor the sale. transmission
and distribution oC power generated by a project or any right to the
capacity of it shall provide:
(1) for payment of all operatin, and maintenance expenses of a
. project and COI1:3 of renewals, replacements and improvements of it;
(2) for interest on and amort:ization charges sufficient to retire bonds
ofthe authority issued for the project and reserves for them. plus a debt
service coverage factor sa may be determined by the authority to be
necessary for the marketability of its bonds;
(3) Cor monitoring oC the project by the authority or its agents;
(4) for full and complete disclosure to the authority of all factors ot
costs in the transmission and distribution of power. so that rates to any
persons may be fixed initially in the contract or lease and may be
adjusted from time to time on the basis of true cost data;
(5) for periodic revisions of the service and rates to persons on the
baaia of accurate cost data obtained by ttle accounting methods and
systems approved by the directors and in furtherance and effectuation
of the policy declarecl in AS 44.S3.010 -+4.83.•25;
(8) Cor the cancellation and termination of a contract or lease upon
violation of its terms by any person;
(7) for security £or per{ormance as the authority may consider prac
ticable and advisable, including provisions assuring the continuance of
the distribution and transmiuion of power generated by a project and
the WIll of ita f'ac:ilities for these purposes: and
(8) other terms not inconsistent with the provisions and policy of this
chapter as the authority may consider advisa.hle. .
(b) The authority is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Alaska
Public Utilities Commission. Nothing in AS 44.83.010 -44.83.425
grants the authority any jurisdiction over the services or rates oC any
public utility or diminishes or otherwise alters the jurisdiction of the
Alaska Public Utilities Commission with respect to any public utility,
including any right the commission may have to review and approve
or disapprove contracts for the purchase oC electricity by a public uti!
274
§ 44.83.092 § 44.83.100
ity. (§ 1 cb. 278 SLA 1976; am § 12 eh 156 SLA 1978; am § 6 eh 118
SLA 1981)
a..uor. ..... -FOI'IMri, AS pncecliq "COlltrlCt" u.cI. adUd "or 1...•
"-H.09O. .ReaWlllMnd ill 1180. pl1lll*liq "ror the ..I." ill t.bIt IIICOIld MIl
Beet 01 ......ad••a. -1.'he 1981 tencuhubMCtioll t.l and..w.d "or 1...•
-rneadlDlftC ..u.utWld "acIPt (or • (ollowin,"colltnlCt" ill parqrapbl (4) and
coaCl'Ut or laue _ .."'to WIder AS (8) of aubMctiOil 1.1.
44.B3.380 -44.83.425, .-Cor " ...
Sec. 44.83.092. Authority tor municipalities and utilities to
_ter Into power sales coatracts. The authority and any munic
ipality or public or private entity operating an electric utility. or a r 1 municipality or private entity and another municipality or private
I W entity. may enter into a contract providing for or relating to the sale
of electric power by the aq.thority to the municipality or entity, or by ,
( , the municipality or entity to another municipality or entity. The IW COIltract may provide
I -(1) that the amounts payable under the contract are operating
( 1 apenaes of the utility and are valid and binding obligationa of the
municipality or other entity payable from the gross revenues of the rW utility;
(2) for ODe or more appropriationa of the amounts payable under the
U contract;
(3) for the municipality or other entity to assume the obligationa of
mother cont:ractin&' party in the event of a default by that partr.
, 1
I I (4) that after completion of a project the municipality or other entity U is obligated to make payments notwithstanding a suspenaion or reduc
tion in the amount of the power supplied by the project; or
( ) (5) that payments under the contract are not subject to reduction byU o8iet or otherwise. (§ 3 c:h 89 SLA 1983)
:U
r I
I
'1U
U 275
I
I
I
U
U
( 1 -.
(, ! 1
I~
I U
,U
I
, 1 , I ~
I
~
( )
~
I )
U
u
u
W
I
U
Exhibit 1 Description Of Proposed Project
The proposed hydroelectric project will develop the power potential at
Tazimina Falls on the Tazimina River near Iliamna, Alaska. The project
site is included in lands filed on and reserved as Power Site Reservation
485 in 1915 and Power Site Classification 463 in 1971.
There are no existing facilities at the proposed project site and all
facility sizes, elevations, locations, and capacities described herein are
based on an interim feasibility assessment. The detail studies to be
conducted during the period of the permit will finalize the items and be
defined in an Application for License.
1. a. Dam and Spillway This will be a run-of-river project with
shoreline intake. No forebay darn or structure will be required.
b. Penstock -The penstock from the intake to the powerhouse will be
3 1/2 ft diameter and approximately 1400 ft long. The penstock
would exit the intake structure and be buried along the channel
until the river bottom drops enough for it to emerge and be
supported from the rock on the side of the canyon.
c. Powerhouse -The powerhouse will be a prefabricated, insulated
building on a reinforced concrete substructure located
approximately 700 ft. downstream of the falls. The approximate
dimensions of the building will be 62 ft long and 23 ft wide.
d. Tailrace The tailrace will be an excavated concrete channel
discharging directly into the natural channel of the Tazimina
River. It will be approximately 20 ft wide and 12 ft long.
e. The intake structure would be located approximately 700 ft upstream
of the falls and consist of a shoreline drop inlet with 6 1/2 ft x
6 1/2 ft trashrack and a similar size gate.
f. Access Road -An access road would extend from the project site
running north of Alexcy Lake to tie into the existing road to
Newhalen.
2. The proposed project does not have a reservoir; no storage is
provided. Maximum water surface elevations in the river will not be
increased.
3. Primary Transmission Line A three phase 24 kV line would be
constructed approximately 6.5 miles in length. This line would
interconnect with the existing I-N-N Electric Cooperative system by
tying into the existing transmission line which runs along the existing
road to Newhalen.
4. Turbines and Generators -Two turbines are present ly proposed, each
with a rated capacity of 800 HP and connected through a speed increaser
to a synchronous generator with a rated capacity of 700 kW at 0.9 power
factor. Estimated average annual energy produced would be 5.7 million
kilowatt hours. The average net hydraulic head is approximately 100 ft.
4
I
jQ
5. The intake structure, penstock, powerhouse, and access road are locatedI~ on the following described lands within Township 3 South, Range 32 West
of the Seward Meridian.
" 1
IW
i
'W
I
IU
U
U
I
J
I
U
I J
I~
J
I
J
u
r:
~
W
I
U
I
Section 24: NE 1/4 NE 1/4; SE 1/4 NE 1/4; SW 1/4 NE 1/4; SE 1/4; SE
1/4 SW 1/4
Section 25: NW 1/4 NE 1/4; NW 1/4; NW 1/4 SW 1/4
Section 26: S 1/2 N 1/2; N 1/2 S 1/2
Section 27: NE 1/4; NE 1/4 NW 1/4; NW 1/4 NW 1/4; SE 1/4 NW 1/4
Section 22: S 1/2 SW 1/4
Section 21: NE 1/4 SE 1/4; NW 1/4 SE 1/4; SE 1/4 SE 1/4; NW 1/4 NE
1/4; SE 1/4 NE 1/4; SW 1/4 NE 1/4; N 1/2 NW 1/4; SE 1/4 NW
1/4
Section 16: S 1/2 SW 1/4
Section 17: S 1/2 SE 1/4; S 1/2 SW 1/4
Section 20: N 1/2 NE 1/4; NE 1/4 NW 1/4; NW 1/4 NW 1/4; SW 1/4 NW 1/4
Section 19: NE 1/4,NE 1/4; SE 1/4 NE 1/4; SW 1/4 NE 1/4; SE 1/4 NW 1/4
NW 1/4 SE 1/4; NE 1/4 SW 1/4
Al1 of the above lands have been interim conveyed to Iliamna Natives
Limited with the exception of the lands in Section 19 which has been
interim conveyed to the Nondalton Native Corporation.
In addition, the Federal Power Site Reservation Number 485 of April 1,
1915 reserved lands for power purposes which are within one quarter
mile of the Tazimina River. This Federal reservation effects the
following portions of the above described lands:
Section 24:
Section 25:
Section 26:
Section 27:
Section 22:
Section 21:
Section 16:
Section 17:
NE 1/4 NE
1/4 SW 1/4
1/4; SE 1/4 NE 1/4; SW 1/4 NE 1/4; SE 1/4; SE
NW 1/4 NE 1/4; NW 1/4; NW 1/4 SW 1/4
S 1/2 N 1/2; N 1/2 S 1/2
NE 1/4 NE 1/4
SE 1/4 SW 1/4
NW 1/4 NE 1/4; N 1/2 NW
S 1/2 SW 1/4
None
5
1/4
I
I~
Section 20: NoneU
Section 19: None
6. The purpose of the proposed project is to provide economical
U
U hydroelectric energy to communities and commercial operations of the
Iliamna Lake region of Bristol Bay. The use of this renewable resource
will offset diesel oil consumption in the area and provide significant
financial savings for consumers.
, 1 Initial contacts have been made with agencies to discuss environmental
matters related to the project. These consultations and preliminaryIU agency comments are documented in Appendix A.
I
I'W
J
U
J
U
I
I 1
~
\ ~
{ 1
U
i 1
W
~
:U
I
U
U
I 6
( )
U
Exhibit 2 Description of Studies Conducted And To Be Conducted
1. i. Studies undertaken in recent years to identify potential new
sources of energy for the Bristol Bay region include the following two by
R.W. Rutherford Associates:
"Bristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential, Phase 1", prepared for
the Alaska Power Administration, December 1979.
"Reconnaissance Study of the Lake Elva and Other Hydroelectric Potentials
in the Dillingham Area", prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, February
1980.
In the reconnaissance study Rutherford recommended a plan to develop the
Tazimina (Lake) site, located on the Tazimina River about ten miles north
of Iliamna Lake and east of Nondalton.
r ! As a result of the R.W. Rutherford recommendations, the Alaska Power
~ Authority retained Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) in July
! 1981 to undertake a study known as the "Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan
Detailed Feasibility Analysis". The purpose of the study was to assess the
technical, economic, and environmental aspects of alternative electric
power plans for the Bristol Bay region. The study area encompassed anI U
, l8-village area including the communities of Iliamna, Newha1en, and
Nondalton in the Iliamna Lake region. The study included resource
assessment, field surveys, and hydrologic, geotechnical, environmental,,W
U
design, economic, marketing, and financial studies necessary to assess
project feasibility and to meet licensing and permitting requirements.
Phase I of the work was documented in the July 1982 report entit led
"Interim Feasibility Assessment." This report identified the proposed
I Tazimina hydroelectric project at the Tazimina Falls site as a promising
small hydro alternative.
I U
SWEC conducted an "Updated Economic Evaluation" (May 1985) of selected
promising alternatives from the Interim Feasibility Assessment. Updatedu economic parameters including current diesel fuel prices were used to
reassess economic feasibility. The evaluation indicated the desirability
of hydropower development at Tazimina Falls for the Iliamna Lake region.
Site-specific studies will be conducted during the preliminary permit
period by SWEC for the Alaska Power Authority. These studies will evaluate
project feasibility and optimize project capacity. The studies will
include:
o Energy demand analysis.
o Environmental studies in the office or in the field as required to
assess existing conditions, and potential impacts relating to
community infrastructure, water quality, fish and wildlife, land
use, terrestrial concerns, recreational resources, aesthetics, and
archaeological and historic resources. A field investigation was
conducted in July 1985 to evaluate fish habitat and resources along
alternative road access routes to the project site. In August 1985
7
I
•
I'W
U a reconnaissance was conducted to identify fishery resources in the
area of Tazimina Falls.
;0 o Hydrologic analysis of available flow records and application of
appropriate correlations.
I o Power study to initially size project capacity.
U o Geotechnical program including mapping, additional seismic
refra'ction tests, and assessment of geologic conditions andI hazards. An engineering reconnaissance of the site was conducted inU August 1985. At that time additional seismic refraction tests were
done on the left bank in the vicinity of the falls.
o Conceptual des ign of intake structure, penstock, powerhouse,
'W transmission line, and access road.
I
U o Topographic mapping.
o Cost estimates.I
U o Economic evaluation of alternative project ~apacities based on total
present worth of costs.
I
U o Optimiza~ion of project installed capacity.
I o Preparation of a feasibility report
U o Preparation and submittal of a FERC license application
I
U
ii. No new roads will be built for the purpose of conducting the
studies. Access to the site is strictly limited to foot or helicopter.
2. Measures have been and will continue to be taken to minimize any
disturbance to lands and waters in the vicinity of the proposed
project. Coordination has been and will continue to be maintained with
all proper agencies and all permits will be obtained and their
( ) requirements observed.
8
Q
U
I,D
1.
I,
U
2.
D
3.
( ,
:~
I
; 1
I I~
I W.
( 1
UI
I~
I )
~
3 Cost And Financing
The estimated cost of carrying out or preparing the studies,
investigations, tests, surveys, maps, plans, and specifications that
have been or are to be conducted for the purposes of determining
technical, economic, and environmental feasibility and of preparing a
license application is approximately $3,060,000. This cost includes
$2,950,000 spent since 1981 for regional Bristol Bay studies that have
been completed and for recent reconnaissance of the Tazimina River
site.
Financing for the above work will be completely by State Legislative
appropriations.
The power generated at the proposed project will be used in the Iliamna
Lake area of the Bristol Bay region, specifically, by the communities
of Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton. The proposed purchaser of the
power is I-N-N Electric Cooperative which presently serves the three
communities.
9 u
I
,.
:W
U
it 4 Project Maps And Features
Project location, features, and boundary are indicted on the accompanying
maps. There are no areas within or in the vicinity of the proposed project
boundary which are included in or have been designated for study for
inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There are no
areas within the project boundary that, under the prOV1S1ons of the
Wilderness Act, have been designated as wilderness area, recommended for
designation as wilderness area, or designated as wilderness study area.
Project Maps: Sheet 1 Project Location
Sheet 2 -Project Area Map
Sheet 3 -Project Layout and Features
, :
( I
W
( \
.U
I
u
10
(
~~
~
I
(/)
w
~ «
....J
~
l:
()
~ ;::
I o o o
~
.~
~ ~ )
--'--w-
)
.~
<Q~
~o'v
<Q~~
~ .cr
.~ ~ ;::;
.. J ® /
~<v«
<;J-
NEWHALEN RIVER" "
TAZIMINA RIVER ---.......
/1 -~ NONDAL TON
( SEE SHEET 2
-~
~
~ ... ~
& f.<Y~
~~
r
~ ~~~x;
0°
SCALE
o
t 0~~
o 10 20 30 40 50
MILES
-LOCATION MAP
BRISTOL BAY REGION
EXHIBIT 4 &
SHEET 1 OF 3
o
III -'" o ..
T AZIMINA RIVER
LOCAL POWER PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
STONE" WEBSTER
ENGINEERING CORPORATION
EXHIBIT 4 SH 2 OF 3 ...-~,--.. . '."". "" .....,----, "'""""".""""----....-...
PROJECT AREA MAP'
c=J c::J c::J c-=:J c=::::J L::I ::J ~ :-::::J :-=J""_____1 --=:I ==--c:::J c:J c:J ~::::W :..... :1
APPENDIX A
The correspondence contained herein and listed below documents initial
contacts and consultations to date with various agencies concerning the
proposed Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project.
Agency Consultation/Correspondence
Letter from Nondalton Native Corporation February 22, 1985
Letter from I-N-N Electric Co-op March 1, 1985
Letter to National Marine Fisheries June 14, 1985
Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service June 14, 1985
Letter to Alaska Department of Fish and Game June 14, 1985
Letter from Alaska Department of Natural Resources July 16, 1985
APA letter transmitting minutes of meetings with Augus t 2, 1985
agencies
Letter to National Park Service August 2, 1985
Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 5, 1985
Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 14, 1985
Letter from Alaska Department of Fish and Game August 20, 1985
Letter to National Park Service August 29, 1985
jW
I
I
~ 1
IW
I
I
W
W
·W
1091f
I
I
I
I
'W
I
W
I
J
r 1
I~
U
r 1
W
I
( )
W
r \ u
~ i
IIJ
L.J
, 1
u
I i
W
I
, 1
W
u
RE: TASIMINA FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Please be advised that Nondalton Native Corporation is hereby
requesting that the Alaska Power Authori ty begin the pre-FERC applica'
tion process for a power plant to be established at the Lower Tasimina
Falls in the Iliamna-Lake Clark Region. As one of the major land
owners in that region, and per our previous discussions, we will do
everything we can to help facilitate this proqram and are currently
and actively working with the INNEC electric utility and other members
of the region to get this program underway.
As the major land owner in the Lake Clark National Park and the major
party responsible for,its development as a regional tourism center, we
feel that it would be appropriate for all the concerned agencies,
including the National Park Service and APA, to work jointly in the
establishment of this Sub-regional power project, which would appear
to have ainimum impact on the environment and the overall pristine and
scenic beauty of the region. '
If we can be of any additional assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely yours,
'cc: Was8ie Balluta
Melvin Trefon
Andrew Ba llu ta
Rick Delkittie
Trig Olsen
NONDALTON NATiVe: CORPORATION
e03 w, NORTHERN LIGHTS ..va. NO 101 ~,;e\" Address:
ANCHORAGE. ~"~3 lJOl E Benson&07t 338,7181
February 22, 1985
BRENT PETRIE, DIRECTOR
POWER SYSTEMS PLANNING
A,LASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 w. 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Petrie:
\nchoraClc, A~
99508
RECEIVEO
FF'l 2,; 1985
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
I~
o
r )
I i-
I u·
W
r ;
u
: \ u
, 1
• 1
W
\ 1
U
iU
MARCH 1, 1985
Hr. Robert Heath, Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Bert Foss, President
I-N-N Electric Co-op., Inc.
Box 210
Iliamna, Alaska 99606
Dear Mr. Heath:
We, the .board of directors of the I-N-N Electric Cooperative,
request Alaska Power Authority to file a preliminary FERC application
for the Tazamina River Hydro Electrification Project, at Tazamina
Falls. and continue to study and work with this electric cooperative,
land owners, and other concerned parties.
Sincerely,
~-Bert Foss
President
1 1
W
I
r 1
,U ALASK A POWER AuTHORITY
,D . "4 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 98e01 Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 278-0001
U June 14, 1985
!w
Mr. Robert W. McVey
Director, Alaska Region
National Marine Fisheries
P. O. Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
10 Subject: Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan
Dear Mr. McVey:,W
I
I Recently the Alaska Power Authority undertook an economic
re-evaluation of several power plan scenarios developed in the ,W Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan, Interim Feasibility Assessment
completed in 1982. As you are aware from previous review of the
: 1 study, the Newhalen River Hydroelectric Project had emerged as the
W most economically attractive plan for providing future electric
power to the whole Bristol Bay region. However, the 1985 economic
r 1 re-evaluation produced results quite different from the 1982 study,
due to revised economic criteria. The economic factors mainlyWI responsible for the change in results are existing lower diesel
r 1 fuel prices and lower future fuel price escalation than assumed
previously.W
The new analysis showed that the regional Newhalen and the regional
Tazimina scenarios are no longer less costly on a present worth
basis than the Base case, continuation of diesel electric gen
eration. However, the subregional scenario in the 1982 stuay,
( 1
I
conSisting of local diesel generation supplemented where tech
nically feasible by wind energy, waste heat utilization, and small
hydro development, was found to be slightly more attractive econom
( 1
I
ica1ly than the Base Case of diesel only.
W As a result of this re-evaluation, the Power Authority plans to
discontinue the Newhalen River Fisheries studies which are being
undertaken to determine if the regional Newhalen project would be
U
I'U compatible with the important sockeye fishery that utilizes the
river for juvenile and adult migration. These studies are now in
their fourth consecutive year.
One of the elements of the above mentioned subregional scenario was
a small run-of-river hydro development of 1 to 2 MW on the TaziminaU River. Local interests have shown interest in development of such
a project to supply future electric power for projected growth in
D
o 9750/121
Mr. Robert McVey
June 14, 1985
Page 2
the Lake region. The Power Authority is now undertaking a detailed
feasibility study to determine if such a project would be econom·w ically and technically attractive and environmentally acceptable.
You are invited to a meeting tentatively scheduled for 9:30 A.M.
j
o Friday, June 28th at the Dames and Moore offices in Anchorage to
consider the environmental concerns related to a run-of-river small
hydro development on the Tazimina River. Specifically, we areIU interested in obtaining advice on the scope of environmental
I studies that should be undertaken to support an Exhibit E of a FERC
License Application, should the project appear to be technicallyU and economically feasible.
Information on previous environmental studies done by the Power
Authority on the Tazimina River in connection with a regional
hydroelectric project are found in Volume 4 of the 1982 Interim
Feasibility Assessment. You were provided a copy of the report
previously, and the report also is available for review at the
Power Authority's office.
The preliminary concept for a small hydro development on the
Tazimina River is presented in the Interim Feasibility Assessment
as part of Scenario, 19E. Sketches of the proposed plant location
and layout are shown on Figures A.2-9 andA.2-10, and a short
description of the concept is found on page~ A.2-7 and A.2-8 in
Volume 2 of the Assessment. Review of this information by attend
( 1 ees prior to the meeting would facilitate discussion.
We hope you will be able to have a representative participate in
the meeting on June 28. Please advise Mr. Eric Marchegiani of your
attendance plans and address any questions you may have to him.
S~~1iJ;;
Robert D. Heath , I Executive Director U
EAM/RDH/ll mf 1
, iU cc: Mr. Brad Smith, National Marine FisheriesI
r 1 'W
I
: 1
U
, 1
9750/121
I
ALASKA POWER AuTHORITY
...4 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 9&801
June 14, 1985
Mr. Robert Gilmore
Regional Director
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Subject: Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Phone: (907) m·7841
(907) 278-0001
r 1
jW
I W
r l
!-i i
( ,.
IU
I
u
r, ' I
U
u
o
u
Recently the Alaska Power Authority undertook an economic
re-evaluation of several power plan scenarios developed in the
Bristol Bay Regional Power Plant Interim Feasibility Assessment
completed in 1982. As you are aware from previous review of the
study, the Newhalen River Hydroelectric Project had emerged as the
most economically attractive plan for providing future electric
power to the whole Bristol Bay region. However, the 1985 economic
re-evaluation produced results quite different from the 1982 study,
due to revised economic criteria. The economic factors mainly
responsible for the change in results are existing lower diesel
fuel prices and lower future fuel price escalation than assumed
previously.
The new analysis showed that the regional Newhalen and the regional
Tazimina scenarios are no longer less costly on a present worth
basis than the Base case, continuation of diesel electric gen
eration. However, the subregional scenario in the 1982 study,
consisting of local diesel generation supplemented where tech
nically feasible by wind energy, waste heat utilization, and small
hydro development, was found to be slightly more attractive econom
ically than the Base Case of diesel only.
As a result of this re-evaluation, the Power Authority plans to
discontinue the Newhalen River Fisheries studies which are being
undertaken to determine if the regional Newhalen project would be
compatible with the important sockeye fishery that utilizes the
river for juvenile and adult migration. These studies are now in
their fourth consecutive year.
One of the elements of the above mentioned subregional scenario was
a small run-of-river hydro development of 1 to 2 MW on the Tazimina
River. Local interests have shown interest in development of such
a project to supply future electric power for projected growth in
9750/121
r- Mr. Gilmore
June 14, 1985
Page 2
IQ the Lake region. The Power Authority is now undertaking a detai1ed
feasibility study to determine if such a project would be econom
icallY and technically attractive and environmentally acceptable. IQ
You are invited to a meeting tentatively scheduled for 9:30 A.~1.J Friday, June 28th at the Dames and Moore offices in Anchorage to
consider the environmental concerns related to a run-of-river smallI hydro development on the Tazimina River. Specifically, we are
interested in obtaining advice on the scope of environmental o studies that should be undertaken to support an Exhibit E of a FERC
License Application, should the project appear to be technically
and economically feasible.
Information on previous environmental studies done by the Power
Authority on the Tazim;na River in connection with a regional
hydroelectric project are found in Volume 4 of the 1982 Interim
Feasibility Assessment. You were provided a copy of the report
previously, and the report also ;s available for review at the
Power Authority's office.
( ~
The preliminary concept for a small hydro development on the
i ! Tazimina River is presented in the Interim Feasibility Assessment
I.j as part of Scenario 19E. Sketches of the proposed plant location
and layout are shown on Figures A.2-9 and A.2-10, and a short . , ) description of the concept is found on pages A.2-7 and A.2-8 in J Volume 2 of the Assessment. Review of this information by attend
ees prior to the meeting would facilitate discussion.
{ 1
w We hope you will be able to have a representative participate in
the meeting on June 28. Please advise Mr. Eric Marche9iani of your
attendance plans and address any questions you may have to him.
I
~ SinCerelY'~
, I &f.~eath
Executive Director
EAM/RDH/11m
{ 1
U
I
cc: Mr. Robert Bowker, USF&WS
J
U
U
I o
9750/121U
I
I'W
I~
i iUi
U
I
U
I
U
U
U
U
ALASKA. POWER AlJTHORlTI'
Atone: (901) m·784 1 "'_ ~ WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 98!01
(901) 278-0001
June 14, 1985
The Honorable Don W. Collinsworth
Conmissioner
Department of Alaska Fish and Game
P. O. Box 3-2000
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Subject: Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan
Dear Commissioner Collinsworth:
Recently the Alaska Power Authority undertook an economic
re~evaluation of several power plan scenarios developed in the
Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan, Interim Feasibility Assessment
completed in 1982. As you are aware from previous review of the
study, the Newhalen River Hydroelectric Project had emerged as the
most economfcally attractive plan for providing future electric
power to the whole Bristol Bay region. However, the 1985 economic
re-evaluation produced results quite different from the 1982 study,
due to revised economic criteria. The economic factors mainly
responsible for the change in results are existing lower diesel
fuel prices and lower future fuel price escalation than assumed
previously.
The new analysis showed that the regional Newhalen and the regional
Tazimina scenarios are no longer less costly on a present worth
basis than the Base case, continuation of diesel electric gen~
eration. However, the subregional scenario in the 1982 study,
consisting of local diesel generation supplemented where tech
nically feasibie by wind energy, waste heat utilization, and small
hydro development, was found to be slightly more attractive econom
ically than the Base Case of diesel only.
As a result of this re-evaluation, the Power Authority plans to
discontinue the Newhalen River Fisheries studies which are being
undertaken to determine if the regional Newhalen project would be
compatible with the important sockeye fishery that utilizes the
river for juvenile and adult migration. These studies are now in
their fourth consecutive year.
One of the elements of the above mentioned subregional scenario was
a small run-of-river hydro development of 1 to 2 MW on the Tazimina
River. Local interests have shown interest in development of such
a project to supp1y future electric power for projected growth in
9750/121
Commissioner Collinsworth
June 14, 1985u Page 2
the Lake region. The Power Authority is now undertaking a detailedu feasibility study to determine if such a project would be econom
ically and technically attractive and environmentally acceptable.
(l
You are invited to a meeting tentatively scheduled for 9:30 A.M.I~ Friday, June 28th at the Dames and Moore offices in Anchorage to
consider the environmental concerns related to a run-of-river small
hydro development on the Tazimina River. Specifically, we are
I U interested in obtaining advice on the scope of environmental
studies that should be undertaken to support an Exhibit E of a FERC
License Application, should the project appear to be technically
and economically feasible.
Information on previous environmental studies done by the Power
Authority on the Tazimina River in connection with a regional
hydroelectric project are found in Volume 4 of the 1982 Interim
, 1 Feasibility Assessment. You were provided a copy of the report
previously, and the report also is available for review at the
W Power Authority's office.
r 1 The preliminary concept for a small hydro development on theU Tazimina River is presented in the Interim Feasibility Assessment
as part of Scenario 19E. Sketches of the proposed plani location
and layout are shown on Figures A.2-9 and A.2-10, and a short
description of the concept is found on pages A.2-7 and A.2-8 in
Volume 2 of the Assessment. Review of this information by attend
ees prior to the meeting would facilitate discussion.
We hope you will be able to have a representative participate in
the meeting on June 28. Please advise Mr. Eric Marchegiani of your
attendance plans and address any questions you may have to him.
Sincerely, ~.
, I RfIt.€.th
Executive Director
EAM/RDH/llm
cc: Kim Sundbe~g, ADF&G
9750/121
MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
DEPT. OF NAAAAL RESOLRCES, DIV. CF LAND & WATER MGMT., SOUTHCENTRAL REGION
TO: Eric Marchegiani DATE; July 16, 1985
Alaska Power Authority
FILE NO: Tazimina RECEIVED
Tf-flU: Leroy Latta :LProject Manager TELEPHONE NO: 786-2254 J U L 1 '" 1985
FROM; Michael Granata ~~SUBJECT: CommenttU.68KR~ORJ~
Natural Resource Officer Tazmina Run-of-river
Facility
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Tazimina facility.
In light of our June 28, 1985 meeting at Dames and Moore, fundamental
construction and operating decisions have not yet been made. Regardless, the
scenario proposed during that meeting revealed a tenative plan which I will
address.
According to Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation's June, 1985
Feasibility Assessment, the present scenario calls for a run-of-river facility
above Tazimina Falls. A 1400', 3 1/2' diameter penstock will deliver water tou a powerhouse containing two (2) 600 Kw turbine-generator units. The power
generated will serve t~ villages of Iliamna, Newhalen and Nondalton.
Water Appropriations
As no water body equal to or greater than 50 acre feet is expected to be
impounded, nor will any structure capable of impounding water be built that is
10' or more in height, DNR will not require the submittal of an Application to
Construct or Modify a Dam. However, since an unspecified amount of water will
be diverted through the penstock, a permit (in accordance with Alaska Statute
46.15) to appropriate and develop that use is necessary prior to
construction. Quantification of the amount of water needed, as well as any
final design plans or mitigation should also be submitted with the application
for water rights.
Land Status
( ,
No definitive boundaries were given for road access, transmission line or
penstock rights-of-way. Based on our meeting, the following townships seem to
be the most likely candidates for these corridors. A brief summary of the
land ownership status is as follows:
Secs. 1, 2, 11, 12 13, 14, and 24 T4S, R32W, SM.
Selected by the state and native villages.
T3S R32W, SM
State selection rejected. Selected by native villages.
Secs. 1 and 12, T3S, R31W, SM
Selected by the state and native villages. Jurisdiction is presently through
BLM.
02·001 A (Rev, 10/19)
c )
I
~
( ,
I~
I
I
I 1
~
u
r 1
W
I
i
I'U
, \
U
( 1
IU
t 1
W
I
I
Eric Marchegiani -2- .l.Jly 16, 1985
T2S, R31W, SM
State selection rejected. Selected by native villages.
Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the permit process or in
further determining land status once construction plans are finalized.
cc: Hank Hoskins, FWS
Brad Smith, NMFS
Kim Sundberg, ACf"&G
Dick Mylius, DLWM/RA
Jim Hemning, Dames and Moore
Craig Calhoon, DLWM/RL
Ned Farquhar, OJ
Kyle Cherry, DLWM/WS
ALASKA. POWER AUTHORITY
J4 WEST 5th AVENUE .. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 98501 Phone: (901) 277·7&41
(901) 27&0001
August 2, 1985
The Honorable Don W. Collinsworth
Comissioner
Alaska Department of Fish &Game
P.O. Box 3-2000
Juneau, Alaska 99802 I~
I Dear Comissioner Collinsworth:
I have attached copies of meeting minutes on the Bristol Bay
Studies for your information. If you have any additions, deletions
or other corrections, please forward those at your convenience so I
may incorporate them into our records.
Sincerely,
I~
I ~~ Robert D. Heath
Executive Director
Attachment as stated.
EAM/RDH/cdc
, ) cc: Kim Sundberg, ADF&G
Don Matchett, SWEC
James Heming, Dames and Moore
Eric Marchegiani, APA
,J
I
( ,
W!
267/417
1-',
I
I W
J
I
I J
DISTRIBUTION LIST
J The Honorable Don W. Collinsworth
I Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish /&Game
P.O. Box 3-2000
Juneau, Alaska 99802I J
, 1 cc: Kim Sundberg, ADF&G
: ~ Don Matchett, SWEC
James Heming, Dames &Moore
Eric Marchegiani, APA
Mr. Robert W. McVey
, 1 Director, Alaska Region
National Marine Fisheries , J P.O. Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
,~
! cc: Brad Smith, NMF
, \
Don Matchett, SWEC
James Heming, Dames & Moore,J Eric Marchegiani', APA
Mr. Robert Gilmore
Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503.J
cc: Hank Hoskings, U.S. Yish & Wildlife
Don Matchett, SWEC
James Heming, Dames &Moore
Eric Marchegiani, APA
, The Honorable Esther Wunnicke
CORl11issioner,
Department of Natural Resources
Pouch M
Juneau, Alaska 99811
cc: Leroy Latta, DNR
Don Matchett, SWEC
James Heming, Dames &Moore
Eric Marchegiani, APA
Mr. Dan Robiison
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
701 "C" Street, ~ox 19
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
267a/417
I
I
~ 1 I~ ,
cc: Chris Godfrey, EPA
Don Matchett, SWEC
James Heming, Dames &Moore
Eric Marchegiani, APA
Mr. Roger Contor
Regional Director
National Park Service
2525 Gambell
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
, 1
I J cc: Larry Wright, Park Service
I Don Matchett, SWEC
James Heming, Dames &Moore
Eric Marchegiani, APA..1
, )
II.l
J
1
, 1
, \
I i~
I
267a/417
•
o DRAIT 7/10/85
I
W
U
!
f 1
IJ
I
, l
U
I
U
J
r )
J
I
, )
)
W
: [
1..1
, 1
W
NOTES OF MEETING J.O. No. 14007.24
BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL POWER PLAN
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Held in Offices of Present for:
Dames & Hoore
Anchorage. AI< Alaska Power Authority· E. A. Marchegiani
June 28, 1985 U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service· Hank Haskins
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources -Leroy
K. Latta, Jr.
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources -Hike
Granata
Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game -Kim Sundberg
Dames &Hoore • J. E. Hemming
Dames & Moore -John Houghton
Stone &Webster Engineering Corporation
D. L. Hatchett
(EPA and NMFS were invited but unable to
attend)
PURPOSE
The meeting was held to brief Federal and State Agencies on the change in
direction of the Bristol Bay studies and to specifically request comments on
environmental concerns related to determining the feasibility of a small hydro
development on the Tazimina River at the Falls. The agencies had been
formally advised of the purpose of the meeting by letter dated June 14, 1985
from Robert D. Heath, Executive Director.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
1. Eric Harchegiani and Don Matchett reviewed the background of the Bristol
Bay Regional Power Plan Studies for the benefit of those who were
unfamiliar with the program. Regional power plan scenarios involving a
single hydroelectric plant are no longer economically attractive due to
the drop in world oil prices. Therefore the Newhalen River studies are
being terminated. However, the subregional concept that includes a small
hydro development on the Tazimina River still appears. to be attractive
economically and further feasibility studies are being planned by the
Power Authority. A FERC preliminary permit will be filed soon. The Power
Authority is interested in comments from state and federal agencies
regarding environmental concerns that should be addressed during the
feasibility study and subsequent licensing process.
2. Don Matchett briefly reviewed the concept for the Tazimina Project
presented in the 1982 Interim Feasibility Assessment. This concept is
very preliminary and may well change as a result of a feasibility study
and new load forecasts. A compilation of information from the 1982 report
was given to attendees and slides were shown of the Tazimina River and the
site area.
NOTES OF MEETING
BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL POWER PLAN
ALASKA POWER AU'I'HORITY
June 28. 1985
Page 2
( 1 3. Jim Hemming commented on the previous environmental studies on the
Tazimina in connection with the regional development that had beenW considered. Also a brief fisheries study had been undertaken just above
the Falls in June 1982. No significant fishery was found immediately
above the Falls.
4. Attendees were requested to comment on the Tazimina small hydro concept in
'l writing to the Power Authority before July 29.
W
J
5. It would appear cost effective to undertake environmental evaluations
related to road alignment and stream crossings during the Newhalen River
demobilization in the next two weeks. Dames & Moore would be able to do
this. The Power Authority wi 11 consider this.
; 1 6. The following items were suggested as areas for further investigation:W
J
a) Land status and ownership
b) Protection of native interests
c) Access road alignment and stream crossings
d) Fish habitats above and below Falls within influence of project
, ) e) Construction personnel logistics
f) Sources of construction materials (sand, gravel, concrete)
,U g) Disposal of excavation and restoration
, I h) Fish entrainment into intake
i) Maintenance of plant (remote operation)
U j) Utilizat ion of Power Authority "Best Management Practices"
k) Provision at intake to insure adequate water depth. possibly weir
1) Heavy equipment transport to site
m) Prediction of future load growth in Lake Region
n) Acceptance of the project by local communities
0) Disposal of wastes from construction
u ACTION REQUIRED
, ) Written comments from Agencies by July 29. 1985.U
u DI.Hatchett:MAD
0743f
MINUTES Of THE AGENCY MEETING
TO REVIEW THE TAlIHINA PROJECT
17 July 1985
Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Proposed Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project
At the invitation of Hr. Eric Marchegiani of the Alaska Power Authority\~ , (APA), the National Marine fisheries Service attended a July 17, 1985 meeting
on the subject topic at the Dames & Moore office in Anchorage. Hr. Marchegiani U provided a historical perspective for the project; Mr. Jim Hemming (Dames &
I Moore) discussed environmental considerations.
I i
People in attendence were:
Mr. Brad Smith, National Marine fisheries Service
, ) , Eric Marchegiani, Alaska Power Authority
~ Jim Hemming, Dames &Moore
( 1
u
Mr. Eric M. indicated that APA would likely apply for preliminary permit
iU through the fERC Commission in August. He also reviewed the comments from the
I earlier agency meeting and indicated that a fall fisheries survey would be
conducted above the falls on the Tazimina River by Dames &Moore. If an FERC
preliminary permit application is submitted in mid-August, documents would be
available in the Federal Register for review by the Alaska agencies sometime in
October.
( I
W Agencies concerns included:
, \ a The potential for fish 5wilMling into the turbines from the area belowU the falls.
a Considerable interest in the need for long term monitoring both u above and below the falls for temperature and fisheries perameters.
.. r i a fish habitat populations in the diversion area, above and below the
\ ' proposed power house location •
a The effect of improved access on sport fishing activity in the
Tazimina River.
I U
a Maintenance of winter flows.
"
W The National Marine fisheries Service was pleased by the early contact and
coordination for this project.
W
,0
I
I
I
(i
.~
:
iU
I
IW
,I
U
I
U
I
,W
!
!
I U
( )
IW
i
, I
I I
.~
I 1
! I
.w.I
U
!
SUMMARY OF AGENCY MEETING
ON THE PROPOSED TAZIMINA RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
July 31, 1985
At the invitation of Mr. Eric Marchegian; of the Alaska Power
Authority, the Alaska Department of Fish &Game, the Alaska Depart
ment of Natural Resources, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
the U.S. National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the Environmental Protection Agency attended a July 31, 1985
briefing on the Tazimina project at the Power Authority offices in
Anchorage. Mr. Marchegiani provided a brief review of the project
proposal and presented a video tape of the project area and the
various transportation corridors under consideration. Mr. Jim
Hemming of Dames &Moore discussed environmental considerations of
the project. People in attendance were:
Kim Sundberg
Brad Smith
Mike Granata
Gary Prokosch,
Chris Godfrey
Larry Wright
Hank Hosking
Jim Hemming
Eric Marchegiani
Items of discussion included:
1. Who would own the road?
ADF&G, Habitat
National Marine Fisheries Service
ADNR
ADNR
EPA
NPS
SWS
Dames &Moore
APA
Mr. Marchegiani indicated that APA would prefer to own
the road, but in all likelihood it would stay under the
control of Iliamna Natives Limited.
2. When would a preliminary permit be made to FERC?
Mr. Marchegiani indicated the application would be made in the
latter part of August 1985.
3. What area would be served by the project?
Mr. Marchegiani indicated that the primary service area would
include Newhalen, Nondalton, and Iliamna villages with a
possible addition of Pedro Bay.
4. Would any significant areas of moose habitat be affected by
the project?
572/438 Page 1
Mr. Hemming responded that alternatives No.2 and No. 2A do
not cross any significant amount of riparian habitat however,
routes 1 and 1A make crossings of small streams each of which
contain a zone of riparian willows that are utilized by moose.
5. What mode of construction will be used for the transmission
line?
Mr. Marchegiani responded that the transmission line for the
project would be in a bur;e~mode.
6. What would be the impact of increased public use of the
project area with road access?
( )
Mr. Hemming responded that the river is used almost dailyW during the ice free period by non-native guides with jetI powered river boats from the mouth of the Tazimina River to
the canyon. There is also access via Alexcy Lake for fisher
men who are flown to the lake and then hike approximately
one-half mile to the Tazimina River. Construction of the
, 1 •
, : Tazimina access road would provide increased access for local
residents, but would still require a hike of 1/4 to 1/2 mile
to reach the middle river area, which is currently the most
popular place for catching rainbow trout and salmon. This
\ 1 road would not be visible from the Tazimina River itself, it ,~I would traverse generally open, dry, lichen and heath plant
communities generally underlain by gravel or bedrock.
I ,
1
I~
I,
I \
I W
I
I U
,
iU
i
IU
572/438 Page 2oI
I~
'Q
I
IW
i
IU
,U
I
I 'U
U
I
I U
, I
~
U
I
( I
I i :-
J
I
U
I
r i
'U
I;' I(1
I~
ALASJi A POWER AuTBORlTY
Phone: (907) 277·7641WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 995)1
(907) 276-0001
August 2, 1985
Mr. Roger Contor
Regional Director
National Park Service
2525 Gambell
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Subject: Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan
Dear Mr. Contor:
Recently the Alaska Power Authority undertook an economic
re-evaluation of several power plan scenarios developed in the
Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan, Interim Feasibility Assessment
completed in 1982. As you are aware from previous review of the
study, the Newhalen River Hydroelectric Project nad emerged as the
most economically attractive plan for providing future electric
power to the whole Bristol Bay region. However, the 1985 economic
re-evaluation produced results quite different from the 1982 study,
due to revised economic criteria. The economic factors mainly
responsible for the change in results are existing lower diesel
fuel prices and lower future fuel price escalation than assumed
previously. .
The new analysis showed that the regional Newhalen and the regional
Tazimina scenarios are no longer less costly on a present worth
basis than the base case, continuation of diesel electric gen
eration. However, the subregional scenario in the 1982 study,
consisting of local diesel generation supplemented where tech
nically feasible by wind energy, waste heat utilization, and small
hydro development, was found to be slightly more attractive econom
ically than the Base Case of diesel only.
As a result of this re-evaluation, the Power Authority plans to
discontinue the Newhalen River Fisheries studies which are being
undertaken to determine if the regional Newhalen project would be
compatible with the important sockeye fishery that utilizes the
river for juvenile and adult migration. These studies are now in
their fourth consecutive year.
One of the elements of the above mentioned subregional scenario was
a small run-of-river hydro development of 1 to 2 MW on the Tazimina
River. Local interests have shown interest in development of such
a project to supply future electric power for projected growth in
45/186
-August 2, 1985
Page 2
the Lake region. The Power Authority is now undertaking a detailed
feasibility study to determine if such a project would be econom
ically and technically attractive and environmentally acceptable.
Information on previous environmental studies done by the Power
Authority on the Tazimina River in connection with a regional
I U hydroelectric project are found in Volume 4 of the 1982 Interim
Feasibility Assessment •. You were provided a copy of the report
i 1 previously, and the report also is available for review at the I~ Power Authority1s office.
The preliminary concept for a small hydro development on theU Tazimina River is presented in the Interim Feasibility Assessment
I as part of Scenario 19E. Sketches of the proposed plant location
and layout are shown on Figures A.2-9 and A.2-10, and a short
description of the concept is found on pages A.2-7 and A.2-8 in:W Volume 2 of the Assessment. Review of this information by attendI ees prior to the meeting would facilitate discussion. I have,J attached some of this information for your use.
u
I
I If you or your staff have any questions, please feel free to
contact me or Mr. Marchegiani of my staff.
Sincerely, -,
. ",.' (,---,-. ".
Brent N. Petrie
Director/Systems Planning
EAM/BNP /11 m
Enclosures as stated.
cc: Dr. Richard S. Fleming, Alaska Power Authority
U
\
Mr. Eric A. Marchegiani, Alaska Power Authority
Mr. Larry Wright, National Park Service
( 1 Mr. Don Matchett, SWEC
Mr. James Heming, Dames &Moore
~
U
r I
~
U·
45/186
United States Department of the Interior
Western Alaska Ecoio,ical Services
Sunshine Plaza. Suite 2B
411 W. 4th Ave. rc:?rI ~nrc::r 0\
Anchorage. Alaska 91 101 \F1§@ ISu\'!J IS\UJ
IN AEPlY AEFER TO:
WAES AUG 081985
V-St<.A POWE.R
A. AUTHORl'f'{
Mr. Robert D. Heath
Executive Director 5 AUG 1985Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
, )
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
, ,
Re: Tazimina River Hyd~electric Project
Proposed Access Road Alignment
I J
Dear Mr. Heath:
I J On 31 July 1985, Hank Hosking of my staff attended a meeting called by Mr.
Eric Marchegiani to discuss the subject topic. Representatives of the
( \ National Park Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental'U Protection Agency, the Alaska Departments of Natural Resources and Fish &
Game, and Dames &Moore were also in attendance.
( ;
I I
J.j A video tape of the proposed accesses from the Nondalton Road to the
Tazimina Hydro site was shown and a location map was provided. Based on the
information available, Location 12 of the Lower Tazimina River Access RouteI
• I Alternatives would be the route selection supported by the U.S. Fish and ,~ Wildlife Service (FWS).
This route location appears to mfnimfze envfronmental impacts as ft does not
cross fish-bearing waters or destroy riparian vegetation. Tne road baseI~ would be located on well-drained sands/gravels and would not impfnge on
wetlands. It fs lfkely that mineral materials requfred for road
construction would be avaflable along the right-of-w~. Although the road
I'w would be visible by afr trafffc, it could not be seen from the Tazimina
River.iU
i
U
IU
I
. Q
I,
(1
I
.~
~,
; f
I~
,0
I
i )
,U,
( )
U
: 1
,U
,W
, .
( ;
I~
{ !
il.l ,
: i
I i
,\.I
I,
( II
i
I~,
~ 1
I U
I U
U
\. ..
The FWS also concurs wfth the tentatfve proposal to bu~ the transmfssfon
conductor along the access road rfght-of-way. Thfs would elfmfnate any
danger of raptor electrocutfon as well as mfnfmfze mafntenance requfrements •
Thank you for the opportunfty to partfcfpate fn the early resolutfon of problem areas.
Sfncerely.
~-t-tJ' ,4r--~
Ffeld Supervfsor
cc: Smith-NMFSj Godfrey-EPA; Sundberg-AOF&G; Granata-AONR; Wrfght-NPS;Hennfng-Dames & Moore: Anchorage
COR RES POt.' r') E ~I C f: OISTRllil'TION
,ACTION: I :1':"=cRMATION:
--
-
I
, ,
_EJ~.... :, ~~ ~h'.... .~;.;"
---'.._..
----
DATE RECtO: DATE DUE:
•
__ _
__________
United States Department of the Interior
W~tern Alaska Ecological Services
,
IN REI'l.Y REFER TO;
WAES
(I
jU
Mr. Robert D. Heathrl Executive Director ~ Alaska Power AutnorityI
,U
334 West 5th Avenue.
Anchorage, Al asta 99501
I
I
'l ,~
I Dear Hr. He ath:
U AS a part of overall planning and participation in the subject ~roject, theI FWS has prepared a mitigation statement for your information and guidance.
This document, in accordance with the Fish·and Wildlife Service Mitigation IU Policy (FR Vol. 46, No. 15. 23 January 1981), establishes Resource
I Categories of Habitat. fish and wildHfe Evaluation Species, and Mitigation
Goal s.( 1
I
,~ The FWS provides this analysis to further project planning. By establishing
( )
project and species habitat specific .itigation goals the FWS intends to
protect and conserve the most important and valuable fish and wildlife,W
I resources while facilitating balanced development of the Nation's natural
resources.
u
Sincerely.
-0~~~/{.cl
r I Fi e 1 d Supervi sorU
ec: Kim Sundberg. ADF&G. Anchorage
Richard Sellers. AOF&G, King Salaon
Jim Hemming, Dames & Hoore, Anchorage
I'w Brad Smith, NMFS, Anchorage
Chris Godfrey. [PA, AnchorageU Hike Granata, DNR. Ancho~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
Dan Wilkerson, DEC. Anch
larry _dgl':t. NPS. Aneho() Don H ate he":t. Stone & We ~ I
W
I
u
Sunshine Plaza. Suite 28
411 W. ·Uh Ave.
Anchorage. Alaska 99501
Re: Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Mitigation Policy Statement
e COR~'ES:"r':I"\ENCE OISTRIBIJTt()N
9PACTION:
te r, Anc hor ag
f
e
IINFORMATlON;'
---l:~::!iC...Jb\~cgp;::,e...\l.C$:....-.______
"' __ :! e.\.:iW' Erht;·,.:~i'-c
t....;b. -b t.n e
_~_________ !~~1t);Z~:;~;
---------~--.-.. ---------04.TE REC'O: r:'.·.. TE Dl'E::;
U·
U
Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project
Mitigation Statement
Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (PWCA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. the Fish and Wildlife Service
(PWS) has responsibilities to insure that project-related losses to fish and
wildlife resources are identified and .itigated. As part of our participation
in the planning and evaluation of the Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project, the
following mitigation statement has been developed in accordance with the FWS
Mitigation Policy (FR Vol. 46, No. 15, 23 January 1981) and in consultation
with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). It has been
prepared to provide guidance for evaluating and mitigating impacts of the
proposed project to fish and wildlife.il 1...1
U
I The Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project mitigation statement has been
developed by first selecting important fish and wildlife habitats from among
the full range of habitats occurring within the area impacted by both direct
and indirect perturbations. These were chosen either because they represent
resources which are most characteristic of the area or because the FWS has
mandated responsibilities for them. By narrowing the scope in this way, the
! U analyses can focus on areas where significant changes are most likely to occur
and not be unduly burdened by inclusion of areas with low fish and wildlife
( , values.U After identifying important habitats. evaluation species. which function as
( 1 indicators of habitat quality and quantity. were chosen. Selection of
I ' evaluation species has an important role in detenaining the extent and type ofW mitigation to ach1eve. A combination of two sets of criteria is typically used
to choose species for this purpose. The first is to pick species with high
public interest. subsistence. or econoaic values and the second is to selectu species whiCh utilize habitats having Significant ecological values (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1984).
( 1
U
~ Fish and wildlife habitats were then assigned to one of the four Resource
Categories delineated in the FWS Mitigation Policy (Table 1). Designation of
habitat into Resource .Categories ensures that the level of .itigation
recommended is consistent with the value of that habitat and its relative
! abundance on an ecoregion or national basis.
Six species have been selected as the basis for evaluating impacts and
U
U formulating mitigation requirements for the Tafi.ina River Hydroelectric
Project (Table 2). Available information indieates that moderate to high
value habitat for each evaluation sre<ies is found w;thin the project area but
that none is considered unique or ;rreplac~~~re~ Therefor~. the habitats for
all speci~s have been assigned to ~e$Ourc~ Cat~gori~s 2 or 3.
U
1
\u
I
w
w
Table 1. Resource Categories andu Mitigation Planning Goals
W
r I
W
c ,
U
U
: 1
IW
t \ i
I.J
: \
W
( ~
I ~
t I
J
I I
U
I U
I U
, 1I ,
U
W
[Q
iU
Resource Designation Mitigation Planning
Category Criteri a Goal
1
2
3
4
Habitat to be impacted is of
high value for evaluation
species and is unique and
irreplaceable on a national
basis or in the ecoregion
section.
Habitat to be impacted is of
high value for evaluation
species and is relatively
scarce or becomi ng scarce on
a national basis or in the
ecoregion section.
Habitat to be impacted is of
. high to medhlm value for
evaluation species and is
relatively abundant on a
nati onal basi s.
Habitat to be impacted is of
medium to low value for
evaluation species.
.....
No loss of existing
habitat value.
No net loss of in-kind
haM tat val ue.
No net loss of
habitat value
while minimizing
loss of in-kind
habi tat val ue.
Minimize loss of
habitat val ue.
I
rl Table 2. Evaluation Species· for the Tazimina River ~ Hydroelectric Project and Resource Category
Designations for Associated Habitat.
f 1
W
Resource Category of
Common Name Scientific Name Associated Habitat
! 1 I~
iU
J
)
( \W
u
( ;
,U
,
: 1
U
n ~ I
r 1 ~
C
U
u
Moose Alces alces 3
Brown bear Ursus arctos 2
Char Salvelinus sp. 3
Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka 2
Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus 3
Rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri 3
• The bald eagle meets several of these tests but was not included as an
evaluation species for mitigation purposes because it is specifically protected
by the Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c).
3
--.
r I
W
U
(I
I ~
U
I
U
( )
U
u
r ,
i (
I~
. I
\ I
I.J
I U
U
I
f l
I..
I U
:U
I
U
• a
The determination of the relative scarcity or abundance of evaluation species
habitat from the national perspective is based upon (1) the historical range
and habitat quality and (2) the current status of that habitat. A significant
reduction in either the extent or quality of habitat for an evaluation species
indicates that it is scarce or becoming scarce, while maintenance of historical
quantity and quality is the basis for considering it abundant.
Specific ways to achieve the mitigation goal for Resource Category 2 when loss
of habitat value is unavoidable include, M(1) physical .adification of
replacement habitat to convert it to the same type lost; (2) restoration or
rehabilitation of previously altered habitat; (3) increased management of
similar replacement habitat so that the in-kind value of lost habitat is
replaced; or(4) a combination of these measures. By replacing habitat value
losses with similar habitat values, populations of species associated with that
habitat may remain relatively stable in the area over time.-*
The mitigation goal of in-kind replacement of lost habitat. however. cannot
always be achieved. When opposition to a project on that basis alone is not
warranted, deviation from this goal may be appropriate. Two such instances
occur when either different habitats and species available for replacement are
determined to be of greater value than those lost, or when in-kindr~placement
is not physically or biologically attainable in the ecoregion. In either case,
replacement involving different habitat kinds may be recommended, provided that
the total value of the lost habitat is compensated.
For Resource Category 3, in-kind replacement of lost habitat is preferred
though not always possible. Substituting different habitats or increasing
management of different habHats so that the value of the lost habitat is
replaced may be ways of achieving the planning goal of no net loss of habitat
val ue.
*FWS Mitigation Policy
"
u
W
iU
I Evaluation Species
r 1 I~
I Identification of evaluation species and designation of Resource Categories
represent the first of several steps to be taken toward the completion of a,U mitigation plan. Evaluation species are:
I
I i TERRESTRIAl
I W 1. Moose (Alces alces). Hoose have traditionally been and still are an
important food source for humans on a local, regional and state basis. As aIU favored game ani.al, .oose attract many resldent and non-resident hunters.
Benefits accrue throughout the State's economy as a result of those hunters. I
U
Aerial surveys conducted by the Alaska Department of Ffsh and Game (ADF&G)
indicate that habitats along the Tazimina River drainage are moderately
important for moose in terms of abundance and quality. Because of relatively
: I
easy access from the villages of Iliamna, Newhalen. Port Alsworth. and
Nondalton, moose in this area are a highly prized subsfstence resource. TheU combination of easy ,access and low ~alf recruitment creates a management
concern over the level of harvest. The primary concerns about the Tazimina
project focus on habitat losses associated with access road construction and
changes in moose harvest and/or distribution resulting from increased
accessibility to hunting pressure.
2. Brown bear CUrsus arctos}. This species is considered to be a valuable big
game animal and attracts numerous resident and non-resident hunters. The
non-consumptive value of brown bears is exemplified by the State operated
McNeil River Sanctuary located on a tributary of Kamishak B., southeast of the
proposed project.
Although not considered threatened or endangered in Alaska, the brown bear is
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543. as
amended) in the 48conte~;nous states. As such, it can be considered a
species of particular national interest and one whose habftat has been
significantly reduced in extent and quality from the national perspective.
Accordingly, it is considered scarce on that basis, although relatively common
in the proposed project area.
u
The project could result in degrees of direct and indirect disturbances.
Although some disturbance is unavoidable. some facets • ., be controlled. The
type and design of construction camps. mode and route of access, and timing of
construction are factors which m., dramatically influence the extent of
disturbance resulting fr~ this project. losse~'due to habitat degradation
could, however, ~e masked ~y reductions attribu~able to disturbance.
Brown bears are ~derat~ly ahundant in the Tazimi'na drainage and primary
impacts likely would center on human.~ear interactions. Access road
development might lead to increased ~ear harvest through sport hunting and
-defense of life and property· takings CR. Sellers, personal communication).
5
I
IJ
i '
i
IU
W AQUATIC
I
3. Char (Sa1ve1inus spp.). For purposes of this document, species
differentiation between the Arctic char (S. a1pinus) and Dolly Varden (S.Ie;
u
ma1ma) will not be attempted. Although tnese species' are plastic
morphologically, distinctive populations occur throughout the range of this
species (McPhail and Lindsey, 1970). Its habitat is considered abundant and of
high Quality.
Char occur throughout the Tazimina drainage, both above and below the barrier
falls. Detailed .igration and spawning patterns have not been determined in
this watershed. The econo.ic value of char in ter.s of subsistence and sport
fi shi ng is unlcnown (K. Sundberg,. personal coamuni cation).o
4. Sockeye salmon (oncorhhWihus nerlca). Past depletions of sockeye salmon
[ 1 stoclcs in the Pacific Hort st, as well as in Alaska, have resulted in
national, state, and local interest in avoiding adverse impacts to existing
U stoclcs and habitats. The soclceye is the most commercially important of the
Pacific salmon and restoration programs have been ongoing in Alaska for several
years. Natural habitats of this val uabl e species are likely dec1 i ning overall u on a national basis.
The Kvichak River drainage, of which the Tazimina River is tributary, is the
largest producer of sockeye salmon in the Bristol B~ Management Area. Sockeye
spawning has been documented in the Tazimina River upstream from the Newhalen
River confluence to the barrier falls (Alaska Depart.ent of Fish &Game, 1985;
Baldridge and Trihey, 1982).
- 1
Sport, commercial, and subsistence utilizations of sockeye comprise major roles
in the socio-econo.ic viability of Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton. All,U developments must be assessed in ter.s of adverse impacts to the life cycle of
the sockeye sal.an and its habitat.
u 5. Arctic gr~lfng (Thymallus arcticus). Characteristically found in clear
water, grayling are common in the Tazimina River drainage. As such, they are
susceptible to .an-.ade habitat changes such as pollution, stream siltation,
and abrupt variances in water temperature. Additionally, their slow growth and
ease of capture render these populations susceptible to overharvesting which
might occur with increased accessibility to the area. The occurrence of
grayling is limited in the lower 48 states. but they are widely distributed in
Alaska. Habitat is relatively abundant throughout the natural range of this
species.
The fish habitat study conducted in 1982 (Grabacki, Dames &Moore) focused
primarily on the Tazimina River reach associated,with the proposed powerhouse
location. The study acknowledges that other seasonal observations should be
conducted in the area which would be impacted. 'The socio-economic value of
grayl i n9 in the area has not been deten:11 ned. '
6
i ':
w
6. Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). The rainbow trout is the most highly
prized gameffsh in western North America (McPhail and Lindsey. 1970). Itso range and habitats have been expanded nationally by artificial propagatfon and
management actions. Although not fished commercially. the Tazi.ina River
populatfon of rainbows supports guiding and sport fishing opportunities.
Accesses to these fish are gained by air transportation. riverboat travel fromU local villages. and float trips on the Tazimina below the barrier falls at
river mil e 9.5.
:0 Relatively large ntRbers of rainbow trout exist in the Iliamna watershed
\ because they are not overexploited. Although the designation of the Bristol
, I Bay Wild Trout Zone has focused angler attention on these large resident
rainbows, area remoteness, inaccessibility. and management considerations have I~
,0
limited sport harvesting. Terainal gear restrictions, spawning fish
protection. and catch and release fishing promotions are actions instituted by
the Alaska Board of Fisheries to maintain vigorous rainbow populations (Alaska
Dep artment of Fi sh and Game. 1985).I
The rainbow trout feed on all life stages of aquatic insects, small fish, and
salmon eggs. As rainbows follow spawning sockeye salmon, the magnitude of the
salmon runs may affect the juvenile rainbows' survivability and the adult
f i rainbows' winter condition (ibid.). Any adverse impact to sockeye salmon may
contribute to the detriment of the rainbow trout in the Tazimina drainage. W
u
u
: I
W
UI
U
I
U
u
••
-
<"'I
(']
~,
w
o
\
!Q
W
i I
I W
U
!w
i~
U
W
IU
U
Literature Cited
Alaska Department of Fish and Game/Division of Habitat. 1985. Alaska Habitat
Management Guide -Southwest Region Volume II: Human Use of Fish and
Wildlife. Juneau, Alaska.
Baldridge, J. E. and Trihey, E. W. 1982. Potential Effects of Two Alternative
Hydroelectric Developments on the Fishery Resou~es of the lower Tazimina
River. Alaska: A Preliminary Instream Flow Assessment Final Draft Report.
A~tic Environmental Information and Data Center in cooperation with Dames
&Moore Consulting Engineers. Anchorage, Alaska.
Grabacki, Stephen T. 1982. Study of Fish Habitats Related to Potential
Impacts of the Tazi.ina Run-of-the-River Hydroelectric Concept. Dames &
Moore •. Anchorage, Al aska.
McPhail, J. D. and Lindsey. C. C. 1970. Freshwater Fishes of Northwestern
Canada and Alaska. Fisheries Resea~h Board of Canada. Bulletin 173.
Ottawa, Canada.
Morrow. J. E. 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of AlaSka. Alaska Northwest
Publishing Co. Anchorage, Alaska.
Sellers, Richard A. 1985. Personal Communication. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game. King Salmon. Alaska.
Sundberg, Kim. 1985. Personal Communication. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. Anchorage. Alaska.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Knik Arm Crossing Mitigation
Statement. Western Alaska Ecological Services, Anchorage, Alaska.
8
OUPUCATE
u
W
U
I
(1
\U
~)
\~
(' \
I u~"
( 1
. ~
I
U
W
W
, r 1
~
I
D
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GA ME
August 20, 1985
Mr. Robert D. Heath
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Heath,
I /
/ .'LL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR
(907) 344-0541
I 333 RASI'8ERRY ROAD
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99602
~~@~~Wl~~
AUG 2 11985
ALASKA POWER
AUTHORITY
Re: Tazimina Falls Hydroelectric Project
The Alaska Department. of Fish and" Game (ADF&G) has 'care"fully
reviewed-your preliminary project description for a 1.2 MW
run-of-river hydroelectric project located at the Tazimina
River Falls. We have also reviewed the lower Tazimina River
access route alternatives that were provided to us in a
meeting with Mr. Eric Marchegiani on July 31. To assist you
in identifying issues that may be pertinent to filing a
preliminary FERC license application, we offer the following
comments. Our comments are based upon: 1) our statutory
authorities under AS 16, 2) our responsibilities to provide
comments and recommendations on federal permits and licenses
pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and 3)
our responsibilities to the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources and the Office of Management and Budget to review
projects for consistency with the policies and guidelines of
the Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP) and the Alaska Coastal
Management Program (ACMP). It is our understanding that the
project is still' in the early conceptual design stage~
'therefore, please consider our comments' to be preliminary .
Any modification of project pla~s including but not limited
to: 1) moving the powerhouse downstream (e.g., out of the
canyon), 2) increasing the water withdrawl from the river,
or 3) impounding water upstream of the falls is no~ within
the scope of this review and will require additional
analysis by ADF&G.
Project Siting and Conceptual Design: It is our
understanding that the proposed project is a run-of-river
concept to meet local power needs in the villages of
Nondalton, Illiamna, Newhalen, and perhaps Pedro Bay. Water
would be removed from the Tazimina River at a point just
upstream of the 100-foot high Tazimina Falls through a gated
r1
W
!
f , .
W
. )
. IU
{ 1
u
IU
I
i U
W
('II
iiiI-I
I
W
I
ID
Mr. Robert D. Heath -2-August 20, 1985.
intake structure, would flow to two 600 KW cross flow
turbines through a 1400-foot long, 3.S-foot diameter
pens,tock, and would be returned to the river at a point just
downstream of the falls. During operation, the project
would not significantly dewater the 0.2-mile portion of the
river including the falls between the intake and the
powerhouse, except perhaps during the months of January
through April when peak generating flows may approach or
equal flows in the Tazimina River.
The falls present a
migration of fish.
fish, notably Arctic
falls. The seasonal
the vicinity of the
complete blockage to the upstream
However, several species of resident
grayling and char occur above the
distribution and abundance of fish in
project intake is not well known.
Previous studies in this area did not look at the summer and
fall distribution of fish. This information will be
required to adequately determine fish use of the intake
site.
The BBAP Guideline No. 6 to Prevent Fish Habitat Alteration
and Destruction and the draft Bristol Bay Coastal Management
Program (BBCMP) Policy No. 10.4 (enclosed) require the
following:
Tideland permits or leases, water appropriations,
and/or Title 16 permits for water intake pipes used to
remove water from fish bearing waters will require that
the intake be surrounded by a screened enclosure to
prevent fish entrainment and impingment. Pipes and
screening will be designed, constructed, and maintained
so that the maximum water velocity at the f;lUrface of
the screen enclosure is not greater than 0.1 foot,per
second. Screen mesh size will not exceea-():'04 inch
unless another size has been approved by ADF&G. Other
technology and techniques which can be demonstrated to
prevent the entrainment and' impingement of fish may
also be utilized~
Additional information and analysis on the distribution and
abundance of fish at the intake site must be obtaj,ned to
address whether screening of the intake to prevent fish
entrainment and impingment is warranted. This analysis
should include the effects that the intake structure and
other stream modifications resulting from the project may
have on fish habitat upstream of the falls: especially
whether stream modifications may change fish use of the
intake site.
Salmon and rainbow trout
Canyon downstream of the
areas relative to the
are known to spawn in the Tazimina
falls, however spawning and rearing
powerhouse tailrace are not well
w
u
~ )iU
I W/
J
r IU
W
U
U
U
w-
Mr. Robert D. Heath -3-August 20, 1985
known. Char and Arctic grayling occur in the canyon,
however, their spawning areas are not known. It is believed
that the canyon provides only marginal salmon spawning
habitat which is related to the high flows and lack of
suitable spawning substrate found in this area. Since the
operation of the project is not expected to significantly
alter flows, stream temperature, water quality, or available
habitat downstream of the falls, the impacts of the project
on the salmon resource should be limited to construction
activities (e.g., sedimentation, fuel spills, blasting,
removal of aggregate, instream work) and from increased
recreation and subsistence fishing pressure resulting from
improved access to the lower Tazimina River. Information on
fish distribution and abundance in the vicinity of the
powerhouse tailrace and an analysis of project related
impacts including construction activities on downstream fish
resources should be included in the FERC license
application. Specificquidelines and policies of the BBAP
and the BBCMP should be addressed for project consistency.
We refer you tc) the enclosed BBAP Guidelines to Prev.ent Fish
Habitat Alteration and Destruction fpund on pages 2-9
through 2-12; Water Quality, page 2-5: Extracting Materials
qr Mining in or Adjacent to Fish Habitat, page 2-24; Stream
Crossings, page 2-39: Bridges and Culverts, page 2-40:
Winter Roads and Winter Access over Rivers, Lakes and
Streams, page 2-40; Moose Habitat Alteration and
Destruction, page 2-14: Brown Bear Habitat Alteration and
Destruction, page 2-16: Fixed wing Aircraft and Helicopter,
page 2-40; and Road Construction in Essential Moose or Brown
Bear Habitat, page 2-42; and the enclosed BBCMP policies for
Energy Facilities (Nos. 4.10-4.12), Transportation and
Utilities (No. 5.1-5.6), and Habitats (Nos. 10.1-10.6).
References to specific sections of the Alaska Power
Authority's Best Management Practices (BMP) Manuals would be
appropriate for some of the construction related impacts
including erosion and sedimentation control, fuel and
hazardous materials handling, and liquid and solid waste
disposal. Additional BMP's addressing water withdrawl,
blasting and timing for instream work may also be
appropriate. The designation of an environmental monitor
for the project should also be addressed. .
Wildlife in the.project area include brown bear, moose, fox,
beaver, and caribou. The impacts to wildlife from the
project, will include construction activities and increased
hunting access to the lower Tazimina River and Tazimina
Lakes area from the access road. Access related impacts are
addressed later in this memorandum under Access Route
Alternatives. Construction impacts of greatest concern
include the attraction of bears, fox, and other wildlife to
the construction area resulting from workers feeding wild
animals and the improper handling of garbaCle. Because of
I o
I
r-1 Mr. Robert D. Heath -4-August 20, 1985
i~
i
U the high likelihood of brown bear encounters in the
construction area, a garbage incinerator must be required
U
I for ,the camp and garbage storage areas must be surrounded by
bear proof enclosures. Although feeding wildlife or
creating an attractive nuisance to wildlife is a misdemeanor
under state law, all construction workers should be required
to participate in an environmental orientation program that
addresses the hazards associated with feeding wildlife ino addition to other applicable state and federal laws and
regulations regarding conservation of fish and wildlife.I
1° Access Route Alternatives
Four potential access routes from the Newhalen-Nondal ton
Road to the project site were reviewed. It is our
I U understanding that the APA proposes to bury the transmission
line into or adjacent to the road bed. This should
alleviate concerns about potential impacts to raptors, butU warrants additional consideration for crossings of stream
I and wetland areas. In,our review, we considered:
, 1 u 1. the number of stream crossings of known and potential
fish bearing waters,
u 2. the potential disturbance to wildlife habitat,
U
3. the potential disturbance to wetlands and other
sensitive soil and hydrological features, and
I 4. the consistency of route alternatives with the
r ' guidelines of the BBAP and the policies of the draft
BBCMP. 'UI We refer you to the enclosed BBAP Guidelines and draft BBCMP
r ) policies that are pertinent to determining the consistencyU of access route alternatives.
Route Nos. 1 and 1a involve at least four crossings of knownu and potential fish bearing waters including a cataloged
sockeye salmon spawning stream (AWC No.
324-10-10150-2207-3022-0010). ' These routes traverser 1 wetlands and riparian areas that provide importanthab1tatW for wildlife including moose, brown bear, and beaver. The
routes will a'lso encounter more numerous small streams and
rivulets requiring additional aquatic habitat considerationsU and careful evaluation of cross drainage structures and roadI and transmission line crossings.
U Route No. 2 involves no known stream crossings of fish
bearing waters, however, this route must be carefullyIsurveyed to verify the presence or absence of fish habitat.
Additionally, Route No. 2 avoids the wetlands and important
1°
o
I
-----------
W
I
, I
W
I \
( \
U
IU
U
Mr. Robert D. Heath -5-August 20, 1985
moose, brown bear, and beaver habitat that occurs south and
east of Alexcy Lake. Route No. 2a is similar to Route No. 2
with the exception that it requires crossing a low, wet area
and stream between two lakes that is likely to contain fish.
Again, additional survey information is required to
determine fish habitat along this route.
Of the four alternative routes, Route No. 2 appears to have
clear advantages for avoiding impacts to fish and wildlife
resources and sensitive habitats. Route No. 2 is our
preferred alternative and appears to be consistent with the
BBAP and BBCMP. Route Nos. 1 and la would be the least
preferred alternatives and are probably inconsistent with
the BBAP and BBCMP. Route No. 2a is our secondary preferred
alternative and with additional mitigation of the impacts on
wetlands and the stream might be consistent with the BBAP
and BBCMP.
All of the alternative routes will improve human access into
areas containing important fish and wildlife habitat. This
will result in increased hunting, fishing and trapping
pressure on fish, big game, and furbearers in the lower
Tazimina River/Alexcy Lake area and may lead to secondary
developments in the area. In addition, road access to the
Tazimina River Falls will increase the human use of the
Tazimina Lakes region including the potential for a future
road extension to lower Tazimina Lake. A significant
increase in boat access to the upper Tazimina River/Tazimina
Lakes area can be expected to result from the project
because the falls and rapids currently block upstream boat
traffic. Although increased hunting and fishing pressure on
fish and wildlife stocks can be regulated by the Boards of
Fisheries and Game, tightened regulations will reduce bag
limits or shorten harvest seasons thus further restricting
current commercial, recreational, and subsistence users of
the resources. ~he potential socio-economic effects of
increasing access to this area is perhaps the greatest
impact of the project and should be adequately addressed in
the FERC license application.
Thank you ·for the opportunity to comment.
CORRESPONDENCE OISTR'8UTION
ACT ION:
------------_._-.....
Enclosures
DATE RECtO:
, N::0 R M " T ION:
I
,Mr. Robert D. Heath -6-August 20, 1985
cc w/o Enclosures:
H. Hosking, USFWS
C. Godfrey, EPA
B. Smith, NMFS
. : 1 D. Sellers, Game Division, King Salmon, ADF&G·U D. Russell, Commercial Fisheries, King Salmon, ADF&G
I L. Gwartney, Sport Fish, King Salmon, ADF&G
J. Fall, Subsistence, Anchorage, ADF&GU
J
U
I ,
, \
W
I'u
( 1
U
U
I
BRISTOL BAY AREA PLAN
FOR STATE LANDS
SEPTEMBER 1984
•
10,
STATE OF ALASKA
Esther C. wunnlcke, Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Don W. COllinsworth, Commissioner
Department of Fish and Came
Richard A. Neve, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
• •
.1
-
resources of the region. The plan also recognizes the need for, and
emphasizes the importance of, enforcing existing water quality regulations
in the Bristol Bay region.
Guidelines address the protection of historic and" cultural resources.
maintenance of water quality, and community public notice procedures for
activities which affect subsistence resources.
Regional Goals and Guidelines -Environmental and Cultural Resources
Goals
A. Maintain a level of air and water quality sufficient to
protect the human, fish, and wildlife resources of the
region.
B. Make the maximum amount of water available for human use and
benefit while maintaining sufficient water levels in lakes
and streams to protect the fish. wildlife, and other
resources of the region.
Guidelines
1. Historic and Cultural R~sources
The State will provide appropriate protection of historic and culturJl
resources. Establishing adeQuate inventory programs and project
planning processes that give consideration to these resources early in
the development process should be a high priority. Locations of knewn
eXisting sites are depicted in the Automated Data Base or on maps
available from the DNR, Division of Parks, State Historic Preservation
Office.
2. Water Quality
rt is the intent of the plan that domestic and public water supplies,
fresh and marine waters important for the production and management of
waterfowl and fish. and water used for recreation will at a minimum be
classified by DEC in consultation with other State and Federal agencies·
for these uses and that state water quality standards will be
maintained by DEC at levels necessary to maintain or enhance these
uses. All permits. leases· or plans of operations for land or water
uses which may directly affect water quality will requirp that these
activities be s1 ted, designed, constructed and operated to provide a
reasonable assurance that discharges will meet water quality standards •
for the receiving water use classification. Water qual tty standards
will meet or exceed those criteria set out in 78 AAC 70 (State Water
Quality Criteria) and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules
and regulations for these uses. Amendment of state water quality
standards or reclassification of waters may be made through ADEC
amendment procedures and does not require amendment of the plan.
2-5
01
Guidelines addressing water quality, fish and wildlife enhancement, and
prevention of fish and wildlife habitat alteration were developed.
Regiona'l Goals and Guidelines -Fish and Wildlife
Goals
A. Maintain the historic levels of productivity of fish and
wi ldl i fe populations important for commercia I, subsi stence
and recreational use and maintain the carrying capacity of
their natural habitats. •
8. Provide for optimum commerc fa I , subsistence, and recre
ational use of fish and wildlife resources through
conservation and compatible management of land use
consistent with purposes· of the plan.
Guideline for All Species
1. Enhancement
Enhancement on state land is an acceptable fish and wildlife management
pract; ce where it has been determi ned to be sci ent i fi ca 11 y sound,
compatible with land managers objectives, and where public review shows
it to be in the public interest. Proposals for fisheries enhancement
activities will evaluate and consider the importance, ~alues and
advantages of maintaining the genetic integrity of wild and indigenous
fish populations. All fisheries enhancement and related activities
will only use local, wild, indigenous stocks.
Guidelines for Individual Species
The following guidelines are specific to a particular speCies or species
group and are arranged with fish first, followed by caribou, ~oose,
waterfowl, brown bear, marine birds, marine mammals, and, finally, eagles.
Where appropriate. guidelines are written for each species to address the
following: habitat alteration and destruction; disturbance; and impacts on
harvest.
Guidelines to Prevent Fish Habitat Alteration and Destruction
1. Instream Flow
Except for public water supply and domestic use, the maintenance of
fish stocks is generally the highest priority water use in the study •
area. Therefore. the ONR will not allow an appropriation of water to
cause the instream flow to fall below the amount determined necessary
by AOF&G and/or USFWS to protect fish habitat and production and
waterfowl habitat, unless, under the procedures outlined in AS
46.15.080, the Commissioner of ONR makes a finding based on public
review that the competing use of water is in the best public interest
2-9
,•
.\
and no feasible and prudent alternative exists. (This guideline is in
accordance with the Cooperative Agreement among the ADF&G. the ADEC,
and the ADNR.
2. Buffers Adjacent to Fish Habitat
To minimize' negative impacts on water quality and public access, the
State will retain a publicly-owned vegetated (if naturally occurring)
strip of land or an easement as a buffer on lands adjacent to fish
habitat for the activities outlined befow. This entire guideline does
not apply to land exchanges and non ....discretionary land conveyances,
such as Native selections, Native allotments, mineral patents, etc.
The size of river, lake, and stream buffers will be decided by the
public land manager on a case-by-case basis and may vary depending on
the nature of the activity proposed and the particular values of the
stream, lake, or river.
When disposing of land for settlement or commercial . recreation
facilities land managers will decide on a case-by-case basis whether
( 1 the buffer will be publicly owned or an easement. Public ownership of , I the buffer is preferred on streams, rivers and lakes important to theI.i production of anadromous fish or with important public use values. If
an easement is used, no development or clearing except for access
purposes will be allowed within the easement.
Generally, public land disposals for settlement, commerci~l , ,
I I recreational facil ities, or simnar low density, non-water dependent
uses should have a minimum buffer of 200 feet landward of the ordinary l.J high water mark(s). However, adjacent to designated anadromous fish
spawning habitat, the buffer will, to the extent feasible and prudent,
never be less than 100 feet landward of the ordinary high wateru ma rk( s).
( \ Permits, leases, and plans of operation for non-water dependent
\ I commercial and industrial uses, transportation facilities, and~ pipelines will, where feasible and prudent, require setbacks between
these facilities and adjacent water bodies to maintain streambank
access and protect adjacent fish habitat. public water supplies, andu public recreation. The width of this setback may vary depending upon
the type and size of non-water dependent use, but wi.1l be adequate to
maintain access and protect adjacent waters from degradation below theU water quality standard set by DEC. Adjacent to designated anadromousI -fhh spawning habitat this setback will, to the extent feasible and
prudent, never be less than 100 feet landward of ordinary high water.
U Where it is not feasible and prudent to maintain a setback adjacent to
fhh habi tat, public water suppl i es and recreationa 1 waters. other
measures will be implemented to meet the intent of this guideline.
IiQ
\
I
W 2-10
o
Where buffers are smaller than .the minimum, soil erosi'on will, to the
extent feasible and prudent, be minimized by restricting the removal of
vegetation adjacent to fish-bearing waterbodies and by stabilizing
disturbed soil as soon as possible. Adequate st~b1lization practices
and timing will be determined on a case-by-case basis • .
Private landowners are encouraged to maintain development setbacks
equivalent to the buffers described here and to follow so11 erosion
mitigation practices.
This guideline is not intended
stream, river or lake crossings.
to' preclude
•
or restrict necessary
3. Wetlands Identification and Protecti6n
Within an area slated for development, wetlands that are hydrologically
important to fish should be identif~cd by ADF&G prior to any
developmental activities in order to avoid negative impacts on the
fish. Consistent with existing laws and regulations, permits for
activities in wetlands that are hydrologically important to fish will,
to the extent feasible and prudent, provide for the maintenance and
non-degradation of these areas.
4. Structures in Fish Habitat
To maintain nearshore migration of. juvenile fish permitting agencies
will, to the extent feasible and prudent, require that structures in
fish habitat be built to minimize impacts on fish migration.
s. Heavy Equipment in Fish Habitat
Permits issued for developmental activities that require the use of
heavy equipment in fish habitat or wetlands that are hydrologically
important to fish habitat identified by AOF&G will, to the extent
feasible and prudent, minimize damage to wetlands and wetland
vegetation.
6. Water Intake Structures in Fish Habitat
Tideland permits or leases, water appropriations, arid/or Title 16
permits for water intake pipes used to remove water from fish bearing
waters will require that the intake be surrounded by a screened
enclosure to prevent fish entrainment and impingement. Pipes and
screening will be designed, constructed, and maintained so that the
maximum water velocity at the surface of the screen enclosure is not
greater than 0.1 foot per second. Screen me~h size will not exceed
0.04 inch unless another size has been approved by AOF&G. Other
technology and techniques which can ·be demonstrated to prevent the
entrainment and impingement of fish may also be utilized.
•
2-11
,
..~.
-
n U .1
r'W 7. Stream Alteration
Developmental activities in or adjacen.t to fish .habitat will, to the
extent feasible and prudent, not significantly alter the natural stream
course or channel. u 8. Design and Mitigation of Hydroelectric Pr~jects
Hydroelectric projects will not dam, divert or draw down rivers.
streams. or lakes that support importaqt commercial, subsistence, oro recreational fish species unless the 'project will be designed or
mitigated so as to cause no net loss to fish production in the area
( 1 affected by the project.
~ 9. Use of Explosives in Fresh and Marine Waters
Permits issued for geophysical surveys in fresh and marine waters willu require the use of non-explosive energy sources such as airguns, gas
exploders, or other sources that have been demonstrated to be harmless
to fish, seabirds, and marine mammals~ u Permits for blasting for purposes other than geophYSical surveys may be
approved on a case-by-case basis when all steps have been taken to
minimize impacts and when no feasible and prudent alternative exists to
meet the 'public need.
Guideline Cross Reference -Fish Habitat Alteration and Destructionu See -Water Quality page 2-5
See -Enhancement (page 2-9)
,
/' 1
I See -Mineral ExploratiQn (page 2-23)
U See -Dredge, Fill, and Shoreline Alternation (page 2-24)
See -Extracting Materials or Mining in, or Adjacent to Fish Habitat
: \ (page 2-24)
See -Mining Plan of Operation-Leasehold Location Areas (page 2-24)
W See -Reclamation-Leasehold Location Areas (page 2-26)
See -Oil and Gas Pipelines (page 2~28)
( 1 , I See -Discharge of Drilling Muds (page 2-28)
See -Recreational Facility Siting (page 2-31)I~ See -Stream Crossings (page 2-39)
( 1 See -Bridges and Culverts (page 2-40)
See -Winter Roads and Winter Access Over Rivers, Lakes. and Streams
I W (page 2-40)
Guidelines to Prevent Caribou DisturbanceU
1. Non-Oil and Gas Development and Caribou Calving Habitat I
Commercial and industrial developments that are likely to cause
I U significant impact to caribou calving and that cannot be restricted
rU 2-12
oI
I
I
.\ ,u
Guideline Cross Reference -Caribou Disturbanceo See -Enhancement (page 2-9) -,. 'See -Recreation Fac.i1ity Siting (page 2-31)
See -Lands that Can Be Sold (page 2-33)
See -New Public Roads or Utilities in Caribou Migration Routes
(page 2-40) ..
See -Fixed Wing Aircraft and Helicopters (2-40) ISee -Above Ground Pipelines (page 2-~1)u See -Repeated Off Road Access in Essential Moose and Caribou Habitat ,(page 2-41)
,U Guidelines to Prevent Moose Habitat Alteration and Destruction
. I 1 1. Roads, Seismic Lines and Transmission Lines in Moose Habitat II
U Road rights-of way. seismic lines. and transmission lines. will. to the
I extent feasible and prudent, be designed and sit;ed to parallel or skirt
and not bisect essential or important moose habitat. identified on Map IiU 3 in Appendix A.
I ) 2. Development and Willow Vegetation J
W Significant destruction of willow vegetation for the purpos~.s of ,industrial or commercial development or transportation corridors will
be avoided to the extent feasible and prudent. Uses that require a
.developmental plan or plan of operation will address prompt mitigationu ,
of impacts on essential moose winter habitat. identified on Map 3 in
Appendix A. including prompt revegetation. Willow vegetation ;s the,-( 1
I: primary winter food source in essential moose wintering areas in
Bristol Bay.
Guideline Cross Reference -Moose Habitat Alterations and Destruction -U See -Enhancement (page 2-9)I See -Recreation Facility Siting (page 2-31) II
i ) See -Fixed Wing Aircraft and Helicopters (page 2-40),U See -Above Ground Pipelines (page 2-41)I See. -Repeated Off .Road Access in Essential Moose and Caribou Habitat II
(page 2-41) U See -Road Construction in Essential Moose or Brown Bear Habitat (page
2-42)
I
U I
I
\
2-14 I
o
Guidelines to Prevent Waterfowl Disturbances, Habitat
Destruction, and Impacts on Waterfowl Harvest
Alteration and
1. Activities in Essential Waterfowl Habitat
Industrial activities requiring a permit, lease, or development plan
with high levels of 'acoustical and visual disturbance, such as boat
traffic, blasting, dredging, and seismic operations,in essential
spring and fall waterfowl high use areas will, to the extent feasible
and prudent, be avoided during sensitiv& periods, identified on Map 4
in Appendix A. (This guideline does not apply to traditional hunting
and fishing activities allowed by law.»)
2. Airports and Other Developments in or Adjacent to Essential Waterfowl
Habitat
New airports, surface transportation corridors, and other developments
in or adjacent to essential waterfowl habitat that are likely to result
in significant physical, visual, or acoustical disturbance to waterfowl
will, to the extent feasible and prudent. be sited and designed to
prevent harmful disturbance to waterfowl. Developments should be
buffered from essential waterfowl habitats through appropriate measures
such as distance (preferably one mile), and/or topography. vegetation,
or combinations thereof to reduce disturbance.
3. Dredge and Fill in Essential Waterfowl Habitat
Land manager's permits for dredging and filling in essential waterfowl
habitat, identified on Map 4 in Appendix A, including gravel extraction
and the construction of roads and pads, will not be granted unless it
is determined by the ADF&G that the proposed activity will not cause
significant adverse impacts to essential waterfowl habitat or the land
manager determines that no feasible and prudent alternative exists.
4. Alteration of the Hydrologic System
To the extent feasible and prudent, channelization, diversion. or
damming that will alter the natural hydrological conditions and have a
significant 'adverse impact on essential waterfowl habitat •. identified
on Map 4 in Appendix A, will be avoided.
S. Public Access
On public lands in essential waterfowl habitat, identified on Map 4 in •
Appendix A, permits and leases specifically will not restrict access
for traditional public uses of these areas during hunUng and fishing
seasons in accordance with existing regulations. Closures that
prohibit public access may be allowed immediately adjacent to
facilities to protect workers' safety.
2-1S
•
u
u
.1
I
6. Public Ownership of Essential Waterfowl Habitat
Public lands designated essential waterfowl habitat, identified on Map I4 in Appendix A, will be reta1ne.d in public C?wnership. Essential
waterfowl habitat will be leased only for activities that are
determined by the land manager, in consultation wi th ADF&G, to be
compatible or which can be made compatible with the maintenance of Iu waterfowl populations and habitats and that do not restrict traditional
waterfowl harvest activities except· as allowed in number 5 above.
Leases issued in essential waterfowl habitat for activities that may be Imade compatible will incorporate mitigation measures determined by the u~ land manager 1 n consu 1tat i on wi th AbF&G. USFWS and other appropri ate
: I sources. Mitigation measures make the activity compatible with the
maintenance of waterfowl populations and harvest activities. This IU' guice1ine does not apply to land exchanges authorized by ANILCA or
identified in the plan. IGuideline Cross Reference -Waterfowl Disturbance, Habitat Alteration and
Destruction, and Impacts on Waterfowl Harvest\U
I See -Water Quality (page 2-5) I
See -Enhancement (page 2-9) u See -Oil and Gas Facilities in Essential Waterfowl Habitat (page 2-29)
See -Recreational Facility Siting (page 2-31) II \ See -Fixed Wing Aircraft and Helicopters (page 2-40)\ I See -Transmission Lines in Essential Waterfowl Habitat (page 2-42)~ IGuidelines to Prevent Brown Bear Habitat Alteration and Destructionu 1. Development in Essential Brown Bear Habitat I
; \
i Commercial, recreational, or industrial developments or other uses on
U state lands that are likely to cause significant permanent alteration
to essential brown bear habitat or that cannot be restricted seasonally
Iwill, to the extent feasible and prudent, avoid essential brown bear
hab; tat, identified on Map 5 in Appendix A. Activi ties that causeu permanent alteration of essential brown bear· habitat, that can be
restricted seasonally, or that require an exploration plan, development I
r : plan, or plan of operation wi.l1 require mitigation of impacts in
W essential brown bear habitat. Industrial or commercial development on
state land should avoid areas identified as important brown bear Ihabitat, as identified on Map 5 in Appendix A.
Guideline Cross Reference -Brown Bear Habitat Alteration and Destruction I
See -Enhancement (page 2-9)
See -Recreational Facility Siting (page 2-31)
See -Lands That Can Be Sold (page 2-33) I
See -Land Sales·;n Essential Brown Bear Habitat (page Z-35)
See -Fixed Wing Aircraft and Helicopters (page 2-40)
See -Road Construction in Essential Moose or Brown Bear Habitat
I
2-16 I
U
Q
,\
U closed to mineral entry. Further, bulk sampling will not be allowed in
anadromous streams without a permit from ADF&G.
U 3. Dredge, Fill and Shoreline Alteration
u
To avoid adverse impact ~n fish or fish habitat, dredging (including
marine mining), filling, or shoreline alteration in fish habitat,
barrier islands, spits, beaches, or tideflats will be allowed only
where it is determined that the proposed activity will not have a
significant adverse impact on fish or fish habitat or that no feasible
and prudent alternative site exists to meet the public need. ExistingU community sources of gravel are exempt from this guideline.
I
( \ 4. Extracting Materials or Mining in or Adjacent to Fish Habitat I
: I
u --Upland sites are the preferred source of sand and gravel. Extraction I
of sand and gravel from fish habitat will, to the extent feasible and
prudent, be avoided.
When selling sand and gravel on all public lands or issuing a -permit
for r.1;ning adjacent to or within fish habitat. the land manager will
requ ire' as 'a cond iti on of the sa 1 e or permit measures such as 1 evees , u berms, and/or settling ponds, and reclamation and rehabilitation
measures that 'Ilill, to the extent feasible and prudent. minimize the
siltation and sedimentation of fish habitat.
u Guideline: for Leases under DNR's Locatable Mineral Leasing System
The fo11o .. ,ng guidelines apply only when DNR leases minerals under theu stafe's locatable mineral leasing system. This system is only applied to a
small portion of the state lands in the region. These guidelines reflect an
agreement between DNR and ADF&G as to the appropriate lease requirements in
the specific areas open to leasehold location north and east of Iliamna Lake
and in the Upper Mulchatna drainage.
Guidelines regarding leasehold location will be amended to be consistentu with leasehold location reoulations that are in the process of being adopted
by the Department of Natural Resources if the regulations are the same as, II
( 1 or vary only slightly from what is required here. Changing the plan to be; I consistent with these regulations will not require an amendment of the plan. I~ IS.· Mining Plan of Operation
(I 1
An approved mi ni ng. plaA -of. --operat-ion will be -requi red pr10r to the\~ I
initiation of any operations on a mining lease that would otherwise • II
require a Miscellaneous Land Use Permit (MLUP). The Director of the
DNR Division of Minerals may make specific exceptions from this\W requirement for exploration operations of less than one years duration III and minor impact by permitting such activities through an MLUP.
\U
11
2-24II,
IW
;
••
Furthennore. identification of preferred corridors by the plan is not
intended to foreclose other options that turn out to be preferable when
transportation needs are more clearly defined. These other options may
include those corridors which were considered: during the planning
process.
3. Title XI of ANIlCA
Any transportation or utl1 ity systems that cross National Conservati'on
System Units are subject to Title .XI of ANIlCA. Title XI of ANILCA
covers transportation and utility.systems in and across. as well as
access into. federal conservation system units (including NWRs).
Specific regulations can be found tn the interim management regulations
published as 50 CFR 36 in the Federal Register. Vol. 46. No. 116. dated
June 17, 1981.
4. North-South Corridors on the Alaska Peninsula
North-south corridors to support resource development or to connect
with the appropriate trans-peninsula corridors are-an allowed use on
state land on the north side of the Alaska Peninsula.
5. Traditional Public Access
Traditional public access through federal. state. or private land
should be maintained or enhanced in the Bristol Bay plan area. If
area-specific restrictions are necessary on state lands, public review
of restricted methods and areas should be part of the closure process.
Elements of public access include site-specific aspects such as roads.
waterways. trails, campsites. and aircraft landing areas. as well as
methods of transport· such as mechanized land, water, and air
transportation. Traditional means include, but are not limited to,
aircraft, ORV, boat. snowmachine, dogsled, and foot.
6. Transmission Lines
Transmission lines will use existing or preferred transportation
corridors where feasible and prudent. The siting and construction of
transmission lines will, to the extent feasible and prudent. avoid
creating new penmanent access corridors and causing significant damage
tri the land surfa~e. .
7. Stream CrOSSings
To prevent siltation or pollution of fish habitat. roads and pipelines
should cross rhers •. streams. or lakes only when absolutely necessary,
and crossings should be at right angles to the waterbody. Gravel fill
ramps and bridges or other appropriate methods should be used to
protect the banks.
2-39
•
Iu
I
.\
r) I
S.Bridges and Culverts
All bridges and culverts on fish-bearing streams will be large enough I
and positioned to avoid changing t'he direction a.nd velocfty of stream
flow up to and including annual flood conditions or otherwise interfere
with the migration or spawning activities of fish unless the land
manager or in streams where a Title 16 permit is required, the AOF&G,U determines deviation from this guide.l ine will not have a significant
I
impact on fish resources. In additi.on, all bridges and culverts will,
to the extent feasible and prudent, be large enough to accommodate the I!w best aval1able estimate of the ~ 25-year peak discharge without
significantly interfering with volume, velocity, and sediment transport I or substrate characteristics of the stream where these properties are Iimportant to the uses of the stream. Bridges and culverts shoul diJ provide adequate clearance at normal summer flow levels for boat,
pedestrian, and large game passage whenever these uses occur or are
anticipated. I:u
9. Off Road Access
\ IPermits for temporary off road access will require that surfaceU disturbance and' destruction of fragile sol1s and wetlands vegetation be .
minimized. Operations should be scheduled when adequate snow and
, ground frost is available to protect the ground surface, or require the II
\ I use of low ground pressure vehicles, avoidance of problem areas. or\.J other techniques to protect areas 1ikely to be damaged by off road
access. II( ,
i I
~ 10. Winter Roads and Winter.Access Over Rivers, Lakes and Streams IFor winter roads or winter access, snow ramps, snow bridges, cribbing.
I or other methods should be used to provide access across frozen rivers,
\.J lakes, or streams to avoid the cutting, eroding, or degrading of banks.
Snow bridges will be removed or breached and cribbing will be removed I
immediately after final use.
11. New Public Roads or Utilities in Caribou Migration Route I
Any new public roads or utility lines connecting communities in the
Bristol Bay study area should parallel or skirt and not cross caribou
migration routes, identified on Map 2 in Appendix A. I
12. Fixed Wing Aircraft and Helicopters I
( 1 When a land manager issues a .lease or permit for a major development
requiring repeated fixed-wing aircraft or helicopter support, the
developer will be encouraged to maintain above-ground flight altitudes
W
of at least 1,000 feet for fixed-wing ai rcraft, and 1,500 feet for II
helicopters, or a horizontal distance of one mile, when flying over the
following essential habitats during designated times: I
2-40 -
• caribou calving, May 1 -June 15 north of the Kv1chak River and
Iliamna Lake and May 7 -June 15 south of the Kvichak River and
Ilfamna Lake. (Map Z, Appendix A)i
waterfowl high spring use, April 7 -May 20 {Map 4, Appendix A}i
waterfowl high fall use. August 20 -November 15 (Map 4, AppendixA)i •
wa 1 rus haul out areas, April 1 -November 30 (~1ap 3 ,Appendix A);
sea lion haulout areas, May 1 -July 31 (Map 3, Appendix A)
marine bird colonies. April 15 -August 31 (Map 4,
Appendix A); .
and active ea9le nest sites. Apr4l 15 -August 31 (Map
4, Appendix A).
•)
For caribou, restrictions need only be followed when and where the
ADF&G determines there are significant numbers present. For eagles,
restrictions need only be followed when and where USFWS determi nes
significant numbers are present. The safety of pilot and passengers
will take precedence over this guideline.
13. Above-Ground Pipelines
Above-ground pipelines should be sited between or at the periphery of
the habitats of the major Bristol Bay caribou herds. identified on Map
2 in Appendix A. and should avoid essential and important moose
habitat. identified on Map 3 in Appendix A.
If pipel ines must cross essential caribou habitat or essential or
important moose habitat, the pipeline will, to the extent feasible and
prudent. be buried wherever son and geophySical conditions permit.
Pi pel i nes that cannot avoi d essential caribou or moose habitat and
cannot be buried due to soil or geophysical conditions, will be
designed and constructed in a manner that has been demonstrated to
provide free movement and safe passage for caribou and moose.
In essential caribou habitat, heavily used service and public roads
should be sited as far as is practical from elevated pipelines to avoid
additional visual and physical barriers to caribou migration.
This guideline is not intended to give priority to one of the
identified preferred corridors over another of the ident;fied' preferred
corridors.
14. Repeated Off Road Access inEssential Moose and Caribou Habitat
Repeated Off Road Vehicle (ORV) use regulated by permit wH 1 to the .
extent feasible and prudent not be allowed 1n caribou calving habitat
and during caribou calving (May 1 through June 15 north of the Kvichak
River and Iliamna Lake and May 7 through June l5 south of the Kvichak
River and Iliamna Lake) and should be restricted in caribou migration
and caribou and moose over-wintering areas during sensitive periods,
identified on Maps 2 and 3 in Appendb A. (Thh guidel ine does not
2-41
•
Iu
Iu ',\
I
apply to local traffic and traditional hunting activities.) Before
hsuing pennits the land manager wi 11 consult with the ADF&G and
. restrictions need be applied only when and where it is determined that Ithere are significant populations present.
15. Road Construction in Essential Moose or Brown Bear Habitat I
Road construction outside existing communities will t to the extent
feasible and prudent, avoid essential and important moose and brown
bear habitat, identified on Maps 3 -and 5 in Appendix A. Where it is Inot feasible and prudent to avoid.,. essential and important moose oro brown bear habitat, roads should be 'sited, designed, and constructed to
I minimize conflicts with moose, brown bear, and moose and brown bear
habitat. I
16. Transmission Lines in Essential Waterfowl Habitat ITo the extent feasible and prudent, transmission lines and towers will
not be sited in essential waterfowl habitat, identified. on Map 4 inI'U Appendix A. Transmission lines should be sited a minimum of one mne
inland from the coast, or buried, to avoid coastal waterfowl movements. I
Transmission lines that must cross the Alaska Peninsula at Morzhovoi
Bay, Cold Bay, Pavlof Bay, Chignik Bay, and Wide Bay should be sitedu
and designed to minimize the potential for waterfowl collisions during I{ 1 darkness and bad weather. u I
17. Transmission Lines and Conflicts With Raptors
I \
J
Transmission lines will be constructed so as to prevent electrocution U of eagles and peregrine falcons and will, to the extent feasible andI prudent, be sited a minimum of 500 feet away from eagle and other I
raptor nest sites, identified on Map 4in Appe~dix A.
Guideline Cross Reference -Transportation I
( \
See -Water Quality (page 2-5)
See -Public Notice (page 2-6)
See -Buffers Adjacent to Fish Habitat (page 2-10) I
See -Wetlands Identification and Protection (page 2-11)
u See -Structures in Fish Habitat (page 2-11)
See -Stream Alteration (page 2-12) , I
( t See -Non-On and Gas Development and Caribou Calving Habitat (page
2-12)
See -Oil and Gas Facilities in Caribou Calving Habit,at (page 2-13) ISee -Guidelines to Prevent Moose Habitat Alteration and Destruction
(page 2-14)
u See -Guidelines to Prevent Waterfowl Habitat Alteration and
Destruction, and Impacts to Waterfowl Harvest (page 2-15) I
See -Development in Essential Brown Bear Habitat (page 2-16)
See -Guidelines to Prevent Marine Mammal and Marine Bird Habitat U Alteration and Destruction (page 2-17) I
r 1
~ 2-42 I
WI
See -Activities Likely to Disturb Nesting Eagles (page 2-17)
See -Transportation Related to Land Sales (page 2-34)
•
2-43
,•
ALASKA POWER AuTHORITY
j4 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANOHORAGE. AlASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 27&0001
August 29, 1985
Mr. Roger Contor
Regional Director
National Park Service
2525 Gambell
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Subject: Tazimina Run-of-River Hydroelectric Project
Dear Mr. Contor:
Please reference my previous letter (8/2/85) to you concerning the
Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan and the above subject. There appears to
be some confusion concerning the lake Clark Park/Preserve boundaries,
lands which have been conveyed to the Iliamna Natives' limited, and the
Tazimina Project. There is a power withdrawal (No. 485, April I, 1915)
for the Tazimina Project which reserves lands one-half mile on each side
of the river by Section 24 of the Federal Power Act, for the potential
development of a power project. A power withdrawal may not be removed
unless the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reviews the
status and determines that the site no longer holds value as a potential
power site.
It is our understanding that all lands necessary for the development of
the Tazimina Project have been interim conveyed to the Iliamna Natives'
limited by the Bureau of land Management (BlM) subject to Section 24 of
the Federal Power Act. The definition of "interim conveyed" as we
understand it means that the lands have been transferred to the native
organization and upon actually surveying the land, it will become
patented to them. .
If you perceive that the lands as outlined in Attachment 1 are park
lands rather than Iliamna Natives' limited lands, then please advise us
so we may take the necessary action to coordinate with you.
Sincerely, /JD~(
13u.sf1 /JJi!/'tr::Ji)
Brent N. Petrie
Director/System Planning
Attachment as stated.
EAM/BNP/tg
cc: Mr. Eric A. Marchegiani, Alaska Power Authority
Dr. Richard S. Fleming, Alaska Power Authority
Mr. larry Wright, Park Service
Mr. Robert Arce, Iliamna Natives· limited
Mr. Dale Tubbs, Consultant
Mr. Don Matchett, SWEC
756/444/F2/1
i
u
U
Q
TAZIMINA PROJECT LANDS
U Township 3 South, Range 32 West of the Seward Meridian
NEI NEI; SEI NEi; SWI NEI; SEi; SEI SWI
NWI NEI. NWI; NWi SWi
Si Ni; Ni Si
NEI; NEI NWi. NWi NWi; SEi NWi
Si SWI
NEi SEi; NWi SEi; SEI SElf NWi NEi; SEI NEi; SWI NEI; Ni
NWi; SEt NWi
51 SWI
Si SEi; Si SWi
Nt NEI; NEI NWi; NWi NWi. SWi NWI
NEI NEI. SEI NEI; SWI NEI; SEI NWi; NWi SEi; NEI SWi
Q,
o
\
i U
i
;U
I'W
r '
U
\
:U
I
i ) :U
r ,
I
I W
,U
I
IW
I
iQ
i
I~
I~
Sect; on 24:
Section 25:
Section 26:
Section 27:
Section 22:
Section 21:
Section 16:
Section 17:
Section 20:
Section 19:
756/444/Fl/4
...
Atta2~.nent 1